OUTLAWING JOBS

Last edited by Capitalizt on Mar-25-2005 at 23:16

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I'm not quite sure what specific argument of mine you are arguing against. It would help if you quoted my specific text that you are addressing because I prefer an argumentative point to point discussion. So with this statement, which of my points are you addressing? That the reason why manufacturing jobs in the aircraft engineering sector pay so well is not because such jobs require high skilled workers but because of "influence" by lobbyist groups? You're saying that the defense department places a priority on what Boeing or Lockheed Martin pays its employees as opposed to the price that they quote?

This:

quote:

The only thing the defense department cares about are the price and the quality of the product Boeing is trying to sell.

quote:

Out of curiosity, what's your ultimate goal? Are you concerned with A) the plight of the people in these developing countries or B) Protecting American industry? If you're concerned with A), you're hardly helping these people by advocating trade protectionisms, they aren't slaves or serfs. There's a reason why China and India are the two countries with the greatest decreases in poverty. If you're concerned with B), the failure of trade protectionism takes slightly longer to manifest itself but it eventually appears. You're not operating in a closed market. Only if every other country/company subscibed to similar moral standards would you be successful in your efforts.

Ah, here we go with clearing things up. My goals are both and I was addressing issues on A & B, but not advocating policies for B to resolve A. You said yourself that education is the solution to much of the issues for B. I agreed with you, but I don't see that solution being enacted, so any talk of protectionism was related to what should be done right now for workers who are in transition. To say that education is needed, isn't occurring, but then there aren't any negatives from the lack of it, means we really wouldn't need education. Protectionism wouldn't be the best long term policy and wouldn have negative economic impact, but I only brought it up because of my belief that workers are affected right now without greater efforts to educate them. This is where a concern regarding a country like India would come into play, India is certainly not providing harsh labor standards against technical support workers, but my points here were directed at waht I consider a lack of education we are providing our own workers, young and old, as even some skilled positions are outsourced. Many countries with gross human rights violations would not be able to compete for these jobs, as most don't provide appropriate education to their workers to do so.

'A' arguements were completely unlrelated to protectionism. At no time in the debate did I intend for protectionist policies to address anything involving human rights. I maintain that costs of production from poor labor conditions have an impact on competition in global markets. This is like industry affects on the environment, I would say from my ideological perspective that environmental issues matter even though they often have a negative affect in offering the lowest price possible for production. I realize not everyone agrees with me.

The China/Walmart issue was discussed during the 2nd hour of Al Franken's show today. There should be a rerun of it very early Saturday morning, if you get access to it and see this in time. I'm not just making up my side of the argument and it's clear that Walmart is concerned about bad press, as they run a lot of commercials that specifically serve the purpose of showing them as having a positive impact on communities, while they have been prevented from building stores in a number of instances due to concerns. The portion on Franken also discusses a little about the book China, Inc. which I have only read excerpts from so far, but apparently greatly addresses much of what my concerns are.

Have fun at Ultra!

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 This:

Ah ok. That clears things up somewhat. However, I would still argue that lobbying efforts hardly dictate worker wages. An efficient company would in all liklihood set wages at a level comensurate with demand. Any imbalances of an efficient market caused by lobbying would liklihood go into profits or other cost measures such as additional lobbying efforts.

quote:

Ah, here we go with clearing things up. My goals are both and I was addressing issues on A & B, but not advocating policies for B to resolve A. You said yourself that education is the solution to much of the issues for B. I agreed with you, but I don't see that solution being enacted, so any talk of protectionism was related to what should be done right now for workers who are in transition. To say that education is needed, isn't occurring, but then there aren't any negatives from the lack of it, means we really wouldn't need education. Protectionism wouldn't be the best long term policy and wouldn have negative economic impact, but I only brought it up because of my belief that workers are affected right now without greater efforts to educate them. This is where a concern regarding a country like India would come into play, India is certainly not providing harsh labor standards against technical support workers, but my points here were directed at waht I consider a lack of education we are providing our own workers, young and old, as even some skilled positions are outsourced. Many countries with gross human rights violations would not be able to compete for these jobs, as most don't provide appropriate education to their workers to do so. 'A' arguements were completely unlrelated to protectionism. At no time in the debate did I intend for protectionist policies to address anything involving human rights. I maintain that costs of production from poor labor conditions have an impact on competition in global markets. This is like industry affects on the environment, I would say from my ideological perspective that environmental issues matter even though they often have a negative affect in offering the lowest price possible for production. I realize not everyone agrees with me. The China/Walmart issue was discussed during the 2nd hour of Al Franken's show today. There should be a rerun of it very early Saturday morning, if you get access to it and see this in time. I'm not just making up my side of the argument and it's clear that Walmart is concerned about bad press, as they run a lot of commercials that specifically serve the purpose of showing them as having a positive impact on communities, while they have been prevented from building stores in a number of instances due to concerns. The portion on Franken also discusses a little about the book China, Inc. which I have only read excerpts from so far, but apparently greatly addresses much of what my concerns are. Have fun at Ultra!

The purpose of my argument wasn't to delve into the specifics of Wal-Mart's case. However, if they were to acquire their products through legitimate means than I would argue that that would be good for the US economy even if that were to put local distributors, who couldn't compete with Wal-Mart's efficiency, out of busines. As for temporary protection of workers through quotas and tarrifs, if one were legtimately concerned with solving the problem as opposed to the symptoms of the problem, it would seem more economically efficient to levy sanctions or criminal fines on US companies that are found in violation of labor laws as opposed to industry wide trade protectionisms.

Ultra was awesome by the way ...

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by Dupz No offence taken mate, it's all good . Rest assured though, I wrote my reply exactly how I intended. Tariffs are bad for even the domestic economy (as well as the economy that's exporting stuff to your country, obviously). There is a redistribution of economic surplus AWAY from the consumer, and given TO the producer. However, the loss of consumer surplus is ALWAYS greater than the gain by producers because of the existence of a what is called "dead weight losses". The economic impact of tariffs is show in a simple example, below: To explain, we see that domestic production of the good increases from Q1 to Q2. yay for domestic producers. The quantity of the foreign good decreases from Q4 to Q3. boo for foreign producers. We have an increase in government revenue equal to the red-shaded area. BUT we have created a dead weight loss equal to the two triangles either side of the red-shaded rectangle (the triangles ACE and BDF). It is the existence of this that proves that the loss to consumers is ALWAYS greater than the gain to consumers, leaving society worse off.

True in general, although there is a theoretical exception. Namely, if a country is sufficiently large, as to be able to affect world prices, then a positive optimal tarrif exists. In this case, the terms of trade gains will exceed the the losses from consumption distortion and production distortion caused by the imposition of the tarrif, resulting in a net gain in national welfare. Realistically though, this would probably lead to retaliation by other countries and the benefits would soon be discipated.

quote:

Originally posted by .montecarlo. True in general, although there is a theoretical exception. Namely, if a country is sufficiently large, as to be able to affect world prices, then a positive optimal tarrif exists. In this case, the terms of trade gains will exceed the the losses from consumption distortion and production distortion caused by the imposition of the tarrif, resulting in a net gain in national welfare. Realistically though, this would probably lead to retaliation by other countries and the benefits would soon be discipated.

hmmmm... i forgot about that..
Thanks for the point though, I dont mind being proven wrong on economic theory every now and then

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 (Not directed at Occrider)On minimum wage, if you factor in inflation and put the amount in constant dollars, a $1 increase is quite modest since the current rate was set in 1996. Otherwise the price increases of the economy outperforms the income of the people who make minimum wage and they perpetually fall further behind at the same job. By claiming that a $1 or $2 increase comes at the expense of the number of available jobs, why would it be better to have more jobs at $4/hr continually being worth less with each passing year when that is even further from reaching the poverty line? Shouldn't the businesses that employ these people be keeping up with the rate of inflation? They're doomed to ultimately fail or else continually decrease their costs, including worker's wages, in order to stay in buisness if they don't . If people at the lower end see their wages in constant dollars decrease, I'm not sure why the economic growth is considered beneficial to them at it's current pace if their incomes cannot keep up and they are not receiving proper re-education to gain higher skilled employment.

I'm not sure how high you propose the minimum wage should be, but you should consider the fact that the higher the minimum wage is, the higher is the incentive for firms to substitute capital for labour in the long-run. The result would be even less jobs for unskilled workers, futhering the problem that you are worried about in the first place.