Skip to comments.
Jobs Come and Go (One of the smartest economists in the world hits the nail on the head)
www.townhall.com ^
| 11/26/2003
| Walter E. Williams
Posted on 12/18/2003 3:32:00 PM PST by sly671
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 381-396 next last
To: Daus
Please explain why you feel better being replaced by a machine than by an Indian?
Because in the first case there's an opportunity to better yourself by either running the machine, building a new one, fixing it, etc. You've increased your value as now you can produce a lot more per hour.
In the second case what opportunities do you have? Manage a group of people 5k miles away / sarcasm? Shuffle around some paperwork? Move on to a low paying retail job?
121
posted on
12/19/2003 8:49:18 AM PST
by
lelio
To: E. Pluribus Unum
A fundamental economic theorem is that demand goes down as price goes up.Really?! I feel so enlightened all of a sudden. Well, if you put it that way I would have to say that the price of exporting jobs would likely be higher than the price of keeping them in the U.S. if the cost of exporting jobs included disqualification from U.S. tax incentives and U.S. government contracts.
Why are you ashamed to admit you are talking about UNIONS?
Because unions are obviously your own personal little fetish. I'm referring to an array of legal, economic, and social institutions that are much, much broader than collective bargaining.
122
posted on
12/19/2003 8:54:05 AM PST
by
AntiGuv
(When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
To: lelio
Are you saying Ayn would say its okay to trade with a communist country?
More and better production is good for all men, everywhere. Whats good for Toyota is good for America. Thats individualism, and thats Americanism.
Government interference with free trade is un-American. Sacrificing ones standard of living in order to subsidize inefficient domestic producers is un-American. The tribal fear of foreigners is un-American. Resentment at others success is un-American.
A patriotic American acts as a capitalist and an individualist: he buys the best, wherever it may be found.
123
posted on
12/19/2003 8:54:24 AM PST
by
gcruse
(http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
To: lelio
Because in the first case there's an opportunity to better yourself by either running the machine, building a new one, fixing it, etc. You've increased your value as now you can produce a lot more per hour. In the second case what opportunities do you have? Manage a group of people 5k miles away / sarcasm? Shuffle around some paperwork? Move on to a low paying retail job?
How can you assume (to use the authors example) that a telephone operator would have ANY qualifications to 'run, fix, or invent' the machine that replaced him or her? If they had those skills, they wouldn't be operators in the first place.
124
posted on
12/19/2003 8:55:51 AM PST
by
Daus
To: sly671
That coming from someone with university tenure doesn't carry a lot of credibility.
BUMP
125
posted on
12/19/2003 8:56:57 AM PST
by
tm22721
(May the UN rest in peace)
To: gcruse
Sacrificing ones standard of living in order to subsidize inefficient domestic producers is un-American.And sacrificing our own standard of living to promote foreign development is supposed to be pro-American???
gcruse, IMHO you gotta be certifiably demented.
To: Willie Green; lelio
I'm trying to demonstrate to lelio that what he thinks he knows about Ayn Rand ain't necessarily so.
127
posted on
12/19/2003 9:03:18 AM PST
by
gcruse
(http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
To: lelio
Are you saying Ayn would say its okay to trade with a communist country?Rand and Marx were both atheists.
Neither one was encumbered by any sense of morality.
To: tm22721
Good point. Not to argue ad hominem, but it's helpful to understand that the author's personal situation might influence his opinion on the issue. A tenured professor is probably one of the few positions where one does not have to worry about job loss. Just keep cranking out the lectures and articles, and you're in.
129
posted on
12/19/2003 9:05:51 AM PST
by
chimera
To: Willie Green
By relocating production facilities offshore where labor is cheaper, transnational corporations AVOID the added capital investment necessary to develop and implement sophisticated, labor-saving automation. Of course they do.
To: chimera
You can't seriously argue that Walter Williams has a job because he is tenured, however much you might disagree with him.
To: AntiGuv
They range from the minimum wage to environmental regulations to consumer protection laws to the employment benefits structure. These don't raise incomes, they reduce them. They impose value judgments onto the ruthless efficiency of the marketplace.
I'm saying those value judgements should not be imposed, just that these are not institutions for increasing incomes. They are institutions for the limiting of incomes, for non-economic values.
Certainly one of the marks of civilization is the enshrinement of non-economic values in institutions. We should just call them what they are.
To: Taliesan
Of course they do.Then I've proven my point.
To: Jim Cane
Big bump to you! It's good to see some people undestand political psychology as opposed to just economics. Just to add to your overall theory, Jim, I think that many of the "savings" from outsourcing et al will be extracted as "rents" by the batallions of new lawyers we are hatching.
To: sly671
"Those Americans calling for government restrictions that would deny companies and ultimately consumers to benefit from cheaper methods of production are asking us to accept lower wealth in order to protect special interests."
Another helping of free-trade demogogery which is nothing more than espousing the special interests of the wealthy to acquire more wealth on the backs of their poorer countrymen. All this so we can have cheaper phone calls and consumer goods.
Who's gonna buy those goods after wages are chopped in half?
To: AntiGuv
The only real debate left is how much redistribution is appropriate and at what level redistribution becomes counterproductive. I agree redistribution is unavoidable. The amount that is appropriate is a value-question, not an economic one. It is a religious question.
All redistribution is counterproductive, economically. It should be done for moral reasons, which will make the economy weaker, in the interest of other strengths.
To: Willie Green
Yes, you've proved your point. If I can get my widgits made by cheap labor, I won't buy or build a widgit machine.
Congratulations.
To: Taliesan
OOOPs, I meant "I am NOT saying these values should not be imposed...'
To: familyofman
Who's gonna buy those goods after wages are chopped in half? Those whose wages are doubled.
To: Taliesan
Hmmm.. You raise some quite interesting points. I'll have to give them some thought & also ponder how they relate to the specific debate at hand.
FWIW, this has been a topic that's been on my mind a lot lately (the desirability & advisability of income redistribution as well as the overall impact of outsourcing, illegals, etc.) Yes, I confess I've been following the Exporting America series by Lou Dobbs.. ;^)
140
posted on
12/19/2003 9:31:27 AM PST
by
AntiGuv
(When the countdown hits zero, something's gonna happen..)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 381-396 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson