John D. Giorgis said:
> At 09:36 PM 1/25/01 +1100, Autarch wrote:
> >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.
> The US is currently experiencing record low unemployment - so there are
> plenty of jobs to be had.
The war on drugs is in effect a war on minorities who are most likely to be
competing for the less skilled jobs. The resulting increase in prison
population distorts America's unemployment rate statistic. (I can provide
fuller reasoning and references for this if anyone is interested.)
> I'll admit to not be up on the state of the
> Australian economy, so I can't comment.
> > 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.
> The Nike example is anecdotal
Snipped Nike example follows:
===============
"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/"
===============
snip vague generalisation
> 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.
Autarch advised a cost of $5 and a selling price of $200. I do not know how
much is paid to Micheal Jordan. Nor do I know how many units Nike produces
in total but IIRC 10 million shoes p.a. are made in Vietnam. Nike also has
factories in Indonesia, Thailand, China and probably other places as well.
If I assume that 50 million units are produced p.a. and that MJ is paid 50
million p.a., then the added cost per unit for the endorsement is only one
dollar.
Your original argument was that by shifting production overseas, costs would
decrease and all Americans would benefit through lower prices and increased
wealth for "many" shareholding middle class Americans.
You are now attempting to justify prices not decreasing by stating that
those prices represent value to the consumer.
By doing so you have contradicted all the monetary benefits in your original
argument except for the increased wealth for "many" shareholding middle
class Americans.
Change middle class to upper class and you may be approaching reality.
"Since 1975, practically all the gains in [US] household income have gone to
the top 20% of households."
CIA World Factbook 2000.
> > Jobs are not moved to lower wage conditions out
> >of any sort of altruism - greed is the common reason.
> Who said anything about altruism?
Your original response to Kristin's dismay at jobs being moved offshore
asked "Which is the more socially responsible option?". So you said altruism
was your main reason with financial benefits for all being an "additional"
factor.
> I was talking about the invisible hand.
> 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.
Your argument has now changed but has still been discredited.
snip
> 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.
So when GW Bush's grandfather was paid well over a million for being a
director of the bank that was secretly owned by the Nazis and handled fund
raising and banking services for the Nazis in the US before and during WW2,
was he making a contribution to society equivalent to a life time of labour
for a factory worker?
GW Bush is reputed to have consistently lost family money in his attempts at
being an entrepreneur but he "made $14.9 million from the sale of the Texas
Rangers, a 25-fold return on his investment of $606,302. The team's
phenomenal rise in value was directly tied to a new stadium financed by more
than $200 million in public subsidies and tax incentives. Taxpayers didn't
get a return from the Rangers' surging new revenues. The profits went almost
exclusively to the team's owners." NY Times, August 3 2000.
Some make a contribution to society for minuscule rewards. Others take from
society.
Bob.
