US economics today

[Joe]

I don't fucking care about the market I care about the wellbeing of human beings.

I do too, but I realize that there is also economic reality to deal with.

So what?

So leave Nike alone for paying low wages. The workers agreed to accept them.

This is my biggest problem with libertarians: they use the market to excuse the outrageous and abhorrent behaviour of corporations! Fuck the market! Fuck it up the ass!

Of course it's not always fair. Life is not fair, but that's tough.

Nothing stopping them from providing a safe and human work environment along with living wages for the workers.

They're not in business to do that, they're in business to make money. Furthermore, unskilled workers with low productivity in ANY economy are not going to have high wages or working conditions; fact.

There are many more examples besides Nike, and it was already a known fact that american corporations aren't exactly known for their kind behaviour overseas. Consider that union activity at Colombian CocaCola bottling site have been met with terror tactics. At least 129 union activists in Colombia have been murdered.

In a mass demonstration, or what? These things can turn pretty violent, with both sides having to share the blame.

Bangladeshi workers make shirts for Walmart at 9 cents an hour. Honduras workers suffer in horrible sweatshop environments for Walmart. Salvadoran Kathie Lee Gifford workers and a union organizer have received death threats. Ann Taylor workers face miserable sweatshop conditions in China. The list goes on and on, and it still continues to this day, when any of these companies could put a stop to it.

Again, you fail to realize that prosperity doesn't fall right out of the sky. The low productivity of third-world labor merits the low wages and sub-standard working conditions. This is a part of economic development; we had to go through, they have to go through it.

I should also point out that in 1950, Japan was a source for cheap labor the way many other Asian countries are now, and now it's a world leader (even in recession).

And it still seems to be bullshit

Well, you've erected a nice wall of ignorance here. I've proven that American corporations on average pay employees comparatively well in developing countries, I've pointed out the outstanding rates of growth (and conversely, wages and income) in these countries, and I've shown that living conditions are infinitely worse in countries that reject globalization entirely, like North Korea (per capita income is only about $1000 in this country; it is ten times this in the globalized South Korea). All you have pointed out is that there are abuses that occur, which I never denied, while failing to prove that the net impact of globalization on third world countries is in fact negative, and also failing to produce a viable alternative. I'm through with this shit.

[Hamel]

Lie, lie, lie. I said that globalization benefits developing countries, you called it bullshit.



And it still seems to be bullshit

Bullshit as opposed to what ? Working on a farm? Living in a shanty town?
No shoe factory means no jobs for some of these folks, its not like they can go to their local university and become programmers.

If they have no where else to go, then they can be exploited and abused at the will of the corporation. You're only helping me out here

[Hamel]

I do too, but I realize that there is also economic reality to deal with.

Which really means "fuck em"

So leave Nike alone for paying low wages. The workers agreed to accept them.

"Fuck em"

Of course it's not always fair. Life is not fair, but that's tough.

"Leave them at the mercy of the market and fuck em"

They're not in business to do that, they're in business to make money. Furthermore, unskilled workers with low productivity in ANY economy are not going to have high wages or working conditions; fact.

"Fuck em"

In a mass demonstration, or what? These things can turn pretty violent, with both sides having to share the blame.

No, by hired guns working with these corporations

Again, you fail to realize that prosperity doesn't fall right out of the sky. The low productivity of third-world labor merits the low wages and sub-standard working conditions. This is a part of economic development; we had to go through, they have to go through it.

No they don't. Nike and any other corporation can improve the conditions in these factories and foster a humane environment.

I should also point out that in 1950, Japan was a source for cheap labor the way many other Asian countries are now, and now it's a world leader (even in recession).

Doesn't justify or prove that these people most go through the same bullshit

snip

Don't get pissy at me and declare my so-called wall of ignorance when you've got moral issues that you need to work out. All your arguments amount to are "fuck em"

[TrailerParkJawa]

If they have no where else to go, then they can be exploited and abused at the will of the corporation. You're only helping me out here

I dont think they are being exploited in many cases. It's a matter of perspective.

I guess we should clarify what you consider explotation? Low wage? Unclean conditions? Id agree with unclean conditions, but low wages are relative.

[Hamel]

I guess we should clarify what you consider explotation? Low wage? Unclean conditions? Id agree with unclean conditions, but low wages are relative.

When they refuse to pay a living wage for these people (which amounts to under 4 fucking USD in some cases!! [and this is per DAY, not by the hour]) and they can still make a monstrous profit if they did, that's exploitation.

edit: I certainly wouldn't have a problem with them paying above the living wage either

[Joe]

*sigh* You still haven't addressed my point, which is that despite abuses and inevitable economic realities globalization benefits third-world countries overall. But saying "you're mean" works so much better, so why bother?

[TrailerParkJawa]

I guess we should clarify what you consider explotation? Low wage? Unclean conditions? Id agree with unclean conditions, but low wages are relative.

When they refuse to pay a living wage for these people (which amounts to under 4 fucking USD in some cases!! [and this is per DAY, not by the hour]) and they can still make a monstrous profit if they did, that's exploitation.

edit: I certainly wouldn't have a problem with them paying above the living wage either

4 USD a day can buy a lot in some of these countries. Unless you look at the cost of living where the factory worker is , comparing their wage to say mine. Is useless.

[Hamel]

I guess we should clarify what you consider explotation? Low wage? Unclean conditions? Id agree with unclean conditions, but low wages are relative.

When they refuse to pay a living wage for these people (which amounts to under 4 fucking USD in some cases!! [and this is per DAY, not by the hour]) and they can still make a monstrous profit if they did, that's exploitation.

edit: I certainly wouldn't have a problem with them paying above the living wage either

4 USD a day can buy a lot in some of these countries. Unless you look at the cost of living where the factory worker is , comparing their wage to say mine. Is useless.

It isn't considered a living wage by THOSE countries' low standards. That says a lot.

[Joe]

When they refuse to pay a living wage for these people (which amounts to under 4 fucking USD in some cases!! [and this is per DAY, not by the hour]) and they can still make a monstrous profit if they did, that's exploitation.

edit: I certainly wouldn't have a problem with them paying above the living wage either

4 USD a day can buy a lot in some of these countries. Unless you look at the cost of living where the factory worker is , comparing their wage to say mine. Is useless.

It isn't considered a living wage by THOSE countries' low standards. That says a lot.

You're failing to take into account income mobility. These low wages are usually paid to younger workers who have just entered the work force. As they acquire more skills, their wages increase. It works the same in every country.

[Hamel]

You're failing to take into account income mobility. These low wages are usually paid to younger workers who have just entered the work force. As they acquire more skills, their wages increase. It works the same in every country.

The problem is, in many of these places there really isn't income mobility. Regardless of their skill, they should paid at least living wage.

[TrailerParkJawa]

How do you define living wage? Like Durran points out new workers make the lowest wage. Do they deserve to make enough to rent a 2 bedroom apt? I think not. My living wage is anything above $22/hour and at that level Im pinched hard.

[Joe]

You're failing to take into account income mobility. These low wages are usually paid to younger workers who have just entered the work force. As they acquire more skills, their wages increase. It works the same in every country.

The problem is, in many of these places there really isn't income mobility. Regardless of their skill, they should paid at least living wage.

Why? Very often these new inductees to the work force are still living with their parents (just like in America), and have a secondary source of support to depend on while they gain enough skills to earn a wage to support themselves.

[Hamel]

How do you define living wage?

Let's not play "define" games here, because that will only lead to people not being satisfied and wanting to drive the estimate down even lower until it gets insane.

Like Durran points out new workers make the lowest wage. Do they deserve to make enough to rent a 2 bedroom apt? I think not.

They deserve enough money for tolerable living conditions. I fear though, that someone will ask me to define "tolerable" and we'll end up with the scenario i described above

edit: Furthermore, don't tell me what you think these people deserve, at any rate. These poor people work harder in a week than you did in your entire life and don't get much more than jack shit for it

[Joe]

They deserve enough money for tolerable living conditions. I fear though, that someone will ask me to define "tolerable" and we'll end up with the scenario i described above

No, if you cannot produce enough to warrant such a wage, you do not deserve it. Business is not here to guarantee you a livelihood. Call that mean-spirited, but that's how it is, and that's how the world works.

[Hamel]

No, if you cannot produce enough to warrant such a wage, you do not deserve it. Business is not here to guarantee you a livelihood. Call that mean-spirited, but that's how it is, and that's how the world works.

These people are obviously producing enough to earn some fucking money

[TrailerParkJawa]

Let's not play "define" games here, because that will only lead to people not being satisfied and wanting to drive the estimate down even lower until it gets insane.

They deserve enough money for tolerable living conditions. I fear though, that someone will ask me to define "tolerable" and we'll end up with the scenario i described above

edit: Furthermore, don't tell me what you think these people deserve, at any rate. These poor people work harder in a week than you did in your entire life and don't get much more than jack shit for it

You are the one arguing for a living wage. You cant mandate a living wage without a definition how much that is. The whole concept is unworkable without a definition.

Yes, these people work hard, often harder than I do, but there are lots of people in the US that work harder than I do as well. Yet they get paid less, cause the work is of less value. Thats just economics, it sucks when you are making min wage, but one day you will not. ( im refereing to here)

[Joe]

No, if you cannot produce enough to warrant such a wage, you do not deserve it. Business is not here to guarantee you a livelihood. Call that mean-spirited, but that's how it is, and that's how the world works.

These people are obviously producing enough to earn some fucking money

They are not productive, relatively. The most unskilled workers earn the lowest wages, this is how economic systems work. They move up as they acquire more skills.

If these workers were confined to a life of receiving this low wage, yes, this would be a problem. But they are not.

If they are in fact productive enough to receive the high wage, then by all means let them market their skills elsewhere.

[Glocksman]

Rant Warning

You know, some would consider me to be somewhat right-wing after reading my posts on people such as Michael Moore.

I suppose I am.

<rant>
But one thing that really ticks me off is when people say the wholesale deindustrialization of America either doesn't matter or it's actually a good thing and say that unions are the cause.

News Flash:
It's the union wages paid to industrial workers that built the goddamn middle class that is the backbone of the economy. Without the existence of the middle class to purchase these goods, none of these profits would exist. It's the Unions that pushed for safety, child labor and overtime laws, among others. Business sure as hell didn't push for them, as it's cheaper to employ children and lock people in a building than it is to insure that at least if a fire breaks out, they have a chance of survival

Go read up on the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire sometime and tell me about business being interested in safety and unions being unneeded.

Hell, even the richest people would only buy 2 or 3 pairs of the latest overhyped, overpriced Michael Jordan shoes. Without the middle class created by those union wage industrial jobs, Nike wouldn't have a consumer base in the US.

Whole fucking regions of the country have been devastated economically by employers packing up and outsourcing production overseas. Take a drive through the Pennsylvania & West Virginia steel country and see for yourself. Go to Gary, Indiana and tell them how good it is that the mills closed down. Go to the Carolina textile country and tell them how it's actually better for them to lose their jobs. I'm sure they'll give you a warm welcome.

More companies have been done in by clueless management that posesses a sense of self-entitlement that would make Hermann Goering blush than have been done in by unions.

Just look at Don Carty and American Airlines. While asking for and getting large concessions from the workforce, he arranges for large bonuses and pension protection for senior executives at the same time.

He was forced to resign over it, but that mentality of 'platinum parachutes for senior management and fuck everyone else' isn't restricted to him by any means.



Let's also not forget the US's swelling balance of payments deficit and how that affects the economy.


So, y'all just sit in front of your PC's and think about how great it is now.

But lets not forget that many 'knowledge' jobs are even more exportable then blue collar jobs are. It doesn't cost near as much to staff an office in Delhi with software engineers as it does in the states and the capital requirements are even lower, as you have no heavy equipment to invest in.

You might be singing a different tune when it's your job that gets exported to India.
</rant>

[Joe]

It's the union wages paid to industrial workers that built the goddamn middle class that is the backbone of the economy. Without the existence of the middle class to purchase these goods, none of these profits would exist. It's the Unions that pushed for safety, child labor and overtime laws, among others. Business sure as hell didn't push for them, as it's cheaper to employ children and lock people in a building than it is to insure that at least if a fire breaks out, they have a chance of survival

Unions are not as heavily related to the improvement of working conditions and the increase of real wages as they are made out to be. Union membership has fluctuated heavily throughout American history, yet real wages have always been on the rise, except during recessions. There is a much stronger correlation with the steady accumulation of capital.

Whole fucking regions of the country have been devastated economically by employers packing up and outsourcing production overseas. Take a drive through the Pennsylvania & West Virginia steel country and see for yourself. Go to Gary, Indiana and tell them how good it is that the mills closed down. Go to the Carolina textile country and tell them how it's actually better for them to lose their jobs. I'm sure they'll give you a warm welcome.

Tough shit; we don't have the comparative advantage in these industries that other countries do. And make no mistake, these numbers are vastly overstated; don't expect me to go along with this, not when we're running an unemployment rate of only 6 percent during a recession. Please, no nostalgia for the demise of the traditional manufacturing class, not when there are better jobs in other sectors of the economy. Europe suffers from this same problem, only with farmers.

You might be singing a different tune when it's your job that gets exported to India.

Please; the Perots, Buchanans, and Naders of the world have been saying that our jobs are going to be exported overseas and cause mass unemployment for the last ten years, and it never fucking happened. This is a completely unrealistic view of trade; there's a reason no economists are protectionists.

[Glocksman]

OK, the rant felt good.
Back to business.

Unions are not as heavily related to the improvement of working conditions and the increase of real wages as they are made out to be. Union membership has fluctuated heavily throughout American history, yet real wages have always been on the rise, except during recessions. There is a much stronger correlation with the steady accumulation of capital.

Real wages in manufacturing have been on the decline for almost 30 years and even after some gains made during the 90's remain about 5% lower than they were in 1973 after adjustment for inflation.

I agree that Unions aren't solely responsible for workforce safety laws but they did play a large part in pushing for the adoption of such laws.

And make no mistake, these numbers are vastly overstated; don't expect me to go along with this, not when we're running an unemployment rate of only 6 percent during a recession. Please, no nostalgia for the demise of the traditional manufacturing class, not when there are better jobs in other sectors of the economy.

How many of the currently employed are underemployed? In other words, how many of them are working at the Wal-Mart trying to support families on $7/hr with no insurance after their factory job went to China? That 6% unemployment figure doesn't account for those people.

What better jobs in other sectors?

Please; the Perots, Buchanans, and Naders of the world have been saying that our jobs are going to be exported overseas and cause mass unemployment for the last ten years, and it never fucking happened.

A lot of 'tech' jobs have already been exported to India, and the trend is increasing. India is actually an ideal country to export tech and certain service jobs (such as call centers) to.

You have a huge population that has a large number of educated, intelligent people in it that speak and write English well and that are willing to work for maybe a quarter of what a US software engineer makes. Costs are cheap and the government is business-friendly.

An engineer doesn't need to be sitting in Silicon Valley to design a circuit.

Think about it the next time you call Dell tech support and the guy on the phone has a strange accent.

Manufacturing is shrinking.
Tech is next.

[Joe]

Real wages in manufacturing have been on the decline for almost 30 years and even after some gains made during the 90's remain about 5% lower than they were in 1973 after adjustment for inflation.

OK, real wages have gone down in certain sectors, but the average income earned has gone up, especially during the mid 1990's. As the manufacturing sector disappears, the wages must go down.

How many of the currently employed are underemployed? In other words, how many of them are working at the Wal-Mart trying to support families on $7/hr with no insurance after their factory job went to China? That 6% unemployment figure doesn't account for those people.

Well, we're in a recession, so underemployment is going to be a bit more common than usual. To answer that question, an analysis of the average income earned would have to be done. I doubt such an analysis would prove that average income has dropped much, even with the recession.

What better jobs in other sectors?

Tech, primarily. I should also add that the growth in the Tech sector was not really anticipated, but it still came about.

Manufacturing is shrinking.
Tech is next.

Then we'll just find another sector to specialize in. Americans are good at that. We've gone from an agrarian economy to a manufacturing economy to a tech economy throughout our history. Capitalism is creative destruction, as it was once said; it destroys that which is unproductive, and replaces it with newer innovations. The destruction of jobs is inevitable in any healthy economy, but the creation of new jobs will always accompany it.