Printable View
Jobs aren't zero-sum, people aren't widgets or widget-makers, supply and demand aren't infinitely elastic, markets are necessarily constrained, information access is assymetric, it's like all our conceptions of these things are just not 100% accurate :cry: :(
You must be mistaken, because sclerosis is working so well right now where it's practiced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Where is "sclerosis" being "practiced"?
Much of Europe including large parts of the UK.
You love your straw men don t you? I am talking of the costs of joblessness vs cheap imports. It's a typical example of privatized profits on tha basis of public losses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Producing in China benefits Chinese workers a little, American consumers a little, the holders of the rights a lot and American society as a whole will loose out, since not all low and medium skilled workers can be re-trained.
I did not say we should stop prgress I want full disclosure of the costs of outsourcing. And since you are claiming the US benefits from it the burden of proof lies with you.
It's just this simple logic hazir.
If it's cheaper to produce yourself (in most cases, I can think of exceptions) you will produce it yourself. But if it's cheaper to produce abroad/buy from abroad you will do that instead.
Here's why it's better to go for cheaper. You still get the same product but instead of costing X, it costs Y where Y < X. So you save X-Y in money + still have that product. So you have these extra resources you literally could just give to American workers if you wanted to, also you still have the labor potential of those workers, so if you could retrain them to specialize in something else. You'd get profit off the labor of those workers, + profit from buying the cheaper item... So in the long run (especially after specializing) we profit immensely, just a matter a time before that structural unemployment costs get made up for. Maybe even the next generation has to make up for it. Overall we'll be wealthier and able to help our citizens, even the jobless, if we so choose, more.
What I would view as the costs of producing stuff overseas/buying from overseas.
Cons
1.) You help that country (is that coumtry stable, is it doing things in our interest, are they dangerous etc..)
2.) You're wasting more physical resources of Earth. We have a finite amount of gas (since it takes so long to replenish), in adding the additional transport step. If the earth ever cares about just getting the most out of it's resources over how long something takes or how much more money it costs to do it with fewer resources consumed, then this could be hurtful.
Additional Pro:
1.) If we're using their local minerals and their locals areas are expereincing the waste/by-products of a plant being constructed, that's better from the U.S. perspective. For example: If we could produce a product at the same price, but in one situation we're cutting down their trees, but in another we're cutting down our own. I'd rather buy from them and cut down theirs. Or oil, if we could get our own or get some from others at the same price, I'd rather take their oil. That way if the world ever comes into an oil crises we still have ours, and if the price booms, it's much better to be the one who is selling their amount late and not early. Or if a war time arises, I'd much rather have a bunch of oil still on our soil, even if we could sell it all, or consume it all at a cheaper rate than we could buy it from abroad.
The resources at the end of the day are really the most important thing to possess. In all extreme situations, that may arise some day, you want to be the one with all the local resources still there.
You think America would have benefited if Americans insisted on buying textiles and cheap electronics made in the USA? How do you think this would have affected the supply of labor toward other professions (where America actually has a comparative advantage)? Sorry, but any move to safeguard inefficient jobs just delays the inevitable layoffs while simultaneously stifling innovation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
No its not, because yours is the real straw man. Cancelling cheap imports would not reduce joblessness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
No, again garbage. Cheap imports have kept inflation low for decades and helped everyone, especially the poor.Quote:
Producing in China benefits Chinese workers a little, American consumers a little, the holders of the rights a lot and American society as a whole will loose out, since not all low and medium skilled workers can be re-trained.
As for low and medium skilled workers, once again the facts say otherwise. It is the young, not ex-factory workers, who are more unemployed.
Wait is that because of the unions or what
Because companies value experience. Guess who doesn't have much. :noob: Also, minimum wage laws make it impractical to hire many young people for a wage they can't justify.
Really Randblade? You don't pay welfare and unemployment benefits to jobless people? You don't have destructive riots in the underbelly of your society? Those are ALSO costs of your cheap imports. Not paid for by the people who profit from the reduced labour costs, but by you and the other tax-payers. Private profits paid for by socialised losses. Your cheaper DVD player all of a sudden is not so cheap any longer if a bunch of rioters torch your car because they are disaffected with society. If it is the young who can't get jobs that match their skills the picture is even more bleak, because it means that you are going to have to deal with big portions of entire generations that will not work for a single day in their lives. THAT is a huge drain on society, be it through social programs like in Europe or through severely elevated crime rates as we see in countries without socials nets.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No you don't get it.
Joblessness is not caused by "made in China".
Just to make this clear; I am not against production in other countries. I am against this halfwit notion that it is benefitting your society just because individual items are cheaper. In my not so humble opinion cheap may turn out to be excessively expensive to society at large while it only benefits a tiny group of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon
Well, you believe whatever harebrained version of capitalism you want. I think you're merely closing your eyes to the fact that you are subsidising companies that fool you into believing you get a good deal because they can offer you a product with a low price-tag.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
But then again, you are easily fooled.
Are only a tiny group of people buying the cheaper products? No, everybody is. Everybody benefits.
Who benefits the most? Those with the least disposable income.
I suggest you have a look at your payslip and consider why the hell you don't get anywhere near the amount in your bank account of the wages your employer doles out for you. Part of that money goes to the unseen costs of your cheap products.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No, part of that money go to the dole bludgers I've railed against.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I knew there was more to the union hate than was being told :downcast:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Okay so in simple terms this discussion is about whether or not there are negative externalities to the happy shenanigans of western businesses? And one side is saying "yes there are" while the other is saying...???
And if it doesn't go to them, they'll find another way to get at your money. Like car-jacking or something fun like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Also, cheaply produced in China very often does not mean sold at a low price elsewhere. Example? Look at the phone you are using.
Yes, but it's a bit funny because Loki and Rand are taken in by the easy rhetoric of business people, whereas I am not fond of extending socialism to people who use it in the name of capitalist enterprise, the costs should be born by those who cause them, not by the general public in some stealthy way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I can get behind that on matters of job security and the like, not sure if it's all that important or feasible to establish Foxconn USA however. Even with Apples 400k USD profit per employee last year :eek:
HA!!
I thought this was funny:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/bu...ewanted=3&_r=2Quote:
Apple had already selected an American company, Corning Inc., to manufacture large panes of strengthened glass. But figuring out how to cut those panes into millions of iPhone screens required finding an empty cutting plant, hundreds of pieces of glass to use in experiments and an army of midlevel engineers. It would cost a fortune simply to prepare.
Then a bid for the work arrived from a Chinese factory.
When an Apple team visited, the Chinese plant’s owners were already constructing a new wing. “This is in case you give us the contract,” the manager said, according to a former Apple executive. The Chinese government had agreed to underwrite costs for numerous industries, and those subsidies had trickled down to the glass-cutting factory. It had a warehouse filled with glass samples available to Apple, free of charge. The owners made engineers available at almost no cost. They had built on-site dormitories so employees would be available 24 hours a day.
The Chinese plant got the job.
“The entire supply chain is in China now,” said another former high-ranking Apple executive. “You need a thousand rubber gaskets? That’s the factory next door. You need a million screws? That factory is a block away. You need that screw made a little bit different? It will take three hours.”
Yeah, I knew that article would pop up; I read it myself a couple of days ago and found it very interesting. It shows that it's less about low wages than about other factors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
But so far the gentlemen are utterly convinced that cheap production in China is benefitting us, while refusing to back that up with actual data that take all costs into account, rather than just the price-tag and the profit margins of the companies that hold the rights to a product.
No, it's more about how things are proportioned. Hazir claims the externalities and the business-gouging are high and the consumer benefit/efficiency benefit is low. Rand is claiming the latter of those is high and the other two are comparatively smaller.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Okay, fair 'nuff
Btw, to those of you who're in the know: why is youth unemployment usually defined as unemployment among youths aged 16 - 24? Rather than eg. 19 - 24?
Because 16 is the age you're allowed to legally start working in the US without you or your employer needing to jump through all the hoops created by child labor laws, probably. It's the earliest age you're allowed to work without too many restrictions, so it makes sense to start employment tracking there. If that range is used in countries with a lower age, it's probably done for comparitive purposes, as I believe that's the latest age child labor laws end in the west.
The reason I ask is because I'm wondering if gives us meaningful information. I'd expect "unemployment" among 16-year-olds--I assume they mean full- or part-time jobs among 16-year-olds who don't go to school?--to be relatively high even in good times. We've argued on this forum that there's a huge difference between a 16-y-o and an 18-y-o, and I'm trying to figure out if it's sensible to lump them all together into one group. I have no doubt that unemployment is high between ages 19 - 24, but maybe it's lower than if you look at ages 16 - 24?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Although I suppose that would be the least of the problems that may arise from using the unemployment rate as a gauge for an economy's health :o
Youth unemployment here is defined as 16-24 NEET - Not in Education, Employment or Training.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Personally I think you should be at school to 18, but that's not what the law says. You are allowed to drop out at 16 so that's when it gets counted from. There is not that much difference by law between a 16 year old and 18 year old in the jobs market, though there are some very important ones.
Wow, a lot going on here. While trying to catch up (again) these posts were interesting back-and-forth comments about capitalism, consumerism, globalism, employment and trade policies as theories.
One side is mostly talking about The Economic Pie, as if cutting more slices makes each piece more valuable....even though the size of the pie is basically smaller (population growth + economic slowing). More people get a piece, enough to survive but maybe not enough to thrive. Those who had a slightly larger share a decade ago are trying to do more with less, while working harder and longer for less wages that can't keep up with the most important expenses: healthcare and education. Those who had the lion's share still have more than they can eat, and are thriving by not working at all, because their investments simply grow themselves in rigged 'markets'.
That's what the 99% and OWS movements are all about.
Depends on how you look at The Pie, or how to get to the table. Those with the least disposable income are now required to have a cell phone, a good credit score, and reliable transportation (in the US that means a driver's license, a car, auto insurance, and buying gas) to qualify for a job. Even those part-time jobs with no guaranteed hours, or any benefits. Nearly all employers either prefer or require internet applications, which means having their own computer with internet or a smart phone with wifi. Those things require proof of domicile or residency (renting or owning a home), which require a credit card, good credit score, and a paying job. If they're lucky, they have a public library with free resources available, but if they're unlucky their library funding has been cut and they're shit outta luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Talk about a circular cluster fuck. :sour:
So what are the essential goods and services in today's modern American life? Food, shelter, ... ??
Or friends/family. When I was a student with no permanent abode I put my parents address down on job applications.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Could you name for me please what proportion of the US you think has absolutely zero access to the internet? Any guess?
How's that work for a 40+ year old who's supposed to be Head of Family? A homeless person living in their car? An Iraq veteran?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I don't have US figures on hand, but it's less access than Canadians and Finns have, that's for sure. Those countries have made a concerted effort to get broadband/internet access to even their most remote citizens. I think Alaskans and many Northwest US residents still rely on landlines ("dial-up") and radio/HAM operators due to geography.Quote:
Could you name for me please what proportion of the US you think has absolutely zero access to the internet? Any guess?
Poor people in urban areas may not be able to afford monthly contracts for internet and/or cell phones. It's not cheap. My internet is bundled to basic cable....and costs over $100/month. That's in addition to my phone. Dish TV means leasing the satellite equipment and having at least a two year contract, with a credit card that can cover the whole shebang up front. Our public library has lost funding and responded with very limited hours. It's not really *practical* for people to check incoming messages, or apply for jobs, using library internet access.
Let's put this another way---how high should a struggling person be expected to "jump" in order to get internet access?
Any actual figures?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
According to this data 30% of U.S. households didn't have internet in 2010. that number should have gone down by 2012, and that number should shrink futher still when asked who doesn't have reasonably consistent internet access at their disposal. It'd still be around probably 7-8%. Are we counting bums? All depends how you count. A noticeable percentage worth raising a point about.
This isn't true at all. I've had several jobs now, was below the poverty line for years, and never needed any of those things.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Especially untrue. Those jobs generally don't care at all about employee background.Quote:
Even those part-time jobs with no guaranteed hours, or any benefits.
Also untrue. Most employers still prefer paper, and only grudgingly accept internet applications if they do at all. Varies by field, natch, and lower end jobs are the most flexible ones - higher end jobs are more likely to only accept paper.Quote:
Nearly all employers either prefer or require internet applications,
All of that is very untrue.Quote:
which means having their own computer with internet or a smart phone with wifi. Those things require proof of domicile or residency (renting or owning a home), which require a credit card, good credit score, and a paying job.
While GGT's post is at one extreme, I'd have to say that yours is a bit naive as well. While a cell phone might not be required, a phone (any phone) or internet access is, as you can rapidly lose your job from infractions if you aren't able to receive schedule updates where I work (retail). Reliable transportation is necessary as well, as you can be penalized both for punching in 5 minutes early, or 5 minutes late. Also employees who aren't at the whim of the bus schedule are more likely to get better hours, and more hours. So that means either getting a taxi, or having a car.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Part-time employees get background checked before being hired, and still need to be able to show up on time, and when asked to come in. If you're off and someone calls to ask if you can come in, and you can't, or its going to be a while because you have to wait for the bus, it is less likely they'll call you to fill in next time.Quote:
Especially untrue. Those jobs generally don't care at all about employee background.
The retailer I work for only accepts internet applications, at least for the location I work at.Quote:
Also untrue. Most employers still prefer paper, and only grudgingly accept internet applications if they do at all. Varies by field, natch, and lower end jobs are the most flexible ones - higher end jobs are more likely to only accept paper.
The internet thing GGT posted is wrong since you could technically apply at any place that will let you access a computer and internet, but they're going to call you, at whatever phone number you provided, if you pass the first round of acceptance...Quote:
All of that is very untrue.
...you also need to pay for your own uniform.
and before someone mentions the safelink or other free phone for government assistance programs.
those programs require a physical address. every applicant has to have a unique address at that. so every sort of homeless shelter is disqualified.
I was not saying that you do not need anything ever, nor that you never ever need any of those things, only that they are not needed as a rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Some method of getting to work is obviously required, and I did not dispute this at any point. You do not need it to qualify for a job, and employers do not check as part of your qualifications. Unless something has changed recently, it is illegal for them to check. All they're allowed to ask is "can you get here?" How you arrive is irrelevant, and certainly does not require the purchase of a car.Quote:
Reliable transportation is necessary as well, as you can be penalized both for punching in 5 minutes early, or 5 minutes late. Also employees who aren't at the whim of the bus schedule are more likely to get better hours, and more hours. So that means either getting a taxi, or having a car.
I'm sure that you can find someplaces somewhere that do that, and it is the norm in certain professions, but in general low-level jobs, and especially part-time employees do not get background checked beyond "did they give us a social security number that looks real-ish?". It's too expensive for the positions being filled, especially for part-time positions, where they'll probably leave and be replaced in six months. No place I have ever worked at has done background checks, not even my current job, which is a fairly high-level job and actually could justify the expense. Which is good, because on hiring I had no car, no cell phone, and no credit score. For any job I've ever had.Quote:
Part-time employees get background checked before being hired,
This is not relevant to anything I've said.Quote:
and still need to be able to show up on time, and when asked to come in. If you're off and someone calls to ask if you can come in, and you can't, or its going to be a while because you have to wait for the bus, it is less likely they'll call you to fill in next time.
Exceptions. Fair warning, you may have just given a pretty big clue as to who you work for. It was big news when a major retailer made that move a couple years ago, because nobody serious had ever done that before.Quote:
The retailer I work for only accepts internet applications, at least for the location I work at.
Every retailer I've worked for showed me where the stack of employment applications were when I started, because part of my job duties was to hand them out whenever anyone asked for one.
For which you do not need a personal computer with internet access, nor a smartphone with wifi to accept.Quote:
The internet thing GGT posted is wrong since you could technically apply at any place that will let you access a computer and internet, but they're going to call you, at whatever phone number you provided, if you pass the first round of acceptance...
Some type of phone to recieve calls on is the only thing that's been mentioned so far that really is a requirement at the general level, not counting obvious things, like the ability to actually do the job.. Oddly, the one thing GGT did not mention - unless you count the extremely specific 'smartphones with wifi' requirement.
We don't seem to really be in any serious disagreement here, since a good portion of what you posted was arguing with things I never said. My point with that post was to point out exactly what you yourself said, that GGT's post was at an extreme not reflective of reality.