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

[DanS]

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

Because a company thinks it will help their bottom line. But profits as a % of sales have normally been rangebound in the US between 3.5% and 6%. So the reality in aggregate is that companies pay their existing employees more and hire new employees to develop new markets.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who the hell eats cat food, when you can get people food cheaper?!

Soylent Green?

Goods are produced where ever companies can pay workers the least amount of money.

Not true. This only holds for non-skilled labor (or low skilled labor). For high-skilled labor, companies go to the place that the higher skilled people are. Labor productivity is MUCH more important than smaller average wage in determining where jobs go.

If corporations went to where they can pay the workers the least amount of money, the US and Europe would have no one working.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Goods are produced where ever companies can pay workers the least amount of money.

Not true. This only holds for non-skilled labor (or low skilled labor). For high-skilled labor, companies go to the place that the higher skilled people are. Labor productivity is MUCH more important than smaller average wage in determining where jobs go.

If corporations went to where they can pay the workers the least amount of money, the US and Europe would have no one working.

They are hiring skilled labor more in other countries where they can find it. That's what the article on the first post is saying.

We still have jobs here. It's just more and more McJobs. Those are the only jobs that they can't move out of the country. True there is still skilled labor jobs, because its hard to find skilled labor like there is in the US.

[DuncanK]

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

Because a company thinks it will help their bottom line. But profits as a % of sales have normally been rangebound in the US between 3.5% and 6%. So the reality in aggregate is that companies pay their existing employees more and hire new employees to develop new markets.

It's just not true Dan. Real wages are going down most years and staying level on other years.

Obviously these companies are moving overseas to increase their profits but in the long run they are not increasing the efficiency of the system so that's why both wages and profits are not growing.

No one has discussed the effect of globalization on the underdeveloped nations. These nations are sacrificing domestic production for exports. That hurts. The jobs that are created don't do much to make up for this. People in those countries are really suffering.

[Lefty Scaevola]

My january section of my 2003 Desair Inc Demotivators calander is somewhat appropos:

"MOTIVATION
If a pretty poster and a cute slogan are all it takes to motivate you, you probably have a very easy job. The kind robots* will be doing soon."





*or Indians as the case may be.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They are hiring skilled labor more in other countries where they can find it.

If that labor is actually productive. The alternative for us is to get more productive (in certain areas) to have the companies stay here.

No one has discussed the effect of globalization on the underdeveloped nations. These nations are sacrificing domestic production for exports. That hurts. The jobs that are created don't do much to make up for this. People in those countries are really suffering.

Two words: South Korea. Oh well, one more word: Japan .

By focusing on exports, those countries were able to boom. The workers became more skilled in those areas that the rest of the world prized, and by becoming more skilled were able to command higher wages in the future.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Two words: South Korea. Oh well, one more word: Japan .

By focusing on exports, those countries were able to boom. The workers became more skilled in those areas that the rest of the world prized, and by becoming more skilled were able to command higher wages in the future.

I'm not saying that Japan should not have exported goods to the US. They knew how to produce cars cheaper than the US companies did. Cars are produced cheaper when you produce them in greater quantity. The US benefited from these lower costs too.

But this is only one case, and Japan payed a heavy price for exporting so much. For sometime they have been trying to reverse this way of doing things and have tried to increase their domestic consumption.

The level of domestic consumption is the greatest sign of a good economy. It will also always be there when your exports fall like they did in these Asian countries.

[Ned]

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.

Monkspider, could you explain why you or anyone was against globalization? I can fully understand why union workers in first world nations would be against it. Now the trend to move white collar jobs offshore. The affected workers are, of course, ill at ease if not totally pissed. (I think of the highly reactionary Independent party and its nominees.)

Also, if you could, please explain why the move to globalize the workforce is "necessary" for world socialism?

[DuncanK]

Ned,

Allow me to answer this one.

The industialized nations of the world increased their level of trade to great levels before the Great Depression. When the world economy collapsed all of the nations suffered. Only nations who did not trade with each other were spared. The ranks of Communists and Socialists grew with each job lost. Germany was in real danger of becoming Communist just before Hitler took power. There were also many new 'band wagon' Communists in the US. World War got us out of the Depression and capitalism was saved.... for now.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ned
Monkspider, could you explain why you or anyone was against globalization?

I am greatly against globalization until the standards of the rest of the world is the same as ours. Why should we be competeing with a widget factory in country x, where they polute their waters and air, and use 13 year olds that are paid slave labour, while our widget manufactors have to make sure to provide worker safety for George Jetson, as well as make sure to meet our envioronmental standards? How do you compete with someone who has an economic advantage over you in those regards (and I'm not suggesting that we lower our standards, rather that we raise theirs until it's in accordance with ours).

[Ned]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Ned,

Allow me to answer this one.

The industialized nations of the world increased their level of trade to great levels before the Great Depression. When the world economy collapsed all of the nations suffered. Only nations who did not trade with each other were spared. The ranks of Communists and Socialists grew with each job lost. Germany was in real danger of becoming Communist just before Hitler took power. There were also many new 'band wagon' Communists in the US. World War got us out of the Depression and capitalism was saved.... for now.

I would think, then, that the left should be strongly in favor of globalization. But the anti-globalization demonstrators sure do not appear to be right wing crazies, do they?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Edan

I am greatly against globalization until the standards of the rest of the world is the same as ours. Why should we be competeing with a widget factory in country x, where they polute their waters and air, and use 13 year olds that are paid slave labour, while our widget manufactors have to make sure to provide worker safety for George Jetson, as well as make sure to meet our envioronmental standards? How do you compete with someone who has an economic advantage over you in those regards (and I'm not suggesting that we lower our standards, rather that we raise theirs until it's in accordance with ours).

Edan, it seems that you are trying to put the cart before the horse.

What we need to do, as always, is to improve conditions in the third world. However, if a firm knowingly hires slave labor or kids abroad, I think we should have laws excluding their imports into the US.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well outsourcing is here to stay and I am just to be outsourced too or ... but it will stay as the support and quality can me maintained from abroad for a fraction of the cost.

The positive thing is that this will act as a balancer between the nations, that is the third world will become richer, while we will become poorer. Perhaps not so great for us as the difference inporfits will go into investors pockets, but surely good for the people who get the work.

In India my colleagues are paid roughly 10 times less than I am and I am no a 9£ /hr job. So not expensive at all, and they do all of it a in here. Perhaps a bit worse for customer support but all other admin/finance jobs as far as I am concerned they can do as we all we here.

I am actually pissed off with HP (that is where I work), as they are paying them the average there, as if they couldn't up the salary 10-15 % up, to make sure to have people stay longer, and with almost no employee protection laws in India they make them work extemly long hours wiht no overtime pay, and ridicolous shifts to suit UK time even though people were hired for normal working time. Well this is capitalism, if government doesn't help you as a worker noone will, certainly not "supposedly moral" western companies.

That reminds me of BAT (British and American Tobacco) and their subsidiary in Burma where they pay the workers 90pence a day.

And they claim that they pay a competitive rate for the country Would paying 1.50£ hurt their bottom line, if 90 pence is average, and you are probably on the edge of starvation with it £1.50 a day surely will be much better and they could at least claim to pay 50% more than the average. Greedy bastards. Capitalism is just another form of slavery iuf left unchecked.

[Az]

I wanted to start to write a small article here, but decided to pass.


The issue here is that raising living standards in the 3rd world, without proper social construct such as birth control in the 3rd, and alternative ways of improving quality of life in the 1st world, is impossible.

If quality of life would continue to be measure only on how much money does one make, the gaps between the rich and poor all around the world will only widen. Therefor, we need to increase the finanacial status of ordinary people all around the 3rd world, while providing ways for people to feel better without the need for money in the 1st world. This is an enormous task.
Another issue is the population growth/economical safety vs. the enviroment: It might sound corny, but things will really start hitting fans in around 50 years if things don't improve ecologically, and that include steming population growth. Yet, if we stem population growth, and continue to have a decapacitated elderly population, we will have a very hard socio-economical crisis.

This demands for increasing research into anti-aging, and real efforts to keep the population healthier, and not just alive, for longer. Then, the retirement age could be raised, so that it would be easier to support the elderly population, while reaching a birth/death equilibrium.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well I think a lot is government incentive and economic development. If you have some kind of social structure in the country that you can try to control the population in the extreme like China or slowly like Europe/USA. But there needs to be a social order setup in order to do that. I cannot see how you can do it in India in forseeable future. Still paying the going rate by the corporations here is despicable. I mean they earn 1000£ more a day for 1000 pple working, and if they have spent that 1000£ a day the people would be paid double and what is a 365 thouosand in XY billion of profit? Or in the profit of the division? Nah it is just good ole capitalist principles, "squeeze until they drop their sons will be here to continue".