It isn’t a 100% proven fact that Chinese economics works better. But it is something being discussed. China has a public/private system (based on my amateur understanding of the situation). Putin goes after plutocrats while that would never happen in the US, over here the plutocrats won’t even get a clawback of bonuses let alone jail time. Brazil has a leftist president who was a labor leader. Several of the fastest growing economies reject free market liberal economic in one way or another. Latin American leaders are working together to create banks as counterweights to the IMF or world bank. That is going to hopefully affect the global outcome of how business is done.
Like it or not, there is resistance to US economic policy which has faith that the market will work things out for everyones interest on its own. Latin America is electing leftist leaders because it is tired of income growth never trickling down. China and Asian nations are combining private and public influence.
No, it’s not different at all. Intel still hires in the US, and I’m sure you’ve read in the Merc lately about the hiring that Google is planning. And just for the record, Intel’s first overseas factory was in Penang, in the early 1970s. I know a lot of the guys involved in the start-up.
Intel’s fabs first migrated out of CA because of the business environment here, but there is a good business reason for having manufacturing and design spread out, geographically, when you’re a company like Intel-- a large player in the global market. It’s been quite awhile since Intel first started getting > 50% of its revenue from outside the US.
The guy who worked for me came from Penang. It is not a fab. (Maybe it is now, it wasn’t then.)
When I was there the fab in Santa Clara was doing experimental work and early silicon. It was way too small to do full production work, and there was no room to expand. The fabs in Oregon and Chandler were much bigger and more isolated. The growth in California (they were putting up the second tower when I left) seems to argue against the horrible business environment.
Yes, global markets requires global manufacturing. I don’t know about Intel today, but in my company we are definitely hiring overseas for jobs which would have been local, and it is definitely to reduce costs (though we are making tons of money.) I’m trying to avoid the whole thing because I don’t want to be in conference calls at 3 am. They are also encouraging engineers here to move back - where they will inevitably leave with their knowledge.
Your globalist dream world is collapsing around your ears. You should listen to Wesley Clark; his warning is spot-on. Globalism will either destroy itself or be destroyed by the people. It is in no way sustainable. It will not last.
No, it’s assembly and test. But that’s a factory, too. Building a fab overseas is not some quantum barrier-- it’s just a logical step in a global business strategy.
The business environment I was talking about was wrt building factories. Intel decided long ago that it would never build another one in CA.
I’m not sure what the proves. It’s a global economy and everyone is competing with everyone else. I’ve never said otherwise.
At any rate, this whole tangent was started by a claim that we should listen to Andy Grove. I say listen to what he (ie, Intel) does, not what they say.
And my point was that the poster in question was clearly not guilty of appealing to authority, so you were silly to claim that he would be accused of it. To the extent that you make the same point as he, you are not guilty of it, either—but when I tried to engage you in an argument about offshoring and you kept bringing up how wrong I was because, hey, look at these opinion polls! That’s an appeal to authority. Which isn’t convincing, I’m afraid.
As I said, the first one’s free. But further lessons will have a cost commensurate to the degree of difficulty pushing an idea through your skull.
Never thought I’d see the day but I guess I’m turning into a conservative. The linked article is a fluff piece about a guy who has been out of work for more than 2 years and is just now reaching the point where he has to give up his house because he can’t make the rent. It is a sad, and sadly told, story but I just can’t see it as some sort of incitement of the American way. He moved there just 5 years ago (when he was 50), lost his job more than 2 years ago and is just now lamenting the fact that he may have to look elsewhere for work? That’s the saddest case in Las Vegas?
Las Vegas is in the middle of a desert and it’s economy is built on, umm, I’ll call it entertainment. When people don’t want to visit Vegas as much for entertainment then some of the people who live there are going to have a problem. Who is supposed to create jobs for these people in the middle of a desert or are we supposed to just keep sending money? I’m not going to drop what I’m doing to go open a bar in Vegas, one that doesn’t offer the offending Mojito, just so this guy can find the kind of job he wants.
Yeah, the guy is in a tough spot, but he’s been a bartender for years and he only now realizes that he has to compete with the youngsters for his next job? He should’ve gotten some advice from a stripper or two. They shouldn’t be too hard to find in Vegas.
Charity. Have you not heard of Charity, sir? Methinks you are another victim of the left-wing media.
Right-thinking Americans understand we must encourage Charity. Obviously it is the rich who give; we must reduce their taxes. As a simple example, suppose we take all the money wasted on public education and return it to over-taxed rich people. They will be happy to give, and will generously create wonderful new schools without the lazy government employees, teaching of premarital sex and Bible-hating, etc., like we have today. America could be a wonderful place if taxes on the rich weren’t so ridiculously high.
I did have to laugh, though, at comments that less-privileged Americans might take to the streets, as we’ve seen recently in Egypt. Americans are not so easily gulled by Marxist “thought.” One sees this even in elections, with poorer Americans joining the rich to elect pro-business government, while the left-wing Democrat Party draws much of its support from pussilanimous intellectuals.
Indeed, the only reason I ever checked one out initially is because they brought in the food products for school lunches when I was a kid and I recognized the name. Not everything is a good deal there, but some things are.
The “Chinese model” has been to peg their currency to the global reserve currency (US$) to artificially devaluing their currency and encouraging imports, utilizing their vast pool of cheap labor, and taking a relatively hands off approach to regulation or consumer protection.
Is China’s model sustainable? All this “China hype” sounds much like a speculative bubble to me. And if you want to talk about income disparity, compare the standard of living of the rural communities with the cities.
Also, it’s my understanding that China isn’t “cornering the market on rare earth elements” so much as the increasing demand due to all the iPhones and whatnot out there is driving up their cost.
You’re out of your mind. At least insofar that your perception of reality is significantly different from actual reality. Surveys continue to show that people who study STEM fields (Science, Tech, Engineering and Math for those in the peanut gallery) tend to earn significantly more.
To a lot of us here.
I find it baffling that you can look at current events at come to the conclusion that the “globalist dream is collapsing” when, in fact by any objective measurement or observation, the opposite is true.
Yea I’m sure some feel exactly that way. Remember that poster that actually wanted the poor to die in the streets? Most I’d wager are too stupid to know what’s going on and reacting brainlessly to sound bytes. Some just pure greed.
But yes it’s ominous like dark clouds on the horizon. A lot of people are facing tough times and they appear to be getting worse. Hopefully it’ll pass, but all the suffering is needless. I’m in a fortunate position of being a student. With luck maybe this will be passed by the time I get in the job market. I can weather this as student poor, which is lightyears better than actual poor.
Many aren’t so lucky, and have big shit sandwiches waiting for them.
The question your begging is if there’s replacement jobs available that people: individuals and families can support themselves on. Now for different individuals with different skill sets the answer varies.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say unemployment rates say no, for many. Now one could go back to school and pick up new skills, and they should, but every person has different challenges. Plus on this board I see a lot of people complaining about degree inflation. What happens if all those unemployed go back to school? Well now a masters is the new bachelors. Trade school would be a good idea, but again I’m not sure it’s a realistic option for many depending on circumstance.
Further I’m not convinced there’s enough jobs to absorb all the displaced people, even with new skill sets. They may just drive wages down for people already in those industrys.
Leave aside the strawman (or not, since some conservatives are as dumb as a box of rocks) and answer the actual question, not circle around the ‘lazy’ part and go into paroxysms of joyful converse about how this isn’t true. It ISN’T true, by and large…so, move on.
Again, the crux of the OPs message is that the US no longer has jobs for all the people who want to work, since said jobs have been shipped overseas, never to return (and that every job shipped is a net loss to the US). Do you agree?
Folks who believe what the OP is saying (he won’t answer me directly so I’m asking those of you who don’t have me on ignore), or are at least nominally on his ‘side’…do you believe the above to be a true and accurate statement of the only option available? Do American unemployed have to leave the US in order to get a job? Do you feel that accurately sums up the current situation? And, addressing what the OP is really getting at, is it because of offshoring and outsourcing that we are in our current fix, unemployment wise? That, essentially, the recession doesn’t matter (implicit in the OP’s message, since he claims that even in a recovery we won’t recover those jobs)?
What I want the government to do is simple. Institute safety sheets. Safety sheets are like safety nets, except they have a lot less holes.
For starters, given the expensive mess our healthcare system is maybe a good starting point would be to move to a more UK style system where everyone is covered under public healthcare, and for those who want extras secondary coverage from private insurers is available. Healthcare is a real and drastic cost in the US for companies. The savings of an American NHS would do much more than negate any extra taxes needed.
Jettisoning that economic dead weight would be good for American companies. Right now business in the US includes a 2x to 3x increase in healthcare costs vs some other western democracies.
Further maybe some make work projects. It should be directed toward things that are needed anyway, but I think just having a job would do a lot of good for many people. I think the federal highway system is a good example of good make work projects in the past. Maybe this era could see equipping the infrastructure for electric cars, and much needed repairs and upgrades to the electrical system. Of course that’s skilled labor work, but a lot of it could be done by someone trained to do certain parts with oversight.
Well if jobs aren’t to be had, what are people to do? Why do republican conservatives wish to take safety nets away? When I see events in Washington DC I see an elephant with a big middle finger pointed at the economically troubled.
Why shouldn’t the recipients of the gesture break that middle finger and twist it off?
You’re wrong because offshoring does not produce any benefits to the working class. We already had an increasing standard of living and plenty of technological progress before globalism matured into the demon it is now.
The fact that the polls have turned against you is a case of Darwinian judgement: you are the political/economic version of the dodo bird. The dodo bird may have believed itself to have a great argument for survival, it may have even believed it was the ultimate animal in the world. How many are left now to make that argument? That’s the future of your argument.
First you need a credible idea to push, and you, sir, have not been able to come up with one.
And your argument is nauseating to most Americans. Don’t play argumentum ad un-populum with me, because I have way bigger numbers behind me than you do. Anti-offshoring laws are in motion all over the country; when it reaches the initiative process level, you have no hope of stopping it.
What objective observation? You mean the decline of the US currency, which will make globalism impossible? You mean the rise of anti-globalist sentiment in America? You mean the anti-Monsato anti-globalists raising a stink in India, and all the other anti-globalists that are popping up? You mean the South American economies which aren’t even buying into that garbage?
The unrest fomented by the unemployed around the world are the FIRST sign that globalism is collapsing.
So, you think that people are seriously discussing putting in place trade and monetary protectionism, ignoring the environmental laws that are on a countries books in favor of rapid expansion, poor worker rights and pay, and what amounts to a feudalistic view on business, with various government and military leaders actually having direct control of factories and such for their own gain? Who are the people who are seriously looking at the ‘Chinese model’? Can you name some economic experts who are peer reviewed who believe that there is something the Chinese are doing that other countries should emulate? Because, on the surface, this seems a incredible claim, once one takes more than a rose colored glasses view of how China is accomplishing their economic growth. And that’s the thing…China started out VERY poor. They are now only poor. They have had explosive growth because, well, they were at the very bottom of the economic dog pile, and any growth would look explosive when you start that far down. It is incredible that they have managed to come so far so fast, but the way they did that…well, I seriously doubt that you or Le Jac or most other people (liberal or not) would be willing to pay the prices they have and are paying for that prosperity. Consider just the ecological impacts they are having, if nothing else.
