Sign up with GoogleXarog before I get into your post perhaps we have touched horns before on this issue (as I have certainly said to someone on this forum; you have a communistic outlook. I am not judging this outlook it is simply that communism has been shown not to work.)
QUOTE=Xarog
People aren't trained overnight. You can't change from being a coder to an engineer in a week, for instance. My point is that coding in the US can become uneconomical if they have to compete directly with Indians, so the job market for coders in the US vanishes. What are those coders who don't have jobs going to do? Probably find a job at burger king if they're not lucky enough to have other training to fall back on.
Coders (at a hardware, OS level) are essentially engineers whether they are qualified or not. There is no need to change industry (for the coder.) If a company is outsourcing (coding) jobs that is because one, they have better things for their local coders to do, or two, they are regearing their businesses to take advantage of other opportunities. Yes in many/some instances coders lost their jobs in the states and the coding moved to india (as part of downsizing and cost saving and resource reallocation) but - we should also keep in mind an industry crashed (ever hear of the internet bubble?) Where are these US coders today? According to the unemployment figures they are not unemployed; they are doing something; most likely in their chosen industry either working for themselves or someone else. They have been re-deployed. There is no loss to the economy only gain as for sure few coders become McDonald dweebs. Also (as you remind me) you should keep the big picture in mind - enron, worldcom: nasdaq. Oversold, overhyped leading to a correction but that is not the situation today a few short years later: technology and the internet is booming, where do you think all these people (that create the boom) come from? Yes well they're making a boom while the coders get on with the job in india and the local coders go on to invent better things (that's the rosy capitalist picture anyway.)
Where there was once a profitable industry, there is now an empty hole, and the GDP for the country shrank. Capitalism hates recessions, just look how morbidly afraid your average stock investor is of recessions.
Without looking at the figures I would say GDP hasn't sunk (GB's war in Iraq makes up for that one.) Where is the empty hole, I certainly don't see it though I do see innovative industry coming out the states and europe.
There are of course, some examples where one industry floundered and another grew in its place. However, with each industry or service that is exported, it becomes harder and harder to find other things to do to fill the gap. I'm not claiming that a single industry is enough to wreck an economy, but when a whole range of industries go out of business it's a different story.
I really don't know what century you're living in but for sure change is the order of life and world GDP (and invention) hasn't dropped only accelerated. What happened to the steel mills of america or the car manufacturers? Do you see massive gaping holes in the economy - no. Are you having some problem finding things to fill the gap because I seem to be living in a world of more choice, more product, not less. And this has been true for 100's if not thousands of years.
Strawman. Innovation and job piracy are two totally different things. Having one technology replace another is progress. exporting an existing industry to another market is a totally different matter.
Nobody is exporting anything; the world is simply getting smaller and the borders less concrete. These indian peeps are working for american companies (making them richer) while the local american peeps do better things or something else (hopefully leading to invention.) Would we have Skype if these peeps were stuck doing some cubicle job? Would we have Skype if these peeps actually had a job? No, they took the time out to invent something (as they had nothing else.) Its called innovation and capitalism. Adapt or die. Invent or perish.
An example of this would be African country A. Let's say country A has been involved in recent wars which has destroyed most of the infrastructure.
Now along comes your wealthy multinational who buys some of the land for a fraction of what it would otherwise be worth. There is no local production and many people are starving because they cannot afford to buy food. Let's say this multination decides to grow coffee on this land. Although there is no local economy to speak of, there's a demand for coffee in other markets. The multinational corp uses this to its advantage. It offers the local workers jobs, paying them barely more than what they need to spend on food, and the workers don't say no because the alternative is to go hungry.
You really do have a coffee fixation!?
No, your argument has logical flaws: "what it would otherwise be worth" is a non-sequitur. It has no value. It is. Not supposed or otherwise or anything else: it is, today, now. Maybe 10 years ago it had value, perhaps 10 in the future it may have value but right now it is valueless (and only investment, development, infrastructure will give it value.) Exactly what the multinational is bringing. Coffee? We have already established coffee is a bad crop nevertheless let's look at your equation: coffee growers minimum wage they didn't have before. Dock workers who had no work before. Curers and packers who had no work before. The multinational certainly seems to be bringing value where before there was none.
I was merely speaking in terms of having a sustainable economy regarding unemployment being 'manageable'.
I'm not sure what to make of the rest. You know why we get so much cheap stuff from China? Because there's no minimum wage. In many cases you have 2 workers working at the same spot 24 hours a day. When one works, the other sleeps under the machine, when the shifts changes he wakes the other guy up and they reverse roles. Workers such as this can be paid next to nothing - it's not like they need to spend it on anything such as dental care, afterall.
You should read "Just do it" the Nike story; this will give you some clue of multinationals operating in China and what is means to the local population.
The west with its minimum wages and relatively ethical employment laws could never in a million years hope to compete with such a production line. Do you really want what I've described above to be the yardstick by which we define a superior means of doing things?
You are wrong. As you state yourself: these workers are happy to have a job (and they move on to other jobs.) AFAIK china isn't the leading economy in the world (just yet.) As in any burgeoning market economy these workers will want to upgrade their lifestyles, salaries, conditions: so things will change and china will no longer be as competitive. At the same time european (or american) expectations will drop towards less costs and less overhead, and somewhere in-between the twain shall meet and we will have another level playing field until the next round of invention or consumerism (called capitalism.) A fundamental is: we do not live in a static world, change is the order of life. Your models do not incorporate change; they incorporate a static status-que of desperately trying to hold onto jobs and resources while not letting market factors work that will ultimately solve problems (once again telkom is a screaming example.)
Something to think about next time you see the "Made in China" sticker.
I buy local as much as possible and any "made in china" sticker gives me a moment of thought - the thought is: these peeps are making goods designed by western individuals; these peeps are making these goods with the end result of buying other goods (invented by western peeps.) Western peeps wouldn't have the time to create the market sophistication (eg, custom shoes from nike) if they were sitting making them. It's called capitalism and you really should wake up to that fact: nobody gives anybody anything - everything is either invented or re-purposed which drives the capitalist dream. And: if western peeps were making this stuff they couldn't afford it which means the market wouldn't exist in the first place and chinese people wouldn't have jobs. It's called... ?
True. However, look what the results were when it happened in Zim. Taking land by force isn't a good way to improve your national economy.
Ultimately it doesn't matter where the land came from: if you do not have production you have a failed economy. Bob destroyed production. End of equation.
And having written all of the above: primary lessons - value and production (jobs) don't magically appear out of thin air - every single one has been invented. Invention is an on-going process daily. If you cannot find the energy to get out of bed then you will not invent (and likely have no reason to do so, either get out of bed or invent.) If you do have the motivation to get out of bed (continue living) then you will invent or ride the coat-tails of somebody else who has done so. There is no gravy-train and no free-ride much as this government would have you believe so.
QUOTE=Xarog
People aren't trained overnight. You can't change from being a coder to an engineer in a week, for instance. My point is that coding in the US can become uneconomical if they have to compete directly with Indians, so the job market for coders in the US vanishes. What are those coders who don't have jobs going to do? Probably find a job at burger king if they're not lucky enough to have other training to fall back on.
Coders (at a hardware, OS level) are essentially engineers whether they are qualified or not. There is no need to change industry (for the coder.) If a company is outsourcing (coding) jobs that is because one, they have better things for their local coders to do, or two, they are regearing their businesses to take advantage of other opportunities. Yes in many/some instances coders lost their jobs in the states and the coding moved to india (as part of downsizing and cost saving and resource reallocation) but - we should also keep in mind an industry crashed (ever hear of the internet bubble?) Where are these US coders today? According to the unemployment figures they are not unemployed; they are doing something; most likely in their chosen industry either working for themselves or someone else. They have been re-deployed. There is no loss to the economy only gain as for sure few coders become McDonald dweebs. Also (as you remind me) you should keep the big picture in mind - enron, worldcom: nasdaq. Oversold, overhyped leading to a correction but that is not the situation today a few short years later: technology and the internet is booming, where do you think all these people (that create the boom) come from? Yes well they're making a boom while the coders get on with the job in india and the local coders go on to invent better things (that's the rosy capitalist picture anyway.)
Where there was once a profitable industry, there is now an empty hole, and the GDP for the country shrank. Capitalism hates recessions, just look how morbidly afraid your average stock investor is of recessions.
Without looking at the figures I would say GDP hasn't sunk (GB's war in Iraq makes up for that one.) Where is the empty hole, I certainly don't see it though I do see innovative industry coming out the states and europe.
There are of course, some examples where one industry floundered and another grew in its place. However, with each industry or service that is exported, it becomes harder and harder to find other things to do to fill the gap. I'm not claiming that a single industry is enough to wreck an economy, but when a whole range of industries go out of business it's a different story.
I really don't know what century you're living in but for sure change is the order of life and world GDP (and invention) hasn't dropped only accelerated. What happened to the steel mills of america or the car manufacturers? Do you see massive gaping holes in the economy - no. Are you having some problem finding things to fill the gap because I seem to be living in a world of more choice, more product, not less. And this has been true for 100's if not thousands of years.
Strawman. Innovation and job piracy are two totally different things. Having one technology replace another is progress. exporting an existing industry to another market is a totally different matter.
Nobody is exporting anything; the world is simply getting smaller and the borders less concrete. These indian peeps are working for american companies (making them richer) while the local american peeps do better things or something else (hopefully leading to invention.) Would we have Skype if these peeps were stuck doing some cubicle job? Would we have Skype if these peeps actually had a job? No, they took the time out to invent something (as they had nothing else.) Its called innovation and capitalism. Adapt or die. Invent or perish.
An example of this would be African country A. Let's say country A has been involved in recent wars which has destroyed most of the infrastructure.
Now along comes your wealthy multinational who buys some of the land for a fraction of what it would otherwise be worth. There is no local production and many people are starving because they cannot afford to buy food. Let's say this multination decides to grow coffee on this land. Although there is no local economy to speak of, there's a demand for coffee in other markets. The multinational corp uses this to its advantage. It offers the local workers jobs, paying them barely more than what they need to spend on food, and the workers don't say no because the alternative is to go hungry.
You really do have a coffee fixation!?
No, your argument has logical flaws: "what it would otherwise be worth" is a non-sequitur. It has no value. It is. Not supposed or otherwise or anything else: it is, today, now. Maybe 10 years ago it had value, perhaps 10 in the future it may have value but right now it is valueless (and only investment, development, infrastructure will give it value.) Exactly what the multinational is bringing. Coffee? We have already established coffee is a bad crop nevertheless let's look at your equation: coffee growers minimum wage they didn't have before. Dock workers who had no work before. Curers and packers who had no work before. The multinational certainly seems to be bringing value where before there was none.I was merely speaking in terms of having a sustainable economy regarding unemployment being 'manageable'.
I'm not sure what to make of the rest. You know why we get so much cheap stuff from China? Because there's no minimum wage. In many cases you have 2 workers working at the same spot 24 hours a day. When one works, the other sleeps under the machine, when the shifts changes he wakes the other guy up and they reverse roles. Workers such as this can be paid next to nothing - it's not like they need to spend it on anything such as dental care, afterall.
You should read "Just do it" the Nike story; this will give you some clue of multinationals operating in China and what is means to the local population.
The west with its minimum wages and relatively ethical employment laws could never in a million years hope to compete with such a production line. Do you really want what I've described above to be the yardstick by which we define a superior means of doing things?
You are wrong. As you state yourself: these workers are happy to have a job (and they move on to other jobs.) AFAIK china isn't the leading economy in the world (just yet.) As in any burgeoning market economy these workers will want to upgrade their lifestyles, salaries, conditions: so things will change and china will no longer be as competitive. At the same time european (or american) expectations will drop towards less costs and less overhead, and somewhere in-between the twain shall meet and we will have another level playing field until the next round of invention or consumerism (called capitalism.) A fundamental is: we do not live in a static world, change is the order of life. Your models do not incorporate change; they incorporate a static status-que of desperately trying to hold onto jobs and resources while not letting market factors work that will ultimately solve problems (once again telkom is a screaming example.)
Something to think about next time you see the "Made in China" sticker.
I buy local as much as possible and any "made in china" sticker gives me a moment of thought - the thought is: these peeps are making goods designed by western individuals; these peeps are making these goods with the end result of buying other goods (invented by western peeps.) Western peeps wouldn't have the time to create the market sophistication (eg, custom shoes from nike) if they were sitting making them. It's called capitalism and you really should wake up to that fact: nobody gives anybody anything - everything is either invented or re-purposed which drives the capitalist dream. And: if western peeps were making this stuff they couldn't afford it which means the market wouldn't exist in the first place and chinese people wouldn't have jobs. It's called... ?
True. However, look what the results were when it happened in Zim. Taking land by force isn't a good way to improve your national economy.
Ultimately it doesn't matter where the land came from: if you do not have production you have a failed economy. Bob destroyed production. End of equation.
And having written all of the above: primary lessons - value and production (jobs) don't magically appear out of thin air - every single one has been invented. Invention is an on-going process daily. If you cannot find the energy to get out of bed then you will not invent (and likely have no reason to do so, either get out of bed or invent.) If you do have the motivation to get out of bed (continue living) then you will invent or ride the coat-tails of somebody else who has done so. There is no gravy-train and no free-ride much as this government would have you believe so.
