Tag Archives: globalization

Solution to Outsourcing

Outsourcing is a problem. There will be an estimated 406,000 US jobs outsourced in 2004.

Let me float a possible solution: Let everyone in, give everyone a tax ID card, and eliminate the minimum wage. Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, and let them work and pay taxes like everyone else. They would not be citizens yet, but they could live and work here legally.

These legal aliens would not be citizens, but should be offered some of the minimal public social services and protections, reserving the highest level for citizens. If they are in good standing after some number of years, then they would be eligible to become citizens.

Right now, illegal workers in America are willing to take unfair pay, receive no benefits, and tolerate unsafe conditions because they don’t pay taxes and they are afraid of being deported. Given legitimacy, they would demand reasonable pay, reasonable benefits, and reasonable working conditions, finally putting them on a fair playing field with the rest of us. And there is very likely a huge pent-up demand in this population to join organized labor.

With the increase in newly recognized labor tax revenues would increase substantially. And with this reorganization of immigration and the elimination of the minimum wage, businesses would rapidly grow and hire right here in the United States.

Elimination of the minimum wage would mean that employment would go WAY up. There would no longer be this structural unemployment at the bottom of the economic scale where a person is not yet worth more than a few dollars per hour, and so they can’t get a job and the experience they need to advance.

The standard of living for Americans would increase substantially. The fall in unemployment would reduce homelessness and poverty. Rapid business growth and the rise in domestic consumer spending would continue the cycle of increasing domestic labor force growth. Stocks and bonds would increase in value with the growth in businesses and business credit. Inflation would be pushed up by the increasing growth in businesses, employment, and immigration, but these are good reasons for inflation (easily controlled with the Federal Reserve overnight lending rate).

US Foreign Policy

Since the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992, The European Union has grown to 25 member-nations in a series of enlargements. It is now preparing for the next enlargement, adding 3 more countries by 2007. They have merged their currencies and are aligning their laws and governance procedures. This is a big deal. I think that Europe is going to give America a run for the position of global nation of hope, honor, currency strength, and political influence. There is a similar story developing in Asia. The only way to be strong in this century is to be Good.

American foreign policy is always a balance between idealism and reality: the idealism of freedom and cooperation, the reality of deception, oppression, and violence. We could spend all of our time and energy fortifying America against attack. We could also spend all of our time and energy aiding the oppressed. Where we find our balance is up to the administration, and you chose the administration. Both political parties are generally well balanced in their approaches to these issues. Democrats generally lean more toward aiding the oppressed in an effort to help them rise up for their own freedom and lawfulness, while Republicans generally lean toward fortifying America and targeting those who threaten America or support cultures of oppression. Balance is the key.

Freedom is worth fighting for. We should fight to protect our own freedoms, and we should help others as they fight for their freedoms. We should use every tool at our disposal in an order that places killing as a last resort. Political negotiation should start with tariffs, trade, and travel restrictions, include secondary trading partners, and increasingly squeeze to influence positive political change. If it becomes necessary, our military should be agile and overwhelmingly capable. Such scaled pressure should be used to influence international labor law, weapons programs, terrorist regimes, and the broad range of foreign policy negotiations. We should have long term strategies for every nation, and short term tactics that reflect the realities of the times.

Globalization

Improvements in communications and distribution of goods and services

Leads to

Increased benefits to the lowest marginal-cost producers,

And therefore

Increases the volume supplied by the lowest marginal-cost producers.

Concentration of production

Leads to

Concentrations of wealth

Concentrations of wealth

Lead to

demographic and cultural changes.

Also,

Increasing supply from the lowest marginal-cost producers

Leads to

lower prices.

Lower prices

Lead to

Reduction or elimination of the profit potential for less efficient producers,

and therefore

reduces the number of producers

As the number of producers shrinks

And

The distribution volumes of the lowest marginal-cost producers increases,

Then

The ratio of employees to employers increases.

This demographic shift

Leads to

a gradual, or sometimes rapid, cultural shift.

In addition,

Economies of scale (a core strategy in the minimization of marginal-costs)

Lead to

consolidation.

Gloablization has clear advantages as measured by efficiency and profitability, however, also involves the consolidation/alignment of cultures, practices, language, currencies, and other social and demographic factors.
If people want to lessen these cultural shifts caused by globalization, the dynamics or boundaries of capitalism would have to be modified:
either economies of scale would have to be disassociated with competitive advantage, or the regulations concerning consolidation and/or distribution will have to be more restrictive.
The first option is not realistic, and the second option would limit freedom to trade. Neither option appears very attractive.

Competition in the information age

Consolidation is the result of economies of scale – essentially horizontal integration, vertical integration, and resource sharing. These methods create competitive advantages in powerful ways that make it difficult for smaller players to compete in the same markets. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this trend, but it creates large barriers to entry and often leads to larger profit margins than would be otherwise possible.

In the information age – yes, now – this effect is greatly increased, and the limitations of transportation and capacity have been eliminated. The ability to integrate and share resources is much easier, and new extra-strength synergies are created. For example, if a website allows you to shop for both books and music, then it is possible to tailor your music shopping experience based on your book purchasing preferences. This is a very simple example of a much more powerful trend. It may be impossible to enter into any sort of competition with large information companies after the next 20 years.

You can already see it beginning to happen: Yahoo builds from scratch any web business that seems to make sense. Then because of its existing market coverage, and the ability to integrate new businesses with existing businesses and data, Yahoo is able to capture so much synergistic value that they gain an insurmountable competitive advantage. In this way, I think that Yahoo and the other major aggregators and integrators are great companies.

There are risks. Big ones. And the FTC may not be able to do anything about it.

It may be inevitable that the consolidation will lead to a stable equilibrium under monopoly – where there would be no reason to be a competitor because the types of services being provided rely on historical information and broad business integration that is impossible to recreate or beat. Then this monopolist would have virtually limitless pricing discretion, and the ability to manipulate markets and cultures in unprecedented ways. Humanity, in many ways, would be at the mercy of the monopolist. (I hope that its leaders are benevolent democrats with philosophically sound motivations and long time horizons – but what if they are not?)

The only way to eliminate this market dynamic is to eliminate the factors that make it possible, namely, the opportunity to use your market dominance in one field to create dominance in another field. More specifically, eliminate the competitive advantage created by archival data. This can be accomplished by sharing archival data freely. But what about my privacy? Good question. We have a big problem here. The private information about you and your preferences plays a large role in creating the value that leads to this consolidation. If you want to eliminate this competitive advantage, then you either eliminate the value or you share private information.

There is another way.

What if users owned their own archival data? Amazon could still track my click streams, and do whatever they wanted with them. But I would also be tracking my own use, and have control over my own preferences and historically available data. Amazon would quickly learn that the personalization algorithms produce much more valuable customization using the users’ data than the Amazon archives. Market entry for this standard benefits from this implication. Now what happens if you go to a small competitor – one with little history, but better value than the others? They would be able to provide you with services that took advantage of your archival data, just as the monopolist would have. Competition is restored, and the advantages for humanity are regained as well.

Somebody should create a standard – probably using an XML document editable from within your browser. I’d love to help. Somebody has to do it eventually, and the sooner the better for all of us (except the monopolist, of course!)

Global economic downturns are amplified by global communications and consolidation of media

Economic downturns are the result of coincident reductions in financial investments. They are marked by larger numbers of companies cutting back on their budgets, and by large numbers of investors who perceive value to be falling. When one individual makes a decision, it has negligible impact on the market (unless it’s Buffet!), but when large numbers of individuals act at the same time, the market moves. The more people are making the same decision at the same time, the equilibrium is shocked by more, too. In other words, the invisible hand becomes an invisible linebacker; pushing harder.

This means that when larger groups of people are influenced in the same ways by the same media, then the market and the economy are going to swing with greater magnitude.

Social inconsistency provides a healthy dissonance in the economic markets. Different consumer confidence levels and uncorrelated investment views ensure that the economic growth remains relatively stable. Just like many stocks in an index reduce the volatility of the index relative to the average volatility of the index components.

So, ironically, by improving the communications tools that make our economy function better, we are also increasing the magnitude and danger of economic downturns.