Sat 3 Dec 2005
Kenny Yim ‘09 has a commentary on globalization in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The whole piece is a bit of a mess. The best that I can come up with for a thesis paragraph is this:
As Americans get lost in “Lost” and personal esoteric interests such as military history, Chinese and Indians are working the abandoned service and manufacturing jobs. We’re reducing global poverty — in China, the 9.9 percent GDP growth from 1992-98 has brought poverty down 8.4 percent — but it hasn’t happened out of some moral righteousness or direct inclination to. It happened because we’re too lazy to stop it and passed it off as U.S. good will.
This is so confused it is is hard to know where to start. Which “abandoned service and manufacturing jobs” is Yim talking about? Industries rise and fall. Companies start and fail. Jobs are created and destroyed. Many jobs that used to be done in the US are now done elsewhere, but no one really “abandoned” those jobs.
Yim claims that “we’re reducing global poverty,” but just who is this “we” that he is referring to? “We” are not making China and India wealthier. The people in China and India are, overwhelmingly, doing that for themselves. Our main contribution has been to demonstrate that free markets lead to wealth and to encourage the growth of free trade. Moreover, the proponents of free markets and free trade do believe in the “moral righteousness” of their cause. Freedom is good both for both moral reasons and because it generates wealth.
All in all, a disappointing effort.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:17 am
In short Mr.Yim’s proposition could and most probably would be stated differently from an economist’s point of view.
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:19 pm
I suspect the article (which I think is an accomplishment: it is nice to see a student writing for a real newspaper) is best understood from a Seattle point of view. Notice his last paragraph, in which he mentions the anniversary of the 1999 “Battle in Seattle.” There is, no doubt, significant residual anti-globalization sentiment in that fair city. Yim is complicating that sentiment. He is suggesting globalization might have unexpected positives together with the unmentioned negatives. This is a good thing. Better to struggle with complexity than act upon narrow-mindedness (something we are painfully learning in Iraq). So, I say, horray for Yim!
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:39 pm
I agree with Sam that the article is an accomplishment (how many other ’09’s have published anything like this) and that the Seattle setting is important. I felt somewhat bad to be so critical of a student whose blog I like.
I join Sam in saying “Hooray” for Yim.
But who then should we criticize? Why, Sam Crane and the rest of the Williams faculty, of course! Perhaps Yin is “suggesting globalization might have unexpected positives together with the unmentioned negatives.” If so, then he ought to, you know, write that.
Which brings me back to a favorite EphBlog hobby horse: the public presentation of student work and faculty comment on that work. In a better world, essays like Yim’s would be posted on the homepage of the course for which they are written. The professor’s comments (but not her grade) would be posted as well. This would be educational (and motivating) for all concerned.
Is Yim receiving the sort of comments and feedback on his written work that will allow him to grow and improve as a student and scholar? I hope that he is. But, as an outsider, it is impossible to know.
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:42 pm
Why assume he wrote it for a class? Why not imagine he did it completely on his own, putting his ideas out in the rough and tumble of the world? His Williams professors are not his only teachers.
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:24 pm
Sam,
I thought that he did, but perhaps I am wrong.
By the way, any interest in posting some of the essays written for your PSCI 100 (and your comments on them)? I think that it would be an interesting exercise for all concerned. Perhaps a trial run with a handful of volunteers would be worth considering . . .
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:36 pm
I’m overwhelmed by the interest, thank you.
To clarify, this article was written as a class assignment, but the assignment was really broad - write an op-ed of general international political concern and submit it to a daily. This one happened to be published, so I assume it must have been a slow news day.
The assignment isn’t due until Monday, so I haven’t submitted it to the professor yet alone received feedback on it. I’m generally very satisfied with professor feedback, though. He does a good job especially for a class of 80 students. I shudder to imagine what it’d be like at the University of Washington. Also, he has regular office hours. But my insecurity and weak will has been a huge impediment to this resource. Mediocre minds fret over how easily their weak ideas can be shot down.
I’ll try to elaborate some of the thoughts that didn’t fit in the article. On a sidenote, I was struck by how much the editorial board retained - practically all of it. So here is a partial response to your questions. First of all, I’ve never taken an economics class, so my article might have seemed “muddled” to an econ major because I don’t know the terminology or formalized concepts. I’ve only studied globalization through the lens of political scientists. Though we just covered a bit of political economy that I found really interesting, it wasn’t enough. I did a little background research to supplement it, so yeah, there are definitely teachers outside of my professors. By no means are they insufficient - professors are amazing people - there just isn’t enough time or their brain to go around.
Second, because of “the interconnectedness of the world” that political scientists have been claiming, “we” can technically refer to anybody - both the US and China. “We” are affected by everything “they” do - substitute either country in for the quotes, and you’d get a pretty accurate picture of not just Sino-American relations, but world relations.
Because of its size, Chinese growth is driven by…the Chinese, (as you say correctly) but the US sustained the growth by buying Chinese goods. We’re incredibly dependent on it, because it’s so cheap. At least this much I know, the most basic principle of economics: supply and demand. China has supply and we have demand. That’s interest, not moral righteousness. You can use morality to justify anything in this world. So, your argument that “the proponents of free markets believe in a moral righteousness in their cause” is tautological. I don’t understand what you’re trying to imply there.
So like Professor Crane said, I tried to “complicate the sentiment”. Globalization is very complex and people tend to paint it in absolutist, “good-bad” terms. So, I wanted to hone in on the double standard many Seattlites had - that they were protesting against what seemed like corporate neglect overseas on the one hand, which they caused by neglecting the economy here. People don’t want to work anymore - cheap labor exists out there because we’re not willing to fight for jobs at home. Instead, a 10 year old in Bangladesh or a 35 year old Indian Engineer can do it just as well for less, because the standard of living is magnitudes less than in the US (but at least we care about how they’re treated, right?). I guess, “abandon” was the wrong word. Labor prospects are better overseas, so companies are going to go there. Right now, exploitation is super-easy, because of our interconnected world.
Also, because we’re so wealthy, we don’t need to care about manufacturing and services anymore so in that sense we’re “abandoning” them for intellectual pursuits or what Professor Crane and Joseph Nye taught me, “soft power” and “soft capital”. The US has an incredible appetite - for protest, for goods, for spewing esoteric interests - but not really an appetite for working. The only reason the US economy continues to boom, as Bush recently reminded us, is because of our relatively lax immigration laws. The US economy, by its liberal nature, is sustained by others, so it rises and falls at the whims of others.
I’ve learned a lot in my short time here. It was exciting and fortunate that I already see some tangible results of that learning. So, obviously, I’m looking forward to a few more years of it.
December 4th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Kenny writes:
No, the muddling has nothing to do with economic knowledge.
The world may be interconnected, but it is still nice to write clearly. You go from “We’re reducing global poverty” in one sentence to “we’re too lazy to stop it” in the next. The second “we” is pretty clearly referring to the US. No other interpretation makes sense. This will cause most readers to assume that the first “we” does to.
Partly, this is sloppy. It just isn’t true, if words have meaning, that “You can use morality to justify anything in this world.” Partly, it reflects a lack of understanding/exposure to the classical liberal outlook on the world. The claim is that freedom in general, and free trade in particular, are good for two reasons. First, it makes us all wealthier. Second, freedom is good in and of itself even if it did not have economic benefits.
In other words, free traders — and this term covers a broad swath of US policy-makers — believe that, even if trade between the US and China did not make all concerned richer, it would still be a good idea because freedom is itself good. I have the right to sell to and buy from whoever I please (with the usual caveats about force and fraud). You (and the government) have no more business preventing me from buying a t-shirt made by someone in China than you have in preventing me from reading a book written by someone in China.
I am all for double-standard mocking, but I think that the main issue with the article is that it is not clear to the reader precisely which double standards you are taking issue with.
There are a variety of strands in the anti-globalization movement and you need to tell us which ones you are criticizing. I am, philosophically, on your side in the mocking of those who drink Starbucks coffee while vandalizing McDonalds, but I still have trouble following the argument.
In particular, how does it make sense to write that “they” — anti-globalization activists, I guess — “caused” “corporate neglect” “by neglecting the economy here”? What does it mean to “neglect” the economy in this sentence? You write as if the economy were some sort of big car engine which we can either neglect or attend to. In fact, the economy is not really a thing, a product of human design, instead it is a system that emerges from billion of human decisions.
My central intellectual complaint against the teaching of political-economy at Williams is that it falls to provide a fair hearing to the classical liberal Hayekian method for understanding the world within which we live.
The anti-globalization folks believe (correctly!) that the only thing that will stop globalization is politics. They are not guilty of “neglecting” the economy.
“Exploitation”? Give me a break! You think that US companies (or European companies or Indian companies or Chinese companies . . .) are exploiting their workers in any meaningful way? Now, exploitation does happen and, I guess, that we should all be on the outlook for it. But the vast majority of workers in the export industries of China and India are about the least exploited people in those countries because they have choices. If the company that they work for is evil and unfair to them, they can (and do) quit and go work for the company down the street.
It is fine for you not know what the relative work hours in the US versus other countries are. You can’t, despite my delusions at the time, know everything at 19. But it is a big mistake to think that you know about X and to write about X without having an idea about the reality of X. In this case, you should know that hours worked in the US is significantly higher than in Europe. Don’t the adults you know in Seattle work? Don’t you know that, after Williams, you and all your friends will be working?
Not everyone gets to blog all day! ;-)
This is just delusional. Who told you this? Where did you read it? Again, I don’t necessarily expect a first year to have a full understanding of global political economy. The US growth rate for the next 10 years would be almost unaffected to an ending of immigration or a doubling of it, all else equal.
There is no one or group in the world that could, outside of an act of violence, cause the US economy to fall or rise.
Again, I am please to see your article published. The main suggestion for the rewrite is to have a thesis statement. It should be clear to the reader what your main point is and what arguments you offer in favor of it. If you wanted to post another draft, I (and perhaps others) would be eager to offer more feedback.
By the way, you are following in the footsteps of Ephs like Dan Drezner ‘90 by writing opinion pieces at such a young age. Keep it up.
December 4th, 2005 at 1:49 pm
Lesson - when one writes subject to this blog-filled world, one gets no quarter because one is young or unknowledgeable or both, no more than if one were superannuated or with diminished intellectual skills or both.
December 4th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
Dave,
Condescending comments like these,
- are rude and don’t foster civilized conversation environments. Also, I’m not 19 and won’t be for a while. But, when I’m 19, I won’t know everything then either, I can assure you.
However, by engaging in this conversation with me, you obviously believe that there is enough legitimacy in my claim to warrant the time spent. If you really felt my article was punishably bad, you wouldn’t have wasted the effort.
So, I guess the real question had nothing to do with globalization but rather my use as a proxy to some larger campaign against a) Williams professor feedback (or lack thereof) and b) young, inexperienced voices crowding the Internet channels.
Don’t resort to the logical fallacy of attacks.
To address the two salient issues amidst your idle attacks,
Liberal economic theory does assume a universal freedom to engage in trade, but the enforcement mechanism lies within human beings. There is nothing stopping self-interested individuals from exploiting the freedom to gain cooperative advantage. If a company can produce something cheaper somewhere else, they’re going to move. I still don’t see how “liberalism” constrains individuals to prevent them from capitalizing on it - something completely based on assumption. To me, liberalism seems like more of a norm rather than some empirical fact. Since cooperation benefits me in the longterm, I’ll engage. But the moment, it ceases to, I can break free. Liberalism can be too theoretical (evidenced by Kant and Mendelbaum’s writing style), especially through a political perspective. It’s difficult to invoke in a meaningful way.
I am fairly aware of the disparity in working hours in the world. That’s not at issue, though. It’s what they’re spending the time doing. You alluded to this by referring to “blogging all day” (reference to me or you?). Also, you mistakenly generalized Europe as a whole. Despite economic integration on paper, the reality is that there are deep historical differences in economic situations and underlying economic beliefs. France and Germany may be ageing and working less, but countries in the former-Soviet bloc, particularly Poland, are clamoring for jobs. Their economic goals resemble the US a lot more, and consequently they are our strongest allies/supporters in the region. Europe has a much sturdier social net, too - less incentive to work so hard. Compare it to China or India where there is barely any social net. They work harder there because they need to. I completely disagree that they have choices. My aunt has worked for the same company for 20-30 years now and will do so until past retirement age because she needs the money for health care. The pension system there is practically non-existent (except for Communist bureaucrats). Reform is coming, but slowly. Most Chinese still retain the mentality of no choice - the authoritarian government has ensured that. Of course, a shift to a market-oriented system might change that (we’ll have to see) but unless your predicting the future, the current situation remains work hard and participate in China’s Great Rise or die.
Perhaps I might be adding needless nuance to an issue (I’ve been accused of this before). But I like Professor Crane’s comment. Though I might seem confusing at times, it has less to do with inexperience than it does with a barrage of lots of (often conflicting) ideas.
December 4th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
Ken,
I didn’t mean to be condescending. Really! I was trying to be polite, by noting that I do not expect college first years to know the data about average work hours per country and that, therefore, you should not be judged too harshly for claiming that the US does not have an “an appetite for working.” This is just not true, at least relative to most other First World countries.
You misunderstand my motivation. If you were not an Eph, I would never have bothered to write so much about your essay. Indeed, I would not have bothered reading beyond the first paragraph.
But you and I are Ephs, brothers in the Purple Mountains. I therefore take the time to consider your ideas carefully and respond in detail. Fostering such conversations is one of the main purposes of EphBlog.
No. When I want to write about those others things, I write about them, although I don’t care about b) in the slightest. The “real question” is the lack of some sort of thesis statement in your essay. You need one. Your professor will be looking for one. He wants to understand the point that you are trying to make. This is, currently, tough to do.
Again, I think that the most productive next step in the conversation would be for you to post another draft of your essay for comment.
There is nothing wrong with a barrage of ideas, even conflicting ones. That is what a blog is for! But your purpose in writing for a class at Williams (if you want a good grade) or for a newspaper (if you want to engage and persuade your readers) must be to do more than just give vent to your contradictory multitudes. You must have a point, a central thesis for which you provide evidence and arguments.
December 4th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
I find evidence at both ends of the employment picture for Yim’s suggestion that Americans seem unwilling to do certain sorts of work (regardless of what Europeans do). Immigrant, sometimes illegaly immigrant, labor is essential to agricultural production, especially in California. Here’s this comment from the LA Times (11/28) regarding Bush’s recent effort to bring the GOP together on immigration policy:
“Undocumented workers comprise about 4% of the U.S. workforce. Some advocates have argued that a mass deportation would cause havoc in the agricultural sector, construction industry, food and lodging establishments and other businesses with large numbers of low-wage, limited-skill workers.”
At the other end of the spectrum, the US government grants 65,000 H-1B visas a year to bring engineers and people in other “specialty occupations” to work here. I have seen commentary on this that suggests that Americans, in general, seem unwilling to go into engineering, leaving a shortage of that sort of high-skilled labor.
Now, we can debate and interpret these sorts of facts. We may even disagree with Yim’s intrepretation. But he is certainly within the fair bounds of reasoned discussion. He is not delusional.
December 4th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
Am I the only one that sees that the three of you are essentially on the same page? Yes, U.S. laborers work quite a bit relative to their Western European cousins. No, this doesn’t compare to the workloads in less developed countries.
As a sidenote, the statistics on workloads per worker in Western Europe are truly appalling. The next time someone from France, Germany, or Spain starts whining about high unemployment, I will likely ridicule them and point them to this data. (As well as exceedingly strict labor laws that do nothing other than make firms unwilling to hire)
Long live the invisible hand.
December 5th, 2005 at 12:21 am
Sam,
My claim is that it is “delusional” for Yim to assert that:
It is delusional — flat out empirically wrong — to assert that immigration is the “only reason” for the economic “boom.” Cut immigration in half (or even to zero) now or five years ago and US economic growth would be more or less the same. Do you disagree?
I did not attack “Yim’s suggestion that Americans seem unwilling to do certain sorts of work.” I attacked his claim that Americans were “lazy” and lacked “an appetite for working.” This just isn’t true and it is different from the charitable interpretation which you provide.
Again, I think that what you claim Yim meant is a reasonable and defensible position, one which I might even agree with. But he wrote something different. He needs to learn to write what he means and mean what he writes.
But that is a skill that I am still working on as well. [Obviously! -- ed.] So, as always, your comments are appreciated.
By the way, what class was this assignment for? The professor should be congratulated. (I believe that I have found another published student as well.)
December 5th, 2005 at 10:29 am
Here’s another article from the LATimes, posted today:
Picking a Battle over Shortage of Farmworkers
and from the middle of the article:
On the other hand, Pew Global Attitudes Survey
So, I guess it depends on subjective interpretation. From my limited perspective, I see people exploiting the internet more - to do Christmas shopping, to do homework, etc. Some may call it ingenuity, others call it laziness. Relatively speaking, Americans enjoy the benefits that come with a high standard of living. And one of the benefits is less menial labor.
Nevertheless, in the context of my article, I’m specifically referring to agriculture and manufacturing. And, in that sector in particular, the data seems to support a growing trend of American idleness and neglect. Compared to 19th to early 20th century America, we have severely neglected this part of the economy. True, the economy has changed incredibly over the last few decades, but I’m not sure we can abandon the fundamentals yet. It creates a huge discrepancy in the world economy. The US is in a position of dependency which can’t be sustained for very long.
Since I haven’t mastered the ability to write everything I want to say in a small amount of space, I create gaps in my argument when I revise and delete large chunks of my essays. Looking back, it does seem poorly worded and a non sequitor. But, I said what I meant - just not all of it. And also, it was meant to be a little jarring because of its subjectivity. Even Williams student differ in what “working hard” really means. Thanks for the helpful criticism, though!
(The class is PSCI 202. )