My apologies to the 'Occupy Wall Street' generation

College Life
21

<p>

</p>

<p>I hardly see that as a problem - as few if any countries actually makes every product that they consume. China manufactures few if any of its own microprocessors (yet), although it uses boatloads of them every year. {To be clear, China has assembly and test microprocessor facilities, but has few microprocessor manufacturing fab plants.} Why does every country necessarily have to manufacture everything it uses? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Uh, China is lifting itself from poverty - indeed, hundreds of millions of Chinese have lifted themselves from abject poverty over the last generation. Those 12 year olds making $10 a month, as sad as that is, is still better than the mass poverty, misery, and famine that characterized China back in the 1970’s and before. China’s per-capita income (adjusted for inflation) has increased by more than 10X over the last generation. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Are you accusing the World Bank of lying? {And what would the World Bank gain by lying?} </p>

<p>China has lifted 400 million out of poverty since 1980</p>

<p>[China</a> - Southwest Poverty Reduction Project](<a href=“http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/CHINAEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20680094~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:318950,00.html]China”>http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/CHINAEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20680094~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:318950,00.html)</p>

<p>400 million people is 33% more people than the entire population of the United States.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Nobody is denying that the Chinese government is abusing its own working class. But the sad truth is that government abused its people far more egregiously in the past. The Chinese people largely support the national government (as opposed to the local provincial governments) because the national government, for all its abuses, has indeed delivered substantial economic growth. Again, keep in mind that a generation ago, China was an afterthought in the world’s economy and practically all Chinese people were poverty-stricken rural peasants. Heck, the Beijing government was deeply embarrassed by economic studies that found that the economic output of the expatriate Chinese in the world (Chinese-Americans, Chinese-Canadians, Chinese-Singaporeans, Chinese-Malaysians, etc.) exceeded that of the Chinese in China despite representing a tiny percentage of the entire world’s ethnic Chinese population. </p>

<p>China is basically undergoing a stage of industrialization - a stage that the US underwent back in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, when US industrialists, in conjunction with the government, were not exactly known for laudable moral practices. It wasn’t until the Great Depression under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 that the US government began to limit (but by no means prohibited) child labor nationwide, and only because American adults became so desperate for work that they were willing to take the wages that children used to take (and those adults didn’t want to compete against children). Heck even to this very day, hundreds of thousands of children in the US are employed as agricultural laborers, sometimes fulltime. </p>

<p>*Hundreds of thousands of children are employed as farmworkers in the United States. They often work 10 or more hours a day with sharp tools, heavy machinery, and dangerous pesticides, and die at 4 times the rate of other working youth. Farmworker children drop out of school in alarming numbers. *</p>

<p>[TAKE</a> ACTION: End Child Labor in US Agriculture | Human Rights Watch](<a href=“http://www.hrw.org/support-care]TAKE”>http://www.hrw.org/support-care) </p>

<p>Let’s not also forget that US unions that agitated for reforms and better pay were often times brutally suppressed not only by company-paid “private security” (essentially mercenaries), but sometimes did so in collusion with the Federal government, including even the use of airpower against union members. </p>

<p>[Battle</a> of Blair Mountain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain]Battle”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain)</p>

<p>The upshot is that, given the US’s bloody history of industrialization and labor relations, it’s rather unseemly for Americans to criticize China now. China is essentially passing through the phase of industrialization that the US had previously underwent. That doesn’t excuse the abuses perpetrated by the Chinese government, but it does put them in perspective. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Easy. I go to the media/content section and I point to the racks of DVD’s of movies and TV shows. {Granted, some movies such as Lord of the Rings were largely shot overseas (New Zealand) but most movies and TV shows are made in the US). Granted, the actual DVD optical media disc was probably manufactured elsewhere, but the media content - which is what you’re really paying for - was mostly generated in the US.</p>

<p>The inescapable truth is that the US produces the lion’s share of the world’s entertainment. Brad Pitt, Sylvester Stallone, Leonardo DiCaprio are worldwide superstars. On the other hand, most Americans have never heard of movie stars from overseas, until they star in American-produced films. {Americans only really learned about Jackie Chan and Jet Li after Rush Hour and Lethal Weapon 4, years after they had already become superstars in Asia.}</p>

<p>Want another example? OK - go to the grocery section of a Walmart Supercenter. You will find plenty of foodstuffs, especially produce and meats, made in the US. The US is one of the world’s leading agricultural exporters.</p>

22

<p>The US is one of the world’s leading agricultural exporters because of generous subsides. WTO trade negotiations are stalled right now partially over this issue. Of any single policy to help the third world economic development, my guess is that repealing agricultural subsidies in the West would be most people. I base this opinion on the historical evidence of industrialization usually starting in the agricultural sector.</p>

23

<p>

</p>

<p>Which is pretty darn impressive, considering the fact that Americans represent only 5% of the world’s population. Hence, one could furthermore argue that Americans are clearly “stealing” manufacturing jobs, or at least manufacturing output, from other countries. After all, in a perfectly fair world, with only 5% of the world’s population, we should only be producing 5% of the world’s manufactured output, right?</p>

24

<p>Uh oh, are we now starting to argue for egalitarianism? This won’t end well…</p>

25

<p>

</p>

<p>Let’s review what we’re talking about here… not china, but jobs for the middle class. Earlier, someone mentioned china’s cheap goods and how that is taking away American jobs in manufacturing of everyday consumer goods. And we’ve now established that to be at least a plausible hypothesis, because everything is made in China. Food come farmers, that’s a whole different story because you don’t see farmers protesting on wall street do you? Movies happen in Hollywood, and music has its own market, because its digital any anyone can copy it and paste it on youtube. NOT related!</p>

<hr>

<p>

Also, China’s disparity of wealth is growing worse. It’s economic expansion happens as result of new industries, and obviously that means more jobs, especially when in 1970, the mere notion of a college education was more or less a fantasy in China. Bottomline, Chinese government is FUBAR. That’s IT. No more stupid talk about China, please.</p>

26

<p>Well, for China, a disparity in wealth is a good sign because it means people are being lifted out of poverty. It’s certainly a lot better for some people to be middle/upper class than have everyone be poor. Economic development takes time, and China’s on the fast track. In the course of that process, you will see wealth disparity, and to a point, that’s healthy under (almost) any circumstance.</p>

<p>As for manufacturing jobs in the US, I think that if we put tariffs on China, you’ll see those jobs move to Vietnam, and other countries, as we’re seeing already. While manufacturing jobs may be declining, it’s not clear that that’s a bad sign for the US economy. Cheap goods from China allows American consumers to buy more stuff, which at the very least creates retail jobs, plus associated service jobs (like restaurants in malls). </p>

<p>And since when was declining manufacturing jobs the primary problem with our economy?</p>

27

<p>

</p>

<p>someone brought it up. Besides, it’s pretty obvious why people are foreseeing this as a problem, especially if you’re part of that industry.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>you’re basically saying that the top 99% owning over 1/3 of our nation’s wealth is a good thing. umadbro? wealth disparity… means the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poor. The rich getting richer is reflecting in the annual GDP, but what about the poor people?</p>

<p>There was a recent study done that found that people in countries with lower disparity of wealth have better lifestyles in general. Not only that, their outlook on their fellow countrymen are much better (more trust, tighter communities). And this is independent of the wealth of that country. US is amongst the top in terms of economic disparity, consequently, we also have some of the most unhappy people. So no, disparity of wealth is never a good thing.</p>

28

<p>

</p>

<p>Uh, how is it not related? You said it yourself - we’re talking about jobs for the middle class. Last time I checked, most farmers were in the middle class (or perhaps even higher during the last few years). The media/entertainment industry provides hundreds of thousands of middle-class jobs. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t see why that’s such a terrible thing. I’d rather lift millions of people out of poverty - even if also implies a large disparity of wealth, rather than have everybody in the country be poor, which was exactly how China was in the 1960’s. An perfectly uniformly poor nation certainly has no wealth disparity, but who wants that? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Today’s Chinese government, for all of its brutality, is, frankly, one of the most enlightened governments that China has had in recent history. You think it’s bad in China now? Would you like to return to the days of the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward under which millions of Chinese died and the Chinese liquidated much of its own cultural history? You want to return to the days of warlordism and national dissensus of the 1930’s when Chinese people were sometimes literally being raped and bayoneted to death by the Japanese? You want to return to the days of the decaying Qing Dynasty when China was not only forced through war to allow Western powers to sell drugs (opium) to their own people, but those very Western powers also forced China to turn over Chinese land for use as a colony and import channel - Hong Kong - to allow that drug trade to flourish? Imagine how Americans would feel if Colombia defeated the US in war and therefore not only forced the US to legalize cocaine, but Colombia even conquered Miami to be used as their main cocaine transshipment point. </p>

<p>Surely you don’t want to go back to those days. Certainly the Chinese people do not.</p>

29

<p>

</p>

<p>I think there is little dispute - even within China - that China of the 1950’s - 1960’s was a miserable place despite miniscule wealth disparity. Everybody was at the same level - they were all dirt-poor. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, it does not necessarily mean that. Wealth disparity can also mean that both the poor and the rich are getting richer, but at a faster pace for the rich. In fact, that is precisely what is happening in China. Pace all of the problems in modern-day China, I doubt that many Chinese people want to return to the uniform poverty of the 1960’s. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m sure you meant the top 1% owning over 1/3 of the nation’s wealth.</p>

<p>But to your point, no, I do not necessarily see that as a problem as long as the poor continue to improve. And I do agree that that is a serious concern. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not sure that’s a problem either. Agricultural jobs (but not agricultural output) have declined precipitously since the 1800’s. In the 1800’s, nearly half of the nation’s workers were farmers. Now, only 1% of them are. Is that a problem for the country? Shall we return to the agricultural days of yesteryear? Heck, last time I checked, the remaining farmers we do have were doing extremely well due to the commodities boom stoked by - yes - the insatiable appetite of China.</p>

30

<p>there’s no such thing as “uniformly poor” country. There’s always someone stepping over others to get to the top. That’s the essence of disparity of wealth, the powerful abusing their powers at the expense of everyone else. Also, China priorities economic growth and infrastructure over its own people. It’s just true, I don’t understand how anyone can dispute that. If all you care about is making more money, someone else is going to get screwed.</p>

31

<p>[Infographic:</a> Who Is Occupy Wall Street? | Fast Company](<a href=“Infographic: Who Is Occupy Wall Street?”>Infographic: Who Is Occupy Wall Street?)</p>

<p>Only 12% of the protesters are unemployed. 30% make over 50,000 a year. The college-educated make up 90% of the protest movement.</p>

32

<p>The poll consists of “visitors” which is far different from being fully committed to it (as in camping out). I can’t imagine people actually taking days off work or school so they can participate in Occupy Wall Street, unless they hate their jobs so much they actually want to be fired, but that’s unlikely.</p>

<p>…</p>

33

<p>people took off days from work so they could go to Tahrir Square (but the big protests were always scheduled after Friday prayers, of course)</p>

34

<p>

</p>

<p>Uniform poverty doesn’t mean uniform power. It has only been in the last few hundred years of world history with the rise of capitalism where power and poverty have been tightly correlated throughout most of the world. During and before the middle ages, true power lay in the hands of kings and nobles, who were invariably far less wealthy than merchants, traders, and bankers. Japanese classical authors and historians routinely noted the prevalence of poverty-stricken samurai (who were the rough equivalent of nobility in the West) who were nevertheless were granted the legal power to cut down any rich merchant who insulted him. Western kings could and did repeatedly confiscate, imprison, and kill rich merchants, and they had every right to do so by virtue of the divine right of kings. </p>

<p>Perhaps more importantly, the social incentives of society in those days were such that upwardly mobile people did not aspire to become rich as an end goal. Rather, they aspired to become members of the nobility (which granted, could sometimes be bought with money - but not always). </p>

<p>But to return to the point, China under Mao was indeed trying to implement a society that was financially equitable, if obviously not legally equitable. </p>

<p>More importantly, I see nothing distressing about large wealth disparities, as long as the poor are improving. I don’t recall any Occupy protests during the tech boom of the late 90’s, as while rich people were surely becoming extremely wealthy, poor people were benefiting as well.The problem is when poor people are not improving, as now.</p>

35

<p>If a country is growing, that usually means inflation. It doesn’t matter how much the poor is improving. It’s a matter of relative wealth. Also, like I said before, a greater disparity of wealth has been shown to lead to greater segregation between a population. There will be a rich class and a poor class, and people will be judged based upon their status quo, resulting in more tension and less ‘happiness’</p>

<p>that’s it. I’m done with this thread…</p>

36

<p>

</p>

<p>Wrong - it almost never means inflation, as growth rates - or at least meaningful ones - are calculated on a *real<a href=“as%20opposed%20to%20a%20nominal%20and%20hence%20price-inflated”>/i</a> basis. I don’t think anybody seriously disputes that China is a far wealthier nation on a real, per-capita basis than it was a generation ago. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wrong again. Like I said, China was a far more ‘equitable’ society a generation ago. But be honest - would you really like to live in 1970’s China, during the throes of the Cultural Revolution? Even the Communist Party of China has openly admitted that that was a grievous error. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If you are correct and people are indeed judged on the status quo, then by your own logic, as long as they are improving upon that status quo, then social tensions can be managed, right? It’s your logic, after all.</p>