Read first please:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709&p=3151198#p3151198Juan_Bottom wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Okay, now I have to read this. I will let you know who the winner is.
We've never had anyone do that before. I'm nervous.
The reason that you and I never butt-heads in the forums is because I only debate when I know that I will win. Most of the time you get into topics that I only have very limited knowledge of, so it's better to listen than to open my mouth. Sure I'll argue with you when it comes to objective personal opinion stuff, but not when it comes down to strict facts.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Can I find a better rule? Give people the freedom to choose for themselves, instead of dictating harsh nationalist and protectionist policies which prohibits everyone's freedom.
I don't think that anyone ever once said that they wanted harsh nationalistic policies. What is that....straw man... or argument from..... fallacy from.... which is that again?
Juan_Bottom wrote:The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709&start=135#p3147861Sounds harsh to me if you think about the potential unintended consequences.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:In turn, this reduces everyone's real income.
No. NAFTA and international trade has lead to a steady decline in wages, and has lead to a shifting of American Production and service jobs to overseas workers. It has completely destroyed some industries. It's common knowledge. So you can call this a nationalistic dictatorship policy and we would call it a protectionist policy. If everyone bought American first they would not be diminishing their income. It would protect American jobs, and in turn, protect their job. And if everyone bought locally, instead of from these same 10 corporations, then they would likely see a wage increase as well, from the competition for workers.
Furthermore, you're not counting the health benefits of eating natural food. This country is seriously suffering from financial trouble with our health care system.
JB, there are many factors that reduced people's income over the past 10 years, over the past 20 years, but not over the past 100 years. So it depends on which context you decide to pick.
I have yet to encounter data which states that international trade has lead to a steady decline in wages. Perhaps you could provide a source? You only mention the negatives of the expansion of international trade, so why not I mention the positives:
1) benefits of seeking comparative advantage in the production of resources, which leads to multiple benefits like higher efficiency (i.e. less waste, and a higher possibility of more long-term sustainability).
2) external competition. If you want to limit the power of monopolies, you have to enable competition; otherwise, your dreaded Mansato corporation--which you inadvertently support through supporting tariffs and discouraging international trade--retains a huge market share and control over the production of certain goods. Foreign competitors can reduce Mansato's grip on the market, thus enabling more options for consumers to purchase certain goods. However, there's also regulations involved by the government, which further complicates the issue (in other words, it's not as simple as you think).
3) the reduction in prices of various foreign goods, thus increasing one's real income (since that extra money can be spent on different goods)
Another example is Japan's car industry, which funny enough produces "Japanese" cars in American manufacturing plants. However, you dislike international trade, so there becomes no more "Japanese" cars. Imagine a country where there's only "American" cars. Recall in the 1970s what that was like: beautiful yet fuel inefficient + limited options and variety for consumers. Now introduce foreign cars like Japan, and the options expand. And if Japanese car manufacturers perform better than American ones, then they have the higher incentive to reduce costs in order to compete. This reduction of costs tends to lead to a reduction in the price, and with a lower price on cars, more people have the capability to purchase a car, more people save more money on a car purchase.
Guess who enabled the Japanese to clobber American manufacturers? W. Edwards Deming, an American. And guess how the American car manufacturers ignored his more efficient strategy of production? All of them. He went to Japan, they listened, they produced more reliable cars, and forced the American companies to mimic their business methods (W. Edwards Deming's business methods). All of this has resulted in forcing American car manufacturers to adopt more efficient and less costly means of production, which reduces the overall costs associated with producing cars.
4) Another good point about competition is that it exposes domestic businesses to better ideas (which aids in forming the previously mentioned benefits).
The point is that it is difficult to assess what causes exactly what; however, for you to assert that real wages have decreased from international trade is an unsubstantiated explanation that fails to account for the benefits of international trade and even fails to account for other reasonable explanations (which are describe above as well as in the next segment).
A decrease in real wages (over whichever time you want to specify) are not only due to international trade, which you just stated.
" [international trade] has lead to a shifting of American Production and service jobs to overseas workers"
It has, but other factors have also led to this like minimum wage, unions lobbying for higher wages, high corporate taxes (US is #1 in the world, maybe #2 currently), an unstable political and/or economic environment, et cetera. The problem that you're not understanding is that this is a very complex issue. It's not as simple as you declare it to be.
Besides, one long-term benefit of shifting American production and service jobs to overseas is that it frees up labor for more valued uses. In the long-term, Juan. The problem with your focus on the short-term is that you overlook future benefits and ignore unintended consequences. Nevertheless, with freed up labor for higher valued uses, this enables people in college to see which fields are profitable and which are on the decline. It enables people to understand which sector will become more profitable, which areas businesses will grow, and which ones will decline.
Once again, these issues are complex, and broad stokes with your typed statements don't cover the full story, JB. You forget one of the original arguments. Let me return it:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709&start=135#p3148520I mentioned that advocating to buy locally isn't necessarily buying locally, that it hurts other sectors of one's immediate and also the State and national economy, and that the logic behind dictating that other people should buy local has to be questioned because of unseen costs and unintended consequences associated with such an action.
Judging from your above response, you only mentioned negatives about international trade (well, actually, only one, which was overly simplistic by ignoring other factors). From your limited view on international trade (since you view intl. trade as a zero-sum game), you erroneously conclude that it's bad. It's not always bad, and it varies. There are many benefits and many costs, but you only focus on one or two particular negatives, while completely ignoring the benefits.
When one completely ignore the benefits and only focus on the negatives, then one becomes prone to making mistakes within one's line of reasoning. I'm aware of the costs of international trade, JB. There are many more real and potential costs then you have listed, but from what I've read, the benefits outweigh the costs because I have exposed myself towards understanding not only the costs but also the benefits of international trade.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:As you mentioned, the flipside is that by buying local, you support your local economy, but does that always mean one supports their national economy by doing so? Not necessarily. You also hurt other sectors of the economy by not purchasing foreign goods in which the certain sectors of the national economy are involved.
You're saying that the Bronkema's down the road will probably spend my money on Chinese tractors and Sony DVD players. But if I buy Chiquita banana's from Venezuela, the profits actually go to an American company.
As I said I buy locally and expand that outward. And I also said that I always try to buy American first.
I said no such things, JB. Only you said that. Your examples depend on which products are produced with what machines and yada yada. The point is that buying immediately local doesn't necessarily support even your national economy. By purchasing from an immediate/local business "A", you don't purchase from some other American company that is considered to be as "local" as business A. For example, your hardware store (can't recall the name something & something's) is a "local" business in that it has operations over several regions of the US (predominantly the Midwest). When you purchase from there, you don't purchase from other "local" business, which means that by buying locally, you aren't necessarily supporting the national economy. That's all I'm pointing out (and it's in relation to your "buy American, it helps Americans" stance).
If you understand that business A example, then you can understand that there are unintended consequences with your actions. By purchasing from American local business A, another local American business doesn't make the sale, thus hurting their performance (to a minor degree). (
This is a point I've been stressing but you seem to ignore because you never concede on anything; you just forget, which is unfortunate.)
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709&start=135#p3148520 (in reference to the underlined)
Juan_Bottom wrote:As I said I buy locally and expand that outward. And I also said that I always try to buy American first.
Good for you, sir. It's hard to tell when you shift your stance from this one:
Juan_Bottom wrote:The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:(or in the areas in which you are knowledgeable, which is not the national realm, and since you're not knowledgeable of the national realm, dictating policies like "buy local" across the entire nation is a decision which reflects very little knowledge on your part)
That's an odd thing to say sir, because I'm kicking your ass in this debate. I don't think that you know anything about farming in this country. And when I make a point, you dismiss it and start talking about how I'm a nationalist who doesn't understand the repercussions of my actions. F*ck it, here we go again.
Here was your nationalist stance:
Juan_Bottom wrote:The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709&start=135#p3147861Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:yet somehow a young guy who knows a good bit about agriculture (yet nothing of economics) presupposes that he know the one and only answer: buy local, never mind the costs! Doesn't that strike you as odd?
No?
Of course not, because you presume that you have the answers. I posit that it's not as simple as you think it is, yet you seem to disagree regardless.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
I just showed you that that guarantee isn't necessarily true, and you simply say, "no it doesn't."
Sorry, JB, that isn't an argument.
You'll have to move back to page 8 or 9 and deal with that again.
I don't think that you follow me. If I spend my dollars in my community; well then I just spent them in my community. I'm guaranteeing that they are spent there. Yes, Where they go from there is out of my control.... So that was my argument.
Thank you, JB, for limiting your earlier argument that "buying locally
DOES guarantee that the money will be spent within the local market" to your current one, which admits that "where they go from there is out of my control."
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709&start=150#p3149053Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm glad that you have freely chosen to buy American products, JB. Your original stance however dictates that others are not free to choose foreign products because you are adamant about having all Americans to buy only American-produced goods. You have restricted other people's options in order to appease your nationalist sentiments.
This is simply a lie. I can't remember....straw man... or argument from..... fallacy from.... which is that again???
My original stance was: Because if you don't buy from your neighbors, they wont have any money to buy from you. I myself generally buy local first, then expand that outward.
So what do you think, restricting options is something for the government, Tyson, and Monsanto to do?
Here was one of your original stances:
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:By saying "best," you've just implied that it's best for all cases, and even for most cases.
That just isn't true because there are unseen costs with what you advocate.
See:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709&start=135#p3147752
Can you find a better rule?
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709&start=150#p3149053"Can you find a better rule?" implies that what you stated was your rule to live by. You forgot that you held two contradictory stances at the same time, which is why it is important to concede on certain issues, JB, instead of digging in your heels.
Juan_Bottom wrote:The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans.
By saying "best," you've just implied that it's best for all cases, and even for most cases.
That just isn't true because there are unseen costs with what you advocate.
See:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709&start=135#p3147752http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709&start=135#p3147861Juan_Bottom wrote:People are of course, free to choose what they do with their money. Because this is the USA. But spending it on foreign goods & labor, and the large American Agri-business corporations has all had negative effects for our country. It only has positive effects for an individual if no one else does it. When everyone does it - that becomes a transfer of wealth, industry, and jobs. If you follow me.
Of course, it's a game of trade-offs.
My contention in this response is this: Exchange (i.e. trade) is not a zero-sum game. People mutually benefit
ex ante with each exchange; otherwise, they would not trade. You posit that international trade is bad for the US economy, and you focus on the negatives, but your conclusion overlooks the benefits (as I've mentioned above). Can you reasonably presume that your standpoint is correct if you are unaware of the most of the benefits of international trade?
Are you open to expanding your mind with a book (or some good internet articles) that explain my position in more detail?
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
And hopefully, those products, which make "Made in the USA" products, are of US origin, but they don't need to be. Only the product and the materials that go within it must comply with the FTC's rules. So if you purchases "Made in the USA" products, you could be supporting businesses which use foreign machines...
I don't see how you think that you're outsmarting me. You just helped my argument for reasons to buy products that are labeled "MADE IN THE USA." I'm going to buy that before a similar product without that label because it ensures that I'm voting for at least one an American job. If I buy the other product I could be voting for Chinese workers.
It doesn't matter where all the raw materials come from. I would prefer everything was American, and some labels will tell you as much,
but no matter what at least I know that I'm helping support American workers.
No matter how hard you don't care, there's still that possibility, JB, that the final goods you purchase may have been produced by foreign machines and foreign raw materials. Those "American" companies are buying foreign stuff. (booga booga booga)
[In reference to the underline]: You aren't necessarily helping support American workers by buying only "American" final goods. The reason why American companies are more reasonable than your view is that they are open to buying foreign goods in order to conduct their business more efficiently at a lower cost. If they can decrease their costs by increasing their productivity and/or efficiency (thus increasing their profits), then they can remain in the US and pay their workers a decent wage.
Considering my above example, do you understand that buying foreign products is not necessarily a bad thing?
(Guess what, without being open towards international trade, you remove the possibility that the Japanese and the Germans can build manufacturing plants within the US to sell "Japanese" and "German" cars. Even with the earlier loss of market share with US car companies that close down from foreign competition, there's still a market share, so other foreign companies can buy domestic car manufacturing plants, which can bring jobs back. It happens, and you can't deny that possibility.
Like I was saying earlier, it's complex. And since it's complex and considering my above response, your policy of buying local and then expanding outward doesn't necessarily mean that everyone should do the same.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:hey, JB, is a Toyota Camry "made in the USA"?
Fair question. I would buy an American car made in America long before I would even look at a Camry. But if I were to buy a Camry it would have to at least made in an American factory. Why would a guy like me ever buy foreign products when there are as good and better American products?
And what is an "American" product?
If "Japanese" cars are manufactured in the USA and support American workers, then what harm have you caused by purchasing a "foreign" car?
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:You have no neighbors that compete? Either they're a cartel or a monopoly if there's no competition.
You could say that. But the real truth is darker. There's no room for competitors because of the large corporations like Tyson and Purdue. They suffocate the market.
Also, the large meat packagers are the monopolies.
One thing: there's room for competitors if they're savvy enough to capture a market share which
dislikes Tyson and Purdue products enough to buy locally produced products.
They may "suffocate the market," but their standardized strategies leave gaps in the market. Differentiated strategies which customize their products to suit certain customers' needs can close these gaps. My point is that there still
can be room for competition.
"The large meat packagers are monopolies."
In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
Perhaps, you meant "cartel."
A cartel is a formal (explicit) agreement among competing firms. It is a formal organization of producers and manufacturers that agree to fix prices, marketing, and production.[1]
How do you know that they collude to fix their prices, their production, and/or their marketing?
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
What are the environmental and economical costs associated with purchasing foreign agricultural goods?
What are the environmental and economical costs associated with purchasing "big business" agricultural goods?
What are the environmental and economical costs associated with purchasing small business goods?
What are the environmental and economical costs associated with purchasing "mom and pop" shop's agricultural goods?
Don't you have to answer these questions before you can claim that it's best to let the free market decide what to purchase? I've already answered all of these in at least part, but you dismissed my answers because they didn't involve economics or came from Wiki*. Because you're better then me I guess.
*I think that we all suspect that you dismiss the answers because you couldn't respond to them
My point, JB, is that if you do not possess the economic information (which can include environmental impact) of the standpoint which you advocated:
"The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans."
Then you can not reasonably infer that you know what is best for everyone. Because without economic information, you can't assess which sectors of the economy are affected (which in turn means which people are affected). Your data said that "antibiotics are bad" and "E.Coli causes harm" but most of them didn't leave any quantifiable data, which is why a professor of the agricultural field would give you a funny. Some of the data indicated that it's bad to purchase from certain corporations, but that doesn't rule out that other large corporations are bad. The data didn't support your point that "we should buy American because buying American helps" either. I'm interesting in reading more factual articles and books that pertain to these issues, instead of reading cherry-picked wikipedia facts that don't offer much evidence.
I'll admit that Mansato causes a lot of harm; I've concluded that years ago.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:In order to dictate a nationalist policy that prohibits or restricts foreign competition, it would be wise to be able to answer the above questions. Then you can presume that you know what is best for everyone, but the truth is that you don't.
In order to dictate a completely free worldwide market policy that doesn't prohibit or restrict competion (or corporations), it would be wise to answer your own questions. Then you can presume to know what's best for everyone, but you already said that you don't. So whatever.
At least, you shouldn't proclaim what's best for everyone. That's been my point, and it seems you finally agree.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Buying local, or primarily local, may not be what's best for everyone else--no matter how much you extrapolate your personal experiences onto everyone else's.
It would be best for everyone else, if everyone did it. That seems obvious. All your argument so far involves is cost to the individual consumer, while I'm genuinely talking about the cost to the nation, which will effect the cost to the individual. You're only talking about the illusion of the cost to the nation.
If everyone did it, then you harm other sectors of the economy that rely on foreign trade. You make people lose jobs, Juan. How can you call yourself a caring American by advocating such a stance?
The truth is that it's not as simple as saying, "everyone should do it!" There's unintended consequences in doing so. You remove competition and you remove the need for domestic industries to lower their prices relative to foreign industries. There's a reason why tariffs were so high in the 1920s and up to the 1950s. It's to raise the LOWER prices of foreign goods. Generally, when everyone buys domestic, they eat the higher prices. And when they eat the higher price, they have less real income. And when they have less real income, they have less money to spend on other domestic goods. What happens then, Juan? The economy suffers, every American suffers.
So like I said, there are unintended consequences in demanding that "It would be best for everyone else, if everyone did it."
And when you say something like "It would be best for everyone else, if everyone did it," you presume that based on your limited knowledge, judgment, and wisdom, that you still know what is best for everyone else. And I already explained how that isn't a good idea, yet you still advocate that it should be done... [facepalm.jpg]
Juan_Bottom wrote:I can control my dollar.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:That's great, Juan, but that's not how it works for everyone else.
Sure, you can control your dollar, which is spent on a local business's product, and then that local business buys whatever it needs from wherever that may be. You advocate that everyone should buy local, but don't you see: businesses are faced with decisions on which products to buy.
Ok BBS, so that is how it works for everyone else.
You're a dishonest debater. You intentionally removed the remainder to my point. That's why it's important to not interrupt so frequently because you miss the point:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Sure, you can control your dollar, which is spent on a local business's product, and then that local business buys whatever it needs from wherever that may be. You advocate that everyone should buy local, but don't you see: businesses are faced with decisions on which products to buy.
If they were forced to buy "local" or buy only "American" and if those goods are more expensive then foreign goods, guess who makes up for the additional costs? You do, JB!Be proud to support the unintended consequences of higher prices in the name of your nationalist sentiments!
And with higher prices comes what, JB? Lower real incomes!
It still isn't wise for you to dictate which products people should buy based on your very limited knowledge and experience.[Because of the unintended consequences (i.e. lower real incomes as one example). Another example is that since businesses have to buy domestic only, that may prove unprofitable, so they'll go out of business. lnadvertently, your standpoint stated earlier (""It would be best for everyone else, if everyone did it.") isn't necessarily true because businesses will have to eat a higher costs, which may make some unprofitable, and they'll go bankrupt. Or they'll have to cut jobs.
Why won't you concede on even some basic points I raise? Instead, you just ignore them, no matter how reasonable they are. To me that's called being intellectually dishonest. If you continue to pull these tactics, then I won't have much to gain from this discussion, because you are not genuinely interested in being open-minded to differing views.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:You know who else gets priced out of a job from minimum wage? Americans with not enough work experience to compete against those with work experience.
Darn those unintended consequences at the expense of nationalist sentiments!
Nationalism has nothing to do with being pro-union. At least, I don't think that it does. And companies reward people for not being a part of their labor unions. There is always a choice. You're argument does equate to people in agri-business working for lower wages in less safe environments. Thanks to Unions, and a book about a jungle, meat packagers of the 1950s made a good living wage. Their injury rate had fallen by 50% from the 1930s, to somewhere around 15%. Today, there are few slaughterhouses left. All of them are non-union, and it's one of the most dangerous jobs in the country again.
All of this seems really unfair considering how much more meat is on the bone than in 1950. It's all just more profits for the company.
Ok, and that had nothing to do with: "You know who else gets priced out of a job from minimum wage? Americans with not enough work experience to compete against those with work experience."
Also:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Unions. Unions (like corporations) lobby their government to place a minimum wage, which creates a barrier for inexperienced, non-unionized workers from becoming employable. It effectively prices them out of a job.
You didn't counter that. You sidestepped with "You know who else they used to price out of a job? Illegal Immigrants." And minimum wage, according to you, prices illegal immigrants out of a job, then I say, "Darn those unintended consequences at the expense of nationalist sentiments!" (Your nationalist sentiments describe your implied joy in having illegal immigrants priced out of job).
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Explain how that is a myth.
Explain to me how a worker who produces $5 per hour of total revenue for a business can demand a $6 per hour wage without having the business go bankrupt.
Labor productivity increases one's capability to produce more revenue for a business (or for one's self). That is the primary reason why the upper bounds of one's wages can increase.
I did explain it. You dismissed my link. But luckily, I can google all night. If it wasn't a myth, then why:
Quoting out of context is stupid.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709&start=150#p3149342BigBallinStalin wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:The upper bound is increased through one's labor productivity, which is from one's own labor, and from technological advances in increased productivity per laborer.
That's a myth for a perfect system. The reality is that there was a time when the head of the household would make enough income to support their whole family. Today, that doesn't happen nearly as much. Productivity has been on the rise for quite a while while wages have been on the decline.
Corporations spend their money on finding ways to make their workforce less costly, and yet be more efficient.
This is common knowledge.
Explain how that is a myth.
"Productivity has been on the rise for quite a while while wages have been on the decline."
That doesn't show that "
The upper bound is increased through one's labor productivity, which is from one's own labor, and from technological advances in increased productivity per laborer." is a myth.
So here comes
PLAYER57832 wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote: But what caught me here is that our inflation adjusted power peaked in 1968? America is full of failure.
This is what happens when you are allowed to discount so many real and true costs.
http://blogs.cfed.org/cfed_news_clips/2 ... 10-un.htmlhttp://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles/wages.htmlStagnating Workers' Wages
In 1979 the American worker's average hourly wage was equal to $15.91 (adjusted for inflation in 2001 dollars). By 1989 it had reached only $16.63/hour. That's a gain of only 7 cents a year for the entire Reagan decade.
But wait. Things get worse! By 1995 it had risen to only $16.71, or virtually no gain whatsoever over the 6 years between 1989 and 1995. During the great 'boom years' between 1995 and 2000 it rose briefly to $18.33 per hour. In other words, from 1979 to 2000, even before the most recent Bush recession, after more than two decades the American worker's average wages increased on average only 11.5 cents per hour per year! With nearly all of that coming in the five so-called 'boom' years of 1995-2000, and most of that lost once again in the last three years. And that includes for all workers, even those with college degrees.
The picture is worse for workers who had no college degree. That's more than 100 million workers, or 72.1% of the workforce. For them there was no 'boom of 1995-2000' whatsoever. Their average real hourly wages were less at the end of 2000 than they were in 1979! And since 2000 their wages have continued to slide further.
The Great Productivity Swindle
Management is always quick to say in contract negotiations, 'give us more productivity and we can afford to give you a bigger raise'. But this has been a false promise from 1979 to 2000, and an even bigger lie under George Bush II.
With 1992 as base year, productivity was at 82.2 in 1979. It grew to 94.2 by 1989 and 116.6 by the year 2000. In the past year, moreover, it has exploded, putting it over 120. That's a nearly 40% increase since Ronald Reagan took office nearly 25 years ago!
The 100 million American workers without college degrees, whose real take home pay today is less than it was 25 years ago, certainly can't be said to have shared in that 40% productivity gain. And the other 20 million or so with college degrees whose pay rose modestly at best certainly shared in very little of that nearly 40% productivity gain.
So who got all the money?
Also;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/1 ... 37814.htmlJuan_Bottom wrote:Ever feel your work isn’t being adequately represented by the final amount on your paycheck?
Turns out that nagging sense of injustice isn’t just a hunch. A recent report by the Economic Policy Institute reveals that benefits and wages haven’t kept up with the increasing productivity of American workers, both in private and public sectors.
SO I GUESS THAT ECONOMISTS DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT A DAY OF HONEST WORK, DO THEY MOTHERF*CKER? Seriously though, haven't you ever had a job before? I've never had a job that compensated me fairly. I don't think that many people have.
Lol, your statement in capitals makes you look like a blathering idiot.
"Productivity has been on the rise for quite a while while wages have been on the decline."
Your empirically support statement doesn't show how "
The upper bound is increased through one's labor productivity, which is from one's own labor, and from technological advances in increased productivity per laborer." is a myth.
You wasted all that time, and then act all macho about failing to explain what I was saying earlier was a myth.
Here's a great link that explains how Unions take erroneously take credit for
I'm not arguing that wages haven't increased for certain people (from a certain time 1979-2001) while productivity increases, and it doesn't explain that "
The upper bound is increased through one's labor productivity, which is from one's own labor, and from technological advances in increased productivity per laborer." is a myth.
(sorry for repeating myself, but you seem to have problems remembering the larger context of each discussion).
Here's a fun read about Unions:
Volume 24, Number 10
October 2004
The Union Myth
Thomas J. DiLorenzo
In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises wrote that labor unions have always been the primary source of anticapitalistic propaganda. I was reminded of this recently when I saw a bumper sticker proclaiming one of the bedrock tenets of unionism: "The Union Movement: The People Who Brought You the Weekend."
Well, not exactly. In the US, the average work week was 61 hours in 1870, compared to 34 hours today, and this near doubling of leisure time for American workers was caused by capitalism, not unionism.
As Mises explained, "In the capitalist society there prevails a tendency toward a steady increase in the per capita quota of capital invested. . . . Consequently, the marginal productivity of labor, wage rates, and the wager earners’ standard of living tend to rise continually."
Of course, this is only true of a capitalist economy where private property, free markets, and entrepreneurship prevail. The steady rise in living standards in (predominantly) capitalist countries is due to the benefits of private capital investment, entrepreneurship,technological advance, and a better educated workforce (no thanks to the government school monopoly, which has only served to dumb down the population). Labor unions routinely take credit for all of this while pursuing policies which impede the very institutions of capitalism that are the cause of their own prosperity.
The shorter work week is entirely a capitalist invention. As capital investment caused the marginal productivity of labor to increase over time, less labor was required to produce the same levels of output. As competition became more intense, many employers competed for the best employees by offering both better pay and shorter hours. Those who did not offer shorter work weeks were compelled by the forces of competition to offer higher compensating wages or become uncompetitive in the labor market.
Capitalistic competition is also why "child labor" has all but disappeared, despite unionist claims to the contrary. Young people originally left the farms to work in harsh factory conditions because it was a matter of survival for them and their families. But as workers became better paid—thanks to capital investment and subsequent productivity improvements—more and more people could afford to keep their children at home and in school.
Union-backed legislation prohibiting child labor came after the decline in child labor had already begun. Moreover, child labor laws have always been protectionist and aimed at depriving young people of the opportunity to work. Since child labor sometimes competes with unionized labor, unions have long sought to use the power of the state to deprive young people of the right to work.
In the Third World today, the alternative to "child labor" is all too often begging, prostitution, crime, or starvation. Unions absurdly proclaim to be taking the moral high road by advocating protectionist policies that inevitably lead to these consequences.
Unions also boast of having championed safety regulation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) over the past three decades. The American workplace has indeed become safer over the past century, but this was also due to the forces of competitive capitalism, not union-backed regulation.
An unsafe or dangerous workplace is costly to employers because they must pay a compensating difference (higher wage) to attract workers. Employers therefore have a powerful financial interest in improving workplace safety, especially in manufacturing industries where wages often comprise the majority of total costs. In addition, employers must bear the costs of lost work, retraining new employees, and government-imposed workman’s compensation whenever there is an accident on the job. Not to mention the threat of lawsuits.
Investments in technology, from air-conditioned farm tractors to the robots used in automobile factories, have also made the American workplace safer. But unions have often opposed such technology with the Luddite argument that it "destroys jobs."
Mises was right that unions have always been a primary source of anti-capitalistic propaganda. But since he wrote Human Action, American unions have also been at the forefront of lobbying efforts on behalf of the regulation and taxation of business—of capital—that has severely hampered the market economy, making everyone, including unionists, worse off economically. The regulation of business by the EPA, OSHA, FTC, DOE, and hundreds of other federal, state, and local government bureaucracies constitutes an effective tax on capital investment that makes such investment less profitable. Less capital investment causes a decline in the growth of labor productivity, which in turn slows down the growth of wages and living standards.
In addition, slower productivity leads to a slower growth of output in the economy, which causes prices to be higher than they otherwise would be; and fewer new products are invented and marketed. All of these things are harmful to the economic well-being of the very people labor unions claim to "represent." (Incredibly, there are some economists who argue that unions are good for productivity. But if that were true, corporations would be recruiting them instead of spending millions trying to avoid unionization.)
Mises also pointed out that as business becomes more heavily regulated, business decisions are based more and more on compliance with governmental edicts than on profit-making. American labor unions continue to call for more regulation of business because, in order for them to survive, they must convince workers—and society—that "the company is the enemy." That’s why, as Mises noted, union propaganda has always been anticapitalistic. Workers supposedly need to be protected from "the enemy" by labor unions.
However, the substitution of bureaucratic compliance for profit-making decisions reduces profitability, usually with little or no benefit to anyone from the regulations being complied with. The end result is once again a reduction in the profitability of investment, and subsequently less investment takes place. Wages are stunted, thanks to self-defeating unionist propaganda. The well-paid union officials may keep their jobs and their perks by perpetuating such propaganda, but they are harming the very people who pay the dues which are used to pay their own salaries.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=511Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:And if corporations can lower their costs, then they can charge lower prices for their goods--assuming of course they're operating within a competitive market, most of which are--and inb4 price collusion, because it's a myth. And guess who benefits from lower costs from businesses? Everyone who can purchase the now cheaper good.
WRONG!!! Shows what you know about Agri-Business.
The lysine price-fixing conspiracy was an organized effort during the mid-1990s to raise the price of the animal feed additive lysine. It involved five companies that had commercialized high-tech fermentation technologies, including American company Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Japanese companies Ajinomoto and Kyowa Hakko Kogyo, and Korean companies Sewon America Inc. and Cheil Jedang Ltd. A criminal investigation resulted in fines and three-year prison sentences for three executives of ADM who colluded with the other companies to fix prices. The foreign companies settled with the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division in September through December 1996. Each firm and four executives from the Asian firms pled guilty as part of a plea bargain to aid in further investigation against ADM. The cartel had been able to raise lysine prices 70% within their first nine months of cooperation
The Japanese also stole a proprietary bacteria from ADM. But of course, with all of your economics understanding,
you already knew that.Also, just google that phrase and you can find other actual cases documenting the fact that it is not a myth. LCD was also busted for international price collusion. So
duh!
Good point, and I'll concede that price collusions aren't a myth.
But you quoted out of context while completely ignoring:
Juan_Bottom wrote:Corporations spend their money on finding ways to make their workforce less costly, and yet be more efficient.
Corporations can be formed through local hardware stores in order to command lower prices by realizing the benefits of economies of scale. That's what "Harry's" Ace did, and it actually ensured local businesses' survival.
And if corporations can lower their costs, then they can charge lower prices for their goods--assuming of course they're operating within a competitive market, most of which are. And guess who benefits from lower costs from businesses? Everyone who can purchase the now cheaper good.[/quote]
You ignored this, and focused on a trivial point to prove that collusions aren't a myth. Good job. You're still being intellectually dishonest.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:That quote is about China, and it doesn't say that labor productivity did not increase the upper bounds of one's wages.
It did say that productivity was up while wages were down. Anyway, then match it up to when you said:
BigBallinStalin wrote:This is seen through the increase in China's worker wages, and it was happening to the entire world since the Industrial Revolution.
“With labor productivity in industry outpacing wage growth, wage costs have declined as a ratio of total value added, leaving a larger share for companies’ profits. These productivity increases have kept margins intact and profit growth high in recent years even though producer (“factory gate”) and consumer price increases have been significantly lower than raw material price increases.6 “
It says that labor productivity in industry
outpaced wage growth. It's not saying that wage growth is down, or negative. (wow... good job, JB)
And it fails to explain the following:
"
The upper bound is increased through one's labor productivity, which is from one's own labor, and from technological advances in increased productivity per laborer." is a myth.
As one's labor productivity increases, a worker can produce more revenue, thus with this higher revenue, he can command a higher price for his labor. He has effectively risen the upper bound.
This has been empirically proven as a country shifts its policies to more capitalistic ones. What I'm talking about has been increasing over the course of 100 to 150 years--which is why your 1979-2001 study is besides the point.
Have fun debunking that "myth." Here's why you shouldn't make claims about what you don't understand:
(labor productivity refers to productivity per labor---essentially).
wikipedia]Productivity improving technologies (historical) contains a list and discussion of several major technologies that have contributed to productivity since the industrial revolution. The article briefly describes improvements in living standards through the decline in hours worked and the increase in real wages.[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_improving_technologies_%28historical%29
inb4 "OMG WIKIPEDIA, BLERPA DERP DERP"
Check out the footnotes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_improving_technologies_%28historical%29#Footnotes
What I stated is a commonly supported fact, that even labor economists (who typically are anti-free markets and are more aligned with your ideology) agree with my supposed "myth." It's a commonly understood and factual "myth."
Granted, there are other factors that affect wages, it is still commonly accepted and an empirically proven fact that increases in labor productivity lead to an increase in wages.
And here's another reason why only looking at only narrow interpretations of data to explain long-term phenomena is not wise:
[quote]The gains in standards of living have been accomplished largely through increases in productivity. In the U.S. the amount of personal consumption that could be bought with one hour of work was about $3.00 in 1900 and increased to about $22 by 1990, measured in 2010 dollars.[25] [/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_improving_technologies_(historical)#Improvement_in_living_standards
[25]^ a b Pursuing Happiness: American Consumers in the Twentieth Century last=Lebergott. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1993. pp. a:Adapted from Fig. 9.1. ISBN 0-691-04322-1.
Although wages decreased for certain groups of people for a certain amount of time, does not mean that gains in labor productivity do not lead to higher wages (as you stated).
[quote="Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Yet you dictate that everyone should behave like you when it isn't even theoretically possible for everyone do so.
Again, that's a lie. I never said to dictate what everyone does. I have only spoken in generalities.
You dictated what people should do Juan:
Again:
Juan_Bottom wrote:The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans.
Here's you advocating that if everyone did it, it would be best for everyone else:
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Buying local, or primarily local, may not be what's best for everyone else--no matter how much you extrapolate your personal experiences onto everyone else's.
It would be best for everyone else, if everyone did it. That seems obvious. All your argument so far involves is cost to the individual consumer, while I'm genuinely talking about the cost to the nation, which will effect the cost to the individual. You're only talking about the illusion of the cost to the nation.
It bears repeating that even with your conditional phrase "if everyone did it," you still presume that you have the knowledge, judgment, and experience to know what is best for everyone. You simply don't no matter how you twist and turn things.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:It depends, which is why you can't dictate that everything is so simple according to your own personal experiences. You have to enable everyone's personal experiences to work. Your nationalist policy assume that since your experiences are good, so everyone's will be if they do what you do. It's a huge assumption.
I should hope, that because my argument is mostly health benefits and environmental benefits that everyone's experience would be good if they bought locally. Or baring a local farmer, one of those organic ones that don't feed beef corn. And don't pump their animals full of hormones and what-not.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Juan, they're talking about produce. Not about you riding your bike to Merle's farm. They're talking about how goods travel from many places to get where they may ultimately be sold. Not everything essential can be produced within 7 miles of your vicinity. It's just not as simple as you think it is.
But I was right, and that's what's important.
How much childish can you get, Juan? Your own reasoning doesn't support the information you presented, and you claim that you are right? It's not as simple as you think it is; therefore, (as I was originally stating) you can't use your one case to justify that you know what is best for everyone when you say things like:
Juan_Bottom wrote:The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:And did they research the travel of all goods or final goods? Did they double-count to beef up those numbers? Besides, it only discusses produce, and nothing about all the products related to produce. It's a limited study, and it doesn't support that your seemingly easy solution can be replicated by more than just you, Juan.
So what you're saying is, that most foods travel even further than my 1500 miles? So you're saying that I was like, twice as right as I was before?
And again, though I'm sure you've gotten the point, I didn't say that everyone had to replicate me. But obviously they should if they can. At least then those environmental concerns that you forgot to admit being very wrong about would be taken care of. (because of produce traveling more than 1500 miles)
JB, I'm asking about how that study was conducted because it's important to understand how statistics are calculated. Apparently, you can't answer my questions because you don't understand how they obtained those numbers; therefore, it is pointless for me to ask you about something you don't fully understand.
How can I be wrong about something I didn't state contradictory evidence to? I have been maintaining that the economic impact (which includes environmental impact) is hard to calculate. There are many reasons why, which I've stated earlier. Your numbers don't support your faith that "The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans" or even that "It would be best for everyone else, if everyone did it." Why? Because it provides no information related to economics, you know, t
o the actual economy (lol). You'll have to make the case that your limited facts support the above two quotes--that they OUTWEIGH the benefits in not buying only American products, or "if everyone bought American products."
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:I'll continue to buy locally until there's no where left to buy from.
You're still dictating what's best for others.
What are you, slow or something? I said "I'll do this" not "I'll make everyone do this."
Oh but you did. You just forget or you're a liar.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Your own example of an E.Coli breakout that affected X amount of people doesn't factor in the money saved from people consuming cheaper beef.
Besides, you can't just use one isolated example and then boldly declare that now you know what is best for everyone.
Who said it was isolated? I said that because of the distribution pattern of the large Cattle Baron's meat products, all outbreaks have a larger impact. Furthermore, this has been a string of outbreaks. And I'm not sure that I want to get into a debate about the value of someone's life verses the profits of a cattle baron. If you grass feed a cow for 5 days before slaughter you will remove 80% of E. coli 0157:H7. But they can't do that, because it would eat away at their profits.
I'm not saying the effects of E.Coli are isolated. It is foolish to suggest one case (or even a few), which don't mention any economics (hardly any have any numbers at all), support your opinions, and then say, "this is best for the economy. DERP."
And once again, you're being intellectually dishonest:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Your own example of an E.Coli breakout that affected X amount of people doesn't factor in the money saved from people consuming cheaper beef.
No response from you. If your data was good enough to make sweeping claims like you have done and do within this reply, then it should include at least the above point.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Is it affordable for everyone to feed grass to cattle? There's not enough resources for that, which explains why different businesses (local, small, medium, large) have used different means to produce beef.
Ah, yes there is. The only reason that corn is cheap is
because of taxpayer subsidizing because of lobbying from major corporations like Coca-Cola and the CAFO owners. As I already said. Because of that, we produce far more corn than we can consume. So Coca Cola gets their sweetener cheap, and the cows get their corn cheap too. Corn is loved by the cattle industry for it's fattening quality and because it's so cheap.
But this country has plenty of land to produce grass. In the end it's only about squeezing out all the profit they can.
Gee. I guess you have all the quantifiable data, JB. You could make gazillions of dollars that no one else realized![/sarcasm]
Reminds me of you ignoring this segment:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:Companies like Coca-Cola lobby congress and get them to subsidize corn and soybean farming. That way we produce more crops than we could hope to use. Then they can buy the crops very cheaply themselves and keep their costs for artificial sweeteners or whatever, cheap.
So who you calling narrow-minded? You haven't once - not once - talked about these "secret costs" that you are talking about. You mentioned tariffs though? You mean like the ones that allowed US Corn and Soybeans to put Mexican farmers out of business?
Anyway I have talked about the "secret costs." Personal health and environmental impact are two of them.
Coca-cola would be thrilled to purchase cheaper sugar if the import tariffs were lifted. The losers on that deal are Mansato and the few corporations who dominate the sugar industry.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Wikipedia, Juan? Try presenting your research to a professor and having your citation be wikipedia.org. I'm sure people within your own field of research with similar sentiments that you have expressed will be troubled as to why you feel that wikipedia is a credible source of information.
I didn't know that I needed encyclopedia Britannica for you to believe that deforestation and groundwater contamination can be a problem with agriculture.
You're just trying to play off the fact that you made the number #1 mistake in debating. You asked questions indignantly that you didn't already know the answer to.
As I said earlier, you have no empirical data listed. It's just broad statements. And in spirit of this discussion, if you don't have empirical data (you know, quantifiable fact), then you can't presume that you have the knowledge and experience and judgment to make sweeping decisions which would be best for everyone--like your "if everyone did [buy american], then it would be good. (paraphrased)"
[Thanks for answering my question on globalization, but you forgot something]
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Don't you feel any care in the world for those people who live in poorer countries? Why not buy their products for the cheaper price so that you can help even poorer people in this world? Why harbor such a nationalist, narrow-minded view?
This is a terribly bad argument. I already brought up how in many places you can buy American-imported Corn or Soybeans cheaper than you can buy locally grown crops.
You're beloved globalization is actually putting some of the poorest farmers and sharecroppers in the whole world out of business.
Juan, American-imported corn and soybeans aren't cheap for the 1 billion making about a $1 a day. American agricultural products are primarily consumed by countries that can afford them (namely developed and developed countries like India and China).
What does put people out of business in poor countries are import tariffs in American markets. It increases their price, so those poorer countries can't compete as well as the American prices can. Besides, your import tariffs benefit corporations like Mansato and the American sugar industry (which is dominated by a few large corporations).[/quote]
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote: If you oppose such the abolition of such import tariffs, then you're supporting Mansato and the sugar industry.
No, there I was talking about how free trade (NAFTA) abolished the protection tariffs that Mexico had and killed all their farms. It must have hurt Canadian farms too, I'm certain.
All of their farms? All of them? Oh jeez, I would love to read about how all of Mexico's farms were killed by removing import tariffs. (Only import tariffs, right, Juan? Because that's what you're positing). I'll patiently await this information.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Most everything uses cheap, American taxpayer-subsidized corn. Also, your "real income" doesn't increase if you send your jobs overseas does it? Rather, some other companies "real income" does instead. What happens when an entire industry goes bankrupt because it cannot compete with cheap foreign goods? Tariffs exist for a reason.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131709&start=150#p3149053They certainly do exist for a reason, which is primarily to support American businesses (the sugar and corn industry--Mansato included).
Don't you see the unintended consequences of import tariffs?
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Perhaps you could recommend a good book for me?
You don't need one. Just listen to the derry brownfield show and move to a farm. What's wrong with summarizing through Wiki?
He died. Got anything else? Just kidding.
Radio talk shows are great, but they have limited depth compared to books (which may explain how you construct your arguments, how you defend your points, and how you feel no need to present data on economics (which can include environmental information) in order to support your stance that:
Juan_Bottom wrote:The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Buying local, or primarily local, may not be what's best for everyone else--no matter how much you extrapolate your personal experiences onto everyone else's.
It would be best for everyone else, if everyone did it. That seems obvious. All your argument so far involves is cost to the individual consumer, while I'm genuinely talking about the cost to the nation, which will effect the cost to the individual. You're only talking about the illusion of the cost to the nation.
Or even if buying locally first, and then outward is good enough for everyone to do.
________________
I looked at the bits you summarized and they don't mention enough information for me to jump on your "buy American" or "if everyone bought American, then it would best" because there's hardly information that relates to the economic impact (you know, the economy, and how everyone is affected by it?). Your environmental impact assessment largely lacks quantifiable data and has hardly any (if at all) data related to the economics of decided to follow your advice (namely expressed in your two standpoints:
Juan_Bottom wrote:The best thing to do, is to buy American, and to buy in season. The plant will taste better, it will be more likely to be natural, and it'll help out Americans.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Buying local, or primarily local, may not be what's best for everyone else--no matter how much you extrapolate your personal experiences onto everyone else's.
It would be best for everyone else, if everyone did it. That seems obvious. All your argument so far involves is cost to the individual consumer, while I'm genuinely talking about the cost to the nation, which will effect the cost to the individual. You're only talking about the illusion of the cost to the nation.
Juan_Bottom wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
Would you care to recommend a book or two about this? I've already got The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability, so is there anything else you could offer?
No. And obviously I wont read yours either.
Really? Because that book talks a lot about environmental costs--a point you're trying to make!
You see, Juan, I'm open to exposing myself to new ideas, but you will flat out say, "No" to anything that might counter your own. That's called being close-minded.
Juan_Bottom wrote:I live in the Midwest. I know how Monsanto is with it's predatory pre-lawsuit business model. I know how Purdue intentionally keeps farmers profits down to control the farm. I know how the beef industry works. And how companies keep employees wages down while simultaneously increasing profits. I don't think that I need a degree in farming because I've lived the life. I've worked/lived on various farms since I could carry a 5-gallon pail.
That's good, Juan. You have the experience related to those corporations and how they operate
within your immediate area. However, in order for me to find your claims that "if everyone bought local, it would be best" is really a good idea, then you have to support it with knowledge and experience that goes beyond the personal.
