----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 8:59 PM Subject: Re: Race to the Bottom
> Why do comparatively rich Americans deserve a job, but dirt poor people > in other countries, who are willing and able to produce the same thing > for less money, do not? Shouldn't the job go to the person who is the > most cost-effective, the person who produces the most for the least > cost? If we can simultaneously cut our costs AND benefit those workers > in other countries who are desperate to work, why should we deny people > the opportunity? And denying some the opportunity you will be, even if > you raise tariffs or taxes on globalization rather than instituting an > outright ban. The net result is that costs will be higher in America and > some people in foreign countries will not have a job that they otherwise > would have had without the tariffs. Paraphrase of what you asked: Should we give the jobs to rich Americans or poor foriegners? That question is utter bullshit. There are *poor* ameicans with college educations that can't do shit with them because some coprperate fat-cats decided to send the jobs over seas where they can get the work done cheaper. Should we let american jobs be given away just so already rich americans can get richer. Fuck no! In case you are wondering, yes, this subject is a very sore spot for me. > Would you like to live in a place like Iain Banks' Culture? The only > way to get there is to keep our productivity, roughly GDP per head, > increasing as fast as possible. And the main way to do that is to > invest in more and better capital. But someone has to design, build, > and operate that capital to make more capital to increase productivity > further. To keep this cycle going as fast as possible, we need to > allocate our resources in the most efficient manner to increase > productivity. David Ricardo explained, two hundred years ago, that even > if a country can make every product cheaper than another country, that > BOTH countries can still benefit from trade -- each area/group should > work making the goods or providing the services in which they have a > comparative advantage. And as new capital and new ideas accumulate, the > comparative advantages for each group or country change. Jobs shift. But > long-term, everyone is better off when this happens, since it is the > most efficient way to create new capital and increase productivity. Job shifts... Do you see any programs to support and retrain the workers that were displaced so that they can perform a new job and still make a good living? I sure as fuck don't. > Do you want to pay more for your DVD player? Free trade has been largely > responsible for the drop in prices of equipment such as DVD players, > TVs, and computers. And it doesn't just benefit consumers with lower > prices on consumer electronics. Cheaper computers, for example, all the > inexpensive Dells manufactured in China, allowed companies to invest > in IT and get more capital for the buck, thus increasing their workers > productivity. And remember that productivity increases are the only way > to increase the long-term standard of living. So the rich in America get richer, the poor in America get poorer, but that's ok, because we can buy cheap DVD players. Fuck that! I've already read too much. This topic is aggitating the hell out of me and I have other, more important things to do than participate in a discussion that is going to piss me off. I just cannot beilieve the utter number of people on this list that think giving away American jobs is a good thing. I bet you wouldn't like off-shoring quite so much if it cost you your job and job opertunities. I'm filtering all but "brin" posts as of now. DO NOT CONACT ME OFF LIST ON THIS TOPIC. DOING SO WILL BE CONSIDERED HARASMENT. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
