41–50 of 127 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> many people (millions) in Vietnam are going to experience higher standard of living. Aren't therefore many people (millions) in China going to experience lower standard of living?
Not really, because they are moving to higher paying jobs than assembly-line work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The economy is not a zero-sum game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
The economy isn't magical either; jobs lost in one region because the factories closed and moved to another aren't necessarily going to be recouped by new job creation in a short span of time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wars and a nanny-state. Probably before that hits, automation for most of the product. Eventually we will need very few people to produce any part of the product. We will automate resource extraction. Automate resource delivery. Automate resource refinement. Etc. So this leaves us with a large population that has little point in the current economic system. So we'll get higher unemployment globally. Historically this…
hard to fight automated soldiers with intelligence tracking of your movements since birth from low earth orbit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a wonderful Greenpeace poster from back in the 80s which had these words: "When the last tree is cut, the last river poisoned, and the last fish dead, we will discover that we can't eat money." It wasn't about workers' rights, but something along those lines seems to fit.
I always liked that quote, though the Greenpeace association is new to me. It supposedly originated as a native american proverb: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/20/last-tree-cut/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>>Seems a little greedy. Which actually benefits us as the consumer. Would you prefer a less greedy corporation that goes where the most expensive labor is which then increases the cost of production which then increases the cost of the products you buy from said company? Greed is what keeps prices low, and competition high.
If they assured me that the extra price goes to ensure a better standard of living and better working conditions for their third-world workers, then yes.
For the relatively monied -- and software developers usually count among that number -- it's easy to argue that companies are too greedy, and that companies shouldn't use exploitative labour. For the lower class, paying extra so that someone in the third world can enjoy a better quality of life isn't an option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder what happens when they run out of countries to move to.
Robots.
Once all the prospects for very cheap human labor are exhausted, the work goes to robots.
It doesn't go to higher paid humans. That future will not happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, not at all. Like the other article linked by nodata, companies are moving from China to Vietnam because its cheaper. Seems a little greedy.
>>>Seems a little greedy. Which actually benefits us as the consumer. Would you prefer a less greedy corporation that goes where the most expensive labor is which then increases the cost of production which then increases the cost of the products you buy from said company? Greed is what keeps prices low, and competition high.
In the end, greed will bite you back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>>Seems a little greedy. Which actually benefits us as the consumer. Would you prefer a less greedy corporation that goes where the most expensive labor is which then increases the cost of production which then increases the cost of the products you buy from said company? Greed is what keeps prices low, and competition high.
When a company lowers costs, it doesn't cut prices, it increases profits. Luckily cell phones still have some competition, but the TV/Monitor market is price colluded to hell. Higher wages and better benefits benefit the consumer.
How do you figure? TVs are cheaper and bigger than ever - they're practically giving them away.
My understanding was that producers are pumping gimmicks like 3d and huge curved screens because there are absolutely no margins left in the commodity TV/monitor market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except it's not. China has reached the stage in economic development that people are moving to higher skilled and higher paying jobs. Infrastructure in Vietnam has improved to the extent that is ready for large manufacturing plants. While companies are saving by moving manufacturing plants, many people (millions) in Vietnam are going to experience higher standard of living. I say it's a win win.
Ah yes, the wonderful world of libertarian thought. Where sweatshops to make cheap shit for rich countries is a win-win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not good publicity either way...
No, not at all. Like the other article linked by nodata, companies are moving from China to Vietnam because its cheaper. Seems a little greedy.
When you have a country that starts to industrialize factory owners only have to offer wages twice what someone gets on the farm to get people to migrate from the communities they grew up in to the cities. As the factory owners profit from the cheap labor they spend some of the money on themselves, but also spend some of the money on building new factories and absorbing new labor. Eventually all the excess labor in the countryside is absorbed, and the factory owners have to start competing for new labor by raising wages. This is the same general pattern that happened in Britain then Japan then Korea and China, and seems to be just starting in Vietnam now. There are sometimes variations, such as the fact that rural wages were pretty high in the US due to lots of available land, or the Chinese residency permits system that artificially restricts who can move to the city and so started the rise in wages more quickly than would be "natural" at the expense of the people forced to live in the countryside. But then again the Party knows that its dissent among the people in easy marching distance of it's offices that it really has to worry about.
But getting back on track, even if the companies weren't greedy then creating new factories in Vietnam to create jobs for Vietnamese people jobs would be the altruistic thing to do. The difference would be that instead of dividends they would turn their profits into more investment so as to make development happen faster.