CDZ American workers competing with "world" workers

[usmbguest5318]

Last evening I dropped in on my son and found that he was hosting a party. It seems that my son is friends with a lot of fashion models....Well, "a lot" is probably the wrong term; there were seven that I met. Not big name ones, per se, but working ones nonetheless.

In chatting with his modeling friends I discovered that modeling in the fashion industry is a work situation in which the workers, the models, regardless of where they are from, compete with peers all over the world to get jobs. A designer wants models for a runway event or print engagement and the models who end up being chosen may be from a dozen different countries. American, French, Spanish, Italian, Ethiopian, South African, Mexican, Argentine, etc.models all competing to get the same job.

I thought that was interesting because I have seen folks on here griping about the challenges of competing with foreign labor. I think the complaints are nothing more than the bitching and moaning of people who just aren't willing to do what they need to do to competitively offer labor that buyers want to purchase.

Then, quite by chance, I come upon a small bevy of women who are very much regular women -- aside from being really good looking -- and who to get a job compete against foreign workers from around the world and on the most personal level possible, and they're thriving and making good livings. Do they get every modeling assignment they try for? No, but they keep at it and they get enough to make a decent living (the range is rather large, but the girls at the party ranged from ~$110K/year to $300K/year). Frankly, that's not bad money for being 18 to 20-something.

 

[Toronado3800]

This competition is a double edged sword. Long run / short run type thing.

In the long run the competition will raise the standard of living in the new "lower paying" country and create a new market for goods.

In the short term, poof. I can make a car on the other side of the world saving on employee costs and ship it here for less than I can make it here.

In the short term, imagine if the gal from "Packswanistanopia" could not compete with the other models for the next job. Then there would be less competition for the next job and you'd have to pay more to the remaining girl.

In the long run the new country on the market sucking jobs from the established one will have a higher tax base and be able to build equal nuclear submarines or whatever.

Good for your son to have soo many gals hanging about. Sounds like at least most were pretty reasonable to talk with. Double bonus.

 

[Tehon]

Manufacturing jobs vs modeling jobs. Talk about a fallacious comparison.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Manufacturing jobs vs modeling jobs. Talk about a fallacious comparison.

The comparison I made isn't that of manufacturing to modeling, but rather that of one group of people identifying that be their marketable ability and then selling it to people who want to buy it, and another group of people not doing the same.

I was also noting that the competition for a given job cannot be more profound than that of one person literally and directly having to compete with another for a given job. For the models I met, when they go on a job interview, they compete with women from around the world and they succeed. Moreover, they often enough have to leave their home geography to get work, and guess what, that's what they do because that's where the work is. In other instances, they may have to accept work assignments they don't like doing, but they do it because they need to get paid.

Why should one not expect that same work ethic from all workers? I've done the same. I've taken assignments overseas, across the country, in the middle of the country, etc. because the client who wanted my labor was overseas and there wasn't one in my hometown who did. I needed to get paid, so I went where the work was.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Good for your son to have soo many gals hanging about. Sounds like at least most were pretty reasonable to talk with. Double bonus.

OT:
Well, he's in college. There're going to swarms of women around him in any case. Even so, I suspect he will never want for female attention. I have to give him props; he's got far more "game" than I did at his age.

 

[Tehon]

Manufacturing jobs vs modeling jobs. Talk about a fallacious comparison.

The comparison I made isn't that of manufacturing to modeling, but rather that of one group of people identifying that be their marketable ability and then selling it to people who want to buy it, and another group of people not doing the same.

I was also noting that the competition for a given job cannot be more profound than that of one person literally and directly having to compete with another for a given job. For the models I met, when they go on a job interview, they compete with women from around the world and they succeed. Moreover, they often enough have to leave their home geography to get work, and guess what, that's what they do because that's where the work is. In other instances, they may have to accept work assignments they don't like doing, but they do it because they need to get paid.

Why should one not expect that same work ethic from all workers? I've done the same. I've taken assignments overseas, across the country, in the middle of the country, etc. because the client who wanted my labor was overseas and there wasn't one in my hometown who did. I needed to get paid, so I went where the work was.

Standing looking pretty on a temporary assignment is a far cry from the requirements of uprooting your life for a job in China or wherever. Or do you only expect the lazy SOBs to commute.

 

[usmbguest5318]

In the short term, imagine if the gal from "Packswanistanopia" could not compete with the other models for the next job. Then there would be less competition for the next job and you'd have to pay more to the remaining girl.

I get what you're saying, but models in these girls league are basically a commodity, breathing mobile mannequins. There's no shortage of supply. At higher levels in that industry, where there's a perceived difference between what returns a supermodel delivers, vs. what a non-supermodel would, and even between "this" supermodel and "that" one, the competitive aspects you describe apply because the economic structure at that level is monopolistic competition rather than the more nearly perfect competition that my son's friends experience.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Manufacturing jobs vs modeling jobs. Talk about a fallacious comparison.

The comparison I made isn't that of manufacturing to modeling, but rather that of one group of people identifying that be their marketable ability and then selling it to people who want to buy it, and another group of people not doing the same.

I was also noting that the competition for a given job cannot be more profound than that of one person literally and directly having to compete with another for a given job. For the models I met, when they go on a job interview, they compete with women from around the world and they succeed. Moreover, they often enough have to leave their home geography to get work, and guess what, that's what they do because that's where the work is. In other instances, they may have to accept work assignments they don't like doing, but they do it because they need to get paid.

Why should one not expect that same work ethic from all workers? I've done the same. I've taken assignments overseas, across the country, in the middle of the country, etc. because the client who wanted my labor was overseas and there wasn't one in my hometown who did. I needed to get paid, so I went where the work was.

Standing looking pretty on a temporary assignment is a far cry from the requirements of uprooting your life for a job in China or wherever. Or do you only expect the lazy SOBs to commute.

I'm not a lazy SOB, and I commuted between job sites all over the world. As I said quite clearly, I did the same thing; I went where the work was.

 

[Tehon]

Manufacturing jobs vs modeling jobs. Talk about a fallacious comparison.

The comparison I made isn't that of manufacturing to modeling, but rather that of one group of people identifying that be their marketable ability and then selling it to people who want to buy it, and another group of people not doing the same.

I was also noting that the competition for a given job cannot be more profound than that of one person literally and directly having to compete with another for a given job. For the models I met, when they go on a job interview, they compete with women from around the world and they succeed. Moreover, they often enough have to leave their home geography to get work, and guess what, that's what they do because that's where the work is. In other instances, they may have to accept work assignments they don't like doing, but they do it because they need to get paid.

Why should one not expect that same work ethic from all workers? I've done the same. I've taken assignments overseas, across the country, in the middle of the country, etc. because the client who wanted my labor was overseas and there wasn't one in my hometown who did. I needed to get paid, so I went where the work was.

Standing looking pretty on a temporary assignment is a far cry from the requirements of uprooting your life for a job in China or wherever. Or do you only expect the lazy SOBs to commute.

I'm not a lazy SOB, and I commuted between job sites all over the world. As I said quite clearly, I did the same thing; I went where the work was.

Everyone is not pretty enough to be a model. Nor does everyone have the same level of intelligence and or abilities as do you. You can see that right? That's why you are here.

You are saying that people of lesser ability can get fucked if they can't figure out how to make the economy work for themselves. Or in other words people are subservient to the economy.

The economy that once served the people of this country and helped build this country into the greatest nation on earth has now outgrown its shores. And the effects are glaring. From decaying infrastructure to a bloated prison system and even in our dysfunctional political arena the economy is shown to be failing the people of this country.

People that have the talents to chase jobs around the globe should have that opportunity but I don't believe that everyone should be expected to do so. I believe the economy is but a tool. A tool that should be tailored to meet the needs of our people here at home. Otherwise erase the borders and stop calling yourselves Americans, because you are not. You're just capitalists in service of the monster that continues to eat it's own.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Last evening I dropped in on my son and found that he was hosting a party. It seems that my son is friends with a lot of fashion models....Well, "a lot" is probably the wrong term; there were seven that I met. Not big name ones, per se, but working ones nonetheless.

In chatting with his modeling friends I discovered that modeling in the fashion industry is a work situation in which the workers, the models, regardless of where they are from, compete with peers all over the world to get jobs. A designer wants models for a runway event or print engagement and the models who end up being chosen may be from a dozen different countries. American, French, Spanish, Italian, Ethiopian, South African, Mexican, Argentine, etc.models all competing to get the same job.

I thought that was interesting because I have seen folks on here griping about the challenges of competing with foreign labor. I think the complaints are nothing more than the bitching and moaning of people who just aren't willing to do what they need to do to competitively offer labor that buyers want to purchase.

Then, quite by chance, I come upon a small bevy of women who are very much regular women -- aside from being really good looking -- and who to get a job compete against foreign workers from around the world and on the most personal level possible, and they're thriving and making good livings. Do they get every modeling assignment they try for? No, but they keep at it and they get enough to make a decent living (the range is rather large, but the girls at the party ranged from ~$110K/year to $300K/year). Frankly, that's not bad money for being 18 to 20-something.

In order to compete with the world, you have to be better than the others, or at least on par.

The funny thing is the right seem to want to dumb down education, rather than beef it up. It's strange, when has less skills been more desirable? It hasn't, it's just the US seems to want to go after lower paid jobs that can make one person richer, and the rest poorer, rather than trying for hi tech jobs where people are better off. It's strange, China is pushing to make their young highly educated, to get better jobs, and the US is going in the opposite direction...

 

[usmbguest5318]

Nor does everyone have the same level of intelligence and or abilities as do you. You can see that right? That's why you are here.

Quite frankly, the very fact that I do participate here has led two of my friends to question whether whatever intelligence they perceived me as having might somehow have migrated from my brain to my digestive track and thereafter expelled, thus giving rise to the saying "brains for sh*t.". LOL

 

[Onyx]

I thought that was interesting because I have seen folks on here griping about the challenges of competing with foreign labor. I think the complaints are nothing more than the bitching and moaning of people who just aren't willing to do what they need to do to competitively offer labor that buyers want to purchase.

In the case with Americans, it is usually just about hating foreigners. Americans have the worse elitism complex.

There really isn't any competition for low wage positions in America, which are the most often filled by immigrants.

 

[OldLady]

Nor does everyone have the same level of intelligence and or abilities as do you. You can see that right? That's why you are here.

Quite frankly, the very fact that I do participate here has led two of my friends to question whether whatever intelligence they perceived me as having might somehow have migrated from my brain to my digestive track and thereafter expelled, thus giving rise to the saying "brains for sh*t.". LOL

Pretty sure it's "sh*t for brains," Xelor.
From what I've read so far, I agree with Tehon that your attitude--that everyone is equally able to meet the demands of a changing economy and tough beans if they don't--is not realistic. Whether we should feel obligated to step in and help those folks who can't compete is a philosophical matter. I can't help myself but want to try. Others feel it is just the way of the world--eat or be eaten, kill or be killed.

 

[Onyx]

Whether we should feel obligated to step in and help those folks who can't compete is a philosophical matter. I can't help myself but want to try. Others feel it is just the way of the world--eat or be eaten, kill or be killed.

We should assist everybody in staying economically productive, but that doesn't mean harmful restrictions should be imposed to protect those that are not.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You are saying that people of lesser ability can get fucked if they can't figure out how to make the economy work for themselves. Or in other words people are subservient to the economy.

Yes, I am, for the most part, a laissez-faire advocate and socioeconomic Darwinist. I understand the implications of that transcend mere economics, and I am well aware they are not all and for all people "pretty," as it were. Nonetheless, the closer national economies get to unrestrained capitalism, the better I like them. I'm not going to pretend to want economic solutions/systems that works for everybody. I'm "good" with one that works very efficiently and effectively for whom it does, knowing that eventually, such a system will produce a society comprised only of people for whom the laissez-faire economy does to a sufficient extent work, even as it may in some instances and for some individuals/groups work better than for others.

Now, one may or may not share my position, but I have no illusory visions of what it is I espouse. Neither do I pretend that it's going to "work" for everyone. I'm sure it won't. I'll do what I can to help people make the model I embrace work for themselves, but I know that even as I do, so won't succeed. I'm certainly not of a mind to prevent someone from succeeding under a laissez-faire system. Indeed, the more who do thrive, the more satisfying shall I find it. I guess, in the end, one might say that while I don't want to see people fail, I'm okay with the fact that, under laissez-faire, some will.

People that have the talents to chase jobs around the globe should have that opportunity but I don't believe that everyone should be expected to do so.

Okay. Well, we differ on that. It's not that I don't understand how and why you think/feel that way. I've studied enough normative labor economics to understand your position quite well. I just don't share your preference in that regard.

I suppose it's worth here noting that I also prefer a "one world" model over the nation state model we have. I think the nation state construct has outlived its usefulness. I think that political boundaries these days do little other than deny people the ability and opportunity to maximize the gains to be had from exploiting their comparative advantage. I think too that the nation state model rudely catalyses people to think in terms of zero-sum outcomes they'd sooner see lead to absolute advantages.

That, IMO, is far worse for far more people than is a fully capitalist system that recognizes that the farmer, though he, his efforts and outputs may not merit the same equilibrium price as might the epidemiologist's, his outputs/efforts should be enough for him to remain a farmer. I think that unrestrained, the market will settle at an equilibrium whereby there are enough farmers to meet demand for their outputs yet not so many that none can earn enough economic profit to remain farmers. The same is so for epidemiologists and every other laborer.

I believe the economy is but a tool.

Well, there again we disagree. I see the economy as an existential thing that left to its own devices works just fine. I see things like national borders as tools used to define sub-economies that power-holders can manipulate/manage to their advantage. That was fine when the world was "smaller." I think the world has changed and with that change has come the time there's no longer any need for the political border tool. We're at a point where we need to begin laying the foundation for being just one global economy that operates absent intervention, other than that of establishing a structure for managing natural monopolies. With a high enough population density, however, there'd even be no need for natural monopolies. The need for direct governance would fall mainly on the management of the land factor of production.

 

[usmbguest5318]

In order to compete with the world, you have to be better than the others, or at least on par.

On par is generally sufficient. Being "better" often, but not always, yields one an incrementally higher equilibrium price for one's labors, but there are rare instances where wildly successful people aren't really better, but they are luckier. Where being "better" has a really huge impact is in the area of being better at observing and analyzing the world around oneself and "finding a hole and filling it" in a way that others hadn't thought to, yet upon seeing one's having done so, they want to pay one to "fill their hole" too. Do you follow what I mean by that?

What I find interesting about that phenomenon is that one need not really be a genius to do it quite effectively. Observant is most of what one needs to be, interested in and committed to solving problems and puzzles is the other thing one most need be.

The funny thing is the right seem to want to dumb down education, rather than beef it up. It's strange, when has less skills been more desirable?

I don't understand that either. Perhaps I should clarify....I understand it from the standpoint of a "zero-summer" wanting to maintain their superiority. As a satisfaction maximizer, however, I don't get it at all.

the US seems to want to go after lower paid jobs that can make one person richer, and the rest poorer, rather than trying for hi tech jobs where people are better off. It's strange, China is pushing to make their young highly educated, to get better jobs, and the US is going in the opposite direction...

Yep, that does appear to be what our current President is advocating, not explicitly but if he effects his campaign promises, doing so can lead to nothing but the outcome you've noted. I can't think of a good reason why that's what he's doing, though I can think of reasons for doing it.

It's especially strange to me as Trump has a B.S. in economics. I have to say that I don't think he was that good a study in economics. I don't because he's so publicly braggadocious that had he graduated with honors from Wharton's undergrad program (he doesn't have a graduate degree), he'd have long ago released his transcript. Were I to guess, I'd say that he finished with a "gentleman's C" as did many people of his social class and who followed professionally in their father's footsteps.

Who knowing that's what they will do wouldn't? I probably wouldn't have worked so hard in school if my father were going to hand me a million dollars to start my own business doing in a different but nearby geography what he did and had taught me to do. If I further stood to inherit hundreds of millions as well, I'd have been a "gentleman's C" student all the way. There'd have been no need to "graduate well."

 

[usmbguest5318]

Pretty sure it's "sh*t for brains," Xelor.

No. They "converted" it to "brains for sh*t." That was part of the joke.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Whether we should feel obligated to step in and help those folks who can't compete is a philosophical matter. I can't help myself but want to try.

I take no issue with that. I just don't care for economic constraints being implemented to do that.

 

[Tehon]

The funny thing is the right seem to want to dumb down education, rather than beef it up. It's strange, when has less skills been more desirable? It hasn't, it's just the US seems to want to go after lower paid jobs that can make one person richer, and the rest poorer, rather than trying for hi tech jobs where people are better off.

There is no need to spend money on educating people you have no intention of employing at a later date. Why would you when you can move capital to any country on the planet and take benefit of a labor force that was educated on someone else's dime, or simply import them.

 

[Tehon]

Whether we should feel obligated to step in and help those folks who can't compete is a philosophical matter. I can't help myself but want to try. Others feel it is just the way of the world--eat or be eaten, kill or be killed.

We should assist everybody in staying economically productive, but that doesn't mean harmful restrictions should be imposed to protect those that are not.

Harmful restrictions on whom? Our society at large or the few who have figured a way to game the value added relationship in the production of goods. The latter is who you are protecting to the detriment of the former.