Received
True love waits in haunted attics
It doesn't help the people who get jobs; they lose jobs, either entirely or "partially", in terms of contrast with "traditional" markets where jobs weren't temporary as so many of them currently are in corporate contexts. The problem is exacerbated even more (perhaps most) in consideration of technology, where "robots" (a cover-all term for automation) are doing the jobs that people once were, with advancements coming at shocking speed. Lower costs for businesses, sure -- big business, and less room for small business, which initially could compete more with a more localized economy where global competition didn't result in cutthroat prices that attracted consumers. Cost lowering for businesses is something that businesses that are capable of lowering costs can do -- namely, big ones. This problem, also, will be exacerbated when a less local-limited generation learns the simplicity of buying outside of his town, state, and even nation, primarily through the Internet. Who on earth would pay $25 for hardcover book that can be bought for almost half this without sales tax on amazon.com?
And globalization has the enormous (but not-often articulated) problem of concentration of power in terms of multinational corporations gaining size. Well, there are some of us who don't arbitrarily cut the line of bigness being a problem with the government. Simply in a lobbying context, Lord knows how much damage mammoth international corporations could do to a "wee" federal government -- and, of course, already have.
Well, the whole problem isn't that mysterious. Capitalism is driven by competition, which works good and well within boundaries. The most practical solution would be (and is becoming) the dissemination of knowledge for consumers that their preferences for lower prices is directly linked to rising job insecurity, many times for themselves. That, of course, means weaning people away from the Reagan-warmed myth that consumerism is the essence of what it means to be an American. And that will take time.
The clearest benefit of globalization has been lowered costs. However, what it's shown is that these costs have their own cost -- the lowered wages of the individual, which are the most expendable thing in terms of corporate attempts to get ahead in a brutally competitive market (that's really what globalization means: intranational competition + brutal). If wages are being continually lowered at a higher acceleration than costs are dropping, it's the owners of the corporations (and their government pals who keep them in good graces) who get the benefits over time. And this is exactly what we've seen over the last thirty-plus years, where income inequality has skyrocketed in favor of the rich -- from approximately 7% for the top 1% in the 70s to 23.5% in 2007 for the same 1%.
Hey, we've got problems. My starting point is not to deny that they're problems simply because we don't have current solutions to them.
And globalization has the enormous (but not-often articulated) problem of concentration of power in terms of multinational corporations gaining size. Well, there are some of us who don't arbitrarily cut the line of bigness being a problem with the government. Simply in a lobbying context, Lord knows how much damage mammoth international corporations could do to a "wee" federal government -- and, of course, already have.
Well, the whole problem isn't that mysterious. Capitalism is driven by competition, which works good and well within boundaries. The most practical solution would be (and is becoming) the dissemination of knowledge for consumers that their preferences for lower prices is directly linked to rising job insecurity, many times for themselves. That, of course, means weaning people away from the Reagan-warmed myth that consumerism is the essence of what it means to be an American. And that will take time.
The clearest benefit of globalization has been lowered costs. However, what it's shown is that these costs have their own cost -- the lowered wages of the individual, which are the most expendable thing in terms of corporate attempts to get ahead in a brutally competitive market (that's really what globalization means: intranational competition + brutal). If wages are being continually lowered at a higher acceleration than costs are dropping, it's the owners of the corporations (and their government pals who keep them in good graces) who get the benefits over time. And this is exactly what we've seen over the last thirty-plus years, where income inequality has skyrocketed in favor of the rich -- from approximately 7% for the top 1% in the 70s to 23.5% in 2007 for the same 1%.
Hey, we've got problems. My starting point is not to deny that they're problems simply because we don't have current solutions to them.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
