Originally Posted By: diver1972
Agreed; however, the point there was simply that China is far from the only country to intentionally devalue currency.
Point taken.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
I was referring to the
Chinese laborers.
But the Chinese labourers aren't our concern
They are the concern of the people living in China. My concern is the people I'm exposed to every day. The unemployment levels in my city, province, country and even continent, as what happens south of the border affects us up here too are what concern me. And when more of those people lose their jobs because they are sent to China what are they supposed to do, go on Welfare so that those of us fortunate enough to still have jobs can pay for them to live? I don't think that's a viable long-term solution, do you?
Originally Posted By: diver1972
Short answer: Because they aren't doing business in the early 20th century. For all intents and purposes, the world was still flat 100 years ago relative to now.
IOW, relative to now, it wasn't a global business economy.
That's right, the world has advanced significantly but that philosophy is still perfectly relevant to today. Which means that on a level playing field with countries with similar standards of living, we should be even more prosperous. But we aren't. We have corporations making a select few rich whilst making thousands homeless, bankrupt....etc by eliminating their employment. Quite the opposite of what old Henry was doing. It's like playing Jenga. There are only so many blocks from the bottom that you can remove to put on the top before the whole works comes crashing down. The people loosing their jobs are the majority. And when the majority doesn't have any bloody money, the whole house of cards fall apart. You can't tax people who don't have jobs. You don't get tax income from people on Welfare, EI.... Those living in housing. Growing unemployment is a blade that cuts many ways. Not only do you lose direct taxation revenue but you loose taxation revenue on all of their purchases. And if the essential purchases are being made with Government-provided money, then you are collecting tax on money that was already tax money fed back into somebody's pocket for food stamps or whatever, but that money has lost significant value having gone through that system and becomes an even bigger net loss. Then there is the direct cost to the taxation system to feed, cloth, house....etc these people who are now a burden on a system who's source of income is being constant depleted as those who are now depleting it used to be feeding into it, it is like a financial black hole
Originally Posted By: diver1972
As in a fictitious sky daddy silently passing judgment upon each new individual member of the human species either at conception, at birth, or somewhere in between?
No, as in people (and companies are run by people.... though sometimes that seems like it is a bit of a stretch) watching out for each other and doing what's best for the health of themselves, their neighbours and the nation as a whole. It means sustainability and not chasing pennies at the expense of the prosperity of those who rely on you. It means investing in your country, not some foreign communist entity that couldn't give two hoots whether you can feed your kids tonight or not. It means understanding that the standard of living in North America and other first world nations has a cost associated with it and in order to be able to cover that cost there needs to be a strong consumer base of people with decent jobs making a livable wage. And they can make that livable wage, like they did in the past, by manufacturing the products that they consume.
On a level playing field with other nations in the same boat, this ultimately means that most people have jobs. Comparable products are produced and cross-shopped between them and ultimately everybody makes out for the better as the consumer, gainfully employed, has their choice of a variety of high quality goods manufactured in reasonable working conditions by tax paying workers who are also consumers.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
Thanks for acknowledging this as that's what I was driving at earlier.
Additionally, wages can't be effectively compared across the globe, much less across the US; therefore, it's irrelevant that they're "horrific" relative to NA. Local cost of living is a significant determinant of wages.
Wages can certainly be compared somewhat reasonably between nations with similar standards of living. Wages in Canada aren't all that different from wages in the USA. Same goes for Germany, England, France...etc. The costs of living in these places is similar. Not identical of course, but similar enough that it can be compared.
You cannot however compare them fairly to places with a lower standard of living like China, India.....etc, I think we are in agreement there. But it is hardly irrelevant that the wages are horrific because those wages are the ones being compared to YOUR wage when the company that pays you looks at outsourcing.
That's the issue here. Something has to give. Either our standard of living slides while China's rises until we reach some point of equilibrium or something is done to stop the job loss and bring those outsourced jobs back home. Continuing to accrue debt at more than a trillion a year while more and more become unemployed is not a plan for the future.
