casper_t_f_g
New member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2005
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
casper_t_f_g said:Been to WalMart recently? Amazed at great deals on all sorts of goods? Me too.
I remember this concept I learned in college--Real cost. What you pay for an item is independent from what the real cost of that item is. There is the cost of producing the item, then the cost of shipping it to the store, then the cost of the labor to sell it, the overhead for the store, the cost of the liability of selling the item, the profit margin for both the producer and the retailer, etc.
We are fixated on sticker price. Low sticker price means great deal, right? Well, not really. WalMart (and others) tries to cut costs around the board by matching cost of producing as much as possible with sticker price. This is fine, as long as only american goods are bought and sold. This is not the case. They outsource their labor to China in order to avoid having to pass on the cost of humane working conditions to us.
The real cost of shopping for goods at places like WalMart (all retailers do it, I use Walmart as an example b/c they are the biggest) is in american jobs. We are rotting out the core of our economy. The government should prtect us by raising the cost of trade with other countries. We would then have to pay the actual cost of goods, and that would benefit us in the long term.
What you are talkng about would raise the cost of consumer goods in in the USA. In such a consumerist society, do you really think the public would go for that?casper_t_f_g said:Been to WalMart recently? Amazed at great deals on all sorts of goods? Me too.
I remember this concept I learned in college--Real cost. What you pay for an item is independent from what the real cost of that item is. There is the cost of producing the item, then the cost of shipping it to the store, then the cost of the labor to sell it, the overhead for the store, the cost of the liability of selling the item, the profit margin for both the producer and the retailer, etc.
We are fixated on sticker price. Low sticker price means great deal, right? Well, not really. WalMart (and others) tries to cut costs around the board by matching cost of producing as much as possible with sticker price. This is fine, as long as only american goods are bought and sold. This is not the case. They outsource their labor to China in order to avoid having to pass on the cost of humane working conditions to us.
The real cost of shopping for goods at places like WalMart (all retailers do it, I use Walmart as an example b/c they are the biggest) is in american jobs. We are rotting out the core of our economy. The government should prtect us by raising the cost of trade with other countries. We would then have to pay the actual cost of goods, and that would benefit us in the long term.
You bring up an interesting argument, outsourcing kinda scares me because we don't know how far the process will go, anything economically that tips the balance can be a major problem, but the lower price argument also is pretty airtight it would make sense that the added savings to those who just got outsourced may give them a breather till they can replace said job. But I don't know, the complexities of the situation are staggering. As far as the "third world exploitation" thing goes, I don't think that someone working for a more valuable currency than their own will complain to much at any rate, so I absolutely agree with you on that point.Connecticutter said:I find it hard to believe that these foreign workers would be better off if they were not exploited by our companies. How can we claim to help these impoverished workers in the third world by bringing our companies home if we cut off their best bet for making a living?
In terms of losing American jobs - I'm yet convinced that this is going to be a problem. We have a strong economy and people that get layed off will be able to find new work.
If wages are cut because we are competing with third world workers - wouldn't that be offset by the reduction in prices that outsourcing permits?
galenrox said:I think that it is important to understand, at the most basic level, what labor is, and what jobs are. Companies don't give jobs just to be nice. Firms are consumers, and what they consume is labor. The workers are the supplier, and they have the option to sell this labor at any given price, as long as it's higher than the price floor (minimum wage).
Now I'll explain this all in cigarette terms, so if you don't understand the analogy, let me know, and I'll try another one. American labor is better than Chinese, because the unions do require certain standards in their members. But the Chinese do it cheaper. So in describing labor, let's say America is Marlboro, and China is GPCs. If you want a nice cigarette, you buy Marlboro, but if you just need the nicotine, you get the GPCs.
So is it really fair to raise the cost of labor for a group that all they have as an advantage is that they're willing to do it for less? And is it unfair to use cheap labor if the laborers are willing to work for that amount?
Just look at the current state of the Japanese economy, and you'll see the effect of an isolationist stance on economics.
aquapub said:I had my arms up in the air, confused during Election 2004, when liberals touted outsourcing as a Republican flaw.
DEMOCRATS make hiring Americans unaffordable (needlessly) by supporting so thoroughly, the only legalized mafia left in America-labor unions. Union bosses help themselves while the worker, the company, and the country all get screwed.
DEMOCRATS promote the unreasonably encumbering regulations, bureaucratic red tape, and high taxes that drive businesses out of America.
DEMOCRATS refuse to let even the mildest of tort reforms put a leash on the epidemic of frivolous lawsuits wrecking our health care system and killing jobs.
Democrats are almost single-handedly WHY we lose jobs to China and India. Republicans should treat this as one of THEIR issues.
casper_t_f_g said:Been to WalMart recently? Amazed at great deals on all sorts of goods? Me too.
I remember this concept I learned in college--Real cost. What you pay for an item is independent from what the real cost of that item is. There is the cost of producing the item, then the cost of shipping it to the store, then the cost of the labor to sell it, the overhead for the store, the cost of the liability of selling the item, the profit margin for both the producer and the retailer, etc.
We are fixated on sticker price. Low sticker price means great deal, right? Well, not really. WalMart (and others) tries to cut costs around the board by matching cost of producing as much as possible with sticker price. This is fine, as long as only american goods are bought and sold. This is not the case. They outsource their labor to China in order to avoid having to pass on the cost of humane working conditions to us.
The real cost of shopping for goods at places like WalMart (all retailers do it, I use Walmart as an example b/c they are the biggest) is in american jobs. We are rotting out the core of our economy. The government should prtect us by raising the cost of trade with other countries. We would then have to pay the actual cost of goods, and that would benefit us in the long term.
I didn't take their $300 dollar certification test! :mrgreen: I never stated I was the best, Thank You! I was stating my self employment.galenrox said:Alright, so you're the best, but you're not the cheapest. The companies want the cheapest, not the best. So why should they have to hire you? You're not what they want.
galenrox said:Now I'll explain this all in cigarette terms, so if you don't understand the analogy, let me know, and I'll try another one. American labor is better than Chinese, because the unions do require certain standards in their members. But the Chinese do it cheaper. So in describing labor, let's say America is Marlboro, and China is GPCs. If you want a nice cigarette, you buy Marlboro, but if you just need the nicotine, you get the GPCs.
galenrox said:And I'm sorry, I really don't want to sound callous, but that's just how it is. What do you suggest instead? Forcing people to purchase labor from people that do not meet their current needs?
Bravo.... well stated... the proliferation of walmart as a central employer and retailer in this country has begun to destroy us. The fact that the main future goal they have is growth in countries like China scares me even more. We need higher tarriffs now. I don't think barely any of the population realizes that the money they are saving now is creating a trade deficite dependancy which is one of many factors that could allow one of our greatest future adversaries the ability to single handidly crush our economy. After China puts us into true depression, inflation skyrockets, and unemployment booms... will saving that $1.05 on the garlic roasted cheezits and lawn chair really seem like it was worth it?casper_t_f_g said:Been to WalMart recently? Amazed at great deals on all sorts of goods? Me too.
I remember this concept I learned in college--Real cost. What you pay for an item is independent from what the real cost of that item is. There is the cost of producing the item, then the cost of shipping it to the store, then the cost of the labor to sell it, the overhead for the store, the cost of the liability of selling the item, the profit margin for both the producer and the retailer, etc.
We are fixated on sticker price. Low sticker price means great deal, right? Well, not really. WalMart (and others) tries to cut costs around the board by matching cost of producing as much as possible with sticker price. This is fine, as long as only american goods are bought and sold. This is not the case. They outsource their labor to China in order to avoid having to pass on the cost of humane working conditions to us.
The real cost of shopping for goods at places like WalMart (all retailers do it, I use Walmart as an example b/c they are the biggest) is in american jobs. We are rotting out the core of our economy. The government should prtect us by raising the cost of trade with other countries. We would then have to pay the actual cost of goods, and that would benefit us in the long term.
galenrox said:But what do you suggest? Employers are simply consumers, and if you force them to hire here, that would be like if you were forced to buy a Bentley when you want a Toyota, they want something else.
-- Through the end of 2002, the U.S. lost 879,280 jobs as a result of NAFTA - jobs that formerly existed and were eliminated as well as those that were created in other countries instead of here as a result of the growing U.S. trade deficit. Nearly four-fifths of the job losses were in manufacturing industries.
casper_t_f_g said:The real cost of shopping for goods at places like WalMart (all retailers do it, I use Walmart as an example b/c they are the biggest) is in american jobs. We are rotting out the core of our economy. The government should prtect us by raising the cost of trade with other countries. We would then have to pay the actual cost of goods, and that would benefit us in the long term.
Konstantine said:A trade war with nations across the globe would not help us in the long run. Although Bush's steel tariffs were admittedly nothing more than a campaign ploy, those tariffs do illustrate the hardline reaction on the part of the EU and Japan. Protectionism is flawed and the global economy is too interconnected for the US government to unilaterally (remember that word?) and artificially increase the cost of global trade.
Oh but in a "democratic" world everyone is equal . . . .so they lower the standard of living in this country to make it "equal" to the third world countries . . . .
galenrox said:It's cool, don't worry, I don't keep time limits on when you can respond :lol:
I think you're missing the overall concept of what outsourcing actually is. Everything done in commerce, at its most basic level, is buying and selling. And just about no one just buys or just sells. In the case of labor, the worker plays the role of the supplier, and the employer plays the role of the consumer, and the employee is selling the employer his/her labor, capital (in this particular instance it's his/her education or experience), and entrepeneurship (ability to take risk).
And thus any action on behalf of the government to try to make hiring someone more or less appealing than anyone else would be similar to the government making any cheap foreign product less appealing than the more expensive (and probably higher quality) domestic product. As a consumer, if you wanted to by a cheap New Zeland apple, but the government stepped in and removed that option, how would you feel. It's the exact same thing.
And let's look at the economic effects of such isolationist tactics, common from nations who are now stuck in an economic downward spiral for those reasons, such as Japan. As nations we work on the ideas of absolute and comparative advantage. Absolute advantage is we can make more of something than you for fewer resources, like Japan can make 4 cars a day, while America can only make 3, hypothetically speaking. Comparative advantage is a little more complex. Take the previous example of Japan vs. America in auto production, then let's add into it that Japan can produce 14 DVD players, while America can only produce 8. So Japan can either dedicate all of their resources to making 4 cars at the opportunity cost of the 14 DVD players that they could've made, or they could make the 14 DVD players at the cost of the 4 cars, and America can make 8 DVD players at the cost of 3 cars, or 3 cars at the cost of 8 DVD players. That means in Japan the opportunity cost of making 1 car is 3 and 1/2 DVD players, and the cost of making a DVD player is 2/7 of a car, while in America the cost of a car is 2 and 2/3 DVD players, and the cost of a DVD player is 3/8 of a car, and thus as long as the cost of a car is between 2 and 2/3 and 3 and 1/2 DVD players, it is better for America to just produce cars and Japan just to produce DVD players.
This works in all forms of commerce, not just nation vs. nation, and tarrifs only throw these things off. The only purpose of a tarrif is because a nation cannot compete in a global market, and with an economic super power, such as the US, that claim is absolutely proposterous!
Plus the ramifications by global organizations, such as the WTO, would be swift and heavy. Any nation that our jobs would be going to would have justification to file complaint, and be granted billions in damages, which they could apply in tarrifs anywhere, still driving people out of work.
Every country has the ability to place tarrifs, and if we start doing it on major markets (and labor is by far the biggest market in the world) it will only cause problems, and the people whose jobs you were trying to save would end up unemployed, because the increased cost would just cause people to just consume less, thus requiring fewer workers to make fewer things.
As far as not passing their savings on to the consumer, they only pass along as much savings as we ask of them. As far as businesses, the only companies required to pass on savings any more than the market determines they should are regulated monopolies, such as utility and cable companies. Other than that, it is solely supply and demand in determining how much of their savings we get back. Since these companies are competing, the only real response is to buy less, become less consumeristic. Show them that as their prices go up, we will buy considerably less, and show that we don't really need their **** as much as they need to sell it to us, and then we'll get those savings.
I completely agree with the sentiment of what you believe. I believe that it's a sad day when companies value profit over American quality of life. I think Bill Gates said something interesting when he spoke about the increased acceptability of outsourcing, when he said "As a business owner I am ecstatic, but as an American, I weep" or something along those lines.
But the fact is the laws of economics still do and always will apply. And getting discouraged and trying to go around them to find an easy solution to a complex problem has never EVER worked for the better of anyone at all. The only suggestion I can make is study up on economics, learn why this stuff is happening, and try to find out how to, with minimized cost to society, encourage American companies to hire American workers. Right now, the easiest answer that I can think of is just don't buy from companies who outsource their labor. But once the government gets in on this, we are all ****ed.
encourage American companies to hire American workers. Right now, the easiest answer that I can think of is just don't buy from companies who outsource their labor.
Bill Gates said something interesting when he spoke about the increased acceptability of outsourcing, when he said "As a business owner I am ecstatic, but as an American, I weep" or something along those lines.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?