Has Globalization hit its high-water mark?

[The Great Zaganza]

The forces that destroy small farms are government subsidies in the West: the farm business was destroyed before the factory was build.

And countries shouldn't make the mistake of trying to compete with the West in terms of food production: if the US and Europe want to waste taxpayer's money by keeping their farmers happy, let them.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That principle is often invoked also by apologists for super exploitation; but it isn't always valid. Many sweatshop employees are former agriculturists or artisans whose previous occupations have been destroyed by the very economic system that now overworks and underpays them.

Sweatshop labour is better than starvation, but is it better than being a small-holding farmer, for example?

It would be interesting to see the breakdown between "small exporting farm or artisan" and "subsistence farming." Because most things I have read indicate people do prefer sweatshops to subsistence farming. In non-industrial farming the hours are longer, the work harder, conditions are more dangerous, there is greater risk as family owner, it is dirtier, lower income, and has extremely limited options for women.

 

[SashatheMagnificent]

The forces that destroy small farms are government subsidies in the West: the farm business was destroyed before the factory was build.

And countries shouldn't make the mistake of trying to compete with the West in terms of food production: if the US and Europe want to waste taxpayer's money by keeping their farmers happy, let them.

The US and Europe are basically not growing in per capita GDP in the last 10 years.

 

[Craig B]

The forces that destroy small farms are government subsidies in the West: the farm business was destroyed before the factory was build.

And countries shouldn't make the mistake of trying to compete with the West in terms of food production: if the US and Europe want to waste taxpayer's money by keeping their farmers happy, let them.

You're happy about wasting taxpayers' money? We should simply let this happen?

 

[Puppycow]

I fact check it as mostly false . "Median household income" can be fairly misleading in a number of ways.



Linky.

That is an interesting point. I hadn't thought about the size of households changing. Although since 2000 it hasn't changed all that much. In 2000 the average was 2.62 and in 2015 it was 2.54. So the size of the household fell by 3% whereas household income fell by about 7 or 8%. So it accounts for a little less than half of the fall.

And actually since I posted that I think new data on household income has been released and it was the best report in a long time. Let me see if I can find that . . . Ah, here it is:

http://qz.com/780475/us-census-bure...se-in-history-in-2015-rising-5-2-almost-3000/

In 2015, the median household earned $56,500, adjusted for inflation, according to the US Census Bureau (pdf). In real terms, that’s equal to a $2,800 rise compared with 2014’s median household income—growth of more than 5%.

So that's more than half of the way back in just one year. The economy lately really does seem to be doing quietly well. Unemployment is low, incomes are finally rising again.

 

[Puppycow]

That principle is often invoked also by apologists for super exploitation; but it isn't always valid. Many sweatshop employees are former agriculturists or artisans whose previous occupations have been destroyed by the very economic system that now overworks and underpays them.

Sweatshop labour is better than starvation, but is it better than being a small-holding farmer, for example?

Believe it or not, typically yes, it is better.

 

[Puppycow]

You're happy about wasting taxpayers' money? We should simply let this happen?

It's not ideal but it happens in every democratic country. I can think of worse things to spend money on than subsidizing farmers. At least in modern first world democratic countries famines are unheard of anymore. Something which we take for granted but which most people who have ever lived could not.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

TBH, I think it very rational for a government to protect (via tariffs, subsidies, regulations and state-control) critical parts of the infrastructure of a country: we won't outsource defense to China, though they would be way cheaper than US defense contractors.
why would we leave our food production to the chances of market forces or interventions from other governments?
Roads, public transport, banking, a basic level of manufacturing, power, food and defense are all necessities of a society that need to be firewalled from the rest of the world to a sufficient degree to allow for function even in the worst of cases.

 

[SashatheMagnificent]

That is an interesting point. I hadn't thought about the size of households changing. Although since 2000 it hasn't changed all that much. In 2000 the average was 2.62 and in 2015 it was 2.54. So the size of the household fell by 3% whereas household income fell by about 7 or 8%. So it accounts for a little less than half of the fall.

And actually since I posted that I think new data on household income has been released and it was the best report in a long time. Let me see if I can find that . . . Ah, here it is:

http://qz.com/780475/us-census-bure...se-in-history-in-2015-rising-5-2-almost-3000/



So that's more than half of the way back in just one year. The economy lately really does seem to be doing quietly well. Unemployment is low, incomes are finally rising again.

It cant be
The US average income has grown a paltry 20% in 40 years?

 

[Puppycow]

It cant be
The US average income has grown a paltry 20% in 40 years?

Not sure where you get that figure from. (We were talking about the median, not the average.)

I found another source for the average:

http://www.multpl.com/us-average-real-income

I calculated the difference and my result was that it's up 37% in 40 years.

However, as Tsukasa Buddha pointed out earlier, the average household size has gotten smaller over that period, so if you want to know what the per capita average income is, you need to add another factor.

Average household size was 2.89 in 1976 and 2.54 in 2015.

So we get $19,082 per capita in '76 and $29,818 in '15. So now we've factored out the change in household size. That's a 56% increase per capita (and this is adjusted for inflation too). The peak however was in 2000, and we still haven't gotten back to that.

But that's the average, not the median.

Here's that same calculation for the median:
'76: $47,227
'15: $53,657
Per capita:
'76: $16,341
'15: $21,124

That's only a 29% increase in 40 years. Because the average is significantly better than the median, it shows that most of the gains went to the richest people. But I think we all knew that already.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Not sure where you get that figure from. (We were talking about the median, not the average.)

I found another source for the average:

http://www.multpl.com/us-average-real-income

I calculated the difference and my result was that it's up 37% in 40 years.

However, as Tsukasa Buddha pointed out earlier, the average household size has gotten smaller over that period, so if you want to know what the per capita average income is, you need to add another factor.

Average household size was 2.89 in 1976 and 2.54 in 2015.

So we get $19,082 per capita in '76 and $29,818 in '15. So now we've factored out the change in household size. That's a 56% increase per capita (and this is adjusted for inflation too). The peak however was in 2000, and we still haven't gotten back to that.

But that's the average, not the median.

Here's that same calculation for the median:
'76: $47,227
'15: $53,657
Per capita:
'76: $16,341
'15: $21,124

That's only a 29% increase in 40 years. Because the average is significantly better than the median, it shows that most of the gains went to the richest people. But I think we all knew that already.

But nearly everyone gained access to the Internet and we phones and a whole host of technological gains.

 

[SashatheMagnificent]

Not sure where you get that figure from. (We were talking about the median, not the average.)

I found another source for the average:

http://www.multpl.com/us-average-real-income

I calculated the difference and my result was that it's up 37% in 40 years.

However, as Tsukasa Buddha pointed out earlier, the average household size has gotten smaller over that period, so if you want to know what the per capita average income is, you need to add another factor.

Average household size was 2.89 in 1976 and 2.54 in 2015.

So we get $19,082 per capita in '76 and $29,818 in '15. So now we've factored out the change in household size. That's a 56% increase per capita (and this is adjusted for inflation too). The peak however was in 2000, and we still haven't gotten back to that.

But that's the average, not the median.

Here's that same calculation for the median:
'76: $47,227
'15: $53,657
Per capita:
'76: $16,341
'15: $21,124

That's only a 29% increase in 40 years. Because the average is significantly better than the median, it shows that most of the gains went to the richest people. But I think we all knew that already.

And is not it great?
One country (The US) should not be significantly richer than the rest
The world is getting less unequal and more just
This is just good news for me