At 06:33 PM 1/26/01 +1100, Autarch wrote:
>While I can't provide facts and figures or even a concrete
>example, I understand that most manufacturing workers in develo[ing nations
>live considerably below independently determined "poverty lines".
I strongly suspect you understand wrong. Workers in even the worst
manufacturing environments in the developing world, are usually earning
more than the $1 a day of the unemployed or workers in subsistence
agriculture.
>>Besides, you are improperly valuing the Nike sneaker as the sum of its
>>manufactured parts, without considering the value of Michael Jordan's
>>endorsement - which accounts for almost all of the value of the sneaker to
>>the consumer.
>
>What? There is no profit involved for Nike Co.?
I did not say this. Rather, you were arguing that a fair value of the
Nike sneaker would be the sum of its parts. This suggests that Nike is
making an exorbitant profit. I am pointing out that you neglect the
value to the sneaker of Michael Jordan's endorsement, which is very
significant - and thus produces a much less exorbitant profit.
>>> Jobs are not moved to lower wage conditions out
>>>of any sort of altruism - greed is the common reason.
>>
>>Who said anything about altruism? I was talking about the invisible hand.
>
>Laissez Faire? I was of the opinion that that idea had been thrown on the
>scrap heap with many other monetarist principles.
Think again.
>>Let me but it a different way - I am not saying that the way the company
>>arrived at its decision was altruistic. I am saying that the altruistic
>>decision and the company's decisions are identical.
>
>Let us take your argument to it's end. Would it not lead to all companies
>taking their manufacturing base to the developing world? After all, it is
>cheaper, and it provides great benefit to the originating nation. What
>would be the effects of such a situation?
An excellent question! (I asked Jeroen the same thing.)
The answer of course is that the reason workers in developing countries
earn such low wages is that they are much less productive and reliable than
the highly skilled, highly educated, professional work forces of developed
countries. Workers from developing countries veyr often can't compete
with these workers.
There are other reasons as well, for instance, the high costs of moving,
higher transportation costs, les reliable governments, etc.
Neglecting that for a moment, though, if companies were acting
altruistically and moving as many jobs as economically possible to the
developing world - what would happen is that demand for workers in
developing countries would rise, producing a concomitant rise in wages.
Eventually, the wages of the developed world would decrease as well, as the
supply of jobs in developed countries fell. In the end, wages would reach
an equilibrium level worldwide, with all workers earning a wage roughly
equal to what they produce.
>>>So, unless you have a college education you don't deserve a living wage?
>>>This is a rather extreme position to take.
>>
>>What's a living wage? There are a great many people in this world
>>*living* on just dollars a day. The minium wages of the developed world
>>are almost exorbitant by comparison.
>
>So unless you have an education, you should be reduced to a subsistence
>situation? I can't accept that either.
The minimum wage is much more than a subsistence situation in this conutry.
>>My position is that your wage should be determined in part by your
>>contribution to society. The value you bring to the market should be the
>>value you bring home from your market. If you are unskilled, then you are
>>likely not producing much value, and should expect your work to be valued
>>as such - minimum wage.
>
>Who declares what is valuable - and what level of recompsense you should
>receive?
The free market. You sell the products of your labors on the free market
for as much as you possibly can.
> A number of individuals who earn truly exorbitant wages provide
>very little to society. Frequently these are the same class of individuals
>who determine what the "working class" (used with caution) should receive.
>Do you accept that the work a divorce lawyer or tax accountant does is more
>valuable then a farmer?
Yes. Quite frankly, the world has too many farmers. In the US our
government supports many inefficient farmers through transfer payments. In
the developing world, there is a sever shortage of modern agricultural
techniques.
Being a divorce lawyer or a tax accountant, however, requires a very high
level of training and skill - to become one, a worker must invest
significantly in education, and that market must reward that. Moreover,
the work is very difficult, and not terribly rewarding. Thus, these
workers are in short supply (as opposed to farmers, which we have an excess
of.) Thus, divorce lawyers and tax accountants should be paid high wages
to attract more people to these professions. Farmers, on the other hand,
should be paid low wages, to encourage people to leave these professions.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ
#3527685
"Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today:
to make our country more just and generous; to affirm the dignity of
our lives and every life." - George W. Bush Inaugural Address 1/20/01
