• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.
  • 2021 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive
    Greetings! Time for the annual fundraiser.Sorry for the late update, we normally start this early in October. Funds are needed to keep II and IIDB online. I was not able to get an IIDB based donations addon implemented for this year, I will make sure to have that done for next year. You can help support II in several ways, please visit the Support Us page for more info. Or just click:

    I will try to track all donations from IIDB. Many thanks to those that have already donated. The current total is $778. If everyone dontated just $5, we would easily hit our goal.

DISAPPOINTING JOBS REPORT is whose fault?

The current bad jobs numbers are the fault of:

  • Democrats/Biden, with their higher tax-and-spend policies.

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • Republicans/Trumpsters, by opposing 3-4 trillion higher federal debt.

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • Democrats/Republicans, by opposing admission of a million or so immigrants to fill the vacant jobs.

    Votes: 1 33.3%

  • Total voters
    3

RVonse

Veteran Member
It's not that the jobs aren't there, but rather that there's a shortage of workers taking the jobs available.
Only a shortage of workers to do the jobs at the current market price. Raise the wage and there will be a shortage of jobs for workers. Econ 101.
Maybe this is due mostly to the pandemic, which isn't over, and which is making employment less attractive.

Companies are even cutting back production for lack of needed workers. Who's to blame for this? And why basically is this bad?

What's wrong is not high unemployment, but that needed work is not getting done. There's a need for more truck drivers, dock workers at the ports, and some skilled workers like plumbers and electricians. Also firefighters, and many other kinds of workers -- but job-seekers are staying home rather than taking the jobs that are open.

https://nypost.com/2021/10/08/joe-biden-brushes-off-second-poor-jobs-report-in-row/
Either pay more wages or automate. In the very near future, Elon Musk claims we will have driver less trucking. That will make some pretty low costs for trucking if you do not even need a truck driver.

So both Reds and Blues think it's better to let the economy suffer, let the production be lower, so less wealth is created, and so American consumers -- ALL Americans -- must have their living standard reduced, because of our need to pander to the crybabies who feel threatened by competition from immigrants.
All of this country loses big time when all the costs of exploiting labor are not included. It is the same kind of short sighted thinking that has allowed fossil fuels to dominate instead of cleaner energy. Even 200 years after the civil war, this country is still paying dearly for the last time producers exploited the black population from Africa.

The only solution to a better way of life (for all) is increased productivity through technology and automation.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
I
It's not true that driving up the costs produces wealth.
But it is true that all the real costs of production should be paid for by the producers. Including the future costs of exploiting labor and not paying for all the costs they bring to the rest of the country.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Rabid libertarians: "Why don't you just quit your low wage job and better yourself?"

Workers today: "Okay. Fuck my current employer. The business down the street is offering more money, better benefits, and better working conditions. I quit!"

Rabid libertarians: "Not like that! Why don't you want to work for us?! You ungrateful lazy bastards!!!"

People must realize when they have the power. These instances are few. The last was the collapse of the housing market. Fewer realized the power they had to screw over the banks by forcing them to reappraise their property and obtain a lower mortgage in the face of so many foreclosures on the bank’s books.

For today’s workers, it’s more evident. Don’t want to pay me more? Duck you. I’ll move on down the road. It’s only people’s naive sense of fair play in our capitalism run amok system holding them back.

If only they'd follow their self interest they'd be better off, and so would the whole economy.

Adam Smith said it all when he described the "Invisible Hand" of the free market: everyone does what's in his/her personal self-interest, rather than worrying about what's good for someone else. Just find the best deal for yourself, whatever brings you more income/profit, and by doing that you also do the best for the whole economy or the whole society, because you've become more competitive and more productive. And don't waste time shedding tears for the uncompetitive losers who accuse you of not caring for their welfare.

So everyone -- job-seekers and employers and buyers and sellers -- should just shop around for a better deal and not worry about being more patriotic and getting caught up in the "buy local" or "buy American" and China-bashing and spend-more-money-to-stimulate-the-economy rhetoric. No, just work or hire or buy or sell for your own individual self-interest and let the economy take care of itself.

That's the true competitive free market, more of which would help to fix what's wrong today.

And that includes hiring immigrant labor, or hiring whoever will do the job at lower cost, so the needed work gets done. But which Biden and Trump can't figure out because they only want to pander to the crybaby immigrant-haters and employer-bashers who think cheap labor is bad for the economy.

Nothing wrong with this the "Invisible Hand" as long as that hand is not a criminal. We should be a country with the rule of law to prevent exploitation of people at a disadvantage. I believe in free market capitalism as long as it does not evolve into piracy.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
A true free market becomes heavily restricted pretty quickly. We saw it with Standard Oil, then AT&T, and again AT&T (well, SBC) where economic options disappear. Money is like bad cholesterol. It attracts itself and then get lodged into places and no longer providing capital to the system. The first successful companies become bigger, and bigger companies have more capital, so they can starve off or buy off the competition. And then there is no one left. Facebook managed via going public, to get free cash to buy off any competition.

The free market is like a Physics 101 book, where, ignoring the effects of wind resistance, friction, etc... what will the distance travelled be. It is an ideal economic state that is not attainable.

We need to resurrect Teddy Roosevelt to do some "trust busting" again.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
4.8% unemployment. If conditions persist, a lowering Unemployment Rate should be viewed negatively by Wall St. Isn’t (wasn’t) it said that anything under 5.2% unemployment is considered “full employment”? Ha. I reckon we can toss that benchmark out the window.
They should concern themselves more with the Labor Participation Rate.

I have to wonder about this grand plan of Biden’s to keep ports open 24/7 in an attempt to move goods. I’ve only got the highlights but I have to wonder where they are going to get all these extra truck drivers from. Moreover, it was mentioned expanding the hours truckers can stay on the roads. What if they don’t wanna stay on the roads? Either way you slice it, truckers and longshoremen are likely to demand pay premium for night/Sunday work hours and that means inflation and/or cutting profits. This with US oil and gas producers refusing to pump more and it can be a rough 2022 for the party in power.
We must face the facts that higher prices are permanent. There is no way we can solve it quickly. But if we all cooperate, and make modest sacrifices, if we learn to live thriftily and remember the importance of helping our neighbors, then we can find ways to adjust, and to make our society more efficient and our own lives more enjoyable and productive.

I agree. In the short run it is high inflation but that is exactly what we want. High costs will mean people (even the ones with a stimulus check) will think twice about what they buy on the store shelves. It is far better to have high prices and food on the shelves than low prices and nothing on the shelves.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Why should all this work not get done? Why should shelves remain empty and cargo ships not be unloaded and products not be delivered when there are easily a million immigrant workers who can perform that needed work? Why should needed work not get done based on theoretical speculation that the labor shortage might decrease over 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 years?
Why not let the free market decide what prices should be and take care of itself without producers becoming criminals??
Why not instead let the current needed work get done?
As long as it is legal and moral that is fine.
Why does immigrant-bashing take priority over the welfare of U.S. consumers? i.e., over the whole population?
Why does the whole population have to suffer costs of the criminal producers who want to exploit cheap and easy labor. Let them make their profits honestly with technology and higher productivity.

The non-crybaby market solution is for those labor markets where there is a shortage to raise wages in order to . . .
No. This is what is called free market capitalism.
No, higher labor cost might mean less profit, in which case it won't happen, but instead companies will just let the production remain low until they find the needed labor.
The dumb ones will. But the smarter ones like Elon Musk will figure how to get technology to do this work. And they will be the profitable survivors who win in the free market.
 

funinspace

Veteran Member
Can't find the link, now, but someone experimented with job availability. He targeted businesses whose owners were online bitching about labor shortages, and no one wants to work anymore. Submitted 2 applications a day for a month, so about 60 applications.
Got 16 return emails.
One phone call.
The phone call was disappointing.
"Yeah, it starts at $8.65 an hour."
"Your ad said $15."
"It'll go up with the minimum wage goes up. You start at 20 hours a week."
"The ad said full-time."
"We can change you to full-time after 2 months."
A few other details in contradiction to the ad.

So he concludes no one's actually experiencing a shortage of workers, they're nostalgic about an abundance of slave labor.

The company I work for cannot get enough people and retain them. We are currently at least 60 people short. We have offered all sorts of incentives and bonuses. In the area where we operate there are "Now Hiring" signs everywhere.
It does seem weird out there, but there also seems to be a lot of business whining, cuz they don't have it easy. I find it kind of weird that it isn't ok in 'the free market' for employers to struggle, but who gives a fuck if employees have to suck it up and deal with shit...

2 antidotes: My son has worked at a place for 2 years now, kind of as a technical coordinator for work around the country. He has been trying to convince his managers, that he could quickly work his way up into a higher end IT position. They have spent about 2 months trying to find someone out of the box to work locally in the position. He is there go to guy for, hey we need someone to deal with this one off XYZ thing. He has the general background degree required, just not the specific experience. We still have our fingers crossed that his company will choose to allow him to train up...but why is it such a tug of war?

I'm semi-retired, as I didn't want to work full time as my last IT job ended 3 years ago. So I do random gigs from a couple platforms, via my LLC, to largely pay for health care until I'm eligible for Medicare. I do mostly data center work, but I see the jobs for tons of other stuff that I don't care about. I see more tickets come by, but I'm not seeing much in the way of companies offering more pay per hour. There are some very standard repeat little jobs, that I can tell haven't increased in offered pay at all, from 2 years ago. This gig work is very much like a spot market for labor, yet where are the fucking increase in $$ per hour, if they are so fucking desperate? FWIW, I'm not bitching cuz I need the money. I'm fine, but I feel for the people trying to make a living this way.
 

TSwizzle

Contributor
The company I work for cannot get enough people and retain them. We are currently at least 60 people short. We have offered all sorts of incentives and bonuses. In the area where we operate there are "Now Hiring" signs everywhere.
It does seem weird out there, but there also seems to be a lot of business whining, cuz they don't have it easy. I find it kind of weird that it isn't ok in 'the free market' for employers to struggle, but who gives a fuck if employees have to suck it up and deal with shit...

"out there"? Just to be clear, I'm talking about our manufacturing positions in the Midwest, not California. Our operations are a in the rural parts of the country where the labor market is tight so we do offer competitive rates and bonuses.

2 antidotes: My son has worked at a place for 2 years now, kind of as a technical coordinator for work around the country. He has been trying to convince his managers, that he could quickly work his way up into a higher end IT position. They have spent about 2 months trying to find someone out of the box to work locally in the position. We still have our fingers crossed that his company will choose to allow him to train up...but why is it such a tug of war?

Internal politics? I am also in IT and there is a guy who works in another department who is very IT savvy but he's Excel scripting and programming stuff. I can't use these skills and he's wondering why he can't join the IT department. It's because we don't do programming/development, I can't use those skills. I need someone that can fix paper jams and change the fuser in a laser jet printer, hook up a monitor type of stuff.

I'm semi-retired, as I didn't want to work full time as my last IT job ended 3 years ago. So I do random gigs from a couple platforms, via my LLC, to largely pay for health care until I'm eligible for Medicare. I do mostly data center work, but I see the jobs for tons of other stuff that I don't care about. I see more tickets come by, but I'm not seeing much in the way of companies offering more pay per hour. There are some very standard repeat little jobs, that I can tell haven't increased in offered pay at all, from 2 years ago. This gig work is very much like a spot market for labor, yet where are the fucking increase in $$ per hour, if they are so fucking desperate? FWIW, I'm not bitching cuz I need the money. I'm fine, but I feel for the people trying to make a living this way.

I do too. It's awful. I have kids too that are trying to make their way and it's not going to be easy.
 

funinspace

Veteran Member
"out there"? Just to be clear, I'm talking about our manufacturing positions in the Midwest, not California. Our operations are a in the rural parts of the country where the labor market is tight so we do offer competitive rates and bonuses.
Out there across the country...obviously specifics will vary depending...

2 antidotes: My son has worked at a place for 2 years now, kind of as a technical coordinator for work around the country. He has been trying to convince his managers, that he could quickly work his way up into a higher end IT position. They have spent about 2 months trying to find someone out of the box to work locally in the position. We still have our fingers crossed that his company will choose to allow him to train up...but why is it such a tug of war?

Internal politics? I am also in IT and there is a guy who works in another department who is very IT savvy but he's Excel scripting and programming stuff. I can't use these skills and he's wondering why he can't join the IT department. It's because we don't do programming/development, I can't use those skills. I need someone that can fix paper jams and change the fuser in a laser jet printer, hook up a monitor type of stuff.
Not sure if it's internal politics or not. I spent 20 years in systems administration. 21 years ago a company spent over 40 grand to move me to them, so I would work for them. My son has the right degree, and I edited my post with a few more details...antidotes still...
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Allowing more immigrant workers = more competition = economy functions better --

so even if there are hardships today (pandemic, etc.), a free economy which allows more immigration will better allow us to cope with it, whereas the restrictions only make bad conditions even worse.

(As long as immigrants are required to be vaccinated/tested.)



It's not that the jobs aren't there, but rather that there's a shortage of workers taking the jobs available. Maybe this is due mostly to the pandemic, which isn't over, and which is making employment less attractive.

Companies are even cutting back production for lack of needed workers. Who's to blame for this? And why basically is this bad?

What's wrong is not high unemployment, but that needed work is not getting done. There's a need for more truck drivers, dock workers at the ports, and some skilled workers like plumbers and electricians. Also firefighters, and many other kinds of workers -- but job-seekers are staying home rather than taking the jobs that are open.
https://nypost.com/2021/10/08/joe-biden-brushes-off-second-poor-jobs-report-in-row/

But the new report showed the US added just 194,000 jobs in September — far short of economists’ expectations of about 500,000.

The shortfall compounded a hiring slowdown in August, when the US added 366,000 jobs, according to revised figures released Friday — far below economists’ expectations of 720,000.

“President Biden is now a whopping 944,000 jobs short of what he promised from his last stimulus and worse, has lost the confidence of the American people to lead the economy.”

Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said, “Over 300,000 FEWER jobs created than expected in September – further proof Biden’s economic policies are hurting our country.”

Brad McMillan, chief investment officer for Commonwealth Financial Network, explained the lower unemployment rate, noting that “the declines in the unemployment measures and the participation rate show that the movement of people back to the labor force has paused.”

Harvard economist Jason Fruman tweeted, “Job openings: 11.7m Unemployed: 7.7m The 1.5 openings per unemployed is the highest ever recorded.”

Unprecedented high-job-openings to number-of-unemployed ratio.


What's the solution?

Take in more immigrant workers!

There's obviously no shortage of potential workers.

Most of the vacant jobs could be filled, in a short time -- only 2 or 3 or 4 months -- by letting in an extra million immigrants who could take them. Only a few jobs are so high-skill that no immigrants could do them. Probably the whole problem would be solved in less than a year, if all the migrants needed would be taken in. And it would be easy to get all of them vaccinated, so that cannot be the obstacle.

So, what is the obstacle? Why can't Biden admit a half million or million migrants to take the jobs needing to be filled? Only because:

The American people are crybabies, who hate immigrants who might compete with them, and/or

they are crybaby-panderers who demand that companies pay workers more than their real competitive market value
and not be allowed to hire them at low labor cost which would make it profitable to hire them. Maybe the labor cost is higher now, for domestic workers, because of the pandemic. But the simple solution to that is to take in a half-million or million immigrants, to meet the labor shortfall.

But the fear is that immigrants will drive down the wage level or steal jobs from red-blooded Americans.

Which means basically that we're a nation of crybabies and crybaby-panderers. And Biden and Trump are among the crybaby-panderers, not essentially disagreeing with each other, but united in their leftist employer-bashing philosophy to pander to the crybabies who hate competition and insist that work has to be done only by high-paid red-blooded native-borns who are entitled to the American Dream no matter how much it costs and are unable to compete against the newcomers.

The economy -- 330 million Americans -- are suffering because of this.


So both Reds and Blues think it's better to let the economy suffer, let the production be lower, so less wealth is created, and so American consumers -- ALL Americans -- must have their living standard reduced, because of our need to pander to the crybabies who feel threatened by competition from immigrants.

What other reason could there be for not taking in enough migrants to fill the vacant jobs?

It’s a bit less that there’s a shortage of workers than it is that there’s a shortage of people willing to risk their lives for low wages.

Arguably it's both. So, what are the solutions? What would fix the problem of the shortages? When there are multiple causes of the problem, there are multiple solutions. One solution is to allow an increase in the labor supply = allow more immigrant workers. And make the existing immigrant labor force more safe and secure, easing the enforcement of current bad laws which hinder companies from acquiring the labor they need. Recognize the current reliance on immigrant labor and legalize it, or more of it. If we can't legalize all of it, we must move more toward legalization, to increase the immigrant labor as our need for it continues and increases.

The solution of higher wages and safer conditions also happen anyway within the free market system which encourages employers to do whatever can be done to make the business perform more efficiently. Employers do these improvements when they are cost-effective and don't impose damage onto consumers who must pay the higher costs. So that improvement happens anyway, automatically, when it's cost-effective.

But the problem of low labor supply is the fault of the government, interfering into the economy by restricting the natural flow of immigrants across the artificial national borders. This artificial intervention into the economy is an easy problem to correct, by just letting people be free as individuals to move, which is natural for them to do in pursuit of their survival, as our ancestors and all animals have been doing for millions of years as dictated by the natural environment.


Employers need to ensure that their employees are safe at work and that they are fairly compensated.

Those needs are met within the normal free market process which happens as cost-effectively as practical within the natural limits on the economy. The wage incomes and working conditions today are vastly improved over that of 100 years ago, and 200 and 300 years ago, as science has improved the conditions, and there will continue to be improvement farther into the future, as technology improves, and as employers and workers and consumers are left individually free to make their choices according to what serves their individual interests, and as government plays its proper role of enforcing the rules for general public safety and honest business practices, but not making private personal choices for individuals, such as dictating prices and terms of employment.


Yeah, Walmart, I’m talking to you and all retailers and food service as well.

You're entitled to your freedom to preach moralistically at anyone you think should behave more generously. But demanding that some have to show pity toward others is not what makes the economy function better. Workers who want better terms must be free as individuals to make their own choices, to seek alternative opportunities, without interfering with the freedom of other individuals, including poor job-seekers and consumers they serve, who also are seeking their own alternatives and opportunities.

The current tight labor market is an opportunity for some low-paid workers to seek better opportunities, without needing the government to do anything for them. But one thing we do need the government to do is get out of the way of the free market which needs more labor, by easing its artificial immigration restrictions, easing the enforcement, so the needed work can get done.

Government's positive role right now is to get it right as to the mandates, for vaccinations and masks, etc., and find the proper limit as to how far it should go in enforcement vs. allowing individual free choice.

But often the need is for LESS government, less restriction, like right now the need to ease the immigration restrictions -- less of this rather than more. The only increase in demands on immigrants should be requirements for vaccinations or testing, which should not meet with much resistance by immigrants wanting to enter. Except for this, the rules should be eased and more immigrants allowed, especially work visas. Americans opposed to this are not patriots, but crybabies or pseudopatriots pandering to crybabies who don't understand the value that competition contributes to the economy.


I’m all for sane and humane immigration policies but we . . .

"I'm for immigration, but . . ." here it comes -- get ready for the crybaby immigrant-bashing and employer-bashing:

. . .but we cannot let employers who wish to exploit immigrants by paying them poorly, not offering benefits . . .

No, this pseudopatriotic preaching does not improve the nation or the population generally. When the word "exploit" shoots out the mouth, you know it's Crybaby Economics on the way. "Exploit" means to use what's available, at low cost, in order to get the work done for the benefit of consumers who must pay the price for it -- and otherwise that production or service will not get done and consumers will be worse off. That the company makes a profit from it is what drives the production which otherwise would not get done. If the company is not supposed to gain anything from it, then the production won't get done and everyone is worse off, including that job-seeker who now has no job.

No one is made worse off when a worker gets "exploited" instead of having no job at all (or an even lower-paying job).

. . . and not improving poor working conditions drive immigration policy.

Making the country (or all consumers) better off is what must drive the policy, not pandering to this or that limited special interest group wanting to impose costs onto all the rest of us. Every worker always wants better working conditions. If no work is allowed until all imaginable working conditions are improved to everyone who wants them, then the economy must grind to a halt and no work can get done. That you have to get out of bed earlier is a "poor" working condition -- even possibly damaging to health, but some of those "poor" conditions are necessary in order for the needed work to get done. And in the future when new technology changes that, maybe some of those poor conditions will improve, as changes become cost-effective and profitable and beneficial to all.

The "working condition" (its being "poor") is a subjective attitude for each individual worker who must decide what is acceptable or what is poor, according to each one's individual taste and tolerance level. For government to interfere into this and banish immigrants who might have a different subjective taste or tolerance level makes no more sense than to interfere with domestic workers who might also have the wrong subjective attitude about the proper "working conditions" or other terms of employment. These are subjective judgments just as much as the choice of what shirt to wear or how to fix your hair or what music to listen to.

There is no way to efficiently regiment every workplace according to one standard of what are the proper "working conditions" for all. This has to be left open to the individual workers and employers who can locally make the detailed decisions on each point where there is conflict. To not allow this is to restrict production and make all consumers worse off. Artificially interfering with production in order to satisfy everyone's personal moral and subjective tastes can only make the whole economy worse and reduce the general living standard.


If the working conditions and compensation are not good enough for Americans, they aren’t good enough, period.

But they ARE good enough for Americans, just not enough of them to fill all the jobs needing to be done. Just because some Americans reject certain terms does not mean ALL Americans reject them. What is the judgment you have against those who do accept those terms? How do you judge that those Americans are somehow invalid as workers because they have a different subjective judgment of what is "poor"? What's wrong with the employer hiring Americans for whom the terms are good enough, but then saying "Why can't there be more workers than only these? Are there other potential workers like these who could also work for me at these terms, like these ones do?"

If you say "No, you must pay higher terms than this," then you're also saying that even their current workers are not legitimate, and that even the work already being done is invalid and should be stopped, so that even the current level of production is too high and should be reduced, and that the current standard of living in this country is too high, and we need a lower standard of living in order to eliminate what someone judges to be "poor" working conditions somewhere. And so therefore the whole country must suffer a reduced standard of living, by that reasoning. Any reasoning which arbitrarily excludes a class of workers, like immigrants, saying they are invalid because the terms are "poor" and thus unacceptable, also condemns the domestic work being done already, by similar workers, in similar working conditions, and so rejects the prosperity and higher living standard we have already achieved.

Whereas allowing in needed immigrant workers to fill the current need simply affirms the prosperity we've already created and serves to preserve this high living standard and increase it into the future, based on the good economic principles which have already proved successful. Of course there could be negative trends, like climate change, etc., which threaten our future living standard, but in that case increased immigration is a factor which can help salvage the current higher living standard, or help to salvage as much of it as possible in view of some changing negative trends we might not be able to prevent.


It isn’t being a crybaby to expect safe working conditions, reasonable and predictable work schedule and a liveable wage.

It's "crybaby" when your tantrum reaches the point where you must impose your personal subjective demands onto others instead of letting the other individuals make their own free choice. Interfering with another's choice to travel, to hire an outsider, a newcomer, because of the increased competition, is Crybaby Economics, whereas Grown-Up Economics is to make your own personal adjustments, to meet your personal demands, to get what you want as an individual producer, but still allowing everyone else to be equally free to make their own individual free choice. Including the choice for a lower hourly wage rather than no job at all, or the choice to travel, to migrate, to search for better opportunities, such as better employment opportunities, in an economy where you produce for the benefit of ALL consumers, because it's competitive and therefore requires you to perform better in order to increase your profit/income.

The difference is that "Crybaby Economics" means those who whine the loudest are the ones who prosper, whereas in "Grown-Up Economics" those who perform better are the ones who prosper, and the latter school of economics is the one which produces a better functioning economy for the benefit of all rather than only the benefit of the best and loudest whiners.


I’m fine with the govt. providing wage supports for small businesses and gradually tapering off as the employer reaches benchmark revenues and income and number of employees.

In theory perhaps, but today, with today's Blues and Reds ruining the country and the economy, there is no form of corporate welfare for the small businesses which can do anything but make it all worse. The Big Government lobbyists and demagogues would be the only winners.

And for immigration per se, the need is equally great, whether it's the small or large companies. For all of them there is an urgent need which could be met by allowing much higher numbers of immigrant workers, and the result would be a net gain for the whole economy, i.e., for all consumers = the whole population.


Walmart and Amazon and other behemoths can start paying taxes at a fair level and help subsidize rather than cannibalize small businesses.

It's not subsidies which small businesses need or want (except a few crybabies). What they need is to be left free to hire immigrants or anyone they can find willing to accept the terms, without interference from the government or pseudopatriotic moralists pretending to dictate to others what their choices ought to be.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
Wow. Nine stupid posts in a row, from the Oracle of Obtuseness.

Yes, it was nine post in a row but the OP says a lot...which is a lot I do not agree with.

I am quite surprised actually that you agree with the libertarian political far right viewpoint of the OP and not mine. But in any case, state what I said that you actually disagree with so I might be convinced otherwise politically. Or in the case of obtuseness, what was obtuse?
 

RVonse

Veteran Member

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Wow. Nine stupid posts in a row, from the Oracle of Obtuseness.

Yes, it was nine post in a row but the OP says a lot...which is a lot I do not agree with.

I am quite surprised actually that you agree with the libertarian political far right viewpoint of the OP and not mine. But in any case, state what I said that you actually disagree with so I might be convinced otherwise politically. Or in the case of obtuseness, what was obtuse?

I agree that you made some good points.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
The difference is that "Crybaby Economics" means those who whine the loudest are the ones who prosper, whereas in "Grown-Up Economics" those who perform better are the ones who prosper, and the latter school of economics is the one which produces a better functioning economy for the benefit of all rather than only the benefit of the best and loudest whiners.


.
But the loudest crybaby whiners are clearly the corporations who have whined and paid off our government. They were the clear whiners who have been prospering until very recently.

It is a very rare thing to see labor finally reach the point where general laws of supply and demand can determine a fair wage during unfair labor arbitrage. But that is a good thing for the economy in general and middle class.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
so even if there are hardships today (pandemic, etc.), a free economy which allows more immigration will better allow us to cope with it, whereas the restrictions only make bad conditions even worse.

(As long as immigrants are required to be vaccinated/tested.)
You write so much but never have anything to say about the cost of immigration and who has to pay those costs. And I'm not just talking about vaccinations either.

What about the costs to house and educate the immigrants and their future children? What about the costs to integrate them into our language and social customs? What about the costs born by natural citizens who can not afford their own families in this country because they are competing in the same market place of labor?

Who pays for those costs??? I'll tell you for sure who does not pay those costs...its the CEO's and top managers of those corporations!!!
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
A true free market becomes heavily restricted pretty quickly. We saw it with Standard Oil, then AT&T, and again AT&T (well, SBC) where economic options disappear. Money is like bad cholesterol. It attracts itself and then get lodged into places and no longer providing capital to the system. The first successful companies become bigger, and bigger companies have more capital, so they can starve off or buy off the competition. And then there is no one left. Facebook managed via going public, to get free cash to buy off any competition.

There's nothing wrong with the state trying to moderate the big players to make them more competitive, so the "free market" works better. We can never make the free market perfect, like perfectly competitive, but some steps can be taken to improve its performance. Higher levels of immigration -- especially allowing more immigrant workers -- can improve the free market so that it works better. More competition always makes the economy perform better.


The free market is like a Physics 101 book, where, ignoring the effects of wind resistance, friction, etc... what will the distance travelled be. It is an ideal economic state that is not attainable.

It's an ideal we should strive toward, for the measurable practical benefits to be gained from it. Just like we should pursue democracy and justice and prosperity and happiness and equality and human rights and welfare and crime prevention and health and accountability and education and truth and honesty, etc. etc. etc. Just because an ideal is not perfectly attainable does not mean we shouldn't strive toward it.
 
Last edited:

funinspace

Veteran Member
Well, since it seems you've (Lumpy) munged up your quote in post #70, I haven't figured out the new and improved GUI...so a manual quote of the part I wanted to comment on...
So all the empty shelves and other results of less production must continue, as we're experiencing it, and also higher prices.
There isn't 'less production' causing empty shelves. Imports are at record levels, almost 10% higher than 2018-2019.

Ref: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/imports
 

lpetrich

Contributor
I have boycotted that poll, because its options align closely with Lumpenproletariat's beliefs, with no options for any others, not even "Other cause".
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member

What's wrong with letting needed work get done?

The theory or premise or narrative is simple: Lots of work or needed production is not getting done, as we are hearing regularly on the Nightly News etc., which leads to shortages, empty shelves, higher prices, etc. At the same time immigrants are flocking to our southern border (asylum-seekers, etc., whatever you want to call them) in record numbers.

So, what is wrong with the idea that we should accept more immigrants who agree to take jobs, or more of them seeking work visas, etc., perhaps easing the restrictions, etc., to let more in, to get many of the jobs filled which are remaining vacant?

It's amazing what people say who are trying to find something wrong with such a simple idea. Surely we can all agree that these newcomers would have to be vaccinated and/or be tested, and maybe there are a few other qualifiers, but surely no reasonable person would be against such a simple obvious remedy (partial remedy) to an obvious problem.

And yet we're getting some asinine knee-jerk negative responses to this, which is unbelievable. The prejudice and immigrant-hate and bigotry is astounding. The best explanation for this nuttiness seems to be the false economics theories that somehow any worker who might accept a lower-wage job is somehow bad for the economy, because somehow there's a wages religion which says that we must never allow any possibility of any downward pressure on wages, of any kind whatever, even if the real wage level is rising while that downward push could have no effect other than to possibly slow down the wage rise by a small percentage.


So all the empty shelves and other results of less production must continue, as we're experiencing it, and also higher prices.

funinspace: There isn't 'less production' causing empty shelves.

How can someone say something so nutty? Every day on the news we're hearing of problems with empty shelves, of cargo not being loaded, of products not getting delivered, and jobs not getting done because of resignations, labor shortage, etc. How can anyone deny this?

The word "production" refers to all the work needed in order to get the products to the consumers. Any fool can see that this production has declined.

Imports are at record levels, almost 10% higher than 2018-2019.

Ref: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/imports
Yes, maybe the foreign production is just as high, but much of those imports are sitting on boats in the harbor instead of being unloaded. There is a shortage of dockworkers and truckdrivers (and many other worker categories). Why couldn't some of those migrants (like half a million of them) be recruited to get some of this work done, unless you believe that immigrants are inferior creatures who could never learn to operate any machine or drive a truck or do any other needed work?

It appears there is some bias against letting this work be done by newcomers, and that some small-minded American pseudo-patriots would rather allow the standard of living to decrease than to admit any more of what they consider inferior polluted foreigners to steal jobs from red-blooded Americans.


(And as if all the above weren't bad enough, this new message posting format is an abomination. Whoever's responsible for this should be taken out and shot!)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
"cost of immigration"? What about the cost of those already here?

higher immigrant population -> lower overall average cost per person
so even if there are hardships today (pandemic, etc.), a free economy which allows more immigration will better allow us to cope with it, whereas the restrictions only make bad conditions even worse.

(As long as immigrants are required to be vaccinated/tested.)
You write so much but never have anything to say about the cost of immigration and who has to pay those costs. And I'm not just talking about vaccinations either.
The worst costs are the unnecessary warehousing costs, 90% of which could be eliminated if they would just admit in all those who have jobs lined up or could be hired, and all those who have families/relatives ready to take them in. Most of that warehousing cost is wasted, caused by those who insist on having the excess restrictions. In fact, the price paid by the immigrants themselves could be enough to pay most of that. Most of them already pay thousands of $$$$ to get here.

Once they are taken in and get employed, they contribute a higher share percentagewise to the economy than most of the lower-income domestic population. So for that cost, it's not really the "cost of immigration" per se, but just the cost of the low-income population in general, which on average is higher than the "immigration" cost. There's no way to calculate whether this cost (of maintaining a lower-income population) is worth it to society or if it is a net loss. If the immigration influx is a net loss, then that means the entire domestic lower-income class already is an even greater net loss. I.e., that the entire bottom half, or the bottom third of the population are a net loss overall and a parasitic burden on the whole society.

But it's probably not a net loss, because the middle-to-higher classes consume vastly more and so might be a net greater loss to society than the lower class. It's impossible to calculate how much the net loss or benefit is from this or that segment, but we can be sure that whatever it is, the ones already here (domestic higher-or-lower) are a greater overall cost burden on the system than the immigrant newcomers, who overall put less total net demand on the system.

It may be true that some subsidies to immigrants are excessive, but that could be ended, or the immigrants could be asked to pay a higher share upon their entry -- as they already do pay some costs.


What about the costs to house and educate the immigrants and their future children?
Overall it's less than the costs of housing and educating the lower classes already here. To say it's too high is to say that we are paying too much now to house and educate our existing lower classes.



What about the costs to integrate them into our language and social customs?
That also is less than similar costs we pay for those already here who have similar needs. It's questionable if there's a need to "integrate them into our language and social customs" -- whatever that means, some of it is artificial and unnecessary. And it's similar to other costs we pay already on the domestic or native-born population.



What about the costs born by natural citizens who can not afford their own families in this country because they are competing in the same market place of labor?
The additional competition is good for the population as a whole, even if not for certain uncompetitive ones who don't perform so well. The added pressure on us all to compete leads to improved overall performance and production, which in turn benefits 100% of consumers = the whole population.

To complain on behalf of the less competitive and demand that it's not fair for them to have to compete is the meaning of the term "Crybaby Economics" = bad for the country overall. Just as we're all better off because of competition from machines which replace humans, so also are we made better off because of any other competition which might replace someone less competitive by someone/something more competitive.

What's good for the whole country, 100% of the population, has to take priority over what's good for certain uncompetitive ones whose poor performance is a drain on all the rest.


Who pays for those costs???
Same ones who pay the costs for maintaining the bottom 1/2 or bottom 1/3 of the domestic population already costing the society even without any immigration. If the cost is too much, this is an argument for doing things more cost-efficiently, not for excluding a class of newcomers whose cost to society on average would be less than the cost we're already paying for the lower classes.

Things could be done better, costs reduced, benefits increased, etc. -- many possible remedies. But excluding a class which is overall more cost-efficient than the classes already here is not a remedy.


I'll tell you for sure who does not pay those costs...its the CEO's and top managers of those corporations!!!
Even more certain is that we all benefit from a more competitive economy which allows more production based on merit alone, and more producers, no matter who they are or where they're from. And we all lose by a system which excludes any competitors because of their identity or their origin or non-privileged status.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Do you have any actual numbers to back up anything you said above? You're very long on conjecture and very short on proof.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Is competition good for the economy, or is it not?
It is a very rare thing to see labor finally reach the point where general laws of supply and demand can determine a fair wage during unfair labor arbitrage.
Letting supply-and-demand set the wage level means allowing immigrant workers and foreign workers, including Chinese, to compete with higher-paid U.S. workers. Those who want to exclude the additional competition are the crybabies, because those higher-paid less competitive workers drive up the cost and make all the consumers worse, and this is exactly what a crybaby is -- one who increases his own gain by imposing costs onto everyone else. So the crybaby steel worker or auto worker, protected by trade barriers, gains a higher wage by imposing higher costs onto all consumers who must pay the higher prices. The crybabies are those who enrich themselves by making all the consumers worse off with higher prices, because of the reduced competition.

Do you have any actual numbers to back up anything you said above? You're very long on conjecture and very short on proof.
A competitive economy is NOT better? So then you're opposed to antitrust laws, which are based on the premise that a competitive economy is better? In Economics 1A and in all our economic policy it is a premise that more competition (to get lower price and improved production) is better for the economy, i.e., for everyone.

The burden of proof is on those who reject competition and would make production less competitive.

Suppose Biden (or Trump) dropped a nuke on Shanghai or wherever, in order to eliminate a few million of those Chinese workers who compete with American workers with their cheap labor. I have no numbers to prove that the result of that would be bad for the world economy. But it would probably be bad.

We can easily figure out what the result would be without "any actual numbers" to prove it. We know that more production and more competition produces a better result.

I have no "actual numbers" to prove that if all traffic lights were suddenly removed there would be a few traffic accidents as a result.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Is competition good for the economy, or is it not?
It is a very rare thing to see labor finally reach the point where general laws of supply and demand can determine a fair wage during unfair labor arbitrage.
Letting supply-and-demand set the wage level means allowing immigrant workers and foreign workers, including Chinese, to compete with higher-paid U.S. workers. Those who want to exclude the additional competition are the crybabies, because those higher-paid less competitive workers drive up the cost and make all the consumers worse, and this is exactly what a crybaby is -- one who increases his own gain by imposing costs onto everyone else. So the crybaby steel worker or auto worker, protected by trade barriers, gains a higher wage by imposing higher costs onto all consumers who must pay the higher prices. The crybabies are those who enrich themselves by making all the consumers worse off with higher prices, because of the reduced competition.

Do you have any actual numbers to back up anything you said above? You're very long on conjecture and very short on proof.
A competitive economy is NOT better? So then you're opposed to antitrust laws, which are based on the premise that a competitive economy is better? In Economics 1A and in all our economic policy it is a premise that more competition (to get lower price and improved production) is better for the economy, i.e., for everyone.

The burden of proof is on those who reject competition and would make production less competitive.

Suppose Biden (or Trump) dropped a nuke on Shanghai or wherever, in order to eliminate a few million of those Chinese workers who compete with American workers with their cheap labor. I have no numbers to prove that the result of that would be bad for the world economy. But it would probably be bad.

We can easily figure out what the result would be without "any actual numbers" to prove it. We know that more production and more competition produces a better result.

I have no "actual numbers" to prove that if all traffic lights were suddenly removed there would be a few traffic accidents as a result.
Dodging the question.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
whining crybaby corporations and whining crybaby workers
The difference is that "Crybaby Economics" means those who whine the loudest are the ones who prosper, whereas in "Grown-Up Economics" those who perform better are the ones who prosper, and the latter school of economics is the one which produces a better functioning economy for the benefit of all rather than only the benefit of the best and loudest whiners.
But the loudest crybaby whiners are clearly the corporations who have whined and paid off our government.
RVonse: "But the loudest crybaby whiners are clearly the corporations who have whined and paid off our government." [This new format is so fucked up!]

Not ALL corporations, but yes, the steel companies, e.g., whined and gained protection against foreign competition, to drive up prices to consumers. Also the auto companies. Those are the best examples of such whining by corporations.

Especially where they are joined by the whining labor unions, working together with their whining capitalist employers, to gain protection against foreign competition which could do the same production at lower cost. The result is higher profit and wages to the crybaby companies/workers and higher prices consumers must pay.

(There are other examples of whining, such as corporate welfare, where a company is granted special privileges or subsidies in order to "create jobs" and other symbolism to make someone feel good, at a net cost to consumers or taxpayers. Including special subsidies to select alternative energy companies, to the exclusion of other companies offering competing alternative-energy products but not well-connected to those in power who grant the special privileges to the select few.)

The reason to call the privileged ones "crybabies" is that they demand benefits for themselves which all the rest of society has to pay for, so everyone else is made worse off in order to satisfy the selfish interests of the tiny elite protected class. You should make it clear what you mean when you use language like "crybaby" or "whining" -- it's not just name-calling, but refers to particular cases of narrow-interest benefit to a few which inflicts net cost onto everyone else. And it's encouraged by crybaby-panderers like Trump and Biden and Bernie Sanders, etc., and by their deluded mass of crusader zealot followers who have incorporated xenophobia, especially China-bashing, into their religious pseudo-patriotism.

And the exclusion of immigrant workers, even though they're needed in order to fill vacant jobs, is another form of Crybaby Economics, done to the detriment of all consumers who are thus under-served and forced to pay higher prices, but done to protect uncompetitive domestic workers who are perceived as threatened by competition from immigrants.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
But the loudest crybaby whiners are clearly the corporations who have whined and paid off our government. They were the clear whiners who have been prospering until very recently.
They're still prospering -- e.g., the steel companies and auto companies are still prospering under Biden as they did under Trump, with more protectionism, because of their successful whining. Though it's true that the crybaby labor unions gained artificially higher wages (= higher cost of production and higher prices) in Trump's new North American trade terms, but the companies also gained increased crybaby protectionism against Asian and European competitors. So the whining crybabies are all doing just fine, still prospering, at everyone else's expense.


It is a very rare thing to see labor finally reach the point where general laws of supply and demand can determine a fair wage during unfair labor arbitrage.
The only "fair" wage or cost or price is that which is determined by competition, where ALL the producers are included and the market is open to all, without penalty against any producers who can offer the same output at lower cost. Supply-and-demand cannot determine anything "fair" as long as competition is being suppressed, such as Trump's (and Biden's) protectionism which is unfair to consumers.


But that is a good thing for the economy in general and middle class.
Only increased competition is good for the economy and all classes. Not Trump's xenophobia and China-bashing, or exclusion of immigrants or foreign labor, which Biden is mostly continuing, despite his rhetoric.

The current labor shortage is not a "good thing for the economy" but is hurting all consumers and thus the whole nation. Allowing more immigration and opening the market more to foreign competition would help to correct this and make the economy better for ALL classes.

Whereas protecting anyone rich or poor from having to compete, as demanded by labor unions and xenophobes and pseudo-patriots and immigrant-bashers, only makes the economy worse for all of us -- lower, middle and upper.
 

RVonse

Veteran Member
But the loudest crybaby whiners are clearly the corporations who have whined and paid off our government. They were the clear whiners who have been prospering until very recently.
They're still prospering -- e.g., the steel companies and auto companies are still prospering under Biden as they did under Trump, with more protectionism, because of their successful whining. Though it's true that the crybaby labor unions gained artificially higher wages (= higher cost of production and higher prices) in Trump's new North American trade terms, but the companies also gained increased crybaby protectionism against Asian and European competitors. So the whining crybabies are all doing just fine, still prospering, at everyone else's expense.


It is a very rare thing to see labor finally reach the point where general laws of supply and demand can determine a fair wage during unfair labor arbitrage.
The only "fair" wage or cost or price is that which is determined by competition, where ALL the producers are included and the market is open to all, without penalty against any producers who can offer the same output at lower cost. Supply-and-demand cannot determine anything "fair" as long as competition is being suppressed, such as Trump's (and Biden's) protectionism which is unfair to consumers.


But that is a good thing for the economy in general and middle class.
Only increased competition is good for the economy and all classes. Not Trump's xenophobia and China-bashing, or exclusion of immigrants or foreign labor, which Biden is mostly continuing, despite his rhetoric.

The current labor shortage is not a "good thing for the economy" but is hurting all consumers and thus the whole nation. Allowing more immigration and opening the market more to foreign competition would help to correct this and make the economy better for ALL classes.

Whereas protecting anyone rich or poor from having to compete, as demanded by labor unions and xenophobes and pseudo-patriots and immigrant-bashers, only makes the economy worse for all of us -- lower, middle and upper.
Fair competition is good.
But the loudest crybaby whiners are clearly the corporations who have whined and paid off our government. They were the clear whiners who have been prospering until very recently.
They're still prospering -- e.g., the steel companies and auto companies are still prospering under Biden as they did under Trump, with more protectionism, because of their successful whining. Though it's true that the crybaby labor unions gained artificially higher wages (= higher cost of production and higher prices) in Trump's new North American trade terms, but the companies also gained increased crybaby protectionism against Asian and European competitors. So the whining crybabies are all doing just fine, still prospering, at everyone else's expense.


It is a very rare thing to see labor finally reach the point where general laws of supply and demand can determine a fair wage during unfair labor arbitrage.
The only "fair" wage or cost or price is that which is determined by competition, where ALL the producers are included and the market is open to all, without penalty against any producers who can offer the same output at lower cost. Supply-and-demand cannot determine anything "fair" as long as competition is being suppressed, such as Trump's (and Biden's) protectionism which is unfair to consumers.


But that is a good thing for the economy in general and middle class.
Only increased competition is good for the economy and all classes. Not Trump's xenophobia and China-bashing, or exclusion of immigrants or foreign labor, which Biden is mostly continuing, despite his rhetoric.

The current labor shortage is not a "good thing for the economy" but is hurting all consumers and thus the whole nation. Allowing more immigration and opening the market more to foreign competition would help to correct this and make the economy better for ALL classes.

Whereas protecting anyone rich or poor from having to compete, as demanded by labor unions and xenophobes and pseudo-patriots and immigrant-bashers, only makes the economy worse for all of us -- lower, middle and upper.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
But the loudest crybaby whiners are clearly the corporations who have whined and paid off our government. They were the clear whiners who have been prospering until very recently.
They're still prospering -- e.g., the steel companies and auto companies are still prospering under Biden as they did under Trump, with more protectionism, because of their successful whining. Though it's true that the crybaby labor unions gained artificially higher wages (= higher cost of production and higher prices) in Trump's new North American trade terms, but the companies also gained increased crybaby protectionism against Asian and European competitors. So the whining crybabies are all doing just fine, still prospering, at everyone else's expense.


It is a very rare thing to see labor finally reach the point where general laws of supply and demand can determine a fair wage during unfair labor arbitrage.
The only "fair" wage or cost or price is that which is determined by competition, where ALL the producers are included and the market is open to all, without penalty against any producers who can offer the same output at lower cost. Supply-and-demand cannot determine anything "fair" as long as competition is being suppressed, such as Trump's (and Biden's) protectionism which is unfair to consumers.


But that is a good thing for the economy in general and middle class.
Only increased competition is good for the economy and all classes. Not Trump's xenophobia and China-bashing, or exclusion of immigrants or foreign labor, which Biden is mostly continuing, despite his rhetoric.

The current labor shortage is not a "good thing for the economy" but is hurting all consumers and thus the whole nation. Allowing more immigration and opening the market more to foreign competition would help to correct this and make the economy better for ALL classes.

Whereas protecting anyone rich or poor from having to compete, as demanded by labor unions and xenophobes and pseudo-patriots and immigrant-bashers, only makes the economy worse for all of us -- lower, middle and upper.
Fair competition is good.
And it's "fair" if it best serves consumers, and if it allows all producers/competitors to individually make their own free choices, without anyone imposing their terms onto individual players, such as through laws dictating particular wages or prices onto buyers or sellers or workers or employers. Also if no competitors are excluded from the market, like foreigners or immigrants or "scab" workers or others who are hated because they're more competitive.

It's not "unfair" just because someone else is more competitive than you.




 
Last edited:

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Why should all this work not get done? Why should shelves remain empty and cargo ships not be unloaded and products not be delivered when there are easily a million immigrant workers who can perform that needed work? Why should needed work not get done based on theoretical speculation that the labor shortage might decrease over 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 years?
Why not let the free market decide what prices should be and take care of itself without producers becoming criminals??

RVonse: Why not let the free market decide what prices should be and take care of itself without producers becoming criminals??

"free market" = Let them hire more immigrants who are available in large numbers, so that more of the needed work can get done. Stop making criminals out of producers for being honest and wanting to serve consumers by hiring available workers.

There is nothing about "the free market" which requires Trump's hate and xenophobia and exclusion of foreigners from being allowed to compete and produce, especially at a time when they are more needed.

Why not instead let the current needed work get done?
As long as it is legal and moral that is fine.
There is nothing illegal or immoral about allowing more immigrant workers.

No one can give any reason why more immigrant workers should not be admitted at this time, when there is a high demand and needed work is not getting done.

Why does immigrant-bashing take priority over the welfare of U.S. consumers? i.e., over the whole population?
Why does the whole population have to suffer costs of the . . .
How do they suffer costs as a result of more needed work getting done?

. . . costs of the criminal producers who want to exploit . . .
How is it criminal for a producer to hold down their costs in order to better serve consumers? Why is being more competitive and more productive a crime?

. . . to exploit cheap and easy labor.
How is it "criminal" to seek more competitive labor? to keep down the cost of production so that prices can be lower? Why is it anymore criminal for a company to shop for a better deal than it is for consumers to shop for lower prices? or for a homeowner to shop for a lower-cost gardener or housekeeper or plumber?

Let them make their profits honestly with . . .
What's not honest about hiring an immigrant?

. . . with technology and higher productivity.
They already do make profits with technology and higher productivity, as much as they can. Nothing about that conflicts with hiring immigrant labor.


RVonse: The non-crybaby market solution is for those labor markets where there is a shortage to raise wages in order to . . .
No. This is what is called free market capitalism.
. . . to raise wages in order to . . .
No, higher labor cost might mean less profit, in which case it won't happen, but instead companies will just let the production remain low until they find the needed labor.
The dumb ones will.
The "dumb ones" are entitled to operate as best they can to try to make a profit. Arbitrarily excluding them from the market because of your prejudice does not serve the nation, but makes the economy, all consumers, worse off. It's better to let the market, rather than your prejudice, determine the success or failure of particular producers.

But the smarter ones like Elon Musk will figure how to get technology to do this work.
So then just leave them all alone to succeed or fail, without you or Trump or other outsiders interfering according to your prejudice. The rule that best serves the nation is to leave the producers alone, including immigrants, to perform the work any way it can be done to benefit consumers.

And they will be the profitable survivors who win in the free market.
So then you and Trump and other immigrant-bashers need to keep your ass out of it and let the free market serve the consumers.

The free market does not dictate that companies must be shut down which hire workers rather than machines. Rather, it dictates that whoever best serves consumers will survive better, no matter how they do it.

It's not true that all jobs have to be replaced by machines. Rather, the government and ideologues, including protectionist dogmatists, must step aside and let the producers and the competition determine what works and what does not. And allow companies to have access to needed workers, including immigrant labor, in order to get the needed work done as cost-efficiently as possible.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Looking at Lumpenproletariat's posts, he seems to think that "consumers" are a privileged class of people who never have to work for their living and who get their money from picking money trees in their houses' yards.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Looking at Lumpenproletariat's posts, he seems to think that "consumers" are a privileged class of people who never have to work for their living and who get their money from picking money trees in their houses' yards.
To be fair, a large group of people also assume that all consumers are workers. Forgetting that they many consumers do not work: the retired, some students; those living off government assistance.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
A true free market becomes heavily restricted pretty quickly. We saw it with Standard Oil, then AT&T, and again AT&T (well, SBC) where economic options disappear. Money is like bad cholesterol. It attracts itself and then get lodged into places and no longer providing capital to the system. The first successful companies become bigger, and bigger companies have more capital, so they can starve off or buy off the competition. And then there is no one left. Facebook managed via going public, to get free cash to buy off any competition.

The free market is like a Physics 101 book, where, ignoring the effects of wind resistance, friction, etc... what will the distance travelled be. It is an ideal economic state that is not attainable.

We need to resurrect Teddy Roosevelt to do some "trust busting" again.
RVonse: We need to resurrect Teddy Roosevelt to do some "trust busting" again.
That's based on the premise that competition is good for the economy. The fundamental point of antitrust is to force producers to be more competitive because it's good for consumers. If you don't agree with that principle, then you can't see any purpose that "trust busting" would serve.

But if you agree with the need for competition, then you also agree that foreign imports are good for the economy and that immigrant labor is good, to increase the competition. Because it serves consumers, and the point of the economy is to serve consumers, such as offering more production to meet the demand, and offering it at lower prices.

So don't preach about the need for "trust busting" if you don't also recognize the need for increased competition, including cheap labor and foreign imports and more immigrant labor to meet the market demand.

Also, the need for more competition is real even if the free market "is an ideal economic state that is not attainable." It is still an ideal we need to get closer to even if it's not perfectly attainable. And an increase in immigrant labor would help correct the current labor shortage so the economy could function better, even if "the ideal" perfect free market is not attainable.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
A little healthy exploitation never hurt anyone.
Rabid libertarians: "Why don't you just quit your low wage job and better yourself?"

Workers today: "Okay. Fuck my current employer. The business down the street is offering more money, better benefits, and better working conditions. I quit!"

Rabid libertarians: "Not like that! Why don't you want to work for us?! You ungrateful lazy bastards!!!"
People must realize when they have the power. These instances are few. The last was the collapse of the housing market. Fewer realized the power they had to screw over the banks by forcing them to reappraise their property and obtain a lower mortgage in the face of so many foreclosures on the bank’s books.

For today’s workers, it’s more evident. Don’t want to pay me more? Duck you. I’ll move on down the road. It’s only people’s naive sense of fair play in our capitalism run amok system holding them back.

If only they'd follow their self interest they'd be better off, and so would the whole economy.

Adam Smith said it all when he described the "Invisible Hand" of the free market: everyone does what's in his/her personal self-interest, rather than worrying about what's good for someone else. Just find the best deal for yourself, whatever brings you more income/profit, and by doing that you also do the best for the whole economy or the whole society, because you've become more competitive and more productive. And don't waste time shedding tears for the uncompetitive losers who accuse you of not caring for their welfare.

So everyone -- job-seekers and employers and buyers and sellers -- should just shop around for a better deal and not worry about being more patriotic and getting caught up in the "buy local" or "buy American" and China-bashing and spend-more-money-to-stimulate-the-economy rhetoric. No, just work or hire or buy or sell for your own individual self-interest and let the economy take care of itself.

That's the true competitive free market, more of which would help to fix what's wrong today.

And that includes hiring immigrant labor, or hiring whoever will do the job at lower cost, so the needed work gets done. But which Biden and Trump can't figure out because they only want to pander to the crybaby immigrant-haters and employer-bashers who think cheap labor is bad for the economy.

Nothing wrong with this the "Invisible Hand" as long as that hand is not a criminal.
RVonse: "Nothing wrong with this the "Invisible Hand" as long as that hand is not a criminal."

There's nothing criminal about hiring immigrants or foreign labor or doing what it takes to reduce the cost of production or improve output and profit, as long as it's not fraudulent. What's criminal is to prevent needed production from taking place when there are producers/workers available to help get that production done and yet they're excluded because they're seen as in competition with certain domestic producers/workers who succeed in keeping them excluded in order to protect their turf, so that consumers are denied the benefits to be gained from that needed work getting done. Such as today with the labor shortage and many unfilled jobs which are not getting done even though there are available workers.

We should be a country with the rule of law to prevent exploitation of people at a disadvantage.
By prohibiting them from being hired? by putting them at an even greater disadvantage by excluding them from participating in our economy to their benefit and the benefit of all U.S. consumers = the whole population?

Stop pretending that you care about "people at a disadvantage" which your demands are putting at an even greater disadvantage. If you care about them, stop inflicting even greater harm onto them and instead allow them to work and produce in our economy rather than shutting them out of it to their detriment.

There are at least a million unfilled jobs in this economy currently which could easily be filled, quickly, and probably 2 or 3 million more which could be filled during the ongoing period of labor shortage and undersupply, to improve the economy.

The "rule of law" need not mean we have to pander to all the crybabies who feel threatened by competing foreign and immigrant labor. When you prevent "exploitation" by suppressing competition and excluding competitors, to protect the turf of the crybabies and prevent needed work from getting done, you put all consumers "at a disadvantage" and cause a lower living standard to all.

I believe in free market capitalism as long as it does not evolve into piracy.
Hiring immigrants is not piracy. Allowing the market to expand to include more competitors and more production is not piracy but is legitimate production to serve consumers. Nor is it piracy to reduce the labor cost, either by finding lower-cost labor, or by replacing higher-cost labor with machines.

To call such legitimate competition "piracy" is Crybaby Economics 1A.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Lumpen, you're big on calling people crybabies but fall far short on backing up your stupidnomics with facts and figures.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Higher cost = bad. Increased supply/production = good.


It's not true that driving up the costs produces wealth.
RVonse: But it is true that all the real costs of production should be paid for by the producers.

They are, but these in turn are then paid by consumers in the higher prices producers charge them. So higher labor costs are all paid eventually by consumers, and any cost savings are also reflected in lower prices to consumers.

So if the labor cost, or any other cost, can be held down, this benefits consumers in the form of lower prices; or if supply is increased at low cost, this is a net benefit to consumers.

Including the future costs of exploiting labor and . . .
or SAVINGS from exploiting labor. Getting down the labor costs ("exploiting labor") can produce savings to consumers who pay lower prices as a result. Many of those consumers are poor people much worse off than the workers producing for them. You make them worse off by artificially driving up the wage level to workers and thus the production cost and the prices consumers have to pay.

. . . and not paying for all the costs they bring to the rest of the country.
But they (immigrants) don't bring any additional costs to the country beyond what the domestic workers bring. If your point is that all wage-earners (or all the lower-class wage-earners) are a net cost to society, or net parasites which are a net cost burden on "the rest of the country" rather than net contributors, then you might claim that the immigrant workers too are such net parasites, along with all those below the middle.

However, if all the net costs and benefits from them are totaled up, to include all costs, their income, their total consumption, i.e., total productive input vs. consumption/costs (which might be impossible to measure totally, but some reasonable estimates can be attempted), it probably would turn out that upper-income producers do total more depletion/consumption than the lower-income producers. (I.e., even though they produce more, they also consume more, so their NET cost/benefit impact on the economy is likely more negative than that of the lower-income producers whose consumption/spending is so much less.) So, middle-class factory workers, office workers, white-collar workers, etc., probably inflict a total higher net cost onto the economy than the lower-income workers.

There's no way to calculate the exact numbers, for either individuals or groups. But there's no basis for saying that immigrant workers in particular inflict net higher costs onto the economy than the domestic workers already here. (If you're thinking about immigration costs, processing migrants, paperwork, border enforcement, etc., all that can easily be offset by having them pay some fees, as they do already -- maybe some fees should be increased -- this is no reason to claim that immigrants cost too much.)

So this argument for excluding immigrant workers ("the costs they bring to the rest of the country") is also an argument for excluding the lower-level workers already here.

This argument says in effect: We want to exclude immigrants from coming to work, because such low-level workers are a net loss to our society (even those already here) and we already have enough undesirables working here -- and we'd like to get rid of them if we could because they're all net parasites, because all the lower-income workers are a net drain on the economy which we'd be better off without. I.e., in effect a claim that maybe a third or half the population are undesirables, net parasites, which we wish didn't exist, and if only we could get rid of them we would.

But this argument is probably incorrect, because it ignores the much higher consumption level of the higher-income workers, many of whom also are probably a net drain on the economy because of their high level of consumption. Once the consumption is factored in along with the production level, there's no basis for saying that the immigrant workers are any more a drain or cost to us than the higher-income workers.
 

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
I rarely read Lumpenproletariat's posts in their entirety as they so often seem to be written from a false premise. I wonder if he has addressed what is to be done with this underclass of Americans edged out by immigrants. To say nothing of the class of low wage workers who have outbid all others in a race to the bottom. And where is this bottom? I shudder to think. Does the underclass just quietly live somewhere unseen? Are there still social services so they can make ends meet? Do we pay to imprison them when desperation drives them to crime? Surely he's addressed this at some point in time. Lord knows he's written enough words.

The “increase immigration for unskilled/low skilled labor” plan may look appealing at this particular moment in time but as lasting policy it would be a disaster for the upward economic mobility of the nation as a whole.

He has referred to this lose of production as “criminal” and this production as “needed”. My interest in reading more words again tailed off soon after. I mean, even if valid, to have such a commitment to the production of shit and to live with a singular focus of accumulating wealth. What a life well lived, eh?
Imagine a world where we employ an increasing and more desperate population, one generation after the next to more cheaply produce unneeded and oftentimes unwanted shit products. A world where most everything is designed to last but a few years so it can be manufactured and purchased again and again in an endless pursuit of more and more profit by a class of moneygrubbers. And for the sake of producing all this useless shit we waste the natural resources of planet A. And watch it burn. And watch it flood. Now that’s criminal.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
reply to #51, Oct 21

Shopping for lower-cost labor is part of the solution.
It's not that the jobs aren't there, but rather that there's a shortage of workers taking the jobs available.
Only a shortage of workers to do the jobs at the current market price.
Not if the supply of labor increases, which would benefit all consumers and be a normal part of the market system. (And driving up the wage level artificially would mean higher cost = higher price and reduced output.) It's only government interference which holds down the free-market labor supply. Allowing the market to do its function requires the government to decrease its interference and allow the supply of labor to flow as needed, as a normal process historically, to overcome artificial border obstructions and allow production to serve the need of people. Obstructing commerce and labor is not a legitimate function of borders.

Serving the need of the country is more important than protecting certain xenophobes who feel threatened by foreigners, or preserving nativist hostility against outsiders because they're not "our kind." The legitimate need for borders and restrictions can be moderated in order to promote supply and allow legitimate commercial traffic so that the nation gets maximum efficient production to serve consumers.

Raise the wage and there will be a shortage of jobs for workers . . .
But the market already does raise the wage automatically when it's appropriate, to meet the demand. Some wages have increased, but also higher supply of labor is needed, to address the labor shortage. Excluding immigrant labor is based on prejudice only, not economics. Higher wages are not necessarily best for consumers, because it necessarily also means higher prices they must pay, whereas increased labor supply is better for consumers. It's best to let the free market address the need, allowing higher wages but also higher supply of labor. Increased labor supply = lower production cost and higher output and lower prices, all of which are needed currently. There is never any reason to choose a lower living standard out of prejudice against immigrant workers who could do some of the needed work = increased supply plus cost savings.

Econ 101.
Yes, meaning artificially higher labor cost = less production and higher prices, making us all worse off. Any lower cost that is possible always benefits the economy. I.e., like using machines to do production is beneficial if it does the same work at lower cost. Such cost savings is always good for the economy. Without the increased labor supply to fill the need (if the shortage continues), there are necessarily higher production costs = lower living standard for all Americans.

Sometimes higher cost is unavoidable, but when it can be avoided there's no legitimate reason to force it up higher than necessary. With an increased labor supply made possible, that higher cost can be avoided and the production continued at the earlier higher levels = higher living standard. Though the pandemic is driving up costs artificially higher, other factors, like increased labor supply, can offset that and minimize the damage.


Maybe this is due mostly to the pandemic, which isn't over, and which is making employment less attractive.

Companies are even cutting back production for lack of needed workers. Who's to blame for this? And why basically is this bad?

What's wrong is not high unemployment, but that needed work is not getting done. There's a need for more truck drivers, dock workers at the ports, and some skilled workers like plumbers and electricians. Also firefighters, and many other kinds of workers -- but job-seekers are staying home rather than taking the jobs that are open.
Either pay more wages or automate.
No, allow ALL legitimate market choices, which includes shopping for cheaper labor. What's wrong with letting people make their own individual choices for their own lives and to improve their performance in the economy? Why the need to suppress free choice and impose your own ultimatums onto others?

There's nothing wrong with lower-cost labor. Jobs don't all need to be replaced by technology. There is no gain in suppressing any free choice, whether it's to increase the wage or find lower-cost labor or to find lower-cost technology. The best course is always whatever does best to improve the production, the performance of the business, the service to consumers, which is what the business is for. Its function is not to provide incomes or job slots for needy jobseekers, but to get the needed production done best for the consumers.


In the very near future, Elon Musk claims we will have driver less trucking. That will make some pretty low costs for trucking if you do not even need a truck driver.

It's fine to replace them when the driverless technology can do it better and cheaper. But it's also fine to employ drivers in cases where they can do it cheaper or better. New technology is the means, not the end. We should not make a religion out of new technology. Rather the "highest" good is serving the consumers better, and the producers and their machines are the means to that end, as also is lower-cost labor.


So both Reds and Blues think it's better to let the economy suffer, let the production be lower, so less wealth is created, and so American consumers -- ALL Americans -- must have their living standard reduced, because of our need to pander to the crybabies who feel threatened by competition from immigrants.
All of this country loses big time when all the costs of exploiting labor are not included.
But there is no cost of "exploiting labor" by allowing in more immigrant workers to fill the labor shortage. Everyone benefits by having the production rise back to normal levels, to serve consumers, while also benefiting the immigrant workers who are made better off than if they had remained where they were before.

It is the same kind of short sighted thinking that has allowed . . .
No, low-cost labor is long-sighted. Low-cost labor is a long-term solution which has helped build our prosperity up to today. It's ingrained in the history of economic success, both in the U.S. and in Europe, where today's high standard of living would never have been possible without the earlier period of low-cost labor to help get businesses started by keeping down its cost. Today the much higher labor cost actually prevents many small businesses from ever having a chance, so that the big corporate giants dominate = less competition.

It was allowing free choice for people to work at low wages which made possible the factories and the production and their expansion to create eventually the high standard of living. Allowing that freedom to individuals to decide whether to work and under what terms is what made possible the modern technology and higher living standard. The later labor union gains for workers are a product of the original cheap labor economy which created the new industries and prosperity without which today's labor unions would not be possible, because labor unions are a product of prosperity, not a cause of it.

. . . short sighted thinking that has allowed fossil fuels to dominate instead of cleaner energy.
So immigrant workers are a threat to civilization similar to fossil fuel carbon emissions? Do you want to see a summit conference on the elimination of all immigrants by the year 2050? How many years have immigration scientists given us before the excess immigrants will destroy civilization as we know it? Has Ziprhead demanded some "facts and figures" from you to document this threat to life as we know it?

If hiring immigrant workers is "short-sighted" thinking similar to slavery, what would be the long-sighted solution to address this or stop the threat? In the late 1800s the labor union movement had a solution which might have produced your desired long-term outcome:


Inside History newsletter
THIS DAY IN HISTORY
SEPTEMBER 02 1885

Chinese miners are massacred in Wyoming Territory

On September 2, 1885, 150 white miners in Rock Springs, Wyoming, brutally attack their Chinese coworkers, killing 28, wounding 15 others, and driving several hundred more out of town.

The miners working in the Union Pacific coal mine had been struggling to unionize and strike for better working conditions for years. But at every juncture the powerful railroad company had bested them. Searching for a scapegoat, the angry miners blamed the Chinese. The Chinese coal miners were hard workers, but the Union Pacific had initially brought many of them to Rock Springs as strikebreakers, and they showed little interest in the miners’ union.

Outraged by a company decision to allow Chinese miners to work the richest coal seams, a mob of white miners impulsively decided to strike back by attacking Rock Spring’s small Chinatown. When they saw the armed mob approaching, most of the Chinese abandoned their homes and businesses and fled for the hills. But those who failed to escape in time were brutally . . .

So you think these white miners understood the threat to America from these foreign workers, and so we need to heed their warning now, like we need to heed the warning of environmentalists about the similar threat from excess fossil fuel emissions? These are analogous -- the need to exclude immigrant labor and the need to reduce fossil fuel emissions? How is it "short-sighted" to hire immigrant labor like it's "short-sighted" to continue relying on fossil fuels? What do your scientists say is the threat posed to us by immigrants?


Even 200 years after the civil war, this country is still paying dearly for the last time producers exploited the black population from Africa.
To equate today's immigrant workers who came voluntarily to slaves kidnapped from Africa belongs in the Nutcase Economics category. The U.S. is not "still paying dearly" but has always benefited and still is benefiting from its large immigrant workforce going back many generations, including back to the 19th century when immigrants played a significant role in the industrial expansion.

It's an obscenity to equate immigrant workers with slaves, as if we'd be doing them a favor to "liberate" them all and send them back because they don't belong here.


The only solution to a better way of life (for all) is increased productivity through technology and automation.
But never through finding someone who will do the same job at lower cost? Why? There's the same benefit, whether a worker or a machine is used for the production. Nothing is gained by artificially ruling out either. All that matters is to get the cost down, for either, to maximize service to consumers.

It's not "slavery" to shop for a lower-cost gardener or truck driver or plumber or cook or solar panel installer or dockworker, and hire them for the cost-saving or other benefit we can derive from them, because it's good for us, and which they freely choose because it's good for them.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Raise the wage and there will be a shortage of jobs for workers . . .
But the market already does raise the wage automatically when it's appropriate, to meet the demand. Some wages have increased, but also higher supply of labor is needed, to address the labor shortage. Excluding immigrant labor is based on prejudice only, not economics. Higher wages are not necessarily best for consumers, because it necessarily also means higher prices they must pay, whereas increased labor supply is better for consumers. It's best to let the free market address the need, allowing higher wages but also higher supply of labor. Increased labor supply = lower production cost and higher output and lower prices, all of which are needed currently. There is never any reason to choose a lower living standard out of prejudice against immigrant workers who could do some of the needed work = increased supply plus cost savings.

Econ 101.
Yes, meaning artificially higher labor cost = less production and higher prices, making us all worse off. Any lower cost that is possible always benefits the economy. I.e., like using machines to do production is beneficial if it does the same work at lower cost. Such cost savings is always good for the economy. Without the increased labor supply to fill the need (if the shortage continues), there are necessarily higher production costs = lower living standard for all Americans.

A shortage in economics occurs when users cannot purchase enough of what they want at market prices. Clearly the market is not raising wages automatically when it is appropriate. If it were, there would labor shortages. That is ECON 101.

Your entire argument is poor cry-baby employer economics.



 

lpetrich

Contributor
Looking at Lumpenproletariat's posts, he seems to think that "consumers" are a privileged class of people who never have to work for their living and who get their money from picking money trees in their houses' yards.
To be fair, a large group of people also assume that all consumers are workers. Forgetting that they many consumers do not work: the retired, some students; those living off government assistance.
So what? Does that mean Lumpy has the right idea?

I must say that I don't pay much attention to Lumpy's posts on this issue, because he repeats himself quite a lot.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
reply to #50, Oct 21, 2021


working definition of Nutcase Economics: You know you're right when the other side says something this nutty. (There might be a more precise definition, but this will do for now.)


It would be fine to exploit cheap labor if the producers paid all of the costs...but they don't.
Does this mean that all cases of "cheap labor" are a net loss to society because of the costs not paid by producers (employers)? So in all these cases of work done by cheap labor, the society would be better off if that work did not get done at all rather than being done by cheap labor where the employer doesn't pay those costs?

This statement is a good example of the meaning of NUTCASE ECONOMICS. If taken seriously it means that probably HALF OF ALL WORK DONE in the world today (cheap labor) should not be done, because it's a net loss for humans, as the costs are too great and more damage is done as a result of the work than the benefit from getting the work done.

And in fact it even means that MOST of the work done before 1900 (or 1950) should never have been done. I.e., MOST of the work, maybe 90% of it, in earlier centuries should never have taken place because the overall consequence of it (all pluses and minuses totaled up) was net damage to human society. So 90% (or more) of the work throughout human history should never have happened, because it did more net harm than good.

This is the kind of brainless babble we get from the hysterical ones who say we mustn't hire immigrant labor because somehow it's a net economic loss. It's obvious from such babble that the real motivation for the anti-immigrant hysteria is prejudice and not a concern for economic gain or loss. A statement which ends up condemning 90% (or 99%) of all the work ever done has to be from someone driven by hysteria rather than a calculation of the economic benefit/cost.


The biggest cost they don't pay is health care but there are many other costs that do not get paid for when poor immigrants are exploited.
And how was that cost paid for 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, when obviously health care was not provided as well as it is today even for the poorest workers? and when cheap labor was the norm far more than today? And the "other costs" too were all worse in the earlier time. And they're worse today in most countries than in the U.S. where our "cheap labor" is paid higher than in third-world countries. But according to our China-bashing Trumpster crusader it would be better if all this work should not be done at all because of the many costs which are not paid by the producers. So at least half the world's economy should be shut down in order to put a stop to all these horrendous costs. If we take this babble seriously.


A far better way for producers to get the cheaper labor [to get cheaper production] is to automate their production.
They already do that. But if this seriously means most production can be automated immediately, faster than its already happening, it's just more Nutcase Economics rambling. The fact is that there is much automation taking place, gradually, and this will continue, as workers are replaced by better and better technology. The same producers that replace high-paid workers with cheap labor, or which import immigrant workers, are also producers which develop better technology and replace workers when it's more cost-efficient. They don't need any amateur armchair economists to preach at them about the benefits of automation.


Automation is a win win for just about everyone.
Everyone already knows that. And the producers already do replace workers with lower-cost technology because they know it's a win-win. But they also know when the new technology is still too expensive and so lower-cost labor is still more efficient to serve consumers.


It is even a long term win for the labor who wants higher wages.
No, often the labor opposes producers trying to replace them with machines. And sometimes the new technology does not produce higher wages, because it makes the workers less valuable. When the work is made easier for the workers and also reduces the number of workers needed, the result is lower wages, not higher wages. Because the demand for workers decreases = lower wages, not higher.

How is it that there is so much whining about stagnating wages as "worker productivity" has increased? How can that happen if automation leads to higher wages? How could it be that so many workers whine that their wages have not kept up with the companies' profits? It has to be because their actual value has decreased as the demand for them as decreased as a result of the automation.


Higher productivity benefits everyone. But unfortunately, people like yourself can not grasp that concept.
I didn't grasp that? Well I do now, thanks to your excellent sermon.

So let's all write it on the blackboard 100 times:

Higher productivity = more competition (more immigration) = better performance = higher supply = lower cost = lower labor cost = lower prices = good for all consumers (even those laid off) = more prosperity = higher living standard = stronger nation.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Higher productivity = more competition (more immigration) = better performance = higher supply = lower cost = lower labor cost = lower prices = good for all consumers (even those laid off) = more prosperity = higher living standard = stronger nation.
Patently false and ridiculous, and not just the bolded.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
reply to #50, Oct 21, 2021



So let's all write it on the blackboard 100 times:

Higher productivity = more competition (more immigration) = better performance = higher supply = lower cost = lower labor cost = lower prices = good for all consumers (even those laid off) = more prosperity = higher living standard = stronger nation.
Higher productivity means more supply at a lower cost. Which tends to mean lower prices.

Your notion that the laid off are better off with lower prices requires that the lower prices more than offset the reduction in earned income. That is an empirical question, not a logical or economic one. There is no reason to expect that people who are laid off necessarily enjoy an increase in their real income from subsequent lower prices.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Reply to #97, Nov. 9

It's true that whining looney Luddite populism (Trump + Bernie Sanders etc.) is gaining ground.


Higher productivity = more competition (more immigration) = better performance = higher supply = lower cost = lower labor cost = lower prices = good for all consumers (even those laid off) = more prosperity = higher living standard = stronger nation.

Patently false and ridiculous, and not just the bolded.

So then, workers laid off do NOT benefit as a result of higher productivity and more competition (from immigrants or whoever)? or from better performance and higher supply and lower cost (including labor cost) and lower prices and higher prosperity and higher living standard?

You mean competition does not benefit laid-off workers? How about companies forced to be more competitive because of antitrust laws which are (or could be) enforced? This competition between companies does not benefit laid-off workers? So, as consumers, those unemployed workers would somehow be better off if companies did NOT compete, but instead engaged in price-fixing? How would that make any laid-off workers better off?

How is it difficult to understand that EVERYONE benefits from increased competition, no matter who?

It is NUTCASE ECONOMICS to suggest that any category of consumers do not benefit from competition between producers. ALL consumers benefit, including all workers, and all laid-off workers, and all non-workers. Everyone who consumes.


false and ridiculous
that laid-off workers benefit from a better economy?

You mean there are some laid off workers who would be better off if there was LOWER productivity and LESS competition and WORSE performance and LOWER supply and HIGHER cost and HIGHER prices and LOWER prosperity and LOWER living standard?

How do any laid-off workers benefit from the economy performing worse rather than better?

Some are worse off as a result of higher productivity? worse off because of more competition and better performance? and better off as a result of lower supply and higher cost and higher prices and lower prosperity?

Who? Give an example of any laid-off workers or others made better off by the productivity being lower and the competition and performance reduced. Who benefits when the economy performs worse and competition is reduced? Whose interest is served by lower supply and higher prices?

Yes, you could argue that a criminal is served by the cops being less efficient. But even that's mostly false, because even most criminals benefit from other criminals being stopped, being caught, being deterred, etc. If there were no police at all, most criminals would be worse off, not better, because even the criminals themselves need the streets to be safe and traffic laws enforced, etc., in order for them to be able to operate. Just because they hope to escape getting caught themselves doesn't mean they benefit from all criminals escaping and no laws being enforced.

And likewise even the UNcompetitive benefit from the economy performing better because it's more competitive. We all need the economy to perform better and be more competitive, to be more efficient, etc. Even the uncompetitive producers are better off if the overall economy is performing better because of higher productivity and competitiveness. Even if you're an uncompetitive auto-worker, still you're better off if all other producers are made more competitive and more productive and more efficient. Even the inefficient producers of one category are made better if all producers in all categories are forced to be competitive.

The inefficient steel workers are made better off if the auto workers and bakers and gardeners and truck drivers etc. perform better or more efficiently and competitively.

There is no one who benefits from the economy being less competitive and less productive and less efficient. Everyone benefits from all the producers performing more efficiently and competitively, even though that means an individual uncompetitive producer could be penalized for lower performance. And again it is Nutcase Economics to say we're not ALL made better off by a more competitive economy which performs better.

That this or that uncompetitive producer could fall behind or has to improve in order to succeed does not mean that improvement or competition or improved performance in the economy is bad for that producer. Improved performance or more competitiveness is better for all, including even the less competitive producers, because as consumers they all benefit from all the others doing better and improving their performance.

Of course the Luddites preached that the competing machines were bad for the economy. But that's because these crusaders were crybabies and nutcase fanatics who could not recognize the need for everyone to be competitive in order to perform better to serve the consumers = the public = all society. They imagined that their jobs per se were sacred, regardless of their performance, because performance for the good of society was less important than preservation of their jobs per se = Crybaby Economics.

In sum we could say: Luddites = Crybaby Economics + Nutcase Economics.

Crybaby Economics: pity to the uncompetitive -- preserving their jobs per se (e.g. Trump preserving jobs of coal-miners, steel workers, etc.), rather than letting them be replaced by the more competitive.

Nutcase Economics: denying the obvious (e.g. supply-and-demand, benefits of competition such as from increased immigration, globalism, the benefits of lower-cost production).
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Meanwhile the bad news continues to roll in.

article said:
The number of Americans filing initial unemployment claims fell to 199,000 — the lowest level since November 1969 — the Labor Department reported Wednesday.

Claims were down more than 71,000 in the week that ended November 20 compared to the previous week. This marks the eighth straight week of declines and represents a major turning point as claims fell well below levels seen before the pandemic. In 2019, average weekly jobless claims hovered around 220,000.

It’s a stark contrast to this time last year, when weekly unemployment claims were still hovering around 700,000, and a reflection of a tight labor market where companies are under pressure to retain and expand their workforces.
Absolutely dreadful news for President Biden. Tucker Carlson will demand to know why Biden is allowing unemployment claims to plunge!

Is this all Biden's doing? No, of course not. I do remember Trump taking credit for the massive economic post pandemic bump though. And if the news continues being this "bad", the GOP will need to be screaming about CRT from the mountain tops come next November as the alt-right whines about how low Biden's approval ratings were a year ago.
 
Top Bottom