Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,577
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Critique of the UNCOMPETITIVE CRYBABIES MANIFESTO
You're just making that up. Both trade (cheap foreign labor) and automation have the same impact in causing job loss throughout the economy. They both benefit the economy in the same way, and both cause some dislocations for similar reasons. In both cases they cause an increase in competition and cost savings, which is always beneficial to the economy as long as the production is the same.
It's conceivable that either one causes more job loss than the other. There's no proof which causes more. It's impossible to calculate all the job losses compared to all the cost savings and benefit to consumers. But it's a fact that more competition and more cost savings is always good, whether the benefit is greater or lesser in this or that case. Only nutcase fanatics and demagogues claim to have calculated the exact extent of job loss and claim that trade is the worse culprit. Those who preach such nonsense are just on a crusade against anything foreign and are seeking a rationale to explain why automation is OK but foreign trade is bad. They are just pandering to China-bashers and other xenophobes.
The phrase "more jobs than were lost" is pure conjecture. This has not been measured.
Whatever the numbers are, the same happens when companies save on labor cost due to increased cheap labor from trade.
Again you're just inventing your own data to justify your xenophobia, trying to give excuses why automation is OK even though it causes the same negative impact on employment as cheap foreign labor. There is no evidence that automation replaces the jobs lost with new jobs to give a net zero loss of jobs. There are benefits from the cost savings which can lead to some new jobs, but those benefits are just as real from the benefits of cheap labor, which produce similar cost savings which enable businesses to expand production.
E.g., companies benefit from importing some of their production equipment, thus saving on cost and enabling them to increase their production. This is the same kind of improvement they gain from automation.
The same as with cheap labor, also producing lower prices for goods. There's no difference between the benefits of automation and the benefits of lower labor cost due to cheap labor.
With this stupid remark you're implying that whenever an American spends dollars on something foreign it means money is going "out" of the economy when it should have "stayed in the economy" to produce some imagined benefit. Which is paranoid nutcase wacko-economics. There is nothing gained by trying to keep the money "in the economy" as if somehow we lose something every time we spend money on something foreign.
There is no need to keep our money "in the economy" as masses of idiots imagine. Money flows in and out of "the economy" -- or, in and out of any nation's economy, and this is never detrimental to any nation's economy, as long as it's being spent by consumers who are buying what they want and are getting their money's worth. In some cases consumers get screwed because of something fraudulent, or they have to be careful about the quality in any case of something cheap -- but there's nothing inherently detrimental about the money traveling across national boundaries.
The same as the money freed up by cheap labor is used to by more different products or is invested in manufacturing new products. There is no benefit from the savings due to automation which we don't also gain from the savings due to cheap labor.
Yes, the same benefits are gained from either automation or from cheap labor. We always benefit from the more competitive production replacing the less competitive.
Possibly. If so, it's good for the US economy, just like job loss due to automation is good for the economy. Just like a rich person buying from a poor person might result in lost jobs somewhere. If so, it's good for the economy. Whoever lost their job needs to become more competitive. The competitive pressure which sometimes results in a job loss is good for the economy. Unless you are against competition as something evil. In which case you have to be against the antitrust laws, which are based on the premise that competition between producers is always good for consumers. If you want to toss out that basic premise of economics, and reject the need for producers to improve their performance, then you might make the case that cheap labor and trade is bad for us.
No, nothing is "lost" from the economy.
Again your premise is the delusion that it's a loss to the economy when money goes "out of the economy" to another country. This is just xenophobia. There is nothing magical about keeping the money "in the economy" instead of letting it be spent wherever buyers can find a better deal. The idea that we need to keep money "in the economy" or it is "lost" is delusional and xenophobic.
Every day millions/billions of US dollars are spent in other countries, by tourists or Americans living abroad, or by companies taking advantage of foreign services, etc., and there is no harm whatever to the US economy. This is pure delusion promoted by demagogues and charlatans preaching their snake-oil economic theories. You need to come up with something beyond this xenophobia to make your case.
No, that's a contradiction. The whole point of automation is to SAVE on cost, so there is LESS of all costs for designing, building, installing, operating, and maintaining it. If the "automation" ends up costing MORE rather than LESS, then there is no net benefit from it.
Obviously there are some new jobs or workers who design the new technology. But this has to cost LESS than the earlier total production or costs. The whole point is to gain a NET REDUCTION in the costs, for the labor, for the designing and installing, etc. -- so that the entire payment for all this has to be LESS than before, rather than more.
The only way the cost could INcrease rather than DEcrease is in the sense that the new production of one company expands while that of another (less competitive) company CONTRACTS, and so the less competitive company takes the losses, while the more competitive company increases its production so much that it now takes in much more profit than before, out of which it pays the higher cost but still ends up more profitable.
I.e., for the "automation" to be genuinely beneficial, the total cost per unit has to be made LESS as a result of the automation, when all the new production factors are added up.
At best this is just a whining crybaby argument from the less competitive producers in the higher-wage country, who demand to be paid more even though they are inferior in their performance to the producers in the lower-wage country. These are crybabies who demand to be paid based on pity toward them rather than based on their performance.
There is a net benefit to BOTH countries from the trade, not just to the lower-wage country. But you might make the argument that there are some crybabies in the higher-wage countries who are less competitive (such as factory workers), and so perhaps these few crybabies are made worse off, in the short run, because their production is replaced by the more competitive producers in the lower-wage country.
But the overall result is a higher living standard in the higher-wage country, as 100% of the consumers in that country gain the benefits of the more competitive production = lower prices = higher living standard overall. Despite some job losses among the less competitive workers who resort to whining rather than to improving themselves so they can contribute to the economy instead of leeching off others.
This is just whining crybaby economics for the uncompetitive. Everyone who buys anything from anyone can be said to "prop up" the seller they're buying from. But in real economics, in the real marketplace, the buyer wants something and so pays for it, not out of pity for the seller, to "prop up" that seller to a higher status, but because they want the product. There's no need to worry about what the seller is doing, how they live their life, whether they beat their dog, or raise their kids properly, or have good habits -- that's none of the buyer's business. If the seller is offering what you want, you pay what's necessary, hopefully as low as possible, in order to get what you want. Which is not a higher living standard for the seller, but a higher living standard for yourself, the buyer, which is all you care about.
It is nutty snake-oil economics to pretend that the buyer's motive is to "prop up" the seller. In some cases a buyer might feel sorry for the seller, but that's always just a personal individual case, having nothing to do with what's good for the society or for the economy.
It's true that snake-oil economists talk this way, promoting delusions that we need to provide jobs in another country. But putting aside the wacko economics and pandering to crybabies, the benefit from trade is to the consumers in both countries, not providing jobs out pity to uncompetitive job-seekers.
And we want the immigrants to come, if they will take jobs needing to be done but which the domestic workers won't do because they are crybabies who have to be paid twice as much. We all benefit from those immigrant workers coming in and contributing to our economy. Only uncompetitive crybabies want to keep them out -- and also some politicians and talk-show hosts and other demagogues who pander to the uncompetitive crybabies.
Only the wages of the less competitive workers, who should be replaced. And profits of companies which are more competitive, such as those which find ways to save on labor costs, and other production costs. It's always good for the more competitive to be rewarded, even if they are already doing well. It's fine for "corporations" getting rich to get even richer as long as they do it by improving their performance, by being more competitive, such as by saving on costs. We should not withhold their reward just out of spite toward them because they are already doing well. Those who are being more competitive should be rewarded, no matter who they are or how well they are already doing.
The rule should be to reward those who are performing better, or serving consumers better, and penalize whoever is less competitive or performing worse, regardless whether they are rich or poor.
This is just more snake-oil economics. There is never any need to reduce demand.
There is a need to keep inflation steady at a low level. But this has nothing to do with trade. More trade always benefits the economy, as long as it's based on market supply-and-demand. There's never a need to increase or reduce trade in order to cause some change in the inflation rate.
This goofy dichotomy has no relevance to anything. There's no need to promote wages or demand or profits or savings. To say "wages are the demand in the economy" is more snake-oil economics intended to promote pity toward wage-earners, which serves no purpose. There is no need to promote wages or give some special pity to wage-earners as a special class of crybabies needing to be pandered to just because it wins applause from the idiot masses.
Again your delusion that buying something foreign means we're sending wealth into their economy. We are doing nothing to benefit China by buying from them, except to pay them for the benefit they are selling to us. We're doing it for our benefit only, not to "rescue" anything or boost their economy.
It is phony delusionalism to keep falling back on the notion that the buyer is showing PITY toward the seller, trying to help the seller, to "prop up" the seller, like a sacrifice we make when we buy their product out pity for them, to put some money into their economy to meet their need. This is fraudulent economic quackery which you cannot make any sense out of, except as a way of pandering to uncompetitive crybabies who want Americans to be restricted to buying only from US producers, to prop up US jobs and "economic growth" in the US, to provide babysitting slots for job-seekers, as preached by demagogues like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Except for this, there is no sense in the idea that we're "pumping dollars into their economy." All this phrase means is that you want to "pump" the dollars into US jobs, to provide babysitting slots to uncompetitive job-seekers.
The ones bothered are uncompetitive crybabies who see the immigrants as a threat because they will work at a lower wage level, to the benefit of all consumers, as all cost savings are beneficial to consumers. While the crybabies continually whine that it's only the employers who benefit, which contradicts basic economics of supply-and-demand, which dictates that employers gain the maximum benefit by passing some of the cost savings along to consumers in the form of lower prices. I.e., the companies maximize their profit by passing along some of that savings, so they make LESS profit if they do not pass along that cost savings and thus increase their sales.
This is also more crybaby economics. There's no need for automation if that automation is more costly. So it only makes sense to delay the automation until it really pays off in lower costs. And there's no reason to artificially boost wages only to promote automation, when the only need is to always get the most efficient production, meaning lower cost. So if the cheap labor is available, it's always preferable to use the cheap labor rather than any automation which is higher in cost.
So the production should be moved if doing so reduces the cost of production. And the new technology should be installed if and when it becomes more efficient, or less costly, and not any time before this. What's not needed is to provide jobs just for the sake of jobs per se, out of pity for uncompetitive job-seekers. All that's needed is the improved production to better serve consumers, never more jobs for crybabies.
They are automated when it's more efficient to do so. Whining that Americans rather than Chinese should do it is just more crybaby economics. No one should be given a job out of pity for them, because they're Americans and so are more entitled to the job, as a birthright.
The preference should always be to do whatever is more efficient, and more cost-effective, to better serve the consumers. Whether it's done in China or the US or Timbuktu, or wherever. By a machine or by a human, or by a baboon. It doesn't matter who or what does the job, or where they do it. All that matters is getting the job done most efficiently to best serve the consumers, for whom the economy exists, and without which there's no need for any "jobs" or "economic growth" or production. These are there not to give crybabies something to do, to keep them out of mischief, but in order to produce the stuff people want.
I agree that's your crybaby reasons to restrict trade and force consumers to subsidize the jobs of the uncompetitive crybabies you are pandering to. Yes, I agree that you're doing a good job of whining for them. But even the whining crybabies who would benefit from your demands would mostly become better off in the long run if the whole economy is made more competitive, rather than less, as you would make it, by limiting our access to cheap labor and cheap foreign imports.
E.g., most laid-off workers eventually are made better off by the benefits of better improved production. We all gain as a result of making the economy more competitive, even the ones who get laid off or replaced. Some benefit at a faster rate than others.
It's always good and always produces net better results for both countries. 100% of consumers in the higher-wage country gain the benefit of lower prices, meaning 99% of them get a higher living standard. If there are some losers, it is a tiny minority, and this minority is immeasurably small in the long run, as everyone benefits from the more efficient production.
It's both. But uncompetitive crybabies whine that it only benefits the companies, because they want those better off to have more PITY toward the less competitive, to feel sorry for them, because it's popular with the idiot masses to promote pity toward wage-earners, who are a majority of producers.
So in a nation with a majority of wage-earners, it becomes politically correct and popular to pander to wage-earners as a class, promising to give them higher wages and to scapegoat the rich and the immigrants and everyone who is more competitive.
Of course, and the winner is all consumers.
But crybabies (and crybaby-panderers) want the corporations to "invest" in workers, to feel sorry for the wage-earners. They are offended at anyone making "profit" without showing pity toward the uncompetitive crybaby wage-earners. Of course it's OK to stomp down on the unemployed job-seekers who would work for less out of desperation -- but no one cares about them, because they're a small minority which you can pretend doesn't exist. So instead of letting them compete and earn their way and thus benefiting the whole economy, they are squashed in favor of the much larger number of uncompetitive (overpaid) crybabies, who make the economy worse off with their whining, and who imagine that they are made better off by eliminating anything which competes with them.
You're just making that up. Both trade (cheap foreign labor) and automation have the same impact in causing job loss throughout the economy. They both benefit the economy in the same way, and both cause some dislocations for similar reasons. In both cases they cause an increase in competition and cost savings, which is always beneficial to the economy as long as the production is the same.
It's conceivable that either one causes more job loss than the other. There's no proof which causes more. It's impossible to calculate all the job losses compared to all the cost savings and benefit to consumers. But it's a fact that more competition and more cost savings is always good, whether the benefit is greater or lesser in this or that case. Only nutcase fanatics and demagogues claim to have calculated the exact extent of job loss and claim that trade is the worse culprit. Those who preach such nonsense are just on a crusade against anything foreign and are seeking a rationale to explain why automation is OK but foreign trade is bad. They are just pandering to China-bashers and other xenophobes.
The phrase "more jobs than were lost" is pure conjecture. This has not been measured.
Whatever the numbers are, the same happens when companies save on labor cost due to increased cheap labor from trade.
Again you're just inventing your own data to justify your xenophobia, trying to give excuses why automation is OK even though it causes the same negative impact on employment as cheap foreign labor. There is no evidence that automation replaces the jobs lost with new jobs to give a net zero loss of jobs. There are benefits from the cost savings which can lead to some new jobs, but those benefits are just as real from the benefits of cheap labor, which produce similar cost savings which enable businesses to expand production.
E.g., companies benefit from importing some of their production equipment, thus saving on cost and enabling them to increase their production. This is the same kind of improvement they gain from automation.
The same as with cheap labor, also producing lower prices for goods. There's no difference between the benefits of automation and the benefits of lower labor cost due to cheap labor.
With this stupid remark you're implying that whenever an American spends dollars on something foreign it means money is going "out" of the economy when it should have "stayed in the economy" to produce some imagined benefit. Which is paranoid nutcase wacko-economics. There is nothing gained by trying to keep the money "in the economy" as if somehow we lose something every time we spend money on something foreign.
There is no need to keep our money "in the economy" as masses of idiots imagine. Money flows in and out of "the economy" -- or, in and out of any nation's economy, and this is never detrimental to any nation's economy, as long as it's being spent by consumers who are buying what they want and are getting their money's worth. In some cases consumers get screwed because of something fraudulent, or they have to be careful about the quality in any case of something cheap -- but there's nothing inherently detrimental about the money traveling across national boundaries.
The same as the money freed up by cheap labor is used to by more different products or is invested in manufacturing new products. There is no benefit from the savings due to automation which we don't also gain from the savings due to cheap labor.
Yes, the same benefits are gained from either automation or from cheap labor. We always benefit from the more competitive production replacing the less competitive.
Possibly. If so, it's good for the US economy, just like job loss due to automation is good for the economy. Just like a rich person buying from a poor person might result in lost jobs somewhere. If so, it's good for the economy. Whoever lost their job needs to become more competitive. The competitive pressure which sometimes results in a job loss is good for the economy. Unless you are against competition as something evil. In which case you have to be against the antitrust laws, which are based on the premise that competition between producers is always good for consumers. If you want to toss out that basic premise of economics, and reject the need for producers to improve their performance, then you might make the case that cheap labor and trade is bad for us.
No, nothing is "lost" from the economy.
Again your premise is the delusion that it's a loss to the economy when money goes "out of the economy" to another country. This is just xenophobia. There is nothing magical about keeping the money "in the economy" instead of letting it be spent wherever buyers can find a better deal. The idea that we need to keep money "in the economy" or it is "lost" is delusional and xenophobic.
Every day millions/billions of US dollars are spent in other countries, by tourists or Americans living abroad, or by companies taking advantage of foreign services, etc., and there is no harm whatever to the US economy. This is pure delusion promoted by demagogues and charlatans preaching their snake-oil economic theories. You need to come up with something beyond this xenophobia to make your case.
No, that's a contradiction. The whole point of automation is to SAVE on cost, so there is LESS of all costs for designing, building, installing, operating, and maintaining it. If the "automation" ends up costing MORE rather than LESS, then there is no net benefit from it.
Obviously there are some new jobs or workers who design the new technology. But this has to cost LESS than the earlier total production or costs. The whole point is to gain a NET REDUCTION in the costs, for the labor, for the designing and installing, etc. -- so that the entire payment for all this has to be LESS than before, rather than more.
The only way the cost could INcrease rather than DEcrease is in the sense that the new production of one company expands while that of another (less competitive) company CONTRACTS, and so the less competitive company takes the losses, while the more competitive company increases its production so much that it now takes in much more profit than before, out of which it pays the higher cost but still ends up more profitable.
I.e., for the "automation" to be genuinely beneficial, the total cost per unit has to be made LESS as a result of the automation, when all the new production factors are added up.
At best this is just a whining crybaby argument from the less competitive producers in the higher-wage country, who demand to be paid more even though they are inferior in their performance to the producers in the lower-wage country. These are crybabies who demand to be paid based on pity toward them rather than based on their performance.
There is a net benefit to BOTH countries from the trade, not just to the lower-wage country. But you might make the argument that there are some crybabies in the higher-wage countries who are less competitive (such as factory workers), and so perhaps these few crybabies are made worse off, in the short run, because their production is replaced by the more competitive producers in the lower-wage country.
But the overall result is a higher living standard in the higher-wage country, as 100% of the consumers in that country gain the benefits of the more competitive production = lower prices = higher living standard overall. Despite some job losses among the less competitive workers who resort to whining rather than to improving themselves so they can contribute to the economy instead of leeching off others.
This is just whining crybaby economics for the uncompetitive. Everyone who buys anything from anyone can be said to "prop up" the seller they're buying from. But in real economics, in the real marketplace, the buyer wants something and so pays for it, not out of pity for the seller, to "prop up" that seller to a higher status, but because they want the product. There's no need to worry about what the seller is doing, how they live their life, whether they beat their dog, or raise their kids properly, or have good habits -- that's none of the buyer's business. If the seller is offering what you want, you pay what's necessary, hopefully as low as possible, in order to get what you want. Which is not a higher living standard for the seller, but a higher living standard for yourself, the buyer, which is all you care about.
It is nutty snake-oil economics to pretend that the buyer's motive is to "prop up" the seller. In some cases a buyer might feel sorry for the seller, but that's always just a personal individual case, having nothing to do with what's good for the society or for the economy.
It's true that snake-oil economists talk this way, promoting delusions that we need to provide jobs in another country. But putting aside the wacko economics and pandering to crybabies, the benefit from trade is to the consumers in both countries, not providing jobs out pity to uncompetitive job-seekers.
And we want the immigrants to come, if they will take jobs needing to be done but which the domestic workers won't do because they are crybabies who have to be paid twice as much. We all benefit from those immigrant workers coming in and contributing to our economy. Only uncompetitive crybabies want to keep them out -- and also some politicians and talk-show hosts and other demagogues who pander to the uncompetitive crybabies.
Only the wages of the less competitive workers, who should be replaced. And profits of companies which are more competitive, such as those which find ways to save on labor costs, and other production costs. It's always good for the more competitive to be rewarded, even if they are already doing well. It's fine for "corporations" getting rich to get even richer as long as they do it by improving their performance, by being more competitive, such as by saving on costs. We should not withhold their reward just out of spite toward them because they are already doing well. Those who are being more competitive should be rewarded, no matter who they are or how well they are already doing.
The rule should be to reward those who are performing better, or serving consumers better, and penalize whoever is less competitive or performing worse, regardless whether they are rich or poor.
This is just more snake-oil economics. There is never any need to reduce demand.
There is a need to keep inflation steady at a low level. But this has nothing to do with trade. More trade always benefits the economy, as long as it's based on market supply-and-demand. There's never a need to increase or reduce trade in order to cause some change in the inflation rate.
This goofy dichotomy has no relevance to anything. There's no need to promote wages or demand or profits or savings. To say "wages are the demand in the economy" is more snake-oil economics intended to promote pity toward wage-earners, which serves no purpose. There is no need to promote wages or give some special pity to wage-earners as a special class of crybabies needing to be pandered to just because it wins applause from the idiot masses.
Again your delusion that buying something foreign means we're sending wealth into their economy. We are doing nothing to benefit China by buying from them, except to pay them for the benefit they are selling to us. We're doing it for our benefit only, not to "rescue" anything or boost their economy.
It is phony delusionalism to keep falling back on the notion that the buyer is showing PITY toward the seller, trying to help the seller, to "prop up" the seller, like a sacrifice we make when we buy their product out pity for them, to put some money into their economy to meet their need. This is fraudulent economic quackery which you cannot make any sense out of, except as a way of pandering to uncompetitive crybabies who want Americans to be restricted to buying only from US producers, to prop up US jobs and "economic growth" in the US, to provide babysitting slots for job-seekers, as preached by demagogues like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Except for this, there is no sense in the idea that we're "pumping dollars into their economy." All this phrase means is that you want to "pump" the dollars into US jobs, to provide babysitting slots to uncompetitive job-seekers.
The ones bothered are uncompetitive crybabies who see the immigrants as a threat because they will work at a lower wage level, to the benefit of all consumers, as all cost savings are beneficial to consumers. While the crybabies continually whine that it's only the employers who benefit, which contradicts basic economics of supply-and-demand, which dictates that employers gain the maximum benefit by passing some of the cost savings along to consumers in the form of lower prices. I.e., the companies maximize their profit by passing along some of that savings, so they make LESS profit if they do not pass along that cost savings and thus increase their sales.
This is also more crybaby economics. There's no need for automation if that automation is more costly. So it only makes sense to delay the automation until it really pays off in lower costs. And there's no reason to artificially boost wages only to promote automation, when the only need is to always get the most efficient production, meaning lower cost. So if the cheap labor is available, it's always preferable to use the cheap labor rather than any automation which is higher in cost.
So the production should be moved if doing so reduces the cost of production. And the new technology should be installed if and when it becomes more efficient, or less costly, and not any time before this. What's not needed is to provide jobs just for the sake of jobs per se, out of pity for uncompetitive job-seekers. All that's needed is the improved production to better serve consumers, never more jobs for crybabies.
They are automated when it's more efficient to do so. Whining that Americans rather than Chinese should do it is just more crybaby economics. No one should be given a job out of pity for them, because they're Americans and so are more entitled to the job, as a birthright.
The preference should always be to do whatever is more efficient, and more cost-effective, to better serve the consumers. Whether it's done in China or the US or Timbuktu, or wherever. By a machine or by a human, or by a baboon. It doesn't matter who or what does the job, or where they do it. All that matters is getting the job done most efficiently to best serve the consumers, for whom the economy exists, and without which there's no need for any "jobs" or "economic growth" or production. These are there not to give crybabies something to do, to keep them out of mischief, but in order to produce the stuff people want.
I agree that's your crybaby reasons to restrict trade and force consumers to subsidize the jobs of the uncompetitive crybabies you are pandering to. Yes, I agree that you're doing a good job of whining for them. But even the whining crybabies who would benefit from your demands would mostly become better off in the long run if the whole economy is made more competitive, rather than less, as you would make it, by limiting our access to cheap labor and cheap foreign imports.
E.g., most laid-off workers eventually are made better off by the benefits of better improved production. We all gain as a result of making the economy more competitive, even the ones who get laid off or replaced. Some benefit at a faster rate than others.
It's always good and always produces net better results for both countries. 100% of consumers in the higher-wage country gain the benefit of lower prices, meaning 99% of them get a higher living standard. If there are some losers, it is a tiny minority, and this minority is immeasurably small in the long run, as everyone benefits from the more efficient production.
It's both. But uncompetitive crybabies whine that it only benefits the companies, because they want those better off to have more PITY toward the less competitive, to feel sorry for them, because it's popular with the idiot masses to promote pity toward wage-earners, who are a majority of producers.
So in a nation with a majority of wage-earners, it becomes politically correct and popular to pander to wage-earners as a class, promising to give them higher wages and to scapegoat the rich and the immigrants and everyone who is more competitive.
Of course, and the winner is all consumers.
But crybabies (and crybaby-panderers) want the corporations to "invest" in workers, to feel sorry for the wage-earners. They are offended at anyone making "profit" without showing pity toward the uncompetitive crybaby wage-earners. Of course it's OK to stomp down on the unemployed job-seekers who would work for less out of desperation -- but no one cares about them, because they're a small minority which you can pretend doesn't exist. So instead of letting them compete and earn their way and thus benefiting the whole economy, they are squashed in favor of the much larger number of uncompetitive (overpaid) crybabies, who make the economy worse off with their whining, and who imagine that they are made better off by eliminating anything which competes with them.