Reply With Quote
Globalization just means the rich (and poor) will be spread over all of the world and not just in few countries. An american will have slightly smaller chance of becoming rich and chinese a slightly larger, in reality they are both low anyway.
Who would have guessed that our current system which put all the world's resources into the hands of a greedy few would be fundamentally flawed?
Backlash in rich nations against globalisation
By Chris Giles in London
Published: July 22 2007
Financial TimesA popular backlash against globalisation and the leaders of the world’s largest companies is sweeping all rich countries, an FT/Harris poll shows.
Large majorities of people in the US and in Europe want higher taxation for the rich and even pay caps for corporate executives to counter what they believe are unjustified rewards and the negative effects of globalisation.
Viewing globalisation as an overwhelmingly negative force, citizens of rich countries are looking to governments to cushion the blows they perceive have come from the liberalization of their economies to trade with emerging countries.
Those polled in Britain, France, the US and Spain were about three times more likely to say globalisation was having a negative rather than a positive effect on their countries. The majority was smaller in Germany, with its large export base
Corporate leaders fared little better, with 5 per cent or fewer of those polled in the US and all large European economies (except Italy) saying they had a great deal of admiration for those who run large companies. In these countries, between a third and a half said they had no admiration at all for corporate bosses.
In response to fears of globalisation and rising inequality, the public in all the rich countries surveyed – the US, Germany, UK, France, Italy and Spain – want their governments to increase taxation on those with the highest incomes. In European countries, a large majority want governments to go further and to impose pay caps on the heads of companies.
Europeans still overwhelmingly support the principle of free compe ion within the European Union, contrary to Nicolas Sarkozy’s wishes at the recent European summit, but in France, Germany and Spain, the populations want their political leaders to play a larger role in managing their economies.
The depth of anti-globalisation feeling in the FT/Harris poll, which surveyed more than 1,000 people online in each of the six countries, will dismay policy-makers and corporate executives. Their view that opening economies to freer trade is beneficial to poor and rich countries alike is not shared by the citizens of rich countries, regardless of how liberal their economic traditions.
The issue of rising inequality is now high on the political agenda of every country and will feature prominently in the 2008 US presidential election.
I guess the trill-rush of buying risky Chinese products at Walmart just doesn't make up for having to work at Walmart to make ends meet...but on the bright side, when the sub-prime market inevitably crashes, the chinese are gonna lose their shirts....
Globalization just means the rich (and poor) will be spread over all of the world and not just in few countries. An american will have slightly smaller chance of becoming rich and chinese a slightly larger, in reality they are both low anyway.
Of course the rich countries are going to have a problem with it. Like velik touched on, globalization is about moving some opportunities to poorer countries and decreasing global poverty. Or at least that's the ideal of it.
Personally I've always wanted a relative cap on salaries (CEO's income+benefits max out at a certain multiple of the lowest paid employees income+benefits). The imbalance in salaries is preposterous, and has been since long before globalization became a buzz word.
US Corps make more profits by shifting jobs overseas, and US govt picks up the tab.
Why not identify the companies that moving jobs overseas and make contribute to fund the TAA?
Anyway, why do we even care about laid-off people anway? Isn't losing jobs the "creative destruction" economists and academics (whose job don't get creatively destroyed) just inhumane capitalism enriching itself.
=====================
Aid May Grow for Laid-Off Workers
Service Jobs Lost To Global Trade Are Focus of Bills
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 23, 2007; A01
As part of their campaign to soothe an anxious middle class, congressional Democrats are preparing legislation that would significantly expand federal aid to the most obvious victims of the global economy: workers whose jobs move offshore or are lost to foreign imports.
Under a Senate bill to be introduced today, computer programmers, call-center staffers and other service-sector workers who make up the vast majority of the nation's workforce would for the first time be eligible for a generous package of income, health and retraining benefits currently reserved for manufacturing workers who lose their jobs to international trade.
Democrats say the expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program would begin to reweave the social safety net for the 21st century, as advances permit more industries to take advantage of cheap foreign labor -- even for skilled, white-collar work. By providing special compensation to more of globalization's losers and retraining them for stable jobs at home, they say, an expanded program could begin to ease the resentment and insecurity arising from the new economy.
A similar bill is nearing completion in the House, and Democrats hope to approve the expansion before the program expires Sept. 30. Trade Adjustment Assistance typically gets strong bipartisan support; Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) is co-sponsoring the bill with Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
But this year, rancorous politics have developed around broader trade issues, threatening the proposed expansion and, potentially, the program's survival.
"This is not going to be a slam-dunk," said Howard Rosen, executive director of the nonprofit Trade Adjustment Assistance Coalition.
The program, established as part of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, is the nation's primary source of aid to workers who lose their jobs to foreign compe ion. Laid-off manufacturing workers must demonstrate to the Labor Department that they lost their jobs because of foreign imports or a decision to shift production to a U.S. trading partner subject to a free-trade agreement.
If their applications are approved, workers can receive two years of benefits on top of state unemployment payments, which typically last six months. The benefits include income support payments, job training, job search and relocation assistance, and a tax credit that covers 65 percent of monthly health-insurance premiums. Workers over 50 who take a new job at lower pay are eligible for wage insurance, which makes up half the difference between their old salary and the new one, up to a maximum of $5,000 a year, for two years.
Last year, the Labor Department approved 1,400 pe ions covering about 400,000 workers, according to a recent study by the Government Accountability Office, though fewer than 100,000 workers sought and received benefits. The agency denied 800 pe ions, mainly because the workers did not produce "an article" and hence fulfill the basic definition of a manufacturing worker. Most of the denials involved two industries, the GAO said: business services such as computer programming and airport-related services such as aircraft maintenance.
"Trade Adjustment Assistance was created in the 1960s, but today's workers live in a different world," Baucus, the bill's chief author and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said in a written statement. "TAA should be flexible enough to respond to workers' needs regardless of what they do or where challenges are coming from."
Baucus's proposal, in addition to extending benefits to service workers, would eliminate the rule that reserves benefits for jobs lost to U.S. trading partners. Help would be available for any worker whose job moves anywhere overseas. The bill also would streamline the application process for hard-hit industries, allowing the Labor Department to certify workers industry-wide.
The bill also would improve some benefits while making them easier to claim. The health-insurance tax credit would be increased to cover 85 percent of monthly premiums, making maintaining health coverage more affordable. And workers as young as 40 would be eligible for up to $6,000 a year in wage insurance if they accept new jobs at lower pay.
All told, the changes would double spending on the program, which cost the government just under $1 billion last year.
( hmm, only about 3% of earmarks/pork, and just a little less that the $1T in tax cut of estate taxes of the super-rich. $1B would be easily offset by forcing ultra-profitable hedge-fudge managers to pay the top income tax rate rather than %15)
Republicans as well as Democrats have long called for an overhaul of Trade Adjustment Assistance. President Bush has praised the program and promised to improve it. But the politics of trade have been complicated since Democrats took control of Congress with the help of many candidates who campaigned against further trade liberalization.
In the past, Trade Adjustment Assistance has been renewed alongside legislation granting the president fast-track authority to negotiate trade deals without congressional interference. But Bush's fast-track authority expired in June, and House Democrats have made it clear that they do not intend to restore it.
In addition, many Republicans feel scalded by Democratic delays on free-trade deals that the Bush administration has negotiated with Peru and Panama. Those agreements, and more politically divisive agreements with South Korea and Colombia, have not been brought to a vote since a deal to move them forward was made in May.
Now, even some Republican champions of Trade Adjustment Assistance say they are reluctant to sign on to its renewal unless Democrats reconsider their opposition to fast-track authority.
"Frankly, TAA is a very integral part of our efforts to reduce barriers and expand trade . . . and my view is they ought to go together," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the senior Republican on the Finance Committee.
The Bush administration was actively working on a reauthorization proposal for Trade Adjustment Assistance when fast-track expired, the program's advocates said. Now, the administration appears to have backed off to recalibrate its strategy.
Last week, White House spokesman Tony Fratto declined to comment on the Democratic proposals for expansion, except to question their cost and the wisdom of covering service workers. With those job losses, he said, "it becomes impossible to draw lines that show the displacement is owing to trade."
Some TAA advocates worry that, in this hostile atmosphere, two months is too little time to pass legislation to extend the program and double its size. Others are confident that even disgruntled Republicans will be reluctant to abandon the chief source of federal aid for victims of globalization.
"The results of the last election, the polling, everything as we move into the next election cycle continues to indicate significant angst, frustration and anger from working people around these issues," said Bruce G. Herman, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, which promotes the rights of low-wage workers. "Trade-impacted workers are not concentrated in blue states or blue districts. They're in everybody's district."
Last edited by boutons_; 07-25-2007 at 01:26 PM.
Why do you hate developing countries boutons? People there want work too.
The problem is not that other countries are getting opportunities -- their opportunities in turn create new opportunities for the wealthy nations. The problem is that the system is being manipulated so that a small cabal of robber barons screw over the entire world.
Forget "reform." Those parties should be identified and assassinated.
"Why do you hate developing countries boutons?"
where do you get that from?
globalization should help manual/low-end labors in undeveloped countries.
There's already a trend of many people with skills in those countries, esp tech and medical, to emigrate to developed countries.
Ask those people why they hate their own countries.
To Dan,
While I may agree with the surveys, they are by no means a study of factual evidence. Average citizens were asked their opinion.
So really, that whole take is an opinion. I may agree with it, but it isnt factual in any way.
Not convinced Yet? Let's examine this topic further then...
Corporate accountability is on the move...
NY TimesTwo years ago, when companies received a big tax break to bring home their offshore profits, the president and Congress justified it as a one-time tax amnesty that would create American jobs.
Drug makers were the biggest beneficiaries of the amnesty program, repatriating about $100 billion in foreign profits and paying only minimal taxes. But the companies did not create many jobs in return. Instead, since 2005 the American drug industry has laid off tens of thousands of workers in this country.
And now drug companies are once again using complex strategies, many of them demonstrably legal, to shelter billions of dollars in profits in international tax havens, according to their financial statements and independent tax experts.
In one popular accounting move, companies declare their foreign markets as far more profitable than their American businesses — even though drug prices are typically higher in the United States than anywhere else in the world.
Drug makers are not the only American multinationals using tax loopholes to declare large portions of their income beyond the reach of the Internal Revenue Service. The Brookings Ins ution estimates that multinational companies are using overseas tax shelters to lower their payments to the Treasury by about $50 billion a year.
i see. Good for doing the dirty work, not good enough for the rest.
"Good for doing the dirty work, not good enough for the rest."
You know as well as I and everybody does in developed countries is that globalization encourages export of labor-intensive jobs in high-cost countries to low-cost labor countries. Don't take it personally. Economics and corporations don't GAF about you or anybody else.
What we see in India and similar countries is that they have developed medical and technical skills equal to the US and still much cheaper, so if you're "good enough", you can snag some $$$ "for the rest".
You mean like this boutons?
Adjusting for inflation, you were GROSSLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY waaaaaaaaaaaaay overpaid for what you did for a profession, Ray.You mean like this boutons?
So, if you feel no pity for the plight of a current working American, do corporate America and our government a favor and just go ahead and mail 40% of every dollar you ever made right back where you got it.
The people of your generation, and my parents generation, had life so good and so damn easy its almost sickening. People around here (Michigan) wouldnt even graduate high school in the 60s, yet grab a job in the auto sector and make enough money to afford a big house, a cottage, a boat, 2 cars, 1 recreational vehicle and still have money left over to invest. That doesnt include the money they drank, ate, wasted and otherwise enjoyed life with.
This lifestyle was not some minority, it was the norm. Good luck being a high school dropout these days and make more than $20,000 a year (save the rags to riches story...theyre exceptions, not rules).
Oh, My! Now you are the one to tell me what I am
worth. Move, you can always come to Texas. Now
if you are a high school dropout, don't blame me, blame
yourself. It was your decision.
As far as me sending 40 pecent of what I made back
to someone, don't think so. you would just
blow it on a big macs and overpriced Starbucks coffee.
Have a nice life, I have a nice one.
So you didnt address the fact that you and your ilk were vastly overpaid for what you did?
Its not even close, Ray. If you made $20k back in the day, thats like (total guess here) 60k by today's standards. What is it you did that warranted that sort of pay?
Would it surprise you to know that I didn't make anywhere
near 20K back in "my day". , most professionals,
doctors, lawyers and others made about 12K tops. Most
working folks made about 4-5K a year. And yes I was
worth every damn penny of it. I was about ready to
retire before I made 60K a year. But I did make that much
for a few years. But we learned how to handled our
money and what money was worth. And government
didn't interfere with people's life back in those days. Hence
things were reasonable in cost. Get government involved
and hang on to your pocketbook. Like when people
say conservation, duck, cause you are gonna pay and
pay dearly. The so called war on poverty is such a
program. Not in direct payroll taxes but on "fees" imposed
on the real necessities of life. Gas, water and electricity.
Nothing more than taxes. I have no idea where you live,
but here in San Antonio people's eye's should really be
opened when they look at their water bill. No one has
watered at all this summer, yet water bills, for just
everyday things, like drinking water, washing, bathing
are over 30 bucks for a two person household. Look at your
phone bills. Fees are over 20 bucks. Wise up my friend.
In "my" day Mom could, and did, stay home and take
care of the home-fire, while Dad made the living. Now
it takes two to make ends meet. I could write a long
dissertation on why that occurs, but never mind.
I agree with you on this. Of course, right now I'm more annoyed at minimum charges than anything. I actually get charged for twice as much usage as I have because of minimum amounts by SAWS (and I believe CPS as well, but not sure).
A few years ago I added it all up, income tax, sales tax, property tax, payroll tax, and all the little taxes and fees on products and services I used charged by the various governments. Not really surprisingly it came out to somewhere around 50% of my income. I'm not sure how that relates to back in the day, but when the government takes half the income of someone who is in the lower middle class area (or maybe upper lower class), it's no wonder most families need either 2 working members or help from the government.
Amen. Couldn't agree more.
Im not a high school dropout. But nor am I college educated either.
I make a damn fine living, but thats more to do with how I started than where I am.
Im your typical white, middle class, semi-educated nobody who happened into a very good job.
Yet, in my position I have to see the never-ending revolving door of good people looking for honest work. Guys who were making $17 an hour who are now willing to work for $8, full-well knowing it isnt going to pay their bills.
Two of my friends from adolescence, both are married, both have 2 jobs. The one guy I still talk to regularly works from 6am-4:30pm, goes home, showers and goes to his next job from 6pm-12am. Sleeps, wakes up and does this 6 days a week.
His wife has a job in the morning while their child is at school. Thats three paychecks a week for them and it BARELY pays the bills. Thats atrocious. Hes a hardworking man not exactly blessed with the greatest intelligence or ap ude for higher education. That doesnt mean he should work himself to death.
Its not ing fair, and your generation never had anything remotely approaching this sort of crisis. At least not in Michigan (I should stick to speaking about areas I know about). The world was simple and easy, now its complicated and difficult.
"Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that they're doing that. Do they get any sleep?"
Once again, someone who "thinks" they have all theIts not ing fair, and your generation never had anything remotely approaching this sort of crisis. At least not in Michigan (I should stick to speaking about areas I know about). The world was simple and easy, now its complicated and difficult.
questions and answers. You have no idea what people
of my generation faced. And your statement: Not
fair. Fella, I have no idea how old you are, but life is
not fair. And that is a fact. Live with it. No one gives
you anything for nothing, well except maybe your
Mom and Dad. How bout the fact that you "buddies"
may have gotten in over their heads and are now
paying the price. You think they are unique. They
aren't. Everyone does it and should learn from it. I
did and I learned. I never did it again.
I will tell you one damn thing for certain. It is not
governments job to guarantee that you have a life
that YOU want or YOU think YOU are en led to. YOU
get what you earn. Pure and simple.
Unless you're rich, in which case they work very hard to make sure you can stay rich with minimal effort.
Within strictly specified guidelines which determine HOW you can earn.
I wouldn't know. I am not rich. But I am comfortable.
Funny thing. You complain about a country that has
enough jobs that your friends can have two. Wonder
what they would do if they didn't have that opportunity?
And you might just be surprised how many "rich" people
go broke and how many broke people become rich. And
rich is in the eyes of the beholder. What do you consider
rich? One of my friends used to say: When I make
enough money my wife cant spend all of it.
Government is what WE allowed it to become. And
most of activism has occurred in my lifetime. Look at
where most of the Taxes are spent.
Welfare......
Federal Budget
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
