Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Herbert Spencer (Kenny Shanos)
I am definitely in favor of moving jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor. If labor is done overseas, the economy will thrive and get better than it is now. The cheap cost of labor overseas will bring the cost of the good down when it is sold. Who wants to pay more for a good when they can pay less? No one does! So, a lower good cost would then lead to an economy with more money and one that is thriving and working as it should be. Also, the natural resources are already overseas so this brings down the cost of the good even more, since it doesn't have to be shipped over the ocean before turning into a product. With the abundance of resources and cheap labor cost, the economy will flare up. In addition, the idea of the "survival of the fittest" is used here. The current factories will be put out of use and only the fittest ones will survive. These fit factories will be overseas, creating goods at a low, cheap cost. In terms of the families, the people who are fired from the jobs will get new jobs in another industry or spend more time with their family. The jobs overseas would be better for the majority of the people and would benefit everyone by creating cheaper goods. Overall, jobs overseas will allow cheap labor and a cheap product, therefore making this the best possible solution for the economy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jeremy Bentham (Will Campbell)
ReplyDeleteSpencer, I'm going to have to say that I disagree. You see, it's great and all that goods will be cheaper, but who cares how cheap they are if even then most people can't afford them? If jobs are shipped overseas, that means the people of other countries will have the jobs. And while I do agree that more family time isn't inherently bad, much of that family time will be spent out on the streets if the people can't get jobs to pay the bills. I know you did say they will get jobs in other industries, but think about it: if you're saying that sending jobs overseas is such a good idea, wouldn't every industry eventually convert to that? So even if the unemployed workers DO start working for another industry, they will only loose that job once again to someone from another country once that new industry finally decides to ship everything overseas. So even if prices do drop, like you said, they'd have to drop all the way to $0 if we want our soon-to-be unemployed population to be able to afford it. After all, how good can an economy be if the majority of the population can't afford anything?
Young Boy Coal Miner (Romina Garakani)
ReplyDeleteYou state that "the people who are fired from the jobs will get new jobs in another industry or spend more time with their family." However, that is not the case. How are you one hundred percent sure that EVERY SINGLE worker who is fired will get a new job? There is still a big chance that some will never get a job again. If they do not, then their families will suffer greatly and may not have enough money to support to family. This could cause starvation and the number of deaths in our country would increase severely. If the moving of jobs overseas had not occurred in the first place, then there would be no worry for this. Also, you state that if the workers do not get a new job, then they can just spend time with their families. The workers cannot risk not having the job. They need their wages to feed their families. Would you rather have a country that does not move their workers overseas and has employed workers, or a country that shifts workers overseas and has workers who were once employed and no longer are?