Outsourcing Gone Wild...

All I can say is the OECD countries have an entirely different labor relationship paradigm than the US alone and therefore that skews the study.

The US is unique and exceptional and cannot be lumped in and considered with the rest of the OECD.

 

What is constitutional? Originally, slaves were worth thee fifths of "real" person.

Worshipping a flawed consitution as if it were written by the hand of God is no better. Union "monopolies" were a specific response to and foil against the abuses of business monopolies. Corrupt businesses are responsible for the existence of unions.

 

A good thing productivity is not the Meaning of Life. Have you ever heard of gainsharing?

 

In other words, states wshould have no say. It's easy to make proclamations like yours, but the good and bad of all sides should be taken into consideration.

Really this is a semantic argument. Social Security will still need to be governed. You may be able to remove The Government from it. but you can't get rid of government.

It already is in large part, thanks to an excessive pro-business attitude.

 

An interesting argument. You'd essentially have to suggest that pro-productivity effects are more likely in countries with more extensive collective bargaining mechanisms.

 

Amazing what slave labor can accomplish these days.

Trade?? It's a purchase, there was no trade involved. We don't trade with China. They sale us cheap, substandard junk and we buy it in large quantities.

The dang thing will probably be radio active, made with cheap materials and will crumble the first time a load of cars go across it. Then we will buy another.

 

This, at least, made me laugh.

 

You won't be laughing when the communist dictators we have been financing for the last 4 decades, use the money we gave them to attack us. Or maybe you will?
　
　
Wouldn't surprise me none if the bridge is set to explode on that date.

 

An impressive 'end is nigh' alternative. We actually do get closer to a major source of anti-trade American comment: as other economies grow we see decoupling (i.e. Reduced relative importance of the US economy) and that induces worrying on a par with Old Europe and the decline of their empires

 

We've been trading our stability, with no sound alternative of maintaining our own existence so we can boast the most billionaires on one single planet and call that progress.
　
　
It wasn't that long ago our government was actively involved in atrocities such as genocide, only now we are active participants in our own demise, if we continue to outsource our livelihoods to our sworn enemies, eventually we will be a toppled nation.
　
　
You sure talk pretty, how many degrees do you have?

 

Three. But one doesn't need any to spot the lack of economic content in your recent posts

 

I believe we are beyond the widget dialogue at this point. Theories can always be tossed around by the intellectually elite, but reality doesn't always walk the same path for some reason. Any clues as to why that is?

 

Its a straightforward proposition to utilise qualitative and quantitative techniques to test theory (whilst ensuring of course a theoretical backbone is used to avoid mistakes over data mining). The pertinent question then is why fellows think 'end is nigh' comments out-trump properly conducted economic analysis...

 

probably because it was the eggheads who caused the mortgage securities crisis, invented nuclear weapons, genetically modify our food, wrote our tax code, and who invented Global Warming Alarmism.

Truth is the best and brightest are usually wrong.

Whereas lots of people with mediocre intelligence manage to be right surprisingly often.

Because they operate on reliable instincts and hormones not fallible cranial functions.

I trust the instincts of a dog over the intellect of an egghead 9 times out of ten.

Just sayin.

 

Probably because when you are up to your eyeballs in quicksand, it really isn't that important to review what quick sand looks like from the surface before you step in it.


So you do not believe we as a nation is a former shadow of itself?

 

Nope. You are merely a country losing its hegemonic position. Best to embrace it and realise it doesn't mean anything for 'per capita income' partying

 

So Reiver you are simply a cheerleader not only in favor of our demise but frothing at the bit for it to happen sooner rather than later, both financially and politically?
　
　
So who do you think will be the best international ruler/dictator after we crumble, Russia? China? Maybe Mexico?? It’s all going to depend on might at that point, will it not?
　
　
While you are at it maybe you can explain with your expertise, how a person living in the USA can live on $.25 an hour so our labor can be more competitive with people who live in grass huts? Just curious.

 

I've never been a fan of hegemonic states, but I do celebrate worker well-being. Whinge and whine about trade doesn't support that aim
　

You're perhaps a tad over-reliant on the standard clichés. Wages should reflect productivity and US productivity rates, despite her over reliance on low wage labour, are high. The rest is described by the concept of comparative advantage. Look it up!

 

None of which addresses or changes the fact that the US will have to accept considerably lower wages in order to assist the developing nations in gaining better living standards.

And oddly we will be doing it with the greatest wealth disparity of any developed state.

And FWIW productivity = automation that eliminates employment. That works well enough if you actually have a shrinking workforce but the curve of workforce decline in the US isn't as steep as the employment curve decline.

And when the same effect impacts the developing nations you are gonna be left with your jaw on the ground and nothing but stammer drooling outta your mouth.

Bottom line is there is a global workforce glut and automation is making labor itself largely obsolete. Without an operating paradigm that makes it a primary mission to create employment for all the free trade economy of the world will do nothing more than lead to wealth and income disparity never seen before.

Imagine Haiti on a global scale. And you know it, Reiver, you just won't admit it.

 

No, but some unions are irresponsible.

 

More competition if able to purchase from more vendors.

True.

Sure, there are plenty of military vendors, but at least the U.S. controls.

 

Standard anti-trade myth. Wages should reflect productivity (which will reflect innovation and the nature of intra-industry trade). Although we've seen evidence that trade has reduced absolute poverty elsewhere (typically supported by rational policies to avoid market failure problems and to assist the delivery of specialisation according to comparative advantage), there's no evidence of increases in poverty in the developed world

 

Well there is some, Reiver. Trade is obviously beneficial to trading partners in the aggregate, but depending on the type of trade it can have differential effects on various income groups within in nation. Thus aggregate figures can be deceiving, since we obviously don't need policies that make the higher bracket earners even rich at the expense of the lower brackets.

Thus it's pretty clear that trade with China and other sweatshop nations that ban unions has benefitted the top 10% income earners in this country enormously, but various studies show that it's either been a wash or has actually reduced real income for the lower brackets.

In China itself I believe the jury is out. What the Chinese government has done is basically force rural people to the cities under a regime of internal migration that leaves those workers totally unprotected from exploitation. This has been done in a variety of ways, by out and out confiscation of land to withdrawal of public services (like schools) to rural areas.

Thus workers (mostly young males) can't make a living in the country like they used to and are force to the cities, where the China government declares them "illegal internal immigrants" (they have an actual designation which I forget) for purposes of social services. Thus these workers do not get health care or other benefits, and have to work under appalling condition for little pay, and are often cheated by the businesses that exploit them, many of which are run with foreign capital, often from the US (once again benefiting the owners of capital here, i.e., the higher brackets).

Poverty statistics are hard to come by and unreliable where China is concerned, but it's pretty clear these workers (and they number in the tens of millions) are worse off today then they were when rural economies were more stable. ANd there is little doubt that destabilization is a concerted policy of the Chinese government.

 

Redistribution effects are certainly expected. However, we should take into account that those redistribution effects are dependent on the type of trade. Inter-industry trade will lead to a redistribution in favour of the abundant factor (reflecting the specialisation according to comparative advantage repercussions). Thus, in the developing world (excluding of course the problems raised through an over-reliance on raw materials, plus failures created through economies of scale issues) labour should win. With the US, however, intra-industry trade. Except for issues of firm closure created through international competition, the redistribution effects are much smaller. That fact makes the standard anti-trade moan look a little ridiculous. In reality, its really just different shades of ugly economic nationalism.

 

"Inter-industry trade will lead to redistribution in favour of the abundant factor." I don't believe there is evidence of this, or rather it is specific to the political economy of the nations involved. While inter-industry trade should lead to aggregate benefits for both parties, there is nothing inherent in that relationship that means workers, as opposed to owners of capital will benefit. It is a function of negotiating power between them, pure and simple.

So long as unions are banned in sweatshop nations, the benefits of trade in those nations will tend to flow to the owners of capital not workers (that's why they ban unions!). As long as American workers have to compete with workers who cannot unionize in sweatshop nations, their wages will be suppressed.

They are numerous ways to deal with that problem -- from tariffs on one extreme, to a progressive income tax on the other. But it is a problem that must be address. Depending on trade itself to solve the problem is a form of denialism.