Class Struggles

[Winstonm]

Japan ranks right near the top in protectionist countries - try to sell Japan non-Japanese rice and see who far you get.

[Winstonm]

Here are a couple of articles by Walter Williams about trade and globalization.

 

Trade deficits

Globalization

 

I don't see a problem with people willingly trading with one another.  Borders should be irrelevant.  Why should we restrict others' right to buy goods from whomever they choose?  To limit purchases from other countries only panders to nationalism which is a form of racism (the "American race").

Dr. Todd, I believe the crux of the debate is for whom is free trade good. On the dissenting side, when you allow competition from cheap labor the benefits are to the corporation and to the cheap labor. The corporation increases its profits, its stock rises, and its shareholders benefit - all geared to benefit the top 10%. The cheap labor countries get jobs that otherwise were not there.

 

On the other hand, the loser is the hourly worker whose job has been outsourced and now instead of a $16 an hour manufacturing job must take an $8 an hour service industry job - and often another part-time job along with it just to come close to what he was making before.

 

One would think globalization would produce lower prices, but it seems to have only created greater corporate profites at the expense of the blue-collar worker.

[jdonn]

Here are a couple of articles by Walter Williams about trade and globalization.

 

Trade deficits

Globalization

 

I don't see a problem with people willingly trading with one another.  Borders should be irrelevant.  Why should we restrict others' right to buy goods from whomever they choose?  To limit purchases from other countries only panders to nationalism which is a form of racism (the "American race").

Dr. Todd, I believe the crux of the debate is for whom is free trade good. On the dissenting side, when you allow competition from cheap labor the benefits are to the corporation and to the cheap labor. The corporation increases its profits, its stock rises, and its shareholders benefit - all geared to benefit the top 10%. The cheap labor countries get jobs that otherwise were not there.

 

On the other hand, the loser is the hourly worker whose job has been outsourced and now instead of a $16 an hour manufacturing job must take an $8 an hour service industry job - and often another part-time job along with it just to come close to what he was making before.

 

One would think globalization would produce lower prices, but it seems to have only created greater corporate profites at the expense of the blue-collar worker.

What makes the "blue collar worker" any more important than the cheap laborer in the other country? Luck of the draw to be born on the correct side of an imaginary line? It is dispicable to rank human beings in that way because of where they live, as though somehow the needs of Americans are more important than the needs of others.

[mike777]

So what are you suggesting Winston? What problem are you trying to solve and how do you want to solve it? I have no idea exactly what the problem is that you are trying to solve or how you are trying to solve it? Sure some people are poor who were rich 5 years ago and some people are rich who were poor 5 years ago. Is that a problem? Are you saying the middle class or rich should never be allowed to be poor?

[Winstonm]

Here are a couple of articles by Walter Williams about trade and globalization.

 

Trade deficits

Globalization

 

I don't see a problem with people willingly trading with one another.  Borders should be irrelevant.  Why should we restrict others' right to buy goods from whomever they choose?  To limit purchases from other countries only panders to nationalism which is a form of racism (the "American race").

Dr. Todd, I believe the crux of the debate is for whom is free trade good. On the dissenting side, when you allow competition from cheap labor the benefits are to the corporation and to the cheap labor. The corporation increases its profits, its stock rises, and its shareholders benefit - all geared to benefit the top 10%. The cheap labor countries get jobs that otherwise were not there.

 

On the other hand, the loser is the hourly worker whose job has been outsourced and now instead of a $16 an hour manufacturing job must take an $8 an hour service industry job - and often another part-time job along with it just to come close to what he was making before.

 

One would think globalization would produce lower prices, but it seems to have only created greater corporate profites at the expense of the blue-collar worker.

What makes the "blue collar worker" any more important than the cheap laborer in the other country? Luck of the draw to be born on the correct side of an imaginary line? It is dispicable to rank human beings in that way because of where they live, as though somehow the needs of Americans are more important than the needs of others.

Absolutely nothing. If the reason is to benefit the cheap labor, that is good. But what if the benefit is only to increase corporate profits at the expense of the worker at home? Is that still good?

[mike777]

Ok so lets pass a law thats says you cannot only increase profits as the only benefit. Is that ok? Private Property owners must do something else besides only having increased profits as a benefit?

[Winstonm]

So what are you suggesting Winston?  What problem are you trying to solve and how do you want to solve it? I have no idea exactly what the problem is that you are trying to solve or how you are trying to solve it?  Sure some people are poor who were rich 5 years ago and some people are rich who were poor 5 years ago. Is that a problem? Are you saying the middle class or rich should never be allowed to be poor?

The concern is a polarization into a two-class civilization, the elimination of the middle class. Or would you simply "Let them eat cake."?

[mike777]

So what are you suggesting Winston?  What problem are you trying to solve and how do you want to solve it? I have no idea exactly what the problem is that you are trying to solve or how you are trying to solve it?  Sure some people are poor who were rich 5 years ago and some people are rich who were poor 5 years ago. Is that a problem? Are you saying the middle class or rich should never be allowed to be poor?

The concern is a polarization into a two-class civilization, the elimination of the middle class. Or would you simply "Let them eat cake."?

So what do you want to do? You seem to be saying what I wrote, if not what?

[Winstonm]

So what are you suggesting Winston?  What problem are you trying to solve and how do you want to solve it? I have no idea exactly what the problem is that you are trying to solve or how you are trying to solve it?  Sure some people are poor who were rich 5 years ago and some people are rich who were poor 5 years ago. Is that a problem? Are you saying the middle class or rich should never be allowed to be poor?

The concern is a polarization into a two-class civilization, the elimination of the middle class. Or would you simply "Let them eat cake."?

So what do you want to do? You seem to be saying what I wrote, if not what?

I don't have an answer. That's the reason for posing the two questions. Is this a real risk (dual class society)? If so, is there something that can or should be done about it?

 

You're the guy with the degree from Chicago - I'm just a poor working shmuck - you tell me the answers :P

[mike777]

If a Mom is willing to come from the Philipines and do your nursing job at 75% of the pay, should she get the job or you? As the owner, I should keep you and let her family starve? That sounds like a dual class to me? Winston this is a real life everyday example that hits close to home for everyone. :P

[Winstonm]

If a Mom is willing to come from the Philipines and do your nursing job at 75% of the pay, should she get the job or you? As the owner, I should keep you and let her family starve? That sounds like a dual class to  me?

So you are suggesting socialism as the answer, then? We'll simply let the government divide the spoils?

 

Or is it pure capitalism you are suggesting, law of the jungle, Darwinian survival of the fittest?

 

Seems extreme either way.

[mike777]

If a Mom is willing to come from the Philipines and do your nursing job at 75% of the pay, should she get the job or you? As the owner, I should keep you and let her family starve? That sounds like a dual class to  me?

So you are suggesting socialism as the answer, then? We'll simply let the government divide the spoils?

 

Or is it pure capitalism you are suggesting, law of the jungle, Darwinian survival of the fittest?

 

Seems extreme either way.

extreme, well I think it is fair it call it "destructive." :P

[pbleighton]

DrTodd:

 

Since the subject of the post was:

 

"The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen."

 

why did you immediately start talking about the supposedly inferior black culture (which BTW you display total igorance of), when a substantial majority of those below the poverty line aren't black, and most of those above but close to the poverty line aren't black?

 

Why did you immediately see this in racial terms? I believe your rant:

 

"Somehow the black culture has lost its way. 50 years ago there was a desire to integrate and succeed but this has been replaced with a disdain for intellectualism and laud for the dream of an athletic career."

 

gives you away.

 

Peter

[DrTodd13]

What makes the "blue collar worker" any more important than the cheap laborer in the other country? Luck of the draw to be born on the correct side of an imaginary line? It is dispicable to rank human beings in that way because of where they live, as though somehow the needs of Americans are more important than the needs of others.

Amen Josh! People here seem to think they are entitled to a cushy lifestyle far above the average standard of living around the world just because they live in the US or some other already industrialized country. Why should that be? This is total nationalistic indoctrination. Winston asked why goods aren't cheaper in the US thanks to outsourcing. Hello?!?!? Have you heard of Walmart? What good would it be if your income was twice as high but everything cost twice as much?

 

As for me, I am suggesting pure capitalism because I believe in total freedom. I do have pity on those who are seriously incapable of working, widows, orphans, etc. I don't have any sympathy for people who could work but don't. Charities can and will take care of those who seriously need help.

[Winstonm]

What makes the "blue collar worker" any more important than the cheap laborer in the other country? Luck of the draw to be born on the correct side of an imaginary line? It is dispicable to rank human beings in that way because of where they live, as though somehow the needs of Americans are more important than the needs of others.

Amen Josh! People here seem to think they are entitled to a cushy lifestyle far above the average standard of living around the world just because they live in the US or some other already industrialized country. Why should that be? This is total nationalistic indoctrination. Winston asked why goods aren't cheaper in the US thanks to outsourcing. Hello?!?!? Have you heard of Walmart? What good would it be if your income was twice as high but everything cost twice as much?

 

As for me, I am suggesting pure capitalism because I believe in total freedom. I do have pity on those who are seriously incapable of working, widows, orphans, etc. I don't have any sympathy for people who could work but don't. Charities can and will take care of those who seriously need help.

Unfortunately, Dr. Todd, I believe it fantasy to believe in "pure" anything, as the human element always corrupts. Pure capitalism gives way to usary, 16 hour workdays 7 days a week, 50-year life expectancies, and on and on. Don't get me wrong - socialism is no better. There cannot be a "pure" form of anything.

 

And I believe you are wrong in your assessment of WalMart - the question would not be whether it would be a benefit to make twice as much and pay twice as much; the question should be could the corporations live with 50% less profit margin - from what source comes those incredible increases in corporate profits, stock options, and CEO payments?

[DrTodd13]

DrTodd:

 

Since the subject of the post was:

 

"The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen."

 

why did you immediately start talking about the supposedly inferior black culture (which BTW you display total igorance of), when a substantial majority of those below the poverty line aren't black, and most of those above but close to the poverty line aren't black?

 

Why did you immediately see this in racial terms? I believe your rant:

 

"Somehow the black culture has lost its way. 50 years ago there was a desire to integrate and succeed but this has been replaced with a disdain for intellectualism and laud for the dream of an athletic career."

 

gives you away.

 

Peter

Did you look at the statistics? What is your reason for the discrepancies?

 

What you are saying can trap you. I can ask you...what do you think of German culture? If you say you like it then I can accuse you of being a Nazi because at one time Nazism was the dominant culture of Germany. If you say no, then I call you a racist for disliking an entire country. Personally, I believe it can be consistent to say you like the German culture today but dislike the culture 65 years ago. Cultures change and the values change, sometimes for good and sometimes for bad. Do I hate Germans because I think Nazism was bad? Call it what you will but look at the statistics. I don't believe it is something external forcing them into this situation so it must be an internal cultural thing and something in their culture is causing this.

 

I mentioned several things in my initial post as causes. I mentioned black culture after I talked about the culture of dependence because they are related and the culture of dependence most heavily affected blacks because of their circumstances when the Great Society began.

[pbleighton]

"Did you look at the statistics? What is your reason for the discrepancies?"

 

There are many complex reasons for income inquality between balcks and whites. Nonsense like "a disdain for intellectualism and laud for the dream of an athletic career" doesn't even make the list.

 

"What you are saying can trap you. I can ask you...what do you think of German culture? If you say you like it then I can accuse you of being a Nazi because at one time Nazism was the dominant culture of Germany. If you say no, then I call you a racist for disliking an entire country. Personally, I believe it can be consistent to say you like the German culture today but dislike the culture 65 years ago. Cultures change and the values change, sometimes for good and sometimes for bad. Do I hate Germans because I think Nazism was bad? Call it what you will but look at the statistics. I don't believe it is something external forcing them into this situation so it must be an internal cultural thing and something in their culture is causing this."

 

Huh? I'm not the one making b******t generalizations about black culture.

 

Peter

[luke warm]

Did you look at the statistics? What is your reason for the discrepancies?

it's been my experience with him that this won't get answered... i could be proven wrong, but i doubt it

[Gerben42]

I have a question to those who are saying they are against globalization. Great, you've identified something you are against.

 

I'm against rain falling between 8:15 and 8:30 am between my home and my work. Really, I'd prefer the rain to fall later in the day where it does not bother me.

 

It's nice being against something you cannot influence, that means you can get loud and all and others will think you are cool because you are so obviously against A Bad Thing without actually doing anything about it.

[mike777]

If BBO is not globalization what is? How can we stop this madness?

 

 

 

Well is it really right for someone from Canada, to come to America and set up a free Bridge site that may take jobs away from Americans in Calif who have a pay for play bridge site? How are the Calif people suppose to feed their families and pay the mortgage if too many people end up not paying for that site anymore or they have to cut their salaries? Should Americans be allowed to buy stuff cheaper if it may hurt other Americans? Should Canada really be allowed to send people over the border and take jobs from American bridge pros? Who next the Dutch, Polish or Italians?

 

What next tech jobs going to India? People buying clothes from third world countries rather than American textile jobs? If BBO is not globalization what is?

[Winstonm]

I have a question to those who are saying they are against globalization. Great, you've identified something you are against.

 

I'm against rain falling between 8:15 and 8:30 am between my home and my work. Really, I'd prefer the rain to fall later in the day where it does not bother me.

 

It's nice being against something you cannot influence, that means you can get loud and all and others will think you are cool because you are so obviously against A Bad Thing without actually doing anything about it.

Globalization and free trade have both pros and cons - you don't necessarily have to be for or against either to debate the values compared to the losses.

[helene_t]

Japan ranks right near the top in protectionist countries - try to sell Japan non-Japanese rice and see who far you get.

Yes, Japan is an interesting example. Popular theories on the causes of inequality predict that Japan is an egalitarian country:

- it's protectionist

- female labor-marked participation is low

- immigration is low

- illiteracy is virtually zero

- it's not a raw material economy

 

Yet Japan has one of the highest (maybe the highest) levels of income inequality in the developed World.

 

I think this a a very complex issue. First, there's the problem of defining what the problem is:

- If the sex bias in salaries decreases, inequality at the income level will increase but inequality at household level will not (expect for individual and same-sex households).

- Increased frequency of divorces lead to more inequality at the household level but (indirectly) to less inequality at the individual level.

- Decreasing age bias on salaries mean less inequality at the yearly level but not a the lifespan level (or the family level, if there is solidarity between generations)

- Large countries like the U.S. seem to have more inequality than smaller countries like the European ones, because between-country inequalities do not appear at the first glance at European statistics while between-state inequalities for the U.S. do.

- When globalization levels incomes of industry workers in rich and poor countries, global inequality decreases while inequality in the rich countries increases.

 

As for possible causes, there are a lot of obvious ones. Today's service workers are much less motivated for joining unions that the factory workers of the 60s. There are many reasons for this.

 

Personally, I'd prefer to blame income inequality (and other evils) on my pet peves such as Marx, Freud, post-modernism, religion, Microsoft, rock music and inferior bidding methods (Capp, strong 1NT):

 

When I went to basic school in the 70's we were told by our Marxist teachers that society sucks so we'd better not waste our time learning a profession (which would just turn us into brain-dead puppets of the capitalist political economy) but that we were better of expanding our own horizon by smoking marijuana and by spending 15 years at college studying culture-relativist anthropology. As soon as the revolution wins we will find nice meaningful jobs as cultural innovators at the Ministry of Truth, Love and Existentialism, and in the meantime we can contribute to the decline of the capitalist society by being welfare parasites.

 

This was all fine and dandy for all us smart, rich kids who eventually got well-paid jobs at government offices, thanks to our rethoric gifts and the influence of friends and family. But many less gifted youngsters got inadequate educations and ended up being, well, social parasites.

 

In the meantime, the spirit of the time changed, so it's not so cool to be a social parasite anymore. We still pay them reasonable amount of parasite bonuses because we (the bureaucrat elite) still remember some of what we were taught at basic school or, more likely, because we realize that it's more convenient keeping them as welfare parasites instead of turning them into beggars, prostitutes and criminals.

 

It's often said that the modern knowledge-based economy leaves no niche for people without natural gifts required for becoming knowledge workers. This may be partially true, but I think a more apt explanation for the growing inequality is the influence from Marxist teachers, social workers, shrinks, child-rearing counselors, journalists etc. who created an anti-enterprise mentality in the general public. Starting up your own business is just beyond the fantasy of a whole generation of spoiled kids. "Society" is responsible for providing employment for you.

[hrothgar]

This is an incredibly complex issue and, unfortunately, there aren't any easy answers. For example, most of my academic studies focused was in economics. Most formal branches of economics steer deal with issues like “efficiency” and steer far away from more normative topics. Unfortunately, debates surrounding income distribution are, by definition, normative.

 

Here are a few quick thoughts: Historically, here in the US there seemed to be a rough consensus that a unimodal income distribution was inherently superior to a bimodal distribution. (The core arguments in favor of a unimodal standard typically dealt with a desire for fairness and political stability) Many of the policies that were implemented back during the Great Depression and post World War II were specifically intended to try to promote a unimodal standard. Progressive income taxes, heavy investment in public education, the GI bill, and the like were some of most obvious examples. These policies were (broadly) successful.

 

More recently, a couple significant forces combined to skew income distributions. The first was a deliberate assault on progressive taxation models. The tax code was flattened significantly. Capital gains taxes were dramatically reduced. Both of these policies predominantly benefited owner's of large amounts of capital rather than laborers. At the same time, transportation networks improved dramatically. Goods and services could suddenly be shipped across enormous distances. This is putting a lot of downward pressure on wages. (Admittedly, purchasing power is increased enormously)

 

For what its worth, I actually agree with certain elements of DrTodd's argument. I agree that large portions of American society are dysfunctional. I suspect that we disagree about the nature of an appropriate remedy. I believe that combating this type of problem requires heavy investment in public programs (particular pre-natal care, improved public schools, and the like).

[Al_U_Card]

By Tony Pugh

McClatchy Newspapers

 

WASHINGTON - The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.

 

What is the cause? Is there a cure?

Human nature as it relates to greed and survival. Those that have something don't want to share it, they want to keep it. Our culture promotes this and our institutions allow the interested parties to continue and enhance it.

 

Cure?.......you've got to be kidding

[mike777]

I think the ultimate fear seems to be right out of science fiction when it comes to class struggle or income inequality when you listen to the debates.

 

A tiny upper class will live literally above the clouds in luxury while the massive underclass will end up working the mines on a polluted Earth like moles.