Victor Milne:
>
>But what consumers are going to be left? They may opt out--boycott--as
>suggested above. However, Angell's world seems to leave precious few
>consumers. Global business is to downsize, outsource, roboticize, and where
>it retains a few workers, tell them to be damn grateful for the pittance
>they get. The unemployed who survive will do so by participating in a black
>market economy.
In 1995, more than 80% of global GNP accrued to the people who live in high
income economies. These people comprised only 16% of the world's
population. Their GNP per capita worked out to aprx. US$25,000. In
comparison, the per capita GNP of people living in low and middle income
economies worked out to aprx. US$1,100. What such numbers suggest is that
the production of consumers goods and services is aimed mostly at the rich
world and at the rich stratum of the population of poor countries.
Inequality between rich and poor is growing. One can picture a world in
which, in the course of time, about 90% of global GNP will accrue to people
who live in high income economies. Add to this the probability that income
differences between rich and poor in those economies, and indeed in poorer
ones, will have grown considerably.
One can also picture a situation in which, because of downsizing, the
world's relatively wealthy population has declined as a proportion of total
global population, but in which the total income accruing to that population
has proportionately increased. Prof. Angell's "Alphas", ensconced in fully
efficient,
re-engineered corporations, would then be providing goods and services for a
proportionately smaller but richer population. The rest of the population
wouldn't matter very much because then, as now, it would mostly be too poor
to comprise a worthwhile market. It could be left to the peddlers, hawkers
and small shopkeepers.
It is unlikely that the rich would be willing to join consumer boycotts.
They would have plenty of money and no reason for not buying quality goods
and services.
Even if he is pulling our collective leg, we have to take Prof. Angell's
message seriously. What he is saying is happening all around us. Here is
an example: A few days ago, we got together with some friends who had been
laid-off by Bell Canada a couple of years ago. While that seemed
catastrophic when it happened, they have landed on their feet. What are
they doing now? Why, they are working in Brussels as technical consultants
to Belgium's telephone company. When they have finished their work about a
year from now, that telephone company will be in a position to lay off half
its personnel.
Ed Weick
