No need to be sorry for what you believe in, nor is this a popularity contest.
 
I don't disagree with much that you wrote, except the buying local part.
 
This is competition, plain and simple, but it's competition based on an uneven playing field.  And their are laws against unfair competition, at least in the US.  So, applying your philosophy I should buy from the lowest-price producer, regardless of how they are able to be the lowest-price producer - that is, the end justifies the means?
 
Such as buying local:  I should buy clothing produced in overseas sweatshops just because it is the most inexpensive and ignore the fact that some (likely US) corporation is getting rich off of somebody else's broken back?  Of course then I will have more "buying power" and can "spread the wealth" around to other low-price producers and have more stuff.  Which ignores the question of whether I need more stuff...
 
For me, buying local does bring an emotional satisfaction, and I don't think that, by itself, negates the entire philosophy.  As for "selling local", why wouldn't you want to sell to your neighbors first?  As a consumer I'd rather deal with someone local, even for high-tech consulting, than work with someone three states, or two countries, distant from me.
 
Of course carrying my philosphy to its extreme:  Since there are no TV's made in the US any more, perhaps I shouldn't buy any TV's? (Actually that's not such a bad idea, but that is another discussion!)

These are not easy questions to answer, and I sometimes wonder if there is a "right" answer.
 
One thing I think we can both agree on is that the marketplace is changing, and as Wirt was fond of saying:  You adapt or you die.  There's a reason they call COBOL programmers dinosaurs!
 
Jim

--- On Mon, 3/29/10, Mark Wonsil <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


From: Mark Wonsil <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Global Economics ( was Hp 3000 MPE-IX Trainner)
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Monday, March 29, 2010, 10:59 PM


OK, I'm going to be the unpopular guy.

To me anyway, this is an issue of perception. When it's my job that
feels the heat of competition, well, competition sucks. When I'm the
one replacing someone else's job, then competition is great. Big Iron
people complained when the mini-computer came out and started eating
their lunch. We were cheaper than those guys and we were more
versatile. And when PCs came to the business workplace, it turned the
screws even tighter on the slow-moving data center. A lot of CICS
programmers lost their jobs.  I mean, holy [log in to unmask] If you bought Turbo
Pascal for $39, you were putting those expensive compiler programmers
out of work. Should we have blocked the mini or micro computer or
Borland to save those high paying jobs? Would that have made this a
better world? The answer generally depends on your point of view now,
doesn't it?

As for only buying local, that's just something I don't get. I often
hear on the radio that we should buy local to support our local
economy. It sounds good and at first blush and it really seems to make
sense at some level. On further reflection, it's really just an
emotional appeal and not necessarily a thoughtful philosophy.

Let's say that there are two products of the same quality but the
local one cost $10 more. I feel patriotic and buy the local one and
support my local economy. Yay! Wait a minute. I have ten dollars less
to spend. I could have supported another local business if I had
bought the less expensive item. There's an unseen victim. Here in
Detroit, I often heard, "If people don't spend the extra $2K to buy
'American' cars, who's going to buy all of those big screen TVs?"
Well, everyone who buys a cheaper car can now afford one!

Also, if I only buy local, wouldn't I be hypocritical if I didn't only
sell local as well? I mean, the other cities/states/countries should
only be buying local too and not from me. I should make my living on
just those around me. Sure, that will reduce the economies of volume
and I'll have to charge more but that would be the patriotic thing to
do. No?

I feel badly for those whose jobs are no longer needed. It's very
personal and extremely frustrating. Some will move on to greener
pastures and actually become grateful for the change while others
never get beyond the pain and anger.

From a completely humanitarian point of view, the gentlemen from India
are trying to take care of their families just as we ours. I cannot
blame them for that. I also understand the hurt of those who lost
their jobs and will have trouble supporting their family. But it's
quite possible that when everyone buys the more expensive local
option, they may very well be killing their own next job.

Just some food for thought.

<taking_cover />

Mark W.