Has Globalization Undermined America's Working Class?

[Jhhnn]

Absolutely! It’s a farce to do otherwise.

Also, even though I’ve used the word, I’m becoming tired of the use of ‘redistribution'. Those who have disproportionately benefited the most from our system of government and economics should rightly contribute disproportionately more to the health of those systems. That not redistribution - it’s simply justice. It’s not like we want the wealthy to become poor, they will still have very high incomes and assets.

America's wealthiest got that way because of the govt, not in spite of it. That's not good enough for right wing billionaires who feel no loyalty to the system in which they've prospered enormously. They've been trying to burn it down for 40 years.

 

[sao123]

If globalization was hurting America, our GDP would be falling. If GDP is rising, but middle class is not benefitting, that's an internal political problem, not a global one.

Measuring the health of the domestic economy through GDP is one of the most problematic metric ever. The only useful metric of the economy of individuals is the CPI, and our CPI + Average Household income is in the toilet.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Measuring the health of the domestic economy through GDP is one of the most problematic metric ever. The only useful metric of the economy of individuals is the CPI, and our CPI + Average Household income is in the toilet.

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

He is secretly defending Trump on the incredibly incorrect aspect of GDP in order to further his retarded political message.

GDP MEAN MIDDLE CLASS GUD! Oh wait, GDP is up under Trump? GDP BAAAAAAAAAD! Fucking partisan morons.

 

[sao123]

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

He is secretly defending Trump on the incredibly incorrect aspect of GDP in order to further his retarded political message.

GDP MEAN MIDDLE CLASS GUD! Oh wait, GDP is up under Trump? GDP BAAAAAAAAAD! Fucking partisan morons.

GDP is useless... who cares how much stuff we produce.
The ONLY useful reason we have employment is to pay our labor force. the only useful measure of our economy is HOW MUCH WE PAY OUR LABOR FORCE...
And Consequently... How much our LABOR FORCE can buy in consumerism.

Globalism has destroy America because America was once a closed economy... Where the Labor Force and the Consumers were the same people... ALA Socialistic Capitalism.
Globalism has destroyed that closed loop.

Capitalism only works in small closed loop entities.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

GDP is useless... who cares how much stuff we produce.
The ONLY useful reason we have employment is to pay our labor force. the only useful measure of our economy is HOW MUCH WE PAY OUR LABOR FORCE...
And Consequently... How much our LABOR FORCE can buy in consumerism.

Globalism has destroy America because America was once a closed economy... Where the Labor Force and the Consumers were the same people... ALA Socialistic Capitalism.
Globalism has destroyed that closed loop.

Capitalism only works in small closed loop entities.

How much we produce as a country is... a relevant statistic. IT basically is a calculation of how relevant you are as a country.

That absolutely has no bearing on the middle class or distribution of wealth however. Citing GDP as a means to the middle-class well-being is something on someone stupid would do.

Pay of the labor force is also not the "Go to" statistic either - because money isn't worth much if you can't buy anything with it. It's a multitude of factors.

Consumerism isn't even that great of a metric. Our citizens can consume everything, but if they consume under nothing but unsecured credit then were in deep shit.

 

[theeedude]

Measuring the health of the domestic economy through GDP is one of the most problematic metric ever. The only useful metric of the economy of individuals is the CPI, and our CPI + Average Household income is in the toilet.

GDP is total a proxy for overall value created in the US, and it hasn't been hurt by globalization. How it's distributed is an internal US problem.
Someone could be making $1M per year, but decide to starve their kids. Those kids starving is an internal family distribution problem, not a problem with the labor market hurting them.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

GDP is total a proxy for overall value created in the US, and it hasn't been hurt by globalization. How it's distributed is an internal US problem.
Someone could be making $1M per year, but decide to starve their kids. Those kids starving is an internal family distribution problem, not a problem with the labor market hurting them.

Tell me, do you wear different shoes on each foot because, obviously, they have nothing to do with each other.

 

[theeedude]

We tried rolling back globalization to increase prosperity of American working class. It was called Smoot-Hawley, and what we got instead was Great Depression.

 

[Amol S.]

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.

I hope you are being rhetorical when you say "Everyone is loving life there right?" In my opinion, I do not think people are loving life there, just look at the protests in Hong Kong.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

We tried rolling back globalization to increase prosperity of American working class. It was called Smoot-Hawley, and what we got instead was Great Depression.

Wide ranging tariffs don't roll back globalization any more than bandaids prevent cuts. Smoot-Hawley didn't cause the Great Depression, it exacerbated it.

 

[Amol S.]

Best way to fix the problem.... increase the low income max bracket to double its current value, stopping the circulation of pennies, green card tax where green card holders will have to pay another federal tax on top of the regular tax, US WORKING CLASS EMPLLOYEER TAX where employers must pay a special tax to the federal governement every time they pay a US Citizen of the same job status/rank less than someone of the same status/rank that has a green card or H1B visa in their buissness, and h1b visa tax where H1B visa holders will be required to pay taxes to the US government regardless of their current educational or work status.

 

[sao123]

GDP is total a proxy for overall value created in the US, and it hasn't been hurt by globalization. How it's distributed is an internal US problem.
Someone could be making $1M per year, but decide to starve their kids. Those kids starving is an internal family distribution problem, not a problem with the labor market hurting them.

That is precisely why the GDP is a useless measurement.
The internal distribution of profits is far more important than the overall net gains of the country.
If everyone get $100 is a far better situation than 1 Person getting $1 Billion and everyone else getting none.

 

[theeedude]

That is precisely why the GDP is a useless measurement.
The internal distribution of profits is far more important than the overall net gains of the country.
If everyone get $100 is a far better situation than 1 Person getting $1 Billion and everyone else getting none.

I agree, but trade policy should not be a wealth redistribution function. That's what domestic policy is for. Tax the beneficiaries and subsidize the victims. The goal of trade policy should be to maximize the pie, and domestic policy should divide it up.

 

[sao123]

I agree, but trade policy should not be a wealth redistribution function. That's what domestic policy is for. Tax the beneficiaries and subsidize the victims. The goal of trade policy should be to maximize the pie, and domestic policy should divide it up.

How is that not hypocritical? A trade policy that results in global wealth concentration (macro economics) is just as evil as a wealth distribution policy that results in local wealth concentration (micro economics).

 

[theeedude]

How is that not hypocritical? A trade policy that results in global wealth concentration (macro economics) is just as evil as a wealth distribution policy that results in local wealth concentration (micro economics).

Wealth creation is a good thing to maximize, wealth concentration should be addressed with redistributive taxation, not by trying to reduce total wealth.

 

[sao123]

Wealth creation is a good thing to maximize, wealth concentration should be addressed with redistributive taxation, not by trying to reduce total wealth.

trading does not create wealth, only labor.
maximizing trade imbalance is just another euphemism for screwing someone far away instead of the local guy.

 

[theeedude]

trading does not create wealth, only labor.
maximizing trade imbalance is just another euphemism for screwing someone far away instead of the local guy.

Trade creates wealth, because it lets you amortize your fixed costs in equipment and expertise across bigger markets. I invested time and money in an engineering education and becoming an expert. Free trade allows me to use that fixed investment to work at a company that also invests billions in fixed developement and tooling costs and makes it back by selling products all over the world. If we were limited to just selling in the US, that would propagate all the way back, cut down on R&D, cut down on return on education investment, etc, and cut down on the advancement of products and what the consumer gets. Everyone would be worse off by simply taking away globalization.

 

[SMOGZINN]

In almost every case, people losing their shirts was a result of:

1). No real financial education
2). Concentration of assets in a limited set of equities
3). Impatience

You are right about the first two (although you then argue against number 2), but the last is wrong. It is more than impatience. It is the inability to ride out bad times. To 'ride it out' you have to have enough money to make it to the end. Many, maybe even most, do not. Most Americans live essentially paycheck to paycheck. They simply can't afford to lose a large part of their investments and hope that in 10-20 years they will have made it back. Many of them were counting on living on that money.

If we could transition away from concentration of equity ownership among the wealthy/ultra-wealthy to a healthier model where those who are now less-wealthy begin acquiring a greater share of corporate equity, do you agree that would be a good or a bad thing? Especially if we could teach them how not to be cheated by scammer?

Yes, it would be ideal. I just don't think it is a realistic solution. Simply put you are asking the same people that after 20 years still don't understand what all the buttons on their remote do to become, and remain, educated about an extremely complex and ever changing system. For more than half of Americans tying their shoes is the most complex thing they do in their entire life. The idea that you are going to teach them how to be savvy investors is simply not realistic.

By the by, if you'd examine some of the most-recent scammers (like Madoff) you'd find that the rich can be scammed as well.

Yes, they can but when you have a 100 million dollars and get scammed out of 80 million of it you still have more than enough to live in luxury. When you have 10 thousand dollars and get scammed out of 8 thousand of it you are probably going to have to figure out what essentials you can live without. There is a very different situation between how important money is between the rich and middle class. For the rich is it a power status, for the middle class it is survival.

If you really want people to have a stake in the future, then you must accept that some of them will screw it up royally. Babysitting adults in perpetuity requires taking away their ability to effectively own/control anything.

There is a difference between some people getting unlucky, or making seriously bad decisions on occasion and a system designed to fleece them. The system is designed the way it is to keep the status quo. This knife has a sharp handle.

 

[desy]

Another reason GDP is a poor measure of how your society is doing is that gunshot wounds add to the GDP from Police involvement to expensive hospital recovery. ALL goods and services factor in even the negative ones like having the largest prison population by far of a first world country