Speaking in generalities, manufacturing is pretty much done by China and Hong Kong, etc. High tech jobs and design jobs that can be uprooted are in India. Office work and customer support jobs are also moving to India. Then there are the jobs filled now by HB-1s and finally increasing mechanization/automation (which, granted, has always happened)... In a broad sense, I'm wondering what we're supposed to do long term.
Sweat?
Yes, yes, I know...the free market will take care of everything, but I'm wondering...in what way? How do you know the "new configuration" of the world will be good for us?
One doesn't. The answer depends on what is really happening in the world, and that is something of which we cannot be entirely certain at the root levels. Is the market "organic" in its function, or are there "artificial" manipulations at work pushing the market in a given direction? If the latter, what is the source, what are the goals, who will be affected, and how?
We are talking of a very large and complex entity, the market. There are so many variables that it comes into question whether reliable prediction can be accomplished, especially when there are so many unknowns at play.
What replaces all that's been lost? Some here criticize the blue collar work, saying we don't need it anyway...but what about those people who aren't fit for college? I even had this question back when we were still in the "high tech jobs will fix everything" phase. You know, before they were shipped out too. Not everyone's into that sort of thing. Steelworkers probably won't become genetic engineers. Should they kill themselves now?
Valid questions, none of which have the globalists answered satisfactorily.
This seems like a game of musical chairs, doesn't it?
In many ways, yes. But the truth predicates on knowing enough about what is really going on. If the market is indeed "organic", the answers will be very different from those if it is being manipulated. If it is being manipulated, wide vistas of manifold possibilities open up to us, but most likely there is a strong element of power consolidation at play at the very least.
I swear I'm not being a troll. It's just a question that looms in the back of my mind. An economy that has all sorts of jobs, for all skill levels and interests makes sense. It seems balanced. An economy where you have to be a doctor, lawyer, or scientist....or wither away at Wal-Mart or the DMV (exaggerating)...seems unbalanced.
Thoughts?
If we assume that the market is being manipulated, that it is being done competently, and that the intentions behind it are purely innocent and good (a big mouthful, admittedly) and is aimed at raising the material wealth of all people in the world, there are a few consequences that I see.
First, for a long time there has been a profound imbalance in the distribution of wealth across the globe, most of it concentrated in the "west", the reasons for which are many. For instance, the focus on individualism in places such as the USA has provided the environment of opportunity by which people have been able to pursue their own best interests. A general consequence of this has been the wealth "draft" that has carried along huge numbers of others, e.g. through the creation of jobs, as well as products and services for which people are not only willing to pay, but whose lives are presumably improved significantly by them. This is called "win win". Once this situation bootstrapped itself beyond a point, it became very nearly self-sustaining and wild growth became possible.
Contrast that with other places such as China, Soviet Union, many European nations, and the myriad petty and bald-faced tyrannies of Africa and South America where peoples' freedoms and prerogatives were tightly reined. In such places stagnation was the result, at best. More often, the societies suffered greatly not only in terms of lagging far behind in the development of material wealth, but also in terms of political turmoil. "The states" in question expended unimaginable energies in corralling "the people", very often at the end of a gun, employing torture and murder and generally wreaking untold havoc, death, and misery on vast numbers of people.
If we look at the state of the world, ca. 1989, this grossly and mainly artificially induced state of imbalance in the wealth of nations was, more or less, at its apex (not really in some ways, but there is no point in discussing these arcane points here). Fast forward to, say, 2000, and what do we see? The collapsed Soviet Union replaced with numerous smaller and relatively free nations, all of which are now eagerly playing catch up with the west. Add to that the case of China, who had been on that path since the mid-70s, and by 2000 was enjoying the benefits of "free trade" with the rest of the world, especially the USA.
Manufacturing fled US and other shores because of the advantages provided by a government-rigged labor market. As manufacturing and other jobs flew the coop for Chinese and Indian shores, the products and services now being provided by the Chinese were to be sold to whom? The west, of course. Who else could afford them? Not even the Chinese can readily afford many of the things that we in the west take for granted. This imbalance is the remnant of the previous condition wherein freedom was denied to so many. While the west became prosperous, the rest languished in relative material poverty.
Now that some large proportion of the rest of the world is getting into the game on the supply-side, they can sell only in those markets that can afford to buy what they offer. Again, the west. Until the average prosperity in the rest of the world rises beyond some threshold, we are going to have an imbalance between supply and demand. Manufacturing for the current market is currently covered in the main by China. Until the demand side of the market increases to the point where the slack in Chinese and other off-shore manufacturing is taken up, other more costly labor markets are going to "suffer". The longer China maintains a rigged labor market, the longer the rest of the world will have to struggle with establishing, keeping, and growing domestic manufacturing jobs.
The western "free world" pined for the end of the Soviet Union and "democracy" and "freedom" for nations like China. Well, they got what they wanted and a consequence of opening up those once closed markets, was the loss some of our own markets on the supply side. Those other nations are full of smart and motivated people who are champing at the bit to get a taste of "freedom" and improved wealth. They are willing to it for less - they are ABLE to do it for less because their costs of living are far lower than ours.
Opening trade willy nilly to comparatively impoverished nations who cannot offer balanced trade conditions is a dangerous game that stands to put one's own economy into some trouble. US-China trade relations were opened in just that manner and we are suffering the consequences.
I cannot call it right or wrong, but the results have been unpleasant. It seems to me that a more measured approach to "free trade" would have been wiser.
This country better hope that exported industries return BEFORE attempting a reduction in the supply of fiat money, though.
Quite ironic. 
