Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
That's a problem of regulation in China, not an inherent problem of globalisation.
It's a problem whenever you have countries that can export more cheaply and dirtily than others, and it's both logically obvious and demonstrably true. Globalization has enabled this environmentally damaging phenomenon. Either dispute that with arguments or accede it, but don't waste time pretending the real world consequences of economic interconnectivity aren't important because in some purist conceptual fantasy they aren't an "inherent" result.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
And how exactly does willingness to do a job that no one wants to hire them to do valid?
I'm just going to pause and drink in the sweet irony of smugly writing "Your argument doesn't make any sense." and then immediately following up with a totally incoherent sentence.
The problem with you is that you immediately pick a viewpoint based on a poor general understanding and then refuse to adjust it based on any new information, which is great if you want to plug your ears and pompously assert your general right-ness in the face of disagreement from others and experts and data and rationale and...everything really, but after three or four posts it's just boring.
This is extraordinarily simple, and you've managed to bog it down for far too long because you pretend real world context and nuance doesn't exist and go "it's not an inherent result of globalization." Who cares? On planet Earth the fact that industry and jobs are going overseas to bastions of corruption and poor worker treatment such as India and China is a problem, and however you want to categorize it or define it obviously the opening and interplay of international markets is a major factor, if not the sole one.
What's really cute is that in your rush to disagree with two people at once you simultaneously argue that a) there are no negative consequences of globalization and b) the negative consequences of globalization are easily overcome through adaptation. While this gratuitous failure of reason is pretty funny, simply acknowledging it is enough to do away with point a.
As to point b, your suggestions to overcome this disappearance of mid to low class jobs have been as follows:
-Enter fields that cannot be outsourced
A good enough idea, except those fields are saturated, especially after the economic downturn of the past few years. Side note, you referenced IT as one of those fields just in case readers were under the mistaken impression you knew what you were talking about.
-Get a first world education and a high skill job. Everyone be a doctor/lawyer/engineer/executive!
I shouldn't have to explain why this is not founded in reality, as it ignores financial/opportunity costs and the fact that simply existing in a first world country in no way guarantees a good education or possible upward social mobility. Actually, this suggestion is so naive it's kind of childish. Why doesn't everyone just become upper class?
If you have any other suggestions to remedy the issues, economists and policymakers are waiting with baited breath. To you they must seem very off base, suggesting protectionist measures or domestic subsidies or trade agreements, but I'm sure you can talk some sense into them. If you lead with the suggestion that the labor force diversify into artisan bakeries you'll have them turned around in no time.
Or they'll laugh at you.
Buy TC for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=240345
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249
Hey look more than two lines.
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249
Hey look more than two lines.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
It's a problem whenever you have countries that can export more cheaply and dirtily than others, and it's both logically obvious and demonstrably true. Globalization has enabled this environmentally damaging phenomenon. Either dispute that with arguments or accede it, but don't waste time pretending the real world consequences of economic interconnectivity aren't important because in some purist conceptual fantasy they aren't an "inherent" result.
I dislike democracy because many species are going extinct. This is reality and you can't argue against it with conceptual fantasy like "oh democracy doesn't cause species to go instinct!".
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
I'm just going to pause and drink in the sweet irony of smugly writing "Your argument doesn't make any sense." and then immediately following up with a totally incoherent sentence.
The problem with you is that you immediately pick a viewpoint based on a poor general understanding and then refuse to adjust it based on any new information, which is great if you want to plug your ears and pompously assert your general right-ness in the face of disagreement from others and experts and data and rationale and...everything really, but after three or four posts it's just boring.
At this point I'm thinking "Cool, BP is going to bring up some experts or data or rationale and completely counter my point".
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
This is extraordinarily simple, and you've managed to bog it down for far too long because you pretend real world context and nuance doesn't exist and go "it's not an inherent result of globalization." Who cares? On planet Earth the fact that industry and jobs are going overseas to bastions of corruption and poor worker treatment such as India and China is a problem, and however you want to categorize it or define it obviously the opening and interplay of international markets is a major factor, if not the sole one.
Well that argument doesn't make much sense.
The assumption that India and China would not be corrupt or have poor worker treatment if we didn't have globalisation seems extremely unfounded.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
What's really cute is that in your rush to disagree with two people at once you simultaneously argue that a) there are no negative consequences of globalization and b) the negative consequences of globalization are easily overcome through adaptation. While this gratuitous failure of reason is pretty funny, simply acknowledging it is enough to do away with point a.
Well that's strange, because that's not what I'm arguing. I suggest you reread the thread!
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
As to point b, your suggestions to overcome this disappearance of mid to low class jobs have been as follows:
-Enter fields that cannot be outsourced
A good enough idea, except those fields are saturated, especially after the economic downturn of the past few years. Side note, you referenced IT as one of those fields just in case readers were under the mistaken impression you knew what you were talking about.
Right, because they are going to fly in some Indians and/or Chinese at 3am to fix an outage.
That's something that totally happens.
lol bp...
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
-Get a first world education and a high skill job. Everyone be a doctor/lawyer/engineer/executive!
I shouldn't have to explain why this is not founded in reality, as it ignores financial/opportunity costs and the fact that simply existing in a first world country in no way guarantees a good education or possible upward social mobility. Actually, this suggestion is so naive it's kind of childish. Why doesn't everyone just become upper class?
All you need to be part of the upper class is a college education?!
While I feel like the goal posts have somewhat changed, I'll roll with it. People should work hard to help themselves, if they can't at least get that level of education, then they can find a trade.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
That's a problem of regulation in China, not an inherent problem of globalisation.
Chinese export-oriented industries swell with the jobs that have run away from our country, subsequently, worsening the environment. None us disagree with this. You're saying it's a problem with Chinese regulation though, and not globalisation. But for globalisation, the swelling wouldn't have occured. The swelling, and subsequent worsening of the environment, is caused by globalisation - and thus, is another con (that you'll undoubtedly refuse to acknowledge) of globalisation.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Really? Your argument is "even if my logic is nonsense I'm still right"?
Nope. It's "even if you think my logic's nonsense, the facts are legit, so recognise the facts". Globalisation makes export-oriented jobs run away to more profitable places. Globalisation accelerates the destruction of environments. Since because of globalisation there are less middle-class jobs, this naturally increases the wealth-gap in addition to unemployment.
All those things happen. You won't find a single, reputable person, that will tell you that those things don't happen because of globalisation. AND YET, you're making this so hard for everyone because you want to argue about them.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Your logic doesn't follow, shouldn't you say "The negative effect you get when coffee is spilled on the floor is an inherent problem with spilling coffee"?
... Isn't it a problem of humans? Humans spill or knock over things. Can we really say this is a fault of the coffee?
If you spill water, the result is much better than spilled coffee. If globalisation was water, then there wouldn't be all the problems we have now. It's not. It's coffee, and since it's coffee the negative effects we get when we don't adapt to it are bad. Obviously you don't want to spill coffee, but when you do spill it, it's bad. That's a problem with coffee. That's a problem with globalisation. It's a con of globalisation (another one that you of course won't recognise).
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
The assumption that India and China would not be corrupt or have poor worker treatment if we didn't have globalisation seems extremely unfounded.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
the fact that industry and jobs are going overseas to bastions of corruption and poor worker treatment such as India and China is a problem, and however you want to categorize it or define it obviously the opening and interplay of international markets is a major factor, if not the sole one.
Try this one again.
Buy TC for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=240345
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249
Hey look more than two lines.
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249
Hey look more than two lines.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
They obviously do, if there is an unemployment rate at all.
We soviet russia now? Everyone works even if job is useless?
Two things:
1. Life is not all about working
2. People could just go work another job
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
Apparently the revolts in Hong Kong and the increasing size of low income housing in the US is not evidence of a widening wealth gap.
Ok, there are revolts in HK and more low income housing in the US.
You didn't even make an attempt at attributing that to anything, let alone globalisation.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
No, he said that "Your argument is nonsense. I've looked at the facts and derived my argument from them."
Right, so these unsourced let alone unspecified facts somehow prove his argument but he just doesn't feel like sharing them right now huh.
Oh wait no he said "You can shout 'logical fallacies' at me all day long" which literally means "My argument is nonsense but I stand by it".
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
That graph only goes up to January of 2011. If you notice that in 2003-4, the unemployment rate was around 6-7%. From what I've read, the average unemployment rate for Australia in 2014 has stuck around 6.5%
So globalisation was invented in 2012?
Come on man you are grasping at straws, this is a perfect example of begging the question. You assert that globalisation is bad because it causes unemployment, now you are nitpicking the statistics to try and prove it.
The graph CLEARLY shows that unemployment oscillates between 4%-10%, and there is NO upward trend.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
Yes, but when you see that "globalisation is a problem because MOST people haven't adapted", it's safe to say that the world isn't ready for it yet.
Most of the people have adapted, even if you attribute all unemployment rise within the last 100 years to globalisation alone (which is absolutely absurd, but let's roll with it), you have a maximum of maybe 5% of people who have not adapted.
Originally Posted by Ele
Chinese export-oriented industries swell with the jobs that have run away from our country, subsequently, worsening the environment. None us disagree with this. You're saying it's a problem with Chinese regulation though, and not globalisation. But for globalisation, the swelling wouldn't have occured. The swelling, and subsequent worsening of the environment, is caused by globalisation - and thus, is another con (that you'll undoubtedly refuse to acknowledge) of globalisation.
I don't think this is true. Even without globalisation china would have pushed into an industrial revolution, and if the current situation is anything to go by, money is more important than the environment to them.
Obviously this is purely theoretical, but I think it's laughable to say that china would have cared about the environment much more if there was no globalisation.
Do you attribute the same situation in industrial revolution england to globalisation? I hope not...
Originally Posted by Ele
Nope. It's "even if you think my logic's nonsense, the facts are legit, so recognise the facts". Globalisation makes export-oriented jobs run away to more profitable places.
Yes, obviously, but this is not a problem of globalisation. Even within a country companies go where the profit is.
Again, because this occurs even without globalisation, it's incorrect to say it's a problem of globalisation.
Originally Posted by Ele
Since because of globalisation there are less middle-class jobs, this naturally increases the wealth-gap in addition to unemployment.
I'm not sure that this is true. Automation, lack of education, and unwillingness to change are much bigger factors than globalisation.
If you have some evidence you should probably post it. It seems like just moving a job to china and reducing the wages would simply have the effect of moving jobs because of PPP, and it's only the above 3 factors that are causing problems.
Originally Posted by Ele
All those things happen. You won't find a single, reputable person, that will tell you that those things don't happen because of globalisation. AND YET, you're making this so hard for everyone because you want to argue about them.
Why is it so hard to find any proof then :S :S :S
Originally Posted by Ele
If you spill water, the result is much better than spilled coffee. If globalisation was water, then there wouldn't be all the problems we have now. It's not. It's coffee, and since it's coffee the negative effects we get when we don't adapt to it are bad. Obviously you don't want to spill coffee, but when you do spill it, it's bad. That's a problem with coffee. That's a problem with globalisation. It's a con of globalisation (another one that you of course won't recognise).
Of course I won't recognise it.
If I work a job and earn some money will you hate me because "the problem with earning money is you cause many deaths because you could buy a knife and stab people"? Am I expected to accept that people dying is an inherent problem with working?
This is an absolutely absurd chain of logic. Why am I supposed to accept such a thing?
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
Try this one again.
Sure, it's a problem, but it's not a problem inherent in globalisation.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
