hawkesnightmare's posts are that of an ignorant 12 year old screaming "they took our jobs!" and then defending it with idealism like "why can't the guy work where he wants"
I haven't extensively researched globalization but from what I've read it basically seems like the ultimate final form of consumerism; which depending on your ideology is basically good for everyone. The benefits would include expansion of culture, wealth, and a boost for the economies of first world nations. The less fortunate countries would obviously be used for profit and then left in the dirt, but over time (in the ideal world) more work would be done and more profit would be made.
The only downside in my opinion is ideological; as I abhor capitalist principles I don't like living in a consumerist world, so I wouldn't want to live in a world where everything is even more centered on international exchange markets for the bourgeoisie.
I hope I didn't repeat anything said before or have a lack of understanding of the topic
gorman vs boredpayne is entertaining
I haven't extensively researched globalization but from what I've read it basically seems like the ultimate final form of consumerism; which depending on your ideology is basically good for everyone. The benefits would include expansion of culture, wealth, and a boost for the economies of first world nations. The less fortunate countries would obviously be used for profit and then left in the dirt, but over time (in the ideal world) more work would be done and more profit would be made.
The only downside in my opinion is ideological; as I abhor capitalist principles I don't like living in a consumerist world, so I wouldn't want to live in a world where everything is even more centered on international exchange markets for the bourgeoisie.
I hope I didn't repeat anything said before or have a lack of understanding of the topic
gorman vs boredpayne is entertaining
hatter make me famou
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
In that context they are, there's no functional difference.
Yes, there is no functional difference, but the process in which the job is either created or kept is very different. It's a lot harder to construct a new building than it is to acquire and renovate an abandoned one. That's what I'm talking about here.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
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.
You finally said the magic word. Companies. Companies are greedy little shits. Governments are also greedy shits, but they have to balance that with keeping the citizens safe and relatively happy. If governments passed a law making it illegal for a company to outsource a job if the yearly average unemployment rate is above X%(or just let them outsource the jobs to Ohio or some other place), it would solve a lot of problems.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
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!
Oh, I am in the real world. The only reason these types of jobs are being outsourced to places like India is because the only qualification you need is to work them is speak English.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
So just going to ignore that you are trying to fit the data to your conclusion? Ok? Ok.
You just misunderstood what I meant by timeframe, which obviously derailed the main point.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Dishonest statement, before globalisation jobs were still outsourced. Considering reality, can we really say it's a product of globalisation?
Outsourcing jobs IS globalization. If someone did it in 1637, globalization was still happening, albeit on a much smaller scale.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
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.
The issue isn't the middle class not having jobs at all, the issue is that the middle class is losing middle class jobs. The jobs are being outsourced, and so the middle class is forced to work lower class jobs because that's all they can get.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
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.
Yes, I'm not saying being fired is a death sentence, but it certainly makes it harder to find another job once you are let go.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
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.
The key word in that first sentence is "should have". And nowadays, having a degree is less and less important. Yeah, it's something to put on your resume, but unless you're going into a job solely dedicated to your degree, it's only a boy scout badge.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
In developed nations we also see higher minimum wages.
Which results in either people being let go, the job being outsourced to a developing nation, or usually both. Companies have a budget for payroll. If the government forces them to raise the minimum wage, they lay off a few people to stay under budget.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
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.
After reading a bit more into it, I concede this point. No idea where I got the idea that HK was a result of globalization gone wrong. Maybe Huffington Post or some other shitty news outlet.
Originally Posted by Moonfloam
hawkesnightmare's posts are that of an ignorant 12 year old screaming "they took our jobs!" and then defending it with idealism like "why can't the guy work where he wants"
Apparently I'm twelve now. Get out, Moonfloam.
Last edited by hawkesnightmare; Dec 2, 2014 at 09:44 PM.
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.
Originally Posted by moonfloam
I haven't extensively researched globalization but..
The only downside in my opinion is ideological...
I hope I didn't repeat anything said before or have a lack of understanding of the topic
Mmm.
Originally Posted by moonfloam
gorman vs boredpayne is entertaining
Do I not entertain you?
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
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.
Just because there are some jobs that can't be exported doesn't mean that the middle-class aren't losing jobs that can't be replaced. This naturally has far-reaching effects, like the widening of the wealth-gap.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
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.
It sounds like you're blaming workers for being fired for refusing to work for nothing in shitty conditions.
You sound about the same as Gina Rinehart. Although, Rinehart understands the effects of globalisation better than you.
"The evidence is unarguable that Australia is indeed becoming too expensive and too uncompetitive to do export- orientated business,” she insisted, adding that “Africans want to work. Its workers are willing to work for less than $2 per day.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/w...ralian-miners/
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
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.
That's very unfair. I've slowed everything down and had to explain myself at every step for you. All because you can't be arsed to research the subject.
Last edited by Ele; Dec 3, 2014 at 03:23 AM.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
Yes, there is no functional difference, but the process in which the job is either created or kept is very different. It's a lot harder to construct a new building than it is to acquire and renovate an abandoned one. That's what I'm talking about here.
It has no bearing on the argument at hand, but ok...
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
You finally said the magic word. Companies. Companies are greedy little shits. Governments are also greedy shits, but they have to balance that with keeping the citizens safe and relatively happy. If governments passed a law making it illegal for a company to outsource a job if the yearly average unemployment rate is above X%(or just let them outsource the jobs to Ohio or some other place), it would solve a lot of problems.
That would be a very harmful solution.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
Oh, I am in the real world. The only reason these types of jobs are being outsourced to places like India is because the only qualification you need is to work them is speak English.
Ok?
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
You just misunderstood what I meant by timeframe, which obviously derailed the main point.
So by timeframe you meant 10 years...
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
Outsourcing jobs IS globalization. If someone did it in 1637, globalization was still happening, albeit on a much smaller scale.
Not true at all. Outsourcing means moving business outside the company. It has been going on way before globalisation, and even now it's probably even more common to outsource within a country than outside it.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
The issue isn't the middle class not having jobs at all, the issue is that the middle class is losing middle class jobs. The jobs are being outsourced, and so the middle class is forced to work lower class jobs because that's all they can get.
The jobs that are being exported should be considered lower class by a developed nation's standards - as you said, the only requirement is to speak English.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
Yes, I'm not saying being fired is a death sentence, but it certainly makes it harder to find another job once you are let go.
Sure, because having a job means you have a job. So naturally not having a job is going to make it harder to get a job.
But that happens regardless of globalisation.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
The key word in that first sentence is "should have". And nowadays, having a degree is less and less important. Yeah, it's something to put on your resume, but unless you're going into a job solely dedicated to your degree, it's only a boy scout badge.
That's true only for job-oriented degrees. For subject-oriented degrees they are still useful.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
Which results in either people being let go, the job being outsourced to a developing nation, or usually both. Companies have a budget for payroll. If the government forces them to raise the minimum wage, they lay off a few people to stay under budget.
Many minimum wage jobs can't be outsourced and can't be worked with reduced people.
Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare
After reading a bit more into it, I concede this point. No idea where I got the idea that HK was a result of globalization gone wrong. Maybe Huffington Post or some other shitty news outlet.
Well, HP sure is shit.
Originally Posted by Ele
Just because there are some jobs that can't be exported doesn't mean that the middle-class aren't losing jobs that can't be replaced. This naturally has far-reaching effects, like the widening of the wealth-gap.
No, it does not naturally widen the wealth-gap.
Middle class should move to 'higher class' jobs or 'middle class' jobs that can't be outsourced.
Originally Posted by Ele
It sounds like you're blaming workers for being fired for refusing to work for nothing in shitty conditions.
You sound about the same as Gina Rinehart. Although, Rinehart understands the effects of globalisation better than you.
"The evidence is unarguable that Australia is indeed becoming too expensive and too uncompetitive to do export- orientated business,” she insisted, adding that “Africans want to work. Its workers are willing to work for less than $2 per day.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/w...ralian-miners/
This is going to blow your mind, but maybe they shouldn't work in an export orientated business!
Originally Posted by Ele
That's very unfair. I've slowed everything down and had to explain myself at every step for you. All because you can't be arsed to research the subject.
So your discussion tactic is "go research it until you agree with me"? You don't see anything wrong with that? If you really don't, then maybe you should go research it until you agree with me.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
No, it does not naturally widen the wealth-gap.
It does. You have less middle-class workers, since they're either unemployed now or working McJobs, which has the effect of widening the wealth-gap. This is a pretty well-recognised process. Do you deny that that process happens or do you deny that the wealth-gap in widening? If the latter, just take a glance at the consistently worsening Gini coefficients.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
This is going to blow your mind, but maybe they shouldn't work in an export orientated business!
Haha. So? The point I was trying to get across to you was the whole "the evidence is unarguable" point. Once you get that this all is actually happening, maybe you'll change your mind.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
So your discussion tactic is "go research it until you agree with me"?
All I'm saying is that you should do some reading about the subject so you get a better understanding of it. Because right now, you're arguing against well-understood, foundational processes in globalisation.
Last edited by Ele; Dec 4, 2014 at 07:56 AM.
