경주이혼전문변호사 삼성중 김승태 ‘은탑산업훈장’ > 자유게시판

경주이혼전문변호사 삼성중 김승태 ‘은탑산업훈장’

페이지 정보

작성자 또또링3
댓글 0건 조회 9회 작성일 26-09-08 03:28

본문

경주이혼전문변호사 김승태 삼성중공업 사원(54·사진)이 ‘제30회 직업능력의 달’ 기념식에서 은탑산업훈장을 받았다.
고용노동부와 한국산업인력공단은 2일 서울 영등포구 페어몬트 앰배서더 호텔에서 기념식을 열고, 김 사원을 포함해 직업능력 개발 유공자 35명에게 훈포장 등을 수여했다.
노동자 분야 수상자인 김 사원은 선박 건조 부문 우수 숙련기술자로서 사내 제안 및 공정 개선을 통해 약 52억원의 원가 절감을 달성했다. 특히 경남 명장으로 500회 이상 기술 전수와 봉사를 실천하며 후진 양성에 기여한 공로를 인정받았다.
석탑산업훈장을 받은 곽승호 경북산업직업전문학교 이사장은 전국 최초 베스트직업훈련기관(BHA)의 대표로 훈련 인프라에 매년 적극 투자해 미래 교육 생태계 조성에 기여한 공적이 인정됐다.
나락으로 떨어지는 유명인이 늘고 있다. 이름난 인물이나 기업이 논란이 될 만한 언행을 했을 때, 대중은 소셜미디어(SNS), 유튜브 댓글 창, 온라인 커뮤니티에서 그에 대한 지지를 전면 철회하고 그를 사회적으로 매장하려 한다. ‘캔슬 컬처’(cancel culture) 혹은 ‘등돌림 문화’라고 한다. 예를 들어, 증조부가 친일파였음을 모르고 집안을 자랑한 배우 하영과 자기를 돕다가 실수한 사회복무요원을 유튜브 채널에서 저격한 유튜버 박위는 여론의 뭇매를 맞았다.
문제는, 조리돌림이 과하다는 것이다. 법적으로는 문제없지만 불쾌한 언행에 분노한 누리꾼들은 유명인의 SNS에 몰려가 악성 댓글을 달고, 과거 행적을 파묘하고, 업계에서 영영 퇴출해야 한다고 요구한다. 심지어 박위에게 지금의 아내 송지은을 소개해준 개그맨 김기리의 SNS에도 조롱과 비난이 폭주할 정도다. 왜 사람들은 도덕규범을 거스르는 언행을 한 유명인에게 좌표를 찍어서 집단적인 린치와 처벌을 가하는가?
진화심리학자 스티븐 핑커는 저서 <모두 다 …을 앎을 모두 다 알 때>(국내 미번역)에서 도덕규범이 유지되는 방식은 법률과 매우 다름을 지적한다. 법을 어기면 경찰에 체포돼 형벌을 받기 때문에 우리는 법을 지킨다. 반면에, 벌거벗고 거리를 돌아다니면 안 된다거나, 뚱뚱한 사람을 앞에서 돼지라고 놀리면 안 된다는 등의 규범을 모두가 지키고 있는지 국가가 24시간 폐쇄회로(CC)TV로 전 국민을 일일이 감시하지는 않는다.
어떤 규범이 유지되기 위한 조건은 이렇다. 모두 다 그 규범을 알고, 다른 모든 사람도 그 규범을 안다는 것을 모두 다 알아야 한다. 예를 들어, ‘빨간 불에는 브레이크를 밟아야 한다’는 규범을 나 혼자 아는 것만으로는 부족하다. 다른 모든 사람도 그 규범을 알고 있음을 모두 다 알고 있을 때에만, 혼잡한 교차로에서 안심하고 빨간 불에서 브레이크를 밟을 수 있다.
즉, 규범은 누구에게나 명백하게 공개돼 있을 때만 규범으로 온전히 기능한다. 이는 곧 누군가 규범을 ‘공공연하게’ 위반한다면, 그 규범이 순식간에 와르르 무너지기 쉽다는 뜻이다. 빨간 불에 질주하는 운전자는 남에게 피해를 준다. 만약 그 광경을 본 다수의 운전자들이 “빨간 불에 질주해도 괜찮나 보네!”라고 생각한다면 더 큰 재앙을 불러온다. 공중파 방송에서 친일파 조상에 대해 긍정적으로 이야기한 하영은 일제강점기의 친일이 끔찍한 반민족 부역 행위라는 대중적 믿음을 짓밟은 셈이다.
그러므로 모두가 보는 앞에서, 그리고 모두 보고 있음을 모두가 아는 앞에서 규범을 어긴 위반자를 공동체가 처벌해야 규범을 세울 수 있다. 단, 그냥 하면 안 된다. ‘공개적으로’ 해야 한다. 모두가 처벌을 보는 앞에서, 그리고 모두 처벌을 보고 있음을 모두가 아는 앞에서 위반자를 처벌해야 비로소 규범을 세울 수 있다. 그렇지 않다면, 예컨대 빨간 불에 질주한 운전자가 처벌받는 모습을 나는 보았지만 다른 모든 사람도 보았는지 내가 알 수 없다면, 나는 여전히 교차로를 지날 때 다른 차가 내 차를 들이받을까봐 불안할 것이다. 오랜 세월 동안 형사처벌은 공개된 장소에서 수많은 군중을 모아놓고 곤장틀, 주릿대, 십자가, 화형대, 단두대 등 눈에 확 띄는 도구를 써서 행해져온 까닭을 이로부터 알 수 있다.
전근대 사회의 공개 처형은 끝없이 열린 21세기의 사이버 공간에서 못마땅한 언행을 한 유명인을 ‘나락 보내기’에 해당한다. 군중 가운데 나서서 유명인에게 돌을 던지는 사람은 정의의 사도라는 칭찬을 받는다. 돌팔매를 말리는 사람은 공동체를 해친다는 욕을 먹으며 평판이 떨어진다. 처벌과 칭찬이 ‘공개적으로’ 연쇄반응을 일으키며 증폭된다. 즉, 유명인의 SNS에 달린 비난 댓글 가운데 ‘좋아요’를 많이 받은 댓글은, 혹은 과거의 흠결을 새로 찾아낸 온라인 커뮤니티 게시물은 계속 리트윗되고 공유돼 수많은 사용자에게 전파된다. 부적절하게 행동한 유명인이 처벌받고 있음을 모든 이가 알아야, 그리고 모두 그 응징을 알고 있음을 모두 다 알아야 규범이 유지되기 때문이다.
요컨대, 도덕규범은 위반자를 ‘공개적으로’ 처벌할 때만 유지되기 때문에 인터넷 공간에서 살벌하고 비정한 ‘나락 보내기’가 벌어진다. 저지른 잘못의 무게보다 훨씬 더 심한 응징은 마땅히 자제해야 한다. 무엇보다도, 표적이 된 유명인에게 돌을 던질 때 얻는 뿌듯한 정의감은 자연선택에 의해 우리의 마음 속에 진화한 감정일 뿐, 객관적 진실을 꼭 반영하지는 않음을 상기할 필요가 있다.
By Yoojin Kim, Industry News Reporter
Editor’s note: This is a full transcript of the interview published exclusively by the Kyunghyang Daily News. Excerpting the entire or any part of the text without consulting the interviewee or the editor is strictly prohibited.
(Click here for Korean version)
Q. In your recent New York Times op-ed, you argued that China may be the ultimate winner of intensifying U.S.-Canada trade conflict.
A. There are lot of trade wars going on right now. Most of them were initiated by President Trump, and most do not make much sense. The one trade war that does need to be fought right now is to deal with China’s growing market dominance across a lot of sectors. Part of the response has got to be the U.S. working with like-minded countries that have the same concerns with China, and getting them to do similar things toward China, whether raising tariffs, using subsidies, or industrial policy.
Right now we’re renegotiating the trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, and President Trump’s focus seems to be, through the use of his tariffs, to get more manufacturing in the U.S., even at the expense of manufacturing in Mexico, and especially Canada. However if you take away all manufacturing from Canada‘s automobile sector, by puting tariffs on Canadian cars, auto parts, steel, and aluminum, Canadian consumers would not want to buy more expensive cars built in America, without benefits in terms of local parts or assembly. They are just going to buy the cheaper vehicles from China.
Unless you allow other partners to have some benefits of the manufacturing sector too, they will not go along with our plan on China. China has 1.4 billion consumers, but the U.S. only has 340 million. We need to add Canada, Europe, Korea, and Japan, all of us, to have the possibility of competing in scale with China. By fighting with Canada, essentially, we’re making both of ourselves weaker in the bigger trade fight with China.
Q. Trump seems to be more interested in dealmaking with China, rather than coming up with a coordinated and collective response with like-minded countries on China.
A. The U.S. is not large enough by itself to tackle the problem that China poses. It would also be a lot cheaper for us if we share the costs of taking on China; the costs of incentivizing companies to create new supply chains out of China, through subsidies as the Trump administration is doing now for companies to do mining and processing for critical minerals so that we’re not as dependent on China. Tariffs impose costs on Americans, but if we have other countries that are having similar kinds of policies, they can share in those costs with us. Americans alone would not bear the burden of creating these alternative supply chains outside of China, so that we’re not vulnerable to acts of Chinese coercion.
Q. I think your argument may have some resonance with President Trump, since he demands greater burden sharing among allies. But there are concerns that tariffs are eroding traditional security alliances, just as we are seeing with the escalation of U.S-Canada conflict.
A. President Trump isn’t wrong about everything. We have to treat this burden sharing differently, given the new costs to deal with these new threats and to fight this new kind of trade war. A lot of America’s trading partners and allies have been very hesitant to do anything about the China problem, just expecting the U.S. to handle it. But Chinese export restrictions in 2025 on rare earth permanent magnets and Nexperia export restrictins impacted automotive supply chains in Europe, Japan, and Korea. Hopefully everyone has woken up to the serious threat.
The problem is, while countries have been woken up to that threat, they’re spending most of their time having to deal with the threat that President Trump is imposing on them through tariffs.
Q. On U.S.-ROK relations, tensions are ongoing over Korea’s pledges to invest in the U.S., the issue of Coupang. Now Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix are faced with growing pressure to expand memory production in the U.S.
A. It is challenging because Korean companies have already made tremendous investments in the U.S. over the last five years, with the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.
Memory is a special industry at a special moment in time, with the AI boom and the shortage of memory. Korean companies have made commitments to do big investments expanding their production capacity, mainly here in Korea. Certainly, the American government would like them to do some of that in the U.S.
Q. What realistic policy and business options does South Korea have to manage the U.S. demands for investment in memory facilities?
A. When it comes to security and resilience of supply chains, there could be arguments for doing more prodction in the U.S. or outside of Korea. As with TSMC in Taiwan, too much production of one thing in one geographic location can be really risky. Taiwan is subject to earthquakes, and now with climate change, there are typhoons, droughts, wildfires, and all kinds of risks to geographically concentrated production. The same risks to some extent apply to Korea. You do want to have a little bit more diversification, even though that’s going to be more expensive.
Whether that should be part of this deal with the Trump administration, there’s a big question about whether that deal is a good deal in the first place. But there are definitely arguments for partners and allies to better align their policies together to make sure that they’re doing things in a coordinated fashion so we’re not competing with each other.
We are worried that Chinese firms might enter the memory space. Chinese firms already have a growing presence in low-end legacy chips and logic space, and a growing presence in assembly, test, and packaging. The fact that Nexperia wafers manufactured at facilities in Europe had to be flown back to China for packaging and finishing is what gave the Chinese government the ability to impose those export restrictions last year. Still, it’s going to take three to five years before those facilities would come into operation, so it’s not going to resolve the memory shortage problem that we have today.
Q. On the artificial intelligence sector, there have been reports that the U.S. will request that allies and partners sever ties with China in terms of artificial intelligence cooperation. How should Korea respond to such a request?
A. Keep in as close communication with the U.S. administration as possible, because it’s been a little bit unclear what their ultimate objectives are.
The first Trump administration was the first to impose export controls on SMIC to address concerns about Chinese AI chip manufacturing capacity and the Biden administration went further. But then the Trump administration last year has loosened some controls to allow China to purchase some of the NVIDIA chips. The administration’s view seems to be that a way to slow the indigenous Chinese ecosystem is to flood their market with the better NVIDIA chips. Allies have to ask Washington what the policy actually is, because of potential inconsistencies. For Korea, that has significant equities and expertise, educating them about blind spots is super important.
Q. What kind of anticipation do you have for the U.S.-China summit? Do you think they would extend to some kind of a trade truce again, or would they go on the course of conflict?
A. I have very modest expectations. Trade statistics show China is not buying a whole lot more U.S. farm products, as part of the $200 billion deal from Trump‘s first term. The U.S.-China Board of Trade, as the Ambassador Greer talked about, could lower tariffs for non-sensitive products, on $30 billion worth of stuff. Given all the other tariffs imposed, China could paradoxically end up getting lower tariffs than other countries.
However, these are very minor because China has incredible leverage over rare earths and permanent magnets, which can potentially shut down the U.S. automotive industry. Until we find alternative sources of supply, China maintains this leverage and you cannot put tariffs in place to diversify away from China.
Q. On rare earths, some middle-powered countries and the U.S. are interested in initiatives to partner with other countries so they could lower dependence on China. Do you think that kind of effort will work out?
A. When I listen to Prime Minister Carney or others talk about the middle powers approach, it sounds like they want to continue to have free trade or rules-based trade with all those other countries, when all of those countries already have really low trade barriers toward China.
To create alternative supply chains for mining, refining rare earths and other critical minerals and manufacturing permanent magnets where China has over 90% of the world’s supply, you have to create incentives for massive investments. Right now those companies don’t have those incentives, because China will instruct its state-owned firms to start dumping minerals on world markets, driving down prices and making those investments unprofitable. The only way is through subsidies, price guarantees, price floors, or tariffs on Chinese products. Until middle powers get serious about those questions, I don’t see how that solves the problem, because they can still be coerced by China. Canada was hit by those Nexperia export restrictions, and Honda had to shut down some of its production in Canada.
Q. Is the U.S. leadership of any sort essential in achieving the goal set forth by middle power countries?
A. I think it makes more sense to do it with the U.S., but it also requires the U.S. to put an attractive deal on the table. I do not criticize the Canadians, Mexicans, or Koreans for saying to the U.S. that they can’t work with them on this issue because the U.S. is hitting them with tariffs. The U.S. can’t have it both ways: the U.S. can’t expect those countries to do the hard policies too, but also be hitting those countries with tariffs and imposing additional costs on them.
Q. Do you think tariffs will remain as a core element of U.S. economic statecraft regardless of electoral shifts, like in the midterm elections or government changes?
A. Normatively, a tariff targeted against China for those products is a tool of economic statecraft that can help create the incentive for companies to generate alternative sources of supply.
The positive question of whether the tariffs likely remain is yes, because it’s going to be very difficult politically for the next administration to remove many of the tariffs. One, if these tariffs, both the forced labor tariffs and the upcoming tariffs on overcapacity, remain in place, they will bring in some revenue for the U.S. government. It’s not enough to close the deficit, but still enough that it will be very difficult to get rid of them without replacing them with some other form of revenue. In the U.S. political system, unless you have all three parts of the U.S. government lined up with the same party at the same time and prioritizing tax reform, it is very difficult.
The other is the difficulty with the forced labor tariffs. To get rid of them, a politician would have to make an argument proposing to remove tariffs placed on a country for forced labor, which immediately triggers public pushback over excusing forced labor. That’s a political argument that most politicians are not going to want to engage in.
Q. That would mean that a country like Korea, heavily reliant on exports, has to learn how to live in the world with constant tariffs.
A. President Trump is fighting ten trade wars at the same time, when only the one with China is one that needs to be fought. The general idea that trade wars are here to stay in one form or another is an unfortunate new reality, which makes it very complicated for countries like Korea that are very heavily dependent on exports.
The good news is, Korean companies make things that are essential. Imagine you didn’t have Samsung and SK making memory chips for AI. Korea makes stuff that the world needs right now, and you’re going to get slightly better treatment than a lot of other countries out there because of that. Korean battery companies and shipbuilding are the world’s leaders outside of China, too. Oftentimes, it’s Korean companies that are providing those alternatives.

댓글목록

등록된 댓글이 없습니다.

페이지 정보

본문

댓글목록

대표번호 1533-8997