Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
This is a reminder that while globalization makes the world smaller and economies stronger, that manifests itself in the form of GDP growth that mostly accrues to fortune 500 businesses and thus fortune 500 shareholders, not to middle class citizens. While at the micro level, the individual doesn't feel that their situation is improving; they see tougher competition for jobs thanks to an influx of immigrants, because their jobs are local, not global.
It's inappropriate to classify those with a xenophobic mindset as racists - some are, but most are just fearful for their own job prospects. From that standpoint I can understand wanting a more protectionist strategy. Those of us who are highly qualified and secure in our jobs aren't threatened by immigration and the impact of global economies. But not everyone is in that boat, and if you've got an economy that increasingly relies on automation and outsources key functions traditionally performed by the middle class (manufacturing, call centers, etc.), it's no wonder you reach a tipping point where the frustrated middle class's votes exceed those of others.
I would have voted remain, but I completely understand the thinking for leaving. Globalization is not good for everybody.
|
Again, I think this is right on point. Globalization requires a level of regulation that creates a situation where only large companies can absorb the costs and remain competitive. In my personal experience from the regulatory side, the larger the company, the less they fought the regulation - it was cost they could offset in other ways. In fact, the regulation was helpful in driving out smaller competitors who could not absorb the government imposed "cost of doing business."