|
|
|
|
|
|
by smcl
2981 days ago
|
|
|
I know many economists would disagree with me - they're the same who would also be OK with the decline of industry in places like the north of England and the Rust Belt and would point to the overall raise in the GDP per capita and the rise of the service sector and say that this roughly cancels this out. However they can afford to treat the country like a big "system" and can ignore the plight of the individuals who have been left behind in this system and the communities where they live. The main thing is that just I hate that otherwise smart people find it so easy to "other" a big group of people and find ways to back their belief that ultimately this groups suffering is just and good. It's not. As I said, maybe we can't do anything about it ... but the least we can do is not be so fucking smug about it. Rant over. |
|
|
You're missing the big picture. People in e.g. China are better off now because they are enjoying the upside from wage growth. Americans enjoyed this in the 1950s, but the ensuing globalization meant the improvement in wages would go to the lowest paid workers. In theory, once developing nations reach the same minimum wage as the U.S., American workers will start reaping the rewards of increased wages. In the meantime, Americans can pat themselves on the back for having a strong currency, cheap products made with cheap Asian labor, a great justice system, and employment and education opportunities galore.
The globalization genie is out of the bottle. It's not a matter of being able to afford to think the country as a big system -- you're the one who's myopically looking at it from the perspective of a cherry-picked subset of workers.
Americans can either wait until the developing nations catch up or they can invest in education (and write legislation) to bring more workers into the 21st century. Swimming against the tide of globalization is akin to fighting the Industrial Revolution -- I suggest giving up on that idea.