[WOSG]

"The point of my previous post was that through
cheaper goods, Americans wind up with surplus money to spend satisfying other demands"
Does the net reduction in the cost of cheaper goods really
offset the net reduction in income?

-----

YES! It's not just surplus money from the cheaper goods, its the opportunity for deploying capital and labor more effectively. That person went from a $14/hr job that was probably 'worth' no more than a fraction of it, to a $12/hr more valuable to the economy.

For all this gnashing of teeth about outsourcing, America still has managed to keep unemployment around 5%, half of what you see in socialistic Europe, with faster increases in incomes.

The secret to prosperity is doing everything more efficiently. You cannot achieve prosperity by preventing efforts at better efficiency.

For more on this, see Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations'. 200 years later, the world still hasn't learned.

[PositiveCogins]

"The secret to prosperity is doing everything more efficiently. You cannot achieve prosperity by preventing
efforts at better efficiency."
Cheep labor does not promote efficiency or technology. The modern combine for picking cotton would never been invented
if slavery was never abolished. If I can get the same production out 2 men at $25. hr as I can out of 5 men at $10
hr. Hows that more efficient. My choice is paying insurance on 2 men or 5 men. The 2 men can afford a new car and get to work on time, the 5 men take the buss and have to walk. Is this your idea of efficiency?

[raybbr]

"The point of my previous post was that through cheaper goods, Americans wind up with surplus money to spend satisfying other demands"

Over 300 people lose their jobs so that buying power is lost and the "cost" of unemployment and retraining programs is added to the unemployment cost creating a large negative to the economy. Is it really made up by the surplus money by being able to buy cheaper leather goods? I don't see it. Perhaps it's a wash but I don't see a gain.

[Ninian Dryhope]

"For more on this, see Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations'. 200 years later, the world still hasn't learned."

Right. As I read the 'Wealth of Nations', I thought that every news-person who was going to spout off about the economy to the general public should first be required to read and demonstrate a basic understanding of 'Wealth of Nations'.