|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| OculisOrbis wrote: |
What good are cheaper goods when the American consumers either A) no longer have jobs that pay as much as they used to, or B) no longer have jobs at all? Please explain how that is a net gain to anyone other than the executives and shareholders that dont actually produce anything?
Perhaps I also just illustrated why the gap between upper and lower class is increasing and the entire middle class is shrinking...... |
Umm I will repeat Senior's remark: "Your edit still assumes that the number of jobs is finite. When a good becomes cheaper, it opens up surplus capital to produce other goods. " I pesonally would say "opens up surplus capital to produce other goods and services."
I generally use Apple as an example. It shifts production to China. Higher profits right? Sucks to be that factory worker in the States. What does Apple do with that money? Give it back to the shareholder? Eh no, Apple has no dividend. It puts it into R&D and it comes up with a new product (the iPod-->iPhone-->Ipad, etc). While that new product might be built in China, here in the USA it:
1. Is designed by engineers here
2. Sales are forecasted by American business planners
3. Supply chain is set up and planned by logistics experts here in America (and perhaps in the location of the factory and elsewhere outside the USA admittedly)
4. Product distribution is overseen by Americans at HQ
5. Marketed by Americans both w/in Apple and at ad agencies.
6. Sold by Apple stores here in the USA staffed by Americans
7. Accountants/bookkeepers overseeing the finances.
And those are just off the top of my head.
Now if Apple did not shift that production overseas, it would not be as effective in creating new products, and the number of people in categories 1-6 would be significantly smaller.
So while it sucks to be a factory worker, the overall economy and well-being of the country improves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
OculisOrbis
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| OculisOrbis wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| OculisOrbis wrote: |
| Actually, I edited some of my post while you were writing yours (even though 'everyone else' doesnt include the original worker's family). I hope it addressed your concern. Sorry, I didnt get it up quicker. |
Cool.
Your edit still assumes that the number of jobs is finite. When a good becomes cheaper, it opens up surplus capital to produce other goods.
You're are looking at the effect on one group, but failing to see the effect on society as a whole. Don't do that. It's a mistake to make value judgment based on a tiny sector of the total economy. |
What good are cheaper goods when the American consumers either A) no longer have jobs that pay as much as they used to, or B) no longer have jobs at all? Please explain how that is a net gain to anyone other than the executives and shareholders that dont actually produce anything?
Perhaps I also just illustrated why the gap between upper and lower class is increasing and the entire middle class is shrinking...... |
The 20% real unemployment rate in the states isn't caused by Mexicans taking all the gardening and house keeping jobs. |
You're are looking at the effect 'FROM' one group, but failing to see the effect on society as a whole. Don't do that. It's a mistake to make value judgment based on a tiny sector of the total economy.
I just quoted you, but changed one word (my change is in caps)......and you didnt answer my questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You're are looking at the effect 'FROM' one group, but failing to see the effect on society as a whole. Don't do that. It's a mistake to make value judgment based on a tiny sector of the total economy.
I just quoted you, but changed one word (my change is in caps)......and you didnt answer my questions. |
You're right, he didn't. Senior, if you're going to espouse free markets, you need to improve your ability in defending them. 
Regardless, as I noted above, society as a whole can benefit. Right now there ARE jobs out there that are available. Alas the labor market does not match the skills those jobs require. The question is when will they realign with one another? Obviously the sooner or better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| *obviously sooner THE better (not or). Can't use the edit function on this computer sadly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OculisOrbis
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| OculisOrbis wrote: |
What good are cheaper goods when the American consumers either A) no longer have jobs that pay as much as they used to, or B) no longer have jobs at all? Please explain how that is a net gain to anyone other than the executives and shareholders that dont actually produce anything?
Perhaps I also just illustrated why the gap between upper and lower class is increasing and the entire middle class is shrinking...... |
Umm I will repeat Senior's remark: "Your edit still assumes that the number of jobs is finite. When a good becomes cheaper, it opens up surplus capital to produce other goods. " I pesonally would say "opens up surplus capital to produce other goods and services."
I generally use Apple as an example. It shifts production to China. Higher profits right? Sucks to be that factory worker in the States. What does Apple do with that money? Give it back to the shareholder? Eh no, Apple has no dividend. It puts it into R&D and it comes up with a new product (the iPod-->iPhone-->Ipad, etc). While that new product might be built in China, here in the USA it:
1. Is designed by engineers here
2. Sales are forecasted by American business planners
3. Supply chain is set up and planned by logistics experts here in America (and perhaps in the location of the factory and elsewhere outside the USA admittedly)
4. Product distribution is overseen by Americans at HQ
5. Marketed by Americans both w/in Apple and at ad agencies.
6. Sold by Apple stores here in the USA staffed by Americans
7. Accountants/bookkeepers overseeing the finances.
And those are just off the top of my head.
Now if Apple did not shift that production overseas, it would not be as effective in creating new products, and the number of people in categories 1-6 would be significantly smaller.
So while it sucks to be a factory worker, the overall economy and well-being of the country improves. |
So by taking away the higher paying production jobs that allowed a single family member to support their family, you force both parent to work in the lower paying service industry that offers less job security and benefits and this,in turn, creates jobs for daycare workers - so there is a net gain in the number of jobs and this benefits the economy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
You're too focused on the immediate, short term impact on the factory worker. Like I said, all those categories I listed grow. Yes, a net gain in the number of jobs benefits the economy.
And no, not everyone gains. Senior said that from the beginning.
Let's flip it around. Ok, let's not shift production so that dude can continue working in that factory. The number of professionals doesn't increase, and in fact might decrease. Meanwhile some company overseas comes out with some innovative product that passes whatever the factory worker is making. Let's assume he's fortunate enough to ride it out and not be laid off due to that foreign company's product beating the crap out of whatever he's making. Well his kids are screwed because 1. their father's employer sure isn't growing 2. if they are fortunate to be more highly educated than him, they will have a much bigger challenge gettting a professional job beecause companies decided to put their money towards their high labor costs instead of R&D. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
And just in case you are tempted to say: "Well can't a company continue production in the USA AND put money into R&D?" Yes, some can. Intel has to some extent. But others simply cannot do so in order to stay competitive. Perhaps they'd like to, but if they're the only ones in their market doing so, they're going to get trampled.
For better or worse, globalization is here. We're going to have to adjust and deal with it. It isn't useful focusing on the past.
And yes, even some factory workers have profited from globalization. The big Japanese car companies have factories here in the USA, as does Hyundai, BMW, and Mercedes. My brother has worked on Boeing airplanes for 20+ years. He can thank the global market for his job stability. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OculisOrbis
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So basically what youre saying is that the middle class is screwed no matter what we do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So basically what youre saying is that the middle class is screwed no matter what we do? |
No, of course not. I wasn't aware being a white collared worker wasn't middle class. Engineers, marketers, logistitics people, accountants, etc etc. Are those not middle class? Sure, some are more than that, some are less. Plus there are plumbers, electricians, tech guys (installing IT systems, who knows what else), heating/cooling installers, etc. AND they pay well. Just as well if not better than the jobs I listed above.
You're being way too focused on the factory worker in an inefficient industry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OculisOrbis
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm just saying that the sum of those jobs created that you referred to through the deference of manufacturing jobs is going to be less than if the manufacturing jobs remained intact. If you donthave the factory, youre going to require lessplumbers electricians, engineers, etc... Many of those jobs would still be there if the manufacturing jobs remained local so youre still looking at a net loss of reasonably waged jobs that were replaced with low paying service industry jobs. And if you want to talk about peripheral jobs, then why not mention the trucking, rail, and warehouse (to name a few) jobs that were lost when the manufacturing jobs went international? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And if you want to talk about peripheral jobs, then why not mention the trucking, rail, and warehouse (to name a few) jobs that were lost when the manufacturing jobs went international? |
They weren't lost though. Rail is booming like never before (the Economist had an article on it in this week's issue). Trucking isn't hurting. If it were, why did UPS and FedEx a few years ago buy out trucking companies in order to start their own freight trucking services? Because it is a growing industry! And the ports?? While they aren't booming like they were 3 years ago, they were bursting beyond capacity then. At least now there isn't a huge backlog of ships waiting to dump off their cargo. If and when the economy turns around, well, odds are those ports will be in that position yet again.
And warehouse jobs? Ha, are you kidding me? They haven't gone anywhere either. Those imports have to be stored somewhere.  For instance my former employer- an importer of textiles (made in China). When I started, the company used 3rd party warehouses. A few months after I began, the company got its own warehouse, but still used one of those 3PL warehouses. 3 years later? It has TWO warehouses, both larger than the original one.
Once again, I'm not saying everything is a-ok, I'm just saying things aren't as bleak as you make them out to be. The economy is in the toilet because of the easy cash a few years ago and the crazy amounts people spent on crap and bad investments. And, as I said way back when, there needs to be a significant shift in the labor force's skills. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BB, this is masterful work here. I wish I could argue globalization as well as you.
Wait, if I cut and copy your words into emails, I can! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ha, well it is one thing I am strongly believe in and I've had many discussions about it, so yeah, it has been an ever-evolving argument. It also helped that I worked for a company where I saw the immediate (beneficial) impact of cheap imports from China. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Completely off topic, but Mexicans doing those jobs cheaper is a net gain to the US.
Firstly, the number of jobs isn't a set finite number. People tend to forget that. It is possible for the total number of jobs to increase.
Which leads me to my main point. If some one is willing to do the job cheaper, yes it sucks for the person who used to be payed more to do it, but everyone else gains! The Mexican, the business owner and the consumer of the final product.
What does this mean? More jobs! There is now more surplus in the economy which will be spent on other things. Someone needs to provide these other goods. Which will mean more jobs and more of everything for everyone. The exact same is true of off shoring, eg call center operators to India.
Contrary to popular belief, cheaper goods and services are actually a good thing! |
I like this post a lot.
It is a wonderful post and ironic since there is debate about hiring people from outside the Anglophonic world to teach English in Korea.
There was a thread about it recently and many of the posters were against the idea, saying things like "They don't know the context as well as a natural Native speaker does.." and so on.
I am finding that people are only utilitarian only when it suits their interests.
I am not saying the poster of this post is that way- but many of the posters on this forum in general.
Oh!...should I roll my eyes like this?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
