RomanceAnonimo wrote:
Hey TheDoctor,
I read your PM. It was an interesting piece. I think however that there may be an over-simplification in the terms of the perceived benefits from 'shipping jobs overseas'. There are multiple facets, but I will only discuss a few below, and with extreme levels of simplicity.
The first is what has been termed 'the value of nothing'. In the economic prosperity that existed in the both Pre- and Post-WWII, the elements of circulating currency were more or less fully contained. In other words, the wages of the workers, the associated operating expences, etc., remained within the USA, and more importantly, within the local economy. Now that so much labor is outsourced, there is a certain percent of that money that is slowly leaking out with no reciprocation. A drain on our available monitary resource, the wages, the buying power. Beyond that, and more importantly, the 'value of nothing' specifically exists in reference to standard "modern" economic theory, where pricing is a principle of manufacture-cost and 'what the market will bear' in the way of profit. The difference in the two figures for the most part was always tangible, it just wasn't feasible to produce something for next to nothing and turn a exorbitant profit. There of course are always going to be a few exceptions, as in highly prized and scarce commodities, but in any case the current disparity between manufacture-cost and sale price is the 'value of nothing', where in classic economic theory being able to manufacture for less meant you could sell more products at lower prices to more people to maximize profit, it now means you pull new profit-resource from somewhere else within the process. The economic prosperity you mention to which previous generations enjoyed was contingent on the high wages, that the wages were 'adequate' to live 'the American dream'. They would consume with their wages, and produce to earn them back again. That same 'prosperity' is not being experienced by the workers who are the product of outsourced labor. Their earnings is namely where the profit-resource is being yielded. In fact, many trillions of dollars have been robbed from what should be the reciprocative fruits of their labor, the wages to afford 'the American dream'. They don't experience the same consumer power that previous generations of Americans enjoyed. The notion that exporting labor is comparable in benefit to prior generations' prosperity in America is erroneous at best and founded in zealotry at worst.
Second to this, is the profit motive in low or unregulated production environments. To do the very complex things that are required for our modern manufacturing techniques, namely in chemical production and processing, while also maintaining excellence in human and environmental safety is very expensive. If you aren't required to maintain safety, emissions, working conditions, etc. your operations costs go down. This is a second impact of outsourced labor, where there is a horrific level of toxicity being introduced to many of the workers, depending on their particular working conditions, and to the surrounding environment in general. If you want a worse-case scenario on this, do a little reading on the Bhopal disaster. There are countless similar examples, though many are far far less in severity though still severe none the less. It is the aggregate pollution and toxicity that matters the most. To not expect or impose the same level of regulations that exist for safety within our own borders while operating overseas is an ultimate hypocricy in the cliche of the "American way", to allow companies to use toxic chemicals in manufacture and as ingredients is a crime against humanity and an willful oversight caused by a ferverent desire to 'not hurt the economy'.
Third is a related circumstance where the end consumer is exposed to toxicity. First it is important to get the image of glowing green radiating bars out of the mind. I am talking about the chemicals used in modern manufacture methods and as ingredients. There are several components of convenience and profitability in manufacture that has nothing to do with the benefit of the end consumer, which used to be of very high importance, because quality items did not sell (or at least well enough to survive the market) in prior economic conditions, and as we 'progressed', better and better safety standards were developed which benefited workers, who were also consumers. Since the consumer is now not the primary focus, neither is their health or well being. The result is slow exposure to toxic chemicals in low to moderate doses, depending on what products are being used/consumed/lathered on the body. Sort of like homeopathic poisoning. Its not as bad for us as it is to the laborers who endure the active manufacture process, but it is still not good, nor in good faith in regard to the "American way", which is really just a puppet show in a house of cards.
Although I would like to for reference, I won't post what you wrote me out of respect for the etiquette associated with private messages, but must ask to the context. You said it was an article you wrote yet I find no reference to it anywhere online, is it truly an article or just something you wrote? In appropriate context, the term article implies publication. Perhaps you could post it here so any readers, if they are interested, can understand what this all means..?
Many numerous other circumstances exist parallel to these issues.
I also wish you had simply PM'ed me this rather than typing it here, as this post isn't necessary in this thread. I will be responding to you shortly via PM, and please do the same with any responses thereafter, a'right?
30 Sep 2010, 2:26 am
