|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/counter-sting-catches-james-okeefe-network-attempting-to-sow-chaos-at-trumps-inauguration_us_5873e26fe4b043ad97e516f7
WASHINGTON ― A left-wing political group released a new video Monday of a counter-sting that has uncovered evidence of right-wing activists trying to sow chaos at Donald Trump’s inaugural ceremony, an effort to portray critics of Trump who march against him as violent fringe figures.
The counter-sting, carried out by The Undercurrent and Americans Take Action, a project of a previous target of provocateur James O’Keefe, managed to surreptitiously record elements of O’Keefe’s network offering huge sums of money to progressive activists if they would disrupt the ceremony and “put a stop to the inauguration” and the related proceedings to such a degree that donors to the clandestine effort would “turn on a TV and maybe not even see Trump.” To have riots blot out coverage of Trump, the donor offered “unlimited resources,” including to shut down bridges into D.C.
|
On January 18 2017 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 00:35 LegalLord wrote:On January 17 2017 22:02 mustaju wrote:On January 17 2017 13:53 LegalLord wrote:On January 17 2017 13:24 Nyxisto wrote:Shouldn't neglect the billion people or so that the dreaded globalisation has lifted out of absolute poverty + Show Spoiler +The more genuine interpretation I think would be to say that the 1% are cashing in the dividends, not the lion's share. I mean pretty much the only group that really suffers is the industrial boomer generation in the developed world. Say that the trouble of Westerners really is to the benefit of billions of third worlders. Here's a callous question: why should we care about them? Such is the question anyone who sees "our people" and "their people" as a reality would be asking. And nationalism certainly isn't going anywhere. Because global instability will definitely bite everyone in the ass, and relationships are not turned on and off like faucets? If you don't have good relationships with these billions of people, it becomes that much harder to stop them from say, gaining nuclear weapons and blowing the entire planet up. And that is not even addressing climate change and the global economy you are also dependent on. Did you put any thought at all in your argument? I wouldn't make that argument directly - my own opinion would be something along the lines of "help our own people first, but be willing to help those abroad." It further helps that I'm not really one of the "losers of globalization" to be desperately looking for a solution, but it's hard not to notice how people's lives have been slowly but surely uprooted by the trend. You really think that people who perceive a pervasive decline in their way of life are going to be convinced by, "but think of all the poor billions around the world who live better because of your plight!" ? I think not - their response would be more akin to "fuck them." Which nations do you think are most likely to get nukes? Those tend not to be backwards radical states, but relatively stable nations with strong enough science to develop nuclear technology and rocketry. Indeed, it's probably the states with powerful elites but rather fragile civilian populations that are most likely to do that. And in that situation it isn't the peasants whose opinion matters, but the moneyed elite. Though what is most notable is that perceived rapid decline, more so than persistent poverty, is likely to lend itself to instability. As was mentioned slightly earlier, that global poverty decreased may not necessarily be due to globalization. One of the more important developments on that front may simply be the improvements in crop yields as a result of new scientific discoveries and improvement in technology for other necessities such as clean water. If the dependence really is on sweatshop labor for cheap goods, then tell me this: what happens when said goods become cheaper to automate than outsource, or the customers run out? Sweatshop laborers are probably not in the position to care to buy the shit they make, and sooner or later, neither will the people who lose their jobs to outsourcing. Are you going to start lending more money to make people buy more the way Germany does to keep their exports rolling? That might explain the rather fragile situation a lot of nations are in with regards to financing then. Globalization only hurts one social class; manufacturing. Service industries will be where the rich are. Farming will be where the people are, in range of where the rich are. Manufacturing can be in bum fuck nowhere getting paid shit. If you don't want to be in the service industry, rich, or have a good enough education to work in a recent-tech company (right now its software, but this will always evolve as tech evolves)--then you are fucked by globalization. Otherwise you are not really impacted by it all that much. Globalization helped my hometown in the Philippines for example. They have thrived the past decade as customer support centers for midnight calls in the US have grown. That's globalization, it helps the poorest of the poor move up in the world. If you live in a rich country and don't want to do shit jobs--then globalization fucks you.
If globalization does help the poor,Then how is it possible that the difference between the rich and the poor is greater then like ever,at least in the western world though I doubt it is much different in asia. It helps the poor in some places,while harming the poor in other places.
Globalization in the current form is a race to the absolute bottom of human existence. Bring all the work there where the job is done the cheapest which results in bad working conditions and enormous pollution.
We export our technology to make poor countries able to compete in the first place. We build the factorys,they make what we design and devellop.The only thing that we are getting is cheap labour,which does not benefit the working class in our countries or in general at all,it mostly benefits the investing class. It is not so much globalization/free trade an sich that lifted people in former poor countries out of poverty,it is us bringing our production and technology to them so that we can benefit from their cheap labour.
well nvm all this,it is a bit selfish. The world is going to explode soon anyway,it is not going good with the world at all,we are racing towards a disaster.
|
Putin recently stopped compliance with a nuclear arms treaty, supposedly in response to Obama's hostile actions. You could almost predict that he was setting up a bargaining point with the next president that is not, in reality, a concession from Russia. Nuclear arms treaties should be a given.
Now, Trump says he will consider easing sanctions on Russia in return for a deal to reduce nuclear weapons.
He says Jared Kushner can negotiate Middle East peace (but first lets support settlements and move the US embassy to Jerusalem).
He says NATO is obsolete, and predicts more countries will leave the EU.
For Trump voters to say Obama's foreign policy has weakened America, but the above actions would not, is the height of partisan bias.
|
On January 18 2017 01:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 01:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Service industries will be where the rich are.
...
Globalization helped my hometown in the Philippines for example. They have thrived the past decade as customer support centers for midnight calls in the US have grown. That's globalization, it helps the poorest of the poor move up in the world. Curious how you reconcile these two statements. Call centers on the other side of the globe are made so a company can provide 24 hour service. India was most popular because of the 12 hour time zone difference allowing a non-night shift crew to manage the night time calls of Americans. The Philippines got a chance when it was found that the country's grasp of English meshed better with Americans than India's. The trend to foreign call centers came about mainly because Americans kept quitting call center jobs and were rude to the customers. The island of Cebu jumped at the opportunity and has been working hard to find night shift workers to fill the void left by American workers who don't want the job. So you do agree that peasants from the other side of the world can take up service jobs as well?
Going to an office to make phone calls is not service industry. Service industry are baristas, cooks, performers, consierge. Service industries are the in-house masseuses that go to google 5 days a week, they are the valet parkers, the Uber's, the taxis.
If you go to an office, work 8 hours making phone calls in the middle of the biggest urban area in your island--I would not call that service industry.
|
On January 18 2017 01:41 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 00:35 LegalLord wrote:On January 17 2017 22:02 mustaju wrote:On January 17 2017 13:53 LegalLord wrote:On January 17 2017 13:24 Nyxisto wrote:Shouldn't neglect the billion people or so that the dreaded globalisation has lifted out of absolute poverty + Show Spoiler +The more genuine interpretation I think would be to say that the 1% are cashing in the dividends, not the lion's share. I mean pretty much the only group that really suffers is the industrial boomer generation in the developed world. Say that the trouble of Westerners really is to the benefit of billions of third worlders. Here's a callous question: why should we care about them? Such is the question anyone who sees "our people" and "their people" as a reality would be asking. And nationalism certainly isn't going anywhere. Because global instability will definitely bite everyone in the ass, and relationships are not turned on and off like faucets? If you don't have good relationships with these billions of people, it becomes that much harder to stop them from say, gaining nuclear weapons and blowing the entire planet up. And that is not even addressing climate change and the global economy you are also dependent on. Did you put any thought at all in your argument? I wouldn't make that argument directly - my own opinion would be something along the lines of "help our own people first, but be willing to help those abroad." It further helps that I'm not really one of the "losers of globalization" to be desperately looking for a solution, but it's hard not to notice how people's lives have been slowly but surely uprooted by the trend. You really think that people who perceive a pervasive decline in their way of life are going to be convinced by, "but think of all the poor billions around the world who live better because of your plight!" ? I think not - their response would be more akin to "fuck them." Which nations do you think are most likely to get nukes? Those tend not to be backwards radical states, but relatively stable nations with strong enough science to develop nuclear technology and rocketry. Indeed, it's probably the states with powerful elites but rather fragile civilian populations that are most likely to do that. And in that situation it isn't the peasants whose opinion matters, but the moneyed elite. Though what is most notable is that perceived rapid decline, more so than persistent poverty, is likely to lend itself to instability. As was mentioned slightly earlier, that global poverty decreased may not necessarily be due to globalization. One of the more important developments on that front may simply be the improvements in crop yields as a result of new scientific discoveries and improvement in technology for other necessities such as clean water. If the dependence really is on sweatshop labor for cheap goods, then tell me this: what happens when said goods become cheaper to automate than outsource, or the customers run out? Sweatshop laborers are probably not in the position to care to buy the shit they make, and sooner or later, neither will the people who lose their jobs to outsourcing. Are you going to start lending more money to make people buy more the way Germany does to keep their exports rolling? That might explain the rather fragile situation a lot of nations are in with regards to financing then. Globalization only hurts one social class; manufacturing. Service industries will be where the rich are. Farming will be where the people are, in range of where the rich are. Manufacturing can be in bum fuck nowhere getting paid shit. If you don't want to be in the service industry, rich, or have a good enough education to work in a recent-tech company (right now its software, but this will always evolve as tech evolves)--then you are fucked by globalization. Otherwise you are not really impacted by it all that much. Globalization helped my hometown in the Philippines for example. They have thrived the past decade as customer support centers for midnight calls in the US have grown. That's globalization, it helps the poorest of the poor move up in the world. If you live in a rich country and don't want to do shit jobs--then globalization fucks you. If globalization does help the poor,Then how is it possible that the difference between the rich and the poor is greater then like ever,at least in the western world though I doubt it is much different in asia. It helps the poor in some places,while harming the poor in other places. Globalization in the current form is a race to the absolute bottom of human existence. Bring all the work there where the job is done the cheapest which results in bad working conditions and enormous pollution. We export our technology to make poor countries able to compete in the first place. We build the factorys,they make what we design and devellop.The only thing that we are getting is cheap labour,which does not benefit the working class in our countries or in general at all,it mostly benefits the investing class. It is not so much globalization/free trade an sich that lifted people in former poor countries out of poverty,it is us bringing our production and technology to them so that we can benefit from their cheap labour. well nvm all this,it is a bit selfish. The world is going to explode soon anyway,it is not going good with the world at all,we are racing towards a disaster.
The poor in poor countries are helped.
The poor in rich countries remain to be poor.
The middle class in poor countries are helped.
The middle class in rich countries didn't work in coal mines anyway, so they remain the middle class; but their dollar goes further because globalization makes their goods cheaper, actually helping them.
The only ones hurt by globalization are manufacturers, miners, etc...
Unless your town is located in a rich country and hinges on one factory to survive, then you were not hurt by globalization and there's a high chance you are part of the consumer base that allows it to thrive.
|
|
|
On January 18 2017 01:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 01:41 pmh wrote:On January 18 2017 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 00:35 LegalLord wrote:On January 17 2017 22:02 mustaju wrote:On January 17 2017 13:53 LegalLord wrote:On January 17 2017 13:24 Nyxisto wrote:Shouldn't neglect the billion people or so that the dreaded globalisation has lifted out of absolute poverty + Show Spoiler +The more genuine interpretation I think would be to say that the 1% are cashing in the dividends, not the lion's share. I mean pretty much the only group that really suffers is the industrial boomer generation in the developed world. Say that the trouble of Westerners really is to the benefit of billions of third worlders. Here's a callous question: why should we care about them? Such is the question anyone who sees "our people" and "their people" as a reality would be asking. And nationalism certainly isn't going anywhere. Because global instability will definitely bite everyone in the ass, and relationships are not turned on and off like faucets? If you don't have good relationships with these billions of people, it becomes that much harder to stop them from say, gaining nuclear weapons and blowing the entire planet up. And that is not even addressing climate change and the global economy you are also dependent on. Did you put any thought at all in your argument? I wouldn't make that argument directly - my own opinion would be something along the lines of "help our own people first, but be willing to help those abroad." It further helps that I'm not really one of the "losers of globalization" to be desperately looking for a solution, but it's hard not to notice how people's lives have been slowly but surely uprooted by the trend. You really think that people who perceive a pervasive decline in their way of life are going to be convinced by, "but think of all the poor billions around the world who live better because of your plight!" ? I think not - their response would be more akin to "fuck them." Which nations do you think are most likely to get nukes? Those tend not to be backwards radical states, but relatively stable nations with strong enough science to develop nuclear technology and rocketry. Indeed, it's probably the states with powerful elites but rather fragile civilian populations that are most likely to do that. And in that situation it isn't the peasants whose opinion matters, but the moneyed elite. Though what is most notable is that perceived rapid decline, more so than persistent poverty, is likely to lend itself to instability. As was mentioned slightly earlier, that global poverty decreased may not necessarily be due to globalization. One of the more important developments on that front may simply be the improvements in crop yields as a result of new scientific discoveries and improvement in technology for other necessities such as clean water. If the dependence really is on sweatshop labor for cheap goods, then tell me this: what happens when said goods become cheaper to automate than outsource, or the customers run out? Sweatshop laborers are probably not in the position to care to buy the shit they make, and sooner or later, neither will the people who lose their jobs to outsourcing. Are you going to start lending more money to make people buy more the way Germany does to keep their exports rolling? That might explain the rather fragile situation a lot of nations are in with regards to financing then. Globalization only hurts one social class; manufacturing. Service industries will be where the rich are. Farming will be where the people are, in range of where the rich are. Manufacturing can be in bum fuck nowhere getting paid shit. If you don't want to be in the service industry, rich, or have a good enough education to work in a recent-tech company (right now its software, but this will always evolve as tech evolves)--then you are fucked by globalization. Otherwise you are not really impacted by it all that much. Globalization helped my hometown in the Philippines for example. They have thrived the past decade as customer support centers for midnight calls in the US have grown. That's globalization, it helps the poorest of the poor move up in the world. If you live in a rich country and don't want to do shit jobs--then globalization fucks you. If globalization does help the poor,Then how is it possible that the difference between the rich and the poor is greater then like ever,at least in the western world though I doubt it is much different in asia. It helps the poor in some places,while harming the poor in other places. Globalization in the current form is a race to the absolute bottom of human existence. Bring all the work there where the job is done the cheapest which results in bad working conditions and enormous pollution. We export our technology to make poor countries able to compete in the first place. We build the factorys,they make what we design and devellop.The only thing that we are getting is cheap labour,which does not benefit the working class in our countries or in general at all,it mostly benefits the investing class. It is not so much globalization/free trade an sich that lifted people in former poor countries out of poverty,it is us bringing our production and technology to them so that we can benefit from their cheap labour. well nvm all this,it is a bit selfish. The world is going to explode soon anyway,it is not going good with the world at all,we are racing towards a disaster. The poor in poor countries are helped. The poor in rich countries remain to be poor. The middle class in poor countries are helped. The middle class in rich countries didn't work in coal mines anyway, so they remain the middle class; but their dollar goes further because globalization makes their goods cheaper, actually helping them. The only ones hurt by globalization are manufacturers, miners, etc... Unless your town is located in a rich country and hinges on one factory to survive, then you were not hurt by globalization and there's a high chance you are part of the consumer base that allows it to thrive.
I like to agree with you for once 
Bortom line is, if you work in a manufacturing sector that is about mass and not specialised goods, globalisation will fuck you over.
|
On January 18 2017 01:45 Doodsmack wrote:
Putin recently stopped compliance with a nuclear arms treaty, supposedly in response to Obama's hostile actions. You could almost predict that he was setting up a bargaining point with the next president that is not, in reality, a concession from Russia. Nuclear arms treaties should be a given.
The plutonium one? As I recall the stated reason was US non-compliance.
|
Under this proposal, if a utility provided energy produced by a large-scale wind or solar plant to Wyoming residents, it would be fined $10 per megawatt sold. Only energy from coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, oil and small-scale, privately-owned solar panels and wind turbines could be sold without repercussions.
The bill is likely to be a tough sell to the legislature, with one of the co-sponsors telling InsideClimate News he puts the odds of his own bill passing at “50 percent or less." But it’s also part of a larger pattern of resistance—oftentimes successful—to new and alternative forms of energy in Wyoming.
The state already imposes the only wind tax in America, charging $1 for each megawatt hour of wind energy produced in state. What’s more, the wind tax is one of the state’s only taxes—there is no income tax and even sales tax is only implemented spottily.
And I ask myself what the purpose of this kind of legislation is... but I guess some people only like government regulation when it makes their wallets fatter.
insideclimatenews.org
|
On January 18 2017 02:21 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +Under this proposal, if a utility provided energy produced by a large-scale wind or solar plant to Wyoming residents, it would be fined $10 per megawatt sold. Only energy from coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, oil and small-scale, privately-owned solar panels and wind turbines could be sold without repercussions.
The bill is likely to be a tough sell to the legislature, with one of the co-sponsors telling InsideClimate News he puts the odds of his own bill passing at “50 percent or less." But it’s also part of a larger pattern of resistance—oftentimes successful—to new and alternative forms of energy in Wyoming.
The state already imposes the only wind tax in America, charging $1 for each megawatt hour of wind energy produced in state. What’s more, the wind tax is one of the state’s only taxes—there is no income tax and even sales tax is only implemented spottily. And I ask myself what the purpose of this kind of legislation is... but I guess some people only like government regulation when it makes their wallets fatter. insideclimatenews.org
What the actual fuck.
Penalties on wind/solar power sold?
I would love to see how anyone can justify voting on the bill, let alone writing it, with anything else then "I was payed to do this by coal companies".
|
On January 18 2017 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 01:26 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 01:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Service industries will be where the rich are.
...
Globalization helped my hometown in the Philippines for example. They have thrived the past decade as customer support centers for midnight calls in the US have grown. That's globalization, it helps the poorest of the poor move up in the world. Curious how you reconcile these two statements. Call centers on the other side of the globe are made so a company can provide 24 hour service. India was most popular because of the 12 hour time zone difference allowing a non-night shift crew to manage the night time calls of Americans. The Philippines got a chance when it was found that the country's grasp of English meshed better with Americans than India's. The trend to foreign call centers came about mainly because Americans kept quitting call center jobs and were rude to the customers. The island of Cebu jumped at the opportunity and has been working hard to find night shift workers to fill the void left by American workers who don't want the job. So you do agree that peasants from the other side of the world can take up service jobs as well? Going to an office to make phone calls is not service industry. Service industry are baristas, cooks, performers, consierge. Service industries are the in-house masseuses that go to google 5 days a week, they are the valet parkers, the Uber's, the taxis. If you go to an office, work 8 hours making phone calls in the middle of the biggest urban area in your island--I would not call that service industry.
Then what do you call people in industries such as financial services, accountants, consultants, software folk, and the like? They're certainly not manufacturing folk.
|
On January 18 2017 02:36 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 01:26 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 01:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Service industries will be where the rich are.
...
Globalization helped my hometown in the Philippines for example. They have thrived the past decade as customer support centers for midnight calls in the US have grown. That's globalization, it helps the poorest of the poor move up in the world. Curious how you reconcile these two statements. Call centers on the other side of the globe are made so a company can provide 24 hour service. India was most popular because of the 12 hour time zone difference allowing a non-night shift crew to manage the night time calls of Americans. The Philippines got a chance when it was found that the country's grasp of English meshed better with Americans than India's. The trend to foreign call centers came about mainly because Americans kept quitting call center jobs and were rude to the customers. The island of Cebu jumped at the opportunity and has been working hard to find night shift workers to fill the void left by American workers who don't want the job. So you do agree that peasants from the other side of the world can take up service jobs as well? Going to an office to make phone calls is not service industry. Service industry are baristas, cooks, performers, consierge. Service industries are the in-house masseuses that go to google 5 days a week, they are the valet parkers, the Uber's, the taxis. If you go to an office, work 8 hours making phone calls in the middle of the biggest urban area in your island--I would not call that service industry. Then what do you call people in industries such as financial services, accountants, consultants, software folk, and the like? They're certainly not manufacturing folk.
You mean people who currently are part of Obama's longest running economic and job growth streak since ever? You mean the people who's stock has been growing *because* of globalization? You mean people in the finance industry that actually are who allow our globalized system to work? You mean software engineers who need degrees and advanced training and who live in the Urban Sectors allowing the continual job growth? You mean the consultants who primarily work in the urban industries?
Obama's economic recovery is the biggest and longest running one in many decades; and his work helped these sectors the most.
You mean those people? What about them?
|
On January 18 2017 01:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 01:41 pmh wrote:On January 18 2017 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 00:35 LegalLord wrote:On January 17 2017 22:02 mustaju wrote:On January 17 2017 13:53 LegalLord wrote:On January 17 2017 13:24 Nyxisto wrote:Shouldn't neglect the billion people or so that the dreaded globalisation has lifted out of absolute poverty + Show Spoiler +The more genuine interpretation I think would be to say that the 1% are cashing in the dividends, not the lion's share. I mean pretty much the only group that really suffers is the industrial boomer generation in the developed world. Say that the trouble of Westerners really is to the benefit of billions of third worlders. Here's a callous question: why should we care about them? Such is the question anyone who sees "our people" and "their people" as a reality would be asking. And nationalism certainly isn't going anywhere. Because global instability will definitely bite everyone in the ass, and relationships are not turned on and off like faucets? If you don't have good relationships with these billions of people, it becomes that much harder to stop them from say, gaining nuclear weapons and blowing the entire planet up. And that is not even addressing climate change and the global economy you are also dependent on. Did you put any thought at all in your argument? I wouldn't make that argument directly - my own opinion would be something along the lines of "help our own people first, but be willing to help those abroad." It further helps that I'm not really one of the "losers of globalization" to be desperately looking for a solution, but it's hard not to notice how people's lives have been slowly but surely uprooted by the trend. You really think that people who perceive a pervasive decline in their way of life are going to be convinced by, "but think of all the poor billions around the world who live better because of your plight!" ? I think not - their response would be more akin to "fuck them." Which nations do you think are most likely to get nukes? Those tend not to be backwards radical states, but relatively stable nations with strong enough science to develop nuclear technology and rocketry. Indeed, it's probably the states with powerful elites but rather fragile civilian populations that are most likely to do that. And in that situation it isn't the peasants whose opinion matters, but the moneyed elite. Though what is most notable is that perceived rapid decline, more so than persistent poverty, is likely to lend itself to instability. As was mentioned slightly earlier, that global poverty decreased may not necessarily be due to globalization. One of the more important developments on that front may simply be the improvements in crop yields as a result of new scientific discoveries and improvement in technology for other necessities such as clean water. If the dependence really is on sweatshop labor for cheap goods, then tell me this: what happens when said goods become cheaper to automate than outsource, or the customers run out? Sweatshop laborers are probably not in the position to care to buy the shit they make, and sooner or later, neither will the people who lose their jobs to outsourcing. Are you going to start lending more money to make people buy more the way Germany does to keep their exports rolling? That might explain the rather fragile situation a lot of nations are in with regards to financing then. Globalization only hurts one social class; manufacturing. Service industries will be where the rich are. Farming will be where the people are, in range of where the rich are. Manufacturing can be in bum fuck nowhere getting paid shit. If you don't want to be in the service industry, rich, or have a good enough education to work in a recent-tech company (right now its software, but this will always evolve as tech evolves)--then you are fucked by globalization. Otherwise you are not really impacted by it all that much. Globalization helped my hometown in the Philippines for example. They have thrived the past decade as customer support centers for midnight calls in the US have grown. That's globalization, it helps the poorest of the poor move up in the world. If you live in a rich country and don't want to do shit jobs--then globalization fucks you. If globalization does help the poor,Then how is it possible that the difference between the rich and the poor is greater then like ever,at least in the western world though I doubt it is much different in asia. It helps the poor in some places,while harming the poor in other places. Globalization in the current form is a race to the absolute bottom of human existence. Bring all the work there where the job is done the cheapest which results in bad working conditions and enormous pollution. We export our technology to make poor countries able to compete in the first place. We build the factorys,they make what we design and devellop.The only thing that we are getting is cheap labour,which does not benefit the working class in our countries or in general at all,it mostly benefits the investing class. It is not so much globalization/free trade an sich that lifted people in former poor countries out of poverty,it is us bringing our production and technology to them so that we can benefit from their cheap labour. well nvm all this,it is a bit selfish. The world is going to explode soon anyway,it is not going good with the world at all,we are racing towards a disaster. The poor in poor countries are helped. The poor in rich countries remain to be poor. The middle class in poor countries are helped. The middle class in rich countries didn't work in coal mines anyway, so they remain the middle class; but their dollar goes further because globalization makes their goods cheaper, actually helping them. The only ones hurt by globalization are manufacturers, miners, etc... Unless your town is located in a rich country and hinges on one factory to survive, then you were not hurt by globalization and there's a high chance you are part of the consumer base that allows it to thrive.
The poor in poor countries are helped.
The elite in poor countries become rich.
The middle class in poor countries isn't really a thing - the middle class is not really a feature of a poor country; they generally have poor and rich people.
The middle class in rich countries tends to decline, as a result of fewer good jobs for them (some others make money, but they tend to become constrained in previously mentioned ways).
The poor in rich countries actually probably benefit from increased safety nets, but they have a harder time moving out of poverty.
The rich in rich countries get richer, go figure.
The only ones hurt by globalization are the people who are forced into a race to the bottom - those that lose their "one town business" to cheap labor offshore and are forced to move to have a job, and the others who have to live in mega cities and the life that comes with that (overpriced housing, traffic, everything else people may not like about mega city life) Don't like it? Well you have fuck all for choices, huh? They can even bring the cheap labor in from abroad in the form of H1-B visas, who aren't going to complain about $13/hour engineering wages while living in a shithole because that is far, far better than they can get back home.
The folk living in the first world aren't looking for a race to the bottom in the form of competition with the poorest in the world. One would hope that life in a first world nation comes with an improved quality of life. As the country gets wealthier overall, a substantial portion of the country perceives a decline in their quality of life - and they are right to be disinclined to want that.
|
I don't think the middle class in rich countries is disappearing. Certainly not due to globalization, the growth of which correlates well with the explosion of the middle class in USA/Europe. The middle class is getting squeezed now in southern Europe, but that's because of the economic crunch, which is not directly related to globalism at all (although the global financial market is often held up as the culprit, all the local banks were just as culpable. It's not like Santander or BBVA were not heavily invested in the subprime mortgage business in Spain).
|
On January 18 2017 02:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 02:36 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 01:26 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 01:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Service industries will be where the rich are.
...
Globalization helped my hometown in the Philippines for example. They have thrived the past decade as customer support centers for midnight calls in the US have grown. That's globalization, it helps the poorest of the poor move up in the world. Curious how you reconcile these two statements. Call centers on the other side of the globe are made so a company can provide 24 hour service. India was most popular because of the 12 hour time zone difference allowing a non-night shift crew to manage the night time calls of Americans. The Philippines got a chance when it was found that the country's grasp of English meshed better with Americans than India's. The trend to foreign call centers came about mainly because Americans kept quitting call center jobs and were rude to the customers. The island of Cebu jumped at the opportunity and has been working hard to find night shift workers to fill the void left by American workers who don't want the job. So you do agree that peasants from the other side of the world can take up service jobs as well? Going to an office to make phone calls is not service industry. Service industry are baristas, cooks, performers, consierge. Service industries are the in-house masseuses that go to google 5 days a week, they are the valet parkers, the Uber's, the taxis. If you go to an office, work 8 hours making phone calls in the middle of the biggest urban area in your island--I would not call that service industry. Then what do you call people in industries such as financial services, accountants, consultants, software folk, and the like? They're certainly not manufacturing folk. You mean people who currently are part of Obama's longest running economic and job growth streak since ever? You mean the people who's stock has been growing *because* of globalization? You mean people in the finance industry that actually are who allow our globalized system to work? You mean software engineers who need degrees and advanced training and who live in the Urban Sectors allowing the continual job growth? You mean the consultants who primarily work in the urban industries? Obama's economic recovery is the biggest and longest running one in many decades; and his work helped these sectors the most. You mean those people? What about them?
Do you call them "services people" or is your definition just so specific that there are "manufacturing people" who suffer and "service people" (that excludes those like "call centers" that are in fact being exported) that are doing great? Because without a definition of who these "service people" are that benefit, beyond entertainment and restaurant employees, a group which exists in literally any country and in which there is no particular reason that ours are better than theirs, I'm not sure what you're talking about with "services."
|
|
|
On January 18 2017 03:07 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 02:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 02:36 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 01:26 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 01:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Service industries will be where the rich are.
...
Globalization helped my hometown in the Philippines for example. They have thrived the past decade as customer support centers for midnight calls in the US have grown. That's globalization, it helps the poorest of the poor move up in the world. Curious how you reconcile these two statements. Call centers on the other side of the globe are made so a company can provide 24 hour service. India was most popular because of the 12 hour time zone difference allowing a non-night shift crew to manage the night time calls of Americans. The Philippines got a chance when it was found that the country's grasp of English meshed better with Americans than India's. The trend to foreign call centers came about mainly because Americans kept quitting call center jobs and were rude to the customers. The island of Cebu jumped at the opportunity and has been working hard to find night shift workers to fill the void left by American workers who don't want the job. So you do agree that peasants from the other side of the world can take up service jobs as well? Going to an office to make phone calls is not service industry. Service industry are baristas, cooks, performers, consierge. Service industries are the in-house masseuses that go to google 5 days a week, they are the valet parkers, the Uber's, the taxis. If you go to an office, work 8 hours making phone calls in the middle of the biggest urban area in your island--I would not call that service industry. Then what do you call people in industries such as financial services, accountants, consultants, software folk, and the like? They're certainly not manufacturing folk. You mean people who currently are part of Obama's longest running economic and job growth streak since ever? You mean the people who's stock has been growing *because* of globalization? You mean people in the finance industry that actually are who allow our globalized system to work? You mean software engineers who need degrees and advanced training and who live in the Urban Sectors allowing the continual job growth? You mean the consultants who primarily work in the urban industries? Obama's economic recovery is the biggest and longest running one in many decades; and his work helped these sectors the most. You mean those people? What about them? Do you call them "services people" or is your definition just so specific that there are "manufacturing people" who suffer and "service people" (that excludes those like "call centers" that are in fact being exported) that are doing great? Because without a definition of who these "service people" are that benefit, beyond entertainment and restaurant employees, a group which exists in literally any country and in which there is no particular reason that ours are better than theirs, I'm not sure what you're talking about with "services."
A call center is an office job. It is no different than being a corporate salesmen, or a lawyer. You have a cubicle, you have phone calls you need to manage, paperwork that need to be managed, and you deal with the same things every other office job has.
Service industries are industries that pop up to support the primary job market of a city.
As an example: Universities are primary economic centers for College Towns. Industries pop up to support the University, but the university itself is the primary job source of that town. The restaurants, car shops, cafes, shoe shiners, etc... they all exist solely to support that Job Center.
When the US was the shitty country who did not have a thousand years of history to its name, all the manufacturing went to sweat shop labor in the States in the name of globalization. These factories and mines became centers of job growth and service industries popped up to cater to those workers; bars, hard hats, etc...
No matter what the job center is, service industries will follow it. But when Americans started wanting to stop sweat shop labor and unionize--of course poorer countries took over just like the US did for the EU.
Call Centers are very much location based. You need call centers in your time zone, and call centers in opposite time zones in order to cater phone calls from all time zones. Call centers in the Philippines supports American Call centers because Filipinos have to sleep. The same for the opposite. American Call Centers are supported by Asian Call centers, because Americans have to sleep.
The economic downturn and job loss you are trying to paint is not happening. The economy has been on a continual rise since the second year of Obama's presidency and has not really stopped. The big problem with Obama's efforts is that it primarily helped Urban centers. Tech Jobs, Finance Jobs, service jobs. If you were a midwest town that relied on the one mine, the 1-3 factories, etc... then you were fucked. Because while Urban Centers could point to companies like Google, or Boeing, or Amazon as these job centers--middle of nowhere boreville USA was competing with slave labor in china.
Now, in fairness, Clothing companies in the US at least uses slave labor here in the US, but that's why we have the highest incarceration rate in the world.
|
A lawyer is service industry... in fact, a lot of office jobs are.
|
You redefining an entire sector (there are just 3) is not helping whatever point you want to make.
Service, agriculture, manufacturing are the 3, you redefining them on the spot is probably not helpfull to a discussion (you do kinda have a point anyway, but yor picking a pointless battke again).
And... lol, call centers aren't location based, they are average language skill based. Thats why india/singapore and others make buck.
|
On January 18 2017 03:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 03:07 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 02:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 02:36 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 01:26 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 01:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 00:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Service industries will be where the rich are.
...
Globalization helped my hometown in the Philippines for example. They have thrived the past decade as customer support centers for midnight calls in the US have grown. That's globalization, it helps the poorest of the poor move up in the world. Curious how you reconcile these two statements. Call centers on the other side of the globe are made so a company can provide 24 hour service. India was most popular because of the 12 hour time zone difference allowing a non-night shift crew to manage the night time calls of Americans. The Philippines got a chance when it was found that the country's grasp of English meshed better with Americans than India's. The trend to foreign call centers came about mainly because Americans kept quitting call center jobs and were rude to the customers. The island of Cebu jumped at the opportunity and has been working hard to find night shift workers to fill the void left by American workers who don't want the job. So you do agree that peasants from the other side of the world can take up service jobs as well? Going to an office to make phone calls is not service industry. Service industry are baristas, cooks, performers, consierge. Service industries are the in-house masseuses that go to google 5 days a week, they are the valet parkers, the Uber's, the taxis. If you go to an office, work 8 hours making phone calls in the middle of the biggest urban area in your island--I would not call that service industry. Then what do you call people in industries such as financial services, accountants, consultants, software folk, and the like? They're certainly not manufacturing folk. You mean people who currently are part of Obama's longest running economic and job growth streak since ever? You mean the people who's stock has been growing *because* of globalization? You mean people in the finance industry that actually are who allow our globalized system to work? You mean software engineers who need degrees and advanced training and who live in the Urban Sectors allowing the continual job growth? You mean the consultants who primarily work in the urban industries? Obama's economic recovery is the biggest and longest running one in many decades; and his work helped these sectors the most. You mean those people? What about them? Do you call them "services people" or is your definition just so specific that there are "manufacturing people" who suffer and "service people" (that excludes those like "call centers" that are in fact being exported) that are doing great? Because without a definition of who these "service people" are that benefit, beyond entertainment and restaurant employees, a group which exists in literally any country and in which there is no particular reason that ours are better than theirs, I'm not sure what you're talking about with "services." A call center is an office job. It is no different than being a corporate salesmen, or a lawyer. You have a cubicle, you have phone calls you need to manage, paperwork that need to be managed, and you deal with the same things every other office job has. Service industries are industries that pop up to support the primary job market of a city. As an example: Universities are primary economic centers for College Towns. Industries pop up to support the University, but the university itself is the primary job source of that town. The restaurants, car shops, cafes, shoe shiners, etc... they all exist solely to support that Job Center. When the US was the shitty country who did not have a thousand years of history to its name, all the manufacturing went to sweat shop labor in the States in the name of globalization. These factories and mines became centers of job growth and service industries popped up to cater to those workers; bars, hard hats, etc... No matter what the job center is, service industries will follow it. But when Americans started wanting to stop sweat shop labor and unionize--of course poorer countries took over just like the US did for the EU. Call Centers are very much location based. You need call centers in your time zone, and call centers in opposite time zones in order to cater phone calls from all time zones. Call centers in the Philippines supports American Call centers because Filipinos have to sleep. The same for the opposite. American Call Centers are supported by Asian Call centers, because Americans have to sleep. The economic downturn and job loss you are trying to paint is not happening. The economy has been on a continual rise since the second year of Obama's presidency and has not really stopped. The big problem with Obama's efforts is that it primarily helped Urban centers. Tech Jobs, Finance Jobs, service jobs. If you were a midwest town that relied on the one mine, the 1-3 factories, etc... then you were fucked. Because while Urban Centers could point to companies like Google, or Boeing, or Amazon as these job centers--middle of nowhere boreville USA was competing with slave labor in china. Now, in fairness, Clothing companies in the US at least uses slave labor here in the US, but that's why we have the highest incarceration rate in the world.
So if the manufacturers move, now why the fuck would the company need services from back home? Who cares about legal and financial services from back home if you can just use the locals? Sure, their schools might be less reliable, but at least the entire thing is cheaper so it all works out. And engineers? Well you need a few to preserve quality, so you can import a few expatlings and pay them well, but otherwise subsist on local folk (and possibly those that went to school in your own country on a visa).
Filipinos need to sleep? Well I'm sure that paying a nickel or so more would convince them to take the night shift. They need to eat, after all. And if they aren't so inclined, then maybe we can hire some other night owl that complains less. It's not like they're so indispensable that they can't be replaced at a moment's notice. And the locals back home that have a minimum wage and labor laws that make it annoying to employ them? Forget about it. Such is the "race to the bottom."
See above. Some people benefit, others get poorer. The trend is clear: more and more money is going into the hands of the wealthiest, and overall the economy increases in size while many people get poorer. If it used to be that one person had $500, the other $1000, then we get that one has $10, the other $2000, then yes, the economy increased overall. But is that better?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ourworldindata_world-poverty-since-1820-in-absolute-numbers.png)
