At 19:39 24-1-01 -0500, John Giorgis wrote:
>At 01:53 PM 1/24/01 -0800, Kristin "flaming pinko" Ruhle wrote:
> > 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?
Congratulations John, you just discovered the point where capitalist theory
collides big-time with capitalist practice.
>A) Providing a job to an American, who living in a solid economy at
>nearly full employment has lots of other potential job opportunities.
Lots of other job opportunities? If you're still in your late teens or
early twenties, yes. But when you get older and loose your job, it's gonna
be quite hard to find an other job. Why? Because you're older, which means
you're a) more expensive and b) you can't be useful (read: exploited) for
as long as a 20-year-old can be. And that's just in a booming economy. If
you're over 30 and loose your job during a recession, your chances of
getting an other job are close to zero.
(Note: with "an other job" I mean a job that matches your training and
experience, not the "do you want fries with that" kind of job.)
>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.
Wrong! Companies move their factories to Third World countries exactly
because there they can let people work for a wage that's next to nothing.
If an average Third World citizen works for $1.00 per day, no US company
will suddenly start paying them $2.00 per day. As you pointed out yourself,
those next-to-nothing wages are the prime reason for moving production
lines to the Third World. That, and the nice side effect that you don't
have to worry about all those unpleasant things like decent labor
conditions, safety regulations and those damned Labor Unions.
>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.
And exactly how many middle class Americans have shares in this particular
company? A few thousand perhaps? Further, moving your production lines to
the Third World is anything but helping the non-share-holding working class
Americans who loose their job because of that move. And in case you didn't
know: the middle class people don't *work* on a production line -- they're
the ones that *own* the production lines...
>Moreover, even while boosting your profits you are also
>able to lower your prices to undercut your competition (boosting volume,
>and thereby profits),
Wrong again. Even while you're still producing in the US, your prices
already have to be competitive if you want to survive at all. Further, you
can't lower your prices too far because that might actually cost you your
market share. Reasoning: many customers will not buy your batteries if they
are much cheaper than the competition's batteries, for the simple reason
that a much lower price is usually an indication of inferior quality.
I suppose they didn't teach you this in college, John, but contrary to what
capitalist theory says, substantially lower costs do *not* lead to
substantially lower consumer prices -- they only lead to higher profit
margins, which benefit only the factory owners and the share holders.
>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.
<sarcasm>
Yeah, sure. After all, we all know that owning rechargable batteries is of
vital importance to poor Americans in order to survive... Who cares about
getting food on the table -- it's those rechargable batteries they need!
</sarcasm>
> >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.
Sure. If they can afford it. The lower class usually doesn't have the money
to pay for such an education, and they don't all get full scholarships
either...
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
Brin-L Party Page: http://www.geocities.com/jeroenvb.geo/party.html
