Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Globalization Losers by AmericanDreaming Globalization Losers by AmericanDreaming
From "Globalization, a Very Short Introduction," (2003) by Manfred B. Steger.  See my review Here.

Globalization, like most processes, has winners, and it has losers.


Chilling to the Bone by AmericanDreaming  The Internet Paradox by AmericanDreaming  Global Problems by AmericanDreaming

See more in my Quotes - Politics and Social Issues.


I'm on YouTube.
:twitter: twitter.com/AmericnDreaming
Add a Comment:
 
:iconadmiralmichalis:
The question is what are the costs in the long run of this so-called "globalization?"  Is it, right now, worth what will be lost by the so-called losers?  If what is going on in Europe is any guide right now, I believe the clear answer as of right now is no.  The losers in this case do not simply include workers or business owners, but entire countries and regions.  I do not think globalization is something that can be pushed by politicians or international corporations, but rather societies, people, and economies must be ready for these processes. 
Reply
:iconmoralisticcommunist:
MoralisticCommunist Featured By Owner Jun 10, 2017  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Globalization is bad for the little guy because of the influence of multinational corporations. These corporations take advantage of the loopholes present in capitalist tax havens to acquire enormous sums of money and use it to out buy and out compete any local businesses which could threaten their market share. Once capitalism as an economic system is replaced by a communist system however, then a more interconnected world will serve the benefit of the people as resources can be fairly distributed to whoever needs it most.
Reply
:icontheyakkoman:
theyakkoman Featured By Owner Jun 10, 2017
The world has gotten both bigger and smaller in the last century or so.
Smaller because these days we are aware of the fact that we're part of the global world in a way that humans never been before in the history of mankind. Thanks to things like cheap airline tickets people in the west travel further away and more often than ever before. Thanks to news media we know more about what's going on in the middle-east than we did back in the old days. And let's not forget the internet.
And yet, we're still not fully globally minded, since our connection with other parts of the world are still too abstract. Still too "way over there". 
Or as a comedian brilliantly put it (paraphrasing): "The further away you are, the more people have to die to get on the news. Three hundred dead stand no chance against a municipal politician who's caught jaywalking."

I think it's because of the paradox, that since the rest of the world has come closer to us, it's also gotten bigger. This new global world is bigger than what people have been used to for millenia. Once we lived and died in small groups in smaller locations, and I doubt even the furthers wandering nomadic tribes could imagine such a big world as the one we have now. Because while they had big plains, they were still pretty few people in the group, while today there's over 7 billion of us.

Until we reach the point where we're able to see even the people "over there" as part of our tribe, when we truly grasp and understand and are able to think "globally", I'm afraid the global injustices will prosper.
Reply
:iconamericandreaming:
AmericanDreaming Featured By Owner Jun 10, 2017   Writer
That's an interesting observation. I would agree.
Reply
:iconravenheart1984:
RavenHeart1984 Featured By Owner Jun 10, 2017  Professional Traditional Artist
good job
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Jun 10, 2017
Would you say you are for or against a globalized economy? 
Reply
:iconamericandreaming:
AmericanDreaming Featured By Owner Edited Jun 10, 2017   Writer
I see it as neither good nor bad, but as being inevitable. The momentum driving it may be slowed, but not stopped. It is not unlike the trend of automation and AI. We need to come up with solutions to adapting to the changing world. Expending effort trying to stop the change seems a futile waste to me.
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Jun 10, 2017
For starters, the way things keep going, expecting everyone to have a job may not be reasonable.
Reply
:iconamericandreaming:
AmericanDreaming Featured By Owner Jun 10, 2017   Writer
One proposed solution is universal basic income. It sounds promising, and importantly, does not require a revolutionary uprooting of existing systems.
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Jun 12, 2017
Yeah, it's a solution I've heard of before, although only ever from the left. And I mean the actual left, not just centrist liberals.
Reply
:iconamericandreaming:
AmericanDreaming Featured By Owner Jun 12, 2017   Writer
It's talked about most in the context of the coming jobs crisis from automation/AI, which is a subject matter that for few conservatives seem interested in. I have heard some conservatives discussing it, but very few.
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Jun 14, 2017
I know anyone even slightly libertarians would screech to high heaven about mooching and the welfare state.
Reply
:iconamericandreaming:
AmericanDreaming Featured By Owner Edited Jun 14, 2017   Writer
On its face, yes, it hinges on how much one ponders future trends. I've observed it more in conservative intellectuals as compared to rank-and-file.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconeremitik:
Eremitik Featured By Owner Jun 11, 2017
Why do you think that a basic universal income solution sounds promising?
How would it be different than our welfare system?
Reply
:iconamericandreaming:
AmericanDreaming Featured By Owner Jun 11, 2017   Writer
For several reasons. First and foremost, it would raise the aggregate quality of life for people in a society. Secondly, it is a good solution to the steadily mounting jobs crisis resulting from trends like automation/AI, globalization, etc. Third, it would not entail a complete restructuring of the economic or political system of a society, rather it would be the consolidation of all current social welfare programs into a single one. This would also make it much less wasteful, since we'd be eliminating all of the bureaucracy associated with having many government agencies. From what I have heard/read, most if not all of the cost of universal basic income would come from diverting funds from existing programs plus the savings of cutting down the wasteful bureaucracy. Lastly, and this cannot be overlooked, it would heal one small aspect of societal discord since everyone would receive these benefits, thereby eliminating disdain and contempt currently associated with people who receive government benefits.
Reply
:iconeremitik:
Eremitik Featured By Owner Jun 12, 2017
Im not sure how I feel about it. The reasons you think this is a promising idea sound almost too optimistic and utopian to me.  Outside of the initial raising of the quality of life, all I see are the cons of such a program- to me, the main con would be how governments would be fostering a "mommy and daddy"  type of society where we are all treated like children who need to be told what to do, how to do it and "here is your allowance for the week". I think this would further the separation of classes and build a deeper resentment towards those who are in power, regardless of whether or not we all receive these benefits.

I think my main reason for the pessimism of this universal program is because it goes against everything I was taught to believe in.
Reply
:iconamericandreaming:
AmericanDreaming Featured By Owner Jun 12, 2017   Writer
To clarify, universal basic income isn't designed to replace work, but to ensure everyone gets above the poverty line no matter what. It's taking the money we already spend on the social safety net, and doing something different with it. That doesn't seem all that far-fetched, authoritarian, or utopic to me. It's just streamlining.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icontheyakkoman:
theyakkoman Featured By Owner Jun 10, 2017
I like the idea with a universal basic income, since more and more jobs will disappear when machines can do it better.

What worries me though is what to do with all the spare time and idle hands. 
Have you two read "Flow" by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi? If not, I highly recommend it. 
 Long story short, flow is the name he gave the state of mind when we humans are at our most content. When we lose ourselves in an activity, be it mountainclimbing, sailing, painting, playing music or sports etc. 
And one of the requirements, among others, for flow is that it should feel meaningful. What you do should matter on some level. 
And he argues that one of the reasons people feel so bad today, despite having well paying jobs, is that they don't feel like they contribute. That they are necessary. 
A 19th century smith never had to worry about this. 
He knew that he was the only one for miles who could fix a broken knife or tool, or make new ones. When people needed something repaired or made of metal, he was the one they called on.
And unless they wanted a "darned kid" to pull out their teeth, he was the one they went to (I think Greatkingrat88 will get that literary reference ;) ). The smith was necessary. 
When you're a "corporate marketing media manager" or some other overly long and complicated work title, you're a tiny cog in the machinery and you have no idea how what you're doing are affecting the people around you. 
 Like the existential philosophers ponder on how we find meaning in a meaningless universe.

So how to find work and feel useful in a world where work has been made unnecessary? That is a question I think we will have to ponder on sooner rather than later, maybe even in our lifetime. 
(I'd suggest art, science, philosophy and overall striving to improve yourself is valuable goals. Just lazing around will get quite dull after a while).
Reply
:iconamericandreaming:
AmericanDreaming Featured By Owner Jun 11, 2017   Writer
I do not worry at all about what people will do if they have more free time. A fair deal of that extra time would be consumed by simple everyday tasks. People would probably sleep longer, and go about daily tasks at a more relaxed pace, etc. People would get to do many of the things they currently cannot get around to. To whatever degree an excess of free time may be deleterious - and I don't think it is - it pales in comparison to the deleterious nature of the current state of affairs for most people; work full-time in an uninteresting, unfulfilling job, and struggle to make ends meet. 

I will look into that book, and I agree, people would do well to find something they has meaning for them. My point is that even if one were to laze around forever, that is still preferable to the current state for most people, but I don't think we need to worry too much. In addition, universal basic income is not intended to be the sole source of income, but rather a standardized amount of money calculated to get one just above the poverty line. So one could subsist on it, living a very meager existence, but it is designed to ensure that no one slips through the cracks, ultimately.
Reply
:icontheyakkoman:
theyakkoman Featured By Owner Jun 11, 2017
I do hope you're right. I'm the first to admit that I'm more negatively biased than most people (I blame my nordic heritage and my mental health). 

 I don't think what we're both talking about is mutually exclusive though, and that, perhaps, we're talking past each other here.
So let me be clear: I fully agree that for the sake of happiness and mental health, having no job can be more beneficial than a bad, disheartening one. Especially if you take things like economic worries out of the equation.
Speaking from my own experience, I've been there. I likened being unemployed to limbo, but when I got my first "real" job after graduation, it felt like hell (in hyperbolic terms, of course). And not just because "oh, lazy young people, can't handle a real job". No! This was a highly-pressured, accord-based job with uncomfortable working hours, where I had to take verbal abuse while working on a tight time-schedule and although the job-description said "costumer service" I was suppose to sell things to customers I didn't believe in myself.
Besides, the companies policies for employees where bad.
I've had a lot of different, sometimes odd, jobs since then, but none as bad as my first. 

However, while bad jobs undoubtedly exist, people have often found meaning and "flow" in their occupation.
When you ask, for example, a teacher why they chose such a low-paying job instead of becoming lawyers or business sharks, the most common answer is that they "wanted to make a difference".
The people who are most happy with their jobs are most often not the best paid ones, but the ones who find the job themselves to be rewarding.
And I think that when jobs become more and more scarce (although I do hope teachers and librarians never disappear), we will need to have a lateral revolution to the technical one. A revolution of our state of mind. Ergo learning to find meaning and goals ourselves, outside of work.  
 If I may once again return to the concept of "flow", another important mechanic to achieve this state of mind is the difficulty level. 
We need challenges as human beings, but happiness is found when the challenge mesh with the persons abilities. 
Tennis, for example, is not a pleasurable experience if the opponents are at two different levels. The worse player feels anxious and uneasy, while the more skilled player will find the match tedious and dull.
 An uneventful life, like unemployment, is often tedious (limbo). And while it is preferable to a hectic, anxious life (hell), as with so many other things the sweet spot is balance between the two extremes. 
Having something to do is important, and like I mentioned before, I think it is possible to find meaning outside of work with pursuits like science, art and philosophy etc. People just need to understand this, since it is so often thought that work is what will lead to happiness. 
But as someone, I'm afraid I can't recall who, once said: "If you let your job define who you are, what will you become once you retire?"
In short, while you may very well be right that people will spend their new free time going about there usual pace, just more relaxed, I think some people, maybe even a majority, will have to change their frame of mind in order to accept and understand the new standards of living. Hard work has been seen as a virtue for so long (and for good reasons), that I don't think it will be something we'll easily adapt from.

By the way, may I be so bold as to presume that you are a fan of Betrand Russels "In Praise of Idleness"? I'll admit I've only read a summary myself (should try to read the whole thing one day) but your arguments are pretty similar to his.
Reply
:iconamericandreaming:
AmericanDreaming Featured By Owner Jun 11, 2017   Writer
Meaning is obviously important, I don't dispute that. I think that human beings are wired to assign meaning to things. I do not think there will be a problem for our meaning-ascribing capabilities to adapt to a semi-far future in which people do not work, should that ever happen, and I trust that most people will find some calling, cause, passion, etc to become involved in.

Bertrand Russell is my favorite philosopher, and I've read much of his work, but not that piece in particular. I am aware he once said something like "time is never wasted if you enjoyed it," or something to that effect. It may have been from that piece, likely.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconcrimzen250:
Crimzen250 Featured By Owner Jun 11, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
"(I'd suggest art, science, philosophy and overall striving to improve yourself is valuable goals. Just lazing around will get quite dull after a while)."

This.

Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
June 10
Image Size
2.0 MB
Resolution
1920×1080
Submitted with
Sta.sh
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
160 (1 today)
Favourites
14 (who?)
Comments
31
Downloads
0
×