>> I say WHAST ABOUT ALL THE
>>POOR HARDWORKING PEOPLE YOU JUST LAID OFF YOU F***ING GREEDY
>>BASTARDS?!?!?!!! FOr someone in China to get a job someobody in America
>>has to LOSE HIS. Gravitating to the lowest wages.
>
>Which is the more socially responisble option?
>A) Providing a job to an American, who living in a solid economy at
>nearly full employment has lots of other potential job opportunities.
This is not the situation. I don't know what the situation is in the USA -
but given comparison to Australia, a laid off manual labourer can't count
on immediate reemployment. Usually the worker involved is living from
paycheck to paycheck - and the interval between jobs (given that he can
find another with a limited skillset) will be a severe difficulty.
>B) Providing a job to an impoverished citizen of a Third World country,
>who without your job would likely be unemployed or working for much lower
>wages. Additionally, by employing cheaper labor you can produce your
>rechargeable batteries much cheaper allowing you to earn higher profits,
>which is translated into increased wealth for many share-holding middle
>class Americans. Moreover, even while boosting your profits you are also
>able to lower your prices to undercut your competition (boosting volume,
>and thereby profits), which also makes your products available to many poor
>American that could not ordinarily afford your products, and boosting the
>overall health of the American economy.
This economic theory has about as much validity as the "trickle-down" ideas
of the 80s. You assume good will on the part of the CEOs - when they have
no incentive to do such. Operations are moved to lower wage conditions but
rarely do prices come down.
Standard example is Nike- they pay less than US5$ for each pair (made in
3rd world) - yet they are sold for far more than that. I can't speak as to
prices in the USA, but in Australia they can be up 400$ (~200US).
This is real world /fact/. While I think Kristin was a little strident - I
agree with her completely. Jobs are not moved to lower wage conditions out
of any sort of altruism - greed is the common reason.
>Wow.... tough choice.
It is an issue of ideology - there is no way you or I can agree.
Perspectives this different are usually irreconcilable :)
>
>>Oh, well, can you wave a magic wand to
>>instantly turn veteran factory workers into high wage techies? THey are
>>all going to end up working at McDonalds at minimum wage and no benefits!!
>
>No, you cannot. But, most Middle Class Americans these days have a
>college education, and I woudl recommend that they get one also.
>Otherwise, they will have to settle for being a member of the lower
>classes. Simple manual labor is no longer a highly valued commodity in
>this country, and it is irrational to expect it to continue to be highly
>valued.
So, unless you have a college education you don't deserve a living wage?
This is a rather extreme position to take.
>
>Let's face it, educated workers *must* earn more than unskilled workers.
>Otherwise, there would be no incentive for getting an education.
This is true - but it doesn't mean that those lacking a higher education
can't expect a decent wage.
