Globalisation: Good Or Bad? (Page 3)

Ele

Nov 26, 2014

Ele

Join Date: Sep 2009

Nov 26, 2014

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Sorry but I don't see how this causes a lack of education...

That's not what we were talking about. You said what's screwing up the environment is industrialisation, not globalisation. I said globalisation accelerates and propagates industrialisation and industrialisation does the same to globalisation. That's my point. I don't see how "I don't see how this causes a lack of education" relates to my point about how globalisation messes up the environment.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

I would say it's lack of adoption and progress, not globalization which is causing the problem.

Lack of adaption to globalisation is a problem that comes with globalisation (the adaption problem doesn't exist without globalisation), so it's incorrect to say globalisation isn't what's causing the problem.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

It's just a question of adaptation.

Which we haven't done. We haven't adapted. Our leaders never even bring it up since it's a bipartisan problem that makes everyone look bad. I definitely agree that the job market has changed and that we need to adapt our skills to it and review our expectations about what type of jobs we're willing to take. Like a lot of things, this starts with the education system. The fact remains though, that this isn't being talked about in public discourse and there's been no moves made by anyone to start the process.

ImmortalPig

Nov 26, 2014

ImmortalPig

ub3r

Join Date: Jun 2013

Nov 26, 2014

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Is lack of education a problem directly created by globalisation? No, of course not!

Originally Posted by Kradel

Well...not exactly. Some countries who take on globalization use kids as their tool and kids are then giving up education to work and earn money for their family. I think India is one? Not 100% sure though.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Remember the context of that quote was discussing unskilled labor in 1st world countries. Using India as an example doesn't quite fit!

I still don't think that's a consequence of globalisation though. Wouldn't you say it's more to do with industrialization (Europe also used children during that period) or capitalism?

Originally Posted by Ele

It's a joint effort. It ties in with industrialisation and globalisation being co-constitutive (not constructive).
Globalisation supports and recieves support from capitalism. Benificial reflecting and mutually driving each other would be the best way to put it. They're good for each other.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Sorry but I don't see how this causes a lack of education...

Originally Posted by Ele

That's not what we were talking about. You said what's screwing up the environment is industrialisation, not globalisation. I said globalisation accelerates and propagates industrialisation and industrialisation does the same to globalisation. That's my point. I don't see how "I don't see how this causes a lack of education" relates to my point about how globalisation messes up the environment.

Dat straw man tho...

Originally Posted by Ele

Lack of adaption to globalisation is a problem that comes with globalisation (the adaption problem doesn't exist without globalisation), so it's incorrect to say globalisation isn't what's causing the problem.

I think that's a dishonest analysis and meaningless

Using that logic I can say anything is bad because people have to adapt to it.

Naturally when something changes people have to adapt, that isn't a problem. People resisting and not adapting is a problem.

Originally Posted by Ele

Which we haven't done. We haven't adapted.

And that is the problem, the NOT adapting is a problem.

Well, a lot of people have. I think a lot of people work in infosec, IT, etc.

<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff

Boredpayne

Nov 27, 2014

Boredpayne

not a super moderator anymore ;o

Join Date: Nov 2009

Nov 27, 2014

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Using that logic I can say anything is bad because people have to adapt to it.

Well, a lot of people have. I think a lot of people work in infosec, IT, etc.

Or, roughly translated, "I have no idea what I'm typing, but I really want to disagree with you" There is no sane economist who will tell you that a vast quantity of jobs and industry leaving your country is not a qualitatively "bad" thing.

IT is probably one of the most decimated fields as a result of this phenomenon, with only onsite technicians remaining as a staple job opportunity long term. Everyone and their grandmother is outsourcing IT to India.

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.

ImmortalPig

Nov 27, 2014

ImmortalPig

ub3r

Join Date: Jun 2013

Nov 27, 2014

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

Or, roughly translated, "I have no idea what I'm typing, but I really want to disagree with you" There is no sane economist who will tell you that a vast quantity of jobs and industry leaving your country is not a qualitatively "bad" thing.

lol that strawman. I never said jobs leaving was a good thing.

Nice try bp!

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

IT is probably one of the most decimated fields as a result of this phenomenon, with only onsite technicians remaining as a staple job opportunity long term. Everyone and their grandmother is outsourcing IT to India.

No one wants to do codemonkey/callcenter jobs buddy. Outsourcing IT to India means costs can be reduced, and employees can do other things.

As with any industry, not everything in IT can be outsourced.

<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff

Boredpayne

Nov 27, 2014

Boredpayne

not a super moderator anymore ;o

Join Date: Nov 2009

Nov 27, 2014

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

lol that strawman. I never said jobs leaving was a good thing.

You described it as not a problem. You still run into the whole "any sane economist disagrees" issue, regardless of how you frame it. This also ignores the intensely morally questionable aspect of describing the propagation of third world wage-slavery as "not a problem."

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

No one wants to do codemonkey/callcenter jobs buddy.

And no one wants to work at McDonald's in that sense either, but there are millions of people who prefer it to joblessness and poverty. Use your head.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Outsourcing IT to India means costs can be reduced, and employees can do other things.

Yeah, they can do other things! Like not have a job anymore.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

If anything, globalisation reduces the damage to the environment by encouraging specialisation.

This is equally uninformed spew. The movement of production and industry to countries with much lower environmental standards naturally has negative consequences.

Ele

Nov 27, 2014

Ele

Join Date: Sep 2009

Nov 27, 2014

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Dat straw man tho...

I don't know why I quoted that post then - I meant to quote your earlier post where you asked what co-constitutive was.

But I'll speak to your education point anyway.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

If your country is facing unemployment problems because the citizens are not educated enough to take skilled jobs, then that is a different problem.

Is lack of education a problem directly created by globalisation? No, of course not!

Look at it this way, you have a job pool in Australia/America (etc.). All of a sudden, you take a chunk out of the pool. Because that chunk is removed, now all those people that were in that chunk don't have jobs and need to take one of the remaining jobs. You have more people competing for fewer jobs.

It's not just education that's the problem. It's a part of it, but it's not the major issue. The major issue is the numbers. There simply aren't enough middle-class jobs for middle-class people. As I've said before, whenever there's talk about creating new jobs they don't disclose that they're talking about McJobs. They aren't talking about middle-class jobs, and they aren't talking about them because they know there's no way for them to come back. Go to Google, filter by news, and type something along the lines of 'The jobs aren't coming back' or 'middle-class jobs aren't coming back', and you'll see a whole heap of people writing about this. You can't create new middle-class jobs for them, save for some radical systemic overhaul that hasn't happened and isn't even on the agenda.

So what happens when there aren't enough middle-class jobs for middle-class people if you can't create more middle-class jobs? Well, naturally, you get less middle-class people. This goes back to my point about globalisation causing a widening of the wealth-gap in first-world countries. Because of the widened wealth-gap you will encounter a whole host of social problems.

Globalisation definitely has its downsides and you should recognise that.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

I think that's a dishonest analysis and meaningless

Rude.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Using that logic I can say anything is bad because people have to adapt to it.

No. Using that logic you can recognise that symptoms don't appear without a disease. There's no smoke without fire. The problems we face now are because globalisation created them. Without globalisation, there is no problem. Globalisation is, without question, the root cause of the problem.. Which is what this thread's about - the pros and cons. The fact that not adapting to globalisation is such a problem is a con endemic to globalisation.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

And that is the problem, the NOT adapting is a problem.

As opposed to what else not being the problem? Globalisation? Well, as I've just said, it's a problem endimic to globalisation. So it is a problem with globalisation.

All I want for you to do is recognise the cons associated with globalisation. From the tone and the content of your posts, it looks like you're making it out to be faultless. It isn't. We've identified whole loads of problems associated with it. Whether, ultimately, it turns out to be a good or a bad thing, nobody knows. Like I said in my first post in this thread, the jury's out on it - time will tell.

Last edited by Ele; Nov 27, 2014 at 11:11 AM.

ImmortalPig

Nov 27, 2014

ImmortalPig

ub3r

Join Date: Jun 2013

Nov 27, 2014

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

You described it as not a problem. You still run into the whole "any sane economist disagrees" issue, regardless of how you frame it. This also ignores the intensely morally questionable aspect of describing the propagation of third world wage-slavery as "not a problem."

Oh no, sane economists disagree with something unrelated to me, the horror!

Something not being a problem is not the same as something being bad.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

And no one wants to work at McDonald's in that sense either, but there are millions of people who prefer it to joblessness and poverty. Use your head.

First you complain that people don't get to to menial jobs, now you complain that people do?

Are you defending an argument, or are you defending your right to argue?

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

Yeah, they can do other things! Like not have a job anymore.

Haha, yes that's always an option.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

This is equally uninformed spew. The movement of production and industry to countries with much lower environmental standards naturally has negative consequences.

What a random quote to throw in!

That's not a problem of globalisation, don't misrepresent it.

Originally Posted by Ele

Look at it this way, you have a job pool in Australia/America (etc.). All of a sudden, you take a chunk out of the pool. Because that chunk is removed, now all those people that were in that chunk don't have jobs and need to take one of the remaining jobs. You have more people competing for fewer jobs.

It's not just education that's the problem. It's a part of it, but it's not the major issue. The major issue is the numbers. There simply aren't enough middle-class jobs for middle-class people. As I've said before, whenever there's talk about creating new jobs they don't disclose that they're talking about McJobs. They aren't talking about middle-class jobs, and they aren't talking about them because they know there's no way for them to come back. Go to Google, filter by news, and type something along the lines of 'The jobs aren't coming back' or 'middle-class jobs aren't coming back', and you'll see a whole heap of people writing about this. You can't create new middle-class jobs for them, save for some radical systemic overhaul that hasn't happened and isn't even on the agenda.

So what happens when there aren't enough middle-class jobs for middle-class people if you can't create more middle-class jobs? Well, naturally, you get less middle-class people. This goes back to my point about globalisation causing a widening of the wealth-gap in first-world countries. Because of the widened wealth-gap you will encounter a whole host of social problems.

Globalisation definitely has its downsides and you should recognise that.[/QUOTE]
And what did I say before when someone above said the same thing?

I said that people should aim for higher jobs. I guess I should also point out that there are many job markets that are always growing.

You are Australian right? How do you think Australia has stopped this mass unemployment apocalypse that you are preaching? Why aren't we seeing a steady upwards trend? Why is your theory not reflecting reality?

Originally Posted by Ele

Rude.

I am sorry for insulting an abstract concept.

I'm not sure if I should interpret this as excessive personification, or some kind of 3rd party bias.

Originally Posted by Ele

No. Using that logic you can recognise that symptoms don't appear without a disease. There's no smoke without fire. The problems we face now are because globalisation created them. Without globalisation, there is no problem. Globalisation is, without question, the root cause of the problem.. Which is what this thread's about - the pros and cons. The fact that not adapting to globalisation is such a problem is a con endemic to globalisation.

Well, we both know you are begging the question. Nice try but I won't accept a conclusion supported by circular logic!

Originally Posted by Ele

As opposed to what else not being the problem? Globalisation? Well, as I've just said, it's a problem endimic to globalisation. So it is a problem with globalisation.

"As opposed to what"? What are you talking about? Does lack of adaptation being a problem imply that everything else is not a problem? How absurd.

But to answer the question you arrived to, no I don't think globalisation is a problem.

Originally Posted by Ele

All I want for you to do is recognise the cons associated with globalisation. From the tone and the content of your posts, it looks like you're making it out to be faultless. It isn't. We've identified whole loads of problems associated with it. Whether, ultimately, it turns out to be a good or a bad thing, nobody knows. Like I said in my first post in this thread, the jury's out on it - time will tell.

Unfortunately you have not shown these are inherent problems with globalisation.

Things like pollution and a population too stubborn to change jobs are not inherent.

<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff

Boredpayne

Nov 27, 2014

Boredpayne

not a super moderator anymore ;o

Join Date: Nov 2009

Nov 27, 2014

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Something not being a problem is not the same as something being bad.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

You still run into the whole "any sane economist disagrees" issue, regardless of how you frame it.

....

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

First you complain that people don't get to to menial jobs, now you complain that people do?

No. What I said is that regardless of whether people "want" to work these jobs, they need to and are willing to, and their disappearance is a problem. Your eyes are located in your head, read what is written.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

That's not a problem of globalisation, don't misrepresent it.

Yes, it is, and saying "no it isn't" does not make it so. If Chinese subsidiaries manufacture US product parts in coal powered plants with no limits or regulation on emissions, dumping, etc. then very obviously the consequences are negative.

Ele

Nov 27, 2014

Ele

Join Date: Sep 2009

Nov 27, 2014

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

I said that people should aim for higher jobs. I guess I should also point out that there are many job markets that are always growing.

Listen to me. Read these next words carefully. Globalisation causes export-oriented middle class jobs to run away. This creates an irreplacable vacuum in the middle-class job pool. This, in turn, results in people being nudged out of the middle-class. Since they're now poorer, the wealth-gap increases. This isn't some hypothesis of mine. This process actually happens and nobody doubts this. Nobody but you.

You can shout 'logical fallacies' at me all day long, but that doesn't change the facts. So recognise the facts. Recognise the downsides of globalisation.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

You are Australian right? How do you think Australia has stopped this mass unemployment apocalypse that you are preaching? Why aren't we seeing a steady upwards trend? Why is your theory not reflecting reality?

We've seen the highest unemployment rate in over a decade (we even passed the US). We've seen a constantly increasing widening of the wealth-gap. We've seen the near-complete destruction of our manufacturing industry and the disappearance of tonnes of export oriented job. It is reflected in reality, you just choose not to see it.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

I am sorry for insulting an abstract concept.

I'm not sure if I should interpret this as excessive personification, or some kind of 3rd party bias.

You should interpret it as that I'm sick of your pomposity.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Well, we both know you are begging the question. Nice try but I won't accept a conclusion supported by circular logic!

The reason why my premise supports my conclusion is because my conclusion is proved by my argument. I very, very clearly explained in baby words my argument. I didn't just throw out A is B, B is A. I established a proper argument. It's not fallacious. I don't think you understand circular logic half as well as you think you do.

Don't brush off what I'm saying by shouting fallacies. Respond to my points.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

"As opposed to what"? What are you talking about?

Adaption to globalisation is the problem as opposed to globalisation being the problem - which you evidently believe.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

But to answer the question you arrived to, no I don't think globalisation is a problem.

You're missing an argument here. You've only got the intro.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Unfortunately you have not shown these are inherent problems with globalisation.

I have. You haven't discredited it. In fact, you've barely even responded to any of my points.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Things like pollution and a population too stubborn to change jobs are not inherent.

The objective, negative effects on first-world countries that happens when they don't adapt - and they haven't - is an inherent problem with globalisation.

People learn better through metaphors, so I'll put one together for you. Coffee, when drunk, is great. Coffee, when spilled on the floor, is bad. The negative effect you get when coffee is spilled on the floor is an inherent problem with coffee. The negative effect of not adapting to globalisation is an inherent problem with globalisation.

The incredibly obvious negative effects on the environment (when globalisation is working like it 'should') goes without saying. You don't need a metaphor for that. Remember how globalisation accelerates and propagates environment-damaging processes (like industrialisation)?

Last edited by Ele; Nov 27, 2014 at 02:31 PM.

ImmortalPig

Nov 28, 2014

ImmortalPig

ub3r

Join Date: Jun 2013

Nov 28, 2014

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

No. What I said is that regardless of whether people "want" to work these jobs, they need to and are willing to, and their disappearance is a problem. Your eyes are located in your head, read what is written.

Your argument doesn't make any sense.

People don't need to work 'those' jobs. And how exactly does willingness to do a job that no one wants to hire them to do valid?

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

Yes, it is, and saying "no it isn't" does not make it so. If Chinese subsidiaries manufacture US product parts in coal powered plants with no limits or regulation on emissions, dumping, etc. then very obviously the consequences are negative.

That's a problem of regulation in China, not an inherent problem of globalisation.

Originally Posted by Ele

Listen to me. Read these next words carefully. Globalisation causes export-oriented middle class jobs to run away. This creates an irreplacable vacuum in the middle-class job pool. This, in turn, results in people being nudged out of the middle-class. Since they're now poorer, the wealth-gap increases. This isn't some hypothesis of mine. This process actually happens and nobody doubts this. Nobody but you.

You'd think there'd at least be evidence though.

Originally Posted by Ele

You can shout 'logical fallacies' at me all day long, but that doesn't change the facts. So recognise the facts. Recognise the downsides of globalisation.

Really? Your argument is "even if my logic is nonsense I'm still right"?

Originally Posted by Ele

We've seen the highest unemployment rate in over a decade (we even passed the US). We've seen a constantly increasing widening of the wealth-gap. We've seen the near-complete destruction of our manufacturing industry and the disappearance of tonnes of export oriented job. It is reflected in reality, you just choose not to see it.

But that isn't true.

Unemployment rates aren't on a steady upwards climbs, one blip does not a trend make.

Wealth gap is a natural consequence of capitalism, not globalisation, and it's not inherently negative.

Originally Posted by Ele

The reason why my premise supports my conclusion is because my conclusion is proved by my argument. I very, very clearly explained in baby words my argument. I didn't just throw out A is B, B is A. I established a proper argument. It's not fallacious. I don't think you understand circular logic half as well as you think you do.

Don't brush off what I'm saying by shouting fallacies. Respond to my points.

You didn't establish anything, you just keep shouting that random things are consequences of globalisation without any valid logic or proof.

Originally Posted by Ele

Adaption to globalisation is the problem as opposed to globalisation being the problem - which you evidently believe.

Sure, in the same way as riding a bike is not a problem if you learn to ride it.

Originally Posted by Ele

You're missing an argument here. You've only got the intro.

Well your argument was "I think so", so I think it's a valid counter argument.

Originally Posted by Ele

I have. You haven't discredited it. In fact, you've barely even responded to any of my points.

You made a few offhand claims which I quickly countered with a small dose of logic.

Originally Posted by Ele

The objective, negative effects on first-world countries that happens when they don't adapt - and they haven't - is an inherent problem with globalisation.

You can say that about everything: "computers are a problem because some people haven't adapted to use them". It's pretty obvious this isn't a problem with globalisation.

Originally Posted by Ele

People learn better through metaphors, so I'll put one together for you. Coffee, when drunk, is great. Coffee, when spilled on the floor, is bad. The negative effect you get when coffee is spilled on the floor is an inherent problem with coffee. The negative effect of not adapting to globalisation is an inherent problem with globalisation.

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"?

If you don't spill the coffee, no problem. In that regard, the vast majority of people have never spilled a coffee. Most people have never experienced this problem. So we can say that it's an inherent risk, but it's not an inherent problem since it's rare in the first place.

Is it even correct to attribute this problem to liquids? Isn't it a problem of humans? Humans spill or knock over things. Can we really say this is a fault of the coffee?

Besides that, any liquid can be spilled. Is it ok to say it's an inherent risk of coffee without clarifying that it's a risk with any liquid?

In the same way it's VERY dishonest to say that globalisation is bad because some people might not be able to adapt to it. That's not a problem, it's a risk, and it's not something unique to globalisation, everything from democracy to the printing press have this problem. Besides that we can't even attribute the risk to the change, it's a problem of humans.

Originally Posted by Ele

The incredibly obvious negative effects on the environment (when globalisation is working like it 'should') goes without saying. You don't need a metaphor for that. Remember how globalisation accelerates and propagates environment-damaging processes (like industrialisation)?

Oh ok no need to make any argument then, just assert like crazy and insult anyone who disagrees or asks for you to make an explanation.

Nice job claiming your own assertion as fact though.

<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Log in / Register

Inventory

Market

Clans

Ranking

Merch

Inventory

Store

Market

Clans

Community

Ranking

Merch