It has been widely reported today that China has surpassed Japan as the world's second largest economy and is projected to surpass the United States by the year 2030.
This may seem a terrifying prospect for xenophobic isolationist manufacturing job mongers here at home, but, in reality, those intending to protect their "jobs" by opposing globalization should take comfort in this development and the speed with which it occurred. U.S. children and their children's children may once again become competitive in the global job market, notwithstanding their parents' efforts to hamstring them for the last 70 years.
The U.S. manufacturing work force long since went the way of Howard Hughes' "Spruce Goose." Organized labor's hypothesis has been disproved in the United States, with disastrous consequences to U.S. workers. Unionization in the United States has effectively eliminated jobs for workers that the ideals of organized labor were intended to protect. Much like smaller, more agile and responsive aircraft and watercraft taking the place of Howard Hughes' enormous and catastrophically expensive transport vehicle in World War II, masses of cheap, unskilled, and disorganized labor in third world countries have supplanted the monolith that is U.S. organized labor. The Spruce Goose only flew once: after the war in which it was commissioned to serve had ended. It would seem that organized labor is now past its prime as well.
The problem for the United States and other more established nations is that our high-minded ideals cost too much, and we can't "unring" the workers' rights bell. As technology advances and makes transport of goods easier and easier, there are few jobs in the US manufacturing economy that could not be more cheaply done in a third world country. This will soon be the case (if it is not already) with regard to the U.S.'s new great export - information and services. For this country to now be competitive, it is not good enough that our workers are more productive, or that they are better educated, or more technologically advanced (which may or may not be the case). They have to be cheaper, and they will never again be so long as they demand pittances like wages, health insurance, reasonable working hours, hospitals, governmental representation, food, and the like.
Some in Congress have argued that we should penalize U.S. companies for sending jobs overseas. Hardly a progressive lesson in globalization, and a very shortsighted concept, if the goal is to preserve U.S. jobs and its place as a world economic power. If the U.S. intends to continue to grow economically, we cannot penalize companies for creating jobs overseas in a globalized economy. That will merely ensure that other countries without such penalties will grow faster at the expense of the U.S. But, if one takes a longer view, maybe forcing growth in other less developed nations should be encouraged.
Article comments
1 - jeannie danna
Corey,
I wouldn't breath a sigh of relief yet.
and...
We should penalize U.S. companies for sending jobs overseas. Hardly a progressive lesson in globalization, and a very shortsighted concept, if the goal is to preserve U.S. jobs and its place as a world economic power. If the U.S. intends to continue to grow economically, penalize companies for creating jobs overseas at the expense of the American work-force.
That is how that statement should read!
People that cry "global economy" forget that the jobs go where the worker is most exploitable...at least by the tax dodging refuse to pay a living wage corporations originally based here in the US.
: )just my opinion
2 - Mark
US and Chinese productive workers as a class (and non-owners, generally) share the same interest in seeing the end of the capitalist profit (as in expropriated surplus) maximization machine.
3 - Corey May
Jeannie -
I think that was the basic point. Jobs go where the worker is most exploitable - if all workers in the world are not as easily exploited (or, in reality, if it costs more to exploit them than it does to give in to their demands), American workers will have a fighting chance. Penalizing companies for "creating jobs overseas" will result in fewer and fewer companies starting and remaining as US entities. Then it won't matter what penalties the US has created, because there won't be any local companies to enforce them against. Thanks for the opinion! This is my first article, and I appreciate you reading it!
4 - Corey May
Mark -
My guess is that if the maximization of profit wasn't the goal, there would be fewer jobs available in general. People would be less inclined to create goods and services because of the selfish nature of humans (i.e. they would ask the question "what's in it for me?" before they commenced creation of the good or service). If fewer goods and services are created or provided, fewer workers need to be employed to create the existing goods and services. Then there are a lot of people without jobs. Sure, workers are overworked and underpaid now (in part so that companies can maximize profit), but I'm not sure if it is better to have no job at all. That's what American workers are struggling with now (for a different reason), and it is adversely affecting the whole machine. If you start from the supposition that all people that have nothing are inherently selfish actors, its hard to view the employer/employee relationship as an altruistic one, or see a way in which it could realistically become one. Thanks again for reading!
5 - Mark
Corey May -
However, in the 'real world', one often finds that people who have nothing are not inherently 'selfish actors' but, rather, engage in community and mutual aid.
I see no reason to agree with your guess based as it is on a bogus concept of human nature...and you're welcome.
6 - Corey May
Mark -
You can find people that aren't inherently selfish, but they are few and far between, and typically give only once they have taken their fill. BUT, even if you don't agree that people are inherently selfish, if there is no incentive to produce a good other than necessity, then you are limiting the number of goods and services that are provided. Innovation is stiffled without a profit motive. Altruism doesn't feed YOUR family - it feeds someone elses, so there has to be something to incentivize production and ingenuity. So, there is a reason to agree with my "guess."
Thanks again.
7 - Mark
Corey May, note the study cited by Patel in his The Value of Nothing (I don't have time to dig it out -- gotta go exploit myself):
what do individuals who have nothing do when given two goodies?
General Findings:
white male -- hordes the second for himself
others -- gifts the second to someone who has none
selfishness is cultural
8 - jeannie danna
Corey,
Sure, workers are overworked and underpaid now (in part so that companies can maximize profit), but I'm not sure if it is better to have no job at all.
This is the voice of...helplessness
it is the worker with no voice.
go union!
9 - jeannie danna
Welcome to BC,Corey...good article and please don't misinterpret my comments...I know exactly what I mean. lol! and a smile :)
10 - Doug Hunter
#7 That's such great bait, so divisive, and right out of the leftist playbook.... trying so hard... not to point out other things about whites... ok maybe just a little bit, like all of {{{deleted by Doug Hunter, not going to fall in this trap anymore}}}}
Maybe I have turned a new leaf! Anyway Mark, I think the study was simplistic, without context as you described, and brought in race unnecessarily. There are any number of valid and logical reasons that could explain the findings... and then there's also that little thing called reality, that one's a booger for you anticapitalists, you know the one where selfish capitalist principles have pretty much created, built, and developed everything while your feel good theories have, well, made people feel good... about your theories. Anyway, your ideas sound nice and I hope you're able to build the world you dream of... lets work together on laws that can allow both our ideals to freely coexist and let people vote with their feet.
11 - Mark
With a wink and nudge to Doug Hunter, the 'study' that I referred to in #7 was actually an anecdotal account of the difference between the behavior of white and Lakota boys when given two lollipops. Perhaps my 'generalization' was a bit...over the top?
12 - Mark
...and that besides leaving out the 'a'.
13 - roger nowosielski
The following is an NPR digest of Patel's book, Capitalism Overload And "The Value of Nothing,", as per Mark's link in #7.
If you suffer from ADO, listen to the podcast.
There's nothing really radical about the opposition to "Efficient Market Hypothesis," the main point. Robert Reich makes a similar argument in recent book, Supercapitalism, especially as regard the consequent - the destabilizing of democratic institutions (citizens become consumers). If anything, the focus on inefficacy of regulations - "you don't put a fox in charge of your chicken coop" - is the point of note. But even this is not a novel idea (as per Wolff's videos, for example, on capitalism).
It's typical of Doug Hunter, though, to zero in on the anecdotal so as to avoid exposure to uncomfortable ideas.
(Cross-referenced to "The China Syndrome, Take Two.")
14 - roger nowosielski
The link to Reich's Supercapitalism, Google Books excerpts.