Remember: Last time I started writing about the combined arrogance of two authors whose contributions to the unresolved globalization conflict should guarantee their book is found in the fantasy fiction section of book stores and libraries; there was so much material germane to the overall topic of middle class concerns, I decided one post wasn’t enough. Again, we should be mindful of this quotation:
“It ain’t so much what we know that gets us into trouble. It’s what we know that just ain’t so.” -Mark Twain. Presumption, in health care parlance, is a pre-existing condition. Those who are in the globalization is good camp, who think that all benefit by some losing their jobs, including those who lose their jobs, probably still think that a stadium built in your county will economically benefit you, who share residency in that county with a professional sports franchise.
I have shoelaces that don’t believe that. Sure, it helps bars, hotels and local businesses, but I don’t see the economic benefit to the average worker, unless he is a beer salesman with strong calves, who takes a cut off the top of the Budweiser sales. And I can guarantee I’ll never see a box on my W2s that reads: newStadium existence benefit.
Let’s continue and conclude with the subtopic of globalization.
Chapter 3- Employment Trends for Globalization 3.0-
Employment predictions: (pg. 57) The authors make two forecasts- the first, about the local production and consumption of services such as medical care, education, recreation, legal and social services (though there are some in the list I would argue with, as I already have with housing and as I would with utilities and telecommunications) will be locally produced and consumed.
The second prediction is that “the future efficiency of individual national economies will be determined locally, not by global developments.”My comment: Hogwash. The day of the local economy, at least anything that really matters is of little consequence. The business world is positively giddy with the idea of globalization. It is as if there is some mandate that
a department head or CEO, in his communiqués with his or her minions, must include the word global as a noun (globalization) or adjective (global marketplace), talk about diversity, refer to the leveraging of business objectives, asset management, organic revenue growth, integrating technology, and mention a country that borders Bangladesh, yada, yada, yada, or suffer the same fate of those who are caught practicing origami without a license. There isn’t a self-respecting country out there that isn’t global or does not want to be, unless they’re still marrying their siblings, putting whale bones in their nasal passages or praying for saviors in the form of cross-eyed infants or a marsupial indigenous to Tasmania. (Note: here I was thinking specifically of the yapok or water opossum.) The website of one of my favorite corporations recently had a learning opportunity link that read:
“Speak Locally, Compete Globally.” Mr. Greenwald, Mr. Kahn- I could rest my case, but I’m having too much fun casting my pole of sarcasm into the cesspool of misinformation you would call a book and pulling back . . . well hideously deformed, half-considered assertions that would be the metaphorical equivalent of a three-eyed carp. Mentioning the word “global” is cool, even in the insect community. I saw a mole cricket stripped of its exoskeleton at the mere mention of the word- “world” in lieu of the more shiek- “global”.
Legions: “To date, there have never been legions of U.S. workers displaced by globalization. Comparing the figures for 2007 with those for 1997, what stands out is how little has changed in the employment/unemployment data, other than the size of the workforce and the total number of jobs.”
My comment: The annual measure of participants in the spiritual endeavor of onanism* are more stringently calculated than Greenwald and Kahn’s blind supposition that we don’t have a problem where globalization is concerned. From senior white house correspondent for ABC news Jake Tapper (via Dan Arnall), “the Bureau of Labor Statistics says the nation’s employers cut 598,000 workers from their payrolls during January, with significant downward revision to previous months.
This is the worst month of job loss since December 1974 (-602K).” Since January 2008, “the nation has seen more than 3.2 million jobs vanish into the black hole that is the current recession . . . and marks the thirteenth consecutive month of negative jobs growth.” (“Worst Job Loss Numbers Since 1974” February 6, 2009, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/worst-job-loss.html) Is that a legion of jobs? How many of the reported 3.2 million could be pinned on globalization? Is the reality of the recession masking the job losses that could be attributed to the façade, according to Greenwald and Kahn, of globalization? Who would really know for sure?
My comment II: From an AFL-CIO article from some point in early 2004 “Shipping Jobs Overseas: How Real is the Problem”-
“Various independent estimates indicate the number of white-collar jobs lost to shipping work overseas over the past few years is in the hundreds of thousands and millions are at risk in the next five to ten years.” And that is long before your sensible employee working for a corporation interested in sending its people to the unemployment lines began using globalization as a pejorative term; five years later, the facts of globalization have become more apparent, not less.
If only these guys had written their book in 2004 I could cut them some slack, but I have attempted, and thus far succeeded, in the equivalent of abducting their fiction and leaving it in a wooded area to be found five weeks later by a search team that was looking for an original copy of a D.H. Lawrence novel. (Note: the words “global” or “globalization” do not appear in the article, which again, was written in 2004. The virus of globalization has transformed itself since then and there is no reliable inoculation against it; it is more potent than the Swine flu.)
My comment III: Here are
those independent estimators, according to the AFL-CIO: Forrester Research, University of CA at Berkeley, U.S. Department of Labor, INPUT Research, the Economic Policy Institute, Challenger, Gray and Christmas, Gartner Tech, Goldman Sachs, Deloitte Research, and the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Now, I don’t know how qualified or politically slanted each of those separate entities are, but the number of them that are independently refuting what Greenwald and Kahn and hundreds of thousands of others are saying is nothing to dismiss. From the AFL-CIO article referenced above- “Goldman Sachs estimates 400,000-600,000 professional services and information sector jobs moved overseas in the past few years, accounting for about half of the total net job loss in the sector over the period . . . A U.C. Berkeley study found 25,000 to 30,000 new outsourcing-related jobs advertised in India by U.S. firms in just one month in 2003.” I’ve heard that UC Berkley is so liberal Karl Marx would have been thrown out, but globalization isn’t a liberal or a conservative issue per say, but a reality issue.
My comment IV: Seems to me that there have been about as many liberals as conservatives in a position to challenge the corporate world by introducing legislation that would protect the American worker, but their allegiance to upholding the tenets included in the Constitution which preclude this protection appears to be even stronger.
If only they would uphold a majority number of the other promises they made prior to their election- that would be impressive (and I don’t mean that they can simply uphold their promise not to taunt autistic drill monkeys in zoos across the country that have refused to contribute money toward their next campaign); and it would also be commendable if those protections against such prospective proposed legislation were actually enumerated within the Constitution. Hell, 30 republicans (the only nay votes) voted against a bill a few weeks ago that would give rape victims the right to sue a gang of co-workers who have forcibly sexually defiled them. What is wrong with these politicians? For perhaps the same reasons they are against regulating anything where private business practices are concerned, they are in the pro rape camp? It seems “her employment contract [with Haliburton/KBR, a government hired contractor] said that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration--a process that overwhelmingly favors corporations.” See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/jon-stewart-takes-on-30-r_n_321985.html, “Jon Stewart Takes on 30 Republicans Who Voted Against Franken Rape Amendment.” Stewart says- “the old it’s ok if you get raped clause in government contracts . . . got us again.”**
If you don’t get the connection between the government putting the rubber stamp on the off-shoring of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the last decade by corporations and the lack of a commitment to stamp out no bid military contracts, that may or may not include anti-rape clauses, then you are easily distracted by the role of mudskippers in your average seaside jungle habitat.Sucking assessment I: (pg. 69) “In his campaign for the presidency in 1992, Ross Perot tried to capitalize on an earlier version of globalization phobia by claiming to hear
‘the giant sucking sound of (U.S.) jobs going to Mexico.’ Today, that specific fear seems almost quaint in light of the continuing massive movement of Mexican workers to the United States.”My comment: There is a significant difference between our jobs going to Mexico and Mexicans coming here to take American jobs?
I would trust my daughter’s ability to play with open bottles of food coloring on top of my wife’s wedding dress before allowing these two to speculate on the viability of the real threat to American workers in line to lose their jobs in the climate of unchecked globalization. She’s 3 and can, on occasion, go two whole days without wetting herself.Sucking assessment II: (pg. 70) The authors judge the claim made by Perot to be false because “The excess growth of imports over growth of exports caused this 6 percent difference. During the same period, manufacturing employment in the United States dropped by 9 percent. The change in employment (minus 9) was 40 percentage points below the increase in consumption of 31 percent. Six percent of this 40 percent difference in employment was accounted for by the increase in net imports”- blah, blah, blah, blah.
My comment: There was a net gain in imports all right- by an estimated 10-20 million*** from the election of Perot’s competitor (Clinton) in 1992 until just before the recession of 2008. Undeniable. In Greenwald and Kahn’s sequel- “How Best can Fictional Characters Invade Earth?” Greenwald will write that it is better for the earthlings if Kang, while shouting orders in Rigellian, invades our planet, colonizes it and subjects earthlings to a life of servitude before Kodos does so while speaking English. (Note- this joke relies on someone having a working knowledge of the two aliens from The Simpsons; Rigellian is said to resemble English.)
bLow me down: (pg. 71) “Lower-level manual jobs, in the Operator/Fabricator/Laborer/Farmer category, have not increased at all. What has not declined are the fears about the potential for accelerated job losses through outsourcing and offshoring.”
My pre-comment: Greenwald . . . Kahn- have you ever owned a tree? Have you ever seen that all of the leaves that descend to the ground in the fall don’t always stay on your property? Imagine you own a couple of maple trees with orange leaves and one day you walk outside to find that you have hundreds of yellow or red leaves in your yard. Would you imagine all of those leaves changed color and shape overnight, or would you think that those are leaves from another tree? How many metaphors for the reality of outsourcing would you like?
Jobs lost overseas seem no more traceable in the authors’ world, than the travels of leaves in any neighborhood in the United States. I beg to differ.
My comment: Those two have nothing to do with each other. Blue collar jobs have not increased and fears about outsourcing have not declined, nor should they. When a number of my bosses indicate that things are going well in a recently opened satellite installation housing hundreds of employees and
a boss answers direct questions about the future expectations of his employees and answers that he would expect things to continue to go well overseas, without refuting that there could be more phases to the job migration, what would you be-leave? Yeah, I spelled that wrong on purpose.Never break the chain quiz: This paragraph will have nothing to do with the lyrics of Fleetwood Mac’s song- “The Chain”. Greenwald . . . Kahn- you’ve heard of the game- Red Rover? Imagine two teams of ten children facing each other holding hands in a line and take turns sending children over to the other line of children, when their names are called, in an effort to get two kids to stop holding hands. The authors not only do not perceive a real threat to American jobs being shipped overseas, but haven’t seen how people have come here to take American jobs. Quickly, who is most likely to lose a game of Red Rover if 18 children stand on one side of the gym and two stand facing them?
If a competitive Red Rover league starts in your grandchild’s school system, please don’t answer the call if Vegas wants you to handicap the contests. Let the government contract this work out to Halliburton.My blah, blah, blah: Relative to Greenwald and Kahn’s confusing percent-laden faux-proof about the lack of immigration’s effect on American jobs- consider my rebuttal.
In 1986 former president Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). The act granted amnesty to illegals and offered a chance for certain agricultural workers who had been in the country since the first day of 1982 to become legal citizens. This is important to note, as the presidential election of 1992 (the one that included Perot and his “sucking sound” comment) was just six years after Reagan signed this bill. “Even though the Census Bureau estimates a 10-12 million illegal alien population, it is commonly known that many aliens avoid the census count. A more reliable estimate, provided by Bear Stern, estimates nearly 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. as of 2005 . . . it is important to recognize that illegal immigration rises as legal immigration rises.” (Source: http://www.illegalaliens.us/numbers.htm). Isn’t it possible that Greenwald and Kahn are being naïve about the number of immigrants who were actually in the U.S. and employed illegally by a company in the years preceding and directly following the signing of IRCA? Not sure about you, but I’ve read a story here or there about illegal immigration crack-downs, packing plant raids, the building of fences, and that immigrants may not necessarily make border patrol agents aware of their comings and goings. You just can’t take those types of reported numbers for granted- just like you can’t assume the number of people who have admitted to grilling cheddarwurst naked over high heat is less than 5%. And really, do Greenwald and Kahn want to take the narrow view of just looking at manufacturing jobs and how they might have affected lower class and lower middle class American citizens? Consider the drain on health care (i.e. emergency room visits) and education to name just two other issues.
In California, “$7.7 billion [is] spent annually educating the children of illegal immigrants” in Texas $3.9 billion. (Source- http://www.usillegalaliens.com. Also, see parts 22-27.)**** These guys want to talk about the change in net imports and employment levels as they relate to productivity, based on legal immigration; what would be the incentive for companies to report their number of illegal workers and what are the odds that three guys named Carlos, Jose and Juan would be more productive than one guy named Joe. The toad that lived under the hose attached to the back of the house the last 6 weeks of summer is a more gifted thinker.Blue collar jobs: (pg. 73) “Low-level blue-collar jobs are largely safe from further erosion due to cheap imports. [and the recession, immigration is down, and because we don’t export anything, because of the cheap imports] Transportation, distribution, construction, and agriculture accounts for about 70 percent of these jobs, and all of them must be done locally. [The last time a construction job was done without the assistance of immigrants was during the Carter administration. Apparently these guys haven’t had the shingles on their house replaced in the last three decades.] The other 30 percent, or roughly 5 million jobs, are in manufacturing. As we have demonstrated, they are more threatened by automation—productivity improvements—than by globalization. Also, they are not great jobs by almost any standard, and any losses here will be more than offset by growth in lower-level service jobs.”
My comment: . . . which will pay less because of how little experience the people coming into those jobs will have.
These guys would celebrate a job that was kept in our country if the same person losing an application technology job could somehow be employed by the zoo to pick woodticks off of snow monkeys- especially if contracted to do so by Halliburton.Under a bold heading- “What about Wages?” (pg. 74) “The baby-boom generation, the increase in the number and percentage of women holding jobs outside the home, and legal and illegal immigration on a large scale have all expanded the supply of labor, which should exert a downward pressure on wages.”
My comment: Should? Has! It is peculiar, given the overall thesis of the two authors- that people losing their jobs here has virtually nothing to do with globalization, which is quite difficult to prove or refute, and should be uncertain about something which is irrefutable.Earnings and compensation: (pg. 75) “. . . there is a distinction between earnings and total compensation, which includes the cost of fringe benefits like medical insurance, employer pension contributions, workman’s compensation premiums, and government-provided unemployment insurance. Reported average hourly earnings do not include fringe benefits. As the cost of these benefits has increased, especially for medical insurance, the gap between earnings and total compensation has also been widened.”
My comment: This is the best point they make in the entire book and is completely ancillary to their thesis. If they could have repeated it 700 times and included a chapter on words that rhyme with globalization, they would have been onto something. Unfortunately, we are thought to be rewarded with total compensation that is only beneficial to us if we get sick and use the services that we are already paying for. Something to look forward to when we are old, to have the opportunity to get sick more often so we have a greater need for health care services we think our employers are subsidizing, but are really keeping our wage increases low so they can afford to continue to employ us. Hint, it isn’t working. See, they’re trying to pass health care legislation.
The point they made on page 75 at least convinced me that they wouldn’t advise us all to steal $2,000 of our own money, from our own bank.Globalization’s effect on wages: (pg. 76) “In discussions about what globalization is doing to income, the most frequently cited figure is real wages . . . However, because it excludes both supervisory workers and fringe benefits, trends in real wages tend to understate aggregate average improvements in standards of living. Since this trend has coincided with the recent intensification of globalization, globalization has been blamed for the meager rise in real wages. But because the real wage figures are an increasingly unreliable measure of economic well-being, they represent the worst case of the harm that can be attributed to globalization.”
My comment: How’s that? Facts happen to dispel what you are trying to disprove- that globalization’s effects and causes are overstated, but you are going to ignore them? Given the consistency of their type of logic, this is not surprising. Also, they fairly leave out the salaries of supervisory workers because this would bring up the average compensation of non-management types and also leave out fringe benefits, that could have been “earned” by letting x number of average workers go, in favor of globalizing their work force. Kudos.
That old globalization: (pg. 77) “The negative impact of globalization on wages is old, not current, news. The effects of globalization on wages may have been significant in the past, but they have been moderated by the shift in employment toward service jobs, which are far less vulnerable to foreign competition than those in manufacturing. As this trend continues, it is unlikely that things will get worse in the future.”
My comment: How would they know? I’ve already commented how difficult it is economically for people to lose a job that paid them for their longevity, in conjunction with their performance, in order to have to prove themselves in another field starting at the bottom of the pay scale.
And the point isn’t that the problem isn’t new, but their contention that the problem isn’t real.
Chapter 4- Can We Make any Money? What Globalization Does to Profits
Their ability: Greenwald and Kahn are qualified to write a book about globalization. If this particular offering were hocked as a work of fiction, they could very well be onto something.
Their assessment of the car industry, as it concerned the major American car companies from the 1970s through this first decade of the 2000s, their overall health as judged by the S&P 500 index is understandable and meaningful. I would blame rather the imperialism of the federal government for assisting in the destruction of the American car manufacturers rather than globalization. The government allows far too many imports into this country, while we export relatively few by comparison. This is attributable to the world at large not valuing our vehicles for many reasons, not the least of which are size, fuel efficiency, price, and environmental impact, given the lack of constraints the government places on our car manufacturers.
Later in the book, on a number of occasions I was not qualified to follow Greenwald and Kahn’s arguments. I would owe this to my shortcomings rather than to their inability to properly explain themselves. I never insisted I had an expertise in the field of economics, just a working knowledge and an eye for bs.
The reason we don’t fear a monster in the closet is because we’ve never seen one. If there is a monster in the closet, (i.e. a slew of workers taking our jobs, with a couple of professors minimizing the reality of this probable eventuality), there is no reason to pretend not to see it. Globalization- the golden age of opportunity: (pg. 83) “Perhaps globalization has been an opportunity, rather than a threat. After all, economies of scale might become more potent with the world as a market, and the ability to reproduce successful and efficient business models across the world could usher in a golden age of global profitability for established companies in the developed world.”
My comment: Perhaps we can thrive by eating clouds, make friends with bunnies and the money tree won’t ever be cut down. What utopia hell are these guys trying to sell and to whom? Globalization is a threat to those who will lose their jobs and an opportunity for those who will benefit from that job loss. A “golden age of global profitability”- you mean more than now? Do some research on corporate profits. These guys are ushering in the golden age of bullshit. My only hope is that it is less well received than “The Bridges of Madison County” or any of the blasphemous works of the Marquis de Sade. Note to self- check on whether any of Donatien Alphonse François’ works weren’t blasphemous. Hey, when a guy spends 32 years of his life in prison or in an insane asylum, the question has to be asked. Fortunately for me, the world has lessened its punishment for blasphemy. Fortunately, for Greenwald and Kahn they’ve also removed the burden of truth a non-fiction writer formerly felt compelled to uphold.
The golden age again: (pg. 83 again) “However, just as the fear that globalization will eliminate profits has not been supported by events, so, too, the hope that firms will thrive through global expansion has not been realized.”
My comment: Why would corporations be so eager to throw over the anchors (their local employees) for global ones that might cost them a third, or a fifth, as much (paying them lower salaries, no health care coverage and no unemployment)? How rewardingly indecisive and ambiguous these fellows are. Let’s stay tuned.
Touting the authors only to ridicule them: (middle of pg. 83-middle of page 88) The two authors***** deliver some easy to understand examples of international corporate expansion and describe the natural workings of competitive environments centered around a business’ desire to become profitable, how that becomes possible and what can prevent it. Then, about midway through page 88, the authors write about how the oil industry is a local commodity. If that were true, and we import about 62% of our oil (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/05/oil_imports.html), why would American gas companies make windfall profits almost every year and be made to testify before congress on the justification of these profits? (See- “Congress Questions Big Oil’s Big Profits” from April 1, 2008; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23901712/.)
The oil industry seems pretty global to me. My son wants to know why he can’t wake up at nap time. But I try to get him to understand that it is hard to wake up if you’ve never really been asleep. I think my chances of getting through to him would be better if he didn’t really exist and had a clinically diagnosed case of insomnia than are my chances of convincing the authors of a book about globalization, that they have written it out of spite.******
Chapter 5- International Finance in a Global World, Home Field Advantage
Kwan Ju from middle management and the financial logistics of globalization: (pg. 111-113) The authors write about Kwan Ju as a “happily established” “middle manager for a major South Korean Bank.” They describe him as an upper middle class citizen who is eventually subject to the financial marketplace, and to which they ascribe his downfall to something, anything, but globalization. Who knows but that they are right. It would be hard to get into the particulars without spending in excess of two pages on facts about Ju’s predicament in economic terms. The authors also jump into something called FDI- Foreign Direct Investment and show, with another one of their tables, how little the U.S. has given to foreign markets in terms of gross fixed investment.
I am skeptical of the assertions made by the authors. Their continued attempts to qualify (i.e. limit) what is considered a local or global growth, productivity, management, or investment throughout the rest of the book has caused me to distrust their assertions. In morally criminal terms- they may not kill a man, but appear disinterested in saving him- the lie of omission is their most direct avenue to the avoidance of truth- like an ant that suspects the terro will kill his colony, but when he stops to consult with his buddies, chooses not to discuss that with them. My limitations: In my limited capacity to understand financial markets, I could reason that the very nature of the financial industry, now that foreign investors have their hands and money in every market of the globe, could easily be attributable to globalization. I cannot speak in terms of “net incremental financial flows” “per capita investment” and “local private funds”. I understand there are speculators and investors and the latter may throw money at a market based on the advice of the former.
The investors appear to me to be quite clearly manipulating a global economy, even if they are making phone calls to substantially, albeit obliquely, reduce the value of markets across the globe from the security of their own, very local, telephone connection or cell phone tower. The authors write on pg. 114 that “Foreign investors become nervous.” They interpret market conditions and act accordingly, not unlike an employee that sees his job status being affected by other market conditions, not necessarily independent of the manipulations of those speculators or investors. On page 113 the authors relate that “Kwan Ju, with much of his savings having evaporated, was laid off in March 1998. His experience was shared by millions of people in developing or recently developed economies, and it was widely attributed to globalization.” For good reason?
The reality of globalization may live on: I am too ignorant in the world of economics, in writing about differentiated trade, market conditions and things that go on behind the scenes, but
I suspect that these two have done to the threat of globalization what Swayze and Moore did for the clay in that scene in Ghost, while in the midst of foreplay. Or not. Thinking globalization isn’t real is like a gateway drug to thinking that Rush Limbaugh makes a lot of sense. Pretty soon, you’re listening to a podcast of Hannity during your lunch, with your hand down your pants without realizing how much self-awareness you’ve lost. Reading the opinions of these two guys is more comparably difficult than removing the mailbox key from the ignition of a 2005 Mazda MPV on Labor Day with a vice grip. My son sure gets around.
Chapter 6- A Genuine Global Economic Problem, Replacing the Consumer of Last Resort
What are we to do?: (pg. 154) “Any attempt by the United States to eliminate its deficit by devaluing the dollar is likely to be met by countervailing devaluations from other countries. Other measures to eliminate the deficit, like reducing economic growth or imposing barriers to trade, are also likely to be met by offsetting adjustments from other countries.”
My comment: So, there is literally nothing the U.S. can do but agree to send jobs to other countries? Have I compared the lack of a Constitutional precedent that would protect American jobs to Soylent Green yet? If you haven’t heard- “Soylent Green is people!”
Full employment: (pg. 155) “Generally, full-employment demand in the face of increasing trade deficits has come from a steady rise in U.S. consumer spending and an associated decline in U.S. household savings.”
My comment: Imagine how little the U.S. consumer spends when his savings are drastically reduced by his not having a job because it has been given to someone overseas.
Preferences: (pg. 162) “Jobs in the developed world are not going to disappear because of globalization. Automation has always had a greater impact on gross job losses than trade, and we have lived with automation for more than a century.”
My comment: So, the jobs won’t disappear because of globalization, but because of automation. That is a relief. And no contractor hired from overseas is responsible for automating any of the processes in any company in the country?
Isn’t that like saying that when a gulper eel devours a fish in the deep dark recesses of the ocean, it is the acids inside the belly of the beast that work to decompose the fish and wasn’t the eel’s fault for finding the prey appetizing? The idea that globalization and automation are mutually exclusive is more ridiculous than a cat ghost shopping for adult diapers in a bait shop. (Note: I am considering the automation of computer software applications and programs which take the place of workers that used to perform the same tasks.)
Coping skills: (pg. 162) “For companies, coping with global markets can be difficult. But they have managed to cope effectively in the past, and the evidence of recent business profitability suggests that they continue to do so.”
My comment: How difficult companies that are rewarded for sending jobs overseas are coping with globalization is not my concern. It is in the company’s best interest to cope with global markets. The hardship a company bears for having sold their soul******* for a larger profit margin is in no way comparable to the prospect and reality of that company selling out hundreds and thousands of American workers in order to employ some counterparts thirteen hours ahead of them.
Consistent but wrong: (pg. 165) “Without doubt, as we have seen in the examples of China, India, and other Asian countries, economic growth helps to keep populations at home. Economic development, as we have noted, depends far more on local than global forces.”
My comment: But it is global effects that arise when local controls, efficiency and means of production (productivity) fail; local forces are the cause to globalization’s effects. The exception, economic development in the U.S. may be dependent on sending jobs overseas, which equals allowing other countries to keep their populations at home, because they can work for American companies- staying where they are.
Exaggeration: (pg. 115) “Notwithstanding these dramatic episodes, the overall impact of globalization in financial markets, as elsewhere, has been exaggerated.”
My comment: Agreed, and perhaps the overall impact in non-financial markets has been exaggerated, but don’t tell that to someone who sees work being sent to overseas contractors and sees people overseas come to his company to get trained in on his job. Don’t tell me that is not the epitome of globalization. I wonder if we can outsource an apprenticeship for professorial types who attempt to weakly refute the going logic, who have apparently not lived the events they are confident in discrediting.
Putting in my contact lenses, despite my daughter’s defense of pulling on my pants to get me to play with her, is more difficult than defending the honor of the reality of globalization.******** As far as global financial markets are concerned, one should consider globalization and the effects of the recession as a package deal. Recession is likely masking job loss. The recession may just convince bosses that globalizing is a good idea- pay one fifth of the salary, none of the health care benefits, and a company’s operating profit margin increases because they can limit the most expensive outlay of almost any company- controllable costs (i.e. employee salaries).
DONE WITH THOSE GUYS: ONTO SOME OTHER GLOBALIZATION IS KING RUBES
More rebuttal paragraphs: “Call Center Jobs Drifting Overseas” by Bootie Cosgrove-Mather, December 9, 2003. Ambergris Solutions
“is among 45 Filipino and foreign players in the Philippines’ booming call center business, which has generated 30,000 jobs in just five years here – new local employment at the expense of American workers . . . The United States has lost 250,000 call center jobs to India and the Philippines since 2001, according to Technology Marketing Corp., a Norwalk, Conn.-based company specializing in call centers and telemarketing.” I’ll bet, but the company may as well specialize in attempting to plausibly link shingles contracted by ego-maniacal goat herders to the 9/11 attacks, for people like Greenwald and Kahn to believe that the facts don’t lie.
“Forrester Research estimated last year that 3.3 million service industry jobs, including call centers, and $136 billion in wages, will move to countries like India, Russia, China and the Philippines.” No kiddin’. And people- that was from an article written in 2003. NFL teams are still in the process of copying the wildcat formation, can you imagine the pronounced increase in outsourcing from six years ago? It isn’t even worth my time to investigate.
Organized labor: And the competition overseas is targeting our language and culture as a way to put U.S. consumers at ease about foreign involvement with international trouble-shooters; smart and devious:
“As a hedge against [complaints by customers seeking tech support on calls routed to India] the Philippines has a Call Center Academy that focuses on teaching English proficiency, as well as American culture, call center technology and sales, telemarketing and customer service skills.” Concerning pay- “The trade and industry department says a Philippine agent, with starting pay of about $218 to $273 monthly, gets only a fifth of an American counterpart.” (Source: “Call Center Jobs Drifting Overseas” article as referenced above.)
Executive horse muffins: I may be watching too many MASH reruns with Harry Morgan.********* I could quote dozens of books and articles which either defy the reality of globalization or that are in support of it, but by and large the argument comes down to this- expressed in a paper written on March 17, 2004 for the Center for Trade Policy Studies, titled “Job Losses and Trade- A Reality Check” by Brink Lindsey (with a heading which precedes this point which reads: Executive Summary):
“Even in good times, job losses are an inescapable fact of life in a dynamic market economy. Old jobs are constantly being eliminated as new positions are created. Total U.S. private-sector jobs increased by 17.8 million between 1993 and 2002. To produce that healthy net increase, a breathtaking total of 327.7 million jobs were added, while 309.9 million jobs were lost. In other words, for every one new net private-sector job created during that period, 18.4 gross job additions had to offset 17.4 gross job losses.”
I’ve seen this point made often, like it is some illness that makes its way through a house susceptible to germs, no matter how often most people in the house wash their hands. People who listen to Hannity or Limbaugh on the conservative side are become slaves to this kind of logic and the liberals are not immune either, swallowing virtually anything people like Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews or Anderson Cooper have to say about global warming or the lack of social welfare being visited on the less fortunate.
Executive cow patties: When Mr. Lindsey writes of the “inescapable” and “cyclical” nature of job losses and gains he does so as if all jobs are created equally and endowed by their creator with certain “inalienable rights”. We learned that Jefferson was a bit of a hypocrite for keeping slaves while penning those words and that conservative or liberal types, who support job loss for the supposed economic benefit of all, are hypocrites.
If I regularly attend a dinner party each month where the same excellently prepared, and good tasting food is served on each occasion and am told that not only will many of my acquaintances no longer be invited, but they are going to send most of the food out to people who live in apartments away from the event, but add twice the number of menu options, while changing them all to foods that are tarragon-based, (which I am allergic to), how is that a positive change? Wouldn’t I need to be qualified for, or find desirable, (from an economic/money-making standpoint), the jobs that are being created?
Death is inescapable . . . taxes are inescapable . . . neighbors deciding not to clean up their dog’s excrement before Halloween trick-or-treating so that you get it all over your shoes is inescapable; job losses due to globalization is not inescapable. It is the very insufferable reality of government irresponsibility allowing corporate greed! Executive bird potty: My son came up with that one- the potty part. “Calls for new trade restrictions to preserve current jobs are misguided. There is no significant difference between jobs lost because of trade and those lost because of new technologies or work processes.” Correct, and there is no difference if legislation is passed which regulates the number of jobs lost, and to what endeavor. Doing nothing is not an option. “To do nothing is in every man’s power.” – Samuel Johnson.
We should not continue to elect 535 legislators who while agreeing with this sentiment, ignore the reality it preaches. Let’s pass some legislation and test Lindsey’s theory. So that I am not just offering a complaint without offering a remedy:
again I say, let us find where we are wasting government money in local, state********** and federal expenditures, whether on military hardware, social welfare state or entitlement programs, credit card fraud, education or health care spending etc. and direct it appropriately, such as- leaving it in the hands of consumers for example. This would then lower the taxes of the consumers, allowing them to spend more of their own money, and the corporations, allowing regulations like limiting their ability to offshore tens of thousands of jobs overseas to be enacted into law. A tax reduction to corporations which would require the government to more wisely spend our money, would offset major losses limiting a corporation’s right to send American jobs overseas. You simply cannot complain about being overtaxed as a corporation and still get to send jobs overseas. Fix both issues with one law. Also, as I’ve stated before, (particularly in part 42) on the state level- make it no more attractive for a company to be based in Tulsa than in Tallahassee by standardizing tax structures, incentives and guarantees.
This will not be easy and also, as I have stated before, campaign finance reform will have to be in place prior to tackling the issue of a standardized corporate tax structure on the national levels (i.e. state v. state, where one state’s limitations prevent it from competing for the right to gain a corporation’s base of operations).
Executive pig cookies: Lindsey also writes that “Job losses are always painful, and the
recent recession and sluggish recovery have meant real hardship for many Americans. It is important, however, to shun hysteria and demagoguery in assessing what is going on with the labor market and why.”
By having read some on this subtopic, I have found that many economic writers have referred to a recession, or some type of economic downturn, every three years of the past decade, which demagogues like Lindsey have used to justify massive job loss- again, with the idea of not directly linking it to globalization. 2000 (dot com bubble), 2003 or 2004***********, 2006, and of course everyone knows about the current recession, have all taken a bite out of our total job counts, while experts, like Lindsey, maintain that just as many, or more, jobs have been created. Second,
I find it charming that the old, “job loss is cyclical” argument is thrown out to defend against the supposed hysteria behind globalization in the same way “experts” throw out the “weather patterns are cyclical” argument to attack the theory of climate change. You know what else is cyclical- executive bull bagels. Ok, maybe that isn’t so much cyclical as constant. (Note: for Lindsey’s full critique of how normal tens of thousands of jobs moving overseas, please see- http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/tbp-019.pdf.
The sum of all fears: Lindsey writes that “Fears That the U.S. Economy is Running out of Jobs are nothing new.” He then spends a few paragraphs chronicling the history of job loss fears since the 1930s. So, basically, the cumulative effect of our fears about massive job losses has never gone away, like our cumulative complaint about a better legislature, higher taxes, or the drain on the economy predicated by the numerous cases of kangaroo with plantar fasciitis, for which we all have to pay. Lindsey writes about the net number of jobs created in the IT industry which replaced those which were lost to manufacturing.
Since those tens and hundreds of thousands and millions of jobs have already migrated to the IT industry, where are those who are in the IT industry, who lose their jobs, likely to find employment, let alone, employment which compensates them fairly for the amount of money they spent on their education? Those who lost manufacturing jobs, could get more schooling and become qualified in a traditional white collar job, with some effort. That is a substantial difference. And is Lindsey just figuring on how many of the jobs are created for Americans and not just jobs that are created, that no American can fill, which is a fashionable and reality-based desire a corporation might have, because then they can, will, and have, looked to outsource it- sighting reasons such as the collective American workforce 'does not produce enough qualified prospective employees,' argument, something I addressed in the subtopic of immigration. Again, the same old argument- the old “fears about globalization is unfounded” crowd must have attended a seminar. Lindsey quotes from Ross Perot, just as Greenwald and Kahn have done and just as the three writers (of the Ten Myths article) below have done. (Caleb’s ant book- pg. 36) (Note: Lindsey actually made a lot more sense in his 11 page paper than Greenwald and Kahn made in their 174 page book. Since I find his argument more credible, I will have to watch what happens to the hundreds of people in the same work sector I work in who are in the process of having their positions moved overseas, and whether they find work elsewhere in a field that suits them economically or personally. Who knows, I may not have to go far to inquire. There is no telling how long I will be working for my present employer. I checked the website for the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/) - the recession that manifested itself in the third quarter of 2008 and saw the most jobs lost in the first quarter of 2009 shows a relatively stagnant mass layoff event history since 2005. Again, sans recession, I contend that the overall loss of jobs to globalization will outweigh the gains in the coming years. I believe this in part because: “The number of extended mass layoff events in the third quarter of 2009 reached a record high for any third quarter (with data available back to 1995).” Assume that this is solely, or even primarily because of the recession if you wish.)
This level of employment is unprecedented: At least for now. I read in another column in defense of globalization as a real threat to American jobs- this one has three authors- that
“More Americans are employed now than ever before.” The paper clip holding my papers together on this subtopic, that suffers from pleurisy and shortsightedness, is wise enough to laugh at this line, especially after reading this follow up paragraph- “The household employment survey of Americans indicates that there are 1.9 million more Americans employed since the recession ended in November 2001. There are 138.3 million workers in the U.S. economy today—more than ever before.” Anyone? Have these people looked at the U.S. population figures in the last ten years?
There are more people employed because there are more people. Wow. Unbelievable- in 1776, if these three had been alive, while sharing one pair of binoculars, they would have been unable to properly assess the threat level of a hundred rows of armed British soldiers marching toward Boston; they would not have recognized the attack formation, the ridiculous red coats, or perhaps most importantly- the British’ stupid overconfidence in marching straight down a street, or through an open field, toward their intended targets. Lady bugs that huddle in my basement in the fall, attempting to wait out the winter, practicing their skirmish behavior, are more wise than the former British, or the three people it took to write the paper I quote from directly above, the source of which is: “Ten Myths about Jobs and Outsourcing” by Tim Kane, Brett D. Schaefer, and Alison Acosta Fraser, April 1, 2004.)
We’re all in this together- yeah right: For myth #5 our three authors combined to offer this: “Outsourcing is a means of getting more
final output with lower cost inputs, which leads to lower prices for all U.S. firms and families. Lower prices lead directly to higher standards of living and more jobs in a growing economy.” Lower prices do not directly lead to higher standards of living. If the prices of goods and services go down because of globalization and the cost of health care, food, gas, natural gas to heat your residence, and the cost of a residence itself go up, then the standard of living will remain as stagnant as it has in the past decade or longer. (Remember, it is important to be mindful of income inequality, cost of living salary increases relative to real inflation, the number of dependents within the family structure and the cost of goods and services, when calculating the standard of living.)
Besides, if the lower prices, which can be directly attributed to globalization, come at the cost of some people losing jobs they won’t be able to replace (in terms of how much an employee can earn), and which used to pay them in something other than hope or cigarettes (i.e. money), it doesn’t matter how low the price of a good or service might be unless it is free, because the unemployed won’t have any money to pay for it. Nice try with the “lower prices for all U.S. firms and families” bit. Like we’re all in this together. I had a soccer coach when I was in fourth grade not play all of his kids, telling me “we” had a better chance of winning if certain kids played and certain kids didn’t. Is there really a “we” if people aren’t contributing? If people lose their jobs because their government wouldn’t protect them, whose team do you expect the unemployed to be on?
Consumer spending rationale: In this article- “Spending Surges, but Jobless Claims Rise” Associated Press, October 1, 2009, I read this- “Consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of total economic activity (or at least it will unless the government does something about health care costs), jumped in August by the largest amount in nearly eight years even though personal incomes continued to lag.” I don’t know if the people writing these news stories have the same idea about how unexplainable, cyclical and inescapable everything is,
but I wonder if they considered that there is no way to track who is spending the money, while personal income is easy to track. Anyone who doubts the latter should ask the federal government. On the other hand- walk into the Home Depot to buy a space heater, buy it and see if the store register has a way of knowing what nationality you are, whether you are here illegally, or whether you make more than $250,000 a year. I’m insinuating that just because spending is up over expectations, while job losses have somewhat stagnated, doesn’t mean that those who are about to lose their jobs, have just lost them, or just acquired a tenuous position, are the ones spending the money.
No one could contend that- excepting those who want to debunk the hysteria surrounding globalization, share binoculars, and need friends to help them treat truth like a rooster that used to be a celebrated cock fighter in a state that has run perilously short of turkeys the third week in November. See . . . because of Thanksgiving . . . they would be desperate . . . and they would need to eat the rooster out of desperation . . . whose abilities have declined. Damn, I should have used the 'cow that is no longer producing milk needs to be slaughtered' metaphor.Let’s outsource everything: Seriously, pro globalization people just start up a midget’s and dung beetles only bowling league and outsource the official scoring and replay booth reviews to people in the Philippines and shut the hell up! As long as sarcasm and irreverence (and maybe irrelevance) cannot be outsourced, I may be ok.
Again I must include: “It ain’t so much what we know that gets us into trouble. It’s what we know that just ain’t so.” Mark Twain________________________________________________
* I’m going to let you look that one up.
** Also, it seems as if that provision, within the text of HR 3226, proposed by Franken, is in danger of being removed- “ Multiple sources told reporter Sam Stein that the provision—which would prohibit the Pentagon from hiring contractors whose employment contracts prevent employees from taking work-related allegations of rape and discrimination to court—is being targeted by defense contractors. Their lobbyists have reportedly flooded Inouye’s [Appropriations chairman, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)] office, worried they may lose contracts or open themselves up to lawsuits . . . Stein points out that Inouye has received $294,900 from the defense industry over the course of his career. His top two contributors are defense contractors Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.” Ah, democracy at work. (For text of the quoted material from above see- http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/report-frankens-rape-amendment-may-be-stripped-from-defense-bill.php. TPM LiveWire- “Report: Franken's Rape Amendment May Be Stripped From Defense Bill”, by Rachel Slajda, October 23, 2009. Nowhere in the Constitution does it enumerate where government can restrict contractors specifically, or businesses generally, from including anti-rape clauses in their arrangements- arranged marriages to lampposts or balloons with flat feet- sure. By the way, Franken’s desired amendment was to be included in a defense bill. This wasn’t an amendment he proposed to add to a bill that would imprison all spayed, beige alpacas until they birthed twelve offspring. No reason for the no votes.
*** Why would we not know two of the most valuable pieces of information relative to employment data- how many legals and illegals have been coming into the United States and how many jobs are leaving? Seems to me, these are two fairly important pieces of information. We know how left-handers named Rodriguez fare as starting pitchers on the road in day games in outdoor stadiums that are less than five years old in the months of June and July, but there is no government agency assigned the task of tabulating the number of jobs lost to those coming into our country or the number of jobs sent overseas? I know, there must be an amendment in the Constitution which prohibits this? If there is no such U.S. government agency tracking these figures, can we perhaps globalize this job to a foreign country, and put those who seem to know how ridiculous complaining about the effects of globalization can be out of a job?
**** Those interested in multiple websites projecting the number of illegals per decade- can go to the MPI- Migration Policy Institute website- “The best available estimates place the growth in the size of the unauthorized immigrant population at about 500,000 each year.” (Source- MPI’s “Annual Immigration to the United States: The Real Numbers.” The estimate above- 500,000 is derived from a Pew Hispanic Center estimate.)
***** Or maybe just one. I think Kahn took a break at this point.
****** Holy wow. I checked the book back in and am writing this with some notes I took and some photocopied pages. I don’t have all of the material on hand and had hoped that the book was available online. Amazon has an image of the book with the word “Unabridged” on it. Noooooooooooooooooooooooo. Insert your joke here about what the benefits of the abridged version of this topic might be.
******* A company that employs more than a few hundred people still having a soul these days- assume that I am kidding. One thing is for sure- any Faust character represented in music, literature or art in the last 500 years, would be proud of our American corporations, for finding a way to sell another’s soul a few hundred times, at an un-newsworthy interval, concealing the number of jobs lost over a period of time.
******** I also learned that if she stubs her toe and asks for a princess band-aid, you damn well better get it for her so that all is better. This is not the approach I like to take with adults who should know that when they stub their toe on a topic this massive, they should be made aware they are causing other people pain.
********* Harry Morgan starred as Col. Sherman Potter, replacing Maclean Stevenson as the 4077’s man in charge. Potter used a number of colorful euphemisms for things that didn’t add up logically.
********** It was recently discovered that the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) had been given a number of flat screen televisions to inmates. Those tvs were also removed, on MN governor Tim Pawlenty’s order, and “reinstalled in veterans homes and at National Guard bases.” The real problem, as D.J. Tice writes in a recent Minneapolis Star Tribune column, “It’s Easy to Pounce on that Political Football” November 1, 2009, OP1 and OP3, stems from a decision made by the Minnesota legislature 15 years ago to consider “sexually dangerous person[s]” as patients and not as prisoners which escalated the annual price tag on their incarceration/hospitalization by $89,000. Quite a savings to be had for the additional 200 “patients” as were incarcerated in the early 1990s. I wonder who pays for that? The odds that a sexual criminal can be rehabilitated aren’t worth that price. I can guarantee this isn’t the most egregious of the little-known, publicly-funded, government-sanctioned misallocations.
*********** Lindsey writes of the “recent recession”. As I referred to above, his paper was written in March of 2004. I can only assume that he is referring to a recession that took place in either 2003 or 2004, which I do not recall, but about which I will trust his judgment.
