Has Globalization Undermined America's Working Class?

[s0me0nesmind1]

Question for you folks here. I was watching the debate below - and was actually surprised by the audience outcome.

Personally, I have to completely agree with the motion here - when manufacturing goes away, it doesn't mean that people learn new skills. We already made a laughing meme of journalists with "Learn to code" over that one. What effectively happens is that their once semi-useful skill goes away, so they move on to jobs with even smaller (or no skills) needed... such as retail, grocery stores, fast food, etc... This drives down the wages because the supply of workers is near infinite, and you have what we are stuck with today.... People demanding higher wages - yet it won't happen because the supply of workers is simply endless.

What is AT P&Ns thoughts on globalization? Is it to blame for some of our issues? All of them? Or none of them?

My initial job out of college was outsourced, so this topic has definitely affected me. If it isn't globalism, what is the cause for stagnant wages that just magically happens to correlate with when free trade really started to take off?


For Reference if anyone is interested in debates:

 

[nakedfrog]

Maximizing shareholder value.

 

[Jaskalas]

My initial job out of college was outsourced, so this topic has definitely affected me. If it isn't globalism, what is the cause for stagnant wages that just magically happens to correlate with when free trade really started to take off?

Capitalism itself is your foe.

Left unchecked, it will enact cost savings. Wages are costs that must be eliminated. If you oppose this, then you are attacking the "free market" and you may just be an evil "Socialist". Globalism allowed access to cheaper labor, that is true. You know what is even cheaper than slaves? Automation. And that is beginning to accelerate in previously unimaginable ways. Not even China's slave wages are competitive.

For the human element, we must take control and strike a balance. We cannot let cost savings go unchecked by leaving wages / workers / consumers behind.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Capitalism itself is your foe.

Left unchecked, it will enact cost savings. Wages are costs that must be eliminated. If you oppose this, then you are attacking the "free market" and you may just be an evil "Socialist". Globalism allowed access to cheaper labor, that is true. You know what is even cheaper than slaves? Automation. And that is beginning to accelerate in previously unimaginable ways. Not even China's slave wages are competitive.

For the human element, we must take control and strike a balance. We cannot let cost savings go unchecked by leaving wages / workers / consumers behind.

Maximizing shareholder value.

Yes, we can shit on Capitalism all you want here, but it doesn't mean free-trade won't occur if you're doing socialism, communism, or whatever you fancy from an economic perspective.

What is your answer? Tariffs? No trading? Don't allow global companies to invest in your country?

 

[mect]

Globalization is a problem because of how it is implemented. If the benefits of globalization were distributed to all citizens instead of just the ownership class, then globalization would be a net benefit for all Americans. Instead, all the benefits are funneled to the upper class.

However, the point you made about retraining is an extremely important one, even broader in context than just globalization because it also applies to automation. We aren't going to take a bunch of 50 year old truck drivers and turn them all into coders.

This is why I'm becoming more and more convinced a UBI supplemented by other strong social supports are the best way to go. As we outsource and automate away traditional jobs, this will only benefit Americans in general if there is a strong safety net in place to catch them and allow them time to find other work that fits them. We can't continue to insist on trying to shove square pegs into round holes.

 

[Indus]

Nope the problem is not globalization, its capitalism.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Nope the problem is not globalization, its capitalism.

China is all about globalism and free trade. They aren't capitalist. So... everyone is loving life there right?

I appreciate the few of you lefties that are actually interested in a discussion, debate, and providing facts instead of empty 1 liners from toolbags that are sipping a vente' latte on the Starbucks WiFi while (ironically) condemning capitalism.

 

[Indus]

China is all about globalism and free trade. They aren't capitalist. So... everyone is loving life there right?

I appreciate the few of you lefties that are actually interested in a discussion, debate, and providing facts instead of empty 1 liners from toolbags that are sipping a vente' latte on the Starbucks WiFi.

Ever been to fucking China? It's 20 million times better than your fucking average trashtown America.

 

[Jaskalas]

Yes, we can shit on Capitalism all you want here...

Your very own topic is shitting all over the RESULTS of Capitalism. This is YOUR baby, at least you could admit that you are rejecting it!

Apparently you do not understand economics if you think cost savings (eliminating labor) isn't the entire point of Capitalism. You rail against it, but it is functioning perfectly as intended. It is efficient to cut wages. If you oppose that, then you oppose unchecked Capitalism. You oppose the free market.

My solution is to strike a balance. Tax a percentage and return it directly to the people as Basic Income. I do not need the whole economy to serve the people, just a portion. A 25% tax covers our people's basic needs and leaves them free to pursue whatever Capitalist adventures they want.

 

[dank69]

Yes, we can shit on Capitalism all you want here, but it doesn't mean free-trade won't occur if you're doing socialism, communism, or whatever you fancy from an economic perspective.

What is your answer? Tariffs? No trading? Don't allow global companies to invest in your country?

You take a portion of the wealth that is generated and use it to pay people a living wage for doing jobs that we need that automation can't replace. For example, double the number of teachers and daycare workers and double their salaries respectively. We generate more than enough wealth to do this and suddenly there is no more need for welfare/food stamps/etc.

 

[WelshBloke]

China is all about globalism and free trade. They aren't capitalist. So... everyone is loving life there right?

I appreciate the few of you lefties that are actually interested in a discussion, debate, and providing facts instead of empty 1 liners from toolbags that are sipping a vente' latte on the Starbucks WiFi.

Capitalism requires oversight or you get rampant inequality and the concentration of wealth into the possession of fewer and fewer people.
People who support capitalism would be better of addressing wealth inequality rather than trying to blame socialist individuals.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Your very own topic is shitting all over the RESULTS of Capitalism. This is YOUR baby, at least you could admit that you are rejecting it!

Apparently you do not understand economics if you think cost savings (eliminating labor) isn't the entire point of Capitalism. You rail against it, but it is functioning perfectly as intended. It is efficient to cut wages. If you oppose that, then you oppose unchecked Capitalism. You oppose the free market.

My solution is to strike a balance. Tax a percentage and return it directly to the people as Basic Income. I do not need the whole economy to serve the people, just a portion. A 25% tax covers our people's basic needs and leaves them free to pursue whatever Capitalist adventures they want.

I think some folks here are mis-conflating the argument. This isn't about redistribution of wealth. It's very obvious that you guys are in favor of simply taxing the wealthy at higher rates in an effort to redistribute it down to the lower classes. That has nothing to do with globalism. That is a domestic choice of every given country.

Whether you have globalism or not, how you tax a nation has little to do with the subject. Or are you insinuating that if we just taxed the wealthy higher that globalism wouldn't have had such an effect as it did? If so, how and why?

At the end of the day, peoples skills are no longer useful here. No amount of taxing will make them useful again. I think @mect is the only one here that has admitted that yet and hence why he is in favor of UBI. If anything you're admitting that globalism is the problem, but your idea of the only way to fight against it is to increase taxes to forcefully redistribute.

 

[zzyzxroad]

Question for you folks here. I was watching the debate below - and was actually surprised by the audience outcome.

Personally, I have to completely agree with the motion here - when manufacturing goes away, it doesn't mean that people learn new skills. We already made a laughing meme of journalists with "Learn to code" over that one. What effectively happens is that their once semi-useful skill goes away, so they move on to jobs with even smaller (or no skills) needed... such as retail, grocery stores, fast food, etc... This drives down the wages because the supply of workers is near infinite, and you have what we are stuck with today.... People demanding higher wages - yet it won't happen because the supply of workers is simply endless.

What is AT P&Ns thoughts on globalization? Is it to blame for some of our issues? All of them? Or none of them?

My initial job out of college was outsourced, so this topic has definitely affected me. If it isn't globalism, what is the cause for stagnant wages that just magically happens to correlate with when free trade really started to take off?


For Reference if anyone is interested in debates:

Moving jobs from one area to another isn't the issue. Automation is and there is nothing anyone will do about it.

 

[mect]

I think some folks here are mis-conflating the argument. This isn't about redistribution of wealth. It's very obvious that you guys are in favor of simply taxing the wealthy at higher rates in an effort to redistribute it down to the lower classes. That has nothing to do with globalism. That is a domestic choice of every given country.

Whether you have globalism or not, how you tax a nation has little to do with the subject. Or are you insinuating that if we just taxed the wealthy higher that globalism wouldn't have had such an effect as it did? If so, how and why?

It has everything to do with globalization. Globalization is a net benefit for the US economy as a whole. The problem is that all those benefits go to the upper class, which drives wealth redistribution from the bottom to the top. The only way to support the benefits of globalization without simultaneously driving up income inequality is to have taxation that counteracts this.

 

[Maxima1]

What is AT P&Ns thoughts on globalization? Is it to blame for some of our issues? All of them? Or none of them?

We are not losing if some poor fuck elsewhere has to do it for less and export it out for foreigners to consume. The problem with trade is how the gains are distributed.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Maximizing shareholder value.

this. The Friedman style economic school of thought is what has made the gap. Imagine if the middle class shared the wealth generated over the past 40 years. Middle class would be a much higher wage than it is now.

 

[K1052]

It has everything to do with globalization. Globalization is a net benefit for the US economy as a whole. The problem is that all those benefits go to the upper class, which drives wealth redistribution from the bottom to the top. The only way to support the benefits of globalization without simultaneously driving up income inequality is to have taxation that counteracts this.

This right here.

 

[dank69]

I think some folks here are mis-conflating the argument. This isn't about redistribution of wealth. It's very obvious that you guys are in favor of simply taxing the wealthy at higher rates in an effort to redistribute it down to the lower classes. That has nothing to do with globalism. That is a domestic choice of every given country.

Whether you have globalism or not, how you tax a nation has little to do with the subject. Or are you insinuating that if we just taxed the wealthy higher that globalism wouldn't have had such an effect as it did? If so, how and why?

At the end of the day, peoples skills are no longer useful here. No amount of taxing will make them useful again. I think @mect is the only one here that has admitted that yet and hence why he is in favor of UBI. If anything you're admitting that globalism is the problem, but your idea of the only way to fight against it is to increase taxes to forcefully redistribute.

I know it is hard for you to stop thinking in terms of us vs. them but we are all in this together.

 

[Vic]

Wage stagnation wasn't the result of globalization but because of the average workers' growing inability to negotiate their own pay. As proof of this, I offer the fact professions that are more able to negotiate pay, such as those with strong unions (especially govt, like law enforcement) or highly skilled guilds (like doctors, lawyers, corporate execs, and certain engineers), have seen little or no wage stagnation.
Globalization has played a role in wage stagnation, I agree, but not by 'stealing jobs,' but by reducing some of the incentive for workers to negotiate by providing access to cheaper goods and (the biggie IMO) through cheap and easy credit. The latter being why credit is often used as income replacement (or augmentation) in a large number of US households.

 

[ivwshane]

Globalization isn’t the issue, global trade policy is. Free trade without restrictions or focus, allows capitalism to work its best, that is it will find ways to minimize costs and maximize profits. The US consumers get the biggest benefit in that goods are cheap. Unfortunately that means people elsewhere, where laws don’t exist to protect workers, get exploited.
So how is that not a failure of globalization? Well, if we (since we are the dominant economy) make trade deals that ensure workers aren’t exploited and are treated similar to our own workers, along with environmental protections, it will raise the living standards in the cheap areas that capitalism seeks. Eventually there won’t be an advantage to make goods in those areas and instead businesses will simply have smaller facilities in the areas where they do most of their business.
That’s a good thing, unless cheap shit is more important to you than the treatment of your fellow man.

Automation is the real threat as it can’t be overcome without regulating the amount of automation there is.

But the above are simply the symptoms of a failed ideology, capitalism. Capitalism will inevitably lead to consolidation and a huge wealth gap. That’s been the road we’ve been traveling down for centuries.
That being said, I don’t know of an alternative solution to capitalism but I do know how to slow down its demise.

 

[glenn1]

This is why I'm becoming more and more convinced a UBI supplemented by other strong social supports are the best way to go. As we outsource and automate away traditional jobs, this will only benefit Americans in general if there is a strong safety net in place to catch them and allow them time to find other work that fits them. We can't continue to insist on trying to shove square pegs into round holes.

You can give people UBI but that's not the same as giving them purpose in life. Animals in the zoo have the equivalent of UBI and it's not like they have fully actualized lives, likewise neither would people given the money to buy essentials but nothing to do with their lives but take meth and watch Jerry Springer all day.

 

[Maxima1]

You can give people UBI but that's not the same as giving them purpose in life. Animals in the zoo have the equivalent of UBI and it's not like they have fully actualized lives, likewise neither would people given the money to buy essentials but nothing to do with their lives but take meth and watch Jerry Springer all day.

They'll have their virtual reality headsets and robot sex dolls. XD

 

[mect]

You can give people UBI but that's not the same as giving them purpose in life. Animals in the zoo have the equivalent of UBI and it's not like they have fully actualized lives, likewise neither would people given the money to buy essentials but nothing to do with their lives but take meth and watch Jerry Springer all day.

Except that the best research indicates that providing people with a UBI doesn't lead to them not working. It leads to them pursuing work that they find meaningful instead of just seeking a paycheck.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Except that the best research indicates that providing people with a UBI doesn't lead to them not working. It leads to them pursuing work that they find meaningful instead of just seeking a paycheck.

Right - but we are talking about worthless unskilled labor. They still will be unskilled, even with $12k a year in their pocket. No, they won't seek education. No, they won't try to train themselves.

 

[Jhhnn]

You can give people UBI but that's not the same as giving them purpose in life. Animals in the zoo have the equivalent of UBI and it's not like they have fully actualized lives, likewise neither would people given the money to buy essentials but nothing to do with their lives but take meth and watch Jerry Springer all day.

So what's the counter offer? Force them to struggle to give them purpose?