Why is FAIR TRADE better than FREE TRADE?

[Loren Pechtel]

There simply wasn't a big enough pool of worthwhile people willing to work a swing shift.

That's your personal value judgment. Can you back it up with evidence?

Not my judgment, that was the judgment of the owners who gave up on running a second shift because they couldn't find enough decent workers at that hour.

 

[ZiprHead]

There simply wasn't a big enough pool of worthwhile people willing to work a swing shift.

That's your personal value judgment. Can you back it up with evidence?

Not my judgment, that was the judgment of the owners who gave up on running a second shift because they couldn't find enough decent workers at that hour.

Do you mean enough decent workers at the wage they were willing to pay?

 

[DBT]

Stagnating wages, as pointed out, has been happening for decades for reasons other than the 'value of workers'

Mechanization is an increasing factor, but the rot set in decades before that became noticeable, plus class and wealth inequity has been an issue throughout history, robber barons, lords and ladies lived their lives in relative lucury while peasants toiled in the field

Ours is just another version.

 

[DBT]

There simply wasn't a big enough pool of worthwhile people willing to work a swing shift.

That's your personal value judgment. Can you back it up with evidence?

Not my judgment, that was the judgment of the owners who gave up on running a second shift because they couldn't find enough decent workers at that hour.

We don't have any details. Perhaps there are reasons we don't know about. Your remark is vague, designed to try and make a point without actually having to provide evidence.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

stats, graphs, charts -- all report the same: stagnating value of many/most workers

You keep saying this and I keep explaining. What about my explanation do you have a problem with? You just ignore it and keep repeating yourself. With increased roboticisation we should see a relative falling of workers wages. They are, relatively, contributing less of the overall wealth generation. Which is why this is happening.

I don't see where you have given an adequate explanation. And I repeat the point that wages have been stagnating for decades while the top end of town has enjoyed increased income and wealth because that is the current situation and it has not been addressed. It is brushed aside. The situation is indefensible.

This really doesn't seem like rocket science to me. Wages goes up by 2 or 3% per year for most. Stocks appreciate 7 or 9 percent each year. Well managed companies increase at higher rates each year. Of course those relying on wages (and not investing) will lose to those who rely on shares of stock. This could easily remedied by implementing a system like what we have in North Korea. After that, stocks will always appreciate long term faster than wages.

''In the decade since the 2008 recession we’ve had an enormous runup in the stock market, accelerating growth in GDP, and a steady increase in job growth. Yet despite these positive economic trends, wages are not keeping up.

Again, this is explained by the fact that the VALUE of those workers is not "keeping up" -- i.e., is falling behind, as those workers are becoming more replaceable, more expendable. Those "positive gains" are due to better technology resulting from scientists and engineers whose incomes are rising to reflect their increasing value. But those gains are not produced by the common factory workers and others whose incomes have stagnated because their value -- the need for them -- has decreased rather than increased.

Yes, they ticked up in the most recent jobs report, but they're still lagging in a significant way.''

And this lagging will continue for all the lower-value workers who are becoming more and more replaceable and expendable. Just as it should be in a market which increases the rewards to those whose value increases, which are not a large percent of the general workforce.

Nothing wrong with your stats/charts/graphs. They all indicate the stagnating value of many/most workers who have not contributed to the higher standard of living we enjoy, given to us by specialists like scientists and engineers and others who are a small percent of producers/workers.

If there's an excess profit dividend here, or surplus profit, it should be taxed, in order to distribute that benefit to ALL society, but it should not be wasted on higher wages to workers whose value has not increased. All that does is increase costs higher than necessary to get the production done = higher prices and reduced production = lower living standard to all.

The higher return from the better production is already being paid or rewarded to those who have created those improvements in production. But if some elitist super-rich are getting an unearned windfall, that needs to be taxed away and redistributed to all society.

 

[DBT]

Nothing wrong with your stats/charts/graphs. They all indicate the stagnating value of many/most workers who have not contributed to the higher standard of living we enjoy, given to us by specialists like scientists and engineers and others who are a small percent of producers/workers.

That is the point where you go terribly wrong. You impose your own judgement on the value of workers and their input into production. Without miners, drivers, cleaners, maintenance, etc, people to work the machinery, there is no raw material for production and no amount of planning will get a project started, yet alone completed. If a worker is doing essential work, if only cleaning, they are productively contributing to the running of a project.

Your elitist attitude is way off the mark, economically, socially, ethically.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Artificially-high wage level propped up by law makes everyone worse off.

There are good reasons for a state imposed minimum wage.

But the overall result is bad for society, because it eliminates jobs and prevents some production from taking place.

More production (driven by supply-and-demand) -> more prosperity. But MW means less production, because the cost is driven up. Higher cost -> less produced.

And jobs are eliminated for some workers, i.e., unemployment for some job-seekers who cannot get hired at the higher wage level. These are more desperate job-seekers who want to work but have difficulty getting hired and so are willing to take a lower-paying job rather than have no job at all. It would be good for them to have that low-paying job rather than no job at all. But MW denies them that choice = they are worse off and society is worse off as less work gets done.

The situation has not always been as it is now. The gap between the highest paid CEO and the average worker, not that long ago, was not as great as it is now, yet unemployment was not necessarily higher . . .

There is always unemployment for someone who can't get hired at a wage-level higher than an employer is willing to pay. The unemployment is always less if the state does not make it illegal to hire someone, as MW makes it illegal. MW makes jobs into a musical-chairs game -- musical jobs -- where those excluded (the ones less aggressive and less able to impress the job-interviewers, or applicant-screeners) increase in number as the number of jobs (chairs) is reduced because they're made illegal. As you make something illegal (or more and more illegal), you make it more and more scarce and difficult for those seeking it (the sellers, job-seekers trying to find someone to buy their labor).

. . . as great as it is now, yet unemployment was not necessarily higher than now.

It was usually just as high. The 50s and 60s had periods of high unemployment as much as recent years.

The real difference between then and now is that the replaceability of workers has increased since then. I.e., the stagnating value of workers due to their replaceability has been increasing. Both new technology and availability of cheap labor have increased = more competition and more ways for workers to be replaced by something which does the same function at lower cost. This has resulted in higher production than before but at lower labor cost, which means more profits to the company along with lower worker value.

It's possible that this pattern could result in higher incomes to CEOs and super-rich, and even some "surplus" profit. If that's a problem to be fixed, the solution is to tax that surplus profit, not to mindlessly lash out at all employers as someone to scapegoat and blame for something, as "fair trade" does. Punishing all employers won't solve anything, but will just drive some marginal companies out of business -> elimination of some jobs which otherwise would be viable and beneficial to the economy -> less production -> lower living standard.

The point is, to repeat, that the divide between the rich and the average worker has grown ever wider in last few decades, with no sign of improvement.

Why do you imagine that punishing all employers will improve anything? How does eliminating some jobs and reducing overall production improve anything? Shutting down a sweatshop will not lift up average workers at all.

The situation is not sustainable in the long term. It is the stuff of revolution.

There has never been a revolution over what the minimum wage level should be. Or over wages being too low. There were times when there were MAXIMUM WAGE levels imposed by law, and yet there was never a revolution over this.

Plus you need to consider nations where the gap is not so great, yet the system delivers, that this wage, salary divide can be improved with without negative effect. Positive in fact, a good thing for society;

''STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Highly paid executives in the United States and Britain take note - your Swedish counterparts are paid much less, yet still deliver strong corporate results.

While investors around the world are rising up against excessive executive pay in a movement dubbed “the shareholder spring”, there has been barely a peep in Sweden - with good reason.

In a country famed for restraint and long social democratic traditions, Sweden’s executives are generally rewarded far less than rivals in the rest of Europe and the United States and appear to perform just as well, or better, for shareholders.

“Abroad, things have really spun out of control in many cases ... especially in the United States and Britain,” said Carl Johan Hogbom, acting head of Aktiespararna, the Swedish Shareholders’ Association, referring to executive pay rises.

There are many comparisons you can make of one country to another, and so many variables that no one factor can be proved as the cause of some benefit or harm.

Maybe Sweden is better on some factors, including lower salaries to CEOs. This has nothing to do with whether "fair trade" or "free trade" is better.

What would be a proper comparison? or a proper "fair trade" issue to compare one country to another?

• banning a foreign import because the wage-level to the foreign workers is too low.

Does Sweden ban chocolate imports because most chocolate is produced using child labor? They probably don't. Or maybe there is some restriction, but of little significance.

But if it does, then this is not good for Swedish consumers, and everyone is made worse off by it. You can't prove that somehow Sweden's economy is stronger because it bans such an import. It's made worse off, and also the producing country is made worse off, including the workers in that country, or the children employed in that production. There is no way that such banning a foreign import makes anyone better off. Regardless how you compare that country to the U.S. or other country with no restriction on that product.

• a higher MW level.

Does Sweden have a higher minimum wage than the U.S.? The simple answer is NO, because Sweden theoretically has no minimum wage, as several other EU countries do not.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...10-minimum-wage-let-alone-15/?sh=6adefcef7cb3
However, they have unions which keep the wage level high, regardless, and the unions actually OPPOSE minimum wage, for some reason.

If you want to tell us what's happening in those countries, go ahead and try to figure it out. What is for sure is that they are worse off economically if they prohibit sweatshops from hiring cheap labor. Cheap labor is good for those or any countries, as long as the workers are free to quit if they don't like the terms. Maybe sweatshops per se are few in some of those countries for one reason or another. But if small mom-and-pop stores are prohibited from hiring cheap labor, as MW prohibits it, then the economy is made worse off by it. Any country's economy is made worse off by making any employment illegal simply because the wage level is too low. And you have no evidence to prove otherwise.

It simply defies common sense, and the law of supply-and-demand, to think you make people better off by denying them free choice to take a job, if they're desperate, at terms which are difficult, but which they prefer to having no job at all. There is no way you can twist this into something which somehow makes those people better off. Denying people free choice usually makes them WORSE OFF, not better. If you think suppressing free choice for people somehow makes them better off, the burden of proof is on you.

Free choice is innocent until proven guilty!

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Free trade wins on the merit and the economics, but loses the popularity poll.

Again, and again -- why don't you answer this? -- there is nothing wrong with the poor doing transactions with the extreme most rich and powerful top .01%. The "imbalance" does no harm to the poor, as you keep imagining. Those who want the terms and choose that job are better off having that choice, as long as they're free to refuse rather than being forced by that .01% elite offering it to them.

I have answered again and again, only to have the points brushed aside.

No, you've not answered this question: How do you make a poor person better off, or make them more equal, by denying them the choice to take a low-wage job? If you make that job illegal, you simply deprive them of a job, forcing them into unemployment. How does that make them better off? You have NOT answered that.

If you think that there is nothing wrong with working full time yet struggling to meet the basic needs of life, you have no idea.

Making it illegal for them to have a job isn't going to improve anything. Shutting down the employer who would hire them at a low wage is not going to help them meet any needs. You're not explaining how the poor worker is made better off by having his job made illegal.

Even if some workers continue to work at a higher wage level, others will not because their job got eliminated, and others will be prevented from getting hired in the future (at a wage higher than an employer is willing to pay them) as fewer jobs are now allowed, as the legal wage is raised higher than an employer is willing to pay. I.e., they will hire fewer workers than before, meaning some of the jobs are eliminated. You've not explained how this elimination of jobs makes those workers better off who now can't get hired.

You are unable to mentally put yourself in that situation or understand it. Perhaps you have no empathy?

I and millions have been in that situation and understand what it is to be unemployed, i.e., be unable to get hired and yet willing to work -- in preference to no job at all -- at a lower wage and terms than are legally allowed.

Your attitude appear to embody the principle of "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche"

How does making their job illegal give them anything to eat?

Another question you've not answered is why you don't also outlaw VOLUNTEER work? Why is it worse to pay a low wage than to pay ZERO wage? And yet you don't prohibit people from working for ZERO wage (volunteer work). How can it be worse to pay that worker a low wage than to pay no wage at all? Why do you make something illegal, and yet you allow something else which is even worse?

Plus the reasons why a gross imbalance in power and wealth between a small percentage of the population and the rest has been described enough times, yet ignored each and every time.

I've answered it several times: If it's true that those super-rich are overpaid, then tax them higher. It can be done. But your obsession on scapegoating all employers does not address the problem of the super-rich being overpaid. Many/most employers are not those super-rich, so beating up on them does nothing to transfer wealth from those super-rich to all the rest of us.

Rather, punishing all employers (not just the super-rich) actually hurts everyone, because it results in jobs being eliminated and production being reduced, because of the higher cost you impose on them. And eliminating jobs and production only makes us all worse off, not better. I've repeated that to you many times, to which you never respond. Just repeating your leftist rhetoric about unequal wealth does not answer what good it does to scapegoat all employers as your solution demands.

Again;

The Disadvantages of Economic Inequality

By just repeating this same sloganism, you're in effect admitting that "fair trade" employer-bashing, such as minimum wage, does not solve anything, such as the wealth inequality, but only makes everyone worse off.




I gave 2 examples last time of how "fair trade" makes the economy worse rather than better:

• banning a foreign import because the wage-level to the foreign workers is too low.

This is not good for consumers, and everyone is made worse off by it. You can't show that the economy might be made stronger because it bans such an import. It's made worse off, and also the producing country is made worse off, including the workers in that country, or the children employed in that production. There is no way that such banning a foreign import makes anyone better off. Regardless how you compare that country to the U.S. or other country with no restriction on that product.

• a higher MW level.

There's no evidence that a higher minimum wage level makes a country better off. Many of the more successful EU countries have no minimum wage law at all. And even if most countries with a high minimum wage also are better off, this is a reverse cause-effect, where the higher living standard came first, and this then caused the country to increase their minimum wage level. So there is no empirical evidence that a higher minimum wage causes a higher living standard.

Here's a third example:

• consumer boycott of countries or production using cheap labor

By this means the "fair trade" crusaders hope to punish countries or companies where workers are "exploited" and paid low wages. This could be a VOLUNTARY boycott, where no laws are imposed, but consumers are pressured by the crusaders to boycott those products.

This also makes everyone worse off, not better. Consumers do more to benefit the poor workers and improve the economy by just buying whatever is in their interest as consumers wanting the product, without judging the producers and their products according to what the wage level should be for those workers. Nothing is gained by pressuring those producers or those countries to increase the wage level above the free-market level for that labor. Such artificial driving-up of the wage level only drives up the cost, reducing profit and discouraging the production -> lower living standard for all.



difference between "free trade" and "fair trade"

It's clear from all the responses/posts here, that no one can give any reason why "fair trade" is better, even though the normal gut-reaction, emotionally, is to prefer "fair trade" because it sounds better, regardless what it means. There is a basic employer-bashing instinct and bias, in most people, to hate employers for not being more generous and paying workers higher than their value. It is based on Crybaby Economics only, or guilt-tripping and preaching and begging and badgering employers whose role is to serve as society's babysitters; while "free trade" is based on "live and let live" and producing "the greatest good for the greatest number."

 

[DBT]

You are flogging a dead horse.

In defence of an indefensible situation, an obscene level of inequality and exploitation of vulnerable workers, you repeat walls of text, fallacies that have been explained and refuted time and time again.

Just face the truth, higher pay for workers and a fairer distribution of wealth is beneficial for society and the economy.

You have no case to argue.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

As long as you obsess on employers vs. workers, you're part of the problem.

Clearly. The problem is automation and robotisation. The problem is a fundamental shift in the realities of the labour market on a scale we haven't seen since the Spinning Jenny was introduced. . . .

What I desire is to be accurate about the causes of wages dropping. There's a danger in missapplying blame. Donald Trump blames Mexican immigrants and the Chinese. This risks causing pointless diplomatic friction and pushing us towards WW3. It's good to be accurate about stuff.

Unless we accept the new reality of robotisation displacing unqualified workers from the jobs market at an increasing scale, we will continue to fix the wrong problem. So far I have not seen any politician talk about this new situation in the jobs market. It's just brushed aside. Just like you are doing.

I'm not brushing anything aside. I am pointing to a problem in society; an ever growing inequality in wealth and power.

You're brushing aside what causes the inequality, which is the declining value of labor, or much of it, so that the market price for that labor goes down, or stagnates. You ignore any explanation of what is causing this, and just whine for higher wages, regardless of supply-and-demand. You've never explained how the labor is worth more when it's obvious that those workers are becoming more and more replaceable. You're ignoring -- and thus "brushing aside" -- the point that more replaceable = less valuable.

And while that declining value is happening, there is also the increased and improved production, which might cause the excess profit to some super-rich. But not to employers as a class, which you target as the ones to punish, thus avoiding any solution to the "problem in society" you say is "ever growing" but are not addressing with your employer-bashing slogans about "exploitation" and the wage level, which has nothing to do with the wealth inequality you pretend to care about and will not be fixed by your wage-propping-up Marxist slogans.

More small companies/employers would be good for the economy, but employer-bashing with higher wages imposed onto all of them crushes the opportunities for small companies and sends more of the economy into the hands of the super-rich.

Wealth accumulating into the hands of a small percentage of the population . . .

But not employers. Most employers are not in that small super-rich elite class. And your punishment of this class misses most of those super-rich, who are sitting back and laughing at you as you punish those small companies struggling to survive while you let the super-rich off the hook.

. . . small percentage of the population while the rest are left floundering. The reasons for this situation are many, and can be explored.

Which you're not doing, because all you know is to just scapegoat employers, who make those workers better off so they don't flounder as much, but whose jobs you would eliminate, while also causing reduced production with the higher labor cost you would impose = higher cost of living to all.

 

[Jarhyn]

You have no case to argue.

When has that EVER stopped... Well, ANY of the screed screechers on this site?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Once again -- If you're less needed / more replaceable, you're less valuable.

Write it on the blackboard 100 times.

I'm not brushing anything aside. I am pointing to a problem in society; an ever growing inequality in wealth and power. Wealth accumulating into the hands of a small percentage of the population while the rest are left floundering. The reasons for this situation are many, and can be explored.

But you keep talking about as if the free market should magically make sure that the free market distribute wages fairly. As if it has a duty to do so. Aren't you?

I'm talking about a power imbalance between management and individual workers that does not allow individual workers sufficient leverage to improve their pay and conditions.

But their lack of leverage is due to their lack of value (or decreased value). Higher value automatically causes greater leverage for the one valued, because it means less replaceable, or more needed, i.e., the employer has greater need for them such that the needed work cannot get done without them (or is less possible without them).

Anyone of lower value has less leverage, including a marginal business, or any less competitive producer. This is as it should be. There's nothing wrong if someone has lower leverage -- it just reflects their lower value. It's not wrong that there is an "imbalance" between someone of lower value and someone else who has a lot of money to spend. If the one having more leverage (much more money) is not really more valuable, then some of that money should be taxed away, as excess profit, or windfall profit -- but not paid to someone of low value and thus low leverage. That low-leverage worker/producer is not entitled to more from someone who is enjoying a windfall profit. That low-value producer should be paid only according to their low value. That excess profit belongs to the whole society, to everyone, not to certain low-value workers/producers who can easily be replaced because they are less needed.

Those workers are not automatically entitled to any excess profit gained by their employer, like a parasite sucking off the employer they're attached to. If they can easily be replaced, then they should be paid less based on their lower value, not more based on their attachment to that employer enjoying a windfall profit.

Just having low leverage does not entitle producers to anything extra, out of sympathy for them. If they want more leverage, i.e., more profit or payment for their service, they must improve their performance and thus the value they produce for those who pay them.

Which is one of the main reasons why workers are falling behind.

Yes, their lower leverage due to their lower value. Those whose value decreases should fall behind relative to those whose value remains the same or increases. What's wrong with them "falling behind" if their value is decreasing or stagnating? Let them improve themselves if they want more. Just whining louder than someone else doesn't entitle them to more. Which is all those workers are doing who claim they're entitled to more even though their value is decreasing.

It began badly for workers at the beginning of the industrial but improvements were won through collective bargaining....pay and conditions that . . .

The only improvements in income which are deserved are those due to better performance, not to collective bargaining. It's better performance which should be rewarded, not better whining technique. Just because you learned how to scream louder and throw a better tantrum doesn't mean your value increased or that you produced more value. If your whining and tantrum-throwing didn't do anything to make consumers better off, or improve the society generally, then you're not entitled to any "improvements" in your income or pay for your contribution. For you to deserve such pay improvement, your performance has to improve.

. . . pay and conditions that have been gradually eroding away in recent times, individual . . .

Yes, due to eroding value, as those workers have become less and less needed and more and more replaceable by something which does the same job for less. Why can't you figure out that as the worker becomes more and more expendable and less needed, their value decreases? Why is that so hard to figure out?

. . . individual contracts, . . .

Just another way of saying that those workers whose pay has eroded are more easily replaceable, more expendable, less needed in order to get the work done, because there are others who can do it for less, or because it can be done in other ways which are easier and require fewer workers, and the supply of workers or machines to do that job have increased. Of course their compensation is eroded when this happens, because it means their VALUE has decreased, or the NEED for them has decreased.

. . . legislation that punishes and prevents strikes, etc.

Yes, punishes thugs who destroy company property and assault replacement workers. 200 years ago some of them were hanged in the public square for busting machines. Of course there are some laws limiting how far the strikers can go, including how far they can intimidate and threaten and bully the other workers who don't want to join their crusade.

But there's no legislation which prevents workers from resigning if they don't like the terms. Everyone is protected from exploitation -- i.e., they have the right to quit! Your free choice, just like the free choice of the consumer to buy or not buy a product, and take their business elsewhere, and of the seller to increase or decrease the price, or refuse to sell at a price too low. We all have that free choice. Your freedom to choose individually is what protects our society and makes our economy stronger, not your aggressiveness to assault others and threaten them and impose your terms onto them and intimidate those who are more competitive and might "steal" your job because you demand more than you're worth.

 

[DBT]

Rinse and repeat fallacies.

Once again, the reasons why wealth concentration is a problem for society and the economy have been described numerous times. Too many times.

Amongst other things;

The decline of organized labor

''The share of workers represented by labor unions has dropped by half, to just over 10%, over the last four decades. That has shrunk their power to bargain for higher wages and benefits.

Inaction by Congress has shrunk the buying power of the lowest-paid workers. Because the $7.25 per hour minimum wage has not been increased to keep pace with inflation, its value has fallen 16% over the past half-century.''

Changing, and breaking, the rules

Rising wealth confers political power, and it has allowed economic winners to further reward themselves through government policies. The 2017 GOP tax cut delivers a disproportionate share of its benefits to the most affluent Americans.

The same goes for policies at private institutions. Admissions procedures at top colleges favor the children of donors and past graduates. As the recent scandal ensnaring prominent entertainers and athletic coaches demonstrates, those with money can also buy illicit advantages''

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"fair trade" reliance on buzz-words, ambiguity, jargon

"poverty"

"suitable wages"

"hard and useful work"

It's all relative when you throw around terms like these. The meaning changes drastically from one context to another. The "fair" in "fair trade" is an example.


But the word "crybaby" is not such a word. This is anyone who demands a benefit to his/her group which imposes cost onto all the others, making almost everyone worse off -- e.g., the "working poor" in developed countries whining about how they suffer "inequality" but oblivious to their privileged status.

I have answered again and again, only to have the points brushed aside. If you think that there is nothing wrong with working full time yet struggling to meet the basic needs of life, you have no idea. You are unable to mentally put yourself in that situation or understand it.

Your points get brushed aside because you're basically preaching.

This time you present an article--but it's got a big problem. The harms it talks about are due to poverty, not due to inequality. Poverty is harmful, duh!

Just so that it is absolutely clear for the peanut gallery: poverty, in the presence of wealth, and . . .

Which "poverty"? where? When you use the word "poverty" to refer to the poor in the U.S. (and Britain or other developed countries), it does not mean the same as "poverty" in Africa and Haiti and Bangladesh, etc. This distortion of a word then really abrogates whatever follows. (The phrase "in the presence of wealth" does not clarify the meaning.)

Compared to those 3rd-world countries, the "poor" in the U.S. are NOT in "poverty" but are acquisitive and greedy and avaricious. They are unequally blessed and are depriving the poor in those countries by some of the demands they make. The "poor" in the U.S. (or many of them) are exploiting and cheating and oppressing the poor in those countries, and help to cause that famine and suffering by their selfishness and greed, which is even worse than the greed of the super-rich.

. . . in the situation wherein the poor are unable to leverage suitable wages despite hard . . .

What is "suitable"?

Everyone, even the super-rich, can whine that they're afflicted with "inequality" because what they earn is not "suitable" (in their mind) based on what they merit through their productive effort. So they're "unequal" compared to others who are even more super-rich.

Or -- at the other end -- even the "poor" in the U.S. and in Britain and other developed countries are blessed with unequal wealth superiority over the "poor" in 3rd-world countries where those workers can't get "suitable" wages such as the "poor" get in a developed country.

. . . in the situation wherein the poor are unable to leverage suitable wages despite hard and useful work, IS inequality.

Yes, the inequality is that of the poor in Africa vs. the "poor" in the U.S. The latter are the ones who have unequal superiority over the former.

And Donald Trump was helping to increase the superiority of some U.S. "poor" over the poor of China and other countries. He brought (maybe not as much as he claimed) jobs back from China, such as steel-worker jobs, so that U.S. steel-workers could receive even more unequally-higher wages than before, i.e., higher than what Chinese steel-workers are paid (and also higher than most U.S. non-steel-workers who are just as valuable).

So Trump was meeting the demand of U.S. working "poor" and labor unions, to increase their wages more unequally higher than they already were (and also auto-workers and some others), to satisfy their demand for more inequality (compared to Africa and China and Bangladesh, etc.), but more equality to some super-rich in the U.S.

It's all relative to whatever "poor" or rich you're comparing them too.

Of course, taking care of our own "working poor" is the priority for America, according to the labor union crybaby philosophy (meaning not all Americans or all poor, but all the privileged union members and other high-profile "poor" who got included in the protected class), so we must "bring back" the jobs, the factories, to provide "hard and useful work" -- "useful" means good makework jobs to keep the rabble off the streets so they won't go on a rampage -- and the Chinese and others have to go find their OWN "useful" makework programs and factory jobs (babysitting slots) for their own rabble, and stop stealing ours! We need to keep our "factory jobs" here (babysitting slots) to provide these "hard and useful work" babysitting slots for our own crybabies and rabble riff-raff, and cannot take on the responsibility of providing jobs to all the rest of the world's rabble poor masses.

I.e., creating "jobs" for them is a favor to the hapless victim worthless rabble masses, to meet their need to be kept out of mischief -- not society's need for their contribution to the economy -- but their need to be pacified and society's need for them to be prevented from rioting and destroying.

I.e., it's all about "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" for crybabies or potential trouble-makers.

So your boy Trump was trying to even the scales at least a little, to make U.S. workers a little more equal to the super-rich U.S. executives, or ameliorate the inequality, while at the same time increasing the inequality of some U.S. "poor" workers compared to 3rd world workers -- (but of course that particular inequality is OK -- we can ignore that inequality and injustice and injury to the whole economy, because it's not part of the Left-wing labor union agenda). I.e., not the "greatest good for the greatest number" but the greatest good to those aggressive whining crybabies who scream the loudest and throw the most tantrum. More privilege to the already privileged (below the top 10% or 20%), but not to the entire broad lower class.


That's largely what "fair trade" really means: I.e., trying to increase the wage level of some high-profile workers already doing much better (perhaps unionized), and doing this by stomping down hard on other workers and poor who are far worse off, and who are made even more worse off by "fair trade" which makes it illegal to hire them at compensation levels employers are willing to pay them.

I.e., "fair trade" means increasing the incomes of some workers already far privileged way above other workers who are much worse off, and making these latter even worse off yet, by shutting off opportunities to them to be able to compete in the labor market. Such as by making their sweatshop job illegal, or trying to shut down their sweatshop job by means of boycotts and other forms of suppressing the production.

(and maybe by reducing "independent contractor" jobs? -> less production -> worse economy overall)

I.e., "fair trade" = class privilege, inequality, and privilege to some workers (possibly unionized to protect their privileged status), at the cost of suppressing others much worse off, such as would-be workers and others in real poverty who cannot get hired.


Inequality of U.S. poor vs. 3rd-world poor

And this INEQUALITY is just as real as that between U.S. working "poor" and super-rich executives, but U.S. working "poor" crusaders, labor unions, etc. are totally oblivious to this inequality, and have to pretend that it doesn't exist, in order to push their demands.


But by contrast, "free trade" means to let all producers everywhere compete -- open the market to all of them with no one privileged or protected from competing, reduce/eliminate barriers across boundaries -- and don't obsess on any one crybaby group's demand to be made more equal to someone else, because any obsession on this or that alleged inequality necessarily requires ignoring some other inequality elsewhere which will be made even worse. Rather, the best overall result happens if all are encouraged to compete -- all the rich and poor free to trade with any other -- regardless who does better than another in the competition, as long as free choice is always preserved to every individual player.

(And "free choice" does not mean there are no inequalities or limitations imposed by nature, but rather that no players may impose their terms onto others by coercion or threats of retaliation. So the poor can transact with the super-rich, and this is still "free choice" no matter how unequal or limited anyone is compared to another.)

 

[DBT]

Quite basic really;

For example:

''Wages have been stagnant for a generation despite sizable increases in overall productivity, incomes, and wealth. For instance, our nation’s output of goods and services per hour worked (productivity, net of depreciation) grew 64 percent from 1979 to 2014, while the inflation-adjusted hourly wage of the typical worker rose by just 6 percent.1 The single largest factor suppressing wage growth for middle-wage workers has been the erosion of collective bargaining.

The decline of collective bargaining has affected nonunion workers in industries or occupations that previously had extensive collective bargaining because their employers no longer raise wages toward the union-set standard as union membership rates decline.

The decline of collective bargaining through its impact on union and nonunion workers can explain one-third of the rise of wage inequality among men since 1979, and one-fifth among women.

American workers want unions

We know that many more workers want collective bargaining than are able to benefit from it—and that the desire for collective bargaining has increased greatly since the 1980s.3 For instance, polling in 2005 showed that a majority of nonunion non managerial workers would vote for union representation if they could. In contrast, polling in the mid-1980s suggested that roughly 30 percent of nonunion non managerial workers would have voted for union representation. The bottom line is that if workers (both union and nonunion) were provided the union representation they desired in 2005, the non managerial workers’ unionization rate would have been about 58 percent. The gap between actual and desired union representation is far higher in the United States than in other advanced nations.


The benefits of collective bargaining are significant

The union wage premium—the percentage-higher wage earned by those covered by a collective bargain*ing contract, adjusted for workers’ education, age, and other characteristics—is 13.6 percent over*all.

Unionized workers are 28.2 percent more likely to be covered by employer-provided health insurance and 53.9 percent more likely to have employer-provided pensions, and also enjoy more paid time off with their families.

Collective bargaining raises the wages and benefits more for low-wage workers than for middle-wage workers and least for white-collar workers, thereby lessening wage inequality.

Collective bargaining also raises wages and benefits more for black, Asian, Hispanic, and immigrant workers, thereby lessening race/ethnic wage gaps.

The decline of unions has affected middle-wage men more than any other group and explains about three-fourths of the expanded wage gap between white- and blue-collar men and over a fifth of the expanded wage gap between high school– and college-edu*cated men from 1978 to 2011.5

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Quite basic really;

For example:

''Wages have been stagnant for a generation despite sizable increases in overall productivity, incomes, and wealth. For instance, our nation’s output of goods and services per hour worked (productivity, net of depreciation) grew 64 percent from 1979 to 2014, while the inflation-adjusted hourly wage of the typical worker rose by just 6 percent.1 The single largest factor suppressing wage growth for middle-wage workers has been the erosion of collective bargaining.

That's a pretty biased source.

And why is the productivity number not inflation corrected but the wage number is?

And "depreciation" is a pretty poor measure as the depreciation interval for equipment is often very different than it's actual lifespan.

 

[ZiprHead]

Quite basic really;

For example:

''Wages have been stagnant for a generation despite sizable increases in overall productivity, incomes, and wealth. For instance, our nation’s output of goods and services per hour worked (productivity, net of depreciation) grew 64 percent from 1979 to 2014, while the inflation-adjusted hourly wage of the typical worker rose by just 6 percent.1 The single largest factor suppressing wage growth for middle-wage workers has been the erosion of collective bargaining.

That's a pretty biased source.

And why is the productivity number not inflation corrected but the wage number is?

And "depreciation" is a pretty poor measure as the depreciation interval for equipment is often very different than it's actual lifespan.

How do you adjust productivity for inflation?

 

[DBT]

Quite basic really;

For example:

''Wages have been stagnant for a generation despite sizable increases in overall productivity, incomes, and wealth. For instance, our nation’s output of goods and services per hour worked (productivity, net of depreciation) grew 64 percent from 1979 to 2014, while the inflation-adjusted hourly wage of the typical worker rose by just 6 percent.1 The single largest factor suppressing wage growth for middle-wage workers has been the erosion of collective bargaining.

That's a pretty biased source.

And why is the productivity number not inflation corrected but the wage number is?

And "depreciation" is a pretty poor measure as the depreciation interval for equipment is often very different than it's actual lifespan.

It's the ratio, considering that within the given period productivity, goods and services, rose by 64% per hour worked while wages only grew by 6% it is clear that pay rate for many workers have stagnated or fallen in value during that period, therefore workers are not getting their market share of the wealth they help to produce.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Quite basic really;

For example:

''Wages have been stagnant for a generation despite sizable increases in overall productivity, incomes, and wealth. For instance, our nation’s output of goods and services per hour worked (productivity, net of depreciation) grew 64 percent from 1979 to 2014, while the inflation-adjusted hourly wage of the typical worker rose by just 6 percent.1 The single largest factor suppressing wage growth for middle-wage workers has been the erosion of collective bargaining.

That's a pretty biased source.

And why is the productivity number not inflation corrected but the wage number is?

And "depreciation" is a pretty poor measure as the depreciation interval for equipment is often very different than it's actual lifespan.

It's the ratio, considering that within the given period productivity, goods and services, rose by 64% per hour worked while wages only grew by 6% it is clear that pay rate for many workers have stagnated or fallen in value during that period, therefore workers are not getting their market share of the wealth they help to produce.

Ratio of what? How are you measuring productivity? Since we are dealing with a wide and changing variety of things it's probably measured in dollars--and thus should be inflation-adjusted.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's the ratio, considering that within the given period productivity, goods and services, rose by 64% per hour worked while wages only grew by 6% it is clear that pay rate for many workers have stagnated or fallen in value during that period, therefore workers are not getting their market share of the wealth they help to produce.

Ratio of what? How are you measuring productivity?

He already said how he's measuring productivity: "our nation’s output of goods and services per hour worked (productivity, net of depreciation)". DBT and the Economic Policy Institute are simply taking the total production, dividing it by the number of hours worked, and labeling the result "productivity". I.e., they are not making any attempt at all to investigate the extent to which wage-earners are productive. They are simply taking it for granted that managers and owners don't contribute anything to production, and deducing that all of production can be legitimately attributed just to the wage-earners. It's the Labor Theory of Value, once again carelessly letting its mask slip down to its chin.