RE: [CPF0000] The globalization of COMMON, or is this the right direction?

Or we could allow them to attack their neighbors burn and sack their
cities and carry off their wealth as a way of catching up, but that
would be a little ridiculous, wouldn't it? 

We have pollution in this country, and we also have workplace death in
this country. Reducing both of these things has costs, and as a society
we have decided that we are willing to trade off our prosperity versus
these two negatives at a certain level. It is important to notice that
we have not eliminated either, as the cost would be too high even for
our very rich society. Other countries have to make similar decisions,
and if they have less wealth, they are going to be willing to accept
higher levels of pollution and workplace death, because they cannot yet
afford to reach our level of safety and cleanliness. 

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces+cpayne=thecrowngrp.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces+cpayne=thecrowngrp.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jim Franz
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 2:00 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: [CPF0000] The globalization of COMMON,or is this the right
direction?

i would strongly disagree. we had to invent the technology to be
clean...
that technology exists now, and its just a matter of enacting &
enforcing 
laws.
our own companies would still be dirty if the criminal penalties did not

exist.
In China a year ago, a major chemical spill took many lives. China 
imprisoned
and (i think) executed some who were responsible. It takes that to get 
compliance.

According to your arguement - we should look the other way as other 
countries
enact slavery as a way of "catching up".
jim
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Payne" <CPayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 1:43 PM
Subject: RE: [CPF0000] The globalization of COMMON,or is this the right 
direction?

You have to remember though that when we had our industrial revolution
none of that stuff was in place, we had an ugly time of it with

deaths,

pollution and all sorts of nasty side effects, but the gains to

society

were so large we were willing to accept the cost. Once we had an
industrial society we had so much more wealth that we could turn our
attention to things like the environment and workplace safety. By
insisting that other nations must have these things in place before

they

have the wealth of being an industrial society, we are putting them in

a

catch 22.

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jerry Adams
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 1:30 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: [CPF0000] The globalization of COMMON,or is this the

right

direction?

Trevor Perry wrote:

Paul,

It is so simple, it is obvious.

I agree, Trevor.


The problem, though, (as Joe pointed out verbosely) is parity and
equity.  If the rules (such as EPA, OSHA, etc.) were at least close
globally, this discussion would not be taking place.  The imbalance is
like mixing a glass of ice-water and a glass of hot water: the
temperature settles to a "happy" medium.  As Joe tried to illustrate,
this is simple leveling.


Companies do not outsource for any altruistic reasons; it is purely an
economic decision (as Paul pointed out).  If there were equity across
borders, why would one bother relocating a plant or a function?  It is
not a matter (always) of upgrading skill sets; when the skill sets are
very identical, this admonition fails of its own weight.  If it were a
matter of one, for example, refusing to give up good ol' RPG II and
learn RPG IV, you might be on to something, but it's not.


I'm not a protectionist at heart nor, do I think, xenophobic.  But I

do

have a strong sense of fair play.  My grandfather's fault, I suppose.


However, parity has never existed and never will.  In fact, since

you're

suggesting reading, may I reciprocate?  Alvin Toffler in "The Third
Wave" pretty much predicted all of this: globalization, the

simultaneous

breakdown of some national units (USSR -> Russia, etc., as well as the
decentralization of the USA), as well as the centralization of
corporations.  It was pretty scary (to me) when I read it in the 80's.



* Jerry C. Adams
*IBM System i Programmer/Analyst
B&W Wholesale Distributors, Inc.* *
voice
615.995.7024
fax
615.995.1201
email
jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



-- 
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.


-- 
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing

list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.