posted
Yes, I know, we don't actually have a class system in America, but you know what I mean: economic class.
After this global terrorism thing is done with, our next issue/problem will be China and threat to the Middle-class here at home.
China will be the world power in another 50 years or so. We need to position ourselves to deal with this. We have two main options I think. The best one is to sink our little cultural claws into that totalitarian society through globalization and American "Hegemony". That way we change China's people and government from a hostile, pro-slave state to a friendly, respecting its citizens and others state.
The other is to attempt to prevent the growth of China...like what we did to Cuba. This of course is impossible since it would take the whole world to isolate them, and no way would the whole world agree to this. Most want to harness the power growing in China...a China that opened itself up because of America and the freedom (economic and in the classical sense as well) we bring.
We've already past the point of no return anyway... and the only way to stop it's threat to our preeminence is through war. A war that would destroy us both.
So we must accept our eventual role as another Europe...another Old World. We must prepare for our nation to go into a safe state of retirement and dormancy, like Europe of the past 60 years... only to rise again later like the EU.
We must help China to grow into a peace and freedom loving state BEFORE they become a world superpower.
To the next point.... the Middle-class here in America is in danger of collapsing. Outsourcing and In sourcing is about even now... but we are losing all our manufacturing jobs. We are also loosing all our insurance and pensions. We are becoming a nation of janitors and security guards and waiters. The middle class, I fear, is in danger of collapse. I'm not an economist, but I'm not dumb, I see the signs and I talk to those who have more talent in that area.
Not only that...but we CANNOT compete in a globalized world and maintain a middle-class in which half the nations have, for all intents and purposes, slave labor!
And, Bush just signed, very quietly the other day, something that will give 80 Billion dollars in incentives for corporations to NOT put money away for their employees pensions. This money is already insured by the Government...so if a company fails the Fed will cover you. So Bush and company just created something that will remove the need for companies to carry their own responsibility to the employees and force it on the Government...which is forcing it BACK onto the Taxpayers who are the employees!
An educated middle-class is VITAL to the success and survival of a powerful democracy ( or democratic republic *wink*). Our leaders seem to be saving the present by sacrificing the future. [edit for spelling]
[ May 06, 2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: That way we change China's people and government from a hostile, pro-slave state to a friendly, respecting its citizens and others state.
Being Chinese, I take exception to this statement. Yes, the Chinese government is restrictive. But now more than ever, it's possible to live within the restrictions and still prosper. And you don't even have to go into politics or the military.
quote:To the next point.... the Middle-class here in America is in danger of collapsing. Outsourcing and In sourcing is about even now... but we are losing all our manufacturing jobs. We are also loosing all our insurance and pensions. We are becoming a nation of janitors and security guards and waiters. The middle class, I fear, is in danger of collapse. I'm not an economist, but I'm not dumb, I see the signs and I talk to those who have more talent in that area.
I'm not an economist either but I believe that's how free trade works. It's not only movement of goods but also of labor. The theory is that production will eventually rise high enough that everyone will have enough, Americans and non-Americans. In the meantime, some benefit and some get hurt.
quote: And educated middle-class is VITAL to the success and survival of a powerful democracy ( or democratic republic *wink*). If our leaders seem to be saving the present by sacrificing the future
That I agree on. I think that's why democracies have failed in so many other places in the world. Which is also why I'm not that anxious to see China become more democratic at this moment. The Chinese middle class is on the rise but its not there yet.
Posts: 176 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: That way we change China's people and government from a hostile, pro-slave state to a friendly, respecting its citizens and others state.
One of the factors that motivates aggressive behavior is limited resources--land. Japan has been so hostile in the past because it had an economic incentive/necessity be to so, however, China has got plenty of land.
China is not nearly as hostile as everyone makes them out to be. China is not scary. They do not invade people. Sure, they have Taiwan and Tibet issues, but those are still domestic problems. China just does not have a history of attacking and taking over other countries. China is not hostile.
The individual rights in China are based on a different history then America and are very different, but the Chinese are working through that progressively.
If China gets a stronger middle class, then there are just more people we can export goods too. I see China as a friend of America who has helped tremendously stabilize Asia. I am not scared of them having a stronger Army, a little balance is good, and I don't see an aggressive history that makes me fear China. More power to 'em!
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
On the topic of hostility, yes I agree that humans, who are programed to love one another, can see and treat each another as enemies and non-humans because of reasourses. That can be food, water, space to live.... and in more organized civilizations power, fame, money...
On the topic that hopefully everything will balance out and everyone will have enough, well.... HOPEFULLY that is the case... but like I said this is still unbalanced by half the world still having virtual slaves. We must be on the lookout against the new rise of a new aristocracy and putting down the ones that already exist.
Already in the U.S. the gap between rich and poor is growing...
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: They do not invade people. Sure, they have Taiwan and Tibet issues, but those are still domestic problems.
The Taiwanese and Tibetans seem to feel differently. And by some definitions, our conflict with Iraq is domestic.
If service laborers can't be middle class, then what is defined as middle class? I don't know that service laborers make less than teachers. Or is it the dignity of what one does as much as the actual paycheck?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with "free trade" as currently in effect is that labor is the one resource that is NOT, in fact, free, [EDIT: even setting] logistics aside. It's much harder to be an American and try to go to India to get one of the many tech support jobs, than it is for an Indian to come to America.
And paradoxically both sides have some incentive to keep it that way, India moreso than the USA, IMO.
Cash and property, especially at the multinational level, can be transferred absurdly quickly. We created wonderful systems for this sort of thing. We're WAY behind on the labor pool side of things.
This won't change, IMO, until we accept the fact that sovereignty of the national sort is becoming increasingly outmoded, in terms of economic utility. We need to knockdown labor barriers, and insist on it. In the short-term this will likely cause some really horrid situations (I'll call it "modified eugenics" aka "ship our poor people to other places"), but ultimately this will allow for greater opportunity for all involved.
It seems absurd that tarriffs (while still fairly common) are frowned on as a general trade policy (and has so for a century or so, right fugu?), but what are essentially labor tarriffs remain, and are encouraged.
quote: The problem with "free trade" as currently in effect is that labor is the one resource that is NOT, in fact, free, logistics aside. It's much harder to be an American and try to go to India to get one of the many tech support jobs, than it is for an Indian to come to America.
Do you know people who experienced looking for jobs in India? What kind of barriers did the Indian government put in their way?
I could be wrong but it seems to me the only true barriers are market forces. There's a glut of Indian tech workers. From what I hear, tech salaries in India are only a quarter of what U.S. based workers earn.
The ones that actually get to go to the U.S. are near the top of their field, with several years worth of experience. And to go to India, U.S. workers will have to compete against Indians in their home court. No disrespect to anyone but U.S. workers wanting to go to India are probably on the lower end of the skills scale. Otherwise why go if you can successfully compete for a stateside job at four times the salary? There is a lot of competition in this field both ways and U.S. tech workers get shut out.
Posts: 176 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
FIrst, I heard much the same talk about Japan 20 years ago as you mention about China now. I don't think I take that Mandarin Language course at the local college just yet.
Second, you don't want China to be a Slave state, yet you fear the loss of the middle class as paying jobs move over seas, eventually to China. The AFL/CIO would be a much stronger institution if they would not spend near as much time fighting immigration and more time attempting to unionize foriegn work forces. Sure its cheaper to build Chevy Trucks in Mexico, because Mexican labor is so cheap. Well, if we Unionize the Mexican Labor market, they'll be making as much money as the American market and everyone by GM will by happy.
Sure, such labor leaders will be risking their lives working in a dangerous, brutal, corrupt system where the rich own the government, but that is just about what the early labor leaders faced in 1920's America.
Finally, here is a thought about immigration.
Three years ago the tech sector fought with congress about allowing foreign workers into this country to take needed tech jobs. It was an expensive lobbist battle that gave mixed results.
Then these same companies realized it was cheaper to ship the jobs overseas than it was to ship the workers to the US.
Our self-protectionist immigration rules resulted in the US loosing jobs.
Maybe we should see about changing those rules.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe it is solely market factors, in the classical sense. The jobs are going to India. Given the same glut of Indian workers, if the work was here, they would tend to come here (as they did 5 years ago).
They are moving over there because the cost-of-operating is cheaper there... But that cost should be about the same whether it is a native Indian, or an American who lives India, so why isn't there a decent-sized exodus?
Part is family concerns; human resources aren't quite as liquid as other resources, and we tend not to encourage increased liquidity as a society (the whole "settle down when you are in your 30s" thing).
Part is due to old-fashioned nationalistic concerns. Americans are more important to America than Indians because, uh, they are Americans (this begs the question, what's so special about Americans, at least from an economic POV?), so we must protect American jobs and keep them here. Large companies have already realized this (not in this way, but in a colder bottom-line sort of way, and have started to act accordingly (the SOP of moving the jobs over enough time to not draw too much ire, so you keep your markets, but at the same time, doing it to visible help your bottom line).
If we keep our pay higher than the rest of the world then we will attract the best minds and workers. The 9/11 reaction as previously stated is trying to slow down and make more difficult the import of foriegn people. (Sounds impersonal, yes, but hey, if we can rename Personnel Department to Human Resources...)
This may or may not solve the long term goal of planetary equality, i.e. everyone being on the same plane as the West.
How do we create a world culture? Do we need some sectors or nations at a higher level to help pull up the rest of the world higher and higher? If everone is the same will decay occur? What is the right balance between order and chaos? We need both to survive... Order to have a safe environment to grown and live... Chaos to encourage growth and evolution... Too much of Chaos means war and/or mass death. Too much of Order means repression and decay... leading to death as well.
[ May 06, 2004, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Even if service sector peeps got paid the same or more than other areas, it comes down to if a population has the skill and education to do other things. We need the ability to make steel, computers, weapons, buildings, train teachers/doctors/lawyers/engineers, etc...
As Douglas Adams joked, if we all only know how to make shoes our civilization will collapse.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They don't have actual slaves, that I'm aware of, but they have a totalitarian government that doesn't care about the people very much and they pay most of their workers little.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:China is not nearly as hostile as everyone makes them out to be. China is not scary. They do not invade people. Sure, they have Taiwan and Tibet issues, but those are still domestic problems. China just does not have a history of attacking and taking over other countries. China is not hostile.
This is a very perceptive view of Chinese people. We just want to be left alone to make our fake Versace shirts and pirated Shrek DVDs. If you leave us alone, we will leave you alone.
Small quibble: if China's occupation of Tibet is considered a "domestic issue" then by the same logic China should be allowed to occupy Japan, Korea, and Vietnam as well.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
China does have a history of invading other people. There's Tibet, Vietnam, India, Burma, Thailand, Okinawa, Inner Mongolia, and a few other places I think. And that's in relatively recent years.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's an interesting thing... Talked to a dude from Hong Kong yesterday.
I play the online game Homeworld, and long story short met a fellow gamer and we downloaded a teamspeak.org program so we could talk to each other during the game instead of taking 10 seconds to bring up the chat function...so we can just yell into the mike "incoming enemy ships!"
Anway, he was from Hong Kong and after gaming we talked for an hour or so about politics and history. And he said that actually China is trying very hard to moderize and pass power from the Central authority to local governments. It's a start! And I'm happy to here from a real person that lives in the area that things are not TOO terrible and are getting better.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing my new friend said that I didn't realize at first but makes perfect sense, is that when American Colonies broke away we had access to all the education and knowledge of Europe and that the USA was founded by very intelligent people. Communist China was founded by peasents with very little education and was a major factor to the mess that's going on today. But now that China has been stable for 50 years or so and actually has an intelligencia again they realize the flaws in the system and seem to be honest in the effort to correct it.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mao Tse Dong was a brilliant man. China's rulers have almost always been highly intelligent (and, particularly in the past few decades, have not been the ones officially in charge).
And if you think they're choosing their policies with the good of the people in mind, you're wrong. Policies are clearly being chosen with the good of the nation in mind. And in China, the rulers are the nation.
quote: Already in the U.S. the gap between rich and poor is growing...
I hear a lot of people saying this, but I honestly don't see it. We've always had rich and poor. It is hard to imagine a system that will not.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Running out of oil is the main threat to the United States' preeminence. With more Chinese middle-class folks acquiring and driving cars, we're not far from hitting the oil supply brick wall.
We need fuel cell cars soon.
If scientists can’t make an economic fuel cell that doesn’t require platinum, then the U.S. should forget about controlling the oil supply and start looking to control the world's platinum supply. Right now Russia controls platinum. Maybe it’s Russia, not China and India that we should be worried about.
Anyway, the Chinese economy seems to be faltering at the moment, and outsourcing to India seems to be waning. So now what do we want to worry about?
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph -- there are always rich, poor, and middle class (one could make more divisions, but those are adequate for classifying most of the population with reasonable descriptive accuracy), the question is what proportions they come in. In the middle of the 20th century, there was a large middle class. That middle class is currently shrinking, and the poor are growing more than the rich are in absorbing them.
That's part of the meaning of the phrase. The other part is that the rich people are becoming richer (on average), and the poor people are becoming poorer (on average). This is usually a result of economic barriers, be they governmental or social.
quote:the poor people are becoming poorer (on average).
What standard of poverty are we using? Certainly in America more poor people have TVs and Cars then they used to have. More are overweight then they used to be. Moor work less hazardous jobs then they used to need to work. What standard of poverty are we using? Or are we talking about other countries?
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Certainly in America more poor people have TVs and Cars then they used to have. More are overweight then they used to be. Moor work less hazardous jobs then they used to need to work.
I'm pretty sure TVs have gone down a lot in price from decades ago, and there are plenty of affordable used cars if you look in the paper. And how much money you have has nothing to do with being overweight anymore. And I wasn't aware that to be truly poor you had to work at a hazardous job.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, the Chinese government is restrictive. But now more than ever, it's possible to live within the restrictions and still prosper. And you don't even have to go into politics or the military.
Yeah...they're not too tyrannical, so lighten up, right? Of course, dare to be publicly religious or non-communist in China and the government might grow more 'restrictive'.
quote:One of the factors that motivates aggressive behavior is limited resources--land. Japan has been so hostile in the past because it had an economic incentive/necessity be to so, however, China has got plenty of land.
China is not nearly as hostile as everyone makes them out to be. China is not scary. They do not invade people. Sure, they have Taiwan and Tibet issues, but those are still domestic problems. China just does not have a history of attacking and taking over other countries. China is not hostile.
These two paragraphs are contradictory. Chinese population is enormous, taking up 1/6 of the planet's total. How exactly is Tibet an 'domestic' issue? It wasn't 'domestic' until China invaded, conquered, and culturally decapitated it. And Taiwan, how is that 'domestic'? Taiwan does not want to be part of PROC, and has voted so many times.
quote:If China gets a stronger middle class, then there are just more people we can export goods too. I see China as a friend of America who has helped tremendously stabilize Asia. I am not scared of them having a stronger Army, a little balance is good, and I don't see an aggressive history that makes me fear China. More power to 'em!
Consider how China treats (internally) those it doesn't like, and I suggest you then reflect on how peaceful, friendly, and nonthreatening China would be with a more robust military and economy as it is now.
---------
quote:On the topic of hostility, yes I agree that humans, who are programed to love one another, can see and treat each another as enemies and non-humans because of reasourses. That can be food, water, space to live.... and in more organized civilizations power, fame, money...
I have to strongly disagree with the first statement. I do not believe human beings are programmed to love one another. Examples of how people treat strangers are, really, all one needs to disprove that idea.
------
Fugu is right-PRC is not aggressive towards anyone they don't already consider part of China (or someone who SHOULD be part of China).
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
