Posted on 09/18/2005 9:19:51 AM PDT by Willie Green
Angel Mills worked at GST AutoLeather in Williamsport, Md., most of her adult life. She cut, inspected, packed and shipped leather upholstery until she was laid off in June 2003 as the company scaled back local operations and shifted production to Mexico.
"It's sad. It's scary. I've been a factory worker all my life, and I didn't know what I wanted to do," said Ms. Mills, a 38-year-old Williamsport resident with a teenage son.
But by March 2004 she was taking a half-year course to become a state-licensed massage therapist. A federal program that helps workers who lose jobs owing to foreign competition paid for her training and offered extended unemployment benefits.
In July, she started working at Venetian Salon and Spa in Hagerstown, Md.
~~~SNIP~~~
Mr. Thomas said that for all trade adjustment program workers passing through the consortium, the average wage was $14.36 an hour before the layoffs, while after retraining it was $11.87 an hour, a decline that is common for factory workers who have to restart their lives.
U.S. Labor Department figures indicate that among the retrained, those that find new jobs end up making only 70 percent to 80 percent of their old wages on average.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
"market competition which undermines competition"
Ah, that makes sense ... NOT! Still doesnt compute.
"Minimum wages laws prevent wages from reaching market equilibrium of subsistence"
Once again - A Pole - MARX WAS WRONG!
There is no 'iron law of wages' - that was proven wrong, and there is no 'market equilibrium of subsistence'. The 'market equilibrium' for box office stars like Leo DiCaprio or Tom Cruise is $20 million a picture, not 'subsistence'.
If American minimum wage law was repealed you would NOT see wages falling much ... or at all.
You continue to believe Marxist myths that simply are NOT TRUE. I geniunely feel sorry that you are unwilling to see the errors of your anti-market mis-education in economics.
The Truth will Set you Free!
"Both measures by regulating market protect it from itself."
Since you dislike the 'market' why bother 'protecting' it. ... the 'market' doesn't need your 'protection' it will do just fine on its own!
American's own assets of almost $60 trillion. This includes:
$17.7 trillion in real estate,
$3.7 trillion in durable goods,
$4.4 trillion in savings deposits,
$884 billion in money market accounts,
$2.1 trillion in credit market instruments,
$6.3 trillion in corporate equities,
$3.6 trillion in mutual fund shares,
$1.1 trillion in life insurance reserves,
$9.4 trillion in pension reserves and on and on.
And what is the remaining $ 20 trillion? How real are the "savings deposits", "credit market instruments", "corporate equities", "mutual fund shares", "insurance reserves", "pension reserves"? What backs them up?
***end quote
Are these number true?
And where is the remaining $20 Trillion?
Is there any other hard asset in amounts equivalent to real estate?
How much percent wise is actual construction cost (labour, mashinery, materials) as compared to "preceived value" i.e. location, tax benefits, location, infrastructure, location, job market, location ..
And what happens to all "instruments", "shares", "funds", "equities", "reserves" etc. if RE market contracts - say 1 trillion? (5% of total is not unrealistic.)
PS. Sorry for spamming, but all you gentelmen seem to be as interested in this particular topic as I am interested in Your insight. Also, these are the most compact set of numbers I have seen regarding overall financial status of USA. (Only 20 trillion of total missing)
PPS. To me this looks terrible. 21 Trillion of RE and durable goods and twice the amount of "preceived values in future" built on it. And all this has to service $ 1 Trillion current account deficit.
Is it "fair" for the government of India to bankroll IT operations that compete against US businesses?
Is it "fair" for China to levy extensive tariffs on US exports while we allow them unfettered access to our markets with products that compete against US businesses?
So the fact that PRChina, which manipulates tariffs, ignores IP laws, and uses slave labor, means that they are not successful at demolishing US industry,
according to Friedman.
What--are all those T-Bonds they hold going to turn to dust?
Oh, it does. Have you ever played the Monopoly game? There is a possibility that in free market competition one or few players take everything. As a result of competition the competition stops. A little of Hegelian/Marxist dialectic :) That is why you need anti-trust laws.
"Minimum wages laws prevent wages from reaching market equilibrium of subsistence"
Once again - A Pole - MARX WAS WRONG! There is no 'iron law of wages'
You see Marx under every bed. It was David Ricardo who also author of the competitive advantage law.
I already learned the Truth. It is in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Free Market ideology is a heresy and a destructive cult.
The fact that labor is a commodity is not negotiable. It's not "the system", nor eeeeevil corporations and their officers that declare labor is a commodity, but the laws of economics. Complaining about this is just as useful as complaining that gravity treats people the same as other objects. The laws of economics don't care that you're a person any more than the laws of physics do.
...and the general welfare of the country's workers is ensured by prohibiting slave labor and by requiring employers to provide safe working conditions for their workers. Workers are free to improve their value and negotiate their pay with any employer. If that agreement is reached without coercion or duress, the worker has nothing to complain about.
There is nothing about protectionism that promotes the general welfare of the country; quite the opposite, in fact.
"Establishing justice" - does the word justice means anything to you?
It does. Apparently, it means something different to you. It's interesting to note that "justice" means "give me what I want" to many people. There are very few convicted criminals, for example, who feel justice was served by their conviction and imprisonment.
When employment is negotiated between two parties, the employer and the employee, if both are in agreement to the terms, then the arrangement is just. Each party is free to terminate the relationship if the terms are no longer appealing. If the employee is offered employment for a higher wage, he is free to leave and accept that offer. If a worker offers to do the same job for a lower wage, the employer is free to hire that worker rather than the first. The process is very fair and just.
Quote: So, now that they've bought American companies, can you explain how that's bad for America?
It's usually not bad and I usually don't care. However since china has lots of our dollars burning holes in their pocket that's were I start to have concern. They are thieven little snakes.
China will buy an American company and bleed it dry of techinical know how and expertise and use it against us when ever possible. That's capitalism you may say? It would be if china had respect for intellectual property, copyrights etc. Their rules or lack of to be more precise in the world marketplace is where I part company with allowing countries that operate like china to buy US companies.
I wouldn't -- this is where our values differ. Those are laws that increase government taxes and power. I value limiting government protection to those with an absolute need-- the children.
Values are key. Are yours based on actual scriptural passages or are they part of a later tradition?
Labor, unlike commodities, can modify the market itself and artificially inflate its value. People vote, inanimate objects do not.
Labor, unlike commodities, can modify the market itself and artificially inflate its value. People vote, inanimate objects do not.
You are entirely correct. However, with regard to its place in the economic system and for the purpose of discussing macroeconomic policy for the country, labor is simply an input to the economic machine. Each piece of the economic machine has its unique characteristics, to be sure. But each is also subject to the unfeeling laws of economics.
There are legion examples of business owners who tried with all their might to ignore the laws of economics in order to be a nice guy to his employees. The inevitable result is failure of the entire business, which harms all the employees. Had these bosses gritted their teeth and dealt with the harsh realities of business, they might have been able to limit the damage by eliminating some employees or closing some factories.
There are parts of business that hurt. The only decision available to management is whether to hurt some or eventually hurt all.
Unions have been trying for decades to circumvent the laws of economics. As one union-dominated industry after another collapses, it is clear that they have not been successful.
Bravo. You have stated the basic premise exactly. It is evil to alienate human beings from their labor, and it is equally evil to commodify human beings. Any system that does these things turns human beings into disposable "human resources", and thus insults the One Who created human beings.
A system in which human beings and their labor are intrinsically valuable will necessarily operate at a lower level of efficiency than a laisser-faire system. Nevertheless, it is better for a society to suffer the inefficiencies produced under a moral system of economics than to "prosper" by treating human beings as cattle.
Unrestrained capitalism (rightly known as "economic liberalism") has nothing to do with true conservatism as traditionally practiced in the West. Thank you for exposing the root of the problem.
I'm not necessarily lining up with A. Pole, but I do not share your view of economics in theoretical abstract. However, it is a deep personal relief to me that you have other endeavors that you can waste your time upon.
You mean the tariffs that protected the robber barons in the late 1800s? Those guys exploited the little guys quite a bit. Kinda funny that you want to go back to those bad old days.
The link in post #239 has all the details of the $60 trillion.
FreeDOM trade is not free. It comes at a heavy price for those who can least afford it. must give their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to defeat the enemies of free men, the authoritarian thugs who sell favors to some in return for power.
Those people are the "domestic" in the phrase "all enemies, foreign and domestic".
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.