Harry Pollard wrote: > I'll take the time to nobble it if you like, but just > remember the object is not to work, but to receive. Wages > are more important than the expenditure of exertion.
And the wages of those who have been fired due to outsourcing to China are .......... zero. > If other people are supplying us with things - who is better > off? Those who work in the factories, or those who enjoy the > fruits of that exertion? The shareholders are better off. Those who got fired cannot buy that fancy consumerist stuff. ---- Keith Hudson wrote: > The comparative advantage of capital is no different from the comparative > advantage of traded goods. It's a two-way traffic. The Chinese are now > beginning to invest directly in America in just the same way as American > firms have been investing in China. The investments will go to the firms > and sectors in America which offer opportunities for the most efficient > methods (as devised by the Chinese management). For example, Hyundai Motors > are investing over $1 billion in Alabama (and, of course, offering new jobs > for Alabamans) because the Koreans feel that they can produce a better car, > and more cheaply, than General Motors. Obviously, there is a big imbalance: many more jobs are outsourced to low-wage countries than the other way round. With increased mobility of workers and goods, the jobs will logically accumulate in the countries with the lowest wages and the least enviro and labor regulations. This can even be observed inside the EU. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
