Chickens or Eggs
1. Low Wages caused Buy Cheap Foreign
2. Buy Cheap Foreign caused Low Wages
Jason, Paul and Other more Liberal comments were surprised and somewhat appalled when they finally understood that I believe we may have gotten what we asked for... MP Don't need Higher Min Wage and MP Tax Payers Subsidize Low Wages"SINCE 1980 middle class wages have stagnated and buying power decreased"
Exactly... Starting in ~1980, many American consumers decided they liked foreign products that they deemed to be better, more cost effective, more fashionable, etc...
No wonder wages stagnated... American consumers severely curtailed their "Buy American" belief and started spending massive amounts of money overseas... I mean just automobiles were billions and billions of dollars by themselves. Big 3 vs Foreign Graph
And yes American companies also moved production offshore to save money. However most Americans didn't care as long as they got the right good at the right price.
Until this changes back, we will keep sliding the wrong direction..." G2A
"So it's the financially strapped consumer who is responsible for their own wages stagnating. Good God...." Jason
"Isn't that a bummer...
Did you look at the KOGOD auto index?
Almost every Lexus, Scion, Subaru, Nissan, Infiniti, Mazda, Mercedes, Volkswagen, Audi, Volvo, Porsche, Hyundai and Kia score low on the list. And the imports that are built here are in "right to work" states.
So yes American consumers are gladly choosing to send their money to overseas workers, managers, governments, etc. Instead of supporting American workers and domestic jobs.
Per the graph I shared, the big 3 had ~75% of the car market in 1980 and now they have ~45%.
A question: do you look for the Made in America stamp before buying products, and pay a little extra if necessary to buy them? Or do you just buy low price things that you like?"
"John your buy American wage stagnation arguments make no sense because US economy didn't stagnate, wages stagnated. Since 1980 US GDP has tripled from $5 trillion to nearly $16 trillion. Wages didn't stagnate because people weren't buying American, wages stagnated because employers stopped handing out raises and paying employers good wages. 90% of all the economic growth the US has seen over the last three decades or so has been captured by the top 5% or so of the population. You're ignoring the phenomenal growth in disparity. Your argument assumes that wages stagnated because the money's not there, not true, our economy has grown by more than 300%. The moneys there, it's just not going to labor regardless of who's cars their buying. The growth of the economy is charted here... and elsewhere.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3636109" Paul
"Here is an interesting link.
http://andrewmcafee.org/2012/12/the-great-decoupling-of-the-us-economy/
The reality is that myself and other investors make money whether consumers buy from Ford or Subaru. My mutual funds own both.
Another reality is that few to no American employees are needed to design, test, build, etc that Subaru car, or clean, do accounting, work IT, manage, etc at their corporate headquarters.
Therefore people like myself still get wealthier and buy services, while the number of higher paying jobs at Ford and other USA manufacturers are eliminated. And to make things worse for the American workers, the American manufacturers need to automate or off shore to compete with Subaru.
So yes, what the consumer's choice does matter.
By the way, on the upside my company does sell equipment to almost all of the foreign car manufacturers. So some of those dollar do make it back to the USA, unfortunately most of them stay over there and not in the US worker's pocket." G2A
Now I know we have been through this before... However any new thoughts?
52 comments:
My own view is that we make it too expensive and too difficult to hire and retain working people. For historical reasons, we have imposed the burden of health care and pension costs on employers, something our foreign competitors do not do.
We spend a lot of time talking about minimum wage workers, but minimum wage work has little impact on international competitiveness. While the situation is a bit more complicated than this, it's not as if the kid who is at the counter at McDonald's beat out a Chinese worker for the job.
==Hiram
Who exactly do you want to pay the burden of America's healthcare? It is a societal / economic cost no matter who writes the check.
Just like the healthcare costs, someone in our society is going to pay for that McDonald's employee to get paid more than their effort is worth on the free market. That will be built into our living and labor costs. Meaning the assembly mechanic at my company will need a somewhat higher income to buy the Big Mac. Therefore our products will cost somewhat more... Therefore affecting our global competitiveness.
Why is it society's responsibility for any individual's health care, or anything else? Do you believe there are certain individuals in our society who are entitled to free food, clothing, shelter, health care, a nice car, and maybe a 52" HDTV? And if someone else is paying, what incentive is there for that individual to work? At what point does EVERYBODY climb into the wagon leaving no one to pull? Minimum wage is just socialism by other means, and it is doomed to failure.
Why is it society's responsibility for any individual's health care, or anything else?
Because society benefits from such things.
--Hiram
The first line of the Constitution is "We, the People", not "Me, the person".
--Hiram
"Because society benefits from such things." In that case, the Soviet Union would be the wealthiest nation on the planet, rather than a "former" failed socialist state. The United States has become the greatest economic power on the planet by virtue of individual economic freedom, and government attempts to stifle that freedom should be condemned at every opportunity.
Personally I like political stability and a low crime rate.
Thus I think there is a great deal of good in making sure that our citizens can earn a "fair and liveable" wage for a days work, and receive healthcare.
I am not talking about the free loaders at this moment. That is another problem that Liberals seem gifted at denying. I am talking about that group with a GED or HS diploma who are willing to show up and work for their pay.
What are we going to do with them when the "replicator guy" gets rich and we don't need someone to say... "Do you want fries with your burger?".
"Because society benefits from such things." In that case, the Soviet Union would be the wealthiest nation on the planet
Why pick the Soviet Union? Why not any of the other welfare states in Europe which are doing well? Maybe the Soviet Union failed, not because it was a welfare state, but because it was a really bad welfare state.
Are we a bad welfare state?
--Hiram
Which European state would you recommend?
Preferably one with these similarities to the USA:
- Total population
- High immigration rate
- Low immigration reqt's
- Very diversity population
- Large global "police" force
- "Buy Bargains/Foreign" view
"Personally I like political stability and a low crime rate." What a misanthropic view. "Give me my welfare check or I'll rob you" is NOT what I expect of people. And isn't the highest crime rate right now among the welfare class? "Idle hands are the devil's playground" is an old truth where I come from. Idleness should be not be rewarded, nor should it be forced by an overweening welfare state mentality. Is social stability really gained by telling half of the population that they are entitled to live off the other half?
No, if you want to minimize and streamline government welfare and put it into some "progressive negative income tax" system that rewards work, while removing government barriers to hiring so they can FIND work, feel free. Right now government is making matters worse on both ends of the free market in labor.
Okay. Where did you pull that "welfare = high crime" view from? I don't necessarily disagree, but I think it deserves a source.
Or is it that poverty and a loss of hope leads to crime, which would support my "buy peace" view.
I think of the crime rates and political instability in the countries that have few protections for the unlucky and unmotivated. Most of them embrace systems that sound a lot like the Tea Party agenda. (ie Mexico, Egypt, Brazil, etc)
Trading Econ Balance of Trade
I like this one better... Set the start year to 1950 and hit export. It pretty well explains where our money is going and why the working class aren't seeing it...
http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com/povertycrime.php
What it says is that poverty is correlated with crime. I said that it was welfare which correlated with crime. Therefore, for my premise to be false, there would have to be no correlation between poverty and welfare, and I think that's the case-- that welfare is grossly ineffective at reducing poverty. If you agree, then you would be a good judge of human nature. I have known poor people, and they aren't violent criminals, because they are spending full time trying to make ends meet. But take a bunch of kids raised by welfare mothers and trapped in failing schools, and you get gangs and worse.
Balance of trade needs to be explained, however. People make their buying decisions intelligently. If they demand wages higher than the value of what they produce, and somebody "over there" can produce greater value, guess who gets the business? Is there anything that could possibly convince us to do otherwise, unless the price/quality differential was very small?
Economics Poverty and Crime
Personally I like this statement...
"Crime offers a way in which impoverished people can obtain material goods that they cannot attain through legitimate means. Often threat or force can help them acquire even more goods, this induces them to commit violent acts such as robbery, which is the second most common violent crime."
And in our country of "toys" and "temptations", no wonder young poor people "take it" when they see no way to "earn it". It isn't like they have a lot to lose. Interesting link though.
I envision that many people who are "satisfied" with the welfare hammock lack the ambition to become criminals. Though I agree with you that their children may be more ambitious. Especially when they realize that the "welfare hammock" won't get them the cool "toys" and "temptations" they are surrounded by. And Lord knows they don't have a good role model that can teach them about the rewards of learning and working...
"Is there anything that could possibly convince us to do otherwise?"
Simply: A Broader Perspective...
Wiki Tragedy of Commons
What is that "good deal" really costing us? (ie additional welfare, additional unemployment payments, higher taxes due to a smaller GDP/tax base, loss of technological lead compared to other nations, lower standard of living for Americans, etc)
Choices, Choices...
It's off topic, but here is a link to a blog post I found interesting:
If Democrats Want to Appeal to the Working Class, They Really Need Some Policies That Benefit the Working Class
One policy that helps my middle class family is the tuition tax credit. Off the top of my head I can't think of others, besides the longstanding mortgage interest deduction.
The following were great for families:
- Earned Income Tax Credit
- Child Tax Credit
- Lower tax rates
Oh I forgot... 2001 2003
But seriously ACA should be doing good things for some self employed workers and retirees under 65. Since the tax payers are subsidizing the premiums.
Of course that means that someone has to pay for that subsidy...
By the way, sorry for being annoying... And the MJ article was a very good read... I am worried the DFL folks may actually read it and learn.
Of course that is as likely as the GOP getting out of the anti-gay and anti-abortion business.
What is this "anti-gay" label about? I don't think Republicans even know who is gay unless told, and don't care much even then. Now, if you're talking about BEHAVIOR that some find offensive, that's an entirely different issue.
Anti-abortion, probably true, since abortion is murder, but do you really want to say Democrats/liberals are pro-choice on murder?
Back on topic, I think Laurie's post is entirely appropriate. I go back to my basic premise that government cannot give anybody any benefit that they do not first extract from private economy in some form. Government has no money. And since spending somebody else's money on a third party is the least efficient spending, it has crippled our economic growth and wealth greatly. And further attempts at government control are making it worse.
Of course the GOP is anti-gay in most of their positions, and it is costing us votes. They want to treat them differently than straight people.
And I am happy calling the Democrats the "pro-human heart stoppers", since that is what their "pro-choice" position enables. Pro-murder seems a reach since I am still uncertain when the "soul" / "human identity" enters the body... (ie heart beat, brain activity, viability, birth, etc)
Oops... Forgot conception... How could I miss that...
Ah, what you have failed to distinguish, and which the gay lobby (excuse the shorthand) keeps wanting to obscure, is that nobody wants to discriminate based on sexual orientation. How could you know? Behavior is a different matter. We don't allow those with rape fantasies, for example, to act on their "sexual orientation" without consequences or societal opprobrium. And all we're saying is that gay people have exactly the same rights as non-gays, to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Sure, if you want to make arbitrary distinctions as to where a "potential human life" becomes a human life, and we pass from abortion to murder, you can, but "pro-choice" doesn't recognize those intermediate points any more than the rigid life-begins-at-conception folks. Some pro-choicers even support "abortion" up to 1-year after birth.
I am reminded how much arbitrariness we already have in the law, saying, in most cases, that life begins upon full exit from the birth canal. Yet in some states if you kick a woman so hard that she miscarries, you're charged with murder. It's arbitrary. Change the law on who is a human being, and abortion becomes murder.
Which European state would you recommend?
Germany seems to be doing quite nicely.
--Hiram
Jerry,
GOP supports straights marrying the "not related adult" they love, they don't extend the same freedom to gays. Nice try though.
Hiram,
I'll reply later regarding Germany when I have more time. I am not sure how it will match up to these criteria.
Preferably one with these similarities to the USA:
- Total population
- High immigration rate
- Low immigration reqt's
- Very diversity population
- Large global "police" force
- "Buy Bargains/Foreign" view
Some interesting USA - Germany Links
A Subjective Comparison
Germany Car Market Share
"GOP supports straights marrying the "not related adult" they love, they don't extend the same freedom to gays."
You really have it tangled. Anyone is FREE to love anyone they want, and free to cohabitate with them. They have not only the freedom to make legal arrangements that suit them; they have that RIGHT of contract. But there exists no right to have a legally-recognized marriage, anymore than you have a right to a fishing license or a driving license-- you must meet the qualifications. There are usually very good reasons for those qualifications, and respecting a few thousand years of human history, social science and biology ought to be one of them. Of course, that's a "conservative" viewpoint. You don't have to agree, but don't just tell us we can't hold that view.
I think what we're arguing here is how much socialism is too much. Obviously 100% doesn't work; the USSR is gone. Cuba is a wreck and Venezuela is on the verge of collapse. China is only about 50% socialist with a culture better suited for it, yet they are "loosening up," and they seem to be successful. Other socialist democracies, like Sweden, seem to be doing well enough, with about 40-45% "socialism."
I claim, however, that the US is exceptional in having a long history of unbridled capitalism that has made us the most successful economy on the planet. The last century has seen us grow to about 20% socialist, with some good and some bad and some ups and downs, but the last several years we have ramped up towards 25% on our way higher. We know we would all be richer had we remained more capitalist, and the recent years ought to prove rather conclusively that more socialism is taking us in the wrong direction, FOR US. I'm not sure what else can be learned by comparison with other countries because, in the competition for US consumer dollars, they're kicking our butts.
"But there exists no right to have a legally-recognized marriage, anymore than you have a right to a fishing license or a driving license-- you must meet the qualifications.
You may not have a right to a fishing license, but that doesn't mean you can arbitrarily deny them to gay people.
--Hiram
"but don't just tell us we can't hold that view"
I am happy to let people hold that view. However the GOP "holding that view" is going to cost us more "Fiscal Conservative" votes with every election going forward, as the US population becomes more tolerant and accepting that being gay is just another natural variation within human physiology... And that it is actually the GOP that is fighting against nature.
I think your 25% is a bit low. Total Spend I need to do more research, but I am thinking our government and the programs cost almost as much as Germany's. Continuum
No, but I can arbitrarily deny them to kids, or to groups of seven, or to a man and his eagle or a man with dynamite. There are reasons to exclude gays from legal marriage, and there are reasons to exclude certain people from the fish and game laws. Anything else is unreasonable, by definition.
"are reasons to exclude gays from legal marriage"
The majority is shifting to disagree with you.
I hope you are not suggesting that the GOP should abandon its principles to win votes? I will grant there is a right way and a wrong way to say things, but it doesn't matter when the other side puts $2 million worth of words in your mouth. Had gay activists simply waited until society came around to the idea, there wouldn't be this fight. Trying to force the issue is what raised the opposition, and then those folks have the unmitigated gall to complain about being opposed.
Heritage USA
Heritage Germany
Maybe it would be more effective to compare Germany to one of our bigger states...
I can arbitrarily deny them to kids, or to groups of seven, or to a man and his eagle or a man with dynamite. There are reasons to exclude gays from legal marriage, and there are reasons to exclude certain people from the fish and game laws
There are reasons to exclude straight people from marriage a well. I, for one, am very comfortable in denying marriage licenses to kids, men with eagles, and to groups of seven. But I don't see how the reasons we deny marriage licenses to those people are applicable to either gay or straight couples.
--
Maybe it would be more effective to compare Germany to one of our bigger states.
Germany is a pretty big country. In any event, my suggestion was that welfare states like Germany can thrive, that there is no inherent conflict between prosperity and the providing of government services.
--Hiram
Apparently... Physically it is half the physical size of Texas. And it's GDP is less than that of CAL + TX
And it's population is a bit larger than that of CAL + TX.
And its demographics are pretty well German...
Finally, for good historical reasons they are not the "world's Police Force". Therefore what works for their simple physically small country may not work in our huge diverse country.
Besides... Based on the car chart, they buy German products almost exclusively. Imagine how different our country would be if our consumers did that.
Without looking at the details, I think comparisons are difficult, and considering all of the differences, comparisons get us nowhere. I will concede only that it makes no difference whether government or private enterprise provides the services people want at prices they are willing to pay. But that's not what is happening here. Government is commanding that private business provide services/income to individuals that other people do not benefit from and are thus unwilling to pay for. I can't fault Germans for buying German cars; they're very good cars, created from and suited well to the German culture, education system, etc. No way could we duplicate that, nor should we. Most Germans don't, I am sure, see their government as an obstacle to economic freedom and progress. Most Americans do.
There are equal or better cars available for less money...
Their consumers just make "Buying German" or "Buying European" a part of their purchase criteria.
American consumers simply don't do that anymore and our trade deficit shows that.Bal of Trade
Which is fine, however don't complain about US Wage Decoupling on your Sony phone while driving in your VW car to get milk to put in your LG refrigerator. Before you wash your hands with Unilever soap and eat your Nestle cookies while watching your Samsung television.
Man... That was too much like work...
You are not entitled to make that judgment. A car, or anything else, is worth what the buyer believes it is worth, based on their own personal criteria, and nothing else. If Germans do indeed value buying German cars, for whatever reason, then German cars are "better" and "less costly" in their estimation. And since some Americans agree and buy German cars in preference to American cars, your assessment is simply incorrect, in part.
In other words, you need to quit faulting Americans for seeking the best value for themselves, and asking why that best value is not the American product. There are any number of American products that compete very well overseas. Why not all of them?
Of course I can make that judgement... I just did.
I am not faulting Conservatives for seeking the best values for themselves. Conservatives admit to being very selfish capitalists. It is the keystone of Ayn Rand's teachings.
I am faulting those Americans who believe "society" should support the American worker and pay them more than the Free Market requires, while they are actively using that Free Market for personal gain at the expense of the American worker and our society.
You on the other hand are anti-big govt, anti-minimum wage, anti-union, pro-free market, pro-free trade, anti-welfare, etc, etc, etc. Please feel free to maximize your personal value with my full blessing.
By the way, I am not interested in which American products do well overseas... I am interested in why our high "American content" products don't sell better in America, since ~1/2 our population repeatedly swears that it is our duty to support the American poor and workers...
That "1/2" doesn't say we should buy their goods and services to support the jobs they want, to let them support themselves. They insist that the other half of us GIVE them all the comforts, whether they work or not. Actually, that's not quite correct. They believe that these folks are entitled to "government money." You know, that stuff that grows on the magic money trees at the National Arboretum?
My point is that all of us acquiring goods and services that represent best value rather than "buy American" are simply reacting to the government policies which force US goods and services to NOT be best value here at home. I would happily buy American at a small premium once government gets out of the way and makes it reasonably close to best value.
I guess that is my point, some of that 1/2 would rather tax people and give that money away instead of actually spending their own money in such a way that we would not need as much taxing and giving.
"Best value" depends on ones criteria. If supporting one's society, friends, neighbors and beliefs has ZERO weighting. One will only buy from the low price supplier.
That is why many communities fight to keep Walmart out of their communities. Most of us self centered American consumers will do exactly as you propose. We will bypass our long time neighborhood businesses and friends to save a few bucks.
Then of course we will have the nerve to blame Walmart... Just like the Liberals blame the American businesses and owners.
By the way, I hope our standard of living never gets down to the level of the "low cost" countries, so that we can directly compete with them. Been there, don't want that for our middle and lower classes.
Also, remember that I own foreign goods. I mean I love my Yamaha FJR1300. Looks Like This
I am not saying to never buy foreign. I am just saying if they are close, Buy American.
And if you preach the importance of supporting American Unions, American employees, etc. Try to Buy American even if it costs a bit more.
By the way, major appliances are the latest buy foreign trend...
GE Fridge
Samsung Fridge
So, my choices are to pay a large and arbitrary government-mandated tax so government can pay workers to sit idle, or I can pay a large and arbitrary government-caused premium for my goods and services to pay workers to work. How about the third way of letting American businesses and workers compete with foreign competition? Freed of foolish government restrictions, they CAN. I know they can; I've seen it, from both sides.
Unfortunately regulation and over sight is here because some individual or company did something stupid and excessively greedy in the past that made it necessary, just like many of our silly laws.
If only these capitalists had a little better common sense and took better care of their investors, customers, employees, shareholders, community, etc. We wouldn't need nearly as many rules...
If only government would let some "crisis" go to waste rather than punishing entire industries or our whole economic system, rather than one or two guilty parties. In fact, much of this "crime" comes about BECAUSE businesses find creative ways around stupid regulations, or to take advantage of them. Sensible regulation, certainly. But do you really think that stopping coal burning for electricity is sensible?
I don't know. Maybe that can be discussed during our next discussion on climate change.
Fine, but if you call it "climate change" you've already lost the ability to see both sides. The proper definition of the problem is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW). It's not "climate change" if the only thing you predict is warming. Ever wonder why the name of the crisis got changed?
Post a Comment