Globalisation: Good Or Bad? (Page 5)

Boredpayne

Nov 30, 2014

Boredpayne

not a super moderator anymore ;o

Join Date: Nov 2009

Nov 30, 2014

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 ImmortalPig

Sure, it's a problem, but it's not a problem inherent in globalisation.

Are you for real?

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 30, 2014

ImmortalPig

ub3r

Join Date: Jun 2013

Nov 30, 2014

Originally Posted by Ele

I'm just framing my position is a different light. I'd rather we make some headway as opposed to standing still. We've both agreed now that it's a contributing factor. Since it's a contributing factor - since it's accelerating pre-existing problems - it's a con of globalisation.

It may or may not be. No link has been shown at all.

Originally Posted by Ele

Just because activity A affects something that activities B and C also affects, it doesn't diminish the fact that A still affects it.

I don't think that accurately reflects reality.

A affects B, B affects C. So the problem is that B is affecting C not that A is affecting B or C.

Globalisation causes China to increase production, so naturally existing pollution and corruption scales too. To say that globalisation caused the pollution is very misleading. It is the attitudes of the Chinese government that caused it.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

Are you for real?

I could just as easily blame bananas. Because bananas exist and so does corruption and poor worker treatment therefore bananas did it.

You are proving no connection between the two.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

If someone is unemployed, they need a job. If jobs are being taken away, it becomes that much harder for that person to find a job. When a country has a close to zero unemployment rate, THEN it becomes okay to outsource jobs to developing countries.

Well, ignoring that "everyone need to work" is a contentious argument at best, literally making jobs so people can work is absurd and is literally what they did in Soviet Russia.

Just repeating yourself won't make me change my mind. Come up with a good argument as to why people NEED to work and why it's more important for people to work pointless jobs than to find another job.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

Good God man, learn to retain memories of previous posts.

None of that even attempts to make a link. Did you just quote things at random? Come on, you can at least try!

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

Google is a valuable resource. I suggest you look up information about an opposing viewpoint before bashing the person giving it.

Oh I spoke to soon, you have completely given up on trying "hurr google it". So this is what it has come to.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

No, it literally means "You can tell me my logic is wrong, but that doesn't mean that it IS wrong."

In the face of someone pointing out your logic is wrong, merely assert that it is infact correct! GENIUS! WIN ALL ARGUMENTS EVERY TIME!!!

If that fails, shout "Google it!!!"

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

Yes, unemployment changes all the time. However, major changes are only seen about every ten years ('84-'94,'94-'04) That graph is leaving out the three most recent years, which skews the data to make everyone think unemployment is decreasing.

So they last 3 years magically proves that it is increasing? Don't make me laugh. The ABS lists 2012-14 as 5.2, 5.7, 6.2. They aren't outstandingly upward such as to prove that unemployment is increasing. If you look at the data you can clearly see it's been bouncing up and down since the 80s. THERE IS NO UPWARD TREND.

If your argument is that in 2012 globalisation was invented and so we have an upward trend in 2012-14 then that is absolutely absurd. You are nitpicking the data to an insane degree.

Reality does not support your argument, neither does logic!

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

hawkesnightmare

Nov 30, 2014

hawkesnightmare

WHERE'S MY DRINK?!

Join Date: Jul 2012

Nov 30, 2014

You're still intentionally misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Well, ignoring that "everyone need to work" is a contentious argument at best, literally making jobs so people can work is absurd and is literally what they did in Soviet Russia.

I'm not talking about MAKING jobs. I'm talking about PREVENTING JOBS FROM LEAVING. The way that the unemployment statistic works is that a person is only registered as unemployed if they are actively looking for a job. If they are not looking for a job, they are not listed as unemployed. So that unemployment rate you see is the amount of people who do not have jobs and are looking for jobs. So if we are shipping jobs out to other countries when Joe Shmoe is looking for work, that's a problem.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Just repeating yourself won't make me change my mind. Come up with a good argument as to why people NEED to work and why it's more important for people to work pointless jobs than to find another job.

See above.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

None of that even attempts to make a link. Did you just quote things at random? Come on, you can at least try!

I quoted a string of comments directly linked to each other. Ele said something, you said something back in response to the first thing, I responded to your response, you see where this is going.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

In the face of someone pointing out your logic is wrong, merely assert that it is infact correct! GENIUS! WIN ALL ARGUMENTS EVERY TIME!!!

No. Just...what? You're SAYING that our logic is wrong, but we're screaming back "It's not logic we're using! It's facts!"

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

So they last 3 years magically proves that it is increasing? Don't make me laugh. The ABS lists 2012-14 as 5.2, 5.7, 6.2. They aren't outstandingly upward such as to prove that unemployment is increasing. If you look at the data you can clearly see it's been bouncing up and down since the 80s. THERE IS NO UPWARD TREND.

The graph you provided cuts off when unemployment seems to be going down, when in fact right after that cutoff, it rose again. Yes, of course nothing will keep going up forever, empires rise and fall. But when unemployment rates take ten years to rise, fall and back again, and you leave out an entire THIRD of that timeframe, your data will be inevitably skewed.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

Reality does not support your argument, neither does logic!

We are giving you facts and figures, and you are just saying "Nah. Your data is wrong."

All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That's how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.

Boredpayne

Nov 30, 2014

Boredpayne

not a super moderator anymore ;o

Join Date: Nov 2009

Nov 30, 2014

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

I could just as easily blame bananas.

No. No you couldn't.

Don't make me baby you. You don't need a painstakingly patronizing, step by step explanation to figure out there might be a casual link between the opening and interplay of international markets and the outsourcing of jobs and industry to said international markets.

Last edited by Boredpayne; Nov 30, 2014 at 08:20 PM.

Ele

Dec 1, 2014

Ele

Join Date: Sep 2009

Dec 1, 2014

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

It may or may not be. No link has been shown at all.

Do everyone a favour and conduct some due diligence. You're arguing from a position of ignorance.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

I don't think that accurately reflects reality.

A affects B, B affects C. So the problem is that B is affecting C not that A is affecting B or C.

Globalisation causes China to increase production, so naturally existing pollution and corruption scales too. To say that globalisation caused the pollution is very misleading. It is the attitudes of the Chinese government that caused it.

Please make an efffort.
Again, I've not said globalisation caused pollution. I've said it contributes to the problem. Because it contributes to the problem, it's a downside of globalisation. The attitude of the Chinese government towards it may very well be another contributing factor, but that doesn't diminish the fact the globalisation is, too.

This is only a tiny part of how globalisation affects the environment. Give the internet even a cursory read about the problem and you'll see how it relates to deforestation, GHGs and overpopulation.

ImmortalPig

Dec 1, 2014

ImmortalPig

ub3r

Join Date: Jun 2013

Dec 1, 2014

Originally Posted by Ele

Do everyone a favour and conduct some due diligence. You're arguing from a position of ignorance.

You too.

Originally Posted by Ele

Please make an efffort.
Again, I've not said globalisation caused pollution. I've said it contributes to the problem. Because it contributes to the problem, it's a downside of globalisation. The attitude of the Chinese government towards it may very well be another contributing factor, but that doesn't diminish the fact the globalisation is, too.

This is only a tiny part of how globalisation affects the environment. Give the internet even a cursory read about the problem and you'll see how it relates to deforestation, GHGs and overpopulation.

It only indirectly influences the environment.

I think you are misrepresenting the issue for whatever reason. It may be true for some countries (eg China which you keep bringing up), but for others it is not true. So to say it is an inherent issue is definitely incorrect.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

No. No you couldn't.

Don't make me baby you. You don't need a painstakingly patronizing, step by step explanation to figure out there might be a casual link between the opening and interplay of international markets and the outsourcing of jobs and industry to said international markets.

No link exists, which is why you are finding it so hard to find even a shred of evidence.

Currently the argument that bananas are evil is just as valid as your argument.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

I'm not talking about MAKING jobs. I'm talking about PREVENTING JOBS FROM LEAVING. The way that the unemployment statistic works is that a person is only registered as unemployed if they are actively looking for a job. If they are not looking for a job, they are not listed as unemployed. So that unemployment rate you see is the amount of people who do not have jobs and are looking for jobs. So if we are shipping jobs out to other countries when Joe Shmoe is looking for work, that's a problem.

That's just semantics.

You are saying we should hire Joe Shmoe despite him being an inferior choice because he should be working.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

I quoted a string of comments directly linked to each other. Ele said something, you said something back in response to the first thing, I responded to your response, you see where this is going.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious, but again, nothing was proven.

[QUOTE=hawkesnightmare;7742995]No. Just...what? You're SAYING that our logic is wrong, but we're screaming back "It's not logic we're using! It's facts!"[/QUOTE
But it's not facts and it's not logic, it's just assertions.

That may be what you are saying, but that isn't what Ele said.

You never tried to show in any way that HK revolts or low income housing in the US have anything to do with globalisation, you just asserted it.

I'll give credit where credit is due though, Ele at least tried to form a logical opinion, it's a shame his logic isn't reflected in reality (and yes, I'm wording it like that on purpose because that's how he seems to operate) so it's clearly incorrect.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

The graph you provided cuts off when unemployment seems to be going down, when in fact right after that cutoff, it rose again. Yes, of course nothing will keep going up forever, empires rise and fall. But when unemployment rates take ten years to rise, fall and back again, and you leave out an entire THIRD of that timeframe, your data will be inevitably skewed.

It's not skewed, and I quoted the ABS figures from 2011 onwards so you can see for yourself that the data does NOT support the hypothesis that unemployment rates are rising. If you look at the mean (including up to the present) you can see it's falling.

3 years is 10% not 33% of the time frame by the way.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

We are giving you facts and figures, and you are just saying "Nah. Your data is wrong."

I'll concede this point if you can find a single instance of you, Ele or BP posting ANY data.

I have literally never said your data is wrong. I have said multiple times your logic is wrong and that you are drawing connections where none exist (or more commonly simply asserting there is a connection without even stating it).

FYI merely saying "HK revolt therefore globalisation is bad" is not sufficient logic. Sure, the HK revolts are a fact, but merely mentioning random facts proves NOTHING.

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

hawkesnightmare

Dec 1, 2014

hawkesnightmare

WHERE'S MY DRINK?!

Join Date: Jul 2012

Dec 1, 2014

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

That's just semantics.

Making a job out of thin air and preventing an already existing job from being outsourced is definitely not the same thing.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

You are saying we should hire Joe Shmoe despite him being an inferior choice because he should be working.

First of all, why is Joe an inferior choice to some Indian lady? Yes, he'll want to get paid more, but it probably costs more to build a call center ten thousand miles away than it does to pay Joe minimum wage.

With that addressed, I was saying that we should hire Joe because he's actively looking for work. Seeing as working in a call center takes literally zero skills aside from keeping a cool head, he's pretty much guaranteed the position. That is, if we don't outsource it to a developing country.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

But when unemployment rates take ten years to rise, fall and back again, and you leave out an entire THIRD of that timeframe, your data will be inevitably skewed.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

ten years

Originally Posted by Immortalpig

3 years is 10% not 33% of the time frame by the way.

Just gonna...yeah.

Originally Posted by Immortalpig

I have said multiple times your logic is wrong and that you are drawing connections where none exist (or more commonly simply asserting there is a connection without even stating it).

FYI merely saying "HK revolt therefore globalisation is bad" is not sufficient logic. Sure, the HK revolts are a fact, but merely mentioning random facts proves NOTHING.

Outsourcing jobs is a product of globalization. The jobs that generally go away are middle class jobs. Since the middle class no longer has jobs, they get poorer. This causes a wealth gap between the rich and the poor. This is part of the reason the revolts are happening in Hong Kong. The connection clearly exists.

Simplified: Globalization>outsourcing>wealth gap>HK revolts

All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That's how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.

Ele

Dec 1, 2014

Ele

Join Date: Sep 2009

Dec 1, 2014

We've explained the 'link' (that you say doesn't exist) in babysteps. Bottom line, when you globalise the labour pool, first world countrymen can't compete. Do you disagree with this? If so, why? Don't just attack our posts. Explain how this doesn't happen and what happens instead.

Because if you accept the above preposition, then you can accept outsourcing, and you can start to make the links that leads to the things we're talking about.

I'm not being rude here. If what we're saying about the process is wrong, tell why and how it's wrong. It'd be important for you to tell us, since everyone involved with the field would have the wrong idea elsewise.

Boredpayne

Dec 2, 2014

Boredpayne

not a super moderator anymore ;o

Join Date: Nov 2009

Dec 2, 2014

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

No link exists which is why you are finding it so hard to find even a shred of evidence.

Lmao, what are you talking about? It's not even an issue of evidence, though much has been provided to you, and here's some more just because this thread needs some more links to begin with:
http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-overseas.html
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB100...67881972648906
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1224-07.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129553
The thing is, there's very little material arguing whether or not jobs move overseas because anyone who understands the subject does not consider this a disputed point. The discussion centers on what to do about it and how it affects the economy.

But it's not even a matter of evidence, it's a matter of basic reasoning. The changes in international markets are always going to be intrinsically tied to the rise and interplay of those international markets (or, in one word, just to make it a little bit simpler for you: globalization). It's so obvious this isn't a debate, it's actually just other people trying to teach you this while you repeatedly perform the rhetorical equivalent of "NEENER NEENER NEENER."

ImmortalPig

Dec 2, 2014

ImmortalPig

ub3r

Join Date: Jun 2013

Dec 2, 2014

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

Making a job out of thin air and preventing an already existing job from being outsourced is definitely not the same thing.

In that context they are, there's no functional difference.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

First of all, why is Joe an inferior choice to some Indian lady? Yes, he'll want to get paid more, but it probably costs more to build a call center ten thousand miles away than it does to pay Joe minimum wage.

I think you already addressed why. Companies generally make decisions on the basis of money, and I'm sure they ran a few simple calculations before deciding to outsource.

Joe is naturally free to go live in India if he wants that job.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

With that addressed, I was saying that we should hire Joe because he's actively looking for work. Seeing as working in a call center takes literally zero skills aside from keeping a cool head, he's pretty much guaranteed the position. That is, if we don't outsource it to a developing country.

So people should hire him just because he wants to be hired, even if he isn't the best choice for the job?

Honestly I think when you get out into the real world and realize that people almost always need to make some kind of compromise for their job, or need some qualifications, or experience, you will get a big shock!

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

Just gonna...yeah.

So just going to ignore that you are trying to fit the data to your conclusion? Ok? Ok.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

Outsourcing jobs is a product of globalization.

Dishonest statement, before globalisation jobs were still outsourced. Considering reality, can we really say it's a product of globalisation?

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

The jobs that generally go away are middle class jobs. Since the middle class no longer has jobs, they get poorer. This causes a wealth gap between the rich and the poor.

Well, I can see multiple faults in your logic.

As previously shown, unemployment rates are not rising, so there is no case of the middle class no longer having jobs.
Secondly the assertion that should a middle class worker lose their job they will be unable to find more work is again not in line with reality.
You also forget to mention that developed nations should have better education systems and infrastructure than developing nations, so middle class in a developed nation should include a college/university degree, which is something that is not the case in developing nations.
In developed nations we also see higher minimum wages.

Thanks for at least giving it a shot, looking forward to your reply!

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare

This is part of the reason the revolts are happening in Hong Kong. The connection clearly exists.

No? The revolts are because people don't like that HK is essentially a puppet government.

Merely asserting that some random event was caused by some other event is not proof.

Originally Posted by Ele

Bottom line, when you globalise the labour pool, first world countrymen can't compete. Do you disagree with this? If so, why? Don't just attack our posts. Explain how this doesn't happen and what happens instead.

Yes, I disagree. A developed nation should at the least have a better education system and infrastructure than a third world nation. What's more there is a lot of jobs that cannot be exported.

Failure to maintain employment in a globalised society is no different than failure to maintain employment in a intra-national society. If you are looking for jobs that don't exist, or don't have the skills to be employable, then you won't be employed.

Originally Posted by Ele

I'm not being rude here. If what we're saying about the process is wrong, tell why and how it's wrong. It'd be important for you to tell us, since everyone involved with the field would have the wrong idea elsewise.

There has been quite a refusal to even engage in discussion, so far you and BP have been asserting this and that without even explaining. Above you can no doubt see hawkesnightmare merely asserting that globalisation caused the HK revolt, which is clearly wrong and because he previously made absolutely no attempt to even explain why, it was impossible for me to reply in a meaningful way.

Now that he has explained his thought process, I can easily point out where he was mistaken.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

It's not even an issue of evidence, though much has been provided to you

Literally none is not what I would call "much"

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-overseas.html
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB100...67881972648906
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1224-07.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129553

Well ignoring that spamming links without any explanation of what you are trying to show with them is bad form to say the least, and a dishonest tactic at worst, let's see what articles you posted...

The first link is by a website called "inequality.org" which naturally is an unbiased source for information on inequality. They show that wealthy people are making more money. Sadly this does not support your hypothesis.

The second, and I'm not sure why you posted this, shows a desperate effort to hold onto jobs that are useless. A perfect example of how not adapting is harmful. But why have jobs been going elsewhere? Because it's too expensive to manufacture in the US thanks to the US's policies. I'm sure you will tell me that the existence of the US and their high tax rates is an inherent component of globalisation though!

The WSJ article is about companies that have overseas presence (it opens with walmart hiring more people in the US though...) are doing well. I can see where you are going with this one: "there are limited jobs worldwide so any position created internationally is one we don't get at home!" Honestly I don't think they considered the possibility of going fly-in-fly-out to walmart, so I guess this one is on them.

The fourth article is about jobs moving overseas to equally qualified workers in countries that are cheaper (what is PPP). Let me pull out a quote because I think it helps me understand your position: "They're not creating better living standards for America." Is this what this is all about? The US is upset because they can't adapt and other countries (India, China, Canada, etc) are taking their jobs? If two people apply for the job, but one charges more, who would you hire? And do you think that if the lesser wage guy gets hired, does the more expensive guy have the right to complain that you are impacting their living standards?

The ABC article is the same as the Common Dreams one, so not going to cover it. But essentially, it's too expensive so they moved somewhere cheaper. People are mad because others can do the same job for less.

I feel like you are trying to prove something that no one was disputing but ok nice links.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

The thing is, there's very little material arguing whether or not jobs move overseas because anyone who understands the subject does not consider this a disputed point. The discussion centers on what to do about it and how it affects the economy.

Wait, were you trying to argue that jobs sometimes move overseas? Wow you made a really poor effort of expressing that.

Yes, of course jobs can move to other locations...

(Yes I am taking your strawman seriously because it's just easier that way)

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

But it's not even a matter of evidence, it's a matter of basic reasoning. The changes in international markets are always going to be intrinsically tied to the rise and interplay of those international markets (or, in one word, just to make it a little bit simpler for you: globalization). It's so obvious this isn't a debate, it's actually just other people trying to teach you this while you repeatedly perform the rhetorical equivalent of "NEENER NEENER NEENER."

Right, the reasoning is so basic that not only can you not explain it but you have to resort to logical fallacies whenever you try.

Changes in markets is tied to the interplay between markets? Obviously, why do you think anyone was trying to argue against this?

The amount of strawmanning is reaching an absurd level BP...

<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