I'm tossing my hat into the political arena for the '08 elections under the fledgling American Party

IF by some stroke of luck I succeed

I'll populate my cabinet with members from ALL parties so ALL Americans are considered in decisions made by the executive branch

The war in Iraq ENDS - its time for the Iraqis to decide what they want without outside interference from the US - then we deal with whoever THEY decide they want in power

Healthcare for EVERY child under the age of 18 no matter financial status - if we can afford war - we can afford this

Abortion will be REMOVED as an option for birth control by people who use it over and over for that purpose, and NONE beyond the first trimester

I will vehemently support research and development of alternative energy sources that can be put into place within 10 yrs - and I will FIGHT the major oil companies who oppose it

Corporations will be TAXED until such a time as they discontinue outsourcing and bring jobs back home to Americans who DESPERATELY need them

Borders will be closed, and closely monitored

and last but certainly not least:

America will ALWAYS come FIRST in the decisions of my admin - no more handouts to nations who turn on us the first time things go wrong


Drop me an email ex_govt@yahoo.com

Let's see, a few critiqes here......


I'll populate my cabinet with members from ALL parties so ALL Americans are considered in decisions made by the executive branch


They do as much in Europe and nothing ever seems to get done. Look to their unemployment rates and growth of the GDP. Plus you'd have to convince the majority of Americans that this is a good idea and, worse yet, you'd have to try and get two oposing political parties to agree on anything, guys who could argue endlessly over exactly what shade of blue the sky is.

Also, keep in mind Ronald Reagan. He ran as an unabashed conservative and walked away with two landslides. Rush Limbaugh himself said that you aren't going to find a chapter in our history that states "Great Moderates in American History." Dammit.


The war in Iraq ENDS - its time for the Iraqis to decide what they want without outside interference from the US - then we deal with whoever THEY decide they want in power

Why not Afghanistan while you're about it? What's up with Afghanistan. Should we not be treating that country the same as Iraq? HMMMMMMMM? Amir Taheri (google him, dammit!) did raise a very, very good point that the Radical Islamists should've been more upset about U.S. intervention in Afghanistan because that country was run by Radical Islamists and was a base for exporting Jihad throughout the world. But they, like the moveon.org crowd here and our "mainstream" media thought they could score more PR points by stating that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. PLUS there is the fact that Iraq was a secular country ran by a brutal dictator that fought a very long war against another country that was under the sway of Radical Islamists, Iran. Could you please shed some more light on your thesis? Dammit.


Healthcare for EVERY child under the age of 18 no matter financial status - if we can afford war - we can afford this


Actually, we can't, not if we are going to have ANY means of supporting any kind of military that is capable of defending freedom. Ask the Canadian, the English, French, Germans and other Europeans about their socialized medicine and see just how much that soaks up in taxes.

I've posted in the past some of Larry Elder's (you are free to google his ass too or, better yet, read his book "The Ten Things You Can't Say in America") ideas on cutting the cost of medicine. These measure include, expanding the enrollment of medical school and getting more doctors in the field, crippling the lawsuit fiasco, letting RNs and nurse's practioner's, military medics set up shop and have them perform everyday medical procedures, such as treating colds, flus, broken bones, sprains and routine checkups as well as prescribing drugs to treat more common medical ailments. If they need further training to do so, let them have it, dammit. Getting more people more ability to make basic medical decisions will increase competition and drive down prices. There are other things, but this is a good start.


I will vehemently support research and development of alternative energy sources that can be put into place within 10 yrs - and I will FIGHT the major oil companies who oppose it


*sigh* Legislating innovation is a very, very, VERY bad idea. California tried that with cars that were supposed to emmissionless by a certain date, I believe that date was in the early to mid 90's. Do cars in California still run on gas? Look at the great inventions of the past 125 years, the lightbulb, the car, the telegraph, the airplane, the helicopter, personal computer, the radio, the telephone, record players the GUI. None of those came about because some wonk in government said that by such and such a date there will be a practicle flying machine. These inventions were done by people who did research, came up with an idea and ran with it. And these ideas were done in an environment where the government didn't see a company or a corporation as some kind of cash cow that they could go milk and milk and milk till the utters ran dry, dammit.


I've been hearing how great "alternative" sources of energy would be and how it's going to change the world since the 70s. You'll have to pardon me for being just a little jaded nowadays. We're a long way away from using solar power and cars aren't about to be running off of hydrogen or fairy dust or whatever it is that's supposed to be the next really Big Thing.

If you want to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of fuel, there's nuclear power, trash to energy plants, coal fired plants and zillions of gallons of oil in ANWR, of the coasts of California and Florida. Dammit.


Corporations will be TAXED until such a time as they discontinue outsourcing and bring jobs back home to Americans who DESPERATELY need them


Will you also have an exit tax when those powerful corporations decide not to do business here in the States at all and move entirely offshore? Will you have the U.S. immitate France where the unemployment rate is around 8% and entry level jobs are almost impossible to find and there is no economic growth?

If you wish to retain business here in teh U.S., a tax system whose primary objective is to fund the government rather than punish those who are making "too much" money is called for. As well as an educational system that places high demands on their students and throws out those who would rather do drugs and disrupt class than work. If the public schools can't do it, hand out vouchers and let private schools do the heavy lifting.

You have local, state and federal government that is friendly to business, who doesn't see a corporation or business or economic venture the way a vampire bat sees a healthy cow out in the fields at night, as well as a core of workers who are skilled (Bill Gates has complained about the lack of native grown computer programmers and such and there are zillions more engineers being turned out in foreign and sometimes communist countries than there in the States.) and we won't have problems with outsourcing. If Big Mean Nasty Corporation decides to go offshore, Little Guy With a Bright Idea will set up business and keep America working, dammit.


Borders will be closed, and closely monitored

Agreed, and furthermore, foreigners here on work or education visas will be monitorred, will have to check in with the government and will have to keep up to date on their visas, dammit.


America will ALWAYS come FIRST in the decisions of my admin - no more handouts to nations who turn on us the first time things go wrong


Agreed here as well. If you want aid, you'll have to toe the line, dammit.

I forgot to add that something I learned recently is that when one wishes to make a drastic change in the direction of our government, or policy, that they can't go against human nature. A better way has to be shown, an alternative. The carrot works far better than the stick, dammit.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Taheri (google him, dammit!) did raise a very, very good point that the Radical Islamists should've been more upset about U.S. intervention in Afghanistan because that country was run by Radical Islamists and was a base for exporting Jihad throughout the world. But they, like the moveon.org crowd here and our "mainstream" media thought they could score more PR points by stating that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.George Bush has also stated that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Is he a part of this conspiracy as well?

Nothing can be accomplished by simply sitting by saying this or that won't work

You cite other foreign countries as examples but they aren't America at this juncture now are they - where the majority of Americans are SICK of the two party bicjkering thats getting us no where

I'm going to try - all America can do is say no

But I do appreciate your well thought and informed feedback

Sounds good except for this:
Corporations will be TAXED until such a time as they discontinue outsourcing and bring jobs back home to Americans who DESPERATELY need them Corporations should be taxed either way. It should just be a hell of a lot stiffer for moving oversees.

It's funny how BushCo labels it "protectionism" but never really says of what. Probably because if he said he was against "protecting" American jobs people wouldn't be too happy.

Healthcare for EVERY child under the age of 18 no matter financial status - if we can afford war - we can afford this

Who is going to pay for it?

I will vehemently support research and development of alternative energy sources that can be put into place within 10 yrs - and I will FIGHT the major oil companies who oppose it

Oh, you mean people who support the lowest priced commodity for powering their cars and heating their homes.

Corporations will be TAXED until such a time as they discontinue outsourcing and bring jobs back home to Americans who DESPERATELY need them

At the cost of more jobs, international harmony, and cheap goods?

Borders will be closed, and closely monitored

Good to see that Xenophobia is alive and well.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Let's see, a few critiqes here......


Actually, we can't, not if we are going to have ANY means of supporting any kind of military that is capable of defending freedom. Ask the Canadian, the English, French, Germans and other Europeans about their socialized medicine and see just how much that soaks up in taxes.



That's incorrect. The U.S. government spends more tax dollars per capita on healthcare than the Canadian government does....yet every Canadian is guaranteed medical coverage whereas in the States, about 40 million Americans go without any coverage.

As for the border closing issue....isolationism will get you nowhere. Take an interest in securing your borders, rather than closing them.

Also, there should be a universal pay scale put into place that would prevent companies from rich nations, pulling up stakes and taking advantage of poor citizens from third world countries. If a company has to pay an employee in Ecuador the same pay rate it would in the U.S., the incentive to move will no longer exist, other than to increase their customer base which would keep the factories in the rich nations and create new factories in the poorer nations to keep up with the new found consumer demand.

Paying third world citizens minimal dollars only keeps them in poverty and keeps them wanting to move to rich nations. If you pay them enough to actually be able to afford to buy your products, you'll increase your consumer base and thus, increase profits far more than you do by hiring cheap labour.

Originally posted by She-devil
As for the border closing issue....isolationism will get you nowhere. Take an interest in securing your borders, rather than closing them.

*nods*

Also, there should be a universal pay scale put into place that would prevent companies from rich nations, pulling up stakes and taking advantage of poor citizens from third world countries.

Where do you draw the line to determine "rich nation" and "poor nation", and why do you carry over "poor" or "rich" to another country with different economic standings?

A universal pay scale would upset the economies of the "rich nations" and "poor nations" as well. Different industries, different types or amounts of work, different fiscal states of the company, locations, resource usage, and so on would obliterate the stability of many companies, be they massive corporations or small businesses.

If a company has to pay an employee in Ecuador the same pay rate it would in the U.S.

So the American factory worker takes a lower income, or the Ecuadorian sweatshop worker now lives like royalty because the standards of living in the two nations differ. That may be beneficial to have the same pay rates were Ecuador more developed, but not in current standings.

the incentive to move will no longer exist

More people to hire, cheaper real estate and resources to build/ship, closer to materials for production, cheaper shipping lanes, etc...

other than to increase their customer base which would keep the factories in the rich nations and create new factories in the poorer nations to keep up with the new found consumer demand.

The factory workers for American companies in many third world nations already recieve (proportionally) rather high wages for their country, and the growth is continuing.
Also, if their intent was to create new customers--why would they pick destitute regions to market their new products?

Paying third world citizens minimal dollars only keeps them in poverty and keeps them wanting to move to rich nations.

What are you defining as "minimal dollars"? Minimum wage in America is 5.25USD/hour. If you paid a factory worker in Bangladesh or Guatemala that sort of money, they'd be able to retire from that line of work in a matter of a couple of years. Now the factory must find new hands, the grown children of past employees perhaps? It will take almost a decade or so before they will be adequate to work full-time in a factory by our legal standards, and as the economy evolves the people begin having less children. That leaves the company with little money to be made by going overseas, and little payback afterwards--except the possibility, provided they manage well until then, that the newly developed nation consumes their goods to pay back the money lost on the venture, and then some to have a profitable excursion.

If you pay them enough to actually be able to afford to buy your products, you'll increase your consumer base and thus, increase profits far more than you do by hiring cheap labour.

That depends if they are priced the same here as there. A bottle of Coca-cola in Canada versus a bottle of Coca-cola in Laos will most likely not be the same cost. Also, increase their consumer base provided they are able to expand in that country, but the crippling effect of having to pay the flatline set wages to all doesn't allow the proper process of expansion.

It is not necessarily a bad idea, but a great deal has to be considered beforehand of the ramifications caused by such.

Also, there should be a universal pay scale put into place that would prevent companies from rich nations, pulling up stakes and taking advantage of poor citizens from third world countries. If a company has to pay an employee in Ecuador the same pay rate it would in the U.S., the incentive to move will no longer exist, other than to increase their customer base which would keep the factories in the rich nations and create new factories in the poorer nations to keep up with the new found consumer demand.

You'r making a common mistake here, you are assuming that global standards of value are Objective when they are in fact Subjective.

In an immensely poor country like Zaire or Bangledesh, the measure of wealth is different then in the other developed countries. In many of these places, simply being able to put a roof over your head, clothe your children, and eat three times per day is conisdered wealth. Now, while we might consider a state of bare sustanance poverty, they consider it to be just fine and dandy.

Now, if we did make wages for given professions universal. Several problems arise. First off, who detrimines this wage? Either the American will have to take remarkably lower wages, greatly lowering his standard of living. Or the Bangladeshi will accept exorbiantly higher wages. This may sound nice, but seeing as the supply of goods is minimal in such a country, the supply curve will be drastically below the demand curve. That translates into triple-digit inflation which means that the good people of Banledesh will have the same standard of living.

Then there is the problem with unemployment. Sure, nudging up the minimum wage can drive consumption and production(although I am still against it, but that is a different debate), but increasing the average wage by such an enormous factor would mean that capitalists would have to cut the headcount drastically, meaning higher unemployment. Which again brings us back to the fact that the standard of living will remain unchanged.

Paying third world citizens minimal dollars only keeps them in poverty and keeps them wanting to move to rich nations. If you pay them enough to actually be able to afford to buy your products, you'll increase your consumer base and thus, increase profits far more than you do by hiring cheap labour.

I see one error: If the factory has already moved to Bangladesh, then what consumer base are you increasing? I have already pointed out the problems with this hypothesis. Now on to the status quo.

Jagdish Bagwhati, a former planner for India, noted in his book how profound a difference an electrical component factory made on the people of Bangkok. (Not Verbatim) "First they walked, in a few weeks they had all purchased bicycles, today they drive in cars". You see, just because third-world laborers begin at a low wage this does not mean that they are stuck with such a wage. In the early days of any countries Globalization, workers are likely to be forced into accepting from our perspective substandard wages. But given a few more years, a few more factories, shops, and farms. A little more investment here and there. The country faces a new phenomenon; a shortage of labor. Although we like to give it it's own pedestal the fact of the matter is that work is a commodity, just like computers, telephones, houses, and that when any commodity becomes scare, the price increases. Depending on the shorage, it can increase gradually, or sometimes even drastically. As fewer and fewer workers show up to the plant. Managers are confronted with a new problem: How Do I Keep the Wheels of Capital Turning? All capital needs people to operate it, the only solutions are: A.)Raise wages and benefits/Provide a better work enviroinment to attract more workers, B.)Improve existing captial or develop new capital to do more work. Oftentimes, A is the cheaper choices, and is the path most often taken. Even when they choose B, we all benefit as a whole because the improved technology is either cheaper, greener, or more attractive then what is out there.

Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, The United States, The EU, China, and India would not be around today without the magical aura of Globalization. We need to accelerate this process by ending subsidies and eliminating barriers to trade.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Sounds good except for this:
Corporations should be taxed either way. It should just be a hell of a lot stiffer for moving oversees.

It's funny how BushCo labels it "protectionism" but never really says of what. Probably because if he said he was against "protecting" American jobs people wouldn't be too happy.

Corporations are already taxed!

Corporations should also be free to make decisions free of government meddling. If a company wants to outsource or send jobs overseas then so be it. They are best placed to make the best decisions for their business. What happens when you make it impossible for businesses to be competitive? They go out of business and then all the jobs move to France or wherever, plus the consumer ends up paying more - less money in their pocket, they spend less & even more businesses go under.

Oddly enough, a recent column by Pat Buchanan is rather topical here: Bristling defiance – in retreat (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48648).

From Buchannans Article:

But it was protectionists from Lincoln to Coolidge who gave us the highest standard of living on earth. And the record of Bush's merry band of free-traders? The largest trade deficits in history, a $200 billion trade surplus for Beijing at our expense in 2005, and 3 million lost manufacturing jobs since Bush first took the oath.

Simply because America was undeveloped and unindustrialized. Meaning that there was enough cheap labor and land available in America to develop the country. In the modern world however, where are needs are much higher and more diverse, global trade is necessary to fuel produciton and consumption.

Besides, trade deficits are a red herring. All that they mean is that we are importing more then we are exporting. All that this proves is that more money is being generated domestically through markets for goods and services, allowing us to sustain such a deficit. If anything, the larger the trade deficit the better.

A universal pay scale wouldn't be the doom and gloom you guys have predicted. A third world citizen, currently gets taken advantage of because corporations that outsource factories to third world nations, only pay pennies a day, which keeps the workers in poverty. To suggest that the wages are fair because the standards of living are considerably lower, is quite wrong.

Here in Canada, I could survive equally as well as third world citizens do on $1 a day. Third world citizens in general, survive on very meager sustenance such as a sack of rice, a plastic tarp for a shelter in the streets, water, a sack of milk powder if they're lucky and some very cheap protein food. With $1 a day earnings, I could survive the same way here. Would I want to? No. Do third world citizens want to? No....they do it out of necessity because they don't have a choice. It's completely unethical for companies to take advantage of their misfortune by profiting from it and stealing their resources without proper compensation.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather pay a few bucks more for an item at Wal-mart that's manufactured in Canada, rather than save a few bucks by buying the same item that's manufactured in China for example. A couple dollars don't make a huge difference in my life. The savings that large companies make on products that are manufactured in poor nations, don't have a trickle down effect to us consumers at any significant rate to increase our standards of living or our economies. Those savings have only kept sweat shop workers in poverty, and saved me such a little percentage that I could maybe have an extra dollar in my wallet at the end of the day. What can I really buy with that dollar?

What I'm saying is, outsourced companies don't share their new found profits and their profits don't stimulate our economies to the degree that having a strong, employed manufacturing workforce does. Only the rich execs at the very top see the profits and their profits do very little to stimulate our economies.....out of country business tax loopholes ensure that in many cases, they don't even have to pay taxes on their incomes.

For example....if a textile company stays in the U.S. and employs 500 workers at $20 an hour, that's 500 middle class, tax paying employees that contribute to the U.S. economy. If that same company outsources to China, only the handful of owners of the company are contributing to the U.S. economy and only pass on a very small percentage of those profits to the American consumers in the form of price savings. Those small savings don't stimulate your economy anywhere near as much as having 500 Americans in the middle working class does....if that same company had kept it's factory of 500 employees in the U.S. and expanded its business overseas by opening up a factory in China as well...paid the Chinese employees enough money so they could afford to purchase the products they manufacture....that company has then expanded its consumer base and thus increased it's profits due to volume sales rather than cut rate sales. It's a win/win situation for all sides.

So ex_govt....if you want to restore the glory days, you must end this outsourcing BS. The only people for it are the rich business execs at the top of the food chain....who happen to be the ones financing the politicians' campaigns and essentially paying politicians to espouse the economic benefits of outsourcing. The fact is, outsourcing is far more hazardous to the economy than beneficial. You'll never hear politicians saying that however, until you get one who has the nation's best financial interests above his/her own financial interests.

Originally posted by 00Elf
From Buchannans Article:

Besides, trade deficits are a red herring. All that they mean is that we are importing more then we are exporting. All that this proves is that more money is being generated domestically through markets for goods and services, allowing us to sustain such a deficit. If anything, the larger the trade deficit the better.

I respectfully disagree with your statement about larger trade deficits being better. If you're importing more than you're exporting, that means that Americans are financing more foreign workers than Americans. Do you seriously think that's a good thing? How long do you think that can continue at the current pace?

Giant retail conglomerates will be the only ones seeing profits but for how long will they even last? Not all Americans will be able to be employed by retail outlets to afford goods and services. The U.S. farmers will be put out of business because stores will be able to buy meat, grains, fruits, vegetables, etc. cheaper from foreign markets where farmers make much less money. U.S. manufacturing plant workers will be put out of business because foreign factory workers get paid less money and can supply retail chains the same products for far less money....etc. etc. etc. Pretty soon, at that pace, every American will be a Wal-mart employee or a fast food restaurant employee.

Originally posted by She-devil
A universal pay scale wouldn't be the doom and gloom you guys have predicted. A third world citizen, currently gets taken advantage of because corporations that outsource factories to third world nations, only pay pennies a day, which keeps the workers in poverty. To suggest that the wages are fair because the standards of living are considerably lower, is quite wrong.

This is not true. Typically the workers in China / India etc that work for western companies are highly paid vs their peers & their standard of living is higher. I know this first hand because I've visited western owned factories in Asia. Their pay is lower than US wages, but their cost of living is also far lower. This expolitation / pennies a day is a myth. Sure I'm sure you can find an example of it - but it's not the norm. There are also other upsides for these workers - focus on health & safety is much higher for one thing.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather pay a few bucks more for an item at Wal-mart that's manufactured in Canada, rather than save a few bucks by buying the same item that's manufactured in China for example.

You can do that - look for the "made in America" sticker - (not sure if such a thing exists in Canada. This is a direct attempt to differentiate in the market. If people will pay a higher price for US made goods then higher costs to manufacture can be sustained. Typically though people care about price only or don't notice. If walmart made a 'made in america' section of the store - I am sure it would be a success & that's a good thing - any valid form of differentiation above price differentiation is what all business is about.

What I'm saying is, outsourced companies don't share their new found profits

Companies do not move manufacturing to China and India (at great initial cost) to simply create more profit, typically it is done to remain in the market due to price competition. Every product has a lifecycle - at the end of it's cycle it becomes a commodity item with only price differentiation. At that point you have to have low cost to compete. You can have low cost by having a better process of manufacture, but beyond that - you need a lower labor cost. Sometimes a competitor may have a process advantage or a raw material integration advantage, which leads companies to reduce costs via moving manufacturing to low labor price markets. Typically when companies make that move - they are already making low profits on the product line in question.

Also - what do you mean by don't share new profits? Most companies moving jobs are publicly listed companies - shareholders automatically share in profits via either dividends or equity appreciation.

Banning free markets (which is what banning moving jobs overseas would be) - would amount to one huge mistake & ultimately make US industry uncompetitive & destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs here. How can US companies survive in a world market if they cannot compete. If you ban export of jobs - you better ban imports of goods also while you are at it.

Banning free markets (which is what banning moving jobs overseas would be) - would amount to one huge mistake & ultimately make US industry uncompetitive & destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs here.

A bit of a logical problem here. How is banning the moving of jobs overseas making US industry uncompetitive? US industry was already uncompetitive, which is why it got moved in the first place, which is why it is now Chinese industry.

What it would do is turn manufacturing companies into importing companies. Companies would be unable to own the means of production to these items, so they would become designers and importers. This would allow foreign companies to break into industry, pushing for greater adoption of capitalism worldwide.

Really what right-wingers mean when they promote capitalism overseas is that they are promoting American corporate style merchantalism, at the expense of real free-market industry.

American corporations will lose a piece of their profit engine, but most of the jobs that will be lost by such a ban will be freed for other, more value-added enterprises.

It is about time American corporations get out of the business of making commodity goods anyway. It does Americans no good to make profit margins measured in the fractions of a cent per unit. Let other, hungrier entrepreneurs chase such margins. Americans should be focused on the bigger picture, solving larger problems.

Why in the world do we need to manufacture irons? Americans should be getting more creative with their enterprises, and innovating more, instead of trying to compete on price.

The advice I am constantly giving small business owners (as if I am in the position to give such advice, but I always do for some reason!) is to stop competing on price, and start charging higher prices. If you lower your prices, you lower your standards. It is many times harder to get rich by selling to the poor than it is to sell to the rich.

America should be doing the same thing. Value-add, don't slash prices to compete. We could use the ban to wean ourselves off of these 'easy' profits. But, ultimately, the market will decide, and in the long run, it isn't necessary. But it would be useful.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
A bit of a logical problem here. How is banning the moving of jobs overseas making US industry uncompetitive? US industry was already uncompetitive, which is why it got moved in the first place, which is why it is now Chinese industry.

There is nothing illogical about it. We live in a global economy with companies selling in many countries and competing with companies from many countries. Businesses need to be able to make decisions to remain competitive - if reducing labor costs is one of those needs then so be it. To ban such moves would render US businesses uncompetitive. Moves can also be for other reasons other than labour cost - it can be to be closer to end markets as markets develop.

What it would do is turn manufacturing companies into importing companies. Companies would be unable to own the means of production to these items, so they would become designers and importers. This would allow foreign companies to break into industry, pushing for greater adoption of capitalism worldwide.

I'm not really sure what you are suggesting here, but no business has the role of promoting capitalism, it has the role of making money, something that 'left wingers' apparently associate with pure evil.

It is about time American corporations get out of the business of making commodity goods anyway. It does Americans no good to make profit margins measured in the fractions of a cent per unit.

This has already happened. There are no TV's or VCR's made in the US anymore - as an example.

The advice I am constantly giving small business owners (as if I am in the position to give such advice, but I always do for some reason!) is to stop competing on price, and start charging higher prices.

This isn't exactly rocket science advice. In order to not compete on price you need to differentiate somehow - it's like say Excedrin vs WalMart brand - there is no difference at all - but Excedrin can differentiate on a percieved quality or efficacy. Avoiding price competition is much easier for small businesses, particularly local small businesses because perception is readily available if you are selling to consumers (as many small biz are) & the market is not efficient. Contrast that to a large multi-national company - they typically operate in highly efficient markets, often B2B markets, with greater options. In such cases one can not just say don't consider price.

America should be doing the same thing. Value-add, don't slash prices to compete. We could use the ban to wean ourselves off of these 'easy' profits. But, ultimately, the market will decide, and in the long run, it isn't necessary. But it would be useful.

Few companies have ever moved to China for easy profits - typically it is for survival in a specific business, or as a strategy to avoid huge market exit costs. Sometimes exiting a business can be very expensive.

Originally posted by DrewM
This is not true. Typically the workers in China / India etc that work for western companies are highly paid vs their peers & their standard of living is higher. I know this first hand because I've visited western owned factories in Asia. Their pay is lower than US wages, but their cost of living is also far lower. This expolitation / pennies a day is a myth. Sure I'm sure you can find an example of it - but it's not the norm. There are also other upsides for these workers - focus on health & safety is much higher for one thing.



You can do that - look for the "made in America" sticker - (not sure if such a thing exists in Canada. This is a direct attempt to differentiate in the market. If people will pay a higher price for US made goods then higher costs to manufacture can be sustained. Typically though people care about price only or don't notice. If walmart made a 'made in america' section of the store - I am sure it would be a success & that's a good thing - any valid form of differentiation above price differentiation is what all business is about.



Companies do not move manufacturing to China and India (at great initial cost) to simply create more profit, typically it is done to remain in the market due to price competition. Every product has a lifecycle - at the end of it's cycle it becomes a commodity item with only price differentiation. At that point you have to have low cost to compete. You can have low cost by having a better process of manufacture, but beyond that - you need a lower labor cost. Sometimes a competitor may have a process advantage or a raw material integration advantage, which leads companies to reduce costs via moving manufacturing to low labor price markets. Typically when companies make that move - they are already making low profits on the product line in question.

Also - what do you mean by don't share new profits? Most companies moving jobs are publicly listed companies - shareholders automatically share in profits via either dividends or equity appreciation.

Banning free markets (which is what banning moving jobs overseas would be) - would amount to one huge mistake & ultimately make US industry uncompetitive & destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs here. How can US companies survive in a world market if they cannot compete. If you ban export of jobs - you better ban imports of goods also while you are at it.

India and parts of China are two excellent examples of nations that are rapidly becoming industrialized, rather than third world countries. They've done so because each year, their wages are increasing and more and more people are able to purchase what they manufacture. That's an example of what I'm talking about...not what you're talking about. You should also ask yourself, if they can focus on health and safety as well as turn a profit, what the hell is wrong with western industrialized nations who complain about not being able to remain competitive and do all of those things?

I'm not sure what you mean by you not being sure if such a thing as a Made in America sticker exists here in Canada. There is and there's also Made in Canada stickers but each and every year, there are fewer and fewer of both labels available to be purchased. It's quite scary.

Companies most definitely move to third world nations for profit. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise. Take a look at the U.S. pharmaceutical industry....companies protect their patents and disallow foreign generic brands to infringe on their markets for something like 17 years for the duration of their patents. If high tech industries actually protected their patents and fought to keep Chinese companies from selling Chinese electronics here, it isn't closing free markets as you call it....it's protecting patents and obeying the laws. Instead, companies allow Chinese manufacturerers to ignore patents, steal their technology and flood the North American market with essentially what's stolen, illegal merchandise.....and most consumers allow it to happen.

If someone doesn't stand up for their own national interests, rather than fearing a public lashing by someone suggesting they're interested in banning free markets...there won't be any markets left in western society. I'm not in favour of banning free markets, I'm in favour of obeying laws and forcing our competitors to do the same....which is what free markets truly are. A free market doesn't mean you're free to ignore patents, copyright laws and free to exploit cheap labour.

What I meant by not sharing new profits....a very small percentage of individuals actually benefit from a company's new found profits that are made available from cheaper labour pools. Do you think that every American is going to be able to maintain his/her current standard of living by working in a retail outlet or by their investment portfolio??? Because...without the manufacturing middle class, there will only be retail jobs.

You watch and see...sit back doing nothing about it if you wish....but when China usurps the west and becomes the new economic superpower, there won't be western company ownership any longer which have stocks/shares available to western citizens. China is a Communist country, which means once they own the companies, the public can't have individual share ownership. The Communist government owns the shares. I've never understood Republicans who claim to be pro free markets, but defend companies that move to Communist China. :confused:

I'm not really sure what you are suggesting here, but no business has the role of promoting capitalism,

Of course, of course, that's what the governments are for. Which is why we are having his discussion, is it not?

it has the role of making money, something that 'left wingers' apparently associate with pure evil.

Aww, ain't that cute?

Contrast that to a large multi-national company - they typically operate in highly efficient markets, often B2B markets, with greater options. In such cases one can not just say don't consider price.

Any business can diversify, any business can innovate. Any business can come up with new ideas. It is just harder for the larger, multi-national corporations to do, that's all, because large businesses fear change.

Originally posted by She-devil
India and parts of China are two excellent examples of nations that are rapidly becoming industrialized, rather than third world countries. They've done so because each year, their wages are increasing and more and more people are able to purchase what they manufacture. That's an example of what I'm talking about...not what you're talking about. You should also ask yourself, if they can focus on health and safety as well as turn a profit, what the hell is wrong with western industrialized nations who complain about not being able to remain competitive and do all of those things?

Chinese companies don't necessarily have to be profitable, also the way Chinese industry is set up is you typically have many factories making a product to supply the local market & then one or two of those export to the US. They have to have higher quality to export. Lets also be clear the regulatory burden (HSE) is far far lower than in the US. Also labor costs have a compound effect - not only is your labor cheaper but everything else you buy is cheaper because it was produced with cheaper labor.

Companies most definitely move to third world nations for profit. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise. Take a look at the U.S. pharmaceutical industry....companies protect their patents and disallow foreign generic brands to infringe on their markets for something like 17 years for the duration of their patents. If high tech industries actually protected their patents and fought to keep Chinese companies from selling Chinese electronics here, it isn't closing free markets as you call it....it's protecting patents and obeying the laws. Instead, companies allow Chinese manufacturerers to ignore patents, steal their technology and flood the North American market with essentially what's stolen, illegal merchandise.....and most consumers allow it to happen.

Yes of course profit is the motive - but not to achieve windfall profits which is what your posts tended to suggest. It's to remain in the game. I've been involved in evaluations on moving manufacturing to China and I understand the picture very well. US companies all vigourously enforce patent rights - it's also relatively easy to stop Chinese goods from entering if they are stealing patents and/or selling below cost. Several years ago I gave testimony in Washington DC at a commerce dept hearing for increased tariffs on specific goods coming from China.

I'm not in favour of banning free markets, I'm in favour of obeying laws and forcing our competitors to do the same....which is what free markets truly are. A free market doesn't mean you're free to ignore patents, copyright laws and free to exploit cheap labour.

Agree with that - apart from the exploiting cheap labor - why is that exploitation? It most certainly is not. Tell that to the thousands of workers in China & India who have a better life because of employment with a western company.

What I meant by not sharing new profits....a very small percentage of individuals actually benefit from a company's new found profits that are made available from cheaper labour pools.

Profit is distributed via a well understood mechanism - wages and shareholder dividend. It is irrelevant where profit came from - certainly any increased profit through lower labor costs does not then lead to any special treatment for profits. If you have an issue in that regard - the issue has nothing to do with chinese labor.


China is a Communist country, which means once they own the companies, the public can't have individual share ownership. The Communist government owns the shares. I've never understood Republicans who claim to be pro free markets, but defend companies that move to Communist China. :confused:

There are thousands up thousands of privately owned companies in China.

A universal pay scale wouldn't be the doom and gloom you guys have predicted. A third world citizen, currently gets taken advantage of because corporations that outsource factories to third world nations, only pay pennies a day, which keeps the workers in poverty. To suggest that the wages are fair because the standards of living are considerably lower, is quite wrong.

But it's only poverty from your point of view/i]. To them, it may not be the ideal wage, but it keeps them alive. From the viewpoint of the third-world worker, the ability to know that your family will be fed, clothed, and sheltered. To know where your next meal will come from. And to know that you are generating your own standard of living, is much better then the alternative experienced in places like Ujamman Tanzania.

I'm not saying that they [i]want this wage. They probably would like more of the things that we have too. But once the country is developed enough, wages will naturally grow as demand for labor rises.

Canada, I could survive equally as well as third world citizens do on $1 a day. Third world citizens in general, survive on very meager sustenance such as a sack of rice, a plastic tarp for a shelter in the streets, water, a sack of milk powder if they're lucky and some very cheap protein food. With $1 a day earnings, I could survive the same way here. Would I want to? No. Do third world citizens want to? No....they do it out of necessity because they don't have a choice. It's completely unethical for companies to take advantage of their misfortune by profiting from it and stealing their resources without proper compensation.

They Don't Have To Sell These Rescources If They Don't Want To!!!. These evil, anonymous "companies" that you keep mentioning don't put a gun to peoples heads telling them to give up mineral rights or their free time. It's a completely voluntary trade.

Now the Bangladeshi probably isn't going to get the ideal deal for himself, neither is the businessman. Both have to reach a comprimise, which is how the system works.

know about you, but I'd rather pay a few bucks more for an item at Wal-mart that's manufactured in Canada, rather than save a few bucks by buying the same item that's manufactured in China for example. A couple dollars don't make a huge difference in my life. The savings that large companies make on products that are manufactured in poor nations, don't have a trickle down effect to us consumers at any significant rate to increase our standards of living or our economies. Those savings have only kept sweat shop workers in poverty, and saved me such a little percentage that I could maybe have an extra dollar in my wallet at the end of the day. What can I really buy with that dollar?[Quote]

Why do you think that Walmart can offer such an extrodinarily lower price for their products? Is it because of price controls? Because the Execs. get a warm fuzzy feeling from giving people low prices? NO! It is because we, as consumers, demand the highest quality product for the lowest price possible. All purchases are made on those two factors alone, price and quality. If for some reason you would rather buy Canadian goods, more power to you! But if you think that the rest of us should be forced to adhere to you consumer philiosiphy, then you cross the line.

[Quote]I'm saying is, outsourced companies don't share their new found profits and their profits don't stimulate our economies to the degree that having a strong, employed manufacturing workforce does. Only the rich execs at the very top see the profits and their profits do very little to stimulate our economies.....out of country business tax loopholes ensure that in many cases, they don't even have to pay taxes on their incomes.

Have you ever heard of the stock market, wages, big ticket items, dividends, raises, bull markets, investment, reasearch, employment, or production? These are all effects of profits, all EXTREMELY beneficial for all of us.

For example....if a textile company stays in the U.S. and employs 500 workers at $20 an hour, that's 500 middle class, tax paying employees that contribute to the U.S. economy. If that same company outsources to China, only the handful of owners of the company are contributing to the U.S. economy and only pass on a very small percentage of those profits to the American consumers in the form of price savings. Those small savings don't stimulate your economy anywhere near as much as having 500 Americans in the middle working class does....if that same company had kept it's factory of 500 employees in the U.S. and expanded its business overseas by opening up a factory in China as well...paid the Chinese employees enough money so they could afford to purchase the products they manufacture....that company has then expanded its consumer base and thus increased it's profits due to volume sales rather than cut rate sales. It's a win/win situation for all sides.

Again, you are ignoring the human and capital investment that profits bring. Not to mention the extra jobs which will likely far exceed the 500 lost made possible by cheaper goods.

When prices fall, demand rises, when demand rises, more labor is needed to meet it.

I respectfully disagree with your statement about larger trade deficits being better. If you're importing more than you're exporting, that means that Americans are financing more foreign workers than Americans. Do you seriously think that's a good thing? How long do you think that can continue at the current pace?

It's an empircal fact that when the trade deficit rises, the economy expands. It's a cycle that can last so long as a robust retail and service industry is maintained.

Giant retail conglomerates will be the only ones seeing profits but for how long will they even last? Not all Americans will be able to be employed by retail outlets to afford goods and services. The U.S. farmers will be put out of business because stores will be able to buy meat, grains, fruits, vegetables, etc. cheaper from foreign markets where farmers make much less money. U.S. manufacturing plant workers will be put out of business because foreign factory workers get paid less money and can supply retail chains the same products for far less money....etc. etc. etc. Pretty soon, at that pace, every American will be a Wal-mart employee or a fast food restaurant employee.

And as time progresses, more people will need to be employed in service and retail sectors, but the supply of workers will be falling. That means higher wages in the long run

When a factory moves overseas, cheaper goods are provided stimulating demand meaning more employment and higher wages. That is how the economy works.

Really what right-wingers mean when they promote capitalism overseas is that they are promoting American corporate style merchantalism, at the expense of real free-market industry.

What is "real free market industry"?

What is "real free market industry"?

I used to work for a guy who made parts for F-16 fighter jets out of a small warehouse with about eight full-time employees. That is free-market industry. Now, had those parts somehow been protected so that only Lockheed could make them, his business wouldn't exist.

In other words, business on a smaller scale than the multinational conglomerate is free-market industry. Allowing these huge companies to dominate industries is bad for consumers, is bad for local entrepreneurs, and it's bad for freedom and the capitalist ideal in general. It leads to something very different than capitalism, and something far closer to feudalism.

Originally posted by 00Elf
They Don't Have To Sell These Rescources If They Don't Want To!!!. These evil, anonymous "companies" that you keep mentioning don't put a gun to peoples heads telling them to give up mineral rights or their free time. It's a completely voluntary trade.

When a factory moves overseas, cheaper goods are provided stimulating demand meaning more employment and higher wages. That is how the economy works.

What is "real free market industry"?


In most third world countries, the citizens don't have a say in the matter. Their governments are corrupt and the oppositions are bought off as well or threatened. Companies pay off the corrupt leadership and essentially steal the resources at the average citizens' expense.

When a factory moves overseas, cheaper goods are definitely provided but the only employment benefits this side of the ocean are lower class, retail jobs rather than middle class jobs. The wages in those jobs haven't risen significantly in years so I'm not sure what higher wages you're referring to.

Real free market industry is when the companies selling more products than their competitors are the companies offering the best product quality, rather than only large companies surviving and undercutting their competitors by exploiting cheap labour and then buying up all the "little guys" and eliminating their competition. Go figure...companies actually competing for quality, rather than who can produce the items the cheapest. That's not entirely the companies' fault however. The customers need to be the ones refusing to pay for cheap junk!

Today's businesses generally take the attitude of, "How am I going to put my competition out of business?"...rather than, "How am I going to produce the best product possible for my customers and offer a better product than my competitors?" As soon as a business is more concerned about making products as cheap as possible, rather than making quality products, that business is no longer interested in free market capitalism with healthy competition. It's interested in staying afloat as cheaply as possible and fooling their customers into believing they're getting the best product possible.

Originally posted by DrewM
Agree with that - apart from the exploiting cheap labor - why is that exploitation? It most certainly is not. Tell that to the thousands of workers in China & India who have a better life because of employment with a western company.

There are thousands up thousands of privately owned companies in China.

If a pimp seeks new hookers by trolling the streets that are full of runaway, homeless teen girls and hires them....(yes, those girls then get a shelter and food and you could make the argument that they're then better off than they were without food and shelter) are they not still being exploited?????

Could you please name a few of those privately owned companies in China.

Originally posted by She-devil
If a pimp seeks new hookers by trolling the streets that are full of runaway, homeless teen girls and hires them....(yes, those girls then get a shelter and food and you could make the argument that they're then better off than they were without food and shelter) are they not still being exploited?????

Could you please name a few of those privately owned companies in China.

Yes - that would be exploitation, but we are not talking about teenage hookers looking for crack & a bite to eat - we are talking about people having a better standard of living through honest employment. Who are you to judge that as exploitation? Pick a better analogy because the teen hooker one flies like a lead balloon.

http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,2340,en_2649_201185_35350582_1_1_1_1,00.html

You'll see in this link data on private vs public ownership of companies in China. Private ownership is higher than state owned - at 59.2% private ownership of companies across the entire Chinese economy. China is fast becoming a capitalistic market economy after realizing 20 years ago that communist economic principles just don't work.

Looks Like a firestorm thats zeroed in on one aspect of the original

Corporations are easily dealt with if one speaks the language they know best - profit margin

Either they quit outsourcing or they're taxed heavily until they do

If they choose to move out of the country tariffs on their goods entering the US will recoup the money that way

If they feel they have a better market outside the US economy they're free to explore that as well

But the bottom line is the status quo will NOT be continued

Originally posted by DrewM
Yes - that would be exploitation, but we are not talking about teenage hookers looking for crack & a bite to eat - we are talking about people having a better standard of living through honest employment. Who are you to judge that as exploitation? Pick a better analogy because the teen hooker one flies like a lead balloon.

http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,2340,en_2649_201185_35350582_1_1_1_1,00.html

You'll see in this link data on private vs public ownership of companies in China. Private ownership is higher than state owned - at 59.2% private ownership of companies across the entire Chinese economy. China is fast becoming a capitalistic market economy after realizing 20 years ago that communist economic principles just don't work.

I'm sorry you didn't like my hooker analogy; how about a slavery analogy? :rolleyes: A cotton field owner hires a slave to do an honest day's work. That slave is working, has a shelter and he's receiving enough food to survive. The slave owner rationalizes it by saying, "He has a better standard of living than he had in Africa, through honest employment. Who are you to judge that as exploitation?" :rolleyes:

I'm sorry to laugh at you, but China is anything but a capitalist market. They may be attempting to make it seem as though they are, but the Chinese government still has complete control over Chinese industry and the people.

Here's a link that shows the errors of your link:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/edb/edb5.html

How about this very scary link that shows just how communist the Chinese government is:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2006/tc20060112_434051.htm?campaign_id=rss_tech

Quit deluding yourself into thinking the Chinese are becoming a free market capitalist society! The government uses foreign investors to open up businesses in China and utilize foreign money to train Chinese workers so that one day, China can kick the foreigners out and utilize the innovation, technology and training those foreigners provided for free.

Originally posted by She-devil
"He has a better standard of living than he had in Africa, through honest employment. Who are you to judge that as exploitation?" :rolleyes:

Not a good analogy either. For a lot of reasons. But to stick to the point of the thread, we can't comparing their buying power and wages to ours. They have a cheaper cost of living, for one thing. That'd be like Canadians complaining that the total value of benefits that their employer pays to its U.S. employees is higher than what they get because it includes health care.

I used to work for a guy who made parts for F-16 fighter jets out of a small warehouse with about eight full-time employees. That is free-market industry. Now, had those parts somehow been protected so that only Lockheed could make them, his business wouldn't exist.

In other words, business on a smaller scale than the

Multinational conglomerate is free-market industry. Allowing these huge companies to dominate industries is bad for consumers, is bad for local entrepreneurs, and it's bad for freedom and the capitalist ideal in general. It leads to something very different than capitalism, and something far closer to feudalism.

So, any enterprise that operates on local scale alone is a free market one? :confused:

Standard Oil was a massive, huge business. They also cut the consumer price of oil by 70% (IIRC). Ford was a massive business, and they gave the entire country a means of cheap and efficient transportation. Andrew Carnegie ran a large steel business, and he constructed all sorts of public areas, including schools, parks, and most famously; Libraries.

A free market is just that: A FREE Market.

In most third world countries, the citizens don't have a say in the matter. Their governments are corrupt and the oppositions are bought off as well or threatened. Companies pay off the corrupt leadership and essentially steal the resources at the average citizens' expense.

Ah, I misunderstood you.

Now I don't mean to put words into your mouth, but by stating "rescources" I assume that you are reffering to things like mineral deposits, forests, fishing rights, and land.

A citizen of Bangladesh simply does not posess the capital, liquid and physical, to establish an enterprise sophisticated enough to extract minerals, cut and re-establish lumber, manage marine populations, construct manufacturing plants, and so forth. If the Bangladeshi Government, likely one of the few domestic bodies able to undertake such an enterprise, gets the idea that it wants to nationalize said rescources and use them for its own purposes, then it will nearly inevitably end in distaster as previous attempts at nationalization have proven in most of Europe, Tanzania, Brazil, and of course the good 'ol US of A.

Now, while you might think that it would be more fair if a domestic Bangladeshi firm develop the, say, silver mine. The nature of the market is competition. If a foriegn company gets to the mine first, then I sympathize with the domestic firm. But we have to maintain the justice of the market.

When a factory moves overseas, cheaper goods are definitely provided but the only employment benefits this side of the ocean are lower class, retail jobs rather than middle class jobs. The wages in those jobs haven't risen significantly in years so I'm not sure what higher wages you're referring to.

AND distribution jobs such as truck drivers and navigators. AND men in offices managing the newfound income and calculating profits. AND people working on constructing the new stores. AND small business adding workers due to the newfound demand that the consumer savings has created. AND all of the skilled workers such as electricians, plumbers, and mechanics that have to maintain the new buildings.

Real free market industry is when the companies selling more products than their competitors are the companies offering the best product quality, rather than only large companies surviving and undercutting their competitors by exploiting cheap labour and then buying up all the "little guys" and eliminating their competition. Go figure...companies actually competing for quality, rather than who can produce the items the cheapest. That's not entirely the companies' fault however. The customers need to be the ones refusing to pay for cheap junk!

So free market industry is whatever you define it as.

Today's businesses generally take the attitude of, "How am I going to put my competition out of business?"...rather than, "How am I going to produce the best product possible for my customers and offer a better product than my competitors?" As soon as a business is more concerned about making products as cheap as possible, rather than making quality products, that business is no longer interested in free market capitalism with healthy competition. It's interested in staying afloat as cheaply as possible and fooling their customers into believing they're getting the best product possible.

How does one destroy competitors?

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Not a good analogy either. For a lot of reasons. But to stick to the point of the thread, we can't comparing their buying power and wages to ours. They have a cheaper cost of living, for one thing. That'd be like Canadians complaining that the total value of benefits that their employer pays to its U.S. employees is higher than what they get because it includes health care.

Of course it's a good analogy because exploiting cheap labour is simply legalized slavery.

What you don't seem to realize is that the only reason they have a cheaper cost of living is because the people charging rent wouldn't be able to find anyone able to afford rent if they charged the proper amount. The people selling the food wouldn't be able to charge the proper amount either for the very same reason. You're ignoring the obvious....when manufacturing wages rise, the cost of living rises at the same time to the point where it matches ours. When landlords and merchants realize that people can afford the going rates, they start charging the going rates so that eventually, everyone's pay scale is the same as ours.

Your analogy is the one that isn't very good. First off, you're assuming that every Canadian employer also has American employees. Second, Canadian benefits are in Canadian dollars, not American dollars and the wages/benefits balance out even. If a third world citizen got the proper exchange rate, the pay scale would already be universal, wouldn't it? In other words, using the exchange rate from their own currency, they'd still be able to purchase the exact same things that you and I can. They can't and that's the problem!

They work more hours and get paid far less for doing the exact same jobs. By all rights, because they work as hard, they should be able to travel to another country and still be able to afford the same goods and services as you and I do in the appropriate currency.

Of course it's a good analogy because exploiting cheap labour is simply legalized slavery.

No, labor is the selling of time, slavery is the selling of life.

Originally posted by 00Elf
No, labor is the selling of time, slavery is the selling of life. What is life but the time we are given? Your semantic distinction implies you do not believe labor can be exploited. Is this so? I'm interested.

So, any enterprise that operates on local scale alone is a free market one?

Or a regional one. But, the larger the business, the greater the depression on free enterprise. We should always be pushing for smaller and smaller businesses, to allow for more competition and more business.

So Standard Oil lowered the price of oil. Big deal. Low prices is really an American obsession that doesn't mean much when you look at the larger economics behind markets. All it is is a number, really. A truly free market could have just as easily produced the requisite efficiency improvements, and would have made far more people rich.

I'm not saying we need to break up Sony and make larger companies illegal. What I am saying is that we should stop encouraging businesses to get that big with legislation, tax breaks, and allowing coercive anti-union activities.

@Napsterbater

Well, to each his own I suppose...

What is life but the time we are given? Your semantic distinction implies you do not believe labor can be exploited. Is this so? I'm interested.

The liberty to choose what you do with said time, as well as the ability to own any property that your liberty produces.

Originally posted by She-devil
I'm sorry you didn't like my hooker analogy; how about a slavery analogy? :rolleyes: A cotton field owner hires a slave to do an honest day's work. That slave is working, has a shelter and he's receiving enough food to survive. The slave owner rationalizes it by saying, "He has a better standard of living than he had in Africa, through honest employment. Who are you to judge that as exploitation?" :rolleyes:

I'm sorry to laugh at you, but China is anything but a capitalist market. They may be attempting to make it seem as though they are, but the Chinese government still has complete control over Chinese industry and the people.

Here's a link that shows the errors of your link:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/edb/edb5.html

How about this very scary link that shows just how communist the Chinese government is:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2006/tc20060112_434051.htm?campaign_id=rss_tech

Quit deluding yourself into thinking the Chinese are becoming a free market capitalist society! The government uses foreign investors to open up businesses in China and utilize foreign money to train Chinese workers so that one day, China can kick the foreigners out and utilize the innovation, technology and training those foreigners provided for free.

You aren't very good with analogies! - Again a bad analogy. Yes the slave would be exploited - but it can't compare to outsourced jobs because we are not forcing anybody to do anything - they take the jobs out of free will & then their life is improved. Lets be clear - it's not exploitation no matter what you think & the fact you cannot come up with any reason to explain why it is just proves my point even more. It's ok to be wrong you know.

Your links do nothing to disprove the points & data I provided. I did not say China was the US. We all know it is a communist country without many of the benefits we enjoy, but that doesn't change the fact that private companies are in the majority in China. China is slowly providing the legal framework such as property rights and business law. If China one day kicks out the foreigners then so what? It's hypothetical fear mongering for one thing - but even if they did - all companies that do business in China know the risk, a riskier discount rate on cash is always used when evaluating the NPV of such decisions involving countries like China.

A country the size of China cannot change over night - they sensibly are taking a slow road of change otherwise the country would implode.

It's hard to follow exactly what your point is. It seems you simply are emotive about keeping jobs in the US but you haven't yet understood or thought through why exactly you ideas are bad ideas. To validate this to yourself you seem to be clutching at straws and weak analogies that don't fly.

Originally posted by She-devil
Of course it's a good analogy because exploiting cheap labour is simply legalized slavery.

No, it's not. Slaves don't get paid.

Originally posted by She-devil
What you don't seem to realize is that the only reason they have a cheaper cost of living is because the people charging rent wouldn't be able to find anyone able to afford rent if they charged the proper amount. The people selling the food wouldn't be able to charge the proper amount either for the very same reason.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. First off, what is the "proper" amount? They should charge what we charge? Why? As long as they spend the same percentage of their income on food, the same percentage of their income on housing, etc., why does the actual amount, converted into whatever currency you prefer, matter one iota? In my last job, I had co-workers performing the exact same job I was, but they got paid 9% more. Why? Because they lived in Colorado Springs, where the cost of living was higher. Was I being exploited? Was I a slave?

Originally posted by She-devil
You're ignoring the obvious....when manufacturing wages rise, the cost of living rises at the same time to the point where it matches ours. When landlords and merchants realize that people can afford the going rates, they start charging the going rates so that eventually, everyone's pay scale is the same as ours.

I'm not ignoring that at all. I'm talking about the present. You, for some reason, think people should be paid wages based on conditions that don't exist yet. I completely agree that as their cost of living goes up, so should their wages. But they're not there yet, so why higher wages now? The only thing that would happen if you start paying a small percentage of the population wages that are completely out of whack with what everyone else is making is that all of the merchants will charge more for everything to get some of that money for themselves. Which would totally screw the part of the population that didn't hold one of these jobs.

Originally posted by She-devil
Your analogy is the one that isn't very good. First off, you're assuming that every Canadian employer also has American employees. Second, Canadian benefits are in Canadian dollars, not American dollars and the wages/benefits balance out even.

Wow, talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Originally posted by She-devil
If a third world citizen got the proper exchange rate, the pay scale would already be universal, wouldn't it? In other words, using the exchange rate from their own currency, they'd still be able to purchase the exact same things that you and I can. They can't and that's the problem!

They can't exchange their money for U.S. dollars and fly over here and afford to purchase the exact same things that you and I can, no. But if they stay where they are and purchase them in their own country, they can. Welcome to the oddities of the exchange rate. If I flew to Europe right now I'd pay a lot of money for a vacation. If Europeans fly to America right now, they get a budget vacation.

Originally posted by She-devil
They work more hours and get paid far less for doing the exact same jobs. By all rights, because they work as hard, they should be able to travel to another country and still be able to afford the same goods and services as you and I do in the appropriate currency.

I didn't realize it was the duty of all citizens of the world to provide nice international vacations for the citizens of the world. When do I get mine?

If I flew to Europe right now I'd pay a lot of money for a vacation.

On travelocity, I can buy a round-trip ticket to London from Atlanta for $275. Just click on flexible dates, and you can pick weekday flights. Sometimes the date isn't available, but you can always pay a little more, and go with another airline. I imagine you can save even more flying standby.

I think Lionel was referring to the costs when you get there. London is pretty expensive for US citizens - but normal for people who live in London. That is the point.

That depends greatly on what kind of vacation you want. If you are on a shopping trip, then yeah, you're going to spend a lot of money.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
No, it's not. Slaves don't get paid.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. First off, what is the "proper" amount? They should charge what we charge? Why? As long as they spend the same percentage of their income on food, the same percentage of their income on housing, etc., why does the actual amount, converted into whatever currency you prefer, matter one iota? In my last job, I had co-workers performing the exact same job I was, but they got paid 9% more. Why? Because they lived in Colorado Springs, where the cost of living was higher. Was I being exploited? Was I a slave?

I'm not ignoring that at all. I'm talking about the present. You, for some reason, think people should be paid wages based on conditions that don't exist yet. I completely agree that as their cost of living goes up, so should their wages. But they're not there yet, so why higher wages now? The only thing that would happen if you start paying a small percentage of the population wages that are completely out of whack with what everyone else is making is that all of the merchants will charge more for everything to get some of that money for themselves. Which would totally screw the part of the population that didn't hold one of these jobs.

They can't exchange their money for U.S. dollars and fly over here and afford to purchase the exact same things that you and I can, no. But if they stay where they are and purchase them in their own country, they can. Welcome to the oddities of the exchange rate. If I flew to Europe right now I'd pay a lot of money for a vacation. If Europeans fly to America right now, they get a budget vacation.

I didn't realize it was the duty of all citizens of the world to provide nice international vacations for the citizens of the world. When do I get mine?


Of course slaves get paid; they get food and shelter which is all cheap foreign labourers get. Do you get it now?

You're not serious are you???? You could spend 25% of your income on food and another 25% on housing....the cheap labourer could spend the same proportions on the same items but it's entirely different!!!!! For example, the cheap labourer whom makes about $1 a day, then only has $0.25 to spend on food and $0.25 to spend on housing. Even in third world countries, where the cost of living is so cheap as you say, he/she will be dining on the barest of essentials....not steak and pasta primavera. As well, unlike you...the cheap labourer doesn't even have the option of affording a vehicle or a vacation outside his/her own country because they couldn't afford the bottle of water on a plane let alone the airfare!!!!! You and your pal from Colorado Springs can travel anywhere you want in the world and still be able to afford to eat quite well. This isn't rocket science!

Everyone should get higher wages now because then their cost of living is essentially the same as yours or mine based on their own nation's currency rates. What's so difficult to understand about that? Your advocation of cheap labour keeps those cheap labourers living in poverty and keeps them in need of foreign companies whom exploit their resources, rather than able to afford to start their own companies, capable of purchasing the needed equipment from abroad. Then again, that's exactly the way you want them.....in need of rich Western companies so the Westerners stay rich and they stay poor.

Do you seriously think that an average Joe in a third world country can afford to buy a car, a toaster, a spaghetti and meatball dinner, a baseball glove for their son, etc.?????

It's the duty of more fortunate citizens of the world to ensure that we're not keeping people poor and going without, just so we can maintain our lifestyles. That's what's happening now. We're afraid that the world's resources won't be able to sustain such strain so we prefer to keep hogging 50% of them....even though we only represent about 10% of the population.

Originally posted by DrewM
You aren't very good with analogies! - Again a bad analogy. Yes the slave would be exploited - but it can't compare to outsourced jobs because we are not forcing anybody to do anything - they take the jobs out of free will & then their life is improved. Lets be clear - it's not exploitation no matter what you think & the fact you cannot come up with any reason to explain why it is just proves my point even more. It's ok to be wrong you know.

Your links do nothing to disprove the points & data I provided. I did not say China was the US. We all know it is a communist country without many of the benefits we enjoy, but that doesn't change the fact that private companies are in the majority in China. China is slowly providing the legal framework such as property rights and business law. If China one day kicks out the foreigners then so what? It's hypothetical fear mongering for one thing - but even if they did - all companies that do business in China know the risk, a riskier discount rate on cash is always used when evaluating the NPV of such decisions involving countries like China.

A country the size of China cannot change over night - they sensibly are taking a slow road of change otherwise the country would implode.

It's hard to follow exactly what your point is. It seems you simply are emotive about keeping jobs in the US but you haven't yet understood or thought through why exactly you ideas are bad ideas. To validate this to yourself you seem to be clutching at straws and weak analogies that don't fly.

I've come up with plenty of reasons why it's exploitation....you simply prefer to ignore them. Third world citizens don't take jobs out of their own free will!!!! They take the jobs because they have no choice if they want to eat and it happens to be just slightly better than doing nothing but sitting in the streets hoping that a fly lands on their tongue so they can get some protein for the day. :rolleyes: Just because you make sure the people you're hiring are slightly better off, doesn't mean they're not exploited! You're in their country because the work is cheap and you want to make as much profit as possible back home. You're not there to help them or even attempt to ever assist them in being able to afford the products they're making!!!! You're there to see to it that the cheap labour pool stays cheap!

You seem appeased by the fact that China says the majority of their companies are privately owned....but you're ignoring the obvious fact of the matter...and that is, that privately owned companies in China are still very much under the national government's thumb. They're only private on paper and nothing more. They do so to appease foreigners and keep foreign money flowing into their country. If you would open your eyes and see the light of day, you'd know that! Ask yourself this question......if China truly was interested in becoming a capitalist country with truly private enterprise, wouldn't the oppression of freedom of speech and ban on political dissent be the first thing to go???? :rolleyes: It seems to me that if any Chinese actually owned their property or their business, they'd be able to criticize the government within that business.

Originally posted by She-devil
I've come up with plenty of reasons why it's exploitation....you simply prefer to ignore them. Third world citizens don't take jobs out of their own free will!!!! They take the jobs because they have no choice if they want to eat and it happens to be just slightly better than doing nothing but sitting in the streets hoping that a fly lands on their tongue so they can get some protein for the day. :rolleyes: Just because you make sure the people you're hiring are slightly better off, doesn't mean they're not exploited! You're in their country because the work is cheap and you want to make as much profit as possible back home. You're not there to help them or even attempt to ever assist them in being able to afford the products they're making!!!! You're there to see to it that the cheap labour pool stays cheap!

Yes you've presented 2 analogies and both didn't fit. I hardly ignored them - I discussed them in detail, but it seems you are ignoring why they clearly don't apply.

Doesn't everybody take jobs because they want to eat? Why is China somehow different in that regard? Your logic simply doesn't make any sense. By your logic everybody in the world who works is exploited. Are people who work at Burger King exploited? By your logic they are, simply because they are cheap labor. The reality is that wage rates are different in different economies and in different professions. Western employment serves to raise standards of living and wage rates gradually increase, driven by market forces. Your logic simply would ruin the lives of thousands by moving them back toward poverty.

You seem appeased by the fact that China says the majority of their companies are privately owned....but you're ignoring the obvious fact of the matter...and that is, that privately owned companies in China are still very much under the national government's thumb. They're only private on paper and nothing more. They do so to appease foreigners and keep foreign money flowing into their country. If you would open your eyes and see the light of day, you'd know that! Ask yourself this question......if China truly was interested in becoming a capitalist country with truly private enterprise, wouldn't the oppression of freedom of speech and political dissent be the first thing to go???? :rolleyes:

I'n not appeased by anything - I'm simply stating fact. Opression of freedom and freedom of speech will probably be the last item to change. China is very conscious of orderly change - they have no interest in civil disorder in a population of several billion people. Is China perfect? No far from it. Is China moving toward a market economy - yes they are - it's a concrete fact.

I've come up with plenty of reasons why it's exploitation....you simply prefer to ignore them. Third world citizens don't take jobs out of their own free will!!!! They take the jobs because they have no choice if they want to eat and it happens to be just slightly better than doing nothing but sitting in the streets hoping that a fly lands on their tongue so they can get some protein for the day. Just because you make sure the people you're hiring are slightly better off, doesn't mean they're not exploited! You're in their country because the work is cheap and you want to make as much profit as possible back home. You're not there to help them or even attempt to ever assist them in being able to afford the products they're making!!!! You're there to see to it that the cheap labour pool stays cheap!

Of course they take them of their own free will, if they don't they starve. That's justice, if you don't feel like contributing, then I certainly hope that you don't feel like consuming.

You seem appeased by the fact that China says the majority of their companies are privately owned....but you're ignoring the obvious fact of the matter...and that is, that privately owned companies in China are still very much under the national government's thumb. They're only private on paper and nothing more. They do so to appease foreigners and keep foreign money flowing into their country. If you would open your eyes and see the light of day, you'd know that! Ask yourself this question......if China truly was interested in becoming a capitalist country with truly private enterprise, wouldn't the oppression of freedom of speech and political dissent be the first thing to go????

No, restrictions on free enterprise and investment would be the first things to go. China is still largely under the Communist thumb, but you can't look at the present alone. Compared with the China of 30 years ago, China looks very Capitalist indeed.

You're not serious are you???? You could spend 25% of your income on food and another 25% on housing....the cheap labourer could spend the same proportions on the same items but it's entirely different!!!!! For example, the cheap labourer whom makes about $1 a day, then only has $0.25 to spend on food and $0.25 to spend on housing. Even in third world countries, where the cost of living is so cheap as you say, he/she will be dining on the barest of essentials....not steak and pasta primavera. As well, unlike you...the cheap labourer doesn't even have the option of affording a vehicle or a vacation outside his/her own country because they couldn't afford the bottle of water on a plane let alone the airfare!!!!! You and your pal from Colorado Springs can travel anywhere you want in the world and still be able to afford to eat quite well. This isn't rocket science!

And they never will have such choices, unless you let Globalization work.

Everyone should get higher wages now because then their cost of living is essentially the same as yours or mine based on their own nation's currency rates. What's so difficult to understand about that? Your advocation of cheap labour keeps those cheap labourers living in poverty and keeps them in need of foreign companies whom exploit their resources, rather than able to afford to start their own companies, capable of purchasing the needed equipment from abroad. Then again, that's exactly the way you want them.....in need of rich Western companies so the Westerners stay rich and they stay poor.

WHO among us is ADVOCATING cheap labor?!?! Nobody said that they WANT people to be paid dirt-cheap wages, only that doing so in the present ultimately benefitts them down the road. The richer they get, the richer we get, the poorer we get, the poorer they get. It's simple economics.

Do you seriously think that an average Joe in a third world country can afford to buy a car, a toaster, a spaghetti and meatball dinner, a baseball glove for their son, etc.?????

Not in Bangladesh, but they can in Japan, a country that has allowed Global Enterprise to prosper.

It's the duty of more fortunate citizens of the world to ensure that we're not keeping people poor and going without, just so we can maintain our lifestyles. That's what's happening now. We're afraid that the world's resources won't be able to sustain such strain so we prefer to keep hogging 50% of them....even though we only represent about 10% of the population.

Why is it our duty?

A country the size of China cannot change over night - they sensibly are taking a slow road of change otherwise the country would implode.

The US did when the automobile changed the face of the nation in the space of a decade, and continues to do so as the internet and globalization rapidly accelerate progress. There is no reason to think China cannot do the same.

Originally posted by DrewM
Doesn't everybody take jobs because they want to eat? Why is China somehow different in that regard? Your logic simply doesn't make any sense. By your logic everybody in the world who works is exploited. Are people who work at Burger King exploited? By your logic they are, simply because they are cheap labor. The reality is that wage rates are different in different economies and in different professions. Western employment serves to raise standards of living and wage rates gradually increase, driven by market forces. Your logic simply would ruin the lives of thousands by moving them back toward poverty.


I'n not appeased by anything - I'm simply stating fact. Opression of freedom and freedom of speech will probably be the last item to change. China is very conscious of orderly change - they have no interest in civil disorder in a population of several billion people. Is China perfect? No far from it. Is China moving toward a market economy - yes they are - it's a concrete fact.

Actually, an American, a Canadian, a European, etc. are pretty damned dumb if they can't eat without a job. There's a reason why Western nations are rich and it isn't our superior intelligence....we've ensured that we live in the nations with an abundance of resources and soil for food/farming and we aren't overpopulated....and we've ensured that those less fortunate, stay less fortunate so that we don't become overpopulated. (Exploited!) If someone starves in our countries, they were too dumb to put a hook on the end of a string tied to a stick or too dumb to walk outside city limits and snare themselves a rabbit or eat some wild berries, etc.

Also, western industrialized citizens earn enough money to afford to contribute to unemployment plans, health care plans, savings accounts, etc.

Third world countries with issues of extreme poverty are generally the nations filled with dust that doesn't grow food, or controlled by corrupt dictators who sell the existing resources to the highest foreign bidders at the expense of the local residents. That's what we're talking about after all!

It's a concrete fact that China is still very much a Communist country controlled by leaders who have no intentions of giving up their Communist governing style.

Originally posted by 00Elf
No, restrictions on free enterprise and investment would be the first things to go. China is still largely under the Communist thumb, but you can't look at the present alone. Compared with the China of 30 years ago, China looks very Capitalist indeed.

And they never will have such choices, unless you let Globalization work.

WHO among us is ADVOCATING cheap labor?!?! Nobody said that they WANT people to be paid dirt-cheap wages, only that doing so in the present ultimately benefitts them down the road. The richer they get, the richer we get, the poorer we get, the poorer they get. It's simple economics.

Why is it our duty?

China looks nothing like a capitalist country. China controls everything that comes in and out of China and your so-called private industries can do absolutely nothing about it....not even suggest new leadership.

I'm all for globalization. It's exploitation rather than globalization though if you're not willing to pay a fair wage to those who make your products, proportionate to the profits you make on those products.

The companies who go abroad in search of the cheap labour are the ones advocating cheap labour. If the labour wasn't cheap, the company wouldn't be there. LOL, you seriously don't think that companies are there for the benefits to the workers down the road do you?

It's our duty as long as we want to pretend we're in pursuit of ethical, free market enterprise.

Originally posted by She-devil
Actually, an American, a Canadian, a European, etc. are pretty damned dumb if they can't eat without a job. There's a reason why Western nations are rich and it isn't our superior intelligence....we've ensured that we live in the nations with an abundance of resources and soil for food/farming and we aren't overpopulated....and we've ensured that those less fortunate, stay less fortunate so that we don't become overpopulated. (Exploited!) If someone starves in our countries, they were too dumb to put a hook on the end of a string tied to a stick or too dumb to walk outside city limits and snare themselves a rabbit or eat some wild berries, etc.

Also, western industrialized citizens earn enough money to afford to contribute to unemployment plans, health care plans, savings accounts, etc.

Third world countries with issues of extreme poverty are generally the nations filled with dust that doesn't grow food, or controlled by corrupt dictators who sell the existing resources to the highest foreign bidders at the expense of the local residents. That's what we're talking about after all!

It's a concrete fact that China is still very much a Communist country controlled by leaders who have no intentions of giving up their Communist governing style.

So, now these people in cheap labor markets are not only being exploited - they are dumb as well. Incredible. Your view of the world is pretty much screwed up and incredibly nieve. How many countries have you actually visited in the world? And No Cancun is not a country...

If a country has poverty - don't you think its a benefit for those people to get a high paying job? That's what western countries offer them - a high paying job. Lower than US wages sure, but as Lionel pointed out - wages differ in the US based on cost of living - just like they do between countries. Try living in Manhattan on a Iowa salary!

So, now these people in cheap labor markets are not only being exploited - they are dumb as well.

America, Canada and Europe are not cheap labor markets.

Try living in Manhattan on a Iowa salary!

Share an apartment with Beverly in Manhattan for $800 a month!

http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/roo/132126794.html

Originally posted by Napsterbater
America, Canada and Europe are not cheap labor markets.


Nobody said they were.

http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/roo/132103882.html

Not married? Try a studio for $550.

$550 is pretty good for 10 sq ft !

Actually, an American, a Canadian, a European, etc. are pretty damned dumb if they can't eat without a job.

So, now these people in cheap labor markets are not only being exploited - they are dumb as well.

Was it your reading comprehension that failed?

$550 is pretty good for 10 sq ft !

Ahh, so now you must not only survive in Manhattan on an Iowa salary, you must also have a Manhattan lifestyle, too!

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Was it your reading comprehension that failed?

Perhaps it is your comprehension that needs a tweak.

She said that people are dumb in Europe, Canada, US if they can't eat without a job

=> People in low wage markets must be dumb.

Nowhere did I say that Europe, Canada, US is a low wage market.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Ahh, so now you must not only survive in Manhattan on an Iowa salary, you must also have a Manhattan lifestyle, too!

Only if you prefer not to be exploited :)

Well, then, who are the dumb people in cheap labor markets that you say She-Devil referred to? According to the way I am reading things, they are exploited. It is the ones in abundant nations that are dumb.

Only if you prefer not to be exploited

No, only if you prefer not to be dumb. :)

The US is dumb. The third world is exploited.

And anyway, the Manhattan lifestyle is dumb, and unsustainable. Just ask Hugh McLeod.

www.gapingvoid.com

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Well, then, who are the dumb people in cheap labor markets that you say She-Devil referred to? According to the way I am reading things, they are exploited. It is the ones in abundant nations that are dumb.

Try reading the posts. It really helps.

Actually, an American, a Canadian, a European, etc. are pretty damned dumb if they can't eat without a job.

Here? Nope. Western nations.

There's a reason why Western nations are rich and it isn't our superior intelligence....we've ensured that we live in the nations with an abundance of resources and soil for food/farming and we aren't overpopulated....and we've ensured that those less fortunate, stay less fortunate so that we don't become overpopulated. (Exploited!)

Here? Nope, they're being exploited.

If someone starves in our countries, they were too dumb to put a hook on the end of a string tied to a stick or too dumb to walk outside city limits and snare themselves a rabbit or eat some wild berries, etc.

Here, perhaps? No, because she's talking about America here.

Also, western industrialized citizens earn enough money to afford to contribute to unemployment plans, health care plans, savings accounts, etc.

Gotta think about this one... Nope, westerners.

Third world countries with issues of extreme poverty are generally the nations filled with dust that doesn't grow food, or controlled by corrupt dictators who sell the existing resources to the highest foreign bidders at the expense of the local residents. That's what we're talking about after all!

This bit, perhaps? Don't see any dumb there!

It's a concrete fact that China is still very much a Communist country controlled by leaders who have no intentions of giving up their Communist governing style.

I'll leave this one as an exercise to you, Drew, who so very egotistically attacked my own ability to read. I think you need it.

She said "They take the jobs because they have no choice if they want to eat"

I said "Doesn't everybody take jobs because they want to eat?"

She said "Actually, an American, a Canadian, a European, etc. are pretty damned dumb if they can't eat without a job"

Which means she is saying by inference that they must be dumb if they can't eat without a job.

Get it now? :@@:

That's some pretty kooky logic there, Drew. Her post was clearly aimed at disproving your statement.

Originally posted by She-devil
Of course slaves get paid; they get food and shelter which is all cheap foreign labourers get. Do you get it now?

Oh, I get it now. You make up the facts to fit your opinions. Food and shelter is not all cheap foreign laborers get.

Originally posted by She-devil
You're not serious are you???? You could spend 25% of your income on food and another 25% on housing....the cheap labourer could spend the same proportions on the same items but it's entirely different!!!!! For example, the cheap labourer whom makes about $1 a day, then only has $0.25 to spend on food and $0.25 to spend on housing. Even in third world countries, where the cost of living is so cheap as you say, he/she will be dining on the barest of essentials....not steak and pasta primavera.

Where'd you get the $1 number?

Originally posted by She-devil
As well, unlike you...the cheap labourer doesn't even have the option of affording a vehicle or a vacation outside his/her own country because they couldn't afford the bottle of water on a plane let alone the airfare!!!!! You and your pal from Colorado Springs can travel anywhere you want in the world and still be able to afford to eat quite well. This isn't rocket science!

I really don't understand this focus on the portability of their money. Why this need to take their money and go somewhere else to purchase things when they can purchase them where they are?

Originally posted by She-devil
Everyone should get higher wages now because then their cost of living is essentially the same as yours or mine based on their own nation's currency rates. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Uh, everything? If their cost of living is the same as ours based on their currency rates, then why do you want to pay them based on our currency rates?

Originally posted by She-devil
Your advocation of cheap labour keeps those cheap labourers living in poverty and keeps them in need of foreign companies whom exploit their resources, rather than able to afford to start their own companies, capable of purchasing the needed equipment from abroad. Then again, that's exactly the way you want them.....in need of rich Western companies so the Westerners stay rich and they stay poor.

I only advocate that you give them a choice on whether they want a job or not. They can decide for themselves whether it's worth it or not. As for keeping them in poverty - if you make companies pay them the same wages that workers make in the West, then they're not going to have jobs at all. What company would put up with the costs of importation, the difficulty in having production facilities so far removed from HQ, the dodgy legal systems and shaky governments, etc, if there's no cost advantage. So, no jobs for them! But at least you saved them from the humiliation of having to make less than some guy in South Carolina.

Originally posted by She-devil
Do you seriously think that an average Joe in a third world country can afford to buy a car, a toaster, a spaghetti and meatball dinner, a baseball glove for their son, etc.?????

I don't know - depends on the country. I don't want to just make up numbers to support my point. Suffice it to say I think the primary goal of a worker in one of these countries is to comfortably provide food and shelter for their family. Apparently if the job doesn't provide them with a car, they're better off not having a job.

Originally posted by She-devil
It's the duty of more fortunate citizens of the world to ensure that we're not keeping people poor and going without, just so we can maintain our lifestyles. That's what's happening now. We're afraid that the world's resources won't be able to sustain such strain so we prefer to keep hogging 50% of them....even though we only represent about 10% of the population.

I don't disagree with that. But you have to measure "rich" and "poor" locally, not based on your particular lifestyle. Otherwise you end up telling the guy begging for a job that he'd be better off continuing to live in a shanty town because you'd be exploiting him if you pay him less than some guy in Hamburg.

Originally posted by DrewM
Which means she is saying by inference that they must be dumb if they can't eat without a job.

Get it now? :@@:

No, because per usual, you missed what I said. I said, "Third world countries with issues of extreme poverty are generally the nations filled with dust that doesn't grow food, or controlled by corrupt dictators who sell the existing resources to the highest foreign bidders at the expense of the local residents."

Which means, the abundance of fish, animals and wildberries for example, simply isn't available to them. Which is again, why I stated that they don't have a real choice to turn down the jobs if they want to eat, as you suggested they did. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Oh, I get it now. You make up the facts to fit your opinions. Food and shelter is not all cheap foreign laborers get.


I really don't understand this focus on the portability of their money. Why this need to take their money and go somewhere else to purchase things when they can purchase them where they are?

Uh, everything? If their cost of living is the same as ours based on their currency rates, then why do you want to pay them based on our currency rates?

I only advocate that you give them a choice on whether they want a job or not. They can decide for themselves whether it's worth it or not. As for keeping them in poverty - if you make companies pay them the same wages that workers make in the West, then they're not going to have jobs at all. What company would put up with the costs of importation, the difficulty in having production facilities so far removed from HQ, the dodgy legal systems and shaky governments, etc, if there's no cost advantage. So, no jobs for them! But at least you saved them from the humiliation of having to make less than some guy in South Carolina.

I don't disagree with that. But you have to measure "rich" and "poor" locally, not based on your particular lifestyle. Otherwise you end up telling the guy begging for a job that he'd be better off continuing to live in a shanty town because you'd be exploiting him if you pay him less than some guy in Hamburg.

Oh, so perhaps you could enlighten me and tell me all of the wonderful things that cheap labourers can afford to lavish themselves with, once they're done purchasing their bag of rice and paying their rent to the guy who owns their shack. :rolleyes:

They need portability with their money, because their countries can't offer them everything they need. Certain world commodities are traded with world price scales....such as oil. They'll never be able to rise up and take care of themselves as a nation, if they can't afford to import necessities to a manufacturing industry, such as oil. As well, if their nation doesn't have a wood or a dairy industry for example....they can't afford to import those items from other countries at their local rates of pay, now can they? This isn't a difficult concept to grasp....I can't understand why you're having such difficulty with it.

Their cost of living can't even be compared to ours because what you and I consider basic essentials, they can only dream of ever being able to afford. I'm explaining why it's necessary for the cost of living to be equal worldwide. I said I want their pay scale according to world currency exchange rates to be tallied appropriately. For example, minimum wage in Canada is $7.25 an hour, I believe. In the U.S. it's only about $6 an hour. The difference is due to the exchange rates in our two currencies.

I'm the one who wants to give them a choice. You're the one who wants to ensure that they don't have any other choice but to work for a western owned company. You're also not paying attention to what I've said....companies shouldn't move jobs to third world countries simply to exploit the cheap labour; they should be taking jobs there in order to expand their customer base in a truly free market enterprise. If those people can afford to purchase the items they make, you've suddenly got a huge new customer base. So, companies will still be able to profit considerably.

You seem to be under the false impression that I think everyone within a country should be paid the same amount of money. :confused: Of course people should be paid according to the job they do......I'm saying that a person making a toy in the U.S. should make the same rate according to currency values as someone who makes the same toy in Bangladesh or wherever.

This is really simple to comprehend if you'd just try....Let's say it costs a company $1 to make a pair of socks, after all expenses here in Canada. The company then chooses to make a 200% profit on each pair of socks from the consumers. That same company makes socks in a third world country....after paying the locally lower cost of utilities, wages, taxes, and cost of materials, that same company by all rights should still be able to sell their socks to the locals in that third world country at a 200% profit according to that area's cost of living. The companies don't do that. Why?????? The answer is sad but simple.....that company doesn't want to sell it's socks to the locals if they can sell them to Canadians for $3 a pair. So, no matter how hard those third world labour pools work or how cheap their cost of living is, they'll never be able to buy a simple pair of socks from the company they work for. The locals can't even knit their own socks because the cost of purchasing yarn from a foreign country is far too high and their country doesn't make yarn. They're stuck relying on Western handouts. That's why they're being exploited!!!

Having that company be forced to pay their employees a universally accepted rate of pay for that particular job, would ensure that everyone should be able to afford such a simple item as a pair of socks. It also ensures that the company has then generated a large new customer base. It's a win/win situation.

She-devil - I can appreciate that your mode of thought is rooted in a desire for decency & that is admirable, but your proposals simply would not work.

You propose a global wage scale that is determined country - country on an exchange rate basis. Here is why that could not work and would hurt the people you would like to help

1 - If the effective wage was identical after exchange rates then US and European countries would never have any incentive to move operations to a low wage market, so the issue would be moot. Goods would be more expensive, markets isolated and the poor would remain poor.

2 - Who would manage such a scheme? Who would set the wage level - in the US alone there are vastly different wage levels dependant upon location alone. It's impractical. Given there are thousands of job classifications - it'd be prime for abuse and would essentially remove the ability to tie wages in part to performance.

3 - One common factor in developing nations is there is no real middle class. There are super rich and super poor & not much in between. It's the middle class that drives a country to prosperity because they are the consumption engine. If you suddenly paid workers 10x the going rate then a small % of the population would essentially join the rich & the ones without western jobs (the vast majority) would remain poor. In a country like China - western employment is a tiny tiny fraction of the population. The increased spending power of such a small fraction of the population would have no impact on expansion of markets - that can only be achieved as the middle class grows via market forces.

For the most part, western employment only serves to improve standards of living and it's certainly not exploitation as you suggest. I will grant that not every industry is the same and some, notably the clothing industry has a history of what could be close to being called exploitation, but this is not the rule. I've sat face to face with some of these workers in Asia and they seemed pretty happy to me - many had cars or motorbikes. Di