A small world after all--and smaller by the day
I’m very, very sorry for the cliché allusion to a certain sickeningly sweet children’s ride in a certain famous theme park, but it’s the truth. That’s right folks, with technology improving pretty much constantly, it’s getting easier and easier to communicate with, send items to, and even go visit people on the other side of the globe.
A completely global economy is on its way. Soon enough, any of us will be able to do business with someone on another continent just as easily as we can with the guy down the street. What’s it all mean?
Well, there are three main effects that I can think of. Life will become easier for everyday people. Entrepreneurship will be easier than it has ever been--ever--and economies everywhere will skyrocket. No, not just for rich business CEO’s, but for everyone. This means not only a better standard of living, but one that improves exponentially, all the time. And finally, governments the world over will be forced to undergo massive changes.
It’s obvious why life in general will improve. People will be able to live wherever they want, communicate easily with people in distant locales, and even visit those people, and maybe a few nice vacation spots too, with great ease. We’ll enjoy everyday life more. Easy access to exotic goods--even perishable goods like fresh fruit and gorgeous flowers. Sounds nice, doesn’t it?
Okay, so what about entrepreneurs? That seems obvious too, I suppose. Better access to foreign raw materials. Greater ease in shipping finished goods over great distances. Basically, the business counterpart to the improvements in everyday life. But there’s more. Labor will be more fluid. Wages and the value of workers across the globe will be equalized, because even the smallest company will be able to outsource jobs to workers who are more worth their wage, meanwhile, workers, too, will be able to move to the better jobs. And workers everywhere will find it easier and easier to get a good education, often without even leaving their countries.
Now some people complain about outsourcing. Some say that it’s just a way of taking advantage of an economy that’s not as well off as our own. That it’s a way to take advantage of the less priviledged. Well, yeah, that’s true, but I prefer not to say it that way. Frankly, it’s just smart business. Economically, it’s the way to go. What do these foreign workers think about it? Well, usually, if you ask them, they’re glad just to have the job. And some of them aren’t paid so terribly anyway. Some will cite their low pay, converting it into U.S. dollars. But really, that doesn’t work. In a lot of these countries, a dollar will buy a lot more than it does here. The costs of the products isn’t the same. This is because we aren’t globalized yet. Transportation is still somewhat costly, and there are some other factors.
So what about the idea that outsourcing takes jobs away from Americans? That’s only half true. It takes away the jobs that we don’t want. It takes away the jobs that we want to be paid more to do. Here’s the real catch, though: it frees us up to do better jobs, ones that are more enjoyable and require more skill--so, the ones that get higher pay anyway. And when the economy really is global, it won’t even be outsourcing anymore. When workers everywhere are equalized, employers will just find the less skilled workers wherever they may be, here or abroad. They will be able to employ them over phone lines, like telemarketers and phone support employees in India and other Third World countries, or actually transport the workers to the job at a lower cost.
And then there are the governments. What will this do to them? Well, because workers across the globe will be more equal, and outsourcing will be so much easier, for many jobs, it will be more efficient than dealing with minimum wage laws here. So as long as we keep these and other labor laws that give employers difficulty, the U.S. will consistently lose jobs to cheaper, more efficient foreign labor. For the benefit of our own economy, to bring down unemployment, the U.S. will be forced to abandon minimum wage. Don’t panic. It’s actually a good thing. Even with a limited economy, partially closed as ours is today, minimum wage still causes unemployment. Why, you ask? Before minimum wage, there is a certain number of employees that firms can afford at the lower wages. When minimum wage is enacted, or raised, then the number of employees that the firm can employ goes down, and some of them get fired. Meanwhile, as wages are higher, workers who didn’t have jobs before and weren’t looking for them, are enticed to begin seeking them. They are now categorized as unemployed. They may take jobs that could have been taken by some of the employees who were fired. Or maybe some who already have jobs will decide to take second jobs, further decreasing the space for those who were fired. And removing minimum wage would undo it. If wages go down, firms will hire more workers to increase the quality of their good and/or service, and therein sell more.
Something else happens when the price of labor goes up: the price of the product goes up. That’s right, firms generally don’t want to completely compromise the quality of their product or service, so they don’t just cut all of the expenses out of labor. They keep more labor than they can afford, but then raise prices to the consumer. And again, removing the law would reverse the effect. Bringing wages down decreases the cost of production, so the firms then reduce their prices so that they can effectively compete with other firms in the market, and catch more of the profit. And as prices go down, so does the cost of living--and suddenly, lower wages are good enough to make a living.
Let's not forget that this will mean that the government will be spending less money for the upkeep of a number of beaurocracies that help to maintain all of this economic regulation. Smaller national deficit, smaller easier to pay off national debt...Hmm...Besides, not only will things like Welfare disappear, as another one of those regulatory tools, but it won't be needed anymore.
One should also realize, most minimum wage workers aren’t struggling to survive, desperately trying to support families at $5.15 an hour. Most minimum wage workers, like myself, are students, looking for some extra pocket cash. Their parents generally provide everything that they really need.
And this is just one example of a labor law that the government will be forced to remove. They all work pretty much the same way. Labor laws make American workers less efficient. They become more costly to employ, even if the quality of the labor is still the same. So if the labor laws remain, unemployment will go up, as will prices and cost of living.
How about other countries? Something to compare with. Happy to oblige. France, for example. France is heavy on the labor laws and other economic restrictions. Does the economy fair better for it? Heck no. France's unemployment is 18%, more than three times our own. French entrepreneurs with wonderful products find the need to move here to sell them. India is the same, but much more extreme--and the economy there is just wonderful, isn't it? Okay, so how about a success? Hong Kong. For years, Hong Kong was a British colony. The Brits kept a pretty loose grip on the economy there. It was extremely easy to start a business there. And the economy? Flourishing! The highest concentration of Rolls Royces in the world. Booming real estate. Does Hong Kong have natural resources? Nope. Well, maybe India's just too crowded. No, not that either--Hong Kong is crowded too.
As a matter of fact, this principle, regarding the effects of government regulation, doesn’t just apply to labor; it applies to any regulation of the economy in general. Price caps. Finance regulation. Anti-trust laws. All of it. If it stays, firms will export their business to less regulated countries and just avoid all the garbage. And again, this isn’t as bad as it sounds. In the absence of government regulatory agencies, private and non-profit organizations tend to take up the slack--and do a better job. People who have some interest in a certain industry investigate important matters involved in that industry, and voice their opinions to the public. Sometimes this would be the businesses themselves. They may cooperate to evaluate products in their industry and provide information to the public, which will then have the necessary information to buy the best products at the best prices from the best companies. Sometimes the information is provided by other businesses--namely the media. Members of the media investigate products and services and tell the public of their findings. And don't think that job benefits will go down the drain either. As a matter of fact, greater competition throughout the economy will make them even better. The ones that need to be, anyway. Some benefits that people sometimes get from their jobs may be more efficiently acquired independently.
And what about the anti-trust laws? We want to avoid monopolies, don’t we? Well, the truth is, a monopoly is very hard to maintain. It’s almost impossible to completely smother every other business in an industry, particularly because most products have alternatives that aren’t quite the same, but can be used for the same purpose. If an automotive manufacturer gains monopoly and begins charging ridiculous prices for its cars, consumers will walk, ride bikes, car pool, or, GASP, use public transportation. And I highly doubt that G.M. or any of those others could beat out all that. No, the only real monopolies are the ones that are sanctioned by law. Sometimes the government says that only such-and-such a company can provide a certain service or product. That’s a real monopoly.
And we must remember that the global economy will make it easier for small businesses to compete. They won’t need as much man power, or massive bank accounts to buy raw materials, employ laborers, manufacture goods, or ship the goods out. Retailers will be able to change prices instantaneously to match shocks to the economy. And it’s all thanks to technology. Time and distance will be cut down by the internet and other long-distance technology. Cell phones are just the beginning. Automation will make manufacturing quicker and easier, not to mention more reliable. So even the tiniest businesses will be able to buy the necessary materials for their products more easily, manufacture their products more easily, and ship them out more easily--and therein compete with even the biggest business tycoons. We've all seen the commercials for banks and I.T. firms that are now providing sevices particularly designed for small businesses. It’ll no longer be about who has the biggest pool of funds. It’ll all be on who has the best ideas. Monopoly, if it’s not already, will be virtually impossible.
But back to government. All this will affect more than just the economy. That’s just the starting point. With the economy becoming more fluid, people will be able to move around and communicate so easily, that the government will be forced to change just about everything. Immigration law, tax law (particularly tariffs), etc. etc. etc. Not to mention international relations. International borders will be far less meaningful, maybe even dissolve entirely. Taxes will be harder to define and impose, particularly because of jurisdiction issues. As a matter of fact, jurisdiction between different countries will become more difficult to define in all areas, including crime.
So what will this do? Well, for one, it will solve a lot of international problems. The nation-state as it is today, with its iron-clad borders, has caused problems since its birth. It has caused genocide in Europe and Africa. It’s a large part of the problems in the Middle East. It was an issue with China and Taiwan. And then there are the long standing issues between the U.S. and Native Americans. The nation-state has caused wars of greed and conquest. The dissolution of the nation-state will make countries more difficult to find, more difficult to define. Terrorism focused on certain countries (hmm, just what might I be talking about?) will lose all its momentum.
And then there’s the effect on everyday life. Thoreau said, "That government is best which governs the least." There’s a reason for that. If you go all the way back to Locke, and read his "Treatises on Civil Government," he says that the government’s sole purpose is to enforce social contract, therein protecting our bodies, our freedom, and our property--"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as Thomas Jefferson so aptly put it. The government isn’t really there to make life fair, give everyone an equal share. When the government tries to do that, it’s bound to make mistakes, and that means it’s time to scrap it and start over--which the framers of our constitution realized, in their providing so many protections against government power and means of changing the government. This is not to mention the personal liberties provided by the bill of rights, like the right to keep and bear arms, which is in case we should some day need to get rid of the government, which would likely require force. (Please don’t mistake me for a revolutionary, I certainly don’t think that we need to make a move like that with things as they are now. It’s just an ‘in-case.’)
So anyway, with things as they are now, our government is trying to protect us from a lot of things that we might not really need protection from. While it would be nice to get rid of a lot of this extra junk, and get our freedoms back, some people just cling to it too much. Some people think that it's the only way to go. We’re probably not gonna be able to minimize the government just yet, because certain groups of people are just resisting it too much. But globalization will force it. Minimization of the government will be necessary to maintain a high living standard.
So guess what? That’s where we’re headed. Technology increasing, the world shrinking, it’s gonna be almost automatic. And what’s it mean? Better economy. Higher standard of living. Less government and more rights. In short, better life.
A completely global economy is on its way. Soon enough, any of us will be able to do business with someone on another continent just as easily as we can with the guy down the street. What’s it all mean?
Well, there are three main effects that I can think of. Life will become easier for everyday people. Entrepreneurship will be easier than it has ever been--ever--and economies everywhere will skyrocket. No, not just for rich business CEO’s, but for everyone. This means not only a better standard of living, but one that improves exponentially, all the time. And finally, governments the world over will be forced to undergo massive changes.
It’s obvious why life in general will improve. People will be able to live wherever they want, communicate easily with people in distant locales, and even visit those people, and maybe a few nice vacation spots too, with great ease. We’ll enjoy everyday life more. Easy access to exotic goods--even perishable goods like fresh fruit and gorgeous flowers. Sounds nice, doesn’t it?
Okay, so what about entrepreneurs? That seems obvious too, I suppose. Better access to foreign raw materials. Greater ease in shipping finished goods over great distances. Basically, the business counterpart to the improvements in everyday life. But there’s more. Labor will be more fluid. Wages and the value of workers across the globe will be equalized, because even the smallest company will be able to outsource jobs to workers who are more worth their wage, meanwhile, workers, too, will be able to move to the better jobs. And workers everywhere will find it easier and easier to get a good education, often without even leaving their countries.
Now some people complain about outsourcing. Some say that it’s just a way of taking advantage of an economy that’s not as well off as our own. That it’s a way to take advantage of the less priviledged. Well, yeah, that’s true, but I prefer not to say it that way. Frankly, it’s just smart business. Economically, it’s the way to go. What do these foreign workers think about it? Well, usually, if you ask them, they’re glad just to have the job. And some of them aren’t paid so terribly anyway. Some will cite their low pay, converting it into U.S. dollars. But really, that doesn’t work. In a lot of these countries, a dollar will buy a lot more than it does here. The costs of the products isn’t the same. This is because we aren’t globalized yet. Transportation is still somewhat costly, and there are some other factors.
So what about the idea that outsourcing takes jobs away from Americans? That’s only half true. It takes away the jobs that we don’t want. It takes away the jobs that we want to be paid more to do. Here’s the real catch, though: it frees us up to do better jobs, ones that are more enjoyable and require more skill--so, the ones that get higher pay anyway. And when the economy really is global, it won’t even be outsourcing anymore. When workers everywhere are equalized, employers will just find the less skilled workers wherever they may be, here or abroad. They will be able to employ them over phone lines, like telemarketers and phone support employees in India and other Third World countries, or actually transport the workers to the job at a lower cost.
And then there are the governments. What will this do to them? Well, because workers across the globe will be more equal, and outsourcing will be so much easier, for many jobs, it will be more efficient than dealing with minimum wage laws here. So as long as we keep these and other labor laws that give employers difficulty, the U.S. will consistently lose jobs to cheaper, more efficient foreign labor. For the benefit of our own economy, to bring down unemployment, the U.S. will be forced to abandon minimum wage. Don’t panic. It’s actually a good thing. Even with a limited economy, partially closed as ours is today, minimum wage still causes unemployment. Why, you ask? Before minimum wage, there is a certain number of employees that firms can afford at the lower wages. When minimum wage is enacted, or raised, then the number of employees that the firm can employ goes down, and some of them get fired. Meanwhile, as wages are higher, workers who didn’t have jobs before and weren’t looking for them, are enticed to begin seeking them. They are now categorized as unemployed. They may take jobs that could have been taken by some of the employees who were fired. Or maybe some who already have jobs will decide to take second jobs, further decreasing the space for those who were fired. And removing minimum wage would undo it. If wages go down, firms will hire more workers to increase the quality of their good and/or service, and therein sell more.
Something else happens when the price of labor goes up: the price of the product goes up. That’s right, firms generally don’t want to completely compromise the quality of their product or service, so they don’t just cut all of the expenses out of labor. They keep more labor than they can afford, but then raise prices to the consumer. And again, removing the law would reverse the effect. Bringing wages down decreases the cost of production, so the firms then reduce their prices so that they can effectively compete with other firms in the market, and catch more of the profit. And as prices go down, so does the cost of living--and suddenly, lower wages are good enough to make a living.
Let's not forget that this will mean that the government will be spending less money for the upkeep of a number of beaurocracies that help to maintain all of this economic regulation. Smaller national deficit, smaller easier to pay off national debt...Hmm...Besides, not only will things like Welfare disappear, as another one of those regulatory tools, but it won't be needed anymore.
One should also realize, most minimum wage workers aren’t struggling to survive, desperately trying to support families at $5.15 an hour. Most minimum wage workers, like myself, are students, looking for some extra pocket cash. Their parents generally provide everything that they really need.
And this is just one example of a labor law that the government will be forced to remove. They all work pretty much the same way. Labor laws make American workers less efficient. They become more costly to employ, even if the quality of the labor is still the same. So if the labor laws remain, unemployment will go up, as will prices and cost of living.
How about other countries? Something to compare with. Happy to oblige. France, for example. France is heavy on the labor laws and other economic restrictions. Does the economy fair better for it? Heck no. France's unemployment is 18%, more than three times our own. French entrepreneurs with wonderful products find the need to move here to sell them. India is the same, but much more extreme--and the economy there is just wonderful, isn't it? Okay, so how about a success? Hong Kong. For years, Hong Kong was a British colony. The Brits kept a pretty loose grip on the economy there. It was extremely easy to start a business there. And the economy? Flourishing! The highest concentration of Rolls Royces in the world. Booming real estate. Does Hong Kong have natural resources? Nope. Well, maybe India's just too crowded. No, not that either--Hong Kong is crowded too.
As a matter of fact, this principle, regarding the effects of government regulation, doesn’t just apply to labor; it applies to any regulation of the economy in general. Price caps. Finance regulation. Anti-trust laws. All of it. If it stays, firms will export their business to less regulated countries and just avoid all the garbage. And again, this isn’t as bad as it sounds. In the absence of government regulatory agencies, private and non-profit organizations tend to take up the slack--and do a better job. People who have some interest in a certain industry investigate important matters involved in that industry, and voice their opinions to the public. Sometimes this would be the businesses themselves. They may cooperate to evaluate products in their industry and provide information to the public, which will then have the necessary information to buy the best products at the best prices from the best companies. Sometimes the information is provided by other businesses--namely the media. Members of the media investigate products and services and tell the public of their findings. And don't think that job benefits will go down the drain either. As a matter of fact, greater competition throughout the economy will make them even better. The ones that need to be, anyway. Some benefits that people sometimes get from their jobs may be more efficiently acquired independently.
And what about the anti-trust laws? We want to avoid monopolies, don’t we? Well, the truth is, a monopoly is very hard to maintain. It’s almost impossible to completely smother every other business in an industry, particularly because most products have alternatives that aren’t quite the same, but can be used for the same purpose. If an automotive manufacturer gains monopoly and begins charging ridiculous prices for its cars, consumers will walk, ride bikes, car pool, or, GASP, use public transportation. And I highly doubt that G.M. or any of those others could beat out all that. No, the only real monopolies are the ones that are sanctioned by law. Sometimes the government says that only such-and-such a company can provide a certain service or product. That’s a real monopoly.
And we must remember that the global economy will make it easier for small businesses to compete. They won’t need as much man power, or massive bank accounts to buy raw materials, employ laborers, manufacture goods, or ship the goods out. Retailers will be able to change prices instantaneously to match shocks to the economy. And it’s all thanks to technology. Time and distance will be cut down by the internet and other long-distance technology. Cell phones are just the beginning. Automation will make manufacturing quicker and easier, not to mention more reliable. So even the tiniest businesses will be able to buy the necessary materials for their products more easily, manufacture their products more easily, and ship them out more easily--and therein compete with even the biggest business tycoons. We've all seen the commercials for banks and I.T. firms that are now providing sevices particularly designed for small businesses. It’ll no longer be about who has the biggest pool of funds. It’ll all be on who has the best ideas. Monopoly, if it’s not already, will be virtually impossible.
But back to government. All this will affect more than just the economy. That’s just the starting point. With the economy becoming more fluid, people will be able to move around and communicate so easily, that the government will be forced to change just about everything. Immigration law, tax law (particularly tariffs), etc. etc. etc. Not to mention international relations. International borders will be far less meaningful, maybe even dissolve entirely. Taxes will be harder to define and impose, particularly because of jurisdiction issues. As a matter of fact, jurisdiction between different countries will become more difficult to define in all areas, including crime.
So what will this do? Well, for one, it will solve a lot of international problems. The nation-state as it is today, with its iron-clad borders, has caused problems since its birth. It has caused genocide in Europe and Africa. It’s a large part of the problems in the Middle East. It was an issue with China and Taiwan. And then there are the long standing issues between the U.S. and Native Americans. The nation-state has caused wars of greed and conquest. The dissolution of the nation-state will make countries more difficult to find, more difficult to define. Terrorism focused on certain countries (hmm, just what might I be talking about?) will lose all its momentum.
And then there’s the effect on everyday life. Thoreau said, "That government is best which governs the least." There’s a reason for that. If you go all the way back to Locke, and read his "Treatises on Civil Government," he says that the government’s sole purpose is to enforce social contract, therein protecting our bodies, our freedom, and our property--"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as Thomas Jefferson so aptly put it. The government isn’t really there to make life fair, give everyone an equal share. When the government tries to do that, it’s bound to make mistakes, and that means it’s time to scrap it and start over--which the framers of our constitution realized, in their providing so many protections against government power and means of changing the government. This is not to mention the personal liberties provided by the bill of rights, like the right to keep and bear arms, which is in case we should some day need to get rid of the government, which would likely require force. (Please don’t mistake me for a revolutionary, I certainly don’t think that we need to make a move like that with things as they are now. It’s just an ‘in-case.’)
So anyway, with things as they are now, our government is trying to protect us from a lot of things that we might not really need protection from. While it would be nice to get rid of a lot of this extra junk, and get our freedoms back, some people just cling to it too much. Some people think that it's the only way to go. We’re probably not gonna be able to minimize the government just yet, because certain groups of people are just resisting it too much. But globalization will force it. Minimization of the government will be necessary to maintain a high living standard.
So guess what? That’s where we’re headed. Technology increasing, the world shrinking, it’s gonna be almost automatic. And what’s it mean? Better economy. Higher standard of living. Less government and more rights. In short, better life.
posted by BMD at 3:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home