Protectionism

[kyzr]

while restricting consumption is part of the chinese model, practices which restrict consumption would be a shot in the foot stateside.

the antagon solution is to ween their false economy off of the dollar with rhetoric and by aggressive monetization on our end. its like flexing a muscle when a mosquito is biting you. we will inflate off some debt, improve our export advantage, recover delationary sectors in our economy, invite international investment, shrink our trade deficit....

there are some serious negative side-effects, but let's bask in the upside for a bit.

Your solution isn't a cure, its a new more serious disease, a weak dollar. I prefer that we undo the tax breaks for moving jobs overseas and modernize the US industrial base instead. The best way to reduce the trade deficit is to manufacture more US goods, that increases employment and the tax base.

You realize we manufacture more goods now than we ever have, right?

Agreed that due to productivity gains the US produces more goods in dollar value. Yet the US has lost 3,000,000 manufacturing jobs, and has a huge trade deficit. IMHO we moved way too many jobs/factories overseas. How else do you explain the massive trade deficit and the massive unemployment rate? No jobs = no money = no taxes

 

[The Rabbi]

Your solution isn't a cure, its a new more serious disease, a weak dollar. I prefer that we undo the tax breaks for moving jobs overseas and modernize the US industrial base instead. The best way to reduce the trade deficit is to manufacture more US goods, that increases employment and the tax base.

You realize we manufacture more goods now than we ever have, right?

Agreed that due to productivity gains the US produces more goods in dollar value. Yet the US has lost 3,000,000 manufacturing jobs, and has a huge trade deficit. IMHO we moved way too many jobs/factories overseas. How else do you explain the massive trade deficit and the massive unemployment rate? No jobs = no money = no taxes

The massive unemployment rate is due to the recession. Up until 2008 the rate had been in the 5% range for years.
We have run a trade deficit for all of our history except for some years after WW1 and 2. We don't seem worse off for it.
Yes, employment in manufacturing is down. Same with agriculture. If we had a more dynamic economy those workers would find jobs in emerging industries. But with Obama in charge he will push policies favoring unions and gov't employment.

 

[kyzr]

You realize we manufacture more goods now than we ever have, right?

Agreed that due to productivity gains the US produces more goods in dollar value. Yet the US has lost 3,000,000 manufacturing jobs, and has a huge trade deficit. IMHO we moved way too many jobs/factories overseas. How else do you explain the massive trade deficit and the massive unemployment rate? No jobs = no money = no taxes

The massive unemployment rate is due to the recession. Up until 2008 the rate had been in the 5% range for years.
We have run a trade deficit for all of our history except for some years after WW1 and 2. We don't seem worse off for it.
Yes, employment in manufacturing is down. Same with agriculture. If we had a more dynamic economy those workers would find jobs in emerging industries. But with Obama in charge he will push policies favoring unions and gov't employment.

We disagree on what caused the recession. IMHO it was all due to government policies. First Clinton passed the "Community Reinvestment Act" which gave mortgages to the unqualified. Then the GOP passed the "American Jobs Creation Act" which actually passed tax breaks to move US factories overseas. Soon after the economy collapseddue to both moronic policies and then Obama had to deal with the aftermath. Both parties' policies suck, just in different ways, but neither party has the prosperity of the US worker in mind, just how they can scam the most contributions as whores for Wall Street.

 

[Toro]

Agreed that due to productivity gains the US produces more goods in dollar value. Yet the US has lost 3,000,000 manufacturing jobs, and has a huge trade deficit. IMHO we moved way too many jobs/factories overseas. How else do you explain the massive trade deficit and the massive unemployment rate? No jobs = no money = no taxes

The massive unemployment rate is due to the recession. Up until 2008 the rate had been in the 5% range for years.
We have run a trade deficit for all of our history except for some years after WW1 and 2. We don't seem worse off for it.
Yes, employment in manufacturing is down. Same with agriculture. If we had a more dynamic economy those workers would find jobs in emerging industries. But with Obama in charge he will push policies favoring unions and gov't employment.

We disagree on what caused the recession. IMHO it was all due to government policies. First Clinton passed the "Community Reinvestment Act" which gave mortgages to the unqualified. Then the GOP passed the "American Jobs Creation Act" which actually passed tax breaks to move US factories overseas. Soon after the economy collapseddue to both moronic policies and then Obama had to deal with the aftermath. Both parties' policies suck, just in different ways, but neither party has the prosperity of the US worker in mind, just how they can scam the most contributions as whores for Wall Street.

The cause of this recession is neither the CRA nor the affects of offshoring on the American worker. The cause of this recession was the formation and collapse of the Tech Bubble, which lead to easy monetary policy as a response to the Tech Bubble, which lead to the even bigger Housing Bubble, accentuated by the enormous increase in the amount of debt and leverage in the financial system over the past decade. China's affect was to make everything cheaper and flood the world with savings, giving central bankers free reign to gun the money supply, which filtered into asset markets and worsened the Housing Bubble.

 

[Dr Grump]

What he said ....

 

[The Rabbi]

The massive unemployment rate is due to the recession. Up until 2008 the rate had been in the 5% range for years.
We have run a trade deficit for all of our history except for some years after WW1 and 2. We don't seem worse off for it.
Yes, employment in manufacturing is down. Same with agriculture. If we had a more dynamic economy those workers would find jobs in emerging industries. But with Obama in charge he will push policies favoring unions and gov't employment.

We disagree on what caused the recession. IMHO it was all due to government policies. First Clinton passed the "Community Reinvestment Act" which gave mortgages to the unqualified. Then the GOP passed the "American Jobs Creation Act" which actually passed tax breaks to move US factories overseas. Soon after the economy collapseddue to both moronic policies and then Obama had to deal with the aftermath. Both parties' policies suck, just in different ways, but neither party has the prosperity of the US worker in mind, just how they can scam the most contributions as whores for Wall Street.

The cause of this recession is neither the CRA nor the affects of offshoring on the American worker. The cause of this recession was the formation and collapse of the Tech Bubble, which lead to easy monetary policy as a response to the Tech Bubble, which lead to the even bigger Housing Bubble, accentuated by the enormous increase in the amount of debt and leverage in the financial system over the past decade. China's affect was to make everything cheaper and flood the world with savings, giving central bankers free reign to gun the money supply, which filtered into asset markets and worsened the Housing Bubble.

And since AL Gore invented the Internet, it's all his fault.

I agree that the Fed should have been tightening after 2003 and instead loosened. I remember at the time thinking, no good is going to come from this.
The resultant cheap money made it very profitable to make mortgage loans and sell the securities from them overseas and domestically. Rising prices created a classic asset bubble, which then popped when low quality loans started going bad.
This has been correctly identified as a balance sheet recession, not a lack of demand. The Obama Administration however is blind to the difference and pushes programs to increase demand.

 

[antagon]

while restricting consumption is part of the chinese model, practices which restrict consumption would be a shot in the foot stateside.

the antagon solution is to ween their false economy off of the dollar with rhetoric and by aggressive monetization on our end. its like flexing a muscle when a mosquito is biting you. we will inflate off some debt, improve our export advantage, recover delationary sectors in our economy, invite international investment, shrink our trade deficit....

there are some serious negative side-effects, but let's bask in the upside for a bit.

Your solution isn't a cure, its a new more serious disease, a weak dollar. I prefer that we undo the tax breaks for moving jobs overseas and modernize the US industrial base instead. The best way to reduce the trade deficit is to manufacture more US goods, that increases employment and the tax base.

like i said, there are plenty of negative side-effects, but i argue that this is actually the policy in place for the last 7 or 8 years.

could you see how a strong dollar can deincentivize domestic production? ... invite outsourcing and insourcing even?

what is your defense for strong dollar policy?

 

[The Rabbi]

while restricting consumption is part of the chinese model, practices which restrict consumption would be a shot in the foot stateside.

the antagon solution is to ween their false economy off of the dollar with rhetoric and by aggressive monetization on our end. its like flexing a muscle when a mosquito is biting you. we will inflate off some debt, improve our export advantage, recover delationary sectors in our economy, invite international investment, shrink our trade deficit....

there are some serious negative side-effects, but let's bask in the upside for a bit.

Your solution isn't a cure, its a new more serious disease, a weak dollar. I prefer that we undo the tax breaks for moving jobs overseas and modernize the US industrial base instead. The best way to reduce the trade deficit is to manufacture more US goods, that increases employment and the tax base.

like i said, there are plenty of negative side-effects, but i argue that this is actually the policy in place for the last 7 or 8 years.

could you see how a strong dollar can deincentivize domestic production? ... invite outsourcing and insourcing even?

what is your defense for strong dollar policy?

There are winners and losers in every policy. IN the case of a strong dollar, domestic consumers of raw materials from overseas, like oil or steel, benefit. But final consumers benefit also in lower prices for goods.

 

[kyzr]

The massive unemployment rate is due to the recession. Up until 2008 the rate had been in the 5% range for years.
We have run a trade deficit for all of our history except for some years after WW1 and 2. We don't seem worse off for it.
Yes, employment in manufacturing is down. Same with agriculture. If we had a more dynamic economy those workers would find jobs in emerging industries. But with Obama in charge he will push policies favoring unions and gov't employment.

We disagree on what caused the recession. IMHO it was all due to government policies. First Clinton passed the "Community Reinvestment Act" which gave mortgages to the unqualified. Then the GOP passed the "American Jobs Creation Act" which actually passed tax breaks to move US factories overseas. Soon after the economy collapseddue to both moronic policies and then Obama had to deal with the aftermath. Both parties' policies suck, just in different ways, but neither party has the prosperity of the US worker in mind, just how they can scam the most contributions as whores for Wall Street.

The cause of this recession is neither the CRA nor the affects of offshoring on the American worker. The cause of this recession was the formation and collapse of the Tech Bubble, which lead to easy monetary policy as a response to the Tech Bubble, which lead to the even bigger Housing Bubble, accentuated by the enormous increase in the amount of debt and leverage in the financial system over the past decade. China's affect was to make everything cheaper and flood the world with savings, giving central bankers free reign to gun the money supply, which filtered into asset markets and worsened the Housing Bubble.

Interesting "wag the dog" theory. Please provide some link showing the cause-effect of the tech-bubble (instead of the housing bubble fer instance) being the cause of the recession. Hint: tech is a teeny tiny part of the entire US economy.

 

[rhet 2]

While I do not believe in Protectionism I do think we should rethink our policies toward some of our Trading Partners. China for example has Tariffs on most of our goods while we do not have them on their. Yet we claim that is Free trade.

I would not be opposed to considering Matching Tariffs in a situation like that to try and even up the Trade Deficit some.

Before you freak out about a trade war remember. That as much as we need china, They need us as well. We are a Huge Chunk of their Market.

while restricting consumption is part of the chinese model, practices which restrict consumption would be a shot in the foot stateside.

the antagon solution is to ween their false economy off of the dollar with rhetoric and by aggressive monetization on our end. its like flexing a muscle when a mosquito is biting you. we will inflate off some debt, improve our export advantage, recover delationary sectors in our economy, invite international investment, shrink our trade deficit....

there are some serious negative side-effects, but let's bask in the upside for a bit.

Your solution isn't a cure, its a new more serious disease, a weak dollar. I prefer that we undo the tax breaks for moving jobs overseas and modernize the US industrial base instead. The best way to reduce the trade deficit is to manufacture more US goods, that increases employment and the tax base.

Now that "modernize the US industrial base" is dead right on.

Back up a bit: we used to be the world's 2nd largest oil EXPORTER -- and the experts tell us that we have more oil under US soil than do the Saudis -- what happened that that positive economic position collapsed and inverted so that energy is now a major weakness in our economic system?

US Steel -- we EXPORTED it -- and now we import it. WHY?

Clothing and fabric centered manufacturing -- we EXPORTED and now are the world's largest IMPORTER -- Why?

Ag industry -- world's largest EXPORTER -- and still critical to world food supplies -- but LOSING GROUND fast -- why?

Answer: government interference and obstructionism across the board since LBJ, especially during the Carter and Clinton admins with only a way inadequate and short-lived counter-blip during Reagan years -- with Bush I and II totally ignoring most of it, on board with government BAD IDEAS -- like NAFTA (think EU, French economic imperialism -- now beginning first stages of pullout)

Our GOVERNMENT has -- IMO -- deliberately in some cases, out of sheer stupid ideologuery and short-sighted stupidity in others -- moved our entire economy from PRODUCTION to a service centered one -- our primary export being NOT manufactured goods, being LABOR -- mid-level business and professional administrative labor -- and now blue-collar production jobs and blue-collar service labor markets are dominated by Third World supplies -- in Third World countries, in Europe and Asia (with Japan the exception), and IN THE US AND CANADA.

So, through government POLICIES, we've already lost industrial markets and are NOW losing labor/service markets, too.

Now, tell me that Protectionism does not work. Tell me that government controlled economic policies DO work. Tell me that capitalism and free market UNRESTRICTED competition does NOT work.

Balance and PARTNERSHIP: government partnering with production and service industries (and banks are SERVICE industries, credit being NOT hard goods but the means for somebody else to create hard goods) partnering with LABOR to COMPETE with other suppliers to meet real world consumer needs and demands.

Come up with something that COMBINES some bits of all economic theories and previously FAILED practices -- a little bit of Protectionism, a tiny bit of State Control, with a hell of a lot of personal individual initiative and "I have a dream -- so get the hell out of my way" with a drastically reduced Union power to return Labor demands back to actual workers instead of White Tie Union CEO abuse and greed and damned bad UNION MANAGEMENT Control Freak-ism.

INDIVIDUALS are the answer -- with some guidance and some restrictions -- MINIMUM guidance and MINIMUM government and control freak interference and obstructionism -- focused on justice and stomping shit out of abusers and cheats and liars and thieves in a court of law -- and on a battlefield when we're attacked physically -- a battlefield on ENEMY soil, where the attacker's labor supply and the attacker's infrastructure goes ka-blooey while our own labor supply and infrastructure keeps on keeping on in safety because gubmit does it's REAL JOB, which is defense, not managing business -- defense inside US borders and the best defense which is a strong offense when some idiot dares attack the US.

 

[Sheldon]

You know, loosecannon, I was in a good mood last night so I figured I'd give you until this morning to come up with a response in the "Fake Jews" thread. You're OP got napalmed, and you didn't bring so much as a water balloon in defense. You failed.

Strike one.

About your goose-stepping in this thread:

The holocaust targeted as many poles as it did Jews, and Jews were only 1/3 to 1/2 of the victims of the holocaust.

Iow it didn't target Jews.

Those two sentences contradict each other; I even bolded the specific parts so you can understand more better-er. The Holocaust targeted the Jews, along with other people Hitler deemed inferior. It's possible to have more than one target, you know. So your last sentence would be correct if you had written "Iow it didn't target Jews exclusively." But you didn't, so it's not.

That's strike two.

About you're most recent spew of stoopid:

Thanks, i made that point earlier and you dissed me for it.

Now you're going to have to go back through the thread and link to the post where I directly confronted and "dissed" your position on multinational corproations' hiring practices in third-world countries. Pay attention to the wording, and understand the difference between a flamepost about your "intelligence" versus a counterpoint to a specific argument about third-world sweatshops. I'm telling you that you need to find a post about the latter. I've already gone back, so I know that you can't.

Swing and a miss.



You're game is lame, and so are you. There's really nothing more you can say here without looking dumber-er, so if you're smart you won't respond.

 

[Big Fitz]

wages correspond to cultures, sure. some cultures correspond to low wages and labor-intense exports and those cannot be compared with consumer cultures or economies which are on the other end of the scale with respect to the way poor is even defined.

Actually you can compare it very well. The problem is that most don't take into account the costs created by related advancements. For instance, a house in the philippines will cost a fraction of a US house. But why? Because it lacks most of the features and required safety standards and ordinances found in all new American houses. Building codes account for a massive amount of cost that is often ignored. And don't forget all the community services that need to be paid for as well, water, sewer, electric, fire department, police department, trash removal, ad nauseum. If you start racking up these costs in a third world nature and I can bet you will see quickly where the money goes and why we are so expensive to live in.

When you factor in all the aspects of why their cultural cost is far lowers than ours, it comes down to this basic trend. We expect and demand more from what we consume on all levels. Maybe too much.

Oh, don't forget legal costs. After all, we employ the majority of all the world's lawyers too and they gotta be fed along with their ancillary industry, insurance.

there are some serious negative side-effects, but let's bask in the upside for a bit.

That's like basking in the sun during the eye of a hurricane.

The fact that you think Chinese workers are more productive than American workers means you know very little about this topic.

Incorrect, the American worker is more productive thanks to automation. The Chinese just work harder to do the same. Remember, one man in a bulldozer can do more road grading work in one day than a thousand men by hand.

Your solution isn't a cure, its a new more serious disease, a weak dollar. I prefer that we undo the tax breaks for moving jobs overseas and modernize the US industrial base instead. The best way to reduce the trade deficit is to manufacture more US goods, that increases employment and the tax base.

You make a solid point. We are in this mess because of expansions in free trade and removing of trade blocks and even subsidizing the offshoreing of work. We held back on China's Most Favored trade status for decades because of human rights abuses. Clinton said, oh well they're not going to change and gave it anyway. And boom... the chinese boom began almost overnight. American greed (lubed by illegal chinese political contributions) got the best of us.

The weak dollar solution is a very very scary one. It's like playing chicken with a train. You will swerve or be destroyed. and the problem is, we're driving the car with broken power steering. We have little room to maneuver thanks to the Greenspan/Bernanke loose credit policy. So our tools to help spur change. Once you add in inflation, there is little to stop it from becoming HYPERinflation and we can end up becoming the Wiemar Republic on an industrial scale. Then we're ripe for either conquest from without or revolution from within.

My money's more on the revolution from within as all the bread and circuses go out of reach for all but the most wealthy.

 

[antagon]

Your solution isn't a cure, its a new more serious disease, a weak dollar. I prefer that we undo the tax breaks for moving jobs overseas and modernize the US industrial base instead. The best way to reduce the trade deficit is to manufacture more US goods, that increases employment and the tax base.

like i said, there are plenty of negative side-effects, but i argue that this is actually the policy in place for the last 7 or 8 years.

could you see how a strong dollar can deincentivize domestic production? ... invite outsourcing and insourcing even?

what is your defense for strong dollar policy?

There are winners and losers in every policy. IN the case of a strong dollar, domestic consumers of raw materials from overseas, like oil or steel, benefit. But final consumers benefit also in lower prices for goods.

granted.

i don't see the US as being a winner on aggregate from a 'strong dollar'. we shouldn't creep up on the strength of european currencies, because we're not ready to creep up on their slow growth and import dependency. bad enough as it is here.

 

[antagon]

wages correspond to cultures, sure. some cultures correspond to low wages and labor-intense exports and those cannot be compared with consumer cultures or economies which are on the other end of the scale with respect to the way poor is even defined.

Actually you can compare it very well. The problem is that most don't take into account the costs created by related advancements. For instance, a house in the philippines will cost a fraction of a US house. But why? Because it lacks most of the features and required safety standards and ordinances found in all new American houses. Building codes account for a massive amount of cost that is often ignored. And don't forget all the community services that need to be paid for as well, water, sewer, electric, fire department, police department, trash removal, ad nauseum. If you start racking up these costs in a third world nature and I can bet you will see quickly where the money goes and why we are so expensive to live in.

When you factor in all the aspects of why their cultural cost is far lowers than ours, it comes down to this basic trend. We expect and demand more from what we consume on all levels. Maybe too much.

Oh, don't forget legal costs. After all, we employ the majority of all the world's lawyers too and they gotta be fed along with their ancillary industry, insurance.

if you've even gone to mexico you can witness what you're referring to, or seen natural disasters in the third world. when i say that there is no comparison, i am rejecting an unsupported stat that the minimum wage in manila is $9/hr or equivalent. if accounting for all of what you've pointed out can justify such a claim, then i'll persist that it doesn't add up. i've been to manila. poor filipinos are skinny from lack of nutrition, poor americans are fat from over-consumption.

 

[Big Fitz]

wages correspond to cultures, sure. some cultures correspond to low wages and labor-intense exports and those cannot be compared with consumer cultures or economies which are on the other end of the scale with respect to the way poor is even defined.

Actually you can compare it very well. The problem is that most don't take into account the costs created by related advancements. For instance, a house in the philippines will cost a fraction of a US house. But why? Because it lacks most of the features and required safety standards and ordinances found in all new American houses. Building codes account for a massive amount of cost that is often ignored. And don't forget all the community services that need to be paid for as well, water, sewer, electric, fire department, police department, trash removal, ad nauseum. If you start racking up these costs in a third world nature and I can bet you will see quickly where the money goes and why we are so expensive to live in.

When you factor in all the aspects of why their cultural cost is far lowers than ours, it comes down to this basic trend. We expect and demand more from what we consume on all levels. Maybe too much.

Oh, don't forget legal costs. After all, we employ the majority of all the world's lawyers too and they gotta be fed along with their ancillary industry, insurance.

if you've even gone to mexico you can witness what you're referring to, or seen natural disasters in the third world. when i say that there is no comparison, i am rejecting an unsupported stat that the minimum wage in manila is $9/hr or equivalent. if accounting for all of what you've pointed out can justify such a claim, then i'll persist that it doesn't add up. i've been to manila. poor filipinos are skinny from lack of nutrition, poor americans are fat from over-consumption.

Well, I leave you to your beliefs. It's not worth doing the digging and research to try and change your mind. I don't agree that it comes out precisely to 9 bucks an hour. I'm pointing out that any culture, to see comparable cost of living and impact of sweatshop wages is still significant. Remember Henry Ford gave good paying jobs to blacks who moved to Detroit for the era, even though they weren't necessarily fantastic compared to white workers in the era, they were far better than what they could make elsewhere doing very hard work. And with that, Detroit boomed.

filipinos are skinny from lack of nutrition, poor americans are fat from over-consumption.

that's nothing to do with wage earning and more to do with societal issues. If given the same disposable income poor person in America has, and trust me, they have it. Cigarettes, cell phones, cable TV, the internet and the like are not essentials. Secondly, healthier food IS more expensive and/or less satisfying than cheap junkfood. You spend 1 buck and you get a burger, to be healthy, what can you buy that will satisfy hunger as well as that? 2 Apples? a bag of baby carrots? a head of lettuce, plain? Almost nothing that doesn't require personal preparation and/or time.

So this is not as clean cut as wages and poverty, it's societal.

 

[Toro]

Interesting "wag the dog" theory. Please provide some link showing the cause-effect of the tech-bubble (instead of the housing bubble fer instance) being the cause of the recession. Hint: tech is a teeny tiny part of the entire US economy.

The cause of the Housing Bubble wasn't the Tech Bubble per se. The cause was monetary policy, which contributed to both the Housing and Tech Bubbles. Easy money contributed to the Tech Bubble, and when the Tech Bubble collapsed, much easier money in response to the Tech Bubble contributed even more to the Housing Bubble. Since we have even easier money now, the question is what will be affected next. This is why gold is at $1250 and is probably headed much higher. There have been several economists writing about this, though it is outside of mainstream economic throught.

It wasn't the only reason, but all bubbles have certain characteristics, and easy money is a big one.

 

[rhet 2]

One problem:

a sound dollar is the honey that attracts investment funds -- and investment funds = the R & D and commercial/industrial expansion which keeps American business in competition for world market shares.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yeppers Rhet. A sound dollar and favorable investment policy from government.

The exact opposite of what is just about here.

 

[antagon]

One problem:

a sound dollar is the honey that attracts investment funds -- and investment funds = the R & D and commercial/industrial expansion which keeps American business in competition for world market shares.

so many of your presumptions are upside down, rhet. accessibility to investment in the US from foreign markets is predicated by a reasonably weak dollar, not a strong dollar. if your strong buck theory were not 180* from reality, there wouldn't be so much american money investing in accessible and cheap asian industry. we would be eating up european markets where the currency is strong.

pushing for strong industry and a strong dollar at the same time is rhetorical, not practical. our monetary policy, specifically controlling deflationary strength relative to the sterling and euro will have the most impact with regard to foreign demand for our goods and services, our competitiveness with foreign produce, our trade deficit, our ability to attract foreign investment, and the likelihood that we might invest domestically rather than in emerging markets ourselves.

completely backwards is how you've got this.

 

[antagon]

if you've even gone to mexico you can witness what you're referring to, or seen natural disasters in the third world. when i say that there is no comparison, i am rejecting an unsupported stat that the minimum wage in manila is $9/hr or equivalent. if accounting for all of what you've pointed out can justify such a claim, then i'll persist that it doesn't add up. i've been to manila. poor filipinos are skinny from lack of nutrition, poor americans are fat from over-consumption.

Well, I leave you to your beliefs. It's not worth doing the digging and research to try and change your mind. I don't agree that it comes out precisely to 9 bucks an hour. I'm pointing out that any culture, to see comparable cost of living and impact of sweatshop wages is still significant. Remember Henry Ford gave good paying jobs to blacks who moved to Detroit for the era, even though they weren't necessarily fantastic compared to white workers in the era, they were far better than what they could make elsewhere doing very hard work. And with that, Detroit boomed.

filipinos are skinny from lack of nutrition, poor americans are fat from over-consumption.

that's nothing to do with wage earning and more to do with societal issues. If given the same disposable income poor person in America has, and trust me, they have it. Cigarettes, cell phones, cable TV, the internet and the like are not essentials. Secondly, healthier food IS more expensive and/or less satisfying than cheap junkfood. You spend 1 buck and you get a burger, to be healthy, what can you buy that will satisfy hunger as well as that? 2 Apples? a bag of baby carrots? a head of lettuce, plain? Almost nothing that doesn't require personal preparation and/or time.

So this is not as clean cut as wages and poverty, it's societal.

too much of what you've written is backwards from my experience. of course cost of living and purchasing power is lower in countries with absurdly low wages. together with that, i can acknowledge that the culture in these areas quickly adapts to the cost of living. i'm also aware that demand for labor improves wages and labor standards.

my point is that there is no credibility to an argument which holds that minimum wages in the developing world, if they exist, are in any way equivalent to those in developed countries. the lower cost of living and local culture is not the reason why products produced in asia are cheaper, instead, the wages are extremely low on any credible measure of parity. there is no social infrastructure. the poor do not have disposable income like americans do -- that is absurd. have you ever visited a developing or underdeveloped country? i could not imagine how anyone could buy that presumption having witnessed the life of poor people outside the developed world compared to within it.

the idea that healthy food in the US is more expensive than shit food is bogus, too, but that is a different discussion. its not the cost that makes broke americans unhealthy, but that is the case in the undeveloped world, only that the poor there don't have money for food.