|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Protecting People and Jobs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Perdition writes: The American market will only be attractive if Americans are paid aove minimum wage. People who make minimum wage in this economy don't have enough disposable income to buy very many i-pads, TVs, Computers, or what have you. This is why I support unionism. And by the way, the unions would love to organize foreign labor. Jon seems to think i'm the Grinch that stole opportunity, but he may or may not realize that the middle class in America is under attack from poor and rich alike. A poor kid from the trailer park has the opportunity to get student loans and educational grants while living on food stamps as they attend college. The rich kid also never need worry about bills...since Mommy and Daddy happily pay his education. Only the working middle class...who make just enough to not qualify for many government services...are at a disadvantage IF they dont have a liveable wage.
The rule would apply to any company that wanted to do business in America. It might stifle imports, but I think the American market would be attractive enough to overcome the resistance. Jon writes: If you ever become a teacher, Jon, you will thank God for the teachers union! Otherwise, you too will become a victim of being undercut by cheaper foreign labor. Lots of people even shop around for cheaper foreign colleges....should we slap a minimum tuition on them as well? Oh, and by the way...it hardly takes an education to work at a grocery store unless you are in management. I do agree that workers could be educated from within the store as to the service skills that they may need...but by and large, grocery workers are uneducated. Does this mean that we should only pay educated people a decent wage? Without unions, which raise the wages of everyone to a liveable level, we probably would pay less if we could even find workers who will put up with minimum wage. At my store, they always quit after a month...it simply is not worth it for them to work so hard for so little. These things aren't conceptually difficult. But in practicality they pose quite the challenge. People like Phat will resist with a fiery passion learning new skills or taking on jobs manufacturing products they are unfamiliar with. As for the rather personal attacks, I think you are just jealous that an old man like me with no formal education makes more than an educated lad like yourself or your girlfriend. My advice? Wait in line! Your turn will come.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
People who make minimum wage in this economy don't have enough disposable income to buy very many i-pads, TVs, Computers, or what have you Why do people need to be able to buy iPads, TVs, and computers?
A poor kid from the trailer park has the opportunity to get student loans and educational grants while living on food stamps as they attend college. The rich kid also never need worry about bills...since Mommy and Daddy happily pay his education. Only the working middle class...who make just enough to not qualify for many government services...are at a disadvantage IF they dont have a liveable wage. LOL. I have regularly said that education needs to be provided free through the college level if not beyond.
Lots of people even shop around for cheaper foreign colleges. And they're free to find a foreign college that is more reasonably affordable because it isn't buckling under the weight of an excessively out of control 'sporting' budget. And we are free to make our universities appealing to prospective students.
Without unions, which raise the wages of everyone to a liveable level, we probably would pay less if we could even find workers who will put up with minimum wage. At my store, they always quit after a month...it simply is not worth it for them to work so hard for so little. Minimum wage needs to be gotten rid of.
As for the rather personal attacks, I think you are just jealous that an old man like me with no formal education makes more than an educated lad like yourself or your girlfriend. My advice? Wait in line! Your turn will come. LOL. Do you have any suggestions for helping protect American workers from foreign competition? You seem to think unions are good because they make sure you get paid more despite your lack of education, but what does that do to make the American workforce more competitive? How is a high-paid, uneducated workforce attractive to anyone wanting to start a business? JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
The companies will choose inputs that maximize profits. This does not always mean cheaper labor. Correct. Cheaper raw materials, shorter supply chain are all factors. But they're generally factors that play into outsourcing more then keeping jobs domestic.
Why does it have to come with a similarly large increase in cost? It probably isn't a 1:1 ratio, but increasing quality tends increase cost. It requires more R&D, more quality control (more emplyees), higher-grade materials, more exacting equipment, etc. Economies of scale would probably bring prices down in the long run, but most companies are sadly short-sighted.
Republicans are people too. Technically. The general Republican economic theories, which have been tried, don't work. They tend to concentrate wealth at the top. The policies they've enacted are the ones that have lead to the point we're at, so I tend to ignore them when they talk about economics, and then vote against them in elections.
With that, there's no incentive for a company to have any of its operations in the U.S. There's a lot fo incentive...lower taxes. If you mean it would drive business owners to incorporate outside the US and thus make everything they produce and sell in America imports, then they will pay tariffs, or in effect, higher import taxes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Correct. Cheaper raw materials, shorter supply chain are all factors. But they're generally factors that play into outsourcing more then keeping jobs domestic. You're only focusing on inputs, though. Profit is an equation that subtracts the selling price from the production cost, meaning there are two ways of increasing profit: decreasing production cost and/or increasing selling price.
It probably isn't a 1:1 ratio, but increasing quality tends increase cost. It requires more R&D, more quality control (more emplyees), higher-grade materials, more exacting equipment, etc. The one thing that doesn't have to increase cost is quality of labor. And that will affect the cost of almost all of the inputs. Jon Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3829 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
there's a pretty "simple" way to enforce that, just shift the burden of proof to the company so they get the license to do business in your country. You could make it so that proving you're producing in a country is known to respect those conditions is enough but you would need more evidence if you produce in other countries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
You're only focusing on inputs, though. Profit is an equation that subtracts the selling price from the production cost, meaning there are two ways of increasing profit: decreasing production cost and/or increasing selling price. Yes, a company can increase profit by raising costs, but that tends to drive demand to the cheaper competitor. Company A decides to raise prices so the raising cost of production can be overcome. Company B keeps prices the same but moves their production facility overseas to keep production costs down. Consumers buy Company B's product, driving Company A to either lower costs, eating into profit, moving overseas like Company B, or going out of business.
The one thing that doesn't have to increase cost is quality of labor. And that will affect the cost of almost all of the inputs. In general, higher quality labor demand higher wages, which increases cost to the company. If we raise all labor to the same level, labor costs may stay down, but that's easier said than done. As soon as some people are better trained or educated, they'll ask for higher wages, and once we get everyone to the same level, those wages will be the norm for that position, and any attempt top lower wages will result in strikes or lowered morale.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I still don't think you've answered why anybody would buy US products outside the US when all your global competitors will have a lower cost structure. I believe you rely somewhat on exports?
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
In general, higher quality labor demand higher wages, which increases cost to the company. And those laborers will get exactly what they ask for then: unemployment.
As soon as some people are better trained or educated, they'll ask for higher wages, and once we get everyone to the same level, those wages will be the norm for that position, and any attempt top lower wages will result in strikes or lowered morale. Which is why I've already mentioned that there is considerable pressure on the workforce to make itself more valuable. If the workers don't want to do that, then they are permitted to sit at home unemployed pretending they are too good for any of the jobs out there.
Yes, a company can increase profit by raising costs, but that tends to drive demand to the cheaper competitor. Again, not if the increased cost is accompanied by a worth-while increase in quality. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I still don't think you've answered why anybody would buy US products outside the US when all your global competitors will have a lower cost structure. I believe you rely somewhat on exports? The idea is that the US marketplace is such a prize that non-US companies would want to sell their products here. If they want to, they'll have to conform to the labor laws the US enforces within its borders. If, say, Sony decides that being able to sell TVs in America is not worth paying their workers more or ensuring worker safety and 40 hour weeks, or whatever, they'd be free to not sell their products in America. I don't think they'd do that. And, if other developed nations, like western Europe, Canada, Japan, etc all enact similar legislation, it will force almost all companies that wish to sell internationally to raise their standards. I'm not exactly assuming other nations will adopt this law, but if the US starts, it might cause some others to follow the lead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
The idea is that the US marketplace is such a prize that non-US companies would want to sell their products here. If they want to, they'll have to conform to the labor laws the US enforces within its borders. I think you've lost the plot :-) The rest of the world would tell you to go take a hike so you'd lose your cheap imports, domestic inflation caused by higher input costs would destroy the value of the $ and your products wouldn't sell outside the US so your export market would crash and your foreign competitors would steal your global markets. Welcome to stagflation, decline and splendid isolation.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
The rest of the world would tell you to go take a hike so you'd lose your cheap imports, You really think the major international corporations would choose to just leave the American marketplace? If this is true, then yeah, maybe my idea won't work. What about, instead of enforcing complete compliance with US labor laws, just the one's relating to worker safety? It would be a start, and there might be room to grow from that to more compliance, especially if other nations join in. It would benefit the workers who are being exploited right now in China and even in India.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
You really think the major international corporations would choose to just leave the American marketplace? You're missing the point Tangle's trying to make: If the U.S. creates laws that favor keeping manufacturing in the U.S. and restricts imports from manufacturers that don't follow U.S. regulations, then the rest of the world will be encouraged to impose similar restrictions on the import of U.S.-made goods as retaliation measures. Your proposal is isolationist, and that is not a workable position for a country in this day and age. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
You really think the major international corporations would choose to just leave the American marketplace? Of course, do you think the world is going to change its manufacturing base just to suit the US? No chance. Europe is as big a market as the US and the economies of China, India and South America are much more important to the rest of the world than the jolly old US.
If this is true, then yeah, maybe my idea won't work. What about, instead of enforcing complete compliance with US labor laws, just the one's relating to worker safety? It would be a start, and there might be room to grow from that to more compliance, especially if other nations join in. I love Americans, they seem to think that the rest of the world needs to do what they want while most of them don't own a passport:-) All you can do is lead by example and get your own act in order - trade barriers don't work.
It would benefit the workers who are being exploited right now in China and even in India. I admire the ideal, but international trade isn't high on moral messages, sadly.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
If the U.S. creates laws that favor keeping manufacturing in the U.S. and restricts imports from manufacturers that don't follow U.S. regulations, then the rest of the world will be encouraged to impose similar restrictions on the import of U.S.-made goods as retaliation measures. If those restrictions improve worker safety, then I'd be ok with that.
Your proposal is isolationist, and that is not a workable position for a country in this day and age. I'm not trying to be isolationist, in fact, I'm trying to raise the standard of living in all the countries to match what we enjoy in America. Seeing as how I can't impose my will on a foreign government, I can test-run an idea involving economic pressures. In one of my favorite hard sci-fi novels, metanational corporations actually end up being more powerful than countries. I see that possibility coming closer and closer as any company that doesn't like rules in a country can move to a new one but continue to sell in all. This leads to countries competing to make their corporate climate more corporation friendly, essentially signing away their sovereignty as well as the health of their labor force.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Of course, do you think the world is going to change its manufacturing base just to suit the US? No chance. Europe is as big a market as the US and the economies of China, India and South America are much more important to the rest of the world than the jolly old US. Which is why I mentioned the hope that other countries would follow the US' lead. I recognize that the US market is not as dominant as it once was, but I still don't see too many corporations that would be willing to just write off the entire country. I could be wrong.
I love Americans, they seem to think that the rest of the world needs to do what they want while most of them don't own a passport I own a passport, and love to travel. As for making others do what I want, I'm concerned for the workers in places like Foxconn in China, who work 12 hours a day or more, live in barracks without much social outlet, for tiny wages, and where deaths happen relatively frequently. Seeing as how the US can't force a foreign nation to treat its workers better, I was thinking we could do a sort of side-step that would make corporations treat their workers better voluntarily.
I admire the ideal, but international trade isn't high on moral messages, sadly. Hence my idea. I think, as moral beings, we should make our institutions as moral as we can. If we're content to sit back and buy an iPad, despite knowing that it's entirely possible that someone died to make it, then perhaps we're not as moral as we like to think we are.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024