-
Features
DISAPPOINTING JOBS REPORT is whose fault?
- Thread starter Lumpenproletariat
- Start date
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,563
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
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
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,563
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
"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.
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.
How do they suffer costs as a result of more needed work getting done?
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?
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?
What's not honest about hiring an immigrant?
They already do make profits with technology and higher productivity, as much as they can. Nothing about that conflicts with hiring immigrant labor.
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.
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.
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
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.
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 8,876
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
That's probably the most posts I've ever read from @RVonse without much disagreeing with them.
Not every detail, but mostly.
It was a weird experience, to be honest.
Tom
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,563
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
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
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,563
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
A little healthy exploitation never hurt anyone.
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.
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.
To call such legitimate competition "piracy" is Crybaby Economics 1A.
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.
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.
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.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 38,746
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Lumpen, you're big on calling people crybabies but fall far short on backing up your stupidnomics with facts and figures.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,563
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Higher cost = bad. Increased supply/production = good.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Contributor
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.
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.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 38,746
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
US added 531,000 jobs last moth. Unemployment down to 4.6%.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,563
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
reply to #51, Oct 21
Shopping for lower-cost labor is part of the solution.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
Shopping for lower-cost labor is part of the solution.
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.
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.
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.
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?Either pay more wages or automate.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.
Biden keeps US waiting 90 minutes, brushes off worst jobs report yet
President Biden brushed off a second month of disappointing jobs-growth figures, claiming “monthly totals bounce around” before walking off.nypost.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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 severalwww.history.com
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?
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.
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
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
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
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,563
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 38,746
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Patently false and ridiculous, and not just the bolded.
laughing dog
Contributor
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
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,563
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Reply to #97, Nov. 9
It's true that whining looney Luddite populism (Trump + Bernie Sanders etc.) is gaining ground.
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.
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).
It's true that whining looney Luddite populism (Trump + Bernie Sanders etc.) is gaining ground.
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.
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
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,023
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Meanwhile the bad news continues to roll in.
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.
Absolutely dreadful news for President Biden. Tucker Carlson will demand to know why Biden is allowing unemployment claims to plunge!article said:
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.