The American Worker should be Protected!

And the loss from that is what? Production based on low skilled labour should naturally shift in favour of the labour abundant country. In contrast, without that shift, there will be over-reliance on product with low income elasticity of demand. That is heading for disaster as decoupling, due to worldwide wealth gains, occur.

All countries can claim skills shortages. That includes those with a low skilled equilibrium. We can't ignore supply-side constraints, but to suggest that they can be used to explain the low wage abundance is inappropriate.

This doesn't account for the lack of skills, particularly the lack of upskilling. It only accounts for structural flaws in the 'primary sector'. However, those flaws are actually encouraged by internal labour markets (as there is a deliberate shift away from basic supply and demand criteria)

A skills distribution will always exist. The issue is the over-reliance on low paid labour and the lack of skills investment by employers

No. We'd have production shifting to a more consistent high utilisation of more skilled labour. In simple buzzword terms, a shift to product with higher income elasticity of demand

 

I must disagree: you cant protect the simple from the simple.

 

Reiver, my general view is that in the short term (like a couple years) upskilling is neglectable and your labor supply is essentially what you have on hand at the moment, thus the supply side of labor in any short term analysis is basically fixed. and even in the medium term the capacity for supply to adjust tend to be signficiantly weaker than that of the demand. since training anyone takes months at best and often years (not even accounting for their formal education which plays a significant role and take over a decade at least.) where as demand can move about as fast as capital can.

Thus your going to get in trouble by simply adjusting demand and the labor simply don't match the level . sure, the guys still employed might be better off as a whole, but you'd likely get a lot of folks unemployed, this seems like what is happening in the US anyway. where education havn't changed signficiantly over the last decade but the employment structure have, while the 06-08 run was generally using a bubble to mask the problem where as the current situation more closely reflect the reality of the disparity between a relatively fixed supply of labor versus a demand curve that is simply above the optimal level of said supply curve.

Unless you manage to change the structure of the supply considerablly, your stuck, what's worse is that the folks most in need of upskilling tend to be the same folks that are least capable of doing it espeiclly on their own.

I'd think we'd agree that no matter what the total number is, if a society is signfiicantly struck by unemployement or even underemployment it's going to be in huge trouble, and we'll potentially see destablizing factors which throws all stats out the window (aka revolutions or major riots etc..)

 

As a communist (or "market socialist") I would think that would be Reiver's desired outcome. I read here there seems to be some new consensus that R&D can't be kept separate from manufacturing since that's inefficient for the individual company. It's based on some Harvard business school study.
http://prospect.org/article/back-china

 

Once we have upskilling we can forget the standard neoclassical tales into the short term and the long term. The problem is that, within Anglo-Saxon labour market flexibility, there is no motivation to provide such upskilling. Consider, for example, British training data. First impressions would suggest that its relatively healthy. In reality, much of it is low powered (such as health & safety 'training' to control for potential liability problems). Its only by restricting that labour market flexibility that resources can be shifted away from product with a low income elasticity.

Would that create some structural issues? Certainly. However, we're referring to economies that already exhibit structural deficiencies. The low skill equilibrium is effectively a demand-led market failure created by labour exploitation.

 

The nearest think to gibberish I have seen .
As Eric Morecambe said , " The notes I am playing are right . But I may be playing them in the wrong order !!!!!!"

 

The Chuckle Brothers would have achieved a more high powered response. Does Britain have a low paid equilibrium? Without doubt. Is it demand-led (i.e. we cannot explain it with reference to supply-side limitation)? Yes. Is Britain characterised by high underpayment? That's easily confirmed. One just has to estimate the 'market wage' for a given human capital level.

 

Workers should be defended by a Workers Government in America its the only protection that makes sense as the Capitialist thing that 'PRESENTLY"holds power the Tea\Republican Party and Democrat Duopoly isn't defending anything against BP Global ,Caterpillar Global or their facade corporate operations like Cooper Tyres.

How will the 2 teir Wage system now in America defend workers when its there WAGES being Cut by get this its true ,50% thats half the rate yes 50% wage cuts across all industries ,unless the unprotected by any Nation Workers Stand Up as always its the Working Class that has the future in its hands .Not the Government of for and by the RICH.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jan2012/pers-j03.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jan2012/coop-j06.shtml

Talk about International unity ,lets modernise that to Global Unity of the Working Class,we are in the same war against Depression and War everywhere in real time .

For those who think workers are NOTHING ,get ready stupid and get your passports in order you have to leave now or confrount a resurgent Proletariet Rebellion ,and as you are Cowardly never did a decent days work in their lives middle Class types, leave the US while you still can run little middle class apologists for Capitialism your time has past.

Working Class frount and centre .Get angry and get a Workers Government in power .

The Global Proletariet will not only protect the "American Proletariet"we will join it as we are the same us workers on the Global Labour Market.

Transnational Capitialism dosen't recognise National Working Classes so why should the Working Class recognise Nations that only exist as stinking Capitialist Governments ,yes the Corrupt ,putrid,demented stupid Government that is in power in an Nation Near you.

In the demented corrupt morally decayed heads and hearts of the Government is the only place Capitalism and the Nation State exist outside of their stupid thinking everything else has been GLOBALISED .


The conditions of workers is determined by Global Factors Now not National and that is OBJECTIVLY VARIFIED by the real historic events like 50% Wage cuts in the USA and Canada.

Or ????????????????????????????????????????

 

When you read the pop stats you should read them all. Much of the pop increase will be due to people living longer, ave age today is 35.5, in 2040 it will be 39. Growth rate today is 1.1%, in 2040 it will be .54%, barely enough to sustain a work force, but enviable by European standards. The Census Bureau has determined that in 2050 the nation will be: 53% White
23% Hispanic
16% Black
8% other
The Bureau also notes that thankfully the Hispanic pop will be providing the largest % of fertility and so the largest % of the new work force, so teaching them English might be an idea. When I hear "whites" decry the inevitably of a hispanic work force being the future as a bad thing I can only assume they have never worked with them or been an employer.

 

This is not an illogical view. But in better economic times, employers had the means and willingness to provide the training, because there simply were not enough skilled workers. The problem today is that demand for skilled workers is lower than relative supply. There simply is little incentive to train new employees when there are plenty of old ones who already have experience. The fact that so many of the workers who do have experience are not working shows that the problem is more about the unwillingness (or inability) of the private sector to pay higher wages. In many occupations, there are not "enough" workers simply because the salaries are not high enough to motivate potential workers to obtain education or expensive training in the academic institutions. the field of nursing is an excellent example of this. If there are really not enough nurses, why do so many nurses leave the profession after only a short stay? If there really was higher demand, it would drive up wages and working conditions, but this just simply is not what we are seeing.

 

You haven't understood. This isn't about the business cycle. This is about a long term reliance on an abundant pool of low paid labour

 

Earning $7,000 in 1984 real terms would be $14,500 in 2010 dollars, which is above the national poverty level. Ironically if you break the numbers down of $7,000 in 1984 minimum wage, it tends to show those jobs met and surpassed the $3.35 an hour minimum wage. Now since minimum wage is at $7.25 federal since 2009, it would equated to $15,080 in 2010/2011.

It really has nothing to do with demand conditions engineered by right wings but rather left wing policies such as minimum wage as you are complaining about wages based on a left wing idea, not a right wing idea.

 

This is a dull attempt at hiding over what happened: a further rise in low wage labour. The quality of your posts has fallen somewhat recently. Is there a reason for it?

Minimum wages encourage low wages? Golly. I'd love to see your evidence for that! Give the full reference(s)

 

I agree. I think that anything sold in the U.S. should observe the same minimum wage for any employee growing, making, or distributing that item as we have in the U.S. All facilities making said items should also have to meet our own environmental codes. If said legislation were enacted we would not be buying in stupid things that we can easily produce here at a slightly higher cost, only things that we are not able to produce here or not able to produce as efficiently.

I do however think that creating these laws would inevitably lead to Americans having less stuff. I don't consider having less stuff to be lowering the standards of living, but some might.

 

Its not just less consumption. Its also a tendency towards greater absolute poverty in the developing world as Americans play silly blighters!

 

So, you think that we should ship cabbage around the world when we can grow it in our own back yard? How does that make sense? Also, I don't think that the U.S. is some kind of superman for foreign countries. The most stable and healthy economy that those third world countries can have is a primarily localized one. There may be some things that they need or want that they can trade other countries including our own for and they may have something that we can not easily produce.

Also, Large corporations do nothing good for the economies of these countries. One would think that the jobs created by multinational companies would benefit third world countries. However, sweatshops do not help that country's economy. Those countries' governments overlook the horrible conditions these workers have to endure, and also pay these companies to stay because they believe it will benefit them in the long run. However, those companies take the money, until they can't exponentially increase their profit and then move to another country anyway.

 

You'll find that local produce is fine with trade liberalisation. The only issue is non-innovative home nation.

Now if you want to sneer at my evaluation then please do it with empirical evidence. Your comment is on a par with empty whinge

 

My argument was mainly saying that multinational companies and free trade often hurt third world countries rather than help them. I have not seen evidence that shows otherwise.
The reason that we are shipping produce around the world is directly related to the income of the farmers overseas. It has nothing to do with innovation.

 

Present evidence in support of your argument.

 

NAFTA, multinational businesses, and immigration.
There is more poverty in Mexico and more immigration connected to that poverty since land was privatized in 1992 going against the 1917 Mexican constitution. This happened in order to make way for Free Trade. Multinational businesses now own a large percentage of the farm land which used to belong to the Mexican people collectively. The farmers are now not able to grow food, and if they are they are not able to compete with the agribusiness that was brought in since NAFTA was introduced. Some of the farmers work for these corporations for about $11.00 per day, 56 hours/wk, for about half of the year. Once the season is over they are out of work. Ultimately these impoverished people migrate to the U.S. illegally in order to make enough money to get by.

 

It's a point that needed to be made due to the fact most entry jobs or newly created jobs are that which require low skill sets.

I didn't say low wages. I said the policy of minimum wage encourages companies to pay the minimum over the long term. Raising the minimum wage years or bi-yearly never fixes the problem and never will. Due to the facts you know very well and businesses and economics do as well. Low paying jobs are for new employees, mainly teenagers, college students, and part-time workers. These types actually make up 90% of the low wage earners because they don't have skills need and have to learn it or they are not invested in working full time.

Then comes in the issue of efficiency, employment and lower prices. If somebody had to pay minimum wage of $10 and could only afford a budget of $100 an hour before benefits. Only 10 employees would be hired. Now that cuts down on employment, because if it was a $7 minimum wage, you could hire 4 more people. Now having 4 more people leads to efficiency if you are smart about it, but it also cuts down on prices as well because the owner can lower prices to still make a profit margin. A prime example of this type of business is a Bar or any fast food joint in which it's about getting service out quickly. The more turn over you have, the more you make.

 

It had no bearing on the point: there was a significant rise in low wage labour. You cannot deny that as that is just factual.

Present some evidence in support. I look forward to it. No dodging this time though

 

You couldn't be more vague. Please refer to the empirical evidence that supports your position. You surely shouldn't find that a difficult proposition? There's a huge literature on the subject after all.

 

And I am not disagreeing. I am stating while it sounds bad, it's not. As those jobs created are those that require low skill sets. This was the period (and today) in which jobs mainly created are service sector jobs which in reality the majority are low skill set jobs.

Why would I dodge your ignorance?

The Elasticity of Labor Demand and the Minimum Wage by Leif Danziger at from the Institute for the Study of Labor in Bonn would be a good start.

Then this little gem from the US Department of Labor based on future wage hikes in American Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands.

 

You cannot disagree, making your original reply quite pointless.

Managed to copy and paste randomly? I'd say 'well done' but you could have done a better job! Let's take the working paper:

1) It doesn't start well. It footnotes about possible monopsony effects. We know that those effects assuredly exist. It therefore starts with a skewed understanding of supply and demand relations. This is particularly dodgy because of the utilisation of reservation wages. The model is therefore irrelevant to actual labour markets.

2) The paper provides a theoretical analysis into the impact of minimum wages (given the assumptions made) on low wage welfare. That certainly cannot be used to support your nonsense. You'd have to do two things. You'd have use panel data to show how the wage distribution evolves with the minimum wage. You'd then have to show how those effects are more substantial where the minimum wage impacts on a greater proportion of the labour force.

You had to refer to Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands? You do make me laugh! Its of course even worse. It merely provides basic labour data. The required analysis to support your silly claims isn't provided.

Now be serious and present some proper evidence!