Corporations leave the west at an amazing pace. Atleast there hiring does...

[faded glory]

im up for that Dan. No kidding. But I serouisly doubt it.


I have Job offers already. Fuji offered me a service job. But I couldnt even afford an apartment on what they wanted to pay me.

i need some sleep. Im probably ranting here and am not making alot of sense. I should probably leave this sort of stuff for the commi's.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by monkspider
I used to be an ardent opponent of globalization, but I have come to realize the reactionary, and ultimately, counterproductive nature of it's detractors. That's to say, I have come to understand globalization in terms of it being a necessary step to worldwide socialism.

[JohnT]

FG is also committing the very common disconnect that many anti-corporationalists* have, in not realizing that corporations are voluntary associations of people that are united towards a common goal, that of making a financial profit in a given business.

Bank of America has appx. 156,000 employees worldwide. The above article starts with the removal of 4,700 BoA jobs, or .03% of their payroll. When this is done, they will have 151,300 people remaining on payroll. FG is disassociating the fact that these layoffs benefit 151,300 people, by making their company a little more profitable and making their jobs a little more secure.

So, it's not just one corporation, it's 153,000 employees, plus about a half-million shareholders, and a fair number of families in India - they all benefit for the loss of a mere 4,700 jobs.

I'm rather surprised that you would rather force 700,000 people to unwillingly pay for the "right" to be employed at the BoA. I'm quite disappointed in you, FG. I mean, it's not like they're killing people.

*Is that a word?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by faded glory
not the point. How does it help yours? Mine?Say, Microsoft decides to go to India for there next generation OS. You think Microsoft is actually gonna lower prices for there next generation OS cause its cheaper to code? haha

It doesn't. In fact, our economy is sucking up real bad right now. But I digress. Moving operation overseas is inevitable - all companies do that for the bottom line. This is Capitalism at work. It doesn't benefit everybody, just the companies. Of course, some sectors might benefit from it, say, accounting, advertising, luxury goods, some manufacturing, etc.

[DanS]

im up for that Dan. No kidding. But I serouisly doubt it.

If we can set up a neutral here, we can do the bet.

It doesn't benefit everybody, just the companies.

UR: Not so. It tends to flow through to the wages of the remaining employees. Counterintuitive, but that's the way it works.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by faded glory
. I should probably leave this sort of stuff for the commi's.

Don't worry FG, where can a person rant if not at Apolyton?

[DuncanK]

The argument for global trade is such BS. The whole theory behind it is that each region will produce a good that they are particularily efficient at. That is, where the production and distribution of that good takes the least amount of labor. The thing is that the global trade system doesn't work like that. Goods are produced where ever companies can pay workers the least amount of money. The two are almost never the same. Very often goods and services can be produced and distributed in America with less labor, but they are produced far away with more labor and shipped back here to the US where they are consumed. The whole thing is horribly unefficient.

There is one more terrible thing about the level of globalization these days. That is that when we have another depression its going to hit the whole world like a 2 ton brick. Hopefully then we can adapt a system that will not take us back to this rediculousness.

[Asher]

Originally posted by DuncanK
The argument for global trade is such BS. The whole theory behind it is that each region will produce a good that they are particularily efficient at. That is, where the production and distribution of that good takes the least amount of labor. The thing is that the global trade system doesn't work like that. Goods are produced where ever companies can pay workers the least amount of money. The two are almost never the same. Very often goods and services can be produced and distributed in America with less labor, but they are produced far away with more labor and shipped back here to the US where they are consumed. The whole thing is horribly unefficient.

There is one more terrible thing about the level of globalization these days. That is that when we have another depression its going to hit the whole world like a 2 ton brick. Hopefully then we can adapt a system that will not take us back to this rediculousness.

Better still, let's build huge trade barriers from state to state.

Or hell, we can do it from county to country!

This is exceptional logic.

[Ramo]

Trade barriers keeping your jobs here would only hurt the workers of other states.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DanS
UR: Not so. It tends to flow through to the wages of the remaining employees. Counterintuitive, but that's the way it works.

The theory goes that way, but what's the point when the motivation of moving operations overseas is to cut cost?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by JohnT
I mean, it's not like they're killing people.

Are you sure about that?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DuncanK
The argument for global trade is such BS. The whole theory behind it is that each region will produce a good that they are particularily efficient at.

That's "relative advantage" advocated by Ricardo.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's "relative advantage" advocated by Ricardo.

Oh right. I should have used that term, but the argument still holds.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The theory goes that way, but what's the point when the motivation of moving operations overseas is to cut cost?

Cutting cost is only a microeconomic concern if it doesn't result in more macroeconomic production. If you have lower costs and lower wages and consumption then you have taken a loss. It takes more man hours to produce something far away and ship it than it does to produce it locally. The cost is only lower because real wages have fallen.

[DuncanK]

Urban Ranger,

Sorry, I think I took your words out of context.