On the whole, this is really good, we just need to make sure to adapt our civic elements properly.
This could be a massively beneficial thing if we play our cards right.
That said there is another, huge thing that's happening in real time, good for some, not so much for others: local talent (i.e. US, Can, EU) will now be competing with the 'rest of the world' in a major way for more mainstream jobs.
This means the bifurcation of the wealth of globalism could be even more exacerbated.
We saw millions of manufacturing jobs leave the US for other parts.
The 'big winners' were capital holders, senior managers, execs - their wealth increased dramatically.
The other 'winners' were anyone that could maintain a decent job in the aftermath - they saw massively lower prices in commodity goods, and an unbelievable expansion in diversity of consumer products
The 'losers' were those in the working class, who never quite recovered.
Well - 'white collar workers' (and probably this means 'you') are going to be under that kind of 'threat' as well.
The kinds of jobs that are going to the Philippines, Vietnam, India etc. is going to go way up the value chain.
It means further concentration and increase in surpluses with those who 'have power'.
It means probably even more expansion in buying power for those who can keep decent jobs.
But the numbers of those who are going to 'get left behind' may increase substantially.
This is like 'NAFTA+globalisation' on steroids.
I've just hired a firm to do some tech work in E. Europe, and a team to do generic design work in Asia and the prices are ridiculously low and the quality is good. It's not a place to do advanced work (it can be, but you have to dig for that) - and although it means 'more work can be done' and an expansion in some ways, I can only feel for the pressure on wages locally for tech-related work.
Folks, if they can remote you in Utah, they can also remote someone else in Kiev, and this is a very material thing to consider.
This is going to be hugely impactful for trade negotiations in the future because what we have now will be a 'race to the bottom' for labour laws, working conditions, etc. and large corporations will be very happy to 'not think about' how much of that cost is simply be externalized, off the balance sheet. 'McCorp' does not care that there is no financial oversight, shifty accounting principles, meagre commercial law, limited human rights in 'Country XYZ' - all they will see is the direct issues: labour input costs, and then maybe the 'quality of outcomes' but even that is sometimes secondary.
This could be a massively beneficial thing if we play our cards right.
That said there is another, huge thing that's happening in real time, good for some, not so much for others: local talent (i.e. US, Can, EU) will now be competing with the 'rest of the world' in a major way for more mainstream jobs.
This means the bifurcation of the wealth of globalism could be even more exacerbated.
We saw millions of manufacturing jobs leave the US for other parts.
The 'big winners' were capital holders, senior managers, execs - their wealth increased dramatically.
The other 'winners' were anyone that could maintain a decent job in the aftermath - they saw massively lower prices in commodity goods, and an unbelievable expansion in diversity of consumer products
The 'losers' were those in the working class, who never quite recovered.
Well - 'white collar workers' (and probably this means 'you') are going to be under that kind of 'threat' as well.
The kinds of jobs that are going to the Philippines, Vietnam, India etc. is going to go way up the value chain.
It means further concentration and increase in surpluses with those who 'have power'.
It means probably even more expansion in buying power for those who can keep decent jobs.
But the numbers of those who are going to 'get left behind' may increase substantially.
This is like 'NAFTA+globalisation' on steroids.
I've just hired a firm to do some tech work in E. Europe, and a team to do generic design work in Asia and the prices are ridiculously low and the quality is good. It's not a place to do advanced work (it can be, but you have to dig for that) - and although it means 'more work can be done' and an expansion in some ways, I can only feel for the pressure on wages locally for tech-related work.
Folks, if they can remote you in Utah, they can also remote someone else in Kiev, and this is a very material thing to consider.
This is going to be hugely impactful for trade negotiations in the future because what we have now will be a 'race to the bottom' for labour laws, working conditions, etc. and large corporations will be very happy to 'not think about' how much of that cost is simply be externalized, off the balance sheet. 'McCorp' does not care that there is no financial oversight, shifty accounting principles, meagre commercial law, limited human rights in 'Country XYZ' - all they will see is the direct issues: labour input costs, and then maybe the 'quality of outcomes' but even that is sometimes secondary.