Skip to main content

View Diary: Median U.S. household income fell 5% between 1999 and 2009. Globalization remains the core problem (201 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In the poorest countries, the gap (3+ / 0-)

    is less important (to the poor) than the standard of living of the poor. And that standard (in Asia and in parts of S. America) has risen dramatically.

    I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

    by doc2 on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 04:22:38 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  and it will continue to go up (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      truong son traveler

      Indeed, it will inevitably equalize itself with ours.

      That's the whole intent of globalization.

      •  It is not the "intent" of globalization. (4+ / 0-)

        This isn't being driven by people trying to eliminate poverty. This is being driven by the profit motive, and by the motive of we consumers to buy products that are cheaper and better. We want inexpensive products from China, thus Walmart exists. If China and Walmart didn't exist, we would still want inexpensive products, and there would be some other China and some other Walmart.

        I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

        by doc2 on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 04:36:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  it's not the direct intent (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          truong son traveler

          The direct intent is to continually move to the lowest wages.

          But the effect of that is to equalize all the wages. And the corporados know that is a necessary consequence.

          •  You seem to blame them for this. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            truong son traveler

            But trying to produce products at a lower cost is their job. And it is what we, the global consumer, demands from them. This is not being driven by a bunch of evil people who are different from us. This is us; we may not see it as obvious, but this is us.

            I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

            by doc2 on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 05:33:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  not at all (3+ / 0-)

              The problem is inherent in the social structure itself, not in the motives of the people who live in it. The problem is NOT that business people are greedy selfish bastards (though of course most ARE since the system rewards those who are greedy and selfish). The problem is that those who are NOT greedy and selfish lose out in competition to those who are, and therefore the effect of the system's structure is to drag everybody down to the lowest common level whether they like it or not.  If we replaced all the economic managers and owners tomorrow with clones of Mother Theresa or the Dalai Lama, within weeks they'd all be acting the same as before. They have no choice. The very structure of the economic system--the very set of rewards and penalties it imposes--makes everyone evil whether they want to be or not.

              That is the true tragedy of that social system.  It removes the humanity even of the people who benefit most from it.

    •  Right (3+ / 0-)

      Chinese laborers couldn't give a rats ass how much richer Bill Gates is than they are. What they see is "A factory job! Now I'll have metal pots and pans, and steady food supplies to cook with them!"

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 04:32:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Now I have a toilet. (4+ / 0-)

        Now my family will not starve. Now we will not die of rickets or malaria or African sleeping sickness.

        This is what our jobs mean to the desperately poor all over the world. It sucks for the displaced American, absolutely, and the pain is real. But there is another side of this, which is that truly desperate people are getting to make their first step up the development ladder.

        I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

        by doc2 on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 04:38:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  they are making the second step too (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fritzi56

          Once they see rich people living large on their backs, they organize to demand more.

          Which is of course exactly what the companies moved there to avoid in the first place.  So they move to another low-wage haven--and start the same process all over again.

          Eventually they run out of countries.  Then they're fucked.

          •  No, they're not. When labor costs (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sparhawk

            cannot be kept down any longer, prices will rise.

            I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

            by doc2 on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 05:35:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  prices will rise. profits won't. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Meteor Blades

              Big difference.

              A fatal difference.  "The free market" can't live without continuously increasing profits.

              All businesses must be like Rome--"expand or die".

              •  Flat profits are not going to kill (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sparhawk

                the "free market". If/when total profits flatline, there will still be lots of companies growing quickly while other companies are dying. That's all the market needs.

                I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

                by doc2 on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 07:24:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you are quite mistaken (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  New Rule

                  When economic entities are the size of nations and cost trillions of dollars to set up, there will absolutely NOT be "lots of new companies forming quickly while other companies are dying".

                  That may have been true of 19th century Adam Smithian economies made up of lilliputian English shopkeepers.

                  It is absolutely not true in an economy  where a handful of gargantuan multinational megacorporations dominate every industry.

                  The Adam Smithian world of free market economic theory simply does not exist any more.  The corporados killed it over a century ago.

                  And that is precisely why free market libertarian economics always fails--it simply does not correspond to the real world.

        •  This is an interesting discussion in ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sparhawk

          ...the abstract of generic Chinese moving up and generic Americans moving down. But I rarely hear any of the people making this argument willing to be one of those displaced Americans. Or offering any answers as to what reasonable policies can be built to smooth the transition to full globalization. Instead, it's usually some version of that's the way the cookie crumbles.  

          Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 07:18:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            doc2, truong son traveler
            Instead, it's usually some version of that's the way the cookie crumbles.  

            I don't know, can you think of a kindler, gentler way for Americans to take a huge standard of living hit in favor of foreigners?

            No one wants to lose their job or make extreme sacrifices for other people. This is a natural thing, but there is no helping it now. Jobs that can be done by machines or lower-cost labor elsewhere will be done by machines and lower-cost labor elsewhere.

            I'm in favor of retraining/education, unemployment insurance, at least partially socialized health care, all those other liberal programs we all support, etc but at the end of the day it sucks to lose your job and everyone on this probably-50%-overpopulated planet isn't going to come out of this situation smiling. The resources to support such an outcome do not exist.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 07:24:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  the resources do exist (3+ / 0-)

              IIRC, the total per capita global GDP is something like $10,000/year for every man, woman and child on the planet.  Enough for a good living for everybody.

              The problem of course is that one half of one percent of the world's population monopolizes that wealth, while most of the world lives on two dollars a day.

              Our problem has never been that there aren't enough resources for everybody.  Our problem has always been that a small minority has most of the resources, and the rest of us live on the crumbs.

              •  Re (0+ / 0-)
                In 2006, the "real" (adjusted for inflation) median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.[4]

                According to Wiki, US median income was $50,233 in 2006 and mean income was $60,528. Assuming those numbers are roughly the same as today, that implies that USians need to take between a 20-40% pay cut before we're in line with your own global GDP estimates. And that implies no inequality at all, something that even in a perfect world would probably be undesirable.

                (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                by Sparhawk on Mon Apr 25, 2011 at 09:33:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Oh come on. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            andgarden

            You are saying that it is not reasonable for a person to support a policy requiring some randomly distributed sacrifice, without volunteering to be the sacrificee. Every policy represents tradeoffs.

            Would it soften the blow to a laid-off US worker if he were given a couple of photos of families who took his job in say, India, and told how much they were grateful for it? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean that it may not have been for the collective good. What if one negatively impacted American family resulted in ten VERY positively impacted Indian families - is that not worthy of even a thoughtful pause?

            I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

            by doc2 on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 08:24:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  until they see the Chinese equivilent of Bill Gate (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fritzi56

        with solid gold pots and pans, and steady supplies of caviar prepared with them by imported French chefs----all bought with the wealth that THEY produced.

        And that's when the strikes and work stoppages and other such unpleasantness begins.

        •  They won't (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          truong son traveler

          First of all, their living standards are continuously rising anyway simply due to the market.

          Secondly, they don't want to upset the apple cart. They know what true poverty and hunger is like and have no desire to go back to that.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 07:19:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site