People Power

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

14th December 2011, 18:45
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

You failed to see the big picture once more.
Who will pay for the GE equipment produced in China if people in the US lose their jobs.
Is it so bloody difficult to think more than one step in advance?

People in China? People that lost a GE job, and got one at a different company? People that bought the assets from the Waukesha plant and started their own manufacturing business?

Is it so bloody difficult to think globally in a free market?
14th December 2011, 18:51
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

And you think that if one goes for one of the 'not top schools' will they have an equal chance to get to the top with those who go to a 'top' school?
It doesn't look to me that this is the much claimed equality you and 555 are in love with.
In reality you just admitted to the fact that there is no such thing as equal chances, maybe only in theory.

Yep, I know plenty of people in my same line of work that got their degrees from "not top schools" that are just as successful as I am, and many are more successful. And I know a few who went to the "top" schools who are pretty worthless in their field.

I do believe in equal chances, not equal results. Everyone has a chance to go to "top" schools. What is physically stopping an prospective engineering student from going to, let's say MIT?
14th December 2011, 18:52
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

I use "you" as an example just as many use "people". The argument goes something like "people just can't get ahead". One way to break that down is to personalize it. If "you" can get ahead, why can't "people"? Why is one person's situation any different than another's?

Ever heard about chance?
14th December 2011, 18:53
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Yep, I know plenty of people in my same line of work that got their degrees from "not top schools" that are just as successful as I am, and many are more successful. And I know a few who went to the "top" schools who are pretty worthless in their field.

I do believe in equal chances, not equal results. Everyone has a chance to go to "top" schools. What is physically stopping an prospective engineering student from going to, let's say MIT?

How many newbies do they accept every year at the MIT? 100000000, or 100000, or maybe just a few hundred?
14th December 2011, 18:54
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

Ever heard about chance?

Oh so now we have to somehow eliminate chance and bad luck from society? Come on, get serious.
14th December 2011, 18:55
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

How many newbies do they accept every year at the MIT? 100000000, or 100000, or maybe just a few hundred?

So what is stopping you from being one who goes?

Better yet, do you need to go to MIT to be successful?
14th December 2011, 19:01
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

People in China? People that lost a GE job, and got one at a different company? People that bought the assets from the Waukesha plant and started their own manufacturing business?

Is it so bloody difficult to think globally in a free market?

Let's think globally then. People in China can't afford the same expensive instrumentation that the US can.
Same goes for people in India, Vietnam, Philipines, Thailand, Indonezia... and other countries where people get paid peanuts to produce diamonds to be sold in Japan, Oz, NA and the EU.

It will take over 10 years until the developing countries will be close to a level that allows them to buy serious amounts of the goods that the developed countries can absorb now.
And by that time GE might go under, and even if they survive they should be friends with the idea that in 10 years time the Chinese will also expect a much higher paycheck.

The kind of economic model that bases it's growth on a reduction of the HR expenses is a crap model that is bound to fail.
The funniest par is that those earning millions a year can only come up with such stupid models, yet some people think they deserve to earn more than those who are really creative.
14th December 2011, 19:02
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Oh so now we have to somehow eliminate chance and bad luck from society? Come on, get serious.

We have to limit their influence on society.
14th December 2011, 19:04
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

So what is stopping you from being one who goes?

Better yet, do you need to go to MIT to be successful?

Who says I didn't go?
Just to be clear I'll repeat it, it's not about me, I am doing great, thank you.

But then what about you answer my questions instead of posting red herrings?
So can everyone go to the same top university which pretty much means they will get a well paid job afterwards? The answer is obvious, which is why you are dodging it.
14th December 2011, 19:10
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

Let's think globally then. People in China can't afford the same expensive instrumentation that the US can.
Same goes for people in India, Vietnam, Philipines, Thailand, Indonezia... and other countries where people get paid peanuts to produce diamonds to be sold in Japan, Oz, NA and the EU.

It will take over 10 years until the developing countries will be close to a level that allows them to buy serious amounts of the goods that the developed countries can absorb now.
And by that time GE might go under, and even if they survive they should be friends with the idea that in 10 years time the Chinese will also expect a much higher paycheck.

The kind of economic model that bases it's growth on a reduction of the HR expenses is a crap model that is bound to fail.
The funniest par is that those earning millions a year can only come up with such stupid models, yet some people think they deserve to earn more than those who are really creative.

I'm not going to argue GE's business model with you. Personally I think it's flawed, but I don't know all the in's and out's of their business.

But lets take your example on out to it's logical conclusion. GE moves to China, no one can afford their products now because they don't have jobs, GE sells less product, GE goes under, there is still a demand for appliances etc., other companies spring up to meet said demand. The business cycle in a free market system is actually fairly efficient. Static analysis, which you seem to want to employ, misses many factors such as the fact that GE is not the only company in the world that makes what they make.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page