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

And how exactly does willingness to do a job that no one wants to hire them to do valid?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

People don't need to work 'those' jobs.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

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

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

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

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

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 ImmortalPig

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 ImmortalPig

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

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

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

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?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

They obviously do, if there is an unemployment rate at all.

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.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

No, he said that "Your argument is nonsense. I've looked at the facts and derived my argument from them."

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%

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ele

Since because of globalisation there are less middle-class jobs, this naturally increases the wealth-gap in addition to unemployment.

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.

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).

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

Try this one again.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

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.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

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 ImmortalPig

I'm not sure that this is true. Automation, lack of education, and unwillingness to change are much bigger factors than globalisation.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Why is it so hard to find any proof then :S :S :S

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

This is an absolutely absurd chain of logic.

Originally Posted by Ele

That's not what we're saying. You can't deny that globalisation is a contributer to the problem and that this one of the biggest cons of globalisation.

Originally Posted by Ele

No, it's not incorrect. Again, I'm not saying that it's fully caused by globalisation, but again, globalisation is a contributer and it's another con.

Originally Posted by Ele

One again, it's a contributing factor. Because it's a contributing factor, it's a con of globalisation.

Originally Posted by Ele

'Cus your brain stops you from seeing anything that contradicts your rigid viewpoint :S :S :S

Originally Posted by Ele

For a completely absurd example that also misrepresents my argument. I'll be you and shout 'ad adsurdum'.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

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 ImmortalPig

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 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.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

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

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.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Right, so these unsourced let alone unspecified facts somehow prove his argument but he just doesn't feel like sharing them right now huh.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

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 ImmortalPig

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 ImmortalPig

Sure, you can say globalisation is a contributing factor, but that means it isn't the cause of the problem.

I see a trend here of changing position to claiming that globalisation is merely a contributing factor. I think this is much more agreeable.

It's contentious, but it's at least not nonsense.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

You are saying that globalisation is bad because it may contribute to XYZ factors. That's the same as saying working is bad because it may contribute to killing someone.