Globalisation

[avinalarf]

No doubt you have read the musings of Mark Carney,a fine example of stating the blooming obvious.
However apart from highlighting the obvious "problems" that globalisation has caused he's light on solutions.
So what is an antidote to relieve those problems caused by globalisation ?
An obvious answer is protectionism,along the lines that the Donald proposes,but isn't that a bit defeatist ?
So any ideas ?

[avinalarf]

It is a fact that Corporations are obliged to return the best profitable results for their shareholders.
Therefore if the best profits are obtained by sourcing in China,India etc. that is where the jobs go.
In a way we are facing problems similar to that which existed in the times of the Industrial revolution where people were losing jobs as the new technology took over whilst the Luddites fought a losing battle to maintain the status quo.
It was thought that by First World economies keeping at the forefront of technical evolution they would maintain their edge but that doesn't solve the problem of job outsourcing.
As an example I give you Dyson who at first made great play that his products were made in the UK but then decided it was more important to maintain and increase profitability by moving production offshore.
Unless we are prepared to spend a lot more for our products or Corporations are obliged to become philanthropic it's a bit of a conundrum.

[avinalarf]

Dr Jekyll said:

But the advantage is that we can buy stuff more cheaply. A manufacturer that can buy cheap steel is going to stay in business longer than one who can't. So suggesting more trade means more unemployment is extremely simplistic. In the long run producing everything where it's cheapest makes everyone better off.

No it doesn't.
You can't buy much if you haven't got a job,or a decent pay rise in 10 years,when your job has been outsourced or your on a zero rate contract.
In my industry,clothing ,prices on products are the same as 30 years ago.
The God of consumerism has raised expectations ,when do we want it,we want it NOW.
The mantras of responsibility and prudence are sacrificed to profit and desire,most of the profit going to relative few.
For example....It annoys me that the low wages paid by many companies means that peeps have to get tax credits and other benefits to live a life.
Tax credits that you and I contribute to in our taxes from our hard earned.
We really do need a radicle overhaul of our economy and an important part of this is our approach to globalisation.
If for example the EU had been set up as a group of similar advanced economies eg.Germany,France,Scandanavia,Holland
U.K.(maybe Italy) it would have provided a platform for us to thrive economically with the benefit of scale and provide worthwhile and well paid jobs for their workforce.
Instead it was fraudulently expanded to include countries with completely disparate economies and thus became a mini globalisation with its apparent problems.
This was exacerbated by the ridiculous unmanaged freedom of movement that enabled companies to import cheap labour.
I understand that ageing populations and the lack of certain skills means that there should be controlled free movement,but far better that we equip our current population and youngsters with those skills required.

Maybe a second tier of countries of weaker economies would worked,which in time could have been incorporated.

Edited by avinalarf on Tuesday 6th December 13:46

[avinalarf]

hyphen said:

avinalarf said:

It is a fact that Corporations are obliged to return the best profitable results for their shareholders.

I'd put it more along the lines of the directors of the company obliged to do what is best for the long-term success of the company.

OK ...id buy that if that were the case but it's often not the case.
CEO's paid inflated salaries for mundane results and shareholders expecting ever increasing dividends at the expense of long term company investment in both infrastructure,technology and the well being of its workforce.

[avinalarf]

My post has been sidetracked somewhat down an alley of tax avoidance etc.and the "moral obligations" of corporations that conduct international trade.
What I want to ask is this.....
Globalisation has meant that many jobs from First World economies have been outsourced to Third World economies basically because of cheaper production costs.
Freedom of movement has also kept wages lower than they might have been,whilst free movement of capital has fuelled the rise in property prices.
Obviously this has benefitted the large corporations ( higher profits ) and the consumer ( lower prices in the shops ).
This has been at the expense of the "indigenous"worker,who finds his standards of living dropping as the stagnation of wages is greater than the cost of living and in some cases with freedom of movement actual job losses.
Even if we increase worker productivity this alone will not resolve the problem.
Therefore would it not be reasonable to apply tariffs on imported goods in order to even the playing field ?
Is free trade enslaving the indiginous workforce in a spiralling decreasing of his standard of living ?
Should we impose taxes on foreign money seeking safe havens and distorting the property market ?
To those of you that say yes to free trade put yourself in the seat of the worker in the Midlands and North of England who have lost their jobs and cannot find worthwhile work to sustain a decent standard of living.
Or do you believe we should shrug our shoulders and say "we're all right Jack,suck it up" ?

[avinalarf]

Thanks sidicks for your input.
Yes I know a tax on property is in place,I should have said a more onerous tax.
Yes I know that there are government training projects but they do not compensate for the wholesale decimation of industries and consequent job losses.
As I said in my original post I believe that globalisation has had its good and bad consequences that we have discussed,to a certain extent,but nobody has really addressed the question of how we should deal with the consequences.
Is it really an inevitable game changer,similar to the industrial revolution ,that will cause huge pain to a generation of the indigenous workforce ?
Is it only reasonable that Third World Economies be able to lift their populations from real poverty and compete on the World Stage ?
Are we in the age of Corporate Government where the large multi nationals dictate to governments the way in which trade is conducted ?
Has a nation's government an obligation to secure a fair playing field that offers its electorate a chance of a job and reasonable expectations of a decent standard of living ?
Are we in the "Wild West" where the rich get richer and the poor see no hope of bettering themselves ?
Do we believe in "Society" a society where it is thought that the well being of ALL its people is for the greater good ?

[avinalarf]

Dr Jekyll said:

If the playing field was completely level there would be no point in trade at all.

i
Yes there would.
I buy from companies that offer me a product that suits my perceived customer profile,that offer a reliable service,that offer resonable settlement terms etc.etc.
There is plenty of room for competition with many reasons from whom we wish to make a purchase within the parameters of a "level playing field".

[avinalarf]

speedy_thrills said:

You can spin the wheel on a number of issues causing income growth to stagnate. Globalism is one but just as equally why not aging population demographics, low productivity growth, velocity of money, wealth inequalities, lack of genuine innovation, inflation targeting, misallocation of financial resources etc.

However as a lefty democratic socialist type my views on capitalism and it's discontents are certainly not the prevailing views of society the moment .

I think you have hit on part of the problem by describing yourself as a lefty democratic socialist.
It is such tribal allegiances that muddy the waters when discussing the type of society in which we wish to live.
There are good and bad consequences,given the nature of human instincts, whether one is a capitalist,democratic socialist or communist or whatever.
No political persuasion has yet proven to have top trumps or avoided the excesses that each persuasion exacerbate.
One can be an ardent capitalist and see the value of of a contented workforce.
Unless there is a complete change in our social values and indeed a change in human instinct it is inevitable not to realise that not all people are equal.
Some people are industrious some are entrepreneurs some have valued and important skills and such is the human instinct that they expect to be ,and usually are better rewarded,usually financially, than those that are lesser blessed.
So unless you can come up with a different"reward" scheme that society accepts we are stuck with what we have.
p.s. Post written for brevity it's a blooming complicated subject.

[avinalarf]

Sidicks and RYH.....
I am not suggesting that there are not oppurtunities through education etc to advance one's life chances and certainly I have never stated that we should all be millionaires.
I think that most workers are content with an honest day's pay for an honest day's work.
That if they "play the game" they and their children will be able to afford to buy or at least rent a place to live.
That ,if prudent, they will receive a fair interest on their savings.
You see guys not all people aspire or have the wherewithals to be business men,entrepreneurs or have financial expertise.
That doesn't mean they shouldn't have their own limited expectations fulfilled.

[avinalarf]

crankedup said:

RYH64E said:

In this country it's perfectly possibly to start off poor and end up very rich, not easy but possible. It's much easier to start off poor and end up comfortably off, the opportunities are there for those who choose to take them. It often means paying attention at school, a lot of hard work, and the occasional sleepless night, but that's the way it is.

Unfortunately the government can't just pass a law and make us all millionaires.

However with so many students waving handfuls of degree's they are in as much competition for a job as ever. Education they have sought and gained is not the passport to a good job as it used to be. Furthermore more Companies are seeing that taking on apprentices is at least as likely to better worker aspirations Companies wish for. At the same time it offers a chance to youngsters keen to learn and earn.
Of course there will always be some kids who can't be bothered to do or offer anything at all.

I have always had a strong work ethic,mainly influenced by my father who instilled it in me through example.
I have three daughters that are working.
The youngest didn't want to go to University and only stayed on to take A levels at my behest,probably a waste of two years.
After a couple of years of mundane jobs she was offered the opportunity to go for a job in a company that only takes Uni graduates,she blagged it ,and now has as a better paid job in a very large company with better prospects than her elder sisters who went to Uni and got good results in their chosen subject.
My eldest is a journalist a profession that has changed enormously mainly due to the Internet and the way it has affected newspapers and magazines. She has maintained a job but it's been difficult .
Middle daughter works in PR ,just been made redundant through no fault of her own.

Edited by avinalarf on Wednesday 7th December 14:03

[avinalarf]

sidicks said:

speedyman said:

Part of the problem is that the reward schemes we have now are over rewarding some and under rewarding many. Sure hard work should have its rewards, but something is wrong when a kicking a ball gets you 200k a week or failing companies CEO's are still picking up huge bonuses year on year. Meanwhile inequality continues to grow, Trump, Brexit etc. are peoples expression of anger with the status quo. Watch this space.

1. Scaricity of skill will come with associated value
2. If people spent more time working to improve their own lot and less time worrying about some irrelevant comparisons to the rich, they might be financially (and emptionally) better off!

Most of these " people " are only kicking off because the pendulum of has swung too far.
In the past few years,since the financial crisis, the pendulum has swung to far in favour of the already wealthy,whilst their standard of living has proven ever more difficult to maintain.
They read the news papers and watch the tele....don't you know.
They hear of bankers,who they perceive,have taken advantage of loose regulation and thus exacerbating the financial crisis.
They read of CEO's having huge pay rises and share incentives.
They have to settle for zero rate contracts to get a job.
They have governments that don't know their arse from their tits.
Etc.etc etc.
Sidicks ....we've been down this road many times before.
It's not that they expect to earn mega money or live in mansions,they just want a fairer share of the cake.

[avinalarf]

Sidicks ....how do you do that ?.....separate my post into bite size segments .....and then pass comment .
Easy boy...simple explanation please.

[avinalarf]

sidicks said:

avinalarf said:

Sidicks ....how do you do that ?.....separate my post into bite size segments .....and then pass comment .
Easy boy...simple explanation please.

Just add:
quote=username at the start and /quote (both in square brackets) at the end of each chunk of text you want to use.

Thanks sidicks ,I'll try it out ,but it might be beyond my meagre skills.

[avinalarf]

To those of you that say " you make your own choices and breaks in life .....so live with it ".
In some respects I agree but, with respect that's an over simplification of the subject.
However let's move on.....
Is it in the interest in the long term future of a society that the rich keep getting richer and the less abled get further left behind.
How can a discontented,disallusioned populace be in anybody's interest ?

[avinalarf]

mcdjl said:

avinalarf said:

To those of you that say " you make your own choices and breaks in life .....so live with it ".
In some respects I agree but, with respect that's an over simplification of the subject.
However let's move on.....
Is it in the interest in the long term future of a society that the rich keep getting richer and the less abled get further left behind.
How can a discontented,disallusioned populace be in anybody's interest ?

It isn't. The old country land owners knew this and as a result while they may have had mega pads (of which they rarely occupied the whole place and also shared with a good number of servants) also did jut about enough to buy off the locals who lived/worked on their land. Every once in a while their dependence on the lower classes was forgotten and they'd be chase out. In the industrial revolution the clever factory owners realised this and looked after their workers, Rowntree etc building good houses, time off etc. This led to the pull away from the old agricultural economy and the old estates started to crumble. WW1 and 2 reminded the industrial owners of the need to look after their workers and their co-dependence. this has started to be forgotten again and we're about due the next reminder.
saying fix it is all well and good, but no one knows how, while maintaining the lifestyle we all want. Saying adapt is all well and good, but anyone can read FAQs over the phone and run a help desk, while profit is the bottom line do it in the country where it costs least. Until we all realise that the contribution of the man emptying the bin is more directly useful and will be missed sooner than the CEO then we can't even start to fix the issue.

I agree Daniel....at its crudest a form of Paternalistic Capitalism.
But seriously, if we want a fully functioning society and wish to maintain the social equilibrium then it is only common sense to allow all the population a chance to achieve a decent standard of living.
The logical outcome of those that say "sink or swim" will take us back to the days of serfdom.
In a modern capitalist society there needs to be swings and balances so that all have a fair share of the dividends of their efforts.
I am not suggesting that the indolent and feckless are given a free ride.
I am suggesting that when a society promotes greed and rewards selfishness it will eventually fail.
Certainly let the entrepreneurs,leaders of industry,etc enjoy their status and wealth but don't allow them to st on the rest of society.

[avinalarf]

sidicks said:

Out of interest, who are you ascribing this opinion to?

Certainly not you sidicks you are truly a model of altruism

[avinalarf]

RYH64E said:

avinalarf said:

Certainly let the entrepreneurs,leaders of industry,etc enjoy their status and wealth but don't allow them to st on the rest of society.

You should try employing 'the rest of society', it's not much fun. Getting decent staff at all levels is really hard, it's a significant limiting factor in our growth and I know it's the same for many other companies.

i can sympathise with that.
Retailing on the high street,the business I'm in,has to face huge exes ,most of which are unavoidable.
The one expense that is relatively controllable is staff.
Unfortunately retail wages are relatively low but I do offer good incentives and when the profit is there the staff have a share in it.
In return for that I expect loyalty ,honesty and professionalism.

[avinalarf]

Derek Smith said:

One way of limiting the effects of globalisation on those at the bottom, and soon to be those in the middle, is to join a big group of trading nations. That way you can set competition requirements. If a company exporting to the group, let's call it an Economic Union, or EU for short, in udercutting by government subsidy then a tariff can be put on the products to ensure things are fair.

I don't think it will catch on though. Not here.

I alluded to that in an early post.
Problem is what we were sold as a group of trading nations morphed into an idealistic political experiment.

[avinalarf]

sidicks said:

avinalarf said:

Certainly not you sidicks you are truly a model of altruism

I certainly don't think the options are as binary as you appear to be suggesting!

No of course not,there are a variety of options,none of which will satisfy all the people all the time.
The dramatic side of me gets carried away sometimes.
It's achieving a balance where the talented and entrepreneurial are adequately rewarded whilst the less able but also hardworking folk that contribute to the well being of that society get a fair crack of the whip.

[avinalarf]

Kawasicki said:

I listened to a radio program about German attitudes to globalization a couple of evenings ago.

According to a recent government survey globalization is the number one concern for Germans at the moment.

Which is surprising, as it is not what I hear Germans talking about.

In the final minute or so of the program they mentioned that the survey showed that the majority of concern regarding globalization was due to uncontrolled immigration. They didn’t linger on that point long.

So in Germany at least, uncontrolled immigration is classed as a sub category of globalization.

I don’t really see them as the same thing.

About 18 months ago I was on a ferry to Ischia and got into conversation with a German,about sixty years old.
He turned out to be a wealthy industrialist,his company supplying techy stuff to the German car industry.
He said how great he thought it was that Germany would be welcoming the influx of immigrants and praised Merkle for her actions.
The benefits to him,I presume,being a greater pool of labour for his factories.
I sensitively told him about my concerns,and others in the UK,of the problems that such an uncontrolled large influx of immigrants might bring with it.
He was dismissive about those concerns.