Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Are current large American unions a good thing?; Or a bad thing?
Topic Started: Nov 17 2008, 10:55 AM (893 Views)
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Quote:
 
Gotta disagree Dan, I use "nieve" in the context of innocence, lacking in experience, rather than foolish. A newly graduated uni student with the best academic education available is still "green behind the ears" when they hit the real world, experience is the real key. I have experienced your academic view. You must have read from the same text book as our last conservative govt, mirrowed almost word for word.

You mention globalization but I don't think you can reshape the economic infrastructure of a 1st world nation to compete with emerging 2nd world nations such as China and India, can't be done. Their standard and cost of living is so low we 1st world nations could never compete, when China does gradute from trinket manufacturers to industrial tiger it is inevitable that we must move on to other means, transform from industrial to technological, it is already happenning. The concept of globalization is not new here, our govts over the last 2 decades (no matter the political colour) have been slowly reshaping our economy with globalization in mind, tariffs and the like are almost a thing of the past. It has been painful, we have lost traditional industries to cheaper overseas imports and has caused much division but we also now export rice to asia, muscle cars to the US, ice to Iceland.. err.. maybe not ice to Iceland but you get my drift.
China and other present emerging nations will also have to make the same transition when Industrialization lifts their standard and cost of living to a point they cannot compete with other nations who will be classed as emerging economies with cheap labour and low regulation, that is the reality of an evolving world economy.


It's true that I am not as old as you are Whitestar; but I am also not a newly graduated uni student who just hit the real world. I have over 15 years of working experience from the most menial of labor jobs to office style work.

Its not a matter of just reading a text book; and I am sure your last government was in fact working from the same authorities that I have studied. But just because information is found in a text book doesn’t mean its wrong. Of course there is room for opinion in all of this; but countless experts are the ones who came up with this information, not your government and not my professors. Could the experts be wrong? Sure they can be wrong; but it is foolish to ignore experts simply because the possibility exists that they could be wrong, because that possibility will always exist no mater how much of a sure thing you may have.

There is simply not enough transformation to a technological based economy a nation can go through to combat the loss of competitiveness in the industrial economy. A nation will always need a "real" product to produce and sell or else it risks having a very fragile overall economy. Every nation needs a core/base manufacturing economy, the bed rock on which the technological economy rests. With out that base the technological can easily be moved out of the nation to more inexpensive areas.

China and India don’t only have their sights in being industrial tigers; they also want to take way the technological edge 1st world nations have a well. There are more engineers in their schools than there are in ours.

We can't simply shift our focus and believe the 2nd world nations arn't going to follow us. It is more proactive to find ways to become more completive in all aspects of the economy.

Flaw in your idea that this "the reality of an evolving world economy" is that there is simply a finite amount of demand and consumption potential in the world. We can't all follow this path of economic evolution; there is going to come a time when we need to compete directly with these other nations that follow us. Do we do that now when we have the means, or do we wait until we loss all our industrial ability?


As for Globalization; its been talked about for a few decades and there has been some movement. But it was not until this decade that Globalization became a reality instead of a thought. Prior to this decade the movement you mentioned was simply born of necessity, cost competition caused industries to look for material over seas doe to the lower cost. The industry itself, the power base remained in the 1st world. Now however a lot has changed in the last decade, now the web of interdependency is grown to self propitiating portions. No longer are Globalized movement a function of cost cutting alone; it is now becoming impossible to produce with out seeking out expertise and material from out side your country because that expertise or material no longer exist in your country at any cost. The world is not only coming to terms with this; some of our current finical programs can be attributed to this.

Globalization use to be "coming" now in this decade it can be said to be "here", and we need to learn to live with it. That will mean that 1st world nations will need to learn to compete with 2nd world nations.

Quote:
 

If you take our embracement of globalization, obviously not afraid to get a little dirty. We have drawn the line in the sand, we will not give anymore ground on the matter of basic conditions (though I enjoy none of them as self employed).


Unfortunately that line will be tested; similar has been tested through out history, even the Romans draw their line in the sand.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus