Class Struggles

[kenberg]

I have some experience with this in both directions generationally.

 

My father finished eight grade, my mother had a year and a half of high school. I have two daughters, one with a Ph.D, the other did not go to college. Both daughters chose their course on their own. Both are successful.

 

When I was between my junior and senior year in college I had a summer job crating farm machinery for railway shipping. I loved it and gave some consideration to dropping out of school. But not for long. I had been reading Scientific American since around eighth grade and I knew where my interests lay.

 

Others make other choices. I was at a shopping mall one time when a young woman came up and reminded me that in high school she was a friend of my older daughter (the one with the Ph.D). "Oh, yes, what are you doing now?" "I'm a go-go dancer". Then she introduced me to her boyfriend, a male stripper. Different strokes for different folks. Or can I say that?

 

Seems we need to make sure young folks understand: (a) You have to make a living (b) You should choose something you like ( c ) Try not to embarrass the family.

[Winstonm]

Free trade is based on comparative advantage

Labor costs are a crucial element of comparative advantage

You can't pick and chose what parts of free trade you approve of

 

Richard,

 

Perhaps I am not framing the question correctly. My question is this: Company A in the U.S. hires illegal immigrants at 1/2 cost to build its products; Company B opens a manufacturing arm in another country at 1/2 the labor cost. Other than investment capital, what is the difference? Why make company A in violation of the law but approve and subsidize company B?

 

Ravi Batra wrote a book about this back in the 90's. As an original proponent of gobalisation, he changed his views with "The Myth of Free Trade". In that book, he forecast the demise of the U.S. middle class and growing wealth disparity as the U.S. evolved from a high-paying manufacturing based economy into a lower-paying service based economy.

 

Labor's negotiating tool is low unemployment, i.e., high demand. When a normal labor pool in a country is expanded to include the world labor pool, normal supply/demand becomes skewed heavily to supply side.

 

The nature of human history has shown us that when either side gets too out of balance that outrages occur - the theoretical inherent strength of the ideal is trumped by the nature of mankind.

[kenberg]

We penalize company A because we want to discourage illegal immigration. I assume that is the reason. With enough of a penalty I imagine it would have a discouraging effect on hiring and a subsequent discouraging effect on illegal immigration. Congressmen might even have to hire American nannies, who knows, although they usually find ways to exempt themselves from the rules that they set for the rest of us.

 

I'm not sure why we would subsidize company B. Do we? Maybe it depends on B? A large enough campaign contribution and we will subsidize anyone. Ask the sugar industry.

[luke warm]

i think it depends on the definition winston is giving 'subsidize' ... if i move my widgit company out of the us, with its relatively high tax rate, to another country where the corporate rate is low to non-existent, yet still sell my product here, is that considered subsidization? how about if i stay here but move my tech support call centers to india?

 

i was in favor of nafta at first, but i think it's been a failure... if the income gap continues to grow and if america's base commodity leans more and more toward service rather than manufacturing, the failure will be more apparent - but imo we'll recognize it too late (luckily by that time we'll have 8 lane highways from canada to mexico)

[kenberg]

Perhaps. For clarity, subsidy should mean subsidy. Definitely the current situation provides at least some motivation for some companies to move outside of US borders. Although I think the picture is hazy with lots if subtleties, or so I understand.

[mike777]

"was in favor of nafta at first, but i think it's been a failure... if the income gap continues to grow and if america's base commodity leans more and more toward service rather than manufacturing, the failure will be more apparent - but imo we'll recognize it too late (luckily by that time we'll have 8 lane highways from canada to mexico) {"

 

 

 

1) Lets assume future America that the income gap(whatever that means) increases...or at least does not decrease.

2) Lets assume future America GNP means more service .....and less manufacturing....whatever that means......

3) lets assume 8 lane hwy from mexico to Canada

 

 

These 3 points seem good not bad...compared to

1) smaller income gap

2) more manuf

3) 7 lane hwy.

 

btw side note...I have real doubts that the medium PHD makes more than the medium expert/good ..Plumber.....:) If helene makes more...cool but i have my doubts that is standard.

[onoway]

The whole issue of free trade is a sick farce as far as I can see..looking at the myriad disputes and charges of unfair subsidization or whatever suits the fancy of special interest groups. In Canada, we are apparently going to slaughter thousands of pigs, if we haven't already, because what farmers are getting for them doesn't cover the cost of raising them. So, not only is the government subsidizing this slaughter, but because of trade agreements, no-one is allowed to use the meat in any way, not shipped to people who are starving and could never afford to buy it anyway, not for the local poor..just destroyed. But the government then turns around and pledges money to feed the starving of the world. Right. I guess that makes economic and humanitarian sense to somebody.. and fwiw, whoever they are, I bet they have university degrees.

[Winstonm]

Perhaps. For clarity, subsidy should mean subsidy. Definitely the current situation provides at least some motivation for some companies to move outside of US borders. Although I think the picture is hazy with lots if subtleties, or so I understand.

To clarify, I meant tax incentives and not actual subsidies.

[Al_U_Card]

It is sick, and bizarre, and unfortunate and the only reason it "works" is that the "interested" continue to gain and the "disinterested" (read unknowing or that don't understand as the only uncaring are the "interested"...) don't notice the difference enough for it to make a serious impact on their lives.

 

The "real" reason for tariffs etc. is to level the playing field. Add the cost of complying with environmental regulation and of wage parity and of quality inspection and safety and product reliability etc. etc. and then the "costs" come more into line.

 

People are not thieves by nature, but they are scavengers by design and when something is there for the taking and no one either objects nor claims it....what do you expect?

[kenberg]

Economic reality evolves. Wishing away globalization is like wishing away nuclear weapons. Won't happen.

 

Now here is a difference between free trade and globalization. We can pass laws killing free trade (for better or, more likely, for worse). Laws against globalization are apt to be as effective as laws forbidding gravity.

 

So what should we do? Well, I doubt many of us want to spend five years preparing to be trade experts. We can try to sort out our priorities and try to insist that those who lead us pay some attention to reality. Already that's tough enough.

 

Probably there are people on this Forum who know more about the history of the America labor movement than I do, but my understanding is that it is one of the great success stories of the first half of the twentieth century. Conditions for workers in 1900 were horrible, conditions in 1950 were pretty good. The leaders were hardly universally loved. John L. Lewis may have been hated or feared, but definitely not loved. Except by his miners. Many labor activities were, in the beginning, illegal. This was a consequence of the the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. The success of the labor movement benefited not only the workers, but the country as a whole.

 

Can something like this happen again? I wouldn't place any heavy bets on it. I would bet that the forces of reality will trump the forces of abstract logic and fairness.

[luke warm]

"was in favor of nafta at first, but i think it's been a failure... if the income gap continues to grow and if america's base commodity leans more and more toward service rather than manufacturing, the failure will be more apparent - but imo we'll recognize it too late (luckily by that time we'll have 8 lane highways from canada to mexico) {"

 

 

 

1) Lets assume future America that the income gap(whatever that means) increases...or at least does not decrease.

2) Lets assume future America GNP means more service .....and less manufacturing....whatever that means......

3) lets assume 8 lane hwy from mexico to Canada

 

 

These 3 points seem good not bad...compared to

1) smaller income gap

2) more manuf

3) 7 lane hwy.

 

btw side note...I have real doubts that the medium PHD makes more than the medium expert/good ..Plumber.....;) If helene makes more...cool but i have my doubts that is standard.

well mike, i remember most people laughing at perot's "giant sucking sound" pov re: nafta, but i think it's fair to say he was right... whether being right was in our best interests or not is the question... what i don't remember him mentioning, and what seems to have been happening in waves ever since, was the backlash of illegal immigration with all the problems it brings...

 

it's a matter of philosophy, imo... some want more and more immigrants, sanctuary cities, "see no evil, etc", even allowing non-citizens the rights of citizenship (voting, among others)... some think a country is defined by borders, a common culture, a common language, and citizenship and some don't

 

which is better? well i don't think it much matters, do you? i only know which is coming, and it can't be stopped... too many of us only care about it enough to answer polling questions on the subject

[Al_U_Card]

The US was arguably in its "finest hour" when its borders were open and the crucible of the "melting pot" was forging a frontier mentality that engendered all kinds of innovation and expansion (both good and horribly bad). The purebred becomes quickly inbred and the various weaknesses and diseases become glaring.

 

Despite the actuality, in those days the perception of equality and equanimity as well as potential (remember the original american dream?) drove the engine of society. It is that drive and potential that has become sadly lacking as the elite (financial, political and social) suck the life and breath and especially money out of the masses.

 

Now we have the added ingredient of perspective that we fail to use to our advantage with nauseating repetition.

[luke warm]

there was a difference, al... at that time the immigrants coming here actually wanted to assimilate into american culture, they wanted to learn the language, they were actually proud to be called americans... most importantly, imo, they came legally

[hrothgar]

there was a difference, al... at that time the immigrants coming here actually wanted to assimilate into american culture, they wanted to learn the language, they were actually proud to be called americans... most importantly, imo, they came legally

Ignorant nativists have been making the same asinine claims for 200+ years.

 

Jimmy's arguments are almost identical to ones advanced by the "Know Nothings" back in the 1850s.

 

The immigrants aren't assimilating

They aren't learning the language

They're loyal to the pope

They're all a bunch of lazy drunkards

God help us if they ever start voting

 

The only "difference" is that this drivel gets placed on the Internet forums rather than newsprint.

 

http://www.binghamton.edu/ctah/student/anderson/knownothing.jpg

[Al_U_Card]

The point is that you don't want assimilation, you want invigoration.

 

The hybridization that results from the input of new ideas and new approaches is what improves the mix, not making everything into one bland vanilla-like blend.

 

They were "legal" because the laws didn't restrict their entry to the same extent. Fear drives those restrictions and it is an irrational fear at that. Conservatives want to keep what they have....as in to keep it away from those that might get a chance to access it by their own merit or contribution.

[luke warm]

there was a difference, al... at that time the immigrants coming here actually wanted to assimilate into american culture, they wanted to learn the language, they were actually proud to be called americans... most importantly, imo, they came legally

Ignorant nativists have been making the same asinine claims for 200+ years.

 

Jimmy's arguments are almost identical to ones advanced by the "Know Nothings" back in the 1850s.

 

The immigrants aren't assimilating

They aren't learning the language

They're loyal to the pope

They're all a bunch of lazy drunkards

God help us if they ever start voting

richard, are you talking about legal or illegal immigrants? fwiw for the most part i see no sign that the illegals of today want to assimilate or care to learn the language... i (i'll leave the characterizations to you) never said anything about their drinking or religious habits... and i'm all in favor of legal immigration... what were the know nothings against, exactly?

 

i believe it's illegal for them to vote in american elections, but that might just be the ignorant nativist in me... i'm interested in your thoughts on how exactly you define a country if not by borders, common culture and common language (among other things)

The point is that you don't want assimilation, you want invigoration.

 

The hybridization that results from the input of new ideas and new approaches is what improves the mix, not making everything into one bland vanilla-like blend.

 

They were "legal" because the laws didn't restrict their entry to the same extent. Fear drives those restrictions and it is an irrational fear at that. Conservatives want to keep what they have....as in to keep it away from those that might get a chance to access it by their own merit or contribution.

i guess time will tell, al... i honestly don't know anyone who is against immigration in the usa, although i'm sure there are such folks... give me an example of a bland, vanilla-like country so i can see what you mean... australia? switzerland? also, when you have time, look at the immigration laws of mexico and tell me whether you think theirs are better or fairer or more liberal than ours

[DrTodd13]

Borders are arbitrary lines drawn by racists (culturalist if you prefer) to deny individuals of other people groups their fundamental right to freedom of movement. I don't have a right to get to decide who can and can't move into my neighborhood. I don't care if it is 1 or 1000 or 10,000,000 people, sheer numbers doesn't bestow the legitimate authority to tell people where they can go.

[luke warm]

I don't care if it is 1 or 1000 or 10,000,000 people, sheer numbers doesn't bestow the legitimate authority to tell people where they can go.

what does?

[kenberg]

Borders are arbitrary lines drawn by racists (culturalist if you prefer) to deny individuals of other people groups their fundamental right to freedom of movement. I don't have a right to get to decide who can and can't move into my neighborhood. I don't care if it is 1 or 1000 or 10,000,000 people, sheer numbers doesn't bestow the legitimate authority to tell people where they can go.

With this logic I suppose you could say the door of my house is an arbitrary line drawn by a racist/culturalist/whatever name you wish to call me to deny people the freedom of movement they might wish to exercise.

 

Damn straight. That's its purpose alright.

 

I see it as pretty much the same with borders and with citizenship. That side's your's, this side's mine. Let the name calling begin.

[blackshoe]

I don't care if it is 1 or 1000 or 10,000,000 people, sheer numbers doesn't bestow the legitimate authority to tell people where they can go.

what does?

Nothing

[Al_U_Card]

In biblical terms, do unto others.

 

Try inviting them first. If they accept then everyone is happy. ;)

[DrTodd13]

Borders are arbitrary lines drawn by racists (culturalist if you prefer) to deny individuals of other people groups their fundamental right to freedom of movement.  I don't have a right to get to decide who can and can't move into my neighborhood.  I don't care if it is 1 or 1000 or 10,000,000 people, sheer numbers doesn't bestow the legitimate authority to tell people where they can go.

With this logic I suppose you could say the door of my house is an arbitrary line drawn by a racist/culturalist/whatever name you wish to call me to deny people the freedom of movement they might wish to exercise.

 

Damn straight. That's its purpose alright.

 

I see it as pretty much the same with borders and with citizenship. That side's your's, this side's mine. Let the name calling begin.

You own your property. You don't own your country. That is the difference. If you can't see how fundamental this difference is then you've been brainwashed.

[DrTodd13]

I don't care if it is 1 or 1000 or 10,000,000 people, sheer numbers doesn't bestow the legitimate authority to tell people where they can go.

what does?

Nothing

Bravo!

[helene_t]

I think I agree with Todd. I say "I think" because I am somewhat uncertain about some practical issues related to opening the borders. But denying law-abiding people the right to settle in whatever country they prefer purely on the basis of their nationality seems very unfair.

 

But even at the practical level, if I allow myself to switch into cynic mode and forget about fundamental rights for a moment, I think the fear of uncontrolled immigration is exaggerated. What shows this to me is the concept of "working permit". In many cases it is quite easy to get access to a country as a "tourist", while getting a working permit can be next to impossible.

 

This is something I don't understand. I think a "tourist" is more likely to be a criminal than someone who comes to work and pay taxes. Presumably the idea is that immigration of unskilled workers put pressure on the salaries. But as others have noted, instead of using cheap immigrant labor, our companies just outsource to low-wage countries.

[luke warm]

i have trouble differentiating between the man who builds a house on property, fences it off, raises crops and a family and claims the land his own and the group of men who do the same (with borders being the fences) and calling it a country