lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 6, 2007 13:17:22 GMT -4
In Brazil at least most people who can get a job that’s not off the books considers themselves lucky because they are guaranteed benefits like social security, paid vacation, sick leave, unemployment insurance etc. People who can get such jobs with multinationals consider themselves doubly lucky because pay, benefits and working conditions normally are better than with domestic companies. Can you provide sources for those claims, as you've asked me to provide for my claims? I can cite myself I’ve lived here for 14 years and know many people from a wide range of socio-economic levels from illiterate rock breakers living in mud huts to ultra-rich business owners with multiple homes and an ex-governor/ex-cabinet member. I also know right and left wing as well as centrist politicians, civil servants, factory workers, university professors, hot dog vendors and people look for jobs etc. I have direct knowledge of what I speak in this case. I doubt you have direct knowledge of the working and living conditions of factory workers in third world countries. Why not? Isn’t a bad job better than no job, if no job means starving? Isn’t a job with better pay and conditions better that one with worse conditions. I agree it’s not the only solution but I don’t see how it can hurt. Btw, I still don't know if this was also part of what peter meant when he mentioned subsidies. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 6, 2007 15:36:37 GMT -4
If the economists work for the Government they are also working for a special group of interest. In theory at least they are working on behalf of the citizens of there country. What I had more i mind was academic economist working for universities Here one who met your criteria.Enjoy ! findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3739/is_200201/ai_n9072409Researchers report that up to 100,000 U.S. jobs are being lost to China every year Editor's note: This report consists of excerpts, chosen by InTech associate editor Jim Strothman, from a 127-page pilot study titled Impact of U.S.-China Trade Relations on Workers, Wages, and Employment, funded by the U.S.-China Security Review Commission/U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission. The report was prepared by project director Kate Bronfenbrenner, Connell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations, and co-authored by James Burke, Mount Holyoke College; Robert Hickey, Connell University; and Stephanie Luce, Tom Juravich, Elissa Braunstein, and Jerry Epstein, all of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. The U.S. Congress created the commission to investigate economic and security implications of the bilateral economic relationship between the US and China
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 7, 2007 1:46:49 GMT -4
Why not? Isn’t a bad job better than no job, if no job means starving? Isn’t a job with better pay and conditions better that one with worse conditions. Yes, if those are the only two alternatives available. I agree it’s not the only solution but I don’t see how it can hurt. It's better than starving, but that doesn't mean it solves the problem. How can it hurt? It prevents these countries from becoming self-sufficient. Their economies depend largely on the mandates of (in general) entirely selfish foreign interests. The problem is that it stunts any development and progress. And the underlying problem is that there is very little desire or motivation for First World nations to help them develop. The multinationals want as many laborers as they can find to work for pennies a day. They are the last ones who would ever try to help them become self-sufficient and prosperous. Foreign governments in the First World loan billions of dollars to the poor countries.. Foreign debts are so enormous that they are commonly written off as impossible to ever recoup. Simply throwing money at third world governments doesn't work. The infrastructure has to be developed - education, technology, etc. It's like giving a primitive tribe in New Guinea a billion dollars, and saying "Here, now go and become a First World nation!" I mentioned how First World nations were once quite similar to the Third World nations of today. The difference is that they aren't being given the chance to evolve and progress like we did. The ones who could give them that chance have no desire to do so. Because it's not in their self-interests.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 7, 2007 2:29:15 GMT -4
Depends on how they define self-interest. Henry Ford, hardly a champion of the working man, raised his employees' salaries enough so that they could afford to buy his product, thereby increasing his sales.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Jun 7, 2007 13:36:22 GMT -4
Put simply, Third World countries don’t have the money to develop their own economies. The developed countries didn't have any external sources of capital either when they got started. But if you can bring in external capital, you can do in decades what took centuries the first time around, as some of the Asian countries are showing us. But people like you, Feelfree, don’t like that because it costs jobs in the USA. Of course it doesn't (and I think you probably know that). It costs jobs in the USA in certain sectors, but there have been huge increases in employment in sectors that barely existed a few decades ago. People have been whining about job losses from the USA to overseas for a long time, and yet employment rates haven't changed much. The value of goods manufactured in the USA is approximately twice the value of goods manufactured in China, which has four times the population. This is because goods manufactured in the USA are highly specialized, sophisticated products (heard of Boeing?) that require a skilled work force, and a skilled workforce commands a high wage. Which is the problem for these people. When's the last time you heard someone say "I need a conspiracy goof with no brain and no skills. Do you know where I can find one? I'm willing to pay five hundred thousand dollars a year." I haven't heard anyone say that either. There are individual stories of course, everyone is different. But by and large, the problem of the underclass in the USA is not that they are poor by any global standard, but they look around themselves and see hordes of people who are vastly richer than they are. So they carry on about helping the poor, meaning themselves. The four billion people in the world who are poorer than they are don't exist, I guess. I was born in the USA and lived there almost my entire life, but there is nothing about it I find more repulsive (and most European countries are the same) than the widely-held neo-Nazi ideology that they are some privileged class with a guaranteed right to be on top of the world, and if the world's truly poor have to be squashed in order to make the American "poor" even richer, well, that's just fine. Of course, anyone with the slightest exposure to economics (not many people here, I'm afraid) knows that placing a trade embargo on the USA does not make the country better off, but makes some people within the country better off at the expense of others.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 8, 2007 13:04:57 GMT -4
If the economists work for the Government they are also working for a special group of interest. In theory at least they are working on behalf of the citizens of there country. What I had more i mind was academic economist working for universities Here one who met your criteria.Enjoy ! findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3739/is_200201/ai_n9072409Researchers report that up to 100,000 U.S. jobs are being lost to China every year Editor's note: This report consists of excerpts, chosen by InTech associate editor Jim Strothman, from a 127-page pilot study titled Impact of U.S.-China Trade Relations on Workers, Wages, and Employment, funded by the U.S.-China Security Review Commission/U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission. The report was prepared by project director Kate Bronfenbrenner, Connell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations, and co-authored by James Burke, Mount Holyoke College; Robert Hickey, Connell University; and Stephanie Luce, Tom Juravich, Elissa Braunstein, and Jerry Epstein, all of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. The U.S. Congress created the commission to investigate economic and security implications of the bilateral economic relationship between the US and China According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics the total labor force in 2006 was 151,428,000. www.stlrcga.org/x504.xml. So 100,000 jobs comes out to less than 1/15th of 1% or 0.066%. One thing the study doesn’t take into account is jobs added to the US economy due to 1) increased trade with China 2) consumers either a) spending the extra money made available by being able to buy cheaper Chinese goods or b) investing the money 3) shareholders of more profitable companies either a) spending or b) investing their increased dividends 4) US companies investing their added profits. The method of the study seems questionable to me. “The estimated number of jobs lost through these production shifts to China was as high as 34,900, compared with 29,267 jobs lost to Mexico, 9,061 jobs lost to other Asian countries, and fewer than 1,000 jobs lost to other Latin American countries. However, because media tracking captures fewer than half of all production shifts out of the U.S. to China and other countries during this period, the actual number of jobs lost through production shifts to China and Mexico can average between 70,000 and 100,000 jobs each year for each country.” So they multiplied the lost jobs they could document for China by 2.87 and those to Mexico by 2.38. I assume they are correct that not all production shifts are “captured” by the media, but how did they come up with these multipyers? Accepting their numbers and logic the total jobs lost to production shifts to Asia and Latin America is less than 200,000 about 0.13% of the total labor force. But don’t forget that’s not a net loss, its just counting the minuses without counting the pluses. This doesn’t help that much with your theory that globalisation is bad for both sides because presumablly about 200,000 jobs are being added a year to the economies of thoses countries meaning among other things they 1) can buy more US goods 2) will need less foreign aide 3) will be better able to pay their foreign debt. Turbonium your theories seem very vauge can you offer evidence to support your belief that foriegn investment "stunts any development and progress"
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 9, 2007 1:58:02 GMT -4
This doesn’t help that much with your theory that globalisation is bad for both sides because presumablly about 200,000 jobs are being added a year to the economies of thoses countries meaning among other things they 1) can buy more US goods 2) will need less foreign aide 3) will be better able to pay their foreign debt. Note that my theory is that free trade agreements - Is detrimental to the economies of developed countries to the benefit of developing ones - ( see the OP on page 1 made by PeterB ) So I have presented study which back up my claims. Contrary to what you try to say. Remember you are the one (volontary?)trying to confuse the issue with your "question" I precised than in some occasion it may be also detrimental in both cases .The prime example was Thailand vs Australia see reply no 51 In conclusion the real winners are -Free trade agreement has benefited only a small group of industrialists,example from the study findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3739/is_200201/ai_n9072409"U.S. companies shutting down and moving to China and other countries tend to be large, profitable, well-established companiesprimarily subsidiaries of publicly held, U.S.based multinationals, including such familiar names as Mattel, International Paper, General Electric, Motorola, and Rubbermaid. The media-tracking data also suggests the majority of the U.S.-based multinational corporations shifting production to China are not simply targeting a Chinese market. Companies such as La Crosse Footwear (winter boots), Lexmark (printers), Motorola (cell phones), Rubbermaid (cookware and storage products), Raleigh (bicycles), Cooper Tools (wrenches), Mattel Murray (Barbie doll playhouses), and Samsonite (luggage) may have moved their production to China, but they still intend to serve a U.S. and global market. The media-tracking data also suggests an increasing percentage of jobs leaving the U.S. are in higher-paying industries producing goods such as bicycles, furniture, motors, compressors, generators, fiber optics, clocks, injection molding, and computer components. As the data shows, it is these higher-end jobs that are most likely to be unionized and therefore more likely to have a much larger wage and benefit package. Many of those who lost their jobs were high seniority, top-of-the-pay-scale employees who have a great deal invested in their jobs and in their communities. The employment effects of these production shifts go well beyond the individual workers whose jobs were lost. Each time another company shuts down operations and moves work to China, Mexico, or any other country, it has a ripple effect on the wages of every other worker in that industry and that community, through lowering wages, restraining union organizing and bargaining power, reducing the tax base, and reducing or eliminating hundreds of jobs in related businesses." Edited for precision
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 10, 2007 10:33:16 GMT -4
You didn’t really address my main points
1) the study didn’t even claim to show a net job loss because it didn’t look at jobs added to the US economy as a result of free trade 2) it only a show a minuscule number of job transfers from the US to Asia and Latin America about 0.13% of the total labor force a year 3) the methodology used was questionable
If globalization “is detrimental to the economies of developed countries to the benefit of developing ones” as you believe, it could be argued that it is a form of economic justice making up for decades of the reverse where poor countries were exploited ruthlessly by wealthy ones.
As for the Thai editorial it does not seem to have been written by economists and the limited data presented did NOT support the conclusion reached. The study it cites contradicts your theory showing that the FTA benefited Australia’s balance of trade with Thailand
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 11, 2007 1:46:30 GMT -4
If globalization “is detrimental to the economies of developed countries to the benefit of developing ones” as you believe, it could be argued that it is a form of economic justice making up for decades of the reverse where poor countries were exploited ruthlessly by wealthy ones. A kind of equaliser so to speak set up by the Big Corporations which exploit cheap labor in these countries . Very socialist ie(communist ) globalisation effect . Edited spelling
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 11, 2007 2:23:03 GMT -4
As for the Thai editorial it does not seem to have been written by economists and the limited data presented did NOT support the conclusion reached. The study it cites contradicts your theory showing that the FTA benefited Australia’s balance of trade with Thailand Thailand is a small player compare to China. I pointed out that Australia have not finalised his free trade agreement with China .Will see the effects on Australia’s balance of trade with China.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 11, 2007 12:57:19 GMT -4
As for the Thai editorial it does not seem to have been written by economists and the limited data presented did NOT support the conclusion reached. The study it cites contradicts your theory showing that the FTA benefited Australia’s balance of trade with Thailand Thailand is a small player compare to China. I pointed out that Australia have not finalised his free trade agreement with China .Will see the effects on Australia’s balance of trade with China. Yes but have yet to produce data from a neutral source that free trade is causing a net job loss for Australia. You didn't reply to my points about the article about US job transfers, does that mean you do not dispute them? I.E it does document a signififant number of jobs transfered from the US to the 3rd World.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 11, 2007 18:02:44 GMT -4
Very socialist ie(communist ) globalisation effect .
No, because socialisim is where the workers unite and take control with everyone sharing equally in the profits of the company. What you are seeing is Capitalism, the owners of the company seeking to make the largest profit for themselves that they can by minimising their expenses.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jun 12, 2007 22:23:35 GMT -4
Feelfree Read this story: www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1948861.htmIt appeared on the TV news last night. At one point they interviewed a Japanese dairy farmer who said that there was no way he could compete with Australian farmers - the implication was they're too efficient. Now what's the solution? At the moment, Japanese people pay huge prices for things like dairy products, beef and rice, compared to Australia. Wouldn't it be fair for Australian farmers, who don't get government subsidies, to be able to sell at a fair market price to the Japanese public? They could even charge well over what we pay here in Australia, and still the Japanese people would be making huge savings. The likely result is that a lot a Japanese farmers would be put out of work, but is that an unacceptable price to pay?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jun 12, 2007 22:48:57 GMT -4
Turbonium said:
But if the company doesn't invest at all, then the country (and its citizens) get *no* money.
I won't entirely disagree with you on this point - I think a lot of Africans point out that a lot of aid money is wasted, or goes into (African) bureaucrats' pockets. But I think there are plenty of people who see developing economies as potential markets - see how much the West exports to developing countries like India and China.
But wages aren't the only issue that companies consider. After all, Chinese wages would be higher than in many countries in Africa. Yet companies continue to invest in manufacturing in China rather than Africa.
Are you saying that companies aren't interested in opening up new markets? How many millions of people in places like China and India have earned enough to afford a car, a mobile phone or a computer?
Again, I won't entirely disagree with you. I've heard of stories where exactly this is happening.
But the point is that a lot of simple manufacturing jobs don't require much in the way of technology or education - how hard is it to make shirts? Education by itself produces educated unemployed people. Not everyone can be an entrepreneur.
You seem to be forgetting that a lot of First World development came on the back of European/North American/Japanese exploitation of local populations. Undeveloped nations don't have that option. They have to develop their wealth in a world in which their main resource is the fact that their labour is a lot cheaper than First World labour, and in which what they do produce is often a lot cheaper than equivalent products from the First World.
My original point was that a lot of undeveloped countries rely on food exports, but they're stymied by First World agricultural subsidies. In this regard, the desire of subsidised First World farmers to protect their way of life is working against the interest of many First World manufacturers. The FW farmers produce something the developing countries produce, while the manufacturers have no competition.
The logical trade is FW manufactures for developing world agricultural products, but the FW farmers spoil things by wanting to keep playing the farming game, even though they're far less efficient (see my last post) than developing world farmers.
I think you're ascribing to malice what would better be explained by incompetence. I'm sure manufacturers would greatly benefit from doubling the size of their market - if only people in places like Africa had the money to afford their products.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 13, 2007 0:55:27 GMT -4
You didn't reply to my points about the article about US job transfers, does that mean you do not dispute them? I.E it does document a signififant number of jobs transfered from the US to the 3rd World. That is the point effectively. With the effect of a large deficit trade for the US.
|
|