Why is FAIR TRADE better than FREE TRADE?

[Rhea]

You still haven't addressed the issue that all too often what you portray as "free" trade is nothing of the sort at the level of the workers.

This is a good point and expands to many levels. Do “Free Trade” proponents also believe in the dissolution of the patent and trademark system? That’s not free trade - that’s government protecting one party. Why would a Free Trader support that?

 

[laughing dog]

You still haven't addressed the issue that all too often what you portray as "free" trade is nothing of the sort at the level of the workers.

This is a good point and expands to many levels. Do “Free Trade” proponents also believe in the dissolution of the patent and trademark system? That’s not free trade - that’s government protecting one party. Why would a Free Trader support that?

Lumpen is not really a "free trader" - Lumpen is "the lowest price to consumers for a given level of quality is best" trader. His/her argument ignores that "fair trade" may, in fact, be a mutually agreed upon legal agreement between buyers and seller - the very definition of free trade. In fact, if one actually thought about it (which may preclude Lumpen), laws constrain the scope of trade and treatment of labor, which may, in Lumpen's terminology, make some wages "artificially high".

Narrowly viewed, "the lowest price to consumers for a given level of quality is best for consumers" is true when one focuses solely on people as consumers. If the consumers are also workers whose wages are so low so that the lowest prices means they live in poverty or starvation, then it is not obvious that Lumpen's view is true. If one expands the view to overall well-being instead of well-being from the consumption of goods and services, it is even less true. For example, free trade with a country or company that uses forced labor may result in the lowest prices for consumers, but consumers may feel worse off knowing that those goods are produced by slave labor.

In addition, Lumpen's claim that more competition = everyone is better off is false. More competition may make some consumers and business better off. It is theoretically possible that more competition makes everyone better off. However, in the case of economies of scale or scope, more competition may make many people (possibly everyone) by preventing producers from reaching the maximum economies of scale or scope (i.e. the lowest price).

All in all, Lumpen's argument has is shallow in logic, economics and human deceny, and deep in anti-worker bias.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Let's hear it for "Living Wage"!

also "Jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" and "Bring back the factories!" -- More mindless slogans for the idiot masses (to keep them out of mischief)

You have yet to show any acknowledgement that workers and consumers are the same people.

All workers are consumers. But some consumers are not workers. What's the point? Is this "workers and consumers are the same people" another mindless slogan, to be added to the collection of "fair trade" mindless slogans?

What Is a Living Wage?

A living wage refers to a theoretical income level that allows an individual or family to afford adequate shelter, food, and the other basic necessities. The goal of a living wage is to allow employees to earn enough income for a satisfactory standard of living and to prevent them from falling into poverty.

And if you make all jobs illegal which don't pay that much, you shut down a certain amount of the economy, so all that work does not get done = less production = lower standard of living overall.

A good living standard requires that the stuff gets produced, but if you shut down some of the production, then you reduce the living standard overall.

The only way this is solved is by NOT ENFORCING the "living wage" for much or most of the economy (which is what happens), so that the "living wage" is reduced to a mere platitude, and the production is allowed to go on anyway, without imposing the artificial living wage onto all employers and workers.

Economists suggest that a living wage should be substantial enough to ensure that no more than 30% of it gets spent on housing.

The higher it is, the more damage it does to the economy (if it's enforced), as more of the economy has to be shut down (because the jobs aren't worth that much and will be eliminated). But as long as it's not enforced, then the damage from it is negligible. And there are myriad ways that employers avoid paying it. So the effect is that some workers are paid higher, because of it, while most workers are unaffected, and many others are hurt by it because of the higher cost of living it imposes onto everyone, as all the prices have to be raised higher in order to pay the higher labor cost.

But if it makes you feel good, maybe the delusion that it improves the economy has some psychological benefit, for those who need the good feelings. You could also pass a law mandating that everyone will be happy, and that might also give a psychological benefit to people who need to be deluded.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/living_wage.asp

Nothing in this reference explains how the economy is made better off when some of the production has to be shut down as a result of driving up the wage higher than what it's worth to pay and thus eliminating jobs. There have always been marginal jobs which were done because employers were willing to pay $1/hr or $2/hr (because it was profitable at that low labor cost), but were not willing to pay $5/hr or $10/hr because it was not profitable. So those lower-value jobs are eliminated when "living wage" is imposed onto all employers, and all that production does not get done = lower living standard.

But in reality the "living wage" is mostly not enforced and is a platitude only, imposed onto only some of the economy, while vast amounts of work are done in violation of the "living wage" requirement. It's only for this reason that people can be deluded into thinking that it makes the economy better. The damage done is small enough to not be noticed or measurable, and those who are hurt significantly by it are few enough that they can be ignored, or you can pretend that they don't exist. It's always easy to impose your damage onto people and then just pretend that those people don't exist. There may be some high-profile workers who benefit from it, so you can obsess only on them, and you can also have your symbolism or good feelings from the words "living wage" and other slogans, for the good vibes they radiate.

 

[DBT]

Why Aren't Wages Keeping Up? It's Not The Economy, It's Management

''In this article, I’d like to explain why this may not a problem of economics, but rather an issue of management – and one which we can address by changing the nature of the discussion.

Point 1: Wages Are Not Keeping up.

Let’s just discuss the issues of wages: they are not keeping up with inflation. Consider the data below. While the GDP has risen (after inflation), real incomes have barely budged.
Wages not keeping up with inflation.

Wages not keeping up with inflation. NY Times

In fact, if we look at U.S. wages over the longer term, wages after inflation have barely budged over the last 44 years.

It’s frightening to consider, but my parents, who were a young couple in the 1960s, could buy a house for less than 25% of their take-home pay. They owned two cars and put my brother and me through college on a middle-income salary. (My father was a scientist with a mid-level job.) That dream is elusive today.

As Heather Boushey, an economist with The Washington Center for Equitable Growth puts it,

The economy is growing. Why aren’t people feeling it?” Boushey says. “The answer is: Because they literally aren’t feeling it.

And it seems to be getting worse. Despite an increase in wages most recently (2.9% as of August of 2018), income inequality has increased, leading even more to feel they aren't keeping up. While the stock market has benefited those with savings and 401(k)s, most don’t feel it.''

Point 2: Workers Are Struggling

The second piece of evidence I want to point out is the level of financial stress we see among workers. Look at some of these statistics:

40% of Americans had trouble paying for food, medical care, housing, or utilities in the last year.
Nearly half of Americans have no retirement savings, creating increases in stress-related illnesses and heart disease
63% of Americans do not have $500 of cash on hand to handle emergencies or other significant expenses
70% of college grads have $15,000 or more of loans outstanding in their first year of work
4 in 10 Americans now have a “sides hustle” to make more money to help make ends meet[9]
Employers like Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, Ubers, and Outback Steakhouse are now building programs to pay people every day, so they can better manage their cash.



Point 5: This Is A Management Issue, Not an Economic Issue

The bottom line is this: lagging wages in the U.S. is not an economic issue, it’s really about management. The spirit is there, but the actions are not.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Stop whining about my whining about your whining!

As it stands, most of the world's wealth is flowing into the hands of a small percentage of the world's population.

Two corrections to this would be:

Impose a tax on Wall St., i.e., tax on stock transactions.

Increase property taxes on the largest holdings. Or make property taxes progressive, so that most residential homes would not be taxed more, but those in the very high brackets would be taxed at higher rates.

That's the reality. It is an unsustainable reality.

Just whining about the wealth gap does no good unless you offer a real solution to it. The solution is not to prop up the wage levels of uncompetitive workers to have them be paid more than they are worth.

Paying anyone more than their real value doesn't solve anything or make it better. We're better off to let the free market set all the prices and wages, without artificially paying someone higher than their worth out of pity for them. Pitying the less competitive and pandering to them makes nothing better. All it does is increase the prices all consumers have to pay, including the poor.

Increasing the income tax rate on the highest brackets would be OK. But income tax is hugely expensive to enforce, as opposed to property tax.

Why do you say it's 'whining' whenever problems are being identified and described? Is it because you don't happen to agree, and this is your way of dismissing whatever you disagree with?

It's "whining" if you don't say what should be done about the problems you're whin---- identifying and describing, as here.

Maybe also it's "whining" if you propose solutions which would only make things worse. I.e., crybaby solutions, like demanding that wages must be forced higher (not for improved worker performance but out of pity for the workers because they're victims we're supposed to feel sorry for), which would only drive up costs and decrease the production = higher prices to consumers = lower living standard, thus making everyone worse off, including most workers.

I think it's "whining" if that's all you can do. Especially when you're told this and you're asked what's the real solution, and yet you continue to just repeat the same complaints without offering any serious solution. Especially if all you do is repeat Marxist class-warfare slogans and nothing more.

 

[DBT]

Two corrections to this would be:

Impose a tax on Wall St., i.e., tax on stock transactions.

Increase property taxes on the largest holdings. Or make property taxes progressive, so that most residential homes would not be taxed more, but those in the very high brackets would be taxed at higher rates.

That's the reality. It is an unsustainable reality.

Just whining about the wealth gap does no good unless you offer a real solution to it. The solution is not to prop up the wage levels of uncompetitive workers to have them be paid more than they are worth.

Paying anyone more than their real value doesn't solve anything or make it better. We're better off to let the free market set all the prices and wages, without artificially paying someone higher than their worth out of pity for them. Pitying the less competitive and pandering to them makes nothing better. All it does is increase the prices all consumers have to pay, including the poor.

Increasing the income tax rate on the highest brackets would be OK. But income tax is hugely expensive to enforce, as opposed to property tax.

Why do you say it's 'whining' whenever problems are being identified and described? Is it because you don't happen to agree, and this is your way of dismissing whatever you disagree with?

It's "whining" if you don't say what should be done about the problems you're whin---- identifying and describing, as here.

Maybe also it's "whining" if you propose solutions which would only make things worse. I.e., crybaby solutions, like demanding that wages must be forced higher (not for improved worker performance but out of pity for the workers because they're victims we're supposed to feel sorry for), which would only drive up costs and decrease the production = higher prices to consumers = lower living standard, thus making everyone worse off, including most workers.

I think it's "whining" if that's all you can do. Especially when you're told this and you're asked what's the real solution, and yet you continue to just repeat the same complaints without offering any serious solution. Especially if all you do is repeat Marxist class-warfare slogans and nothing more.

Bluff and bluster that doesn't represent the reality of an imbalance of power between management and individual workers, especially the lowest paid.

SHIFTING THE BALANCE OF POWERIN THE WORKPLACE TO BOOST PRODUCTIVITY AND PAY

''Shifting the balance of power in the workplace to boost productivity and pay1Too often, people’s experience of work is disempowering, lacking dignity and autonomy. One-third of all employees are fearful at work in some way, most feel that they lack a say over the decisions influencing their working life (Gallie et al 2012a and 2012b) and a majority feel disengaged at work (CIPD 2013a). Growing insecurity at work is matched by increasing financial precariousness in the form of the well-publicised squeeze on household incomes, the rise of zero-hours contracts and the growth in jobs paid less than the Living Wage.''

Interrelated challenges: poor productivity and wage stagnation

The average UK worker’s output has fallen to 16 per cent below the G7 average, and remains 2 per cent below its 2007 peak, while the proportion of total expenditure accounted for by spending on investment fell to 10.4 per cent in Q2 2013, the lowest level recorded since the 1950s. This suggests that we are not properly harnessing the talents and skills of our workers, or properly investing in the future productive capacity of our economy. Meanwhile, as productivity stagnates, power and pay have become increasingly and unjustifiably concentrated at the top over the last 30 years, as the institutions that acted as countervailing powers1 in the workplace have weakened, a process accelerated by wider trends of globalisation, demographic and technological change. One consequence has been that the share of wages as a percentage of national income has progressively fallen from around 58 per cent in the early 1980 to 54 per cent in 2011,while profit’s share has increased from 24 per cent to 28 per cent over the same period (Lansley and Reed 2013)''

 

[ZiprHead]

You have yet to show any acknowledgement that workers and consumers are the same people.

All workers are consumers. But some consumers are not workers. What's the point? Is this "workers and consumers are the same people" another mindless slogan, to be added to the collection of "fair trade" mindless slogans?

That you can't, won't or don't see the point is the point.

That you think it's a mindless slogan is just showing you refuse to use your mind to dope it out.

It's a means for you to justify your anti-worker bigotry.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Fair Trade Dogmatism vs. Unilateral Free Trade / Free Market / Live-and-let-live

As I say, I am a radical centrist. I saw what I thought were extremist arguments against "fair trade" and I argued for Fair. Had I seen over-simplistic arguments for "fair trade," I'd have joined you on the side of Free.

I think a country like Poland should be free — or even encouraged — to preserve their culture by subsidizing Polish art. Yet that goes against "Free Trade."

Which "Polish art"? Even if Poles agreed 100% that "Polish art" should be subsidized, they might still fight in the streets and slaughter each other over which art is the genuine "Polish art" and which is really alien or suspicious in origin and must first be approved by the House UnPolish Activities Committee before being certified as genuinely Polish.

There are many "shoulds" and "should-nots" which can be debated forever without much agreement between differing countries. This is why "Free Trade" should be mainly UNILATERAL, without being conditioned on the other country/trade partner having to agree to the same "shoulds" and "should-nots" before the trading can begin.

It's wrong for a government to subsidize any particular art, as if science can prove that this art is superior to that. But it's also wrong to demand that other countries practice this neutrality before we can trade with them. So this is an argument for Unilateral Free Trade as opposed to bilateral agreements.

Is the issue of culture preservation the petard you want to be hoisted on?

That's only one of hundreds/thousands of obstacles to free trade, if it has to be bilateral. Therefore let's have Unilateral Free Trade with all nations -- including with Cuba, N. Korea, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, China, and others who have some bad values or practices -- with virtually nothing they do interfering with the deal, no matter how badly we might condemn their behavior. We traded with China even though they had antidemocratic practices much worse than subsidizing Chinese art. And as a result there has been some moderation of their bad practices, through the interaction, the business dealings. Maybe in another 500-1000 years China will become a more ideal country in terms of human rights and tolerance and individual liberty. Or maybe not.

But Unilateral Free Trade is proving to be the right philosophy to deal with China or any other country. You're giving a good argument for Unilateral Free Trade, not an argument against free trade.

Let me close by emphasizing one fallacy. You treat The Market as some infallible God that by definition determines the unique "correct" price.

No, that's what "Fair Trade" is, pretending to determine the "unique 'correct" price as opposed to the price decided by the buyers and sellers (the market) in the daily transactions. The "market" price is just whatever the buyers and sellers are agreeing to in the ongoing commerce without anyone pretending to "determine" or judge what the "fair" prices should be instead of the prices happening haphazardly in the market through the thousands/millions of transactions driving prices up and down moment by moment.

Things are simply not so simple; labor prices are set much more haphazardly.

But you're describing the market, which is not simple and sets the prices haphazardly, day by day, moment by moment, from one location to another, depending on countless conditions which are constantly changing and so cannot be calculated by planners who presume to know what the "correct" or "fair" price is for something. "Simply" leaving the complex haphazard market alone works better.

The wages of an impoverished and oppressed people will be set to just slightly more than a living wage regardless of whether they're making cheap sweaters or Gucci bags.

No, they will sometimes be LOWER than the "living wage" because the worker's value is less than the "living wage" theory which tries to overrule the everyday market transactions and replace them with a moralistic dogma about a "decent standard of living" to which everyone is entitled regardless of their value in the market, or regardless of supply and demand.

No matter what figure you calculate that the "living wage" has to be, the reality is that the wage actually paid will sometimes be less than that number, because the normal market transactions going on do not recognize your pretentious theory of what people SHOULD be doing instead of what they actually do. The "living wage" judgmentalism cannot actually be imposed in all the millions of transactions going on to "set" the wages where the self-appointed experts calculate that they should be, because they cannot police all those millions of buyers and sellers. All they can do is preach sermons and find cases here and there where they can crack down on a buyer or seller and perhaps impose, in that one case, what they pretend is the genuine "living wage" as they define it.

It's written by a scholar of religion rather than a scholar of economics, but I recommend all Talksters read this brilliant article about dogmatic faith in The Market.

No, "the Market" is a reactionary idea, arising in response to the dogmatic interventionists.

To "believe in the Market" just means to reject all those who claim to know, from their Divine Revelation, what the True Righteous and Fair Price is for everything. So it's not a BELIEF IN something, but just a rejection of all the pundits and moralists and judgmentalists who presume to calculate the True Infallible Price for everything and then impose this onto society in opposition to what the prices would be if dogmatists would just stay out of it and leave buyers and sellers alone to make their decisions.

So to believe "in the Market" means just to leave people free to make their decisions, without pretending to know what's good for them, or what's good for society.

While the "fair trade" interventionists who want to regulate or control or overrule "the Market" are those driven by an obsession with this or that victim group, or this or that special interest promoting their gain at everyone else's expense and requiring a crackdown or stomping-down on someone who gets in their way, i.e., in the way of promoting the favored interest group at everyone else's expense.

And it's the resistance to these dogmatic interventionists which has led to the "Free Market" ideology, which teaches to leave everyone free to make their own decisions. So the "Free Market" faith is a reactionary mindset which would not exist except as a resistance to the interventionist "fair trade" dogmatism which keeps rearing its ugly head again and again, causing some to react against it.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Free trade is bad because we're a nation of paranoid China-bashing xenophobes, and so "fair trade" would work better for us.

I'm generally a strong free trade advocate (the capitalist scum that I am!). However, free trade doesn't work as well when the supply chain is disrupted.

Nothing works as well when the supply chain is disrupted. But what is more likely to cause such disruption? not free trade, but rather protectionism and "fair trade" such as Trump's recent measures to punish other countries, like China, which he says is not playing "fair" and so has to be punished. This retaliation against those who are not "fair" then causes disruption, not only because U.S. companies are cut off from foreign suppliers, or have costs of supply driven up, but also because those countries retaliate with their own penalties against the U.S., causing still more disruption.

But to say "free trade doesn't work as well when . . ." etc. implies that free trade causes such disruption, or that more harm happens from the disruption than if there was no free trade, which is not the case.

The covid crisis has made many manufacturers like myself value dependable sources of raw materials and components. I'm willing to pay a premium for products that are near by and reliable.

How do trade barriers make any products reliable, near or far? Mexico and Canada aren't so far, but Trump's "fair trade" retaliations against those countries can only make it more difficult for you to acquire raw materials or components from them. How does it help the supply chain to have a President who is trigger-happy with his "fair trade" weapons aimed at other countries and unpredictably opens fire on them when he thinks it might win him some extra votes from this or that xenophobic interest group who imagines the country is collapsing whenever an uncompetitive factory is shut down?

If anything I anticipate greater problems in the international supply chain.

Only because of Trump's "fair trade" war against foreign producers who are too competitive and so have to be punished. Any problems of the supply being disrupted has only increased recently, as a result of the new "fair trade" requirements that are being imposed more strictly than before. Except for that, what "problems" are there in the supply chain? What has been cut off or disrupted by anything other than the cracking-down on free trade to make it more "fair"?

There's no doubt in my mind that Asia is going to become less dependable due to potential wars in the future (Taiwan and the disputed Islands).

I.e., China will attack and sink ships, or blow up producers doing business with the U.S., as part of a shooting war?

No, this is paranoia not based on anything from past history. The U.S. can sell to Taiwan all the weapons it needs to defend itself, without any loss of trade with Asia. No matter how much China objects to such weapons sales to Taiwan, or whatever retaliation it might do, there's nothing to indicate that it would start blowing up cargo ships (to or from the U.S.) or disrupting non-military commerce. It's much more the U.S., rather than China, which has exhibited that kind of paranoia. China's irrational behavior has been its protectionist and mercantilist measures, but not any aggressive assault on commerce, such as to disrupt U.S. access to Asia for supply.

E.g., name any example of a measure China ever took to punish a country -- S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Philippines, etc. -- to punish it for doing any kind of business with the U.S.? pressuring it to increase its price, or withhold any product the U.S. needs?

What has ever happened to crack down on U.S. access to Asia, incited by U.S. military aid to Taiwan or anyone else?

Even to Hong Kong, now part of China, what has China done to try to disrupt trade with the U.S., or commerce or business transactions? to cut off needed supply to the U.S.?

Yes, if there's an all-out nuclear war with China, and major cities like Los Angeles and New York and Chicago, and Peking and Shanghai and Hong Kong, etc. etc. go up in smoke, 50 million lives lost -- that could cause some disruption of trade with Asia and everywhere else. So, that's the reason free trade isn't a good idea? because that nuclear war inevitably will happen, and so we don't want to become too dependent on Asia?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

historical fact: Free trade/cheap labor has made us all better off today. And will continue making us better off.

Your only "fair trade" alternative is crybaby whining against the dirty capitalist pigs.

What's wrong with letting the destitute job-seeker decide whether to take that low-paying sweatshop job?

Considering the US is a wealthy nation, you present a narrow two dimensional picture, two despicable options where any number of possibilities exist.

But some desperate job-seekers choose the low-paying sweatshop job as the best possibility. How do you know their choice is wrong? They have searched for the other possibilities and decided this was their best option. If there's really any number of better possibilities than this, then why are they choosing this one?

Is it because they don't know Donald bring-back-the-factories Trump is offering incredible good-paying jobs to everyone? with incredible benefits, incredible health-care and pension, etc.? Are those the "any number of possibilities" you say exist but those desperate job-seekers don't know about? You're really sure all those wonderful "jobs! jobs! jobs!" are there? only pleasant choices?

It is in the interest of destitute people to be taken advantage of in order for business to maximize profits?

Yes, IF it makes them less destitute than they would be otherwise, which it does. Why shouldn't the business make profit while making that worker and all the consumers better off? Why is it that you have no answer except your pure HATE for the business making profit? Why do you have to HATE that business, when it's doing nothing wrong other than making a profit?

Can't you come up with an example of something BAD that business is doing? to anyone? to that worker? to consumers? Why is it that you have only your HATE and nothing more? Why can't you suggest anything positive, to improve that worker's condition? You offer nothing for that worker by just whining that the employer could do more, and yet you offer no alternative to help that worker you pretend to feel sorry for.

Don't you realize that there are millions more poor people who are worse off than that low-paid worker? And your demand that he must either be paid at a higher rate or his job must be eliminated is going to make him worse off. If you really care about that poor low-paid worker, why don't you offer something which would IMPROVE his life rather than something that will make him and other workers WORSE off?

A wage race to the bottom is a benefit to people who have no negotiating power, so . . .

Yes it's a "benefit" if it makes them better off than if there was no job at all offered to them. If something makes you a little better off, then isn't it a benefit? or at worst you reject it as not enough and so you're no worse off -- what's wrong with that?

. . . have no negotiating power, so are to be considered fair game?

Considered BY WHOM to be "fair game"? they themselves are making the choice. They can turn down that job offer if it's not good enough. Why shouldn't they be free to make that choice? Hate language like "fair game" doesn't offer them anything better. Those hate words express nothing but your rage against the dirty capitalists, and nothing more. Is that all you have? only hate language? You can only condemn them without identifying what the harm is that they're doing? You can't say how they're making anyone worse off?

Your idea of a society or an economy is not something any reasonable person would want to see . . .

It's not just an IDEA, but it's the REALITY, that these choices are being made. Desperate job-seekers are in fact offered low-paying jobs and they choose them as their best option.

Why wouldn't a reasonable person want there to be such choices rather than no choice at all? What's "unreasonable" about choosing something that makes things a little better? A small improvement is not reasonable? It's better to have no improvement at all?

. . . something any reasonable person would want to see develop.

Reasonable people are against a small improvement developing? You mean NO IMPROVEMENT at all is more reasonable? Why is that reasonable? Why is NO IMPROVEMENT more reasonable than gradual improvement? You're saying a WORSE condition is more reasonable than a BETTER condition. And that if a small improvement is attempted, it should be stamped out in favor of NO IMPROVEMENT.

Why do you want people to be worse off? Why do you want to thwart them from making some improvement? such as they get when they take that low-paying job rather than having no job at all? Why do you think no job at all is better for them than to let them choose? How do you make them better off by denying them that choice?

The US is already too far down that road.

The US and other developed countries have come far down that road for generations, even centuries, and as a result offer much better choices to the poor today than were offered to them 100 and 200 years ago when they had their children working in the factories for 14 hours a day. By making those difficult choices back then, and others later, we have all benefited through these generations and today have developed to where the choices now are better. But you condemn those difficult choices, and so would have prevented them from making that gradual improvement, because slow improvement is worse than no improvement at all. You agree with the Luddites in preferring the no improvement at all. You condemn those gradual improvements and progress (which eliminated jobs and made some workers worse off in the short term) as something no "reasonable person would want to see develop."

What is not "reasonable" about having gradual progress? down the road toward gradual improvement? as an alternative to no improvement?

 

[DBT]

Your only "fair trade" alternative is crybaby whining against the dirty capitalist pigs.

Considering the US is a wealthy nation, you present a narrow two dimensional picture, two despicable options where any number of possibilities exist.

But some desperate job-seekers choose the low-paying sweatshop job as the best possibility. How do you know their choice is wrong? They have searched for the other possibilities and decided this was their best option. If there's really any number of better possibilities than this, then why are they choosing this one?

Is it because they don't know Donald bring-back-the-factories Trump is offering incredible good-paying jobs to everyone? with incredible benefits, incredible health-care and pension, etc.? Are those the "any number of possibilities" you say exist but those desperate job-seekers don't know about? You're really sure all those wonderful "jobs! jobs! jobs!" are there? only pleasant choices?

It is in the interest of destitute people to be taken advantage of in order for business to maximize profits?

Yes, IF it makes them less destitute than they would be otherwise, which it does. Why shouldn't the business make profit while making that worker and all the consumers better off? Why is it that you have no answer except your pure HATE for the business making profit? Why do you have to HATE that business, when it's doing nothing wrong other than making a profit?

Can't you come up with an example of something BAD that business is doing? to anyone? to that worker? to consumers? Why is it that you have only your HATE and nothing more? Why can't you suggest anything positive, to improve that worker's condition? You offer nothing for that worker by just whining that the employer could do more, and yet you offer no alternative to help that worker you pretend to feel sorry for.

Don't you realize that there are millions more poor people who are worse off than that low-paid worker? And your demand that he must either be paid at a higher rate or his job must be eliminated is going to make him worse off. If you really care about that poor low-paid worker, why don't you offer something which would IMPROVE his life rather than something that will make him and other workers WORSE off?

A wage race to the bottom is a benefit to people who have no negotiating power, so . . .

Yes it's a "benefit" if it makes them better off than if there was no job at all offered to them. If something makes you a little better off, then isn't it a benefit? or at worst you reject it as not enough and so you're no worse off -- what's wrong with that?

. . . have no negotiating power, so are to be considered fair game?

Considered BY WHOM to be "fair game"? they themselves are making the choice. They can turn down that job offer if it's not good enough. Why shouldn't they be free to make that choice? Hate language like "fair game" doesn't offer them anything better. Those hate words express nothing but your rage against the dirty capitalists, and nothing more. Is that all you have? only hate language? You can only condemn them without identifying what the harm is that they're doing? You can't say how they're making anyone worse off?

Your idea of a society or an economy is not something any reasonable person would want to see . . .

It's not just an IDEA, but it's the REALITY, that these choices are being made. Desperate job-seekers are in fact offered low-paying jobs and they choose them as their best option.

Why wouldn't a reasonable person want there to be such choices rather than no choice at all? What's "unreasonable" about choosing something that makes things a little better? A small improvement is not reasonable? It's better to have no improvement at all?

. . . something any reasonable person would want to see develop.

Reasonable people are against a small improvement developing? You mean NO IMPROVEMENT at all is more reasonable? Why is that reasonable? Why is NO IMPROVEMENT more reasonable than gradual improvement? You're saying a WORSE condition is more reasonable than a BETTER condition. And that if a small improvement is attempted, it should be stamped out in favor of NO IMPROVEMENT. Why do you want people to be worse off? Why do you want to thwart them from making some improvement? such as they get when they take that low-paying job rather than having no job at all? Why do you think no job at all is better for them when they want to have that choice instead of the no-choice-at-all which you want to impose on them?

The US is already too far down that road.

The US and other developed countries have come far down that road for generations, even centuries, and as a result offer much better choices to the poor today than were offered to them 100 and 200 years ago when they had their children working in the factories for 14 hours a day. By making those difficult choices back then, and others later, we have all benefited through these generations and today have developed to where the choices now are better. But you condemn those difficult choices, and so would have prevented them from making that gradual improvement, because slow improvement is worse than no improvement at all. You agree with the Luddites in preferring the no improvement at all. You condemn those gradual improvements and progress (which eliminated jobs and made some workers worse off in the short term) as something no "reasonable person would want to see develop."

What is not "reasonable" about having gradual progress? down the road toward gradual improvement? as an alternative to no improvement?

Gradual improvement in wages rate is not in the interest of business. There has been wage stagnation for decades. The aim is to hold wage cost down in order to boost profits.

Once again, exploiting workers benefits the rich at the expense of the economy at large and the workers. The reasons have been given numerous times.

It is blatant exploitation that takes advantage of the power imbalance between business and workers.

It is obscene.

The economy is growing but our paychecks are not.

''That’s because employers have, over decades, built a political apparatus to hold down pay

When unemployment goes down, wages are supposed to go up. That’s just supply and demand. Quite puzzlingly, though, this mechanism seems not to be working today. Unemployment stands at a modest 4%, but paychecks aren’t growing. Although today’s is the best-educated workforce in history, employers just insist that workers need more training.

In other words, they’re gaslighting us. Meanwhile, over decades, employers have built and maintained a massive collective political apparatus to hold down wages. To call it a conspiracy would be only slight embellishment.

The symptoms of the problem are not hard to miss. In February, for example, the American economy posted its biggest one-month jobs gain in a couple years, but wage growth stayed stalled out. For months, economists and financial journalists have been puzzling over the question, as Bloomberg put it, of “why the economy grows but your paycheck doesn’t”.

Economists will tell you that wages generally increase with productivity – that you’re paid in line with the value of what you do. This was credible from the end of the second world war to the 1970s, when productivity and hourly wages rose almost perfectly in sync. But according to research by the Economic Policy Institute, from the early 1970s to 2016 productivity went up 73.7%, and wages only 12.3%.''

How Does the Minimum Wage Impact the Economy?

''Without a wage floor, employers would continue to pay less and less, destroying the purchasing power of the consumers who would make less money, Cooper said. The minimum wage then helps mitigate that imbalance of power between employers and low-wage workers.''

 

[fromderinside]

Annually increasing wage base by one percent more than inflation rate will put more money in hands of shoppers which will turn over many more times than the amount of money lost by businesses increasing wages. It will also motivate other businesses to increase wages further putting more money into the market while incentivizing upward mobility among workers. Stirring the pot adds energy.

The whole idea of the above is to make markets more dynamic which is different from both fair and free trade. But the idea points to why a free market with minimums is the worst case market scenario. Fair market isn't much better since 'fair' is always up in the air as a marker leading to changes of emphasis in market strategies with takes energy from the market.

The best way is to find ways to boost available capital for capture which is what the relation I provide supplies. What I suggest isn't 'fair' to the conservative owner nor it is is it 'free' since it mandates a market driver for one of the sides in the market.

Other things like bringing labor from depressed economies into shrinking population economics increases upward wage freedom to the depressed economy and supplies a labor boon for existing economies easing pressure for excessive competition for labor. The key is not to stabilize but to introduce new dynamics into economies.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Scapegoating employers is popular, always wins votes.

Here's another poll question (unofficial):

Which demagogue takes first prize for employer-bashing and pandering to the mindless masses?

1) Donald Trump
2) Bernie Sanders
3) Franklin D. Roosevelt

Here's a vote for employer-basher FDR:

“It is to the real advantage of every producer, every manufacturer and every merchant to cooperate in the improvement of working conditions, because . . .

They already do cooperate in such improvement -- they've always had to. They're driven to do this by competition, for the sake of the company, profit, etc.

But even so, you can always whine that it's not enough, to increase your popularity and win votes. Employers could be forced to double the improvement for workers, and the cost, or to triple or quadruple it, and get still more improvement, beyond what's profitable. There is no level of improvement which can be scientifically identified as the right amount. The higher the cost goes, the more the working conditions can be improved, but also the more production has to be reduced because of the increased cost, because each small improvement adds additional cost. Higher cost = lower production. How do you calculate what the cost limit should be?

There has to be a limit beyond which any additional improvement to benefit the workers would be too costly. Any preaching about needing to improve the working conditions is mindless utopianism if it does not include a rule about what the limit is beyond which it's not worth the additional cost. FDR never answered this with his sermons, nor any of his economists, nor does any "fair trade" crusader today include such a principle for putting a limit on improving the worker conditions at higher and higher cost.

The working conditions could always be made better, far beyond anything FDR demanded. Why did he put a limit on how much? How did he draw the line? There were still bad and unsafe conditions and still some preventable accidents and deaths, even after ALL his improvements. And there were still workers unable to make enough to support their families after all the wage increases and labor improvements. Virtually no labor union leaders today would accept the same working conditions as those of the 1930s and 40s as sufficient for today.

There's no proof that the state-imposed higher wage-and-benefit standards today have resulted in an overall improvement for the whole economy. They have imposed huge costs onto the production and thus much higher prices consumers must pay, with no way to calculate that this produces a net beneficial result. Some of the higher cost almost certainly has been a detriment to the overall living standard. Just because a few thousand or million workers benefit does not make it a net benefit for all of society which has to pay for it in much higher prices.

But many or most of the improved working conditions are a result of the profit motive and competition, with no help from FDR or any labor law, because companies automatically made conditions better in order to improve the production to make it more efficient, because such improvement happens automatically as a result of free trade, or free market cost-and-benefit decisions by the dirty capitalist pigs doing what's good for their company and also for the consumers. You have no evidence that FDR made it better than it would have been anyway.

. . . because the best customer of American industry is the well-paid worker.”

FDR

Which industry? how about jet airliners? How many workers go out and buy themselves a jet airliner?

Let's get serious. A platitude like "the well-paid worker is the best customer" does not answer how society benefits by forcing a company to pay wages higher than what's profitable, or by shutting down companies for paying its workers less than FDR's or Karl Marx's prescribed wage. After "fair trade" has shut down that company, because the wage level was too low, what has been accomplished? Who's better off? all those workers who no longer have a job? How is having no job better than having a low-paying job?

Throwing around FDR's platitudes does not answer this question. When that company has been shut down, everyone is made worse off, not better. When consumers are denied the choice to buy cheap clothes from Bangladesh or somewhere, how does that make anyone better off? It would be OK if another company then magically appears and hires those workers for twice as much, but it's not the reality. Rather, those workers are just tossed out of a low-paying job into a NO-JOB alternative such as begging or sex slavery. How is that better? That's "fair trade" -- no job instead of that low-paying job.

If there was any higher-paying job for them they would have already taken that instead of this low-paying job producing shirts for U.S. consumers who want cheap shirts.

So, how does FDR's fantasy-platitude about "the well-paid worker" solve any problem for that laid-off worker in Bangladesh whose product can no longer be sold because "fair trade" shut the sweatshop down? How has FDR's platitudes or Trump's "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" and "fair trade" made anyone better off than they were before when some poor people had their low-paying job and Americans had their low-cost shirts? Why is NO JOBS better? and NO SHIRTS for consumers?

How do you get a "well-paid worker" by eliminating jobs? How is the worker better off having no job instead of a low-paying job? Barfing out FDR platitudes doesn't answer this any better than Trump's China-bashing and "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" babble.

 

[DBT]

There are good reasons for a state imposed minimum wage.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There are good reasons for a state imposed minimum wage.

I hate any one size fits all mindset. What economic policy is chosen has to depend upon the market of that country. For example, any economy with a single or few very valuable natural resources. A pure free market aproach in that situation is fucked. It needs extremely strong government intervention and control. Like what Norway did with the oil. Holland chose a free market aproach regarding their natural gas resources, and all the money got siphoned off into private pockets who then fucked off.

In markets with a largely uneducated workforce or mono crop economies needs government intervention to break the vicious cycle of having poor workers trapped in starvation wages for generations. Sweden is a good example of that. Sweden went from being one of the poorest countries on Earth in 1880 to just in a couple of generations, to one of the richest countries on Earth. How did Sweden do it? State sponsored education of the workers, churning out engineers and researchers. Technically the trade unions did it, but with heavy support from the government. Worked like a charm.

Saudi Arabia now is copying that model to get their economy away from oil dependents.

I think the goal state of any market should be to be as libertarian as possible with minimum regulations. But that assumes a whole bunch of things is working in that market to keep it from becoming unstable a killing market dynamism. It's an ongoing process.

Adam Smith said that the first instinct of any competitors in any market is to stop compeating. Breaking apart cartells is very difficult and needs a firm hand and state intervention.

The reason I'm a lefty is that the market is very often dysfunctional. But I understand the benefits of free market capitalsm, when it is working.

 

[DBT]

Australia has minimum wage, yet there are employers who exploit and under pay vulnerable workers, casual farm workers, hospitality, etc. Without the protection of defined minimum pay and conditions they have no power, no options, no legal recourse, they remain at the mercy of unscrupulous employers.

 

[ZiprHead]

Here's another poll question (unofficial):

Which demagogue takes first prize for employer-bashing and pandering to the mindless masses?

1) Donald Trump
2) Bernie Sanders
3) Franklin D. Roosevelt

Here's a vote for employer-basher FDR:

“It is to the real advantage of every producer, every manufacturer and every merchant to cooperate in the improvement of working conditions, because . . .

They already do cooperate in such improvement -- they've always had to. They're driven to do this by competition, for the sake of the company, profit, etc.

But even so, you can always whine that it's not enough, to increase your popularity and win votes. Employers could be forced to double the improvement for workers, and the cost, or to triple or quadruple it, and get still more improvement, beyond what's profitable. There is no level of improvement which can be scientifically identified as the right amount. The higher the cost goes, the more the working conditions can be improved, but also the more production has to be reduced because of the increased cost, because each small improvement adds additional cost. Higher cost = lower production. How do you calculate what the cost limit should be?

There has to be a limit beyond which any additional improvement to benefit the workers would be too costly. Any preaching about needing to improve the working conditions is mindless utopianism if it does not include a rule about what the limit is beyond which it's not worth the additional cost. FDR never answered this with his sermons, nor any of his economists, nor does any "fair trade" crusader today include such a principle for putting a limit on improving the worker conditions at higher and higher cost.

The working conditions could always be made better, far beyond anything FDR demanded. Why did he put a limit on how much? How did he draw the line? There were still bad and unsafe conditions and still some preventable accidents and deaths, even after ALL his improvements. And there were still workers unable to make enough to support their families after all the wage increases and labor improvements. Virtually no labor union leaders today would accept the same working conditions as those of the 1930s and 40s as sufficient for today.

There's no proof that the state-imposed higher wage-and-benefit standards today have resulted in an overall improvement for the whole economy. They have imposed huge costs onto the production and thus much higher prices consumers must pay, with no way to calculate that this produces a net beneficial result. Some of the higher cost almost certainly has been a detriment to the overall living standard. Just because a few thousand or million workers benefit does not make it a net benefit for all of society which has to pay for it in much higher prices.

But many or most of the improved working conditions are a result of the profit motive and competition, with no help from FDR or any labor law, because companies automatically made conditions better in order to improve the production to make it more efficient, because such improvement happens automatically as a result of free trade, or free market cost-and-benefit decisions by the dirty capitalist pigs doing what's good for their company and also for the consumers. You have no evidence that FDR made it better than it would have been anyway.

. . . because the best customer of American industry is the well-paid worker.”

FDR

Which industry? how about jet airliners? How many workers go out and buy themselves a jet airliner?

Companies buy jet airliners because workers have enough money to purchase tickets to ride on them.

To not make that connection and form another overly wordy response to it requires some pretty deep willful ignorance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Annually increasing wage base by one percent more than inflation rate will put more money in hands of shoppers which will turn over many more times than the amount of money lost by businesses increasing wages. It will also motivate other businesses to increase wages further putting more money into the market while incentivizing upward mobility among workers. Stirring the pot adds energy.

And the inflation rate runs wild until the politicians who vote for this abomination get voted out of office.

 

[DBT]

Wages must keep up with the CPI at least, or get eroded by inflation

 

[fromderinside]

Annually increasing wage base by one percent more than inflation rate will put more money in hands of shoppers which will turn over many more times than the amount of money lost by businesses increasing wages. It will also motivate other businesses to increase wages further putting more money into the market while incentivizing upward mobility among workers. Stirring the pot adds energy.

And the inflation rate runs wild until the politicians who vote for this abomination get voted out of office.

Well here comes another one who doesn't take into account incentive. Better paid workers are more productive. Full stop. Inflation evaporates and interest rates stay low like they are now. Oh my. In an open market where competition rises as products become desirable prices go down or remain steady as competing products enter the market.