Is Globalization Inherantly Immoral?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Huntn, Aug 12, 2016.

  1. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #1
    When companies ship jobs overseas for essentially slave labor, while disenfranchising fellow citizens of good paying jobs, is this immoral? Is it ok when 10 companies do this, how about when all who can do it, undermining their home market?

    How about when Multinational corporations ship jobs to avoid environmental laws, immoral?

    Is the argument companies must remain competitive an adequate excuse to be immoral? Are profits the only morality recognized by businesses? This may be a stretch, but look at the history of slavery in the U.S. and world wide. What did business owners do when they felt compelled to remain competitive?

    I do believe there are leaders of companies who are able to maintain their moral standards and are generous. The question is, when the economy gets tight, when cuts have to be made, how many of those companies instead of doing what's fair, pain across the board, go out of their way to protect upper management, while everything and everyone else, their jobs are expendable?

    It's Immoral To Buy The Right To Pollute (1997 NYTimes Oped)
     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    No. Because billions have been lifted out of poverty by it.
     
  3. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #3
    Is this your only focus? Do you see any examples of immoral business behavior?

    What about millions of disenfranchised workers, depressed economies and pollution flowing into the global air and water supply? Is this a good argument for a world government? I'm not ready to say that's a good idea, and I'm not referencing The United Nations.
     
  4. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #5
    And instead placed in wage slavery. If you look down the supply chain of literally every major industry (other than financial, which is its own can of worms) it's based on resource extraction by actual slaves or people in servitude.

    We've put a friendly face on it, but Capitalism (and therefore globalization) is still big on slavery, but it's "over there" so the 1st world nations don't have to care about it. I say this knowing full well that every electronic I'm currently near is the end result of this practice as well, I don't have to be happy about it.
     
  5. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #6
    Related questions:

    Is protectionism inherently immoral?

    Are nation-states inherently immoral?

    Is capitalism inherently immoral?

    I think if you can form a well-reasoned argument for answering one, you'll be well into finding an answer for the others. In my opinion.
     
  6. Limey77 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #7
    I made quite a long post in another thread about this point.

    There NEEDS to be a quantum shift in how "success" is measured. Right now success = profits. Bit there's much more to it, especially given the wealth disparity.

    Shouldn't "success" also (not forgetting profit) also be judged on how many people they employ, their working conditions, their pay, thief benefits etc

    And almost more importantly shouldn't a corporations success be mostly judged on how much "good" it does for humanity and the world???

    I know it's idealistic, but imagine a world where 50% of all corporate profits went to improving the world instead of lining rich people's pockets. Just for one second think how different America (and the world) could be if a company's success was determined by how much good it did instead of how many dollars it earned. Imagine what those trillions of dollars could do. It's simple to do, just nobody has the balls!
     
  7. pdqgp, Aug 12, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2016

    pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #8
    Morality in business is a factor but if the business fails then it really doesn't matter now does it? The fact that companies are going off-shore and moving their manufacturing, etc. isn't immoral, it's business pure and simple. It's not their fault either as many would stay here if it wasn't such a disadvantage to do so. That's the whole point of trade deals and taxes, etc. to help balance out profitability and global reach while maintaining a workforce that benefits the homeland.

    Likewise we have no moral compass to worry about whether the people in China have jobs, especially if it's at the cost of our people. That's where America First comes in.

    Not going to happen. The executives aren't going to take a hit just to save the little guy when the reasons for all this aren't necessarily their fault. Trump is not wrong in that our administrations and leadership teams are not the brightest ones out there to be making these deals.

    Americans have become a people of consumption and entitlements. We make far less here than we used to and instead let others do the work. There's also a group or mindset that thinks everyone is entitled to a middle class or higher lifestyle just because. So when the workers at a widget factory go on strike because they want more money and the cost of negotiating or keeping them in check become too much, a company will shut the whole damn thing down and move.

    Open the door of a Ford and see if it says assembled in Mexico. It may be as there's less regulatory BS to build a factory down there and the workers aren't union turds who think they are entitled to make $100kyr monitoring robots and putting cars together.
     
  8. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #9
    Globalization can be no more moral - or immoral - than gravity or natural selection. Globalization is the natural result of large companies seeking both wider markets, and lower costs for their products. It is a process that is driven more by technological changes such as the development of the container ship and international telephony than any deliberate Government or Corporate decision.

    Does globalization sometimes lead to harmful effects in various nations and regions? Absolutely. Closing a factory in Cleveland and moving the work to Mexico inevitably is going to result in lost jobs and lowered incomes in Ohio. But it also has positive benefits: Lowered costs for everyone who buys a car made using those parts.

    Government and society ought not to try to ban or artificially restrict the process. Instead, we ought to ensure that our own society has in place a social welfare system that ensures not only are the displaced workers cared for financially, and retrained to take new jobs - but also that we foster an economically vibrant economy that provides plenty of opportunities for them to put their new skills to work.
     
  9. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #10
    I'd say no, although there are immoral elements. It's all related, but business is typically focused on profits as the golden calf. You can say without profits the company no longer exists, except, it's not just about profits, but how much profits? Do you pay your CEO $500K or $10m per year? How much of a paycut does that represent for rank and file workers? Does the head (management) deserve 90% of the O2? (Said to make a point, not literal.)
     
  10. Limey77 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #11
    There's plenty of ways to make them but sadly soooooo many people have become obsessed with the "market" deciding what's right.

    Without being protectionist there are many steps that would improve American workers lives, American companies and the only downside is that some investors would have to wait one more year to buy that beach house.
     
  11. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #12
    But are you willing to pay $1500 for an iPhone?

    Maybe Apple should make some iPhones here charging accordingly and see how well they sell.

    The way I see it is if Apple wasn't having the iPhone made in China, those people who do work in less favorable conditions than would be tolerated in the USA, they would not have jobs. They could not support their family. So is the solution to pay them more with better conditions? Even if it raised the price of every Apple product by $200? $300?

    Some would say yes, others would say no. Some could afford the increase, others could not. So Apple may keep the same revenue, but on fewer sales. So instead of paying X workers, Y wages, they pay X-n workers Y+n wages. So fewer people have jobs, but those that do make more money. Fair trade?
     
  12. MacAndMic macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    #13
    Being immoral does not matter in today's society, look at our presidential candidates. What it is, is greed and we do it to ourselves.

    Who here has not been asked to work longer, produce more or sell more? Companies make yearly false projections and then expect their employees to reach those goals all the while not providing the necessary infrastructure, other than the backhanded threat of you are not living up to your position.

    I own my own business and fell victim to this myself, wanting to reach a new number every year because it was what I learned working for others. I've since stopped the projection goals years ago and the result, less stress and ironically, the income has grown year over year.
     
  13. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #14
    My counter- globalization is no more immoral than the people executing it. What does history show? How many companies sent manufacturing to Mexico for the right to dump heavy metal in the river?
     
  14. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #15
    I'm not talking about China, I'm talking even further down the supply chain. Resources in places like the Congo are literally harvested by slaves.
     
  15. BenTrovato macrumors 68020

    BenTrovato

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Location:
    Canada
    #16
    I agree with your sentiments. I wouldn't call anything immoral because that means we had a standard to adhere to before we realized something was immoral. However globalization is more harmful than beneficial. There are more people living in poverty than ever before. There are more people suffering than ever before. We're running out of resources faster than ever before. Hard to argue that globalization has been fantastic.
     
  16. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #17
    it's a rather complicated issue, morals should not be the "question":, rather as Chown pointed out there is more to it when CO's do invest or hire outside the U.S. , if you are to take Detroit for example you can see the effects of outsourcing jobs, that there is a trickle down effect , hard to buy U.S good with McDonalds wages, hard to pay decent wages for low end customer service jobs. to a degree we are cutting off our own heads outsourcing many jobs. protectionism is not the answer either . we have too many people on earth as it is, all competing for decent employment . I fear the fat will be trimmed sooner or later or the oligarchs will get the treatment the French got after the revolutioh :eek:
    --- Post Merged, Aug 12, 2016 ---
    I liked your post until you were wrong. the price of products has not been lowered my friend, I don't know where you got that idea, a source for your lower price claims would be nice.
     
  17. Limey77 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #18
    OR Apple could just take less profit from each iPhone. I might not be up to date, but last time I looked into it an iPhone cost $163 to manufacture.

    Each and every quarter we hear about Apple increasing profits. Why?? Why can't they and their investors be happy with the profit they make? Why couldn't it be more important that Apple does good? That it pays enough that entire communities in the third world are lifted out of poverty? That people can buy their products knowing that they're actually helping the world instead of a relatively small number of shareholders.

    There are very simple things that can be done to make not only America but the world a better place. Sadly the willingness is not there. People are too selfish and self absorbed.
     
  18. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #19
    The intarwebz has a good definition of economic globalization (which is what I think the OP was about):
    As for it's morality, well increased economic integration and interdependence at this time is good for the "have not's" and not so great for the "haves'" when it comes to the labour force (aka proletariat). It's a system that will should ultimately lead to equilibrium for many markets which to society is a good thing. However as a system becomes more integrated shocks will affect more markets and people. Will there be "have not's" and "haves" after globalization where we go back to the old system of workers vs owners/rulers. It's a problem older than recorded history.

    <edit> I guess that I'm saying is that the 'morality' of globalization depends on your scope. However it doesn't provide a socio-economic paradise, nor a drab swath of global franchises that some envision.</edit>
     
  19. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #20
    While most people see the profits the companies make, they don't always see where these profits go and how it might benefit them. It is much easier to demonize those profits.

    For example, CALSTERS, the California State Teacher's Retirement System is the second largest pension fund in the country. Approximately 55% of their holdings ($140B) are in Equities. So what happens if all of a sudden those equities make less profit? CALSTERS still has to pay out pensions. Where do they get the money now that their equities are no longer as profitable? Increase contributions? Like the teachers unions would allow that. Same with cutting benefits. So maybe raise taxes? Sure, raise taxes so someone who is working a job just trying to get by gets a tax increase because someone thought that a company was making too much profit. Good idea. Let's do that.
     
  20. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #21
    Exactly.

    Without proper safeguards and reinforcement of worker protections, it's a roundabout way of just going back to the millennia-old (in this case economic) serfdom model, except we have creature comforts to compensate today so you don't have mobilization of the labor force like you'd actually need to push back with.
     
  21. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #22
    Globalization is one consequence of laws and policies enacted by nation-states. Those laws aren't natural laws; people in nation-states made them. That's why I posted the "related questions" about nation-states, laws, protectionism, etc.

    An argument can be made that unlimited protectionism is bad/immoral, because it prevents open trade. By contrast, having no laws protecting one's own people may also be seen as bad/immoral, because it leaves the people at the mercy of other actors. "... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

    Globalization is one aspect of a big geopolitical game. Move the pieces around, pay a price, collect the payoff, move to another place, pay that price, collect those profits, repeat. At each move there are winners (people in the new place) and losers (people in the old place). The goal for the game-players is to maximize the payoff from each move, and to avoid becoming one of the pieces in someone else's game.
     
  22. DearthnVader macrumors regular

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #23
    Nations need to seek a balance of trade, you can't have a nation and run hundreds of billions of dollars worth of a trade deficit and think that's going to work out good for your people in the long run.

    Money only comes from debt, we need our money to repay the debt that created it. When we spend our money on products that ships the money overseas, that creates a situation where there is not enough money to repay the debt that created it. Government must step in and issue more debt, US Treasuries, to reclaim our money and spend it back into the economy, so we can compete for it, to repay the debt that created it.

    This just leads to more money going overseas, to repay the debt plus interest on the US Treasuries.

    Trade deficits are bad, they are a hole in the boat of a nations economy and money supply, that leads to a bigger hole. Governments of Western nations seem to be engaged in global wealth redistribution, from the middle class of the West, to the poor of other nations.
     
  23. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #24
    Most electronics. Remember the $500 VCR? Now you can get a $50 BR Player.
    --- Post Merged, Aug 12, 2016 ---
    See my post here: http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/is-globalization-inherantly-immoral.1987725/#post-23232368
     
  24. DearthnVader macrumors regular

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #25

Share This Page