A moral issue

[It's Snake Pliskin]

As Australians do we exist to provide employment for offshore entities and people?

How many jobs and industries can be sent offshore?

What is the agenda for people when there are no jobs left and incomes so low? Not only Australia but almost all of the developed world seems to have this moral problem.

I am confused as to where the world is heading.

 

[tech/a]

I just look after my own world.
Much easier.

 

[Tyler Durden]

Sometimes business does not involve morals. Like Gerry Harvey asking us to support him - why? Why should I pay more to make him rich, as opposed to paying less to someone who was smart enough to sell things for cheaper?

 

[ROE]

Price of the capitalist system
paying 42% top bracket tax, price for living in Australia

 

[Smurf1976]

As Australians do we exist to provide employment for offshore entities and people?

How many jobs and industries can be sent offshore?

What is the agenda for people when there are no jobs left and incomes so low? Not only Australia but almost all of the developed world seems to have this moral problem.

I am confused as to where the world is heading.

I will simply note that the system as it stands today is clearly unsustainable and that which is not sustainable will at some point end.

Globalisation has been tried and failed before. It will fail this time too in my opinion due to the funamental flaws of (1) assuming there actually is such a thing as a "level playing field" when in practice there is not and (2) reducing everything to the lowest standards, most of which are below that which most Western people will willingly accept.

That said, there's not much I can do about it other than get on with my own life...

 

[Happy]

Sometimes business does not involve morals. Like Gerry Harvey asking us to support him - why? Why should I pay more to make him rich, as opposed to paying less to someone who was smart enough to sell things for cheaper?

Problem is not Gerry and proportion of profit that goes directly to his pocket, but all the people he will have to make redundant to run leaner business.

Also as Smurf1976 says we do not have level playing field.
Until China's and all not yet developed World get our wages, we will have bargains that are cheaper to import than produce here.

Our standards seem to be getting eroded, and surprisingly it might not be such a bad thing (thanks to Labour Party bent on removing tariffs and their pet project 'level playing field').

 

[motorway]

Also as Smurf1976 says we do not have level playing field.
Until China's and all not yet developed World get our wages

or we get theirs !

Either way unfair or not. You have to play on the playing field.

What matters is Productivity , Standard of Living and innovation

Trade is always a two way process.
It has to flow back one way or the other ( Investment or goods and services )

Motorway

 

[Happy]

or we get theirs !

....

It would be some kind of MOVING FORWARD that is our current PM's pet phrase.

 

[tothemax6]

As Australians do we exist to provide employment for offshore entities and people?

How many jobs and industries can be sent offshore?

What is the agenda for people when there are no jobs left and incomes so low? Not only Australia but almost all of the developed world seems to have this moral problem.

I am confused as to where the world is heading.

Really, if you could send all the work overseas and chill out here and do nothing, wouldn't that be the best situation of them all?
Of course, it doesn't work this way.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Thanks for the replies.
It was not my intention to make it an attack thread on businesses or people so would appreciate a measured tone with regard to the issue of Australians existing, facing other nations take the jobs. Jobs that should be done in the country like telephone operators.

Really, if you could send all the work overseas and chill out here and do nothing, wouldn't that be the best situation of them all?
Of course, it doesn't work this way.

That's not conducive to increasing the wealth of the middle class.

Globalisation has been tried and failed before. It will fail this time too in my opinion due to the funamental flaws of (1) assuming there actually is such a thing as a "level playing field" when in practice there is not and (2) reducing everything to the lowest standards, most of which are below that which most Western people will willingly accept.

The middle class will be the victims of the flight to the bottom. How couldn't they be?

 

[doctorj]

Thanks for the replies.
It was not my intention to make it an attack thread on businesses or people so would appreciate a measured tone with regard to the issue of Australians existing, facing other nations take the jobs. Jobs that should be done in the country like telephone operators.


That's not conducive to increasing the wealth of the middle class.


The middle class will be the victims of the flight to the bottom. How couldn't they be?

Australia is a small economy with a small population. It comes to quality of living and productivity. Theoretically Australia could decide to not export or import anything, but then all Australians would have a much poorer standard of living.

Population is also a big issue. With only a small number of people, you want them to be productive as possible. OK so maybe with outsourcing there are a lot of unemployed phone operators, but the idea is they retrain and get skills that are more productive, where they generate more economic benefit for everyone and perhaps where Australia has some sort of competitive advantage. In the generations that follow there will be very few Australians that know how to be phone operators, but they will know other things. Their used to be a lot more witch doctors around once upon a time...

So these things in the medium term don't hurt the middle class at all, in fact it helps as incrementally they learn more valuable skills. Maybe it does disadvantage those lowly skilled individuals at the end of their career, but this is a small % and the impact of this incremental upskilling is that the community as a whole is more wealthy and better able to fund a safety net for these folks.

Globalisation has been tried and failed before. It will fail this time too in my opinion due to the funamental flaws of (1) assuming there actually is such a thing as a "level playing field" when in practice there is not and (2) reducing everything to the lowest standards, most of which are below that which most Western people will willingly accept.

Did it fail? OK, we now know more about the risks inherent in a global inter-linked economy, but largely trade and capital kept flowing and foreign currencies rebalanced. In fact, you might argue that globalisation worked. Australia had a much stronger banking system, therefore the economy experienced little hardship, Australia was a relatively more interesting place to invest and the aussie dollar appreciated accordingly. Australia then enjoyed more buying power from its trade partners and Australians a greater standard of living.

 

[tothemax6]

Thanks for the replies.
It was not my intention to make it an attack thread on businesses or people so would appreciate a measured tone with regard to the issue of Australians existing, facing other nations take the jobs. Jobs that should be done in the country like telephone operators.

That's not conducive to increasing the wealth of the middle class.

The middle class will be the victims of the flight to the bottom. How couldn't they be?

I just don't follow, I really don't see any issue. Why 'should' certain jobs be done in Australia? There is not a limited stock of 'jobs'.

In the case where an Aussie chooses to employ some people to work for him in another country, instead of employing other Aussies, the following happens:
He makes greater profits. This is because his choice to employ as such can only be driven by lower costs.
Following this, he has more money. He must spend that here if he lives here. Him spending that money means people employed to furnish him with the additional goods and services.

The only path to increased wealth, for all, is increasing efficiency of capital and labour. If this means giving the menial jobs to people overseas who are willing to do it for cheaper, that's fine.
And regarding the middle class, I don't see how this is effected by this. The middle-class, to the best of my knowledge, is comprised of those educated and hard-working enough to have more money than those who aren't, but not more that those who are especially enterprising.