Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Once again, the global trade balance is always equal to zero. For any country to run a surplus, some country must run a deficit. Who thinks that poor counties should be the ones in deficit?
When you look at America and Europe, they seem to be a victim of their own success. They have economically prosper greatly, yet eventually as we have seen things eventually got outsourced due to the fact companies and employers don't want to have to pay what in such countries would be good wages and benefits. Instead they go to poorer countries where for all intents and purposes they can be used as slave labor.
Is this just always an inevitable outcome? Is there anyway for a country to greatly prosper while at the same time insuring good wages and benefits for the good majority of its population?
Democratic countries will always fail, as they are majority rule. No right is given anyone, other than that the majority considers appropriate.
When you look at America and Europe, they seem to be a victim of their own success. They have economically prosper greatly, yet eventually as we have seen things eventually got outsourced due to the fact companies and employers don't want to have to pay what in such countries would be good wages and benefits. Instead they go to poorer countries where for all intents and purposes they can be used as slave labor.
Is this just always an inevitable outcome? Is there anyway for a country to greatly prosper while at the same time insuring good wages and benefits for the good majority of its population?
No, that's nonsense. Just look at some European countries (eg Denmark, Germany, Netherlands or Switzerland). They all have good wages and are all able to achieve high current account surplusses. The problem of the U.S. is that most of their industries are overstaffed, aka low productivity. That makes it impossible to achieve balanced current accounts.
Once again, the global trade balance is always equal to zero. For any country to run a surplus, some country must run a deficit. Who thinks that poor counties should be the ones in deficit?
Poor countries have normally a backlog demand on investment and consumption goods. So it makes a lot of sense if those countries have a trade deficit. Those countries need foreign capital. Goods and capital flows in the same direction. A trade deficit means that the country imports capital.
Advanced countries use normally state-of-the-art production technologies and have a well skilled work force and are therefore able to produce more goods than they actually need. Those countries achieve export surplusses.
Rich countries have normally a trade surplus, whereas poor countries normally have a trade deficit.
Is this just always an inevitable outcome? Is there anyway for a country to greatly prosper while at the same time insuring good wages and benefits for the good majority of its population?
Yes. The key is for any country to stay nimble. Globalization does not steal jobs, it changes the job landscape. Some jobs leave a country but new ones appear. The key is for a country's labor pool to be able to change as the job landscape changes.
The newer jobs tend to be high-tech jobs requiring a better educated populace. It will be harder for a labor pool to adjust if it is poorly educated, so providing education is one way a country can be better prepared.
Another aspect is access to jobs - if all the new jobs are in a few cities (think: Silicon Valley, Seattle, Austin, Boston) it won't help people in other areas. The country can help distribute new industries better through tax incentives and providing infrastructure in areas where industries are leaving.
Globalization is here to stay. The US is a much smaller contributor to global GDP now so if the US retracts and pulls out of the global economy, it will just move ahead without us. The void will then be filled by one of many other countries and we will have lost forever our dominate position. Protecting jobs will provide some short term relief to US workers but ultimately it will weaken the US economically.
Some jobs leave a country but new ones appear. The key is for a country's labor pool to be able to change as the job landscape changes.
If you have a perpetual trade deficit, then there is a net loss of jobs.
Education levels in the US aren't a problem (we are way ahead of Germany for instance), but rather our policies and regulations encourage businesses to invest elsewhere.
Quote:
Globalization is here to stay. The US is a much smaller contributor to global GDP now so if the US retracts and pulls out of the global economy, it will just move ahead without us. The void will then be filled by one of many other countries and we will have lost forever our dominate position. Protecting jobs will provide some short term relief to US workers but ultimately it will weaken the US economically.
Nothing in that paragraph makes a bit of sense. The US's position in globalization has always been to absorb the excess production of other countries. Is this something we need to preserve? Oddly no other country wants that job! It's been nothing but a disaster for US citizens.
Millions of dirt poor subsistence farmers have moved to the cities for good jobs and futures.
Indeed. The family in the village who have the guy away working in Shenzhen will have the newest scooter, the satellite dish, and some savings started up for English classes when the grandkids get old enough.
He would have been working the fields instead of working on cell phones, and been doing it for way less money. Choosing to migrate to another city (often illegally) is not the definition of a slave.
If you have a perpetual trade deficit, then there is a net loss of jobs.
Not true. The US has terrible savings rates. Our main trading partner, China, has very good savings rate. Hence there is a net flow of money to China. That has nothing to do with jobs. Unemployment is at a low. The US spends a higher percentage of its GDP on consuming crap than other countries do.
Quote:
The US's position in globalization has always been to absorb the excess production of other countries. Is this something we need to preserve? Oddly no other country wants that job! It's been nothing but a disaster for US citizens.
So, US citizens should save more rather than consume, consume, consume.
If we impose tariffs we hurt ourselves in the long run. Take Apple. If they are forced to manufacture the iPhone in the US with our high labor cost, the price of an iPhone goes way up. People outside the US stop buying iPhone and buy Samsung instead. Apple is losing business so it has to lay people off. It ends up retracting and only selling to Americans. Yet the growing markets for all products is the emerging economies - Asia and Africa - and we have just excluded the US from being able to compete there because our products are too expensive. Meanwhile Samsung is capturing that high-growth market. Why should we hand this over to Samsung? We shouldn't. We preserved a few jobs at Apple for US workers but then caused Apple to shrink and it ends up losing jobs. This scenario will play out over and over across all industries.
If we do the above it will not help trade imbalance. Our products will too expensive to sell in other countries so we won't be exporting much. We will primarily be selling to ourselves yet still importing resources from other countries. We have isolated the US from the global economy. It will proceed without us.
If you have a perpetual trade deficit, then there is a net loss of jobs.
Nonsense. Countries like Germany, the Netherlands or Denmark have huge export surplusses, yes they have more jobs, but not because they export so much, but because everyone works much fewer hours per year compared to U.S. Americans. The work is just distributed on more people. Overall these countries have to work much less but are still able to achieve export surplusses. If those countries would consume their export surplusses they would create more jobs within in their countries.
Quote:
Education levels in the US aren't a problem (we are way ahead of Germany for instance), but rather our policies and regulations encourage businesses to invest elsewhere.
How do you define education level and how is that measured? I'm pretty sure that your answer will be a good example for the deficiencies of the education system in the U.S.
The U.S. has a relatively high percentage of unskilled workers. That's one reason why manufacturing in the U.S. is not very competitive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
