Outsourcing Helps the Poor (1 Viewer)

[MarineCorpsCandidate]

Outsourcing seen boosting wages at home: study By Ros Krasny
Fri Aug 25, 12:03 PM ET

JACKSON HOLE, Wyoming (Reuters) - Take that, Lou Dobbs. Despite much handwringing and political posturing, the surge of job outsourcing, by increasing productivity, has actually helped raise real wages for low-skilled U.S. workers, according to two Princeton University economists.

They countered critics of outsourcing, including high-profile CNN host Dobbs, who charge that transferring U.S. jobs abroad hurt American workers' well being.

Taking a swing at conventional wisdom, Princeton professors Gene Grossman and Esteban Rossi-Hansberg argued that wages for the least-skilled blue collar jobs had been rising since 1997 as outsourcing boosted productivity.

The professors presented their paper on Friday at the Kansas City Federal Reserve conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. The meeting's theme, "The New Economic Geography," comes at a time when some fear that the United States is becoming trapped in a wages-prices spiral to the bottom by cheap labor in India and China.

The Princeton economists contend that many observers tended to gloss over the productivity benefits involved in the offshoring of labor.

They presented evidence that the productivity effect had helped raise real wages for the least skilled among U.S. blue collar workers -- those who do jobs most likely to be shipped overseas -- by about a quarter of a percent per year between 1997 and 2004.

Grossman and Rossi-Hansberg said critics of outsourcing had latched onto "incomplete" evidence that the low-wage labor abroad reduces low-skill wages or increases unemployment in the United States.

Rising productivity associated with U.S. firms' moving some tasks offshore "have served to bolster U.S. wages ... contrary to the fears of Lou Dobbs and others," they said in reference to the high-profile CNN anchorman who has waged a campaign against outsourcing of U.S. jobs. Outsourcing has also been a political hot-button issue in the United States during recent election cycles.

Those wage gains are "far from exceptional" but not as bad as might be expected based on the improvement in U.S. terms of trade with non-industrialized countries, they said.

TIME FOR A NEW PARADIGM

Grossman and Rossi-Hansberg argued that the core of international trade theory needs updating because of changes in the nature of production made possible by the Internet and cheaper transportation, among other factors.

"We need to move away from the traditional approaches to trade in which only goods can be exchanged internationally, and move toward a new paradigm," they said.

Increasingly, the economists said, global trade involves not only complete goods but individual tasks or relatively small numbers of tasks, which for the first time allows for specialization without geographic concentration.

"This has allowed firms to take advantage of differences in factor costs and expertise across countries, thereby enhancing the benefits of specialization," they said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060825/us_nm/economy_productivity_dc

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

That’s a very surprising conclusion; my first reaction is to think that it’s an exchange of quantity for quality. How has the unemployment rate been effected by outsourcing, and, more importantly, what criteria are we using to judge unemployment?

I remember hearing that you’ve got 6 months to find a new job, and then you’re booted from the ranks of those labeled as unemployed, regardless of your employment status. If that’s true, using the current definition of unemployment would be very deceiving. I wish I knew where I could see numbers on the total number of jobs in the US and the population within working age, both current and previous to large scale implementation of outsourcing.

 

[Navy Seal Patriot]

The article makes a weak case, many of the downsides of outsourcing weren't even presented. Someone must be trying to make a little mole hill into a mountain.

 

[LeftyHenry]

I don't get it All that article says is that productivity increased and so has wages. What?

 

[jamesrage]

I fail to see how people lossing a decent job and being forced to take lower paying jobs thus thus adding to the poor population a good thing.How does adding more poor to the poor population help things.How does shipping all our jobs over seas help our country?Outsourcing is a huge mistake.

 

[MarineCorpsCandidate]

I am in favor for outsourcing. In the short term, yes, some people lose their jobs and that doesn't only include the poor, but also middle class people. However, for the long term, outsourcing will help our economy and allow it to continue to prosper and remain competitive. It allows it to become more productive and to produce more wealth in our economy which could in turn be used to produce more better paying jobs here in the United States. I think some training or education programs to train people in new skills when their jobs are outsourced is in order. Protectionism is not the answer and will only harm our economy in the long term and thus reduce opportunities for everybody in the future. It's kinda like raising the Federal minimum wage. Raising the federal minimum wage actually harms everybody and thus the economy because then businesses will have to raise prices in order to pay the new higher minimum wage and so it has a ripple effect throughout the economy. Not only that, but some unskilled jobs could be permenantly outsourced overseas so that companies may be able to avoid paying a new higher minimum wage.

 

[LeftyHenry]

I am in favor for outsourcing. In the short term, yes, some people lose their jobs and that doesn't only include the poor, but also middle class people. However, for the long term, outsourcing will help our economy and allow it to continue to prosper and remain competitive. It allows it to become more productive and to produce more wealth in our economy which could in turn be used to produce more better paying jobs here in the United States. I think some training or education programs to train people in new skills when their jobs are outsourced is in order. Protectionism is not the answer and will only harm our economy in the long term and thus reduce opportunities for everybody in the future. It's kinda like raising the Federal minimum wage. Raising the federal minimum wage actually harms everybody and thus the economy because then businesses will have to raise prices in order to pay the new higher minimum wage and so it has a ripple effect throughout the economy. Not only that, but some unskilled jobs could be permenantly outsourced overseas so that companies may be able to avoid paying a new higher minimum wage.

I disagree. Outsourcing is a big mistake. continous outsourcing will raise America's unemployment rate. Outsourcing is also usually extremely inhumane. corporations outsource their jobs in order to cut costs by paying their workers next to nothing in horrible conditions. For example, coca-cola highered right-wing paramilitaries to scare workers from unionizing. Wal-Mart locks their workers in so that they can't leave and forces them to work overtime in indonesia. The conditions in factories in India and Taiwan and China that have been outsourced from America are shocking. People work like slaves in gulags there.

Minimum wage has to be increased whether we like it or not. With the rise in the cost of living and the rise in the price of oil, working class families are already strugling. I understand your view on the ripple effect but I'm pretty sure most companies would be able to absorb paying their workers more. For example, if Wal-mart raised their prices by a half penny per dollar, they could afford to pay each employee $1,800 dollars more.

 

[SFLRN]

I disagree. Outsourcing is a big mistake. continous outsourcing will raise America's unemployment rate. Outsourcing is also usually extremely inhumane. corporations outsource their jobs in order to cut costs by paying their workers next to nothing in horrible conditions. For example, coca-cola highered right-wing paramilitaries to scare workers from unionizing. Wal-Mart locks their workers in so that they can't leave and forces them to work overtime in indonesia. The conditions in factories in India and Taiwan and China that have been outsourced from America are shocking. People work like slaves in gulags there.

Minimum wage has to be increased whether we like it or not. With the rise in the cost of living and the rise in the price of oil, working class families are already strugling. I understand your view on the ripple effect but I'm pretty sure most companies would be able to absorb paying their workers more. For example, if Wal-mart raised their prices by a half penny per dollar, they could afford to pay each employee $1,800 dollars more.

Although economists have many disagreements there are a few things the overwhelming majority believe. "Tariffs and import quotas usually reduce general economic welfare. (93%)." (Principles of Microeconomics). Basically, 93% of economists agree with the above statement (this coming from my microeconomics textbook). Also, "A minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers. (79%)." So the minimum wage is not all its cracked up to be and if companies want good help they know they have to pay higher for it. Raising the minimum wage will not solve current economic problems.

I agree that there are human rights violations in these factories. But, american factories had human rights violations not disimilar to these and they were eventually ended (the human's rights violations) through the political system. It can and will happen in other countries. Furthermore, people choose this labor because it is better than the lives they lead before. Outsourcing is not inhumane, look at the number of Chinese who have seen a great deal of economic prosperity whereas before they would have had to resort to substinence farming before then. When FDI (foreign direct investment) goes up in these countries overall GDP is seen to go up as well.

 

[MarineCorpsCandidate]

I disagree. Outsourcing is a big mistake. continous outsourcing will raise America's unemployment rate. Outsourcing is also usually extremely inhumane. corporations outsource their jobs in order to cut costs by paying their workers next to nothing in horrible conditions. For example, coca-cola highered right-wing paramilitaries to scare workers from unionizing. Wal-Mart locks their workers in so that they can't leave and forces them to work overtime in indonesia. The conditions in factories in India and Taiwan and China that have been outsourced from America are shocking. People work like slaves in gulags there.

Minimum wage has to be increased whether we like it or not. With the rise in the cost of living and the rise in the price of oil, working class families are already strugling. I understand your view on the ripple effect but I'm pretty sure most companies would be able to absorb paying their workers more. For example, if Wal-mart raised their prices by a half penny per dollar, they could afford to pay each employee $1,800 dollars more.

The world is inhumane and cruel place. We will all suffer but the difference between those who survive and those that fall by the wayside is the attitude they choose to take. I spent time in former communist countries, Soviet socialism helped to wreck and destroy their economies and left everybody equal but poor and miserable. Their are no easy answers when it comes to the solution of poverty. Many of people who lived in these former communist countries sought to get into the US and were adamantly opposed to socialism. Money is not everything, but if you want to have opportunity, even though it is harmful to workers in the short-term, outsourcing must be allowed to assure the health of the economy in the long term and thus opportunity in the future.

 

[LeftyHenry]

The world is inhumane and cruel place.

True and outsourcing, as I just showed you, makes it worse.

We will all suffer but the difference between those who survive and those that fall by the wayside is the attitude they choose to take. I spent time in former communist countries, Soviet socialism helped to wreck and destroy their economies and left everybody equal but poor and miserable. Their are no easy answers when it comes to the solution of poverty. Many of people who lived in these former communist countries sought to get into the US and were adamantly opposed to socialism. Money is not everything, but if you want to have opportunity, even though it is harmful to workers in the short-term, outsourcing must be allowed to assure the health of the economy in the long term and thus opportunity in the future.

I love this arguement. People always say to me communism is a terrible ideology when they see I sport the hammer and sickle but they fail to understand many things. First, every nation that has had 'communism' (not actual communism, I'll explain that later or in another thread) has been the worst shithole-thrid world-poor-peasant country imaginable. Russia, for example, was a country that consisted of 90% peasants before the revolution. People worked all their lives doing hard manual labor to feed nobles and czars and the army. They sewed there own clothes and made their own shoes. Lenin organized a revolution and took the wealth which was stolen from the peasants by the czars and gave it to the people who worked the fields. While, the rest of the world was in a devestating depresion (1930's) Russia was a booming economy. Suddenly there were factories. Suddenly there were tractors clothes and food for those who had previously broken their back for cow ****. Woman's rights came to the forefront and arranged marriages were ended. In 1920, Russia became the first european state to allow abortions. In cuba it's the same story. Schools for children were build and illiteracy was destroyed forever. Children had clothes and books. Families who had been left to die in the streets by Batitista now had homes. Castro brought free and quality healthcare better than that of the first world. For More on Cuba read this.

Why did people flee? Well those who did were mostly nobles in Russia, and plantation owners in Cuba. The numbers have been greatly exagerated by the "liberal media" here because in Cuba only about 1000 people leave each year. Compared to other simialer countries like Nicaragua and Jamaica and even Mexico, this is much less. In fact if you compare Cuba to other small latin countries in most things cuba is better.

Of course socialism failed in general in the 20th century. It was ****ed the second Stalin took power and beaurocratized the state, consolidated all worker power, and did away with free speech. Communism is not about that. It's about liberating workers from the leeches who steal from them. It's about common ownership. It's about communities working together and it's about freedom. As Trotsky once said, "socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen".

 

[MarineCorpsCandidate]

You are looking to build a utopia or achieve an ideal that simply cannot be achieved. Their will never be the perfect utopian society. We would all like to live in the perfect utopian world, but it is not practicle or obtainable. Communism is an ideal but it is an ideal that can never be achieved pragmatically speaking. Human nature demands incentive for work in return. Communism does not provide an incentive for people to work, to be efficient or creative or imaginative. Communism is not compatible with human nature or the way the world operates in general and it is impossible for certain rules of the world to be changed. Capitalism adapts to human nature and the way certain rules of the world, which cannot ever be changed no matter what, operates.

 

[LeftyHenry]

You are looking to build a utopia or achieve an ideal that simply cannot be achieved. Their will never be the perfect utopian society. We would all like to live in the perfect utopian world, but it is not practicle or obtainable. Communism is an ideal but it is an ideal that can never be achieved pragmatically speaking. Human nature demands incentive for work in return. Communism does not provide an incentive for people to work, to be efficient or creative or imaginative. Communism is not compatible with human nature or the way the world operates in general and it is impossible for certain rules of the world to be changed. Capitalism adapts to human nature and the way certain rules of the world, which cannot ever be changed no matter what, operates.

It's not utopian because it is possible to reach socialism and past revolutions have proven it. However there were many mistakes made which communists must learn from. Namely, adhering to Lenin's principle of Democratic Centralism which says that all officials of the communist party or in a socialist state must be elected and recallable.

Many argue that communism doesn't offer an incentive to work. They are wrong. It does. Have you heard of something called Labor Time Vouchers?
Here's a passage from my blog which explains it a bit.

Labor Time Vouchers. LTVs in short, are basically a measurement of how hard one works at his or her job. It is an account on a computer which you log into when you start working and log out of when you stop. LTVs can be determined by the smaount of stress and effort put into your job. The amount and quality of the product you produce. Or the successful completion of a hard task. When you are finished working, you log out and print the LTVs which you will then save up and use to by non-necessities such as electronics and furniture.

 

[SFLRN]

It's not utopian because it is possible to reach socialism and past revolutions have proven it. However there were many mistakes made which communists must learn from. Namely, adhering to Lenin's principle of Democratic Centralism which says that all officials of the communist party or in a socialist state must be elected and recallable.

Many argue that communism doesn't offer an incentive to work. They are wrong. It does. Have you heard of something called Labor Time Vouchers?
Here's a passage from my blog which explains it a bit.

bahahha. But everyones equal under communism? So why would we make a system that separates them? Under your system those who work harder would receive more goods. Then you would have a class who had the goods in society and those who didnt. Sounds like capitalism. Communism is inherently collectivist and not individualist. Capitalism awards individual achievement wherease communism preaches of working for your community. Working for the guy who might be banking off of other people such as yourself working harder. Communism is historically proven to be a nonfunctional form of economics. It does not work. Every single economist of any credit would tell you that completely state controlled economies do not work. It puts the money into the hands of too few people and only invites abuse by those people. If we can't trust something as decentralized as corrupt CEO's who may manage as many as one million workers at most, how do we expect a government to manage nearly 300 million people?
Your plan works under the assumption the government can account for local conditions and meet consumer needs. It cannot. There was a huge black market for things like bread due to government inefficiency. This is because the government did not and cannot have the kind of mechanisms to determine how much food they need to supply. What profit incentive is there? They could provide 10 loaves instead of 50 and would see no loss because everyone sees equal benefits under communism. Just like doctors were paid the same as bus drivers. Who wants to be a doctor then? Well then the state would force you into certain careers. People cannot specialize under communism because everything is given equal benefits and no one wants to pursue the careers that are demanded. Look at China, their growth has come from opening up their economy, not from regressing into the communist model. There is no economically successful state that has a completely communist setup.

 

[MarineCorpsCandidate]

bahahha. But everyones equal under communism? So why would we make a system that separates them? Under your system those who work harder would receive more goods. Then you would have a class who had the goods in society and those who didnt. Sounds like capitalism. Communism is inherently collectivist and not individualist. Capitalism awards individual achievement wherease communism preaches of working for your community. Working for the guy who might be banking off of other people such as yourself working harder. Communism is historically proven to be a nonfunctional form of economics. It does not work. Every single economist of any credit would tell you that completely state controlled economies do not work. It puts the money into the hands of too few people and only invites abuse by those people. If we can't trust something as decentralized as corrupt CEO's who may manage as many as one million workers at most, how do we expect a government to manage nearly 300 million people?
Your plan works under the assumption the government can account for local conditions and meet consumer needs. It cannot. There was a huge black market for things like bread due to government inefficiency. This is because the government did not and cannot have the kind of mechanisms to determine how much food they need to supply. What profit incentive is there? They could provide 10 loaves instead of 50 and would see no loss because everyone sees equal benefits under communism. Just like doctors were paid the same as bus drivers. Who wants to be a doctor then? Well then the state would force you into certain careers. People cannot specialize under communism because everything is given equal benefits and no one wants to pursue the careers that are demanded. Look at China, their growth has come from opening up their economy, not from regressing into the communist model. There is no economically successful state that has a completely communist setup.

Totally agree. Free market capitalism is the only pragmatic economic system that works. It is by no means perfect, but it is the only system that works. Communism is something that looks good on paper but is impossible in practice.

 

[LeftyHenry]

bahahha. But everyones equal under communism? So why would we make a system that separates them?

It does not make classes because if you read carefully, I said LTVs would be applicable to only a few items. It would be up to the commmunity. If the community decides that communism isn't working they can vote to expand LTVs to every item thus reinstating capitalism, or do away with it completely. Any class difference would not be noticable. The point is that LTVs are an incentive to work harder. There are many other incentives and I can get into that in a bit.

Under your system those who work harder would receive more goods. Then you would have a class who had the goods in society and those who didnt. Sounds like capitalism. Communism is inherently collectivist and not individualist.

Well no. Because There is no reason why one shouldn't aquire LTVs. As long as he meets his work quota, which would be determined in factory co-ops, he should accumalate LTVs. Those who don't meet there quotas reapeatedly would face punishment from the community and it's people who are fed up whith leeches.

It depends what you mean. Economically, obviously it's collectivist but politically it's is individualist. From personal experience, many present day communists are real individuals who try to stand out in everything from there hairstyle to music. But also there's the fact that communism is really a 'liberation' ideology. It was and is an ideology which is a response to years of slavery to a king, or years in poverty in capitalism. As I said before, it "takes the czars fields and gives it to the farmers". Anything that does not truly do so isn't communism.

Capitalism awards individual achievement wherease communism preaches of working for your community. Working for the guy who might be banking off of other people such as yourself working harder.

FALSE!!! Communism does say the community is important however not to work for people banking off of you. Communism uses the labor theory of value which says that it is the worker who works in the factory, harvests the field, and mines in the coal mine and he knows his job and his manager and CEO are leeches who sit in their offices allday while the workers break their back and then at the end of the day leech off the working man's labor. A leech in a communist society would have to deal with everyone else and would be considered the scum of the earth because when he slacks off, his co-workers and 'friends' get to do his work for him. No one in a communist society would slack off for fear of the consequences his angry co-workers would come up with.

Communism is historically proven to be a nonfunctional form of economics. It does not work. Every single economist of any credit would tell you that completely state controlled economies do not work.

Firstly, communism isn't state controlled. Communism is stateless. Lenin said so. Marx did too. Socialism is where there is still a state, and the state MUST be an accurate representation of the working class and adhere to the principles of Democ
ratic Centralism.

Secondly, That's not true. There are quite a few economists of credit who claim that communism would work, even though there aren't very many communists in general. Bob Avakian, Fredrick Jameson, Michael Albert and others who I can't remember the names of. (These are just off the top of my head).

It puts the money into the hands of too few people and only invites abuse by those people. If we can't trust something as decentralized as corrupt CEO's who may manage as many as one million workers at most, how do we expect a government to manage nearly 300 million people?

I don't expect a government to. I expect the workers to mangage their factories. If they don't they'll starve. If they do, they'll bring prosperity to the community. It's really not a hard task if you think about how long some workers have been working in the same factory doing jobs some have spent 20 years doing jobs. The worker knows what's to be done and through co-operatives can run the economy pretty efficiently. For example, during the Russian revolution, when there were no resources, and the communist party couldn't use a planned economy to get resources, workers in factories would run their factories and would trade resources by sending envoys. Also I suggest you read about the Paris Commune and how Socialist Democracy worked there.

Your plan works under the assumption the government can account for local conditions and meet consumer needs. It cannot. There was a huge black market for things like bread due to government inefficiency.

No things like that were due to Russia's nature as having strated out with nothing except exmpty farmland, and being faced with the task of building factories and other things that would keep them from being invaded.

Just like doctors were paid the same as bus drivers. Who wants to be a doctor then? Well then the state would force you into certain careers.

False. Cuba is a splendid example. In cuba they have a suplus of doctors. They have so many that they send them abroad to do things like offer free corrective eye surgery to impoverished people in exploited Latin American capitalist countries, or offer to give medical supplies and healthcare to displaced Katrina victims. As odd as this may seem to capitalists who seem to think that the only point of life is to get as much money as possible, people choose their jobs because they enjoy them. Also Unlike here education, food, housing, and etc.. is paid for you all the way through. You have the opportunity to do whatever excites you as long as you give back to the community what they gave you.

Look at China, their growth has come from opening up their economy, not from regressing into the communist model. There is no economically successful state that has a completely communist setup.

There has never been a complete communist setup. And China is just fantastic isn't it? All those lovly wal-mart sweatshops which lock their workers in the factories day and night in terrible conditions for below minimum wage. What 'economic growth'.

 

[SFLRN]

It does not make classes because if you read carefully, I said LTVs would be applicable to only a few items. It would be up to the commmunity. If the community decides that communism isn't working they can vote to expand LTVs to every item thus reinstating capitalism, or do away with it completely. Any class difference would not be noticable. The point is that LTVs are an incentive to work harder. There are many other incentives and I can get into that in a bit.



Well no. Because There is no reason why one shouldn't aquire LTVs. As long as he meets his work quota, which would be determined in factory co-ops, he should accumalate LTVs. Those who don't meet there quotas reapeatedly would face punishment from the community and it's people who are fed up whith leeches.

It depends what you mean. Economically, obviously it's collectivist but politically it's is individualist. From personal experience, many present day communists are real individuals who try to stand out in everything from there hairstyle to music. But also there's the fact that communism is really a 'liberation' ideology. It was and is an ideology which is a response to years of slavery to a king, or years in poverty in capitalism. As I said before, it "takes the czars fields and gives it to the farmers". Anything that does not truly do so isn't communism.



FALSE!!! Communism does say the community is important however not to work for people banking off of you. Communism uses the labor theory of value which says that it is the worker who works in the factory, harvests the field, and mines in the coal mine and he knows his job and his manager and CEO are leeches who sit in their offices allday while the workers break their back and then at the end of the day leech off the working man's labor. A leech in a communist society would have to deal with everyone else and would be considered the scum of the earth because when he slacks off, his co-workers and 'friends' get to do his work for him. No one in a communist society would slack off for fear of the consequences his angry co-workers would come up with.



Firstly, communism isn't state controlled. Communism is stateless. Lenin said so. Marx did too. Socialism is where there is still a state, and the state MUST be an accurate representation of the working class and adhere to the principles of Democ
ratic Centralism.

Secondly, That's not true. There are quite a few economists of credit who claim that communism would work, even though there aren't very many communists in general. Bob Avakian, Fredrick Jameson, Michael Albert and others who I can't remember the names of. (These are just off the top of my head).



I don't expect a government to. I expect the workers to mangage their factories. If they don't they'll starve. If they do, they'll bring prosperity to the community. It's really not a hard task if you think about how long some workers have been working in the same factory doing jobs some have spent 20 years doing jobs. The worker knows what's to be done and through co-operatives can run the economy pretty efficiently. For example, during the Russian revolution, when there were no resources, and the communist party couldn't use a planned economy to get resources, workers in factories would run their factories and would trade resources by sending envoys. Also I suggest you read about the Paris Commune and how Socialist Democracy worked there.



No things like that were due to Russia's nature as having strated out with nothing except exmpty farmland, and being faced with the task of building factories and other things that would keep them from being invaded.



False. Cuba is a splendid example. In cuba they have a suplus of doctors. They have so many that they send them abroad to do things like offer free corrective eye surgery to impoverished people in exploited Latin American capitalist countries, or offer to give medical supplies and healthcare to displaced Katrina victims. As odd as this may seem to capitalists who seem to think that the only point of life is to get as much money as possible, people choose their jobs because they enjoy them. Also Unlike here education, food, housing, and etc.. is paid for you all the way through. You have the opportunity to do whatever excites you as long as you give back to the community what they gave you.



There has never been a complete communist setup. And China is just fantastic isn't it? All those lovly wal-mart sweatshops which lock their workers in the factories day and night in terrible conditions for below minimum wage. What 'economic growth'.

And the great thing about those sweatshops is that people choose to work. No one is forced to work in capitalism. No community good, just yourselve. And those poor people pick such work because it is better than the farm work they had to do before which was just as back breaking and did not make near the same amount of money as before. What economic growth. There is a rapidly growing middle and upper class in China thanks to this economic openess which was not there before.
Lets point out that no viable economist supports your form of communism and nearly all support capitalism.

You keep talking about small rewards but still that would be enough of a class distinction for there to be class conflict. Furthermore who sets these worker quotas? How can one tell if a worker is working efficiently enough?
The problem with your whole working harder with personal incentives idea is that it undermines the whole basis of communism, which is to work for the betterment of the community. Obviously if people are working for their own LTVs to go up they're not working for the community good.
Unless you're arguing by working for their own good people are working for the community good. Which is the basis of modern day capitalism and would further align your suggested theory with the economic format you seem to despise most.
Communists are not individualists simply because of music choice and hairstyle. If anything that is the most generic way to differiante oneself from mainstream society. Its not new to change appearance to show nonconformity to the mainstream.
The years of capitalism has not resulted in poverty but rather a huge increase of country's GDPs. If people are free to choose communism or capitalism then is it not quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of the free world has choosen capitalism and has done much better on the whole? Communism liberates one from the king but then chains oneself to the community.
CEO's are not leeches. Despite communist thinking CEO's actually do do work and if they had no knowledge of their job and there were so many smarter people out there then those people would take over the companies so they could make profit or pursue some joy from being CEO. But the fact is that the average factory worker cannot do the same work as a CEO just like the CEO cannot do the work of some of the factory workers. But when each specializes in one skill they can produce more rather than the workers specializing in management and working. Managers work better when they just manage and workers when they work and then give the managers ideas based off of what they see in the work place. Which is actually a plan that was implemented by Ford awhile bit back. CEO's help the workers by making sure the company does well on the whole, thus giving them job security.
What form of specialization is provided under your system of the workers managing the factory?

 

[jamesrage]

I am in favor for outsourcing. In the short term, yes, some people lose their jobs and that doesn't only include the poor, but also middle class people. However, for the long term, outsourcing will help our economy and allow it to continue to prosper and remain competitive. It allows it to become more productive and to produce more wealth in our economy which could in turn be used to produce more better paying jobs here in the United States.

What kind of better paying is there if alot of these jobs are being outsourced?Do you think the United States is the only country with a highly educated population?With this outsourcing companies will go where ever the cost of living is the cheapest.
Would you trust China to make all our weapons and all the electronics for those weapons?

I think some training or education programs to train people in new skills when their jobs are outsourced is in order.

Wal-mart already trains their employees.The have cashier school.

It's kinda like raising the Federal minimum wage. Raising the federal minimum wage actually harms everybody and thus the economy because then businesses will have to raise prices in order to pay the new higher minimum wage and so it has a ripple effect throughout the economy.

Not raising the minimum wage still cost us.Welfare,foodstamps,section 8 housing,wic and other tax payer funded services cost us money.

Not only that, but some unskilled jobs could be permenantly outsourced overseas so that companies may be able to avoid paying a new higher minimum wage.

Unless a whole office builiding or hotel can be picked up off the ground and shipped to china alot of those "unskilled" jobs are going nowhere. The way video and audio technology is progressing it will be real easy for a company to ship and run practically everything from over seas.

 

[Saboteur]

Maybe we should start out sourcing the Marines.

 

[LeftyHenry]

And the great thing about those sweatshops is that people choose to work. No one is forced to work in capitalism. No community good, just yourselve. And those poor people pick such work because it is better than the farm work they had to do before which was just as back breaking and did not make near the same amount of money as before. What economic growth. There is a rapidly growing middle and upper class in China thanks to this economic openess which was not there before.
Lets point out that no viable economist supports your form of communism and nearly all support capitalism.

No they do not chose. They are forced to work in sweatshops. Those who do work have no other option it's either slavery in the sweatshop or starvation on the streets. It's sick that you call slavery 'economic growth'. And as a matter of fact they really are literally forced to work. Don't make me bring up a long *** list of instances when workers in sweatshops have been locked in their factories and told to work more or not get payed and other things like that. Would you like to know where that middle class is coming from? It's definately not the sweatshops. And it's not opening the market. Why? Because the middle class and wealth in general and infastructure in general has been steadily growing since the times of Mao. The upper class is exclusive to the corporate executives in China who own the slaves who work in the sweatshops.

You keep talking about small rewards but still that would be enough of a class distinction for there to be class conflict.

Not really. You fail to understand. LTVs are easy to get and come naturally with meeting you work quota. Those who do not get LTVs will only have the excuse of being lazy and stealing from the system. Thus they will eventually face the wrath of their co-workers and community. There will be no class distinction because everyone has the same space (area of housing), food, water, education, healthcare, and almost everything else. The only noticable difference will be the car in the garage or furnture in the house.

Furthermore who sets these worker quotas?

The Workers as a collective democratic co-operative or council in their workplace.

How can one tell if a worker is working efficiently enough?

If he completes his assigned work in the given time.

The problem with your whole working harder with personal incentives idea is that it undermines the whole basis of communism, which is to work for the betterment of the community.

The community is made up of individuals.

Obviously if people are working for their own LTVs to go up they're not working for the community good.

Sure they are.

Unless you're arguing by working for their own good people are working for the community good. Which is the basis of modern day capitalism and would further align your suggested theory with the economic format you seem to despise most.

No capitalism is based on this: "Like Jesus Christ said, **** the poor, only care about yourself and working to get rich. Who gives a damn about them. I have my own problems."

Communists are not individualists simply because of music choice and hairstyle. If anything that is the most generic way to differiante oneself from mainstream society. Its not new to change appearance to show nonconformity to the mainstream.

It was an example. You have to be an individual to find such an idea, dig it out of it's grave, study it, and decide you believe in it. Hell, just being a communist makes you an individual because there are so few. They are one in a million :lol:

The years of capitalism has not resulted in poverty but rather a huge increase of country's GDPs.

Tell that to families like my relatives in Slovakia who lost there entire pension, now have no healthcare, who's kids have rags for clothing, and have a shitty *** education with no school books. Thanks to the miracles of capitalism and it's wonderful treatment of impoverished working class people.

If people are free to choose communism or capitalism then is it not quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of the free world has choosen capitalism and has done much better on the whole? Communism liberates one from the king but then chains oneself to the community.

I'd rather be chained to my brothers and sisters in the community than to be a slave of a king. People aren't free to chose mostly because they have no real idea what communism is other than an evil russian system. No one has read and understood Marx or listened to the other side of the propaganda that's taught to schools so of course they'll chose capitalism.

CEO's are not leeches. Despite communist thinking CEO's actually do do work and if they had no knowledge of their job and there were so many smarter people out there then those people would take over the companies so they could make profit or pursue some joy from being CEO.

Obviously the CEO works but the point is that it is the worker and the working class who actually run the company because they make the products. So after the amount of time many have spent on the job they know the factory and how to run it inside out.

But when each specializes in one skill they can produce more rather than the workers specializing in management and working. Managers work better when they just manage and workers when they work and then give the managers ideas based off of what they see in the work place. Which is actually a plan that was implemented by Ford awhile bit back. CEO's help the workers by making sure the company does well on the whole, thus giving them job security.

HAHAHA I like that. "The worker friendly CEO". What bollocks!

Worker:"Friendly CEO, could you pay me a wage that doesn't put my family in poverty?"

CEO:"uh...HELL NO! What do you think I am, humane?"

What form of specialization is provided under your system of the workers managing the factory?

You mean how exactly would a factory be managed? Well I do not know exactly because that is not my expertise however I do think it would be through meetings of all the factory workers in which the workers decide based on past statistics and present circumstances how much to produce and how to divide the work equally. Everyone would have a voice however, every week it would be someones turn to ensure the factory meetings stay civil and the work quotas of workers are met.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Maybe we should start out sourcing the Marines.

Good idea. I can see it now, the "Made in China Corps". :lol:

 

[128shot]

you should tell your family in Solvenia to use their well educated butts to make some real money grabs on the Eastern Block economic boom.


Assuming they are well educated...

 

[SFLRN]

No they do not chose. They are forced to work in sweatshops. Those who do work have no other option it's either slavery in the sweatshop or starvation on the streets. It's sick that you call slavery 'economic growth'. And as a matter of fact they really are literally forced to work. Don't make me bring up a long *** list of instances when workers in sweatshops have been locked in their factories and told to work more or not get payed and other things like that. Would you like to know where that middle class is coming from? It's definately not the sweatshops. And it's not opening the market. Why? Because the middle class and wealth in general and infastructure in general has been steadily growing since the times of Mao. The upper class is exclusive to the corporate executives in China who own the slaves who work in the sweatshops.

Provide an economist who supports your views on restricted trade a reliable economist and I will give you 6 who disagree . ( the facts are that 93 percent of all economists oppose tariffs and quotas). Just for name sake, Jeffery Sachs, who has actually spent 20 years of time as a developmental economist supports free trade as well. If you had one speck of actual economic evidence your communist economic philosophy would have weight. But until you provide legit statistics and not more emotional appeals then do not participate in an economics debate which bases itself on having facts or at least the support of the majority of economists for ones argument to be valid.
Despite your attempts at an emotional appeal. Your whole argument lacks any economic credibilty
I do not support the workers rights violations. But such violations happened in America as well. You cannot start asserting that this is pure slavery and should be destroyed when the same things happened in America and we were able to overcome them. Sure they need better workers rights but those will come in time. I do not see how it is a crime that citizens of society have to work to maintain a living. Do you suggest we have the freedom to do nothing and be supported by a government so we can rely on others in such an extreme manner weakening humanity as a whole?

Now lets use an actual source

"Around the globe, the existence of a broad and stable middle class is one of the hallmarks of an advanced economy, one of the anchors of a prosperous and fair society. But creating a sustainable middle class in a country that was founded on the principle of abolishing class differences isn't going to be easy. Corruption, a widening wealth gap, political freedoms that lag far behind economic ones and the social confusion that arises from turning generations of anticapitalist, antimaterialist dogma on its head are gargantuan obstacles." http://www.time.com/time/asia/features/china_cul_rev/middle_class.html

Not really. You fail to understand. LTVs are easy to get and come naturally with meeting you work quota. Those who do not get LTVs will only have the excuse of being lazy and stealing from the system. Thus they will eventually face the wrath of their co-workers and community. There will be no class distinction because everyone has the same space (area of housing), food, water, education, healthcare, and almost everything else. The only noticable difference will be the car in the garage or furnture in the house.

Why use those when capitalist systems already show staggering economic growth and provide even more incentive for people to work harder?

The Workers as a collective democratic co-operative or council in their workplace.

You need management otherwise companies cannot work. Everyone specializes so they get more work done.

If he completes his assigned work in the given time.

Yeah then who decides what work he does? Thats what a CEO did before but who does it under participatory economics?

The community is made up of individuals.

And the individuals consistantly choose capitalism.

No capitalism is based on this: "Like Jesus Christ said, **** the poor, only care about yourself and working to get rich. Who gives a damn about them. I have my own problems."

Jesus Christ suggested a much more collectivist notion of helping each other out. "Much will be required of the wealthy." He blessed the poor in his Beatitudes "Blessed be the poor." He talked about helping out the poor. The mechanism to promote these ideals is somewhat unclear. Lets not turn this into a religious debate unless you have actual examples of Jesus saying things agains the poor.

It was an example. You have to be an individual to find such an idea, dig it out of it's grave, study it, and decide you believe in it. Hell, just being a communist makes you an individual because there are so few. They are one in a million :lol:

It does make you an individual. But it does not make you correct.

Tell that to families like my relatives in Slovakia who lost there entire pension, now have no healthcare, who's kids have rags for clothing, and have a shitty *** education with no school books. Thanks to the miracles of capitalism and it's wonderful treatment of impoverished working class people.

In that case the government is not executing its duty to enforce contracts between worker and management. That is indefinately needed for capitalism to work.
Tell that to the millions of people who come to this country and go from living in projects and move into huge suburban homes in the span of one generation. Don't try using one example to throw out years of actual data.
The fact is that the poor overwhelmingly see a better living from capitalism. Look at Americas poor versus the poor of Africa and you see how capitalist economic growth benefits the poor.

I'd rather be chained to my brothers and sisters in the community than to be a slave of a king. People aren't free to chose mostly because they have no real idea what communism is other than an evil russian system. No one has read and understood Marx or listened to the other side of the propaganda that's taught to schools so of course they'll chose capitalism.

History already shows that every instance of his economic system has failed. lol So the U.S. became the most comfortable place to live because it had a communist system? The most free because of a communist system? It seems we have the most freedom because we are so economically stable. People can do nearly anything. And that is because of a capitalist system, not a marxist.

Obviously the CEO works but the point is that it is the worker and the working class who actually run the company because they make the products. So after the amount of time many have spent on the job they know the factory and how to run it inside out.

Yes do the workers also know how to run the robotics of the plants? I assume generally not. Every factory requires people with different skills. Whether its physical or mental. CEO's have management and risk assesment skills. And engineers would have the scientific skills. Each are needed to decide what a company will do. Participatory economics is a failed philosophy.

HAHAHA I like that. "The worker friendly CEO". What bollocks!

Worker:"Friendly CEO, could you pay me a wage that doesn't put my family in poverty?"
If they're not making enough they can work elsewhere, no ones forcing them to work.

CEO:"uh...HELL NO! What do you think I am, humane?"
[/QUOTE]
Maybe the CEO who headed my former place of work that gives its workers a base pay of 10 dollars per hour, is he inhumane as well? Whys that? Because people know they need to pay more for good skills. Its nice to repeat communist rhetoric its another thing to have actual credibility in your statements. Really was exploiting those workers at 10 dollars an hour right? And they're really exploiting the minimum wage workers when they all choose to work there right? Isn't them who allows the minimum wage to exist. If no one worked these jobs then they would most certainly raise the wages. but they dont. Because for those working part time the wage is good enough for generally mindless labor.

You mean how exactly would a factory be managed? Well I do not know exactly because that is not my expertise however I do think it would be through meetings of all the factory workers in which the workers decide based on past statistics and present circumstances how much to produce and how to divide the work equally. Everyone would have a voice however, every week it would be someones turn to ensure the factory meetings stay civil and the work quotas of workers are met.

Not everyone in a company has the capacity to handle that kind of work. And thats not bad at all. CEOs cant all work hard back breaking labor. And a lot of laborers cannot or dont want to do a CEO's job. If they could do it and wanted to they are free to pursue education to do such. If you do not know how to run a factory and you have researched participatory economics so much what makes you think a worker will who has spent very little time researching such a topic? Why not just let the private sector determine how they run their company?

 

[Saboteur]

Good idea. I can see it now, the "Made in China Corps". :lol:

Heh heh, Glad you liked that....

The Marines could be seen by some as one of those "jobs Americans don't want".

 

[LeftyHenry]

Provide an economist who supports your views on restricted trade a reliable economist and I will give you 6 who disagree . ( the facts are that 93 percent of all economists oppose tariffs and quotas). Just for name sake, Jeffery Sachs, who has actually spent 20 years of time as a developmental economist supports free trade as well. If you had one speck of actual economic evidence your communist economic philosophy would have weight.

I have already provided you with some. You chose to ignore them. You fail to realize something. First, there are very few communists to start out with so thus there are very few economists who share communist views. Second, communism is a working class ideology and the working class is unable to afford higher education so thus many cannot become economists. However there are those who are able to do just that. Third, most people who are able to afford higher education to become an economist will come from middle or upper class backgrounds which have taught them/brainwashed them to depise communism. Explain to me how my loosing my job to a factory in China is good for me in the long run. Is it good because I have to live in the projects or on the streets now? Is it good for my family who will now go hungry? Please explain. You and MarineCorps seem to be like the only ones eager to outsource the working class who have posted on this thread and your arguements thus far have been pretty wishy-washy.

[/QUOTE]
But until you provide legit statistics and not more emotional appeals then do not participate in an economics debate which bases itself on having facts or at least the support of the majority of economists for ones argument to be valid. [/QUOTE]

what statistics do you want? How about statistics which show how standards of living increased after the revolution in Cuba? Do you want statistics of how poverty has virtually disapeared in Scandanavia through progressive socialistic policies?

Despite your attempts at an emotional appeal. Your whole argument lacks any economic credibilty

emotional appeals? Lack of credibility? what are you talking about. You must have missed my other posts on this thread.

I do not support the workers rights violations. But such violations happened in America as well.

"Well if America does it, than it must be okay".

A few things wrong with that statement. First, it does happen plenty hear but not to the extreme and frequency of capitalist countries in the third world, especially asia.

You cannot start asserting that this is pure slavery and should be destroyed when the same things happened in America and we were able to overcome them.

Wage-Slavery does exsist in America. Anybody who's lived or even seen the ghettos and barrios and gulags where America's poor working class live can vouch for that.

Sure they need better workers rights but those will come in time.

No it won't. It has been happening for decades upon decades without change. It is the foundation of modern capitalist America. Cheap third world labor. It is what sustains low prices. Without it, the costs of living would soar. Do you think Wal-Mart will naturally pay they chinese gulag laborer more than $0.33 an hour? Not if they have a say. Because then the American consumer will feel the pinch.

I do not see how it is a crime that citizens of society have to work to maintain a living. Do you suggest we have the freedom to do nothing and be supported by a government so we can rely on others in such an extreme manner weakening humanity as a whole?

You haven't been listening... :roll:

Now lets use an actual source

"Around the globe, the existence of a broad and stable middle class is one of the hallmarks of an advanced economy, one of the anchors of a prosperous and fair society. But creating a sustainable middle class in a country that was founded on the principle of abolishing class differences isn't going to be easy. Corruption, a widening wealth gap, political freedoms that lag far behind economic ones and the social confusion that arises from turning generations of anticapitalist, antimaterialist dogma on its head are gargantuan obstacles." http://www.time.com/time/asia/features/china_cul_rev/middle_class.html

mmmkay... what is this supposed to prove? Some people are doing well thanks to capitalism? big whoop. The overwhelming majority ar now sweatshop workers and plantation farmers. And like the article said, capitalism is really doing them well.

Why use those when capitalist systems already show staggering economic growth and provide even more incentive for people to work harder?

Yeah look at wonderful places like Jamiaca, India, Pakistan, nicargua, and panama. Aren't they just lovely? All that wealth! People living in beatiful tin mansions eating delicious bugs.

Yeah then who decides what work he does? Thats what a CEO did before but who does it under participatory economics?

And the individuals consistantly choose capitalism.

Consistantly in places like Cuba, Nepal, Columbia, and other countries where the oppressed individuals rise up to applaude capitalism.

Jesus Christ suggested a much more collectivist notion of helping each other out. "Much will be required of the wealthy." He blessed the poor in his Beatitudes "Blessed be the poor." He talked about helping out the poor. The mechanism to promote these ideals is somewhat unclear. Lets not turn this into a religious debate unless you have actual examples of Jesus saying things agains the poor.

umm...yeah
...

uh that was supposed to be sarcastic. Sort of a joke about the 'christian' right.

It does make you an individual. But it does not make you correct.

That's an opinion.

In that case the government is not executing its duty to enforce contracts between worker and management. That is indefinately needed for capitalism to work.

No it is capitalism installing the 'dictatorship of the bourgieous'.

Tell that to the millions of people who come to this country and go from living in projects and move into huge suburban homes in the span of one generation. Don't try using one example to throw out years of actual data.

umm years of actual data show that people who live the American dream compared to people who can't escape poverty are one in 100,000 or something.

The fact is that the poor overwhelmingly see a better living from capitalism. Look at Americas poor versus the poor of Africa and you see how capitalist economic growth benefits the poor.

Africa is overwhelmingly capitalist. And even if it were socialist that would be an unfair comparison considering the size, the population and America's status as the only superpower. A fair comparison would be like Cuba's poor to Jamiaca's or guatamalas or maybe even Costa Rica (A bit to big) because they're about the same size and population, just different systems. And let me tell you, from experience Cuba is alot better off.

History already shows that every instance of his economic system has failed. lol So the U.S. became the most comfortable place to live because it had a communist system? The most free because of a communist system? It seems we have the most freedom because we are so economically stable. People can do nearly anything. And that is because of a capitalist system, not a marxist.

History seems to know **** about the definition of communism. If it did it would know that communism has never exsisted. The closest thing was the Paris Commune which worked splendidly for the few months it was alive and raised worker rights considerably. Sadly, it was crushed by bonapartists which was cause for the military build up in later socialist states like the USSR in order to avoid annihilation. This forced things to be rationed and that brought public unrest.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Yes do the workers also know how to run the robotics of the plants? I assume generally not. Every factory requires people with different skills. Whether its physical or mental. CEO's have management and risk assesment skills. And engineers would have the scientific skills. Each are needed to decide what a company will do. Participatory economics is a failed philosophy.

No it isn't. Capitalism is a failed system. I don't understand how people can tolerate the mass poverty it brings. It's like a medicine that has the common side effect of making you puke your stomach out. engineers are considered workers by the way. CEOs have business skills and profit skills which won't be needed in a humane parecon system.

Maybe the CEO who headed my former place of work that gives its workers a base pay of 10 dollars per hour, is he inhumane as well? Whys that? Because people know they need to pay more for good skills. Its nice to repeat communist rhetoric its another thing to have actual credibility in your statements. Really was exploiting those workers at 10 dollars an hour right? And they're really exploiting the minimum wage workers when they all choose to work there right? Isn't them who allows the minimum wage to exist. If no one worked these jobs then they would most certainly raise the wages. but they dont. Because for those working part time the wage is good enough for generally mindless labor.

10 dollars is also the average pay of Wal-Mart employees. There was a study done which claculated that at 10 dollars pay and the amount of hours most WM employees work, in 1 year they'd make about 14,000 dollars. 20,000 dollars is the poverty line.

Not everyone in a company has the capacity to handle that kind of work. And thats not bad at all. CEOs cant all work hard back breaking labor. And a lot of laborers cannot or dont want to do a CEO's job. If they could do it and wanted to they are free to pursue education to do such. If you do not know how to run a factory and you have researched participatory economics so much what makes you think a worker will who has spent very little time researching such a topic? Why not just let the private sector determine how they run their company?

Because they have spent years upon years in there work place and pretty much know how it works. I haven't spent years in a factory. Also I've studied parecon at a basic levels and it's not tough material to learn. You just need to sit down and read for a bit, and then think, and then realize that it makes sense.