QandO

March 22, 2004

the 'morality' of globalization and outsourcing
Posted by McQ

In an Ira Rifkin opinion column in the Baltimore Sun, Rifkin pats John Edwards on the back for not only making outsourcing an issue, but a “moral issue” (in terms of US trade policy) to boot.

Edwards was correct when he called U.S. trade policy "a moral issue." But in fact globalization, the force generating the outsourcing wave, is itself a moral issue — that the economic and cultural changes implicit in globalization are by no means values-less.

Globalization's values are those of the marketplace, which places competition, individual gain and the acquisition of wealth above all else — including ensuring the stability of families and communities and respecting the psychological security that comes from living in a stable setting. In religious terms, globalization represents a rejection of salvation, if, stripped of all theology, salvation is understood to mean cultural insights into which human behavior is best for the long-term benefit of the individual and society.

Globalization's most egregious shortcoming is its rejection of this core human understanding, and need. Globalization favors the short term. The human psyche dwells on the long term.

To recap, per Rifkin, the markeplace values competition, individual gain and acquisition of wealth above all else. In fact, so much does it value these things that the stability of families and communities as well as “the psychological security that comes from living in a stable setting” are essentially disregarded. Globalization, per Rifkin, lives in the “short-term” that, must, of necessity, ignore the long-term need of the “human psyche”.

In a word: Poppycock.

Families, communities, stability? Go to Africa, find an agrarian community and among the crushing poverty you will find families who’re quite stable, communities that haven’t changed one iota in 2 centuries and “psychological security” which has left them with nothing to look forward too but duplicating the same boring and back-breaking tasks of previous generations. You’ll find a system which ignores “globalization’ with the obvious result. A poor backwater society with little to look forward too in terms of opportunity, life span or health, and certainly without the means to lift itself out of its poverty.

Short-term? Since when has the extension of the benefits of capitalism been a ‘short-term’ solution anywhere? And globalization and free trade are certainly the extension of capitalism.

As with writers such as Rifkin, he must (or chooses to) ignore the beneficial values of the market to make his negative point. Its been noted, for instance, that capitalism isn’t a wave of wealth, but instead a rising tide of wealth, and that tide lifts ALL boats ... not just the corporations or individuals that own the means of production but all those in the capitalist society.

That success for some provides opportunities for others with a snowballing effect from which all of that society benefits. Does it seem “short-term” reflecting on the tremendous success America has enjoyed, to believe the tide can be extended through GLOBAL free trade to everyone everywhere. And wouldn’t America benefit tremendously with the opening of new markets and the increased wealth of other consumers in other countries?

Rifkin then takes a stab at a lame religious argument in order to attempt to moralize the issue. He naturally goes negative, assuming, one must believe, that trade is something fairly new and NOT beneficial in “the long-term” because of the horrible negatives (family and psychological insecurity) it brings.

You can’t make globalization and free trade immoral if you stress (or even bring up) their benefits.

Rifkin’s argument, as a friend would say, is another example of the “my precious” syndrome. Rifkin completely ignores the fact that the US was NOT built on “family and psychological” security but instead by thousands and thousands of risk-takers. People who risked their own safety and fortunes as well as the security of their families to open up the country and avail themselves of the boundless opportunity it presented.

No, in the era of “my precious”, its all about psycho-babble. “Family security” and “psychological security” is somehow now the responsibility of “business” and not the community or, heaven forbid, the family itself. Another victim is born. Another shift in responsiblity is made.

In Rifkin's world, business is no longer the engine of progress and change. It must now become the security blanket of families and their precious security and psychological well-being.

If one followed Rifkin’s thinking to its logical conclusion, it could be summed up as “we’re not only going to make buggy-whips, but we’re going to make the most expensive one’s in the world!”.

Of course they’d go broke in a year or two, but the families would be so secure during that time KNOWING their jobs were “safe”.

Safe from “competition”, “individual gain”, and I can promise you, quite safe from the “acquisition of wealth”. If you want short-term, that’s the thinking that will get you there.

It's no wonder that religious believers, both liberal and conservative, find great fault with globalization. From Pope John Paul II to the Dalai Lama, from liberal Protestant ministers to anti-modernist Muslim imams, globalization has been condemned as a perversion of the concept of prosperity that "leaves very little space for values such as solidarity and altruism," to quote the pontiff.

That is not to say that to be religious is to be automatically anti-globalization. Christianity and Islam, for example, view themselves as global systems. So rather than being anti-globalization, religious critics of globalization are better described as alter-globalization; that is, they favor a deeply interconnected world in which the needs of people and the environment come before the needs of multinational corporations.

In short, they teach an inversion of the current model.

Rifkin sits in his office in the most successful country in the world in terms of wealth and globalization and with a straight face quotes “the pontiff” as saying such globalization “leaves very little space for values such as solidarity and altruism”?

In a country which gives more money to more charities than any other country in the world? In a country with more international outreach programs than any other country outside the UN? In a country that rides to the rescue of other countries in times of disaster than any other country in the world?

If that’s not finding “space” for altruism, I’m rather curious what Rifkin would consider it?

Again, what Rifkin ignores is the BENEFIT globalization has brought to those who’ve embraced it. Taiwan and South Korea for instance. India for another. Three countries who’ve grabbed the capitalist freight train with a vengeance have seen their standards of living rise DRAMATICALLY. Even China is having its socialist/communist foundations cracked and broken from within by the capitalist engine of progress.

How much more solidarity can one want than that which opportunity gives you to provide a better life for yourself and your family and your community?

It's the difference between pushing for fair trade, a term already in this season's political lexicon, rather than for so-called free trade, a classic misnomer because of the protectionist nature of the world's economic players, both major and minor. Fair trade is just and sustainable. Free trade protectionism is about political chicanery.

What this word-salad means is he’s for “fair trade” but not “free trade”, since free trade isn’t fair.

More of the “managed trade” nonsense the left has fallen in love with.

Free trade has been OK when the US was taking advantage of other countries, but its not OK now that we’re exporting jobs to other countries.

Per Rifkin we should stop that now. But, not surprisingly, Rifkin only tells half the story.

For years, American jobs have been shipped to developing nations, where pay scales are considerably lower and governments are far less stringent about levying appropriate taxes and enforcing safe working conditions and environmental standards. Since the losers were mostly small farmers and those working on manufacturing's lower rungs — groups lacking major political clout — outsourcing remained a back-burner issue.

Today, the jobs of American high-tech, medical analysis and financial services workers, among others, are threatened. Suddenly, outsourcing is a major campaign issue because the politically potent middle class is at risk.

Half the story. While trying to wring a tear from your eye for the “my precious” crowd, he completely ignores the “insourcing” side of jobs ... that is jobs which FOREIGN companies bring HERE because of our productivity.

The latest statistics show insourcing accounts for over 6.5 million jobs nationwide. Although this is less than the number of outsourced jobs, the gap has actually narrowed in the past quarter century. That is, there's been a recent trend of foreign companies adding jobs in the U.S. faster than U.S companies have increased jobs in foreign countries.

Consider what's happened in heavy manufacturing, which includes the manufacturing of vehicles, computers, electronics and other machinery. Since the mid-1990s, foreign companies have added 400,000 jobs in these industries in the U.S. Over the same time period, U.S. companies moved 300,000 jobs to foreign countries in the same sectors. The insourced jobs in these industries are also high-paying, with average compensation per employee of over $ 65,000.

Hardly the “burger flipping” jobs you so often hear being touted as the jobs created to replace those which have been outsourced. And, again, because of our productivity, we’re in a trend which will have more insourced jobs than outourced jobs very shortly. But Rifkin seems to have missed that.

So to sum Rifkins “outsourcing”point up ... we’ve lost low-paying manufacturing jobs and are now in danger of losing so-called “middle class” jobs (and thus it is NOW an important political issue). Ignored by Rifkin are the 6.5 million insourced jobs that have been produced by the very same “unfair” globalization he decries, some with AVERAGE compensation per employee of over $65,000.

Yup, its just “unfair”. And frankly, NOT much of an “important” political issue. All the politicians can do is screw it up by becoming “fair trade” or “managed trade” advocates, something Kerry advocates. Politicians can’t help it except to make it more FREE and OPEN ... neither of which Kerry advocates.

A teachable moment is at hand. But whether Democratic Sen. John Kerry and Republican President Bush can move the issue beyond narrowly focused political rhetoric mired in economic self-interest is by no means assured. Reflecting on the personal religious values that they insist guides them would help. Nor would it hurt voters who likewise profess to be rooted in religious beliefs to follow suit. The Sermon on the Mount did not say, "Blessed are the greedy."

No it didn’t but I will.

Thank god for the greedy, because their drive is part of the reason we live as well as we do. Globalization isn’t a one-way street. It requires sacrifice but it rewards that sacrifice, just like most worthwhile things one can do. The world economy is not a static enterprise, progress does not stop because families feel insecure or “psychologically threatened”, and business’s job is not focused on providing them security.

We have other institutions within society to provide for that. If Rifkin see’s a problem with family security, they should be the means of solving it. The solution does NOT lie in making business the entity morally responsible for solving those problems as it isn’t the function of business to do so ... and any claim to the contrary is just pure and utter nonsense.

It would be nice if Mr. Rifkin would take the time to figure that out and leave capitalism and free trade out of his paeans to the “my precious” crowd.

If Bush and Kerry have an ounce of sense, they’ll use Rifkin’s article to light the charcoal grill for the celebration of the next batch of high-paying “INSOURCED” jobs that will come our way through the “immoral”, “short-term”, “greedy” process of globalization and free trade.

TrackBack