Post #68,364
12/12/02 10:01:45 AM
12/12/02 10:03:35 AM
|
Re: Not likely in a Global Economy.
Well, this is the nice logical (and most likely correct) interpretation, particularly the part about entrepeneurs.
But here is the emotional truth - India is an overpopulated, sweltering hell, with teeming millions wasting in crushing poverty, watched over by a corrupt government. Their citizens are desperate to escape. Because they are far far away, they make a wonderful pool of slave labor for American companies that feel no social responsibility to the citizenry. Because the Indians are clawing at the rims to get out of the 6000 year hole they've dug for themselves, they are willing to suffer any indignity to get jobs that should be filled by Americans.
This does not happen to unionized workers. We in IT need a union. We hold the power of the infrastructure in our hands - we should wield that power for our betterment. We have to develop an adversarial relationship with management and they have to know it, and we need to win.
-drl
Edited by deSitter
Dec. 12, 2002, 10:03:35 AM EST
|
Post #68,374
12/12/02 11:05:57 AM
|
Here's a real solution.
Open the borders.
ALL the borders.
Let people emigrate to any country they like. Let them pick the labor laws they want to work under.
If capital can choose where to invest itself, then labor should be able to, as well... Until that happens, or we regulate capital flight to the same level we regulate the ability of people to move around the globe, this kind of crap will continue to happen.
Oh, and if we do institute something like this, then the first 60-80 years are going to be absolute HELL. It should get better after that, though.
"...the middle of fighting a war against religious extremism is not the time to do something offensive to God." - Some idiot.
|
Post #68,378
12/12/02 11:31:56 AM
|
One other change
If we're going to have workplace safety laws, then all the goods sold here should be manufacutured in a facility that meets all these laws.
===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #68,380
12/12/02 11:38:12 AM
|
That would work - but . .
. . is entirely unacceptable. Many would not object to a predominantly Islamic U.S. with an economy 2 notches above India (which would be just a few notches above where it is now), but most of the people who live here now would consider that a less than ideal future.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #68,383
12/12/02 11:48:47 AM
|
Like I said...
The first 60-80 years would be total hell.
The first thing that would happen is Africa, rural China+N. Korea, and a good part of the middle east would try to emigrate en masse to the U.S., Europe, and industrial Asia (Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea). Of course, this would totally destroy the economy of those regions. As soon as any area of the world showed a sign of significant economic deviation from the rest of the world, it would be swamped with immigrants, wiping out any economic differential.
OTOH, governments couldn't afford to treat their populace as badly as they do these days - as soon as they start, the populace would up and relocate en masse, depriving the governments of their power base, plus potential productivity/tax income. Businesses would see their labor pool shrink and costs rise - encouraging them to actually care for their workers.
Yeah, it would suck for those of us who have grown used to a more opulent lifestyle, but ultimately I believe that the way of life practiced in the U.S. is unsustainable over a long period of time - and for me, I'm referring to 1000+ years, NOT the next 50 or so.
"...the middle of fighting a war against religious extremism is not the time to do something offensive to God." - Some idiot.
|
Post #68,409
12/12/02 2:25:18 PM
|
So what you're really advocating is...
... a least common denominator economy, where, as soon as a region shows improvement above that crushing LCD, the teeming hoards of unproductive, underproductive, or incompetent labor swarm in and crush the differential completely.
Followed shortly by the exploiters whose only purpose in life would be to exploit that influx.
Nice! But I think I'll pass, thankyewverymuch!
Can you say "early 20th century Bolshevism"? I knew you could...
jb4
"They lead. They don't manage. The carrot always wins over the stick. Ask your horse. You can lead your horse to water, but you can't manage him to drink."
Richard Kerr, United Technologies Corporation, 1990
|
Post #68,414
12/12/02 2:49:03 PM
|
Naw.
I'm just advocating the exact same laws for labor as are availible for capital. Now if you want, we could impose the exact same laws for the migration of capital that are currently imposed on the movement of labor - since basically, as long as the "wealthy" have the right to take their capital somewhere else, but those actually doing the work (which, in a sense IS their capital) can't take it anywhere else but where they are...
Then we'll continue to have situations like what's happening in the U.S. today.
I don't see an easy way out of it. It sucks, but basically the U.S. is screwed, and there ain't much that's going to be done about it because those with power can just start exploiting somebody else.
"...the middle of fighting a war against religious extremism is not the time to do something offensive to God." - Some idiot.
|
Post #68,381
12/12/02 11:39:43 AM
|
Yes, unions were extremely effective . . .
. . in keeping the textile industry in the U.S.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #68,496
12/12/02 9:23:59 PM
|
Re: Yes, unions were extremely effective . . .
I think there is a viable textile industry in N. Georgia - at least, carpet. But even if you're right, then if you present the details of how the textile workers were done in by their union, I would be happy to address it point by point in order to find out why this example proves that an IT union would not work :)
-drl
|
