Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Robert Owen (Zack Johnson)

People love to take advantage of those “below them.”  We see it in revolution, politics, and even the school playground.  It is especially true in business.  The wealthy owners will frequently take whatever shortcuts necessary to maximizing their own profits.  In numerous cases, this destroys the lives of those in the way of these profits.  It is for this reason that shifting jobs overseas is not the best solution for our economy.  When presented with this topic, we must consider the people.  Because that is what it comes down to: the people.  Money is simply a construct of our society.  It holds value because we say it holds value.  Thus, the most important thing is to ensure happiness.  Wealth follows.  This happiness is not possible with jobs sent overseas.  Every job sent overseas is a job that is not done in our own country.  This job that is not done in our country is the absence of a paycheck for another individual.  This absence of a paycheck is another month of suffering and another month of spending frugally (which harms the economy).  Some may argue that sending jobs overseas drives the cost of goods down: which it does.  However, this is only beneficial to an extent.  No matter how cheap a good is, there has to be a consumer that desires its purchase on the other end.  With more and more consumers spending frugally on account of unemployment, there are more and more goods not being bought, regardless of the price.  This lack in spending harms our economy.  By keeping the jobs here, we are helping to ensure that a greater amount of individuals have a job and thus a steady income. This helps to promote the development of a happy life, which in turn increases the chances of spending.  Our economy is then improved.  Happiness is priceless.  

6 comments:

  1. Malthus (Michael Kowalski)
    Well Mr. Owen I can see you have fallen in the snare as many have before you. If jobs were to stay local then costs would go up which the people could not afford. Your point cuts both ways my friend, I wish you could see this blatant fact.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Adam Smith (Sarah Schumacher) However, would a globally stimulated economy not PROMOTE HAPPINESS FOR US ALL? Isn't that you and the rest of your "dreamers" dream? That all of us live in a happy unison peacefully? Send jobs overseas, and give people more money. Money talks, it makes people smile.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Robert Owen (Zack Johnson)
    Mr. Malthus, your pessimistic nature gets in the way of your reasoning ability. Your argument is based off of the assumption that local jobs would drive the price up to such levels that people could not afford them. Yes, prices would increase. However, with more jobs, more people are happy and more people are prosperous. This happiness ensure spending, regardless of a slight increase in price. As can be seen by my community in New Lanark, a business that offers local jobs and good conditions can still be profitable. Clearly, a slight increase in price didn't dissuade too many consumers in this situation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Engels (Erik Carlson)
    For once Mr. Malthus you and I agree. Sending jobs over seas is a beneficial for the workers. They will unite as proletarians and not as Americans for French. It is this reason why sending jobs over seas is a good thing because the workers will unite and they will create a new classless society ruled by the many.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Karl Marx:
    I completely agree that jobs should not be sent overseas, and it is wrong for the bourgeois entrepreneurs and factory owners to take advantage of the working class. Money ends up promoting inequality amongst the social classes. Would it not be better if all of the profits and means of production were shared equally by the people? Only in a classless society can the proletariats have the same quality of life as the bourgeois. I am tired of these labels that money places on people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hobbes (Michael Kowalski)
      I find it interesting in your use of the phrase "taking advantage". you use it in a negative denotation, when i fact it is un-biased. People take advantage of each other every day of every hour. What are the businessmen doing now; what do you creature's flesh do you eat; where do you live? all of these are showing others taking advantage of each other. Thus using in a negative since would be wrong, unjust, and a hate crime against grammar of all kinds! But more seriously, we do it every day, so what is the difference?

      Delete