|
|
On September 20 2012 00:58 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there. Global competition put the American workforce where it is. If companies don't outsource, they lose outright to foreign competition. If an American worker can't do something better than somebody on the other side of the world working for some third world wage, then that American worker needs to find some other way to make himself useful to society.
I'm in favor of free trade, free migration, globalization... but Vindicare605 does have a point. Opening our economy has created vast amounts of wealth, some of which has stayed here, but it has also caused employment here to decline as there simply isn't enough demand to support the employment levels of yesteryear when we are also buying from cheap foreign sources. (beyond even this, economic geography plays a big factor and there's not too much we can do about that in the near term) Trying to paint half of the American public as freeloading leeches when the root cause of the changes are business trends he participated in isn't right.
Proponents of an open, global economy should be straightforward about the benefits and costs of this vision, and make the case (which I believe is the correct one) that the benefits to humanity far outweigh the costs.
Of course, some government commitment to maintaining the safety net programs during the inevitable decline in American employment seems fair... since, under the old system of a less-globalized economy, many of these people would still have jobs.
|
On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there. Not something you want to do if you're then going to turn and ask him for your vote for President. Thankfully for the Republican campaign, a vast majority of the American population is still ignorant of what Globalization (and de-industrialization as well for that matter) is and so they can continue trying to sell the idea that the reason the economy is bad is because Obama ruined it. (Which in my opinion STILL doesn't work because the economy was bad when Obama took office and is even in recovery as we speak, slow recovery, but still recovery.) Were the population truly educated about those economic and social concepts, there's no way that approach would fly.
You can't bitch about jobs moving overseas and then go on to say "global economy". If the US can't compete it is within the companies right to leave. Morality has nothing to do with it, Neil Degrasse Tyson has a great speech on this where he argues that the US are just placing band-aids on the problems and not finding any actual solutions and then compkaining when companies leave.
|
On September 20 2012 01:14 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there. Not something you want to do if you're then going to turn and ask him for your vote for President. Thankfully for the Republican campaign, a vast majority of the American population is still ignorant of what Globalization (and de-industrialization as well for that matter) is and so they can continue trying to sell the idea that the reason the economy is bad is because Obama ruined it. (Which in my opinion STILL doesn't work because the economy was bad when Obama took office and is even in recovery as we speak, slow recovery, but still recovery.) Were the population truly educated about those economic and social concepts, there's no way that approach would fly. You can't bitch about jobs moving overseas and then go on to say "global economy". If the US can't compete it is within the companies right to leave. Morality has nothing to do with it, Neil Degrasse Tyson has a great speech on this where he argues that the US are just placing band-aids on the problems and not finding any actual solutions and then compkaining when companies leave.
You're not understanding my point on morality, perhaps I wasn't clear, so let me rephrase.
I'm not saying that it's immoral that companies are moving jobs overseas. It's a global free trade economy they are within their rights to do that.
What I'm saying is immoral, is for a business owner to do that. Reap a huge profit, and then come back and tell the American population that if they are jobless as a result of these companies moving overseas, then they are freeloaders and moochers who WANT to be dependent upon government. And oh by the way, vote for me for President.
It's as though he's insulting the American labor force because they don't want to be treated the way the Chinese are treated.
I understand globalization, I understand why it sucks for the American economy. What isn't ok with me though is for business owners to try and turn our country into China so that we can compete with them.
That's not the solution I want.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if you want chinese wages then you must also want chinese political and labor law conditions that determine those wage levels.
|
When Romney uses tap loopholes ad shelters to avoid taxes, its okay because its legal.
When 47% of Americans don't pay taxes because they're legally exempt, they're lazy scumbags.
Real talk.
|
On September 20 2012 01:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
When Romney uses tap loopholes ad shelters to avoid taxes, its okay because its legal.
When 47% of Americans don't pay taxes because they're legally exempt, they're lazy scumbags.
Real talk.
To be fair, it's the same from the reverse side.
When 47% of American don't pay taxes because they're exempt, it's because of dire woeful need.
When Romney pays his high taxes as he's legally obligated to, he's a capitalist scumbag.
|
On September 20 2012 01:25 oneofthem wrote:
if you want chinese wages then you must also want chinese political and labor law conditions that determine those wage levels.
The bigger problem in all of this really is that most Americans, don't know or care about the real human cost that goes into the cheap products that we buy that come out of China and India.
If we knew, that we could simultaneously improve our economy, and create jobs for ourselves by choosing to buy American made products over imported competition and that the extra money we spend on doing so in the long run comes back to our pockets we'd be in much better shape.
The sad truth though is that most Americans don't think that way and won't make that kind of decision. They simply read the price tag and move on.
|
On September 20 2012 01:12 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 00:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there. Global competition put the American workforce where it is. If companies don't outsource, they lose outright to foreign competition. If an American worker can't do something better than somebody on the other side of the world working for some third world wage, then that American worker needs to find some other way to make himself useful to society. I'm in favor of free trade, free migration, globalization... but Vindicare605 does have a point. Opening our economy has created vast amounts of wealth, some of which has stayed here, but it has also caused employment here to decline as there simply isn't enough demand to support the employment levels of yesteryear when we are also buying from cheap foreign sources. (beyond even this, economic geography plays a big factor and there's not too much we can do about that in the near term) Trying to paint half of the American public as freeloading leeches when the root cause of the changes are business trends he participated in isn't right. Proponents of an open, global economy should be straightforward about the benefits and costs of this vision, and make the case (which I believe is the correct one) that the benefits to humanity far outweigh the costs. Of course, some government commitment to maintaining the safety net programs during the inevitable decline in American employment seems fair... since, under the old system of a less-globalized economy, many of these people would still have jobs.
Wealth maximization > full employment
The issue is that you need to redistribute it after the fact (or find a different social system than the one we use right now).
|
On September 20 2012 01:30 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
When Romney uses tap loopholes ad shelters to avoid taxes, its okay because its legal.
When 47% of Americans don't pay taxes because they're legally exempt, they're lazy scumbags.
Real talk. To be fair, it's the same from the reverse side. When 47% of American don't pay taxes because they're exempt, it's because of dire woeful need. When Romney pays his high taxes as he's legally obligated to, he's a capitalist scumbag.
I'd argue that the first part of that statement is true, and the second part is because the tax laws need revision so that capitalist scum bags don't get to use those loopholes in the first place.
There's also the big glaring difference between the two.
One of them is just trying to survive, the other is running for President.
|
On September 20 2012 01:34 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:30 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
When Romney uses tap loopholes ad shelters to avoid taxes, its okay because its legal.
When 47% of Americans don't pay taxes because they're legally exempt, they're lazy scumbags.
Real talk. To be fair, it's the same from the reverse side. When 47% of American don't pay taxes because they're exempt, it's because of dire woeful need. When Romney pays his high taxes as he's legally obligated to, he's a capitalist scumbag. I'd argue that the first part of that statement is true, and the second part is because the tax laws need revision so that capitalist scum bags don't get to use those loopholes in the first place.
I mean the political narrative. I was pointing out that he wasn't making a point, he was making a talking point. If I'm the other side, I can just as easily spin it to make it sound just as sarcastic.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 20 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:12 Signet wrote:On September 20 2012 00:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there. Global competition put the American workforce where it is. If companies don't outsource, they lose outright to foreign competition. If an American worker can't do something better than somebody on the other side of the world working for some third world wage, then that American worker needs to find some other way to make himself useful to society. I'm in favor of free trade, free migration, globalization... but Vindicare605 does have a point. Opening our economy has created vast amounts of wealth, some of which has stayed here, but it has also caused employment here to decline as there simply isn't enough demand to support the employment levels of yesteryear when we are also buying from cheap foreign sources. (beyond even this, economic geography plays a big factor and there's not too much we can do about that in the near term) Trying to paint half of the American public as freeloading leeches when the root cause of the changes are business trends he participated in isn't right. Proponents of an open, global economy should be straightforward about the benefits and costs of this vision, and make the case (which I believe is the correct one) that the benefits to humanity far outweigh the costs. Of course, some government commitment to maintaining the safety net programs during the inevitable decline in American employment seems fair... since, under the old system of a less-globalized economy, many of these people would still have jobs. Wealth maximization > full employment The issue is that you need to redistribute it after the fact (or find a different social system than the one we use right now).
i don't think outsourcing always leads to efficiency improvements in terms of worker productivity. often lower efficiency processes are chosen because they are less expensive.
this is not wealth maximization in the economic sense. you are defending profit seeking at the expense of social welfare, a hard argument to make with a straight face.
|
On September 20 2012 01:36 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:34 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 20 2012 01:30 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
When Romney uses tap loopholes ad shelters to avoid taxes, its okay because its legal.
When 47% of Americans don't pay taxes because they're legally exempt, they're lazy scumbags.
Real talk. To be fair, it's the same from the reverse side. When 47% of American don't pay taxes because they're exempt, it's because of dire woeful need. When Romney pays his high taxes as he's legally obligated to, he's a capitalist scumbag. I'd argue that the first part of that statement is true, and the second part is because the tax laws need revision so that capitalist scum bags don't get to use those loopholes in the first place. I mean the political narrative. I was pointing out that he wasn't making a point, he was making a talking point. If I'm the other side, I can just as easily spin it to make it sound just as sarcastic.
I was aware of what you were doing, my point is that even if you did that it still wouldn't have the same amount of power.
|
On September 20 2012 01:34 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:30 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
When Romney uses tap loopholes ad shelters to avoid taxes, its okay because its legal.
When 47% of Americans don't pay taxes because they're legally exempt, they're lazy scumbags.
Real talk. To be fair, it's the same from the reverse side. When 47% of American don't pay taxes because they're exempt, it's because of dire woeful need. When Romney pays his high taxes as he's legally obligated to, he's a capitalist scumbag. I'd argue that the first part of that statement is true, and the second part is because the tax laws need revision so that capitalist scum bags don't get to use those loopholes in the first place. There's also the big glaring difference between the two. One of them is just trying to survive, the other is running for President.
Those loopholes that "capitalist scum bags" use aren't there to help the "capitalist scum bags", but to encourage investment by someone to help those that need the extra help, such as tax-exempt bonds for colleges and universities. It is primarily "capitalist scum bags" that invest in such things, because of the "tax loopholes" afforded, which in turn, allow those colleges and universities to borrow at lower interest rates than they would have to pay, if not for the "tax loopholes" for the "capitalist scum bags".
|
On September 20 2012 01:38 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:36 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:34 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 20 2012 01:30 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
When Romney uses tap loopholes ad shelters to avoid taxes, its okay because its legal.
When 47% of Americans don't pay taxes because they're legally exempt, they're lazy scumbags.
Real talk. To be fair, it's the same from the reverse side. When 47% of American don't pay taxes because they're exempt, it's because of dire woeful need. When Romney pays his high taxes as he's legally obligated to, he's a capitalist scumbag. I'd argue that the first part of that statement is true, and the second part is because the tax laws need revision so that capitalist scum bags don't get to use those loopholes in the first place. I mean the political narrative. I was pointing out that he wasn't making a point, he was making a talking point. If I'm the other side, I can just as easily spin it to make it sound just as sarcastic. I was aware of what you were doing, my point is that even if you did that it still wouldn't have the same amount of power.
Sure it does, if you share the political standpoint of the narrative. If you disagree with it, then it sounds stupid.
|
On September 20 2012 01:36 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:12 Signet wrote:On September 20 2012 00:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there. Global competition put the American workforce where it is. If companies don't outsource, they lose outright to foreign competition. If an American worker can't do something better than somebody on the other side of the world working for some third world wage, then that American worker needs to find some other way to make himself useful to society. I'm in favor of free trade, free migration, globalization... but Vindicare605 does have a point. Opening our economy has created vast amounts of wealth, some of which has stayed here, but it has also caused employment here to decline as there simply isn't enough demand to support the employment levels of yesteryear when we are also buying from cheap foreign sources. (beyond even this, economic geography plays a big factor and there's not too much we can do about that in the near term) Trying to paint half of the American public as freeloading leeches when the root cause of the changes are business trends he participated in isn't right. Proponents of an open, global economy should be straightforward about the benefits and costs of this vision, and make the case (which I believe is the correct one) that the benefits to humanity far outweigh the costs. Of course, some government commitment to maintaining the safety net programs during the inevitable decline in American employment seems fair... since, under the old system of a less-globalized economy, many of these people would still have jobs. Wealth maximization > full employment The issue is that you need to redistribute it after the fact (or find a different social system than the one we use right now). i don't think outsourcing always leads to efficiency improvements in terms of worker productivity. often lower efficiency processes are chosen because they are less expensive. this is not wealth maximization in the economic sense. you are defending profit seeking at the expense of social welfare, a hard argument to make with a straight face.
It goes deeper than just worker efficiency too.
The Chinese are EXTREMELY lax about environmental regulations, which is another big reason why it's so cheap to manufacture there.
Those lax regulations have a huge impact on not just China's population, but the entire planet as well.
There's a whole lot else going on in China that allows for manufacturing to be that cheap over there. To come and tell me that we should be trying to emulate them in order to compete sounds like insanity.
|
On September 20 2012 01:36 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:12 Signet wrote:On September 20 2012 00:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there. Global competition put the American workforce where it is. If companies don't outsource, they lose outright to foreign competition. If an American worker can't do something better than somebody on the other side of the world working for some third world wage, then that American worker needs to find some other way to make himself useful to society. I'm in favor of free trade, free migration, globalization... but Vindicare605 does have a point. Opening our economy has created vast amounts of wealth, some of which has stayed here, but it has also caused employment here to decline as there simply isn't enough demand to support the employment levels of yesteryear when we are also buying from cheap foreign sources. (beyond even this, economic geography plays a big factor and there's not too much we can do about that in the near term) Trying to paint half of the American public as freeloading leeches when the root cause of the changes are business trends he participated in isn't right. Proponents of an open, global economy should be straightforward about the benefits and costs of this vision, and make the case (which I believe is the correct one) that the benefits to humanity far outweigh the costs. Of course, some government commitment to maintaining the safety net programs during the inevitable decline in American employment seems fair... since, under the old system of a less-globalized economy, many of these people would still have jobs. Wealth maximization > full employment The issue is that you need to redistribute it after the fact (or find a different social system than the one we use right now). i don't think outsourcing always leads to efficiency improvements in terms of worker productivity. often lower efficiency processes are chosen because they are less expensive. this is not wealth maximization in the economic sense. you are defending profit seeking at the expense of social welfare, a hard argument to make with a straight face.
If my outsourcing makes a million dollars a year and puts 15 people out of a job in the USA, then it should be pursued without a doubt. That million in profits is more than those 15 could make in a year (on average, I'm assuming they aren't 6-figure jobs being outsourced). This is better for us.
Economics is a zero sum game in the end. Always is, always has been, always will be.
|
On September 20 2012 01:43 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:36 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:12 Signet wrote:On September 20 2012 00:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there. Global competition put the American workforce where it is. If companies don't outsource, they lose outright to foreign competition. If an American worker can't do something better than somebody on the other side of the world working for some third world wage, then that American worker needs to find some other way to make himself useful to society. I'm in favor of free trade, free migration, globalization... but Vindicare605 does have a point. Opening our economy has created vast amounts of wealth, some of which has stayed here, but it has also caused employment here to decline as there simply isn't enough demand to support the employment levels of yesteryear when we are also buying from cheap foreign sources. (beyond even this, economic geography plays a big factor and there's not too much we can do about that in the near term) Trying to paint half of the American public as freeloading leeches when the root cause of the changes are business trends he participated in isn't right. Proponents of an open, global economy should be straightforward about the benefits and costs of this vision, and make the case (which I believe is the correct one) that the benefits to humanity far outweigh the costs. Of course, some government commitment to maintaining the safety net programs during the inevitable decline in American employment seems fair... since, under the old system of a less-globalized economy, many of these people would still have jobs. Wealth maximization > full employment The issue is that you need to redistribute it after the fact (or find a different social system than the one we use right now). i don't think outsourcing always leads to efficiency improvements in terms of worker productivity. often lower efficiency processes are chosen because they are less expensive. this is not wealth maximization in the economic sense. you are defending profit seeking at the expense of social welfare, a hard argument to make with a straight face. It goes deeper than just worker efficiency too. The Chinese are EXTREMELY lax about environmental regulations, which is another big reason why it's so cheap to manufacture there. Those lax regulations have a huge impact on not just China's population, but the entire planet as well. There's a whole lot else going on in China that allows for manufacturing to be that cheap over there. To come and tell me that we should be trying to emulate them in order to compete sounds like insanity.
I wouldn't suggest emulating the Chinese, but I would suggest Environmentalists get off the necks of the American workforce and try to enforce their ideology across the world, starting in China. Enforcing it here, but not everywhere only hurts Americans.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
why don't you make american corporations follow correct environmental rules. that seems like an easy solution
|
On September 20 2012 01:45 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:36 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:12 Signet wrote:On September 20 2012 00:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there. Global competition put the American workforce where it is. If companies don't outsource, they lose outright to foreign competition. If an American worker can't do something better than somebody on the other side of the world working for some third world wage, then that American worker needs to find some other way to make himself useful to society. I'm in favor of free trade, free migration, globalization... but Vindicare605 does have a point. Opening our economy has created vast amounts of wealth, some of which has stayed here, but it has also caused employment here to decline as there simply isn't enough demand to support the employment levels of yesteryear when we are also buying from cheap foreign sources. (beyond even this, economic geography plays a big factor and there's not too much we can do about that in the near term) Trying to paint half of the American public as freeloading leeches when the root cause of the changes are business trends he participated in isn't right. Proponents of an open, global economy should be straightforward about the benefits and costs of this vision, and make the case (which I believe is the correct one) that the benefits to humanity far outweigh the costs. Of course, some government commitment to maintaining the safety net programs during the inevitable decline in American employment seems fair... since, under the old system of a less-globalized economy, many of these people would still have jobs. Wealth maximization > full employment The issue is that you need to redistribute it after the fact (or find a different social system than the one we use right now). i don't think outsourcing always leads to efficiency improvements in terms of worker productivity. often lower efficiency processes are chosen because they are less expensive. this is not wealth maximization in the economic sense. you are defending profit seeking at the expense of social welfare, a hard argument to make with a straight face. If my outsourcing makes a million dollars a year and puts 15 people out of a job in the USA, then it should be pursued without a doubt. That million in profits is more than those 15 could make in a year (on average, I'm assuming they aren't 6-figure jobs being outsourced). This is better for us. Economics is a zero sum game in the end. Always is, always has been, always will be.
Economics is not a zero sum game. If country A has a comparative advantage making computers and country B has a comparative advantage making iron, and both countries need some amount of computers and irons, then both countries benefit from trade. No country is worse off.
|
On September 20 2012 01:52 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:45 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:36 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:12 Signet wrote:On September 20 2012 00:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there. Global competition put the American workforce where it is. If companies don't outsource, they lose outright to foreign competition. If an American worker can't do something better than somebody on the other side of the world working for some third world wage, then that American worker needs to find some other way to make himself useful to society. I'm in favor of free trade, free migration, globalization... but Vindicare605 does have a point. Opening our economy has created vast amounts of wealth, some of which has stayed here, but it has also caused employment here to decline as there simply isn't enough demand to support the employment levels of yesteryear when we are also buying from cheap foreign sources. (beyond even this, economic geography plays a big factor and there's not too much we can do about that in the near term) Trying to paint half of the American public as freeloading leeches when the root cause of the changes are business trends he participated in isn't right. Proponents of an open, global economy should be straightforward about the benefits and costs of this vision, and make the case (which I believe is the correct one) that the benefits to humanity far outweigh the costs. Of course, some government commitment to maintaining the safety net programs during the inevitable decline in American employment seems fair... since, under the old system of a less-globalized economy, many of these people would still have jobs. Wealth maximization > full employment The issue is that you need to redistribute it after the fact (or find a different social system than the one we use right now). i don't think outsourcing always leads to efficiency improvements in terms of worker productivity. often lower efficiency processes are chosen because they are less expensive. this is not wealth maximization in the economic sense. you are defending profit seeking at the expense of social welfare, a hard argument to make with a straight face. If my outsourcing makes a million dollars a year and puts 15 people out of a job in the USA, then it should be pursued without a doubt. That million in profits is more than those 15 could make in a year (on average, I'm assuming they aren't 6-figure jobs being outsourced). This is better for us. Economics is a zero sum game in the end. Always is, always has been, always will be. Economics is not a zero sum game. If country A has a comparative advantage making computers and country B has a comparative advantage making iron, and both countries need some amount of computers and irons, then both countries benefit from trade. No country is worse off.
umm..... lol? You just gave an example of a zero sum transaction to disprove what I said...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
