Globalisation - The implications for ordinary working people

If we could go back to a time when such a thing as the microchip hadn’t been invented, would we?
Because it’s this tiny little product that has brought us to where we are.

www.bbc.co.uk/reel/playlist/made-on-earth?vpid=p085vkg3

TerriBull

Monica, I agree with all the points you've made.

The world has been flooded with cheap imported goods and in spite of all the ills that have flown out of that Pandora's Box, I'm not sure it could easily be reversed in our consumer lead societies where the demand for cheap "stuff" is paramount and appears to trounce ethics and at times the national interest. Rachel Reeves, allowing Shein for example to evade what they should pay in tax giving them an unfair advantage over home grown businesses.

Cheap Chinese tat, using slave labour. Shein and Temu, have never bought stuff from them. Reeves, the office junior should be ashamed of her move. Did she see this, I wonder,does it bother her conscience, sucking up to the Chinese.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdrylgvr77jo

It's all very well we demonstrably middle class, comfortably off, Gnetters condemning the purchase of cheap Chinese goods and advocating for buying quality rather than cheap, but we seem to be ignoring the fact that 15 million of our population are living in poverty (that is about 1 person in every 5) and cannot afford to purchase quality in preference to cheap.

Our capitalist society demands constant purchasing of consumer goods, advertising works on creating 'needs' and making people feel inadequate if they don't satisfy those 'needs', and our economy depends on a constant round of purchasing. While poverty exists to such a great extent in the UK (and elsewhere) China is in no danger of losing its export markets.

*Maizie, but the opposite view, that I would push is that if we had a stronger manufacturing base in this country offering steady work and good wages, fewer people would be living in poverty.

It is the destruction of these jobs as a result of globalisation that led to the poverty in the first place.

I think we need to re think this constant notion that politicians somehow developed a policy called "globalisation" and what is happening now as a result of that policy.

Globalisation only happened because the West first outsourced production of so many goods abroad.

Then the countries we were outsourcing to caught on and started producing the cheap goods we then imported (alongside most Western countries) - and we kept buying them.
Not just the "Tat" either - high quality goods also imported from abroad.

Of course the ideal is that we produce more goods ourselves - but we would have to be prepared to pay the prices that would entail.

Oh, I absolutely agree with you, MOnica.

But a strong manufacturing base takes a while to build and the thought of 'good wages', especially for public servants, seems to give voters palpitations, predicting bankrupt businesses and rampant inflation...

I keep trying to push the story that we won't get 'growth' until enough of the non wealthy population has enough spare money to purchase more than just basic survival needs, but very few seem to believe it..

Without discounting the fact that there are no doubt people living in poverty who cannot afford the basics, there is also evidence that sometimes it's just the desire of certain demographics to acquire more and more stuff. For example, clothes that fill landfill are often only acquired to wear once or twice, because some want an ever changing wardrobe and will go for quantity over quality and the notion that there could be some longevity around the acquisition of non throwaway, well made but fewer clothes is not really such a thing anymore. I can recall having a very limited amount of clothing as a child, maybe one or two outfits, compared to my grandchildren's wardrobe and their peer group.

I first became aware of the march of China as they emerged from the Little Red Book era to embrace state capitalism, in the '90s when they flooded the market with their cheap, and often non safety compliant toys, mainly because I still had young children back then so I had a heightened awareness of that particular niche market. The toys generally weren't well thought of and I think many parents would have preferred not to purchase something that could be potentially dangerous. I can't remember too much about our own toy manufacturers, Matchbox Cars, Hornby etc. or whether they still exist, perhaps that was the beginning of the end for them. I perceive Mattel has an enormous share of the toy market now, American I believe.

However, once again I absolutely agree with Monica about the erosion of our manufacturing base and I think it would be good for our country, but unlikely, if we could have a source of factories that produce our own goods with the offer of work and good wages to boot.

I think it's a possibility given the tariffs that Trump has slapped on China that they will be having to flood other western markets with even more with their goods, otherwise they may find that some of their factories will have to close and they could experience the manufacturing doldrums that has occurred here in the west.

MaizieD

Oh, I absolutely agree with you, MOnica.

But a strong manufacturing base takes a while to build and the thought of 'good wages', especially for public servants, seems to give voters palpitations, predicting bankrupt businesses and rampant inflation...

I keep trying to push the story that we won't get 'growth' until enough of the non wealthy population has enough spare money to purchase more than just basic survival needs, but very few seem to believe it..

Maizie

I am not sure where public servants come into all this. We are talking countries building up a sound manufacturing base, based on well trained workers with high productivity and wages to match.

Wyllow3
I think we need to re think this constant notion that politicians somehow developed a policy called "globalisation" and what is happening now as a result of that policy. Globalisation only happened because the West first outsourced production of so many goods abroad.

Wyllow3 you have it the wrong way round. Politicians did not develop a policy of globalisation specifically with that name, but Mrs Thatcher and her allies believed not just in free trade but opening our country up to every foreign Tom, Dick or Harry who thought they could make a fast buck by buying up our industry and then treating us as expendable assets on a larger global market place. We now have huge transnational companies with assets scattered all over the world who move jobs and production around the globe like pieces on a chess board

One example that comes to mind is the Kraft takeover of Cadbury's . Kraft said it would keep one of the Cadbury factories open. Only weeks after the takeover was complete, it shut it down. OH, it had ll sorts of excuses, but no matter how they excuse themselves it was an example of the way trans national companies work.

Mrs Thatcher et al, put making money way ahead of any regard for humanity.

The choice we have is globalisation, increasing wealth for the rich and increasing poverty for he poor, or trying to find a way to an economic system based not on growth but on the best value for the most people

Have been reading this thread with interest and don't dispute the effects of globalisation, but where would people draw the line?

People have been trading for thousands of years, to the benefit of people's quality of life. There is evidence of grains in ancient boats which have been found. Skeletons have been found with silks and furs which couldn't possibly have been locally sourced. Coins and metal hoards have been found thousands of miles from where they must have been mined.

Cadbury has been mentioned as a traditional British company, but Cadbury imported its cocoa. Tea, coffee and cotton also have to be imported. Britain became rich as a trading nation. Our diet would be very boring if we didn't import some foodstuffs.

Even in its heyday Britain was a nations of "haves" and "have nots". I expect many people remember the Corn Laws from their days of studying history at school. Import tariffs were great for the farmers/producers, but not so good for the people who bought bread (ie almost everybody).

I'm not sure how the "system" could be changed. It seems to me that what needs to change is people's mindset. How many clothes and plastic tat items do people need?

I'm all for diverting more of the world's resources (including human capital) towards different priorities, but I'm not sure how that happens without a massive change of thinking.

Maizie. I am not sure where public servants come into all this. We are talking countries building up a sound manufacturing base, based on well trained workers with high productivity and wages to match.

Surprised you have to pick on one little point in my post,*MOnica*, when I was essentially agreeing with you. I was just pointing out the UK public's antipathy to increasing the wages of the low paid. Or of anyone, really, apart from the already well off...

But are you visualising a highly skilled well paid workforce with an underclass of low paid unskilled workers and low welfare benefits in your ideal future?

The problem I see most of all is that I can't see 'entrepreneurs' setting up new enterprises and providing training for the workers in them. Getting the right industrial mix and training would have to be a government initiative as at present we don't seem to have anyone else falling over themselves to invest in new industry in the UK. I think we'd need a bit of a 'command economy' to set the ball rolling.

I'm not sure how the "system" could be changed. It seems to me that what needs to change is people's mindset. How many clothes and plastic tat items do people need?

Unfortunately, given the nature of a capitalist, market driven economy, which is what we have, clothes and plastic tat are a significant part of it.

I was just pointing out the UK public's antipathy to increasing the wages of the low paid. Or of anyone, really, apart from the already well off...

That's the sticking point really. People want non-essential items - and they want them as cheaply as possible. Why should trinkets be reserved only for those who can afford them? People have always wanted jewellery, precious metals and fine silks etc, which the majority of people couldn't afford. Mechanisation meant that people could buy goods made from cheap materials which gave them pleasure. People don't need to be skilled to press a button on a production line, so the entrepreneurs/investors aren't going to pay them well - but those people still want to buy goods which give them pleasure - at low cost.

MaizieD

^I'm not sure how the "system" could be changed. It seems to me that what needs to change is people's mindset. How many clothes and plastic tat items do people need?^

Unfortunately, given the nature of a capitalist, market driven economy, which is what we have, clothes and plastic tat are a significant part of it.

Indeed - and I don't see that changing any time soon.

M0nica
Just because Einstein said it, doesn't make it true. He was speaking outside his area of expertise.

I posted it because I agree with his opinion. Opinions don't require qualifications and don't need to be true or false.

The US is a large country so when one town shuts down there are plenty of other places to go for employment. Its not difficult. It's not like Northern England.

Monica yes I agree totally that Thatcher/Reagan et al did kick off a process little knowing where it would end, and what you said

"We now have huge transnational companies with assets scattered all over the world who move jobs and production around the globe like pieces on a chess board".

I'm just aware there is a trend on the right, an ideology, to blame "Globalisation" on liberal/left centrist policies when in fact it got kicked off with right wing free marketeering, selling public assets internationally.

MaizieD am coming round to the idea of borrowing to invest (with some caution) in order to create home grown industries.

Macadia

M0nica
Just because Einstein said it, doesn't make it true. He was speaking outside his area of expertise.

I posted it because I agree with his opinion. Opinions don't require qualifications and don't need to be true or false.

The US is a large country so when one town shuts down there are plenty of other places to go for employment. Its not difficult. It's not like Northern England.

No that is wrong, when one town shuts down, it does not do so alone, and whole swathes of towns shut down. Just like Northern England.

When I did my economics degree the first essay we were set asked was: 'If in time of recession and high unemployment, one person manages to get a job, why cannot every unemployed person do the same? Think about it.

M0nica

Macadia

M0nica
Just because Einstein said it, doesn't make it true. He was speaking outside his area of expertise.

I posted it because I agree with his opinion. Opinions don't require qualifications and don't need to be true or false.

The US is a large country so when one town shuts down there are plenty of other places to go for employment. Its not difficult. It's not like Northern England.

No that is wrong, when one town shuts down, it does not do so alone, and whole swathes of towns shut down. Just like Northern England.

When I did my economics degree the first essay we were set asked was: 'If in time of recession and high unemployment, one person manages to get a job, why cannot every unemployed person do the same? Think about it.

In fact, even in the most deprived towns the majority of people are employed. I expect the economy in some places is propped up by public money, either in the form of benefits, grants or public worker wages. This money then circulates and stops places dying out completely.

In fact, even in the most deprived towns the majority of people are employed. I expect the economy in some places is propped up by public money, either in the form of benefits, grants or public worker wages. This money then circulates and stops places dying out completely.

The majority merely means over 50%. In many thriving towns unemployment is under 2.5%. It is not just the jobs, but the kind of jobs. In areas where unemployment is high, a much larger proportion of jobs are minimum wage level, low grade and gig economy jobs compared withthe higher skilled, better paid jobs in areas of high employment.

I found this very interesting comparative site online. It compares salaries and employment in Blackpool, a well known area for poverty and deprivation with Fylde, based on Preston and Wyre, based on Kidderminster. It is instructive. The basis for the statistics are the ONS, the gvernment statistical service
www.plumplot.co.uk/Blackpool-salary-and-unemployment.html

I know from experience that it’s a vicious circle for areas with high unemployment. Rents are cheaper, so homeless people are ‘dumped’ by councils of affluent areas, who pay for them for two years, then they become the responsibility of the area they have moved to. It makes me very angry, because the areas then have even higher unemployment and become more and more deprived.

M0nica

^In fact, even in the most deprived towns the majority of people are employed. I expect the economy in some places is propped up by public money, either in the form of benefits, grants or public worker wages. This money then circulates and stops places dying out completely.^

The majority merely means over 50%. In many thriving towns unemployment is under 2.5%. It is not just the jobs, but the kind of jobs. In areas where unemployment is high, a much larger proportion of jobs are minimum wage level, low grade and gig economy jobs compared withthe higher skilled, better paid jobs in areas of high employment.

I found this very interesting comparative site online. It compares salaries and employment in Blackpool, a well known area for poverty and deprivation with Fylde, based on Preston and Wyre, based on Kidderminster. It is instructive. The basis for the statistics are the ONS, the gvernment statistical service
www.plumplot.co.uk/Blackpool-salary-and-unemployment.html

The UK does have full employment, we bring in thousands of extra migrant workers to fill the jobs. There are depressed areas where low income predominates, that’s where the new factories and jobs need to be placed.

M0nica

^In fact, even in the most deprived towns the majority of people are employed. I expect the economy in some places is propped up by public money, either in the form of benefits, grants or public worker wages. This money then circulates and stops places dying out completely.^

The majority merely means over 50%. In many thriving towns unemployment is under 2.5%. It is not just the jobs, but the kind of jobs. In areas where unemployment is high, a much larger proportion of jobs are minimum wage level, low grade and gig economy jobs compared withthe higher skilled, better paid jobs in areas of high employment.

I found this very interesting comparative site online. It compares salaries and employment in Blackpool, a well known area for poverty and deprivation with Fylde, based on Preston and Wyre, based on Kidderminster. It is instructive. The basis for the statistics are the ONS, the gvernment statistical service
www.plumplot.co.uk/Blackpool-salary-and-unemployment.html

I realised all this. I just wanted to be accurate about what you're claiming. After graduation in 1977, I moved from Merseyside (where I was born and brought up) to the South East for exactly the same reason. Even in areas of high deprivation, there are opportunities not only within the communities but often within commuting distance - if not, people can move away.

David49 Governments have been trying to get factories to locate in high unemployment areas for over 50 years - and it just doesn't work.

Back in the early 1960s Lord Hailsham came up to Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where I was at university with a big campaign to bring jobs and business to the North East. It just did not work. the government poured money into housing and road improvements. A few companies moved there with suitable subsidies, but these were the first facilities companies closed down when the next recession came. The subsidy meant they were, from a company point of view, cheap to close because the company had invested so little in them,

Since 1962. The pattern has been repeated by government after government after government, Michael Heseltine tried, George Osborne tried and many other ministers of all political leanings but without success.

The problem is that most of these areas are on the fringes of the country, North East, North West, Wales, parts of Scotland. Transport costs are high and many potential workerd have poor educationals standards and few skills.

The motivated, bright and confident have all taken the educational route out of failing towns and, once they have their degree, or finish a high tech apprenticeship, they go to areas with plenty of jobs and high salaries. Who can blame them.

Immigrants come in to fill gaps where we do not have local people with the right skills, or possibly nt enough of them.

York has an unemployment rate of around 2%. Just enough to account for the churn of someone leaving one job and finding another. The same for many areas in the south east. Mnay of those in need of work in the north cannot move down south, they lack the education or skills and the cost of doing so is prohibitive.

If you know a fail safe way of getting high tech companies to move north - and stay there in the long term - then the world's your oyster, but it has been tried agaain and again and again, and it hasn't worked yet.

Casdon

I know from experience that it’s a vicious circle for areas with high unemployment. Rents are cheaper, so homeless people are ‘dumped’ by councils of affluent areas, who pay for them for two years, then they become the responsibility of the area they have moved to. It makes me very angry, because the areas then have even higher unemployment and become more and more deprived.

It's not only the homeless who are "dumped", but asylum seekers, which breeds resentment towards people are seen as being beneficiaries of state largesse.

MOnica Why should people in deprived areas lack education? Presumably, there are free state schools.

What about Sunderland? I believe Nissan was subsidised to move there. As far as I know, it's been a success. Incidentally, try visiting parts of Manchester or Warrington. It really isn't as bleak as you're describing. Look outside the Oxford bubble.

It's not only lack of jobs in the area that leads to unemployment, we live near a relatively affluent city but there are pockets of the city where unemployment is double the national average.
The area I just looked up has half as many people born outside the UK compared with the city as a whole - the unemployment rate is (or was at last census) approximately double. There are decent bus links to the centre, but presumably education & health inequalities & poverty mean that the people here aren't getting those jobs.