17
   

unemployement, a possible cause.

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 08:43 pm
@Ceili,
Sounds like the mice proposing to bell the cat. How will you convince people to pay the premium? Given what we know about human behavior, on what basis do you suppose it might succeed?
Oylok
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 08:50 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
For decades Asian and African nations hobbled their economies through various ill-conceeived attempts to manage growth and social welfare (as the ruling elite conceived of them).


Well, countries like Taiwan and South Korea grew strong with the help of a great deal of government planning. I've never seen the golden straitjacket of unrestricted free trade help anyone yet. Pure communism in Asia and Africa was also a big failure, though... if that's what your contention is.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 09:01 pm
@Oylok,
Oylok wrote:

The actuarial track seems to provide the best chance at a steady job for someone like myself, given that I've just earned degrees in Mathematics and Economics.


If you had less imaginative reading skills, more personality and sense of humor, you could become an accountant.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 09:09 pm
@georgeob1,
People already pay a premium on many goods. However, I never said anything about everybody paying the highest price, just reasonable prices.
Small business is still the major employer in N. America, but these businesses are affected greatly when Mega stores undercut them by going for the lowest common denominator..
Family run farms used to be the norm, now they can't compete. It's a vicious cycle. We've been conditioned to think we can't afford to manufacture, grow or raise our own goods. Bunk. I'm not saying that there isn't a place for competition but by completely bypassing our own, is it any wonder there is high unemployment or a lack of good paying jobs.
We have no problem paying exorbitant fees to bankers, or $200 for shoes that are made by people who make pennies a day, thusly giving companies free reign to make disgusting amounts of profit. We make billionaires out of CEO's that farm out our jobs, but where is our saving grace?
So no, I'm not saying people have to go broke to support home grown manufacturing jobs but unless we do, the jobs will continue to disappear and unemployment rates will not get better.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 09:12 pm
@Ceili,
My shoes were made in the USA. Don't know what SAS pays, but retail was $160. It can be done.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 09:14 pm
@Ceili,
History and economics aren't reversable processes. The family farm passed from the scene when the earth had about 3 billion fewer people. The same process happened to individual craft manufacture long ago.

The fact of Walmart's continuing success tells us that folks can't even be persuaded to pay a "reasonable" premium to keep others employed. My experience is that subsidies in almost any form quickly sap the will and productivity of those who receive them - as a resuly they produce less and of lesser quality. I too wish that human natiure was otherwise, but I recognize that it isn't. Moreover, my understanding of history is that the most ghastly of tyrannies arise at the hands of those bent on reforming human nature.
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 09:16 pm
@roger,
What is SAS?
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 09:20 pm
@Ceili,
SAS is a shoe maker/dealer. I think that's what Roger is referring to.
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 09:25 pm
@georgeob1,
And yet... there are many farms surviving by becoming creative and eschewing the traditional model and the craft market still survives...
Go to any mall and you'll see people paying high prices for clothing made in third world countries, the prices didn't fall when the costs did, and still people pay high prices and profits rise, but our jobs disappear.
I would think you would have learned that in Economy 101.
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 09:27 pm
@dyslexia,
Ok, thanks. I'd never heard of them before.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 09:29 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

In our ever changing economy could it be that a large number to people are simply not qualified for the jobs that are available? If so, is it likely that the unemployment picture will change in the near future?
Not likely... Everytime the unemployment numbers go up so does the stock market... They know fewer people working harder maximizes profits... How many years have they flooded the job market and done everything illegal and legal to drive down wages until they also ruined their markets... The only thing keeping the market going is free money from the government, welfare, military spending, unemployment, public works... What are they all going to do when that well runs dry??? The rich don't care as long as the government can borrow or print more money... If nothing else they can always rob the old to keep themselves supporting the rich... What in the hell are the old going to do about it??? Maybe, get all mad and take a pill??? I can tell people it don't work till I turn up my toes, but the government has to prove it first by breaking every promise it ever made to the people...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 09:50 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

History and economics aren't reversable processes. The family farm passed from the scene when the earth had about 3 billion fewer people. The same process happened to individual craft manufacture long ago.

The fact of Walmart's continuing success tells us that folks can't even be persuaded to pay a "reasonable" premium to keep others employed. My experience is that subsidies in almost any form quickly sap the will and productivity of those who receive them - as a resuly they produce less and of lesser quality. I too wish that human natiure was otherwise, but I recognize that it isn't. Moreover, my understanding of history is that the most ghastly of tyrannies arise at the hands of those bent on reforming human nature.

As if anyone has a reasonable premium to pay... Like Marx said: Every capitalist wants to pay his workers less, and want every employer to pay their workers more... It helps the market after all, but world wide, the pressure on wages is down to maximize profits... And high profits are synonymous with Glut, that is, depression... Once you have sucked all the free money out of your economy, and ruined your market with wages that don't even cover necessities, and maxed out individual credit and the government's credit there is not where to go short of total world war financed with iou s...

Human nature is impossible to change, so people change their forms, their forms of economy and government to mention two... We need to change both...
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 10:25 pm
@Ceili,
What I learned was that in this dynamic world economic protectionism only very rarely has the intended effect. Usually it simply makes everyone poorer.

Of course some small farms and individual crafts still survive - no surprise there. However both comprise relatively small segments of their respective industries. Do you believe they will again become dominant?

Selling to the richer world is the way thirld world countries become first world. That's how Canada and the USA did it. Would you prefer that they remain poor?
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 10:43 pm
@georgeob1,
Can you point out where I've advocated protectionism?
Of course, I would not wish both countries remain or become poor, I would think my posts point to that conclusion. I'm at a loss as to why some people have difficulty reading my posts without putting words in my mouth, continue if you must. I thought I was pretty clear on what I wrote, but apparently, I'm unable to read between the lines of what I write....
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 11:02 pm
@Ceili,
Well, then perhaps what you are after is a form of voluntary protectionism. My opinion is that is wishful thinking - as I noted earlier. However it is done, if trade is distorted from the most efficient, low cost producer, everyone ultimately loses.

I'm not sure how you imagine higher cost producers could be made to survive in greater numbers here, without also harming lower the cost producers in poorer countries who compete with them, as a result.

In short it appears to me that the two principles you are advocating are mutually exclusive - at least in the short run. I'm not consciously putting words in your mouth - only addressing the likely consequences of what you propose.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 11:32 pm
@dyslexia,
Right. San Antonio Shoe Company. Actually, they're in Texas but that counts as USA for country of origin.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 05:27 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

What I learned was that in this dynamic world economic protectionism only very rarely has the intended effect. Usually it simply makes everyone poorer.

Of course some small farms and individual crafts still survive - no surprise there. However both comprise relatively small segments of their respective industries. Do you believe they will again become dominant?

Selling to the richer world is the way thirld world countries become first world. That's how Canada and the USA did it. Would you prefer that they remain poor?
When people export capital in order to hire slaves to compete with us and then import slave made products for us to by with out reduced wages which encourages even more exports of capital how can anything but universal poverty result???

They are not made richer because we are made poor... Capitalists who have exported capital keep those people poor, and credit for products we cannot afford with short wages makes us poor... The advantage they have is that, if they can take that capital they are in a better position to produce for their needs.

Protectionism should mean, that the government of the people will protect our rights... Forcing us to compete with slaves does not help them or us, but destroys our rights, and without rights, we are slaves... Seriously; it is a fact that when England outlawed the slave trade they only localized it to Africa, and there are many true slaves today... But there is no protection for us because ideologically we accept capitalism, that what is good for capital is good for everyone, and what this means is; If capital cannot find low enough wages by importing slaves illegally from Mexico it will export capital to hire them abroad... Capital is an international disease...

If we cannot defend our rights here, we cannot protect rights essential to freedom anywhere...
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 08:57 am
@hamburgboy,
Quote:
I began use of fonetic spelling after I retired from the practice of law.


Laughing

hamburgboy wrote:
not much demand for practicing lawyers using fonetic spelling - the shame of it Shocked
Thay just want them to WIN.
That is clients' sole operative criterion.





David
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  3  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 12:30 pm
Here is an excerpt from a column written by Conrad Black on this very subject. Before anyone gets their panties in a knot over his criminal status, just read what he wrote and you'll see where I'm coming from.



http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/09/20/conrad-black-lessons-to-learn-from-wall-street-s-week-of-no-return.aspx
Broadly, the principal official financial policy errors in the United States over the last 15 years or so (during which time there has been minimal inflation and unemployment, and nearly 30-million net new jobs created), have been:
• Nothing has been done in U.S. tax policy to discourage excessive debt accumulation by the American public, which has spent more than it has earned for years, most of it on non-durable goods, and much of it imported. This has created terrible financial and psychological vulnerability throughout the population.
• Nothing has been done to reduce the back-breaking importation of oil, which has grossly raised energy costs, fueled inflation, enriched unfriendly states such as Russia, Iran and Venezuela, and financed their mischief, and burdened the United States with about half of its $800- billion annual current account deficit.
• Successive U.S. administrations of both parties have sat, inert as suet puddings, while China has piled up a $265-billion annual trade surplus with the United States.
• The deliberate reduction in the value of the U.S. dollar came too late to save manufacturing jobs and went on too long to improve the real buying power of American consumers. Meanwhile, Washington’s low-interest-rate policy was too deep and prolonged, and encouraged compulsive spending and expansion, and excessive borrowing and speculation, especially in housing.

Beyond that, the United States and other countries have fallen too far into the fool’s paradise of the service economy. The U.S. GDP of $13-trillion is about half composed of worthless and non-productive effort, which yet engages the efforts of a large number of very skilled people. A trillion dollars annually goes into legal expenses to feed the absurdly litigious society and state prosecutocracy. Another great fortune goes to insane insurance costs on medical lawsuits, and superfluous consulting fees -- which mainly substitute for what management should be doing, and provide a lightning rod to shelter inept management from shareholder wrath.

In all of the nearly 50 American metropolitan areas that have more than a million inhabitants, towering downtown skyscrapers are jammed with people who work hard and are very talented, but don’t actually do anything useful. People who make paper clips or rubber bands, or the proverbial widget, are at least producing something. But as a society, we came to despise blue collar work as menial, and most of it has migrated to formerly Third World places. The service economy only works when people want and can pay for the services. This progressively ceases to be the case — more swiftly and profoundly than with finished goods -- as economies slow down.

panzade
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 05:07 pm
@Ceili,
That's just an excellent overview Ceili.

I had someone send me an e mail concerning the de-industrialization of the US and although I disagree with some points; on the whole it is an eye opener.

Quote:
The following are 19 facts about the deindustrialization of America that will blow your mind....

#1 The United States has lost approximately 42,400 factories since 2001. About 75 percent of those factories employed over 500 people when they were still in operation.
#2 Dell Inc., one of America ’s largest manufacturers of computers, has announced plans to dramatically expand its operations in China with an investment of over $100 billion over the next decade.
#3 Dell has announced that it will be closing its last large U.S. manufacturing facility in Winston-Salem , North Carolina in November. Approximately 900 jobs will be lost.
#4 In 2008, 1.2 billion cell phones were sold worldwide. So how many of them were manufactured inside the United States ? Zero.
#5 According to a new study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, if the U.S. trade deficit with China continues to increase at its current rate, the U.S. economy will lose over half a million jobs this year alone.
#6 As of the end of July, the U.S. trade deficit with China had risen 18 percent compared to the same time period a year ago.
#7 The United States has lost a total of about 5.5 million manufacturing jobs since October 2000.
#8 According to Tax Notes, between 1999 and 2008 employment at the foreign affiliates of U.S. parent companies increased an astounding 30 percent to 10.1 million. During that exact same time period, U.S. employment at American multinational corporations declined 8 percent to 21.1 million.
#9 In 1959, manufacturing represented 28 percent of U.S. economic output. In 2008, it represented 11.5 percent.
#10 Ford Motor Company recently announced the closure of a factory that produces the Ford Ranger in St. Paul , Minnesota . Approximately 750 good paying middle class jobs are going to be lost because making Ford Rangers in Minnesota does not fit in with Ford's new "global" manufacturing strategy.
#11 As of the end of 2009, less than 12 million Americans worked in manufacturing. The last time less than 12 million Americans were employed in manufacturing was in 1941.
#12 In the United States today, consumption accounts for 70 percent of GDP. Of this 70 percent, over half is spent on services.
#13 The United States has lost a whopping 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.
#14 In 2001, the United States ranked fourth in the world in per capita broadband Internet use. Today it ranks 15th.
#15 Manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is actually lower in 2010 than it was in 1975.
#16 Printed circuit boards are used in tens of thousands of different products. Asia now produces 84 percent of them worldwide.
#17 The United States spends approximately $3.90 on Chinese goods for every $1 that the Chinese spend on goods from the United States .
#18 One prominent economist is projecting that the Chinese economy will be three times larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2040.
#19 The U.S. Census Bureau says that 43.6 million Americans are now living in poverty and according to them that is the highest number of poor Americans in the 51 years that records have been kept.
 

Related Topics

Who or What is Responsible? - Discussion by Merry Andrew
Debt ceiling? - Question by Buffalo
The Legacy of the Reagan Revolution - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Let it crash - Discussion by FreeDuck
No real limits to growth - Discussion by gungasnake
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
Wage discrimination - Question by zewittykitty
Central Bank Operations? - Question by NewToEcons
Frictional unemployment vs structural - Question by MateuszJanczura
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 07:22:21