We really need a grassroots campaign about this, Are you listening?

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
Have you ever travelled to a third or even 2nd world country? If so, you would know that $5 and hour over there is like $50 an hour here. So that comment makes no sense at all.

My comment makes no sense...why?
First of all, it was a question not a statement of fact.
Secondly, I was thinking like $5/week not $5/hr.
What is the going rate for manufacturing jobs in say China?

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
DK, you are really a right winger in a cheap disquise, correct? American workers are not overpaid in any estimation other than very shallow and poorly reflective corporate estimations and reports. That's understandable as they also poorly reflect American standards and expectations, post positive American productivity results yet continue to diminish American living wages, blame everything on the you and me and most all of us that post here on USMB, even eliminate us but still it's American? Sorry, pal, I think you unequipped to even marginally discuss any of that.

But I love you anyway. Get an education. The government sure as hell will prevent it but a Democrat with an education can be usefull to our American society. Big-headedness will be our downfall. I just gave the jerks a fiery opportunity!!!!!!!!!!

Pscycho, you feel that DK is uneducated?
Seems pretty well-spoken to me...
That's a low blow.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by nycflasher My comment makes no sense...why?

First of all, it was a question not a statement of fact.
Secondly, I was thinking like $5/week not $5/hr.
What is the going rate for manufacturing jobs in say China?

. . . . is it right to pay someone overseas an unlivable wage . . . .

The above, while presented as a question, also assumes that the wages being paid to overseas workers are unlivable wages. Perhaps they are unlivable wages in the USA, but they would not be unlivable there. Why would somebody work for an unlivable wage anywhere? Plus, the term unlivable is an oxymoron. If it is unlivable, how can they be alive to do the work?

I don't know what the wages paid in China are, but I do in Korea as I have employees there (they work in a sales office as we export to Korea). In Korea the office manager there makes about $1,800 a month including insurance, all required taxes, etc. He feels he is paid VERY, VERY well as we pay him more than what most KOREAN corporations would pay. Hell, we pay all of our employees in Korea more than a Korean company of the same size would. In the USA, our office manager makes about $5,100 when you include insurance, SS taxes, etc.

The thing is, the office manager in the USA doesn't work any harder or longer than the office manager in Korea does.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Our unemployment insurance was originally designed to assist workers that were displaced due to the downsizing or closing of iindustries that were proven unprofittable, illegal, bankrupt or were otherwise forced to close or downsize due to no fault of their employees. Times have changed. Now ALL AMERICANS are expected to pitch in and assist those that have lost their gigs due to an international move that is counter-productive to our economy and certainly detrimental to the workers that have been displaced due to that move.

Once again, I don't expect many of the reich-wing indoctrination to be able to intelligently discuss any of this. But that's what an education might get you, ain't it?

In a sense, I can agree with you on the unemployment phsycho, however, a growing part of the population are not using unemployment insurance as their 'go-between' from one job to the next, they end up using it as vacation pay while they sit around.

As far as education goes, what is it exactly you are referring to? you said that to me earlier in this thread so clarify for me.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Yours is gospel while in your opinion mine is garbage? Is that what you're saying, Rtwngventure? The UN is being petitioned as we speak, this is a subject that deserves serious debate and commentary and you suck. There's no debate about that.

Yes. Isolationism is trash logic for short term slave thinkers, the democratic primary constituency. yes, mine is gospel, yours is garbage. You suck harder and more often and more enthusiastically, that's just a readily apparent truism.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
Have you ever travelled to a third or even 2nd world country? If so, you would know that $5 and hour over there is like $50 an hour here. So that comment makes no sense at all.

Does Jamaica count?
I get it that the US dollar is worth alot more in other economies. $5 an hour? That seems like alot. I think Nike's workers make much less, for example.

 

[5stringJeff]

Psycho, to answer your question as succintly as possible, it's all about the bottom line. If a company can pay an Indian worker $4/hr, when an American doing the exact same work wants $20/hr, then it makes financial sense for that company to relocate that job. Even if the Indian worker is only half as productive, in this case it is still profitable for the job to be relocated.
Additionaly, the role of a company is not to provide for people's well-being - though through wages, it does that. The mission of a company is to maximize profit for its owners, be it stockholders or a private owner. In reality, a company owes its workers only the wages that the worker agrees to - nothing more. Now, having said that, many companies try to attract good workers through benefit packages, and companies that look out for their employee's welfare are generally more popular places to work at. But when it comes down to it, the company is only acting in its best interest when it moves jobs to foreign countries.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

They pay programmers in India 5,000 a year. Can you honestly look your company in the face and say you're between 6 and 20 times better?

We cannot lock all Indians and chinese out of the modern economy, it's not right. We should each start companies utilizing this cheap labor, instead of insisting on our own self commoditization.

 

[Psychoblues]

You gave yourself away once again, DK. "Your precious Democrats". Not an exact quote, I only added a few capitals. Even as a fair minded Dem I can see where you might have been overpaid in the past and how that might have led to your ultimate demise in the IT industry. But you go right on, big boy, with your self confrontational delusions and maybe someday in some way someone will pay you what you think you're worth. I think your unemployment is already too much out of a working man's pocket. But that's beside the point.

American workers are not paid "too much". American workers have certainly fought for and earned the right for a decent living and for our fought for and delivered country to respect that fought for and earned right. Even you have to agree with that, DK, or don't you?

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Does Jamaica count?
I get it that the US dollar is worth alot more in other economies. $5 an hour? That seems like alot. I think Nike's workers make much less, for example.

My point was that they make much less because it costs a lot less to live there. Plus, they don't view having all the luxuries of life that we enjoy as being necessities.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
They pay programmers in India 5,000 a year. Can you honestly look your company in the face and say you're between 6 and 20 times better?

in a word.....yes

 

[Psychoblues]

Don't preach to me about micro economics, gop_jeff when you so blatantly ignore any principles of the macro and any education of responsible business practise. This subject is an exercise of media market manipulation and so far I have to agree that we've far more victims than I ever thought possible. But maybe you ain't diggin' it?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
You gave yourself away once again, DK. "Your precious Democrats". Not an exact quote, I only added a few capitals. Even as a fair minded Dem I can see where you might have been overpaid in the past and how that might have led to your ultimate demise in the IT industry. But you go right on, big boy, with your self confrontational delusions and maybe someday in some way someone will pay you what you think you're worth. I think your unemployment is already too much out of a working man's pocket. But that's beside the point.

American workers are not paid "too much". American workers have certainly fought for and earned the right for a decent living and for our fought for and delivered country to respect that fought for and earned right. Even you have to agree with that, DK, or don't you?

No one would agree to this crap. We are paid more than those in other countries, due to costs of living in this country. We are paid too much relative to those who demand less. This is obvious.

We did not fight for and win the right to keep third world nations third world forever. That's fucking evil.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Don't preach to me about micro economics, gop_jeff when you so blatantly ignore any principles of the macro and any education of responsible business practise. This subject is an exercise of media market manipulation and so far I have to agree that we've far more victims than I ever thought possible. But maybe you ain't diggin' it?

We'll all preach to you and you'll bend over like the little monkey shit you are. You communist shitbag. Take your protectionist crap and leave.

 

[Psychoblues]

You have a strawman there, avenger. Did I say anything at all about keeping a third world country in the third world?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
You gave yourself away once again, DK. "Your precious Democrats". Not an exact quote, I only added a few capitals. Even as a fair minded Dem I can see where you might have been overpaid in the past and how that might have led to your ultimate demise in the IT industry. But you go right on, big boy, with your self confrontational delusions and maybe someday in some way someone will pay you what you think you're worth. I think your unemployment is already too much out of a working man's pocket. But that's beside the point.

American workers are not paid "too much". American workers have certainly fought for and earned the right for a decent living and for our fought for and delivered country to respect that fought for and earned right. Even you have to agree with that, DK, or don't you?

As I've said in dozens of posts throughout my time on this board, I'm a liberal leaning independent. Whether you choose to believe that or not is up to you. I have no obligation to provide you with any more proof of that. Now, if you choose to label me as a 'right winger in disguise' because I don't agree with all of your ideas, nothing I can do is going to change that any way so I'm not going to waste my energy in trying.

If the rest of your first post was meant to belittle my intelligence in some way, then you wasted your time. I was smarter than you when you first heard of me and I'm smarter than you now. I will be smarter than you in the future as well. but thats beside the point.

I haven't met my demise in the IT field, as a matter of fact, I've excelled despite the few setbacks i've had to deal with. I still have a problem with offshoring and outsourcing jobs from americans but only in the sense that more often than not its been proven unprofitable for a company to do in the long run.

Some american workers AREN'T paid enough, I'll agree. I've met some technical support people that were not only brilliant but also with excellent communication skills with computer illiterate people that deserved twice what they were making. Others, well lets just say that the could do alot worse on charity.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
Don't preach to me about micro economics, gop_jeff when you so blatantly ignore any principles of the macro and any education of responsible business practise. This subject is an exercise of media market manipulation and so far I have to agree that we've far more victims than I ever thought possible. But maybe you ain't diggin' it?

Great Psycho. Since you are the economics professor on these boards, why don't you tell me what, specifically, we should do about the national 5.6% unemployment rate?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
You have a strawman there, avenger. Did I say anything at all about keeping a third world country in the third world?

That would be a consequence if all first world countries resort to protectionism.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoret...mpopulismandinterventionism/politicaleco.html
The Political Economy of Protectionism

Thomas J. DiLorenzo


Disagreements among economists are legendary, but they are largely of one mind on the issue of free trade. Evidence of this is a recent survey of the current and past presidents of the American Economic Association - the voice of mainstream economics. The survey found these prominent economists all strongly in favor of free trade, and concluded that "an economist who argues for restricting trade is almost as common today as a physician who favors leeching patients." 1

Mainstream economic thinking on free trade knows no ideological boundaries. Conservative economists Milton and Rose Friedman, for example, write that "ever since Adam Smith there has been virtual unanimity among economists . . . that international free trade is in the best interest of the trading countries and the world." 2 Liberal economist Paul Samuelson concurs: "Free trade promotes a mutually profitable regional division of labor, greatly enhances the potential real national product of all nations, and makes possible higher standards of living all over the globe." 3

The case for free trade is not based on any stylized economic theories of "perfect competition," "general equilibrium," or "partial equilibrium." After all, Adam Smith is history's most forceful and articulate defender of free trade, and he never heard of any of those theories. Rather, the case for free trade is based on the virtues of voluntary exchange, the division of labor, and individual freedom.

As long as trade is voluntary, both trading partners unequivocally benefit; otherwise they wouldn't trade. The purchase of a shirt, for instance, demonstrates that the purchaser values the shirt more than the money spent on it. The seller, on the other hand, values the money more than the shirt. Thus, both are better off because of the sale. Moreover, it doesn't matter whether the shirt salesman is from the United States or Hong Kong (or anywhere else). Voluntary exchange is always mutually beneficial.

Free trade expands consumer choice and gives businesses incentives to improve product quality and to cut costs. By increasing the supply of goods, international competition helps hold down prices and restrains internal monopolies. The "Big Three" auto makers, for instance, may wish to monopolize the automobile market, but they are unable to because of foreign competition. About 75 per cent of all domestic manufacturing industries now face some international competition, which helps keep their competitive feet to the fire. Thus, the case for free trade is the case for competition, higher quality goods, economic growth, and lower prices. By contrast, the case for protectionism is the case for monopoly, lower quality goods, economic stagnation, and higher prices.

The costs of protectionism to consumers are enormous. According to very conservative estimates, protectionism costs American consumers over $60 billion per year - more than $1,000 annually for a family of four.4 Thanks to protectionism, for example, it costs about $2,500 more to buy a Japanese-made car than it otherwise would.

Free trade increases the wealth (and employment opportunities) of all nations by allowing them to capitalize on their comparative advantages in production. For example, the U.S. has a comparative advantage in the production of food because of its vast, fertile land and superior agricultural technology and labor. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, does not have land that is well suited to agriculture. Although Saudi Arabia conceivably could undertake massive irrigation to become self-sufficient in food production, it is more economical for the Saudis to sell what they do have a comparative advantage in - oil - and then purchase much of their food from the U.S. and elsewhere. Similarly, the U.S. could become self--sufficient in petroleum by squeezing more oil out of shale rock and tar sands. But that would be much more costly than if the U.S. continued to purchase some of its oil from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Trade between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, or any other two countries, improves the standard of living in each.

Ethical Aspects of Free Trade

Protectionism is not only economically inefficient, it is also inherently unjust. It is the equivalent of a regressive tax, placing the heaviest burden on those who can least afford it. For example, because of import restraints in the footwear industry, shoes are more expensive. This imposes a proportionately larger burden on the family that has an income of only $15,000 per year than on the family that has an income of, say, $75,000 per year. Moreover, the beneficiaries of protectionism are often more affluent than those who bear the costs. Wages in the heavily protected auto industry are about 80 per cent higher than the average wage in U.S. manufacturing. The Chairman of the Chrysler Corporation was paid $28 million in 1987, thanks partly to protectionism. And, perversely, by driving up the price of automobiles, protectionism has benefited the owners, managers, and workers of the Japanese automobile industry at the expense of American consumers. Protectionism, in other words, is welfare for the well-to-do.

Protectionism also conflicts with the humanitarian goals of foreign development aid. The U.S. government spends billions of dollars annually in foreign aid to developing countries. Many of these programs are themselves counterproductive because they simply subsidize governmental bureaucracies in the recipient countries. But what good does it do to try to assist these countries if we block them from the biggest market in the world for their goods? Protectionism stifles economic growth in the developing countries, leaving them even more dependent upon U.S. government handouts.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
That would be a consequence if all first world countries resort to protectionism.

RWA, you've been challenged to a duel.

Sorry for the interuption, carry on.