Topic: a world currency
nogames39's photo
Sun 04/05/09 10:49 AM

Is there a precedent in American history which supports this unemployment claim?

I always find it a little ironic when the consumer cost of a product is used in support of outsourcing... It is often claimed that the cost of employing American workers drive the retail prices up, and that is why it has been necessary to outsource.

If one follows that logic, then why, when the labor costs are cut by nearly 90% do the prices not reflect it?

If the reason given for outsourcing is that the retail costs were too high and this resulted in the labor being outsourced, then why have the prices not fallen accordingly?

Americans without jobs, or those who have been forced to take lesser paying jobs are basically being forced to support the slave labor because the decrease in income limits the ability to purchase anything else.

This country was not intended to use capitalism to bankrupt it's society, while bolstering Communism and elitism.

Greed... not capitalism as it was intended, is THE problem which underlies the current state of our nation's economy and it's dependency upon countries which hold it's people as we would hold prisoners.


Are you feeling like a prisoner? In which way?

BTW, your claim that the prices should fall, if the outsourcing has as it's reasons the cost of doing business, and / or the cost of labor in particular, does not hold water.

Let us say I used to make 10 dollars net, after paying 2 dollars in costs, which include labor.

Now, my worker demands more, taking my costs to 3, and my government raises other costs of doing business, taking the total to 4. My profit just shrunk from 8 to 7 and then to 6 dollars.

Let's not forget, that the greedy nation also takes a "Fair share" of my profits, that they didn't help me to make. Let us say that I used to keep 4 out of 8, but now that I make 6 as profit, I also have to pay 4 out of the profit for the taxes, leaving me with 2 dollars of after tax real net profit, where I used to have 4.

Tallying up:

Used to make $4 after spending $2.
Now, I make $2, after spending $4.

O.k., so I have to look elsewhere! Let us say I look at China, and built a factory there, bringing my profits back to $4 from each $2 spent on doing business, and paying taxes. So, I am back where I was.

Should I now drop the prices? Why? I just barely recouped what was mine to begin with!

If I drop the prices, I will make a little bit less again (for all my trouble of relocating to foreign country), while lazy joe-blow, and a socialist government of my own country will receive a bit more exactly for ousting me out of the country, and ruining the business to begin with.

AndrewAV's photo
Sun 04/05/09 11:07 AM
he he. was wondering when you were going to show up. drinker

creativesoul's photo
Sun 04/05/09 11:18 AM
Edited by creativesoul on Sun 04/05/09 11:37 AM
Andrew...

I suspect that you did well in economics, based upon the position reflected by this discussion. One more cog in the ideological machine. Number games do not take loyalty to one's fellow countryman into account.

There has never been more jobs available than people willing and able to work in this country other than agricultural work. There never has been, and there never will be.

Occupations and their products which do not require highly skilled labor are more prone to be outsourced for all of the reasons already discussed. The specialized industries which do one thing and do it well (with lean manufacturing techniques) provide those items at a much lower cost. This is the reason for the outsourcing, whether it be within or outside the US. An auto manufacturer will outsource different individual components which are required for the model through other companies that can produce them at a lower cost. That helps to keep their production cost lower, which in turn helps to keep the retail cost lower while simultaneuosly allowing a more sizable margin to be realized. It also provides the opportunity for job growth outside the company by minimizing the workload. What is it then, that determines who receives that contract?

The bottom line.

Let us discuss an actual set of business circumstances. The product is a highly effective one, which touts the selling point of being individually hand-carved. The supply and demand is very healthy, therefore this item can be sold at a much higher retail price than most other items similar to it. The inventor/owner of the item and it's production process could, if s/he chose, lower the cost of business by outsourcing a few of the individual components required without negatively affecting the quality item or it's highly effective selling point. Those jobs manufacturing those components would be kept in the US if it were possible to do such a thing, but competition with slave labor costs by US companies is impossible.

The bottom line.

This brings the highly skilled labor and talent aspect of the product into play. While it is mass-produced, meaning that the entire production system involves production numbers which keep the per piece time lower, there are still several steps in the process which require an individual performing those tasks to possess skill and talent. If the owner wanted to s/he could, in fact, remove that portion as well. The change would require different sales techniques and a lower per piece margin would result, however, the annual production numbers would dramatically increases through the use of automated machining techniques(which remove the skill and talent portion). These automations would require an initial investment which would be recovered over a period of five to seven years through tax laws concerning production lines. The government rewards such investments with tax benefits. So then, what is left to consider?

Where do we set up 'shop'?

The bottom line, my friend.

The last few decades that you mentioned have played out on the world stage because we - The United States of America - allowed the above set of circumstances to unfold. Most politicians are attorneys, not businessmen. That silly big-eared guy warned everyone of this 17 years ago... Do you remember? Ross Perot?

The bottom line.

Peace.

Edited the time span concerning Perot... oops!

creativesoul's photo
Sun 04/05/09 11:35 AM
nogames...

Your numbers do not add up to begin with.

huh


AndrewAV's photo
Sun 04/05/09 11:41 AM

Andrew...

I suspect that you did well in economics, based upon the position reflected by this discussion. One more cog in the ideological machine. Number games do not take loyalty to one's fellow countryman into account.

There has never been more jobs available than people willing and able to work in this country other than agricultural work. There never has been, and there never will be.

Occupations and their products which do not require highly skilled labor are more prone to be outsourced for all of the reasons already discussed. The specialized industries which do one thing and do it well (with lean manufacturing techniques) provide those items at a much lower cost. This is the reason for the outsourcing, whether it be within or outside the US. An auto manufacturer will outsource different individual components which are required for the model through other companies that can produce them at a lower cost. That helps to keep their production cost lower, which in turn helps to keep the retail cost lower while simultaneuosly allowing a more sizable margin to be realized. It also provides the opportunity for job growth outside the company by minimizing the workload. What is it then, that determines who receives that contract?

The bottom line.

Let us discuss an actual set of business circumstances. The product is a highly effective one, which touts the selling point of being individually hand-carved. The supply and demand is very healthy, therefore this item can be sold at a much higher retail price than most other items similar to it. The inventor/owner of the item and it's production process could, if s/he chose, lower the cost of business by outsourcing a few of the individual components required without negatively affecting the quality item or it's highly effective selling point. Those jobs manufacturing those components would be kept in the US if it were possible to do such a thing, but competition with slave labor costs by US companies is impossible.

The bottom line.

This brings the highly skilled labor and talent aspect of the product into play. While it is mass-produced, meaning that the entire production system involves production numbers which keep the per piece time lower, there are still several steps in the process which require an individual performing those tasks to possess skill and talent. If the owner wanted to s/he could, in fact, remove that portion as well. The change would require different sales techniques and a lower per piece margin would result, however, the annual production numbers would dramatically increases through the use of automated machining techniques(which remove the skill and talent portion). These automations would require an initial investment which would be recovered over a period of five to seven years through tax laws concerning production lines. The government rewards such investments with tax benefits. So then, what is left to consider?

Where do we set up 'shop'?

The bottom line, my friend.

The last few decades that you mentioned have played out on the world stage because we - The United States of America - allowed the above set of circumstances to unfold. Most politicians are attorneys, not businessmen. That silly big-eared guy warned everyone of this 25 years ago... Do you remember? Ross Perot?

The bottom line.

Peace.


I cannot argue that the bottom line always plays a role as that is the purpose of a business. The fact is that often, it is cheaper to outsource to even another domestic company and use the resources you would have put toward that in another fashion that increases production. This all does, in fact, help the bottom line.

The problem is, IMO, that workers in the U.S. have a tendency to tilt the table in their own favor to feed their own greed, citing the greed of the company as a reason. The #1 way this happens is through unionization. Highly skilled jobs like doctors do not form unions. Low wage, non-skilled laborers do. That is the danger. Look at the UAW. They have formed a base of negotiations over the course of several decades that now pays every worker above the national average for what is really a no-skill job and have increased the cost of every vehicle off the assembly line over $1500 more than their foreign competitors once legacy costs are included. Look at any large manufacturing industry. The costs of production are far above what the market would determine them to be without union intervention.


you are correct about one thing: it all comes down to greed. Minimum wage jobs are such because there is no prior skill required to perform them. Normally, a few hours on the job and you can be fairly well versed in your duties. That is the nature of much of the manufacturing world as well as basic service industries.

There is no loyalty on any side. Everyone has greed and everyone seeks their own best interests. The workers are not being loyal to the company because 99% of them would jump ship for a few extra dollars an hour. The businessman is attempting to control his own costs in order to stay profitable. You speak of loyalty to the fellow countryman when in reality, it is the average man that takes advantage of the business owner just as often.


It all comes down to this: big or small, everyone is worried about their own bottom line.

creativesoul's photo
Sun 04/05/09 11:59 AM
There is no loyalty on any side. Everyone has greed and everyone seeks their own best interests. The workers are not being loyal to the company because 99% of them would jump ship for a few extra dollars an hour. The businessman is attempting to control his own costs in order to stay profitable. You speak of loyalty to the fellow countryman when in reality, it is the average man that takes advantage of the business owner just as often.


It all comes down to this: big or small, everyone is worried about their own bottom line.


I cannot argue this...

Loyalty is absent for the most part in America's workforce. The Japanese culture instills the benefit of the whole moreso than the individual. Japanese companies afford their employees a reasonable wage and interest in the company in such a way that unions are not considered to be necessary. The division between worker and employer in the US results from the division contained within mentality.

Unionization makes for a lazy worker to be even lazier. The initial reasons for unionization were valid in the beginning but were obsolete during the times in which they(unions) self-destructed.

flowerforyou

AndrewAV's photo
Sun 04/05/09 12:03 PM

There is no loyalty on any side. Everyone has greed and everyone seeks their own best interests. The workers are not being loyal to the company because 99% of them would jump ship for a few extra dollars an hour. The businessman is attempting to control his own costs in order to stay profitable. You speak of loyalty to the fellow countryman when in reality, it is the average man that takes advantage of the business owner just as often.


It all comes down to this: big or small, everyone is worried about their own bottom line.


I cannot argue this...

Loyalty is absent for the most part in America's workforce. The Japanese culture instills the benefit of the whole moreso than the individual. Japanese companies afford their employees a reasonable wage and interest in the company in such a way that unions are not considered to be necessary. The division between worker and employer in the US results from the division contained within mentality.

Unionization makes for a lazy worker to be even lazier. The initial reasons for unionization were valid in the beginning but were obsolete during the times in which they(unions) self-destructed.

flowerforyou


I think this is one of the first times I've actually come to an agreement with someone after an argument lol

creativesoul's photo
Sun 04/05/09 12:09 PM
It was a well discussed side-topic...

Thoroughly enjoyed...

I thank you for the opportunity to discuss things reasonably. It is uncommon in my experience here.

:wink:

nogames39's photo
Sun 04/05/09 03:10 PM

nogames...

Your numbers do not add up to begin with.

huh




Well, if these numbers are problematic for you, let me lay it down simper then:

If my worker demands higher wage and receives it by a government mandate, then my profit shrinks, provided I do not raise prices.

As a remedy, I move to where the wages are cheaper. Even with additional shipping and tariff expenses, I now enjoy the same profit as before. Again, while keeping prices the same as before.

You allege, that in this situation, I should end up with a price drop. I do not see why.

Further, you seem to use your theory that the price should drop, if the outsourcing was a result of wage hike, to prove that if the prices did not drop, then the outsourcing wasn't due to a wage hike.

I state, that if fact, it can very easily seen, that there is no requirement for a price drop, especially if outsourcing was to remedy the rising costs of production, such as labor or taxes, or regulations.

creativesoul's photo
Sun 04/05/09 03:32 PM
Sounds like poor business practices.

For one, if a business owner cannot afford to pay his workers minimum wage, then something is wrong with the business itself. If overseas manufacturing competition is the cause of the issue, then we are right back where we started. The world market which our laws made possible is a self-perpetuating average citizen destroyer.

That is my point. It is, and has proven to be bad in the overall scheme of things for the average citizen.

markecephus's photo
Sun 04/05/09 03:49 PM
Look at is this way: there are 100 workers applying for 120 jobs. it is no longer the worker competing for a job, it's the business competing for a workforce.


This defies all logic. The job market is saturated. Unemployment at the highest mark in decades. Businesses have the upper hand, simply because there is a larger pool of people to draw from.

*edit* i realize that's a bit out of context, but what i am saying, is that is the reality.

nogames39's photo
Sun 04/05/09 04:15 PM

Sounds like poor business practices.


No, this is the only acceptable business practice.


For one, if a business owner cannot afford to pay his workers minimum wage, then something is wrong with the business itself.


A minimum wage, is a price control. A socialist measure. An intervention. A proof that our so-called free markets, are NOT free. There is no such thing as a minimum wage in capitalist market. This is a pipe dream. As any pipe dream, it is currently destroying America.

Secondly, to assert that there is a something wrong with a business that cannot afford to pay a minimum wage, is ridiculous. Let me quickly prove you wrong. Let us make a minimum wage $1000 an hour. How many businesses you will find leaving this country?



If overseas manufacturing competition is the cause of the issue, then we are right back where we started. The world market which our laws made possible is a self-perpetuating average citizen destroyer.


Quite opposite, such competition is the only thing going on for an average citizen.


That is my point. It is, and has proven to be bad in the overall scheme of things for the average citizen.


You have proven nothing, so far. I am still waiting for some proof.

AndrewAV's photo
Sun 04/05/09 04:18 PM

Look at is this way: there are 100 workers applying for 120 jobs. it is no longer the worker competing for a job, it's the business competing for a workforce.


This defies all logic. The job market is saturated. Unemployment at the highest mark in decades. Businesses have the upper hand, simply because there is a larger pool of people to draw from.

*edit* i realize that's a bit out of context, but what i am saying, is that is the reality.


That is how the case should be - workers competing in order to keep the economy as efficient as possible and promote the most growth. Crappy workers working while the strong workers sit will only make the period of contraction longer. however, if we brought back every job outsourced by american companies, my model is exactly the situation we'd be looking at. There would be too many jobs for too few workers.

AndrewAV's photo
Sun 04/05/09 04:20 PM

Sounds like poor business practices.

For one, if a business owner cannot afford to pay his workers minimum wage, then something is wrong with the business itself. If overseas manufacturing competition is the cause of the issue, then we are right back where we started. The world market which our laws made possible is a self-perpetuating average citizen destroyer.

That is my point. It is, and has proven to be bad in the overall scheme of things for the average citizen.


The issue is that it's not minimum wage. Manufacturing is a job that can be done by any able-bodied person for the most part and therefore should receive a small wage. As I stated, manufacturing and other skill-less jobs have the most unionization which brings with it higher wages and large benefit packages.

If it were just minimum wage, I doubt we'd have much outsourcing at all. Unfortunately, workers are just as greedy and want all they can get and use an unfair advantage that an employer cannot.

nogames39's photo
Sun 04/05/09 04:40 PM
Hmmm, why is there a shortage of RNs, while there is an oversupply of a burger flippers?

AndrewAV's photo
Sun 04/05/09 06:58 PM

Hmmm, why is there a shortage of RNs, while there is an oversupply of a burger flippers?


I'm sure it has nothing to do with skill.

yellowrose10's photo
Sun 04/05/09 07:01 PM

Fanta46's photo
Mon 04/06/09 08:39 AM

Is there a precedent in American history which supports this unemployment claim?

I always find it a little ironic when the consumer cost of a product is used in support of outsourcing... It is often claimed that the cost of employing American workers drive the retail prices up, and that is why it has been necessary to outsource.

If one follows that logic, then why, when the labor costs are cut by nearly 90% do the prices not reflect it?

If the reason given for outsourcing is that the retail costs were too high and this resulted in the labor being outsourced, then why have the prices not fallen accordingly?

Americans without jobs, or those who have been forced to take lesser paying jobs are basically being forced to support the slave labor because the decrease in income limits the ability to purchase anything else.

This country was not intended to use capitalism to bankrupt it's society, while bolstering Communism and elitism.

Greed... not capitalism as it was intended, is THE problem which underlies the current state of our nation's economy and it's dependency upon countries which hold it's people as we would hold prisoners.


Well said!drinker

AndrewAV's photo
Mon 04/06/09 08:37 PM


Is there a precedent in American history which supports this unemployment claim?

I always find it a little ironic when the consumer cost of a product is used in support of outsourcing... It is often claimed that the cost of employing American workers drive the retail prices up, and that is why it has been necessary to outsource.

If one follows that logic, then why, when the labor costs are cut by nearly 90% do the prices not reflect it?

If the reason given for outsourcing is that the retail costs were too high and this resulted in the labor being outsourced, then why have the prices not fallen accordingly?

Americans without jobs, or those who have been forced to take lesser paying jobs are basically being forced to support the slave labor because the decrease in income limits the ability to purchase anything else.

This country was not intended to use capitalism to bankrupt it's society, while bolstering Communism and elitism.

Greed... not capitalism as it was intended, is THE problem which underlies the current state of our nation's economy and it's dependency upon countries which hold it's people as we would hold prisoners.


Well said!drinker


you do realize that greed (aka self-interest) is the basis of capitalism, right?

Dragoness's photo
Mon 04/06/09 08:52 PM



Is there a precedent in American history which supports this unemployment claim?

I always find it a little ironic when the consumer cost of a product is used in support of outsourcing... It is often claimed that the cost of employing American workers drive the retail prices up, and that is why it has been necessary to outsource.

If one follows that logic, then why, when the labor costs are cut by nearly 90% do the prices not reflect it?

If the reason given for outsourcing is that the retail costs were too high and this resulted in the labor being outsourced, then why have the prices not fallen accordingly?

Americans without jobs, or those who have been forced to take lesser paying jobs are basically being forced to support the slave labor because the decrease in income limits the ability to purchase anything else.

This country was not intended to use capitalism to bankrupt it's society, while bolstering Communism and elitism.

Greed... not capitalism as it was intended, is THE problem which underlies the current state of our nation's economy and it's dependency upon countries which hold it's people as we would hold prisoners.


Well said!drinker


you do realize that greed (aka self-interest) is the basis of capitalism, right?


It seems to be the end result in our country at least. I believe the forefathers of this country did not intend for greed to be the motivation for our capitalistic system though.