NYT Hopes India Can Avoid China's Plight: a High-Paid, Well-Educated Workforce
A front-page lead New York Times story, headlined "As Rivals Falter, India's Economy Is Surging Ahead" (2/17/15), is mainly valuable for the insight it provides into what the Times considers to be a healthy economy-and who that economy is supposed to benefit.
A front-page lead New York Times story, headlined "As Rivals Falter, India's Economy Is Surging Ahead" (2/17/15), is mainly valuable for the insight it provides into what the Times considers to be a healthy economy-and who that economy is supposed to benefit.
"As other big developing markets stumble, India is emerging as one of the few hopes for global growth," Times business reporter Keith Bradsher declares. Though the piece mentions countries like Russia and Brazil (both of whom are hurt by falling oil prices), it's mainly a comparison between India and China: "China's economy is slowing," Bradsher writes, while "the growth in India's economy, long a laggard, just matched China's pace in recent months."
There aren't a lot of numbers in the Times piece, so it's useful to pause here and note that according to the IMF database, China's per capita GDP (measured in terms of purchasing power) grew by 8.6 percent last year, vs. 6.0 percent for India. So any stumbling, slowing or faltering seen in China's economy is based on forecasts of future growth-which are notoriously unreliable, though often given great credence in articles like these.
So take Bradsher with a several grains of salt when he writes that "India is riding high on the early success of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and a raft of new business-friendly policies instituted in his first eight months." What exactly, though, does he mean by "business-friendly policies"? He gives a for-instance:
Would-be builders of large factories also worry about India's stringent labor laws, including essentially lifetime employment guarantees for unskilled or semiskilled workers with at least two years' experience.... Those labor law protections are starting to erode. Many companies rely increasingly on contract workers, whom they require to leave after a single year, circumventing the employment guarantees.
Progress!
While India is "riding high" by taking job security away from Indians, other countries are taking a different route-apparently, from the Times' perspective, a misguided one, since it's causing "troubles":
India is also profiting from the troubles of other emerging markets.
China's investigations of multinationals, persistent tensions with neighboring countries and surging blue-collar wages have prompted many companies to start looking elsewhere for large labor forces.
Yes, "surging blue-collar wages" are included by the New York Times in the category of "troubles."
Another "problem" China has is that its workforce is becoming too educated; as the caption for a graph that accompanies Bradsher's piece puts it:
The supply of 15- to 24-year-olds, the prime age for factory workers in emerging markets, is rising in India. By contrast, it is plunging in China because of the "one child" policy, and a sharp increase in college attendance has made the problem more acute.
As economist Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 2/18/15), one of the most astute critics of corporate media business coverage, observes:
From the standpoint of businesses looking for cheap labor this might be bad news, but from the standpoint of those who would like to see poor people lifted out of poverty, this sounds like very encouraging news.
It's not hard to see from whose standpoint New York Times economics coverage is written.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
A front-page lead New York Times story, headlined "As Rivals Falter, India's Economy Is Surging Ahead" (2/17/15), is mainly valuable for the insight it provides into what the Times considers to be a healthy economy-and who that economy is supposed to benefit.
"As other big developing markets stumble, India is emerging as one of the few hopes for global growth," Times business reporter Keith Bradsher declares. Though the piece mentions countries like Russia and Brazil (both of whom are hurt by falling oil prices), it's mainly a comparison between India and China: "China's economy is slowing," Bradsher writes, while "the growth in India's economy, long a laggard, just matched China's pace in recent months."
There aren't a lot of numbers in the Times piece, so it's useful to pause here and note that according to the IMF database, China's per capita GDP (measured in terms of purchasing power) grew by 8.6 percent last year, vs. 6.0 percent for India. So any stumbling, slowing or faltering seen in China's economy is based on forecasts of future growth-which are notoriously unreliable, though often given great credence in articles like these.
So take Bradsher with a several grains of salt when he writes that "India is riding high on the early success of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and a raft of new business-friendly policies instituted in his first eight months." What exactly, though, does he mean by "business-friendly policies"? He gives a for-instance:
Would-be builders of large factories also worry about India's stringent labor laws, including essentially lifetime employment guarantees for unskilled or semiskilled workers with at least two years' experience.... Those labor law protections are starting to erode. Many companies rely increasingly on contract workers, whom they require to leave after a single year, circumventing the employment guarantees.
Progress!
While India is "riding high" by taking job security away from Indians, other countries are taking a different route-apparently, from the Times' perspective, a misguided one, since it's causing "troubles":
India is also profiting from the troubles of other emerging markets.
China's investigations of multinationals, persistent tensions with neighboring countries and surging blue-collar wages have prompted many companies to start looking elsewhere for large labor forces.
Yes, "surging blue-collar wages" are included by the New York Times in the category of "troubles."
Another "problem" China has is that its workforce is becoming too educated; as the caption for a graph that accompanies Bradsher's piece puts it:
The supply of 15- to 24-year-olds, the prime age for factory workers in emerging markets, is rising in India. By contrast, it is plunging in China because of the "one child" policy, and a sharp increase in college attendance has made the problem more acute.
As economist Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 2/18/15), one of the most astute critics of corporate media business coverage, observes:
From the standpoint of businesses looking for cheap labor this might be bad news, but from the standpoint of those who would like to see poor people lifted out of poverty, this sounds like very encouraging news.
It's not hard to see from whose standpoint New York Times economics coverage is written.
A front-page lead New York Times story, headlined "As Rivals Falter, India's Economy Is Surging Ahead" (2/17/15), is mainly valuable for the insight it provides into what the Times considers to be a healthy economy-and who that economy is supposed to benefit.
"As other big developing markets stumble, India is emerging as one of the few hopes for global growth," Times business reporter Keith Bradsher declares. Though the piece mentions countries like Russia and Brazil (both of whom are hurt by falling oil prices), it's mainly a comparison between India and China: "China's economy is slowing," Bradsher writes, while "the growth in India's economy, long a laggard, just matched China's pace in recent months."
There aren't a lot of numbers in the Times piece, so it's useful to pause here and note that according to the IMF database, China's per capita GDP (measured in terms of purchasing power) grew by 8.6 percent last year, vs. 6.0 percent for India. So any stumbling, slowing or faltering seen in China's economy is based on forecasts of future growth-which are notoriously unreliable, though often given great credence in articles like these.
So take Bradsher with a several grains of salt when he writes that "India is riding high on the early success of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and a raft of new business-friendly policies instituted in his first eight months." What exactly, though, does he mean by "business-friendly policies"? He gives a for-instance:
Would-be builders of large factories also worry about India's stringent labor laws, including essentially lifetime employment guarantees for unskilled or semiskilled workers with at least two years' experience.... Those labor law protections are starting to erode. Many companies rely increasingly on contract workers, whom they require to leave after a single year, circumventing the employment guarantees.
Progress!
While India is "riding high" by taking job security away from Indians, other countries are taking a different route-apparently, from the Times' perspective, a misguided one, since it's causing "troubles":
India is also profiting from the troubles of other emerging markets.
China's investigations of multinationals, persistent tensions with neighboring countries and surging blue-collar wages have prompted many companies to start looking elsewhere for large labor forces.
Yes, "surging blue-collar wages" are included by the New York Times in the category of "troubles."
Another "problem" China has is that its workforce is becoming too educated; as the caption for a graph that accompanies Bradsher's piece puts it:
The supply of 15- to 24-year-olds, the prime age for factory workers in emerging markets, is rising in India. By contrast, it is plunging in China because of the "one child" policy, and a sharp increase in college attendance has made the problem more acute.
As economist Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 2/18/15), one of the most astute critics of corporate media business coverage, observes:
From the standpoint of businesses looking for cheap labor this might be bad news, but from the standpoint of those who would like to see poor people lifted out of poverty, this sounds like very encouraging news.
It's not hard to see from whose standpoint New York Times economics coverage is written.