Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
What do you mean by "smaller global corporate influence?" I want to make sure what you're referring to so I'm not putting words in your mouth.
Are you talking in terms of growth/GDP? In terms of quality of life indexes, these countries are consistently at the top of the list.
|
Apologies. I mean to say the corporations in the U.S. have larger global reach and therefore accessibility to different worker populations. There are more American companies that have international offices (meaning more than 1 continent) than most companies, and that means the basic infrastructure to outsource and avoid union issues in the U.S. is easier...or so I'm told by my economics colleagues. I'm hearing this 2nd hand, so it's possible I'm wrong about that.
As for quality of life index, no question it's better, but I don't see that being sustainable without having moderate GDP growth. At some point that quality of life cannot be paid for and you have another Greece situation coming at some point. There's too much global competition for work to insulate all the workers in developed nations from regression of their benefits or even pay. It can be staved off for some time, but it's just a matter of time.
The only way it doesn't end up that way is if the workers in these emerging economies unionize and demand rights and benefits for themselves, but it's hard to imagine because most of the countries have such large populations with a lot of competition for work.
I dunno...I'm just sharing thoughts at this point.