CDZ American workers competing with "world" workers

[Tehon]

So, open question. What benefit is there to America or Americans by Modeling being internationally competitive?

There is no benefit that I am aware of.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well the corporate community is made up of shareholders and workers who are from all over. The US lives in the international environment, it makes a lot of money from being a big international player. The dollar is stable and important because of this. After a hundred years of getting richer screwing others over, the US suddenly finds other countries making money, and then the people get angry at this.

Instead of rising up to the challenge of competing (you know, the concept of capitalism), the US is looking for ways to stay ahead that make no sense at all.

After a hundred years of getting richer screwing others over, the US suddenly finds other countries making money, and then the people get angry at this.

Who is mad about that?

Instead of rising up to the challenge of competing (you know, the concept of capitalism), the US is looking for ways to stay ahead that make no sense at all.

It makes no sense to you because you keep thinking in terms of national interest when the players involved have evolved into a new way of thinking. They have little use for national interest, aside from keeping the unit of currency that they conduct business in strong.

Who is getting mad? Well, people like Trump calling for protectionism and shying away from international capitalism they had trumpeted for a long time.

It makes no sense to me because people are willing to think differently, in ways that don't really make much sense at all. You're not wrong. However if the people controlled govt, it might be different, but they don't, and Trump saying he is the people is just a slap in the face for the people.

However if the people controlled govt, it might be different, but they don't, and Trump saying he is the people is just a slap in the face for the people.

Yes! But the people aren't perceptive enough nor intellectually honest enough to see it.
We don't educate our people because we (the people) don't demand it. We still believe our politicians have our best interests at heart. They don't. They represent the capital interests that support them financially. And those interests have no concern whether Americans are educated or not because the labor pool has been expanded by free market ideology.

And the people don't demand it because the rich tell them that they don't need it. The right especially work off people not knowing things and not caring. The less intelligent they are, the more they're going to support war, the war which makes the defense industry rich, which gives lots of money to politicians who support the defense industry. They tell people money is the only thing that is important and the people believe.

And the people don't demand it because the rich tell them that they don't need it.

Yes, and the people are kept in a constant state of confusion. And for that you can't discount what is typically thought of as a liberal institution, the media. Print or otherwise, they have all succumbed to corporate pressures.

Well the media IS CORPORATE. It's not that they've succumbed, it is that they are it.

You have Walt Disney, 21st Century Fox, New Corp, Time Warner and the like.

ABC is Disney, CBS is owned by National Amusements which also owns Viacom and Paramount Picture, which is owned by Sumner Redstone, worth $5 billion, Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, say no more, MSNBC is owned by Comcast which is the largest broadcasting company by revenue.

I mean, I could go on all day.

Newspapers are better in this regard, slightly, the NY Times is owned by various people including Carlos Slim, formerly richest person in the world, and the Sulzburger Family. But with all the shareholders it's still not that much better.

 

[Tehon]

Who is mad about that?
It makes no sense to you because you keep thinking in terms of national interest when the players involved have evolved into a new way of thinking. They have little use for national interest, aside from keeping the unit of currency that they conduct business in strong.

Who is getting mad? Well, people like Trump calling for protectionism and shying away from international capitalism they had trumpeted for a long time.

It makes no sense to me because people are willing to think differently, in ways that don't really make much sense at all. You're not wrong. However if the people controlled govt, it might be different, but they don't, and Trump saying he is the people is just a slap in the face for the people.

However if the people controlled govt, it might be different, but they don't, and Trump saying he is the people is just a slap in the face for the people.

Yes! But the people aren't perceptive enough nor intellectually honest enough to see it.
We don't educate our people because we (the people) don't demand it. We still believe our politicians have our best interests at heart. They don't. They represent the capital interests that support them financially. And those interests have no concern whether Americans are educated or not because the labor pool has been expanded by free market ideology.

And the people don't demand it because the rich tell them that they don't need it. The right especially work off people not knowing things and not caring. The less intelligent they are, the more they're going to support war, the war which makes the defense industry rich, which gives lots of money to politicians who support the defense industry. They tell people money is the only thing that is important and the people believe.

And the people don't demand it because the rich tell them that they don't need it.

Yes, and the people are kept in a constant state of confusion. And for that you can't discount what is typically thought of as a liberal institution, the media. Print or otherwise, they have all succumbed to corporate pressures.

Well the media IS CORPORATE. It's not that they've succumbed, it is that they are it.

You have Walt Disney, 21st Century Fox, New Corp, Time Warner and the like.

ABC is Disney, CBS is owned by National Amusements which also owns Viacom and Paramount Picture, which is owned by Sumner Redstone, worth $5 billion, Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, say no more, MSNBC is owned by Comcast which is the largest broadcasting company by revenue.

I mean, I could go on all day.

Newspapers are better in this regard, slightly, the NY Times is owned by various people including Carlos Slim, formerly richest person in the world, and the Sulzburger Family. But with all the shareholders it's still not that much better.

You're right.

 

[Correll]

So, open question. What benefit is there to America or Americans by Modeling being internationally competitive?

There is no benefit that I am aware of.

I agree.

 

[Onyx]

No they don't. Without protections the capitalist economic system collapses due to its inherent contradictions. True story.

The only people protectionism protects are those engaged in wasteful and unsustainable behavior. True story.

If you enact external assistance/restrictions with the goal of protecting a non-competitive dying industry, then the members of that industry will never reform or innovate. They will continue to engage in the wasteful and unsustainable behavior that caused them to need protection in the first place.

Let's not pretend protection doesn't have a cost either. Assistance for a failing business always comes out of the pockets of a thriving business. It's redistribution of wealth from the productive to unproductive.

 

[Correll]

No they don't. Without protections the capitalist economic system collapses due to its inherent contradictions. True story.

The only people protectionism protects are those engaged in wasteful and unsustainable behavior. True story.

If you enact external assistance/restrictions with the goal of protecting a non-competitive dying industry, then the members of that industry will never reform or innovate. They will continue to engage in the wasteful and unsustainable behavior that caused them to need protection in the first place.

Let's not pretend protection doesn't have a cost either. Assistance for a failing business always comes out of the pockets of a thriving business. It's redistribution of wealth from the productive to unproductive.

If in the example of the OP, the modeling agencies did NOT have access to Third World models, for those specific shoots, do you think that they could not have found suitable models of American citizenship and paid THEM to do the job?

How would that have led to non-competition?

 

[Onyx]

If in the example of the OP, the modeling agencies did NOT have access to Third World models, for those specific shoots, do you think that they could not have found suitable models of American citizenship and paid THEM to do the job?

How would that have led to non-competition?

It's still establishing an abstract barrier to competition in the marketplace. If you give special privileges to one arbitrary group of people, and everyone outside that group lacks the same special privileges, then the outside group will learn to grow on the sole basis of sustainable and productive behavior.

Do you consider yourself anti-socialist? Then why do you want your government to protect you from the harsh realities of a free market? Are you really that special and entitled that you need to be sheltered from 95% of the global marketplace?

 

[Correll]

If in the example of the OP, the modeling agencies did NOT have access to Third World models, for those specific shoots, do you think that they could not have found suitable models of American citizenship and paid THEM to do the job?

How would that have led to non-competition?

It's still establishing an abstract barrier to competition in the marketplace. If you give special privileges to one arbitrary group of people, and everyone outside that group lacks the same special privileges, then the outside group will learn to grow on the sole basis of sustainable and productive behavior.

Do you consider yourself anti-socialist? Then why do you want your government to protect you from the harsh realities of a free market? Are you really that special and entitled that you need to be sheltered from 95% of the global marketplace?

I'm well aware of the theory.

The OP referenced a real world concrete example.

I have asked you how your theory would manifest in this example.

What I got from you, instead of an explanation how that would happen, was some abstract musings and some varying appeals to emotion (anti-socialist? entitled?).


In my scenario of restricted Immigration, or "protectionism", the advertisers who wanted certain ethnic models would have to find and recruit those models from American citizens.

This would end up providing high paying jobs to American Citizens instead of foreign competitors.


That is American policy being crafted with an eye to serving American interests.

 

[Tehon]

No they don't. Without protections the capitalist economic system collapses due to its inherent contradictions. True story.

The only people protectionism protects are those engaged in wasteful and unsustainable behavior. True story.

If you enact external assistance/restrictions with the goal of protecting a non-competitive dying industry, then the members of that industry will never reform or innovate. They will continue to engage in the wasteful and unsustainable behavior that caused them to need protection in the first place.

Let's not pretend protection doesn't have a cost either. Assistance for a failing business always comes out of the pockets of a thriving business. It's redistribution of wealth from the productive to unproductive.

Except my point was not to protect failing businesses or industries within an economy. It is to protect the economy itself, to ensure that it functions for the greater good of society at large and not just for the few who acquire enough capital to game the system, like we have now.

 

[Onyx]

I'm well aware of the theory.

What theory? This has been treated as fact by contemporary economists for the past 100 years.

In my scenario of restricted Immigration, or "protectionism", the advertisers who wanted certain ethnic models would have to find and recruit those models from American citizens.

This would end up providing high paying jobs to American Citizens instead of foreign competitors.

Sheltering American models from competing with foreign models would reduce the productivity of the agencies hiring them. American models would be hired on the basis of privilege and not merit.

It would be in the interests of an American modeling agency to hire whomever would do the best job, since that would increase their profits and in turn allow them to expand. Expansion means the creation of more high paying jobs.

Although the entire premise of your argument is stupid to begin with. Only elitist morons care which person from which imaginary subset of human beings gets what job.

 

[Onyx]

It is to protect the economy itself, to ensure that it functions for the greater good of society at large and not just for the few who acquire enough capital to game the system, like we have now.

If you want to protect the economy, then don't shelter it from hardship. That will only grow dependency and unproductivity from within. In modern times, states bail out

I don't disagree that there is a bloated aristocratic class that games the system. The most surefire way to weed them out is to eliminate the system in which they game. Not expand it.

 

[Tehon]

If you want to protect the economy, then don't shelter it from hardship. That will only grow dependency and unproductivity from within. In modern times, states bail out

I qualified what I meant by protecting the economy, and again, it has nothing to do with bailing it out.

I don't disagree that there is a bloated aristocratic class that games the system. The most surefire way to weed them out is to eliminate the system in which they game. Not expand it.

The system they are gaming is the capitalist system. Neo liberal or free market ideology is making it possible. And I am more than okay with eliminating it or radically modifying it.

 

[Correll]

I'm well aware of the theory.

What theory? This has been treated as fact by contemporary economists for the past 100 years.

And yet, recent results of economic policies based on those theories has NOT produced the expected results.

In my scenario of restricted Immigration, or "protectionism", the advertisers who wanted certain ethnic models would have to find and recruit those models from American citizens.

This would end up providing high paying jobs to American Citizens instead of foreign competitors.

Sheltering American models from competing with foreign models would reduce the productivity of the agencies hiring them. American models would be hired on the basis of privilege and not merit.

What "productivity"? They are MODELS. They WEAR CLOTHING. THe only difference is that AMERICAN models would be the ones getting the pay checks.

It would be in the interests of an American modeling agency to hire whomever would do the best job, since that would increase their profits and in turn allow them to expand. Expansion means the creation of more high paying jobs.

Yes, there is a benefit to the agency, having a larger talent pool to draw from, and thus likely easier hiring and lower labor costs.

But what of the interests of the far larger numbers of American Models? And to America at large by having more of that money staying inside of the national economy for longer?

Although the entire premise of your argument is stupid to begin with. Only elitist morons care which person from which imaginary subset of human beings gets what job.

NOpe. ONly "elitists morons" pretend that nations are imaginary and that they do not hold any connection to or benefits from being part of one or more of these "Groups".

 

[Onyx]

And yet, recent results of economic policies based on those theories has NOT produced the expected results.

False! Since the international abandonment of protectionist policies during the Great Depression, we have witnessed incredible growth to the worlds economies.

Yes, there is a benefit to the agency, having a larger talent pool to draw from, and thus likely easier hiring and lower labor costs.

But what of the interests of the far larger numbers of American Models? And to America at large by having more of that money staying inside of the national economy for longer?

The number one priority of the agency should be to make money. Even you just acknowledged that a more competitive labor pool drives down costs.

This added productivity leads to greater profits, which allows the creation of more jobs.

NOpe. ONly "elitists morons" pretend that nations are imaginary and that they do not hold any connection to or benefits from being part of one or more of these "Groups".

No use meandering. They are completely imaginary, and only serve to divide people and ruin greater economic productivity.

Drop your entitlement complex and stop whining for special privileges. You are a grown ass man that sounds like a spoiled brat!

 

[Correll]

And yet, recent results of economic policies based on those theories has NOT produced the expected results.

False! Since the international abandonment of protectionist policies during the Great Depression, we have witnessed incredible growth to the worlds economies.

Yes, there is a benefit to the agency, having a larger talent pool to draw from, and thus likely easier hiring and lower labor costs.

But what of the interests of the far larger numbers of American Models? And to America at large by having more of that money staying inside of the national economy for longer?

The number one priority of the agency should be to make money. Even you just acknowledged that a more competitive labor pool drives down costs.

This added productivity leads to greater profits, which allows the creation of more jobs.

NOpe. ONly "elitists morons" pretend that nations are imaginary and that they do not hold any connection to or benefits from being part of one or more of these "Groups".

No use meandering. They are completely imaginary, and only serve to divide people and ruin greater economic productivity.

With that said, abandon your entitlement complex and stop whining for special privileges. You are about as important as the rest of them.

[/QUOTE]




1. Nope. The Free Trade of the 70s and 80s were supposed to make US manufacturing more competitive and the displaced workers were supposed to, fairly quickly, be retrained for the new higher tech more competitive economy.

THat did not happen.

2. Yes, we agree that the AGENCY'S INTERESTS are served by this global hiring. But how does that compare to the benefit to the AMERICAN MODELS'S INTEREST'S?

To judge an American government policy, you have to judge how many AMERICANS it benefits vs. harms.


3. Nations are not imaginary. Try to be less crazy.

the definition of nation

noun
1.
a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that issufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a governmentpeculiarly its own:
The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.





4. That you see no value to nations does not mean they do not exist. Americans elect their national government and have a right to see their interests represented in national government policy.

Such as international labor flow.

 

[Onyx]

1. Nope. The Free Trade of the 70s and 80s were supposed to make US manufacturing more competitive and the displaced workers were supposed to, fairly quickly, be retrained for the new higher tech more competitive economy.

First off, the US never shifted from its free trade policy during the 70s and 80s. Who made the argument that free trade was supposed to make US manufacturing more competitive? Sounds like you are just making shit up.

I don't appreciate the history revisionism. The largest skyrocket to the US economy came after the creation of NAFTA and several free trade deals with China in the nineties.

2. Yes, we agree that the AGENCY'S INTERESTS are served by this global hiring. But how does that compare to the benefit to the AMERICAN MODELS'S INTEREST'S?

For the record, you just conceded that a competitive labor pool increases productivity.

As the agency grows and expands, so does the number of people they can hire, as well as the pay/benefits of those hired. Since you have a hard on for imaginary abstractions, this particular modelling agency could be American.

3. Nations are not imaginary. Try to be less crazy.

They are social constructions invented by human beings. They are not empirically justified, and completely arbitrary.

Value matters too. You are making the argument that there should be nonsense barriers to economic productivity, due to imaginary concepts that have no basis in reality.

 

[Correll]

1. Nope. The Free Trade of the 70s and 80s were supposed to make US manufacturing more competitive and the displaced workers were supposed to, fairly quickly, be retrained for the new higher tech more competitive economy.

First off, the US never shifted from its free trade policy during the 70s and 80s. Who made the argument that free trade was supposed to make US manufacturing more competitive? Sounds like you are just making shit up.

I don't appreciate the history revisionism. The largest skyrocket to the US economy came after the creation of NAFTA and several free trade deals with China in the nineties.

The jobs lost to Japanese cars and steel were supposed to "come back" or be replaced with new "high tech" jobs.

Instead the Rust Belt just rusted more and more.

2. Yes, we agree that the AGENCY'S INTERESTS are served by this global hiring. But how does that compare to the benefit to the AMERICAN MODELS'S INTEREST'S?

For the record, you just conceded that a competitive labor pool increases productivity.[/QUOTE]


For the record, I agreed that the AGENCY'S INTERESTS were served by this global labor market.

Saving money by paying lower wages, may be counted in many stats as "increased productivity" but it is not the type of productivity to celebrate.

As the agency grows and expands, so does the number of people they can hire, as well as the pay/benefits of those hired. Since you have a hard on for imaginary abstractions, this particular modelling agency could be American.

Would restricting their hiring to AMERICAN models really retard growth that much? Are there really that few attractive American women who can wear clothes?

And do you agree that there are more MODELS than people who represent them? Thus the interests of the AMERICAN models would or should count more than of the AGENCIES?

3. Nations are not imaginary. Try to be less crazy.

They are social constructions invented by human beings. They are not empirically justified, and completely arbitrary.

Value matters too. You are making the argument that there should be nonsense barriers to economic productivity, due to imaginary concepts that have no basis in reality.[/QUOTE]


Culture is real. Ideology is real. Economic and political systems are real. Paradigms are real.

Basing your economic policy on denial of reality, as you are pushing, is an grossly irresponsible act.

Americans elect their national government and have a right to see their interests represented in national government policy.

 

[Onyx]

The jobs lost to Japanese cars and steel were supposed to "come back" or be replaced with new "high tech" jobs.

Which forced American auto manufacturers to produce better cars at lower prices.

Not to mention that Japan brought tons of factories into America to lower costs. Most of the foreign cars you see on the road were made in America.

For the record, I agreed that the AGENCY'S INTERESTS were served by this global labor market.

Saving money by paying lower wages, may be counted in many stats as "increased productivity" but it is not the type of productivity to celebrate.

If the US government adopted the protectionist policies you wanted, then there wouldn't be any jobs. Low production and labor costs is what allowed the American economy to expand so rapidly. What you really want is regressive growth.

Your argument translates perfectly to a pro minimum wage position btw. Don't you guys argue that an increase in wages would raise prices and decrease growth? Same concept with raising tariffs and enacting restrictions on offshoring/immigration.

Would restricting their hiring to AMERICAN models really retard growth that much?

Why would you want to retard growth at all? You're making retarded arguments.

And do you agree that there are more MODELS than people who represent them? Thus the interests of the AMERICAN models would or should count more than of the AGENCIES?

Irrelevant. As the industry grows and more representative positions are created, the more opportunities in which models have access.

Culture is real. Ideology is real. Economic and political systems are real. Paradigms are real.

If you are denying that nations are arbitrary classifications of human beings, then you are the one waging war on reality. Social constructions are not empirically justified, and that is a cold hard fact.

Furthermore, you have yet to prove why these arbitrary classifications of human beings should be considered in economic dialogue. I could care less if someone in Jakarta gets the job over someone in Massachusetts. It doesn't fucking matter, because it's all in your head.

 

[Dekster]

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.

milk jugs of water

I'm going to have to remember that one. I know will come the day when that is the perfect punchline to something.

Here's a guy milking a cow for water to put in his jug.

Perhaps you had in mind the good old days when America was great.

For many a milman, the perqs beat the pay.
For many a woman, the milkman made their day.
That's easy to understand in every way,
For "comes" twice is of the milkman what wives say.​

Models get visa priority as people of extraordinary talent. The people wondering through the desert with milk jugs of water not so much.

Please, tell me you don't seriously mean/think that.

What has visa priority to do with anything pertaining to Americans being able to compete in a global labor market? Nothing.

• VISA Free Countries For US Citizens - Global Immigration

Americans can go to the overwhelming majority of nations on the planet and upon presenting a U.S. passport, be instantly welcomed into the country. A woman from a nation where are routinely found "people wondering [sic] through the desert with milk jugs of water" literally lacks the freedom of movement about the planet to compete on a level playing field with American models.

Just how long do you think the window is between a designer starting the model selection process and actually selecting one? Long enough for a beautiful woman from a "milk jugs of water" country to apply for a visa, be "extremely vetted" and then show up to audition? No, they aren't going to wait that long to interview a woman who, for all the designer knows, isn't any better or worse than any other model whom they may select.

If there's anyone who's most able to compete in a global labor market, it's Americans, not people from "milk jugs of water" countries.


The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious; but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself.
-- Ecclesiastes 10:12

That you can enter without a visa has no bearing on whether or not you can work there, and yes models get green card priority in the US.

 

[Correll]

The jobs lost to Japanese cars and steel were supposed to "come back" or be replaced with new "high tech" jobs.

Which forced American auto manufacturers to produce better cars at lower prices.

Not to mention that Japan brought tons of factories into America to lower costs. Most of the foreign cars you see on the road were made in America.

THe Trade imbalance is hugely tilted against US. Japan has become a First World nation off of trade surpluses with US.

So has South Korea. China is in the process of doing that. Europe has greatly benefited from this trade.

Meanwhile, Detroit is an Apocalyptic Wasteland.

For the record, I agreed that the AGENCY'S INTERESTS were served by this global labor market.

Saving money by paying lower wages, may be counted in many stats as "increased productivity" but it is not the type of productivity to celebrate.

If the US government adopted the protectionist policies you wanted, then there wouldn't be any jobs. Low production and labor costs is what allowed the American economy to expand so rapidly. What you really want is regressive growth.

Your argument translates perfectly to a pro minimum wage position btw. Don't you guys argue that an increase in wages would raise prices and decrease growth? Same concept with raising tariffs and enacting restrictions on offshoring/immigration. [/QUOTE]


I want growth in jobs and wages for American workers.

Would restricting their hiring to AMERICAN models really retard growth that much?

Why would you want to retard growth at all? You're making retarded arguments.[/QUOTE]


I asked a question. We have an example we are discussing. YOu are claiming that restricting modeling agencies access to international labor would retard growth of the agencies.

I don't see that having to use and thus PAY American women would be that much of a handicap for American modeling agencies.

And do you agree that there are more MODELS than people who represent them? Thus the interests of the AMERICAN models would or should count more than of the AGENCIES?

Irrelevant. As the industry grows and more representative positions are created, the more opportunities in which models have access.[/QUOTE]


1. Dismissing the interests of the American workers is not an answer. My point stands. There are more American models than there are American modeling agencies and thus their interests should count for more.

2. I see that you claim that the global labor market is serving the interests of the American model. Can you support that or is that just an ideological assumption on your part?

Culture is real. Ideology is real. Economic and political systems are real. Paradigms are real.

If you are denying that nations are arbitrary classifications of human beings, then you are the one waging war on reality. Social constructions are not empirically justified, and that is a cold hard fact.[/QUOTE]


Your lack of any feeling of national loyalty does not mean that it does not exist. Your inability or unwillingness to understand that the vast majority of humanity identifies as a member of some nation, does not mean that it is not the case.

That you reject or disagree with the reasons that people have, does not make those reasons invalid or "arbitrary".

Furthermore, you have yet to prove why these arbitrary classifications of human beings should be considered in economic dialogue. I could care less if someone in Jakarta gets the job over someone in Massachusetts. It doesn't fucking matter, because it's all in your head.

It matters to that American citizen who does or does NOT get that job.

It matter to everyone who identifies as an American and thus feels some group loyalty to that person.

Multiply that by national policy and you have whole communities that are greatly impacted, and over the last few generations, mostly negatively.

People have and are DYING because of the economic harm caused by government policy made by people, like you, who have no sense of group loyalty to the people in these communities.

I live in a Rust Belt City. I have seen people lives fucked up by these polices, permanently and irrevocably.


It matters.