I guessing "note I say guessing" that it about dangerous drugs, drugs than may do ill to oneself or cause danger to others if used. Yes I would say nicotine and alcohol fit into this. But then other drugs ie: caffeine, aspirin, are also drugs as are many more, and for all intents and purposes are safe.
New Valvoline MaxLife labeling
- Thread starter diver1972
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: diver1972
It appears here that you're admitting an economic interdependency, which is accurate; however, you seem to suggest that interdependency ends at the ocean (i.e. only North American people). Is that right?
Of course I'm admitting economic interdependancy
We share a border, ergo, we are each others largest trade partners and our countries evolved together like brothers, but brought up with different fathers (British colony vs non).
And no, I'm not suggesting that interdependancy ends at the ocean. What I'm stating is that once you cross that ocean, its immediate relevance is greatly reduced. It is in Canada's best interest to have economic stability below the massive border we share with the United States. Crime and prosperity both traverse that border with ease, far easier than would be the case for the same from Japan for example (who also depends heavily on trade with the USA).
That said, nations with a common standard of living are on a relatively level playing field in terms of competition and trade with one another. Canada isn't going to undercut Germany with cheap stainless steel due to lax environmental laws any more than Germany is going to undercut the United States on aluminum castings. Everybody has similar costs in this scenario. It is balanced.
Historically, the first world nations have never been dependant on places like China or India. It has been only recently that we have manufactured dependence on their labour and manufacturing capabilities with outsourcing, all in pursuit of bolstering profit margins. There is no cost savings that is passed down to the consumer from this either
Originally Posted By: diver1972
I'm confused. Please clarify. "The corporations" now each have the responsibility for making hundreds or thousands of North Americans rich? Or am I wrong about that and actually "The corporations" each have the responsibility for making hundreds or thousands of North Americans merely marginally wealthy? Am I on the right track here?
If "eliminating their employment" is the maligned deed, then why not take that issue off the table entirely and just not hire employees in the first place?
These are not rhetorical questions.
I don't think you are confused at all. And no you aren't on the right track.
You just need to look at the Henry Ford example too see how a cyclical system that feeds into itself is sustainable. An employee makes enough to live and feed their family and consume products that are manufactured at their place of employment (speaking specifically to manufacturing). I never used the term rich or the term wealthy. I said liveable wage, which is exactly that. Enough money to pay the bills; to pay for the North American standard of living. That's what a manufacturing job in North America should provide.
I'm not sure how your last question even makes sense. If nobody is employed, there are no consumers. Which means we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm specifically speaking about outsourcing when I talk about loss of jobs and you know that, so why try and muddy the issue with comments like that?
Originally Posted By: diver1972
No. They're supposed to do what any sane person in any city in any country in any time in history should do in that situation: find something else that pays, even if that means learning something new through any means necessary, or move to where there's something that pays.
Doing what exactly? I mean it is all fine and dandy to preach that from your ivy tower but there are a limited number of jobs available. When a factory closes and moves overseas, those thousands of people are supposed to do what? Work at Burger King? There aren't thousands of jobs available at Burger King, nor is that a viable long-term career, I think we can both acknowledge that fact. A loss of jobs is just that. When a job is eliminated, a magic new job that pays the same doesn't just appear in another state. The trend to outsource has meant that those jobs leave the country, that's why you have a soaring unemployment rate! If it was as easy as just going out and getting a new job, do you not think people would be doing that?
Originally Posted By: diver1972
Yes, we are. I'm betting dollars to donuts that those Chinese laborers being paid those wages aren't characterizing the wages as "horrific".
Of course not, hence my comment about standard of living. We've been over this part.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
My point is that a for-profit business enterprise has as its primary purpose of existence: to turn a profit.
At what cost? If a company can make 400 million a year manufacturing intake manifolds in Texas, but then cans everybody and sends those jobs to Shanghai so they can make 425 million a year, that's a net loss to America as a country, as you've just burdened the system with all of those unemployed people. But hey, the company (that was already turning a profit) made even more money so it is all good right?
Henry Ford could have paid his employees less. But then they wouldn't have been able to buy his cars. He sacrificed some of his profit margin for sustainability. That is a viable long-term game plan.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
And more profit is more better.
For whom?
Originally Posted By: diver1972
If that means finding less expensive labor or real estate or taxes to turn that profit, then great.
Great for who? Certainly not the people formerly working at that company.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
Sometimes less expensive means moving operations to a more rural area of the same state, or a more rural area of the same region, or a more rural area of the same country,
Which retains a similar standard of living, keeps the tax structure relatively similar and keeps the money here. I have no problem with that.
I realize that this is a fine line. I am not against corporate mobility within a home market in pursuit of lowering costs or being closer to suppliers....etc. Ultimately Americans are employed either way, there is no net loss to the country in terms of jobs. Those jobs are just moved around. It is when the jobs leave the country, particularly to a place with lower costs simply due to lax environmental laws and a much lower standard of living.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
or out to another country, or to a more rural area of another country. You surely get the idea. All of these moves of labor or real estate are primarily, if not entirely, intended to reduce costs. Obviously, some of these maneuvers have unintended consequences (e.g. lower quality, less cost savings than forecast).
Or consequences be [censored] because profit increased. I doubt they are truly unintended in most cases.
It appears here that you're admitting an economic interdependency, which is accurate; however, you seem to suggest that interdependency ends at the ocean (i.e. only North American people). Is that right?
Of course I'm admitting economic interdependancy
And no, I'm not suggesting that interdependancy ends at the ocean. What I'm stating is that once you cross that ocean, its immediate relevance is greatly reduced. It is in Canada's best interest to have economic stability below the massive border we share with the United States. Crime and prosperity both traverse that border with ease, far easier than would be the case for the same from Japan for example (who also depends heavily on trade with the USA).
That said, nations with a common standard of living are on a relatively level playing field in terms of competition and trade with one another. Canada isn't going to undercut Germany with cheap stainless steel due to lax environmental laws any more than Germany is going to undercut the United States on aluminum castings. Everybody has similar costs in this scenario. It is balanced.
Historically, the first world nations have never been dependant on places like China or India. It has been only recently that we have manufactured dependence on their labour and manufacturing capabilities with outsourcing, all in pursuit of bolstering profit margins. There is no cost savings that is passed down to the consumer from this either
Originally Posted By: diver1972
I'm confused. Please clarify. "The corporations" now each have the responsibility for making hundreds or thousands of North Americans rich? Or am I wrong about that and actually "The corporations" each have the responsibility for making hundreds or thousands of North Americans merely marginally wealthy? Am I on the right track here?
If "eliminating their employment" is the maligned deed, then why not take that issue off the table entirely and just not hire employees in the first place?
These are not rhetorical questions.
I don't think you are confused at all. And no you aren't on the right track.
You just need to look at the Henry Ford example too see how a cyclical system that feeds into itself is sustainable. An employee makes enough to live and feed their family and consume products that are manufactured at their place of employment (speaking specifically to manufacturing). I never used the term rich or the term wealthy. I said liveable wage, which is exactly that. Enough money to pay the bills; to pay for the North American standard of living. That's what a manufacturing job in North America should provide.
I'm not sure how your last question even makes sense. If nobody is employed, there are no consumers. Which means we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm specifically speaking about outsourcing when I talk about loss of jobs and you know that, so why try and muddy the issue with comments like that?
Originally Posted By: diver1972
No. They're supposed to do what any sane person in any city in any country in any time in history should do in that situation: find something else that pays, even if that means learning something new through any means necessary, or move to where there's something that pays.
Doing what exactly? I mean it is all fine and dandy to preach that from your ivy tower but there are a limited number of jobs available. When a factory closes and moves overseas, those thousands of people are supposed to do what? Work at Burger King? There aren't thousands of jobs available at Burger King, nor is that a viable long-term career, I think we can both acknowledge that fact. A loss of jobs is just that. When a job is eliminated, a magic new job that pays the same doesn't just appear in another state. The trend to outsource has meant that those jobs leave the country, that's why you have a soaring unemployment rate! If it was as easy as just going out and getting a new job, do you not think people would be doing that?
Originally Posted By: diver1972
Yes, we are. I'm betting dollars to donuts that those Chinese laborers being paid those wages aren't characterizing the wages as "horrific".
Of course not, hence my comment about standard of living. We've been over this part.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
My point is that a for-profit business enterprise has as its primary purpose of existence: to turn a profit.
At what cost? If a company can make 400 million a year manufacturing intake manifolds in Texas, but then cans everybody and sends those jobs to Shanghai so they can make 425 million a year, that's a net loss to America as a country, as you've just burdened the system with all of those unemployed people. But hey, the company (that was already turning a profit) made even more money so it is all good right?
Henry Ford could have paid his employees less. But then they wouldn't have been able to buy his cars. He sacrificed some of his profit margin for sustainability. That is a viable long-term game plan.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
And more profit is more better.
For whom?
Originally Posted By: diver1972
If that means finding less expensive labor or real estate or taxes to turn that profit, then great.
Great for who? Certainly not the people formerly working at that company.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
Sometimes less expensive means moving operations to a more rural area of the same state, or a more rural area of the same region, or a more rural area of the same country,
Which retains a similar standard of living, keeps the tax structure relatively similar and keeps the money here. I have no problem with that.
I realize that this is a fine line. I am not against corporate mobility within a home market in pursuit of lowering costs or being closer to suppliers....etc. Ultimately Americans are employed either way, there is no net loss to the country in terms of jobs. Those jobs are just moved around. It is when the jobs leave the country, particularly to a place with lower costs simply due to lax environmental laws and a much lower standard of living.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
or out to another country, or to a more rural area of another country. You surely get the idea. All of these moves of labor or real estate are primarily, if not entirely, intended to reduce costs. Obviously, some of these maneuvers have unintended consequences (e.g. lower quality, less cost savings than forecast).
Or consequences be [censored] because profit increased. I doubt they are truly unintended in most cases.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Time will tell all.
Carry on.
That's some interesting coffee you're drinking there.
Time will tell all.
Carry on.
That's some interesting coffee you're drinking there.
Since this dialogue has gone on for a bit now, I'd like to clarify my intent here: to engage in friendly debate on important topics. While my questions are often pointed and direct, they're not intended to ruffle feathers; however, I understand that inevitably occurs. Thus, please understand that any feather-ruffling that has or may occur is an unintended side effect of both the passionate topic and rather flat communication medium upon which we exchange our thoughts.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Historically, the first world nations have never been dependant on places like China or India. It has been only recently that we have manufactured dependence on their labour and manufacturing capabilities with outsourcing, all in pursuit of bolstering profit margins. There is no cost savings that is passed down to the consumer from this either
Yes, you're right about that historical element. However, here in the early 21st century, both technological innovation and the relatively low cost to transport goods across very long distances (i.e. relatively low cost of fuel) are largely responsible for us even being able to enjoy this higher standard of living than would otherwise be possible. For example, if all the electronics you might ever purchase were manufactured either local to you or in "nations with a common standard of living", you assuredly wouldn't be buying nearly as much of them because you likely wouldn't want to buy them (or possibly couldn't afford to buy them) due to the higher cost of the product due to the higher labor costs and higher corporate taxes that must be passed on to the buyers. So, while you might be technically correct that there aren't any cost savings, per se, there are definitely economic benefits to consumers via avoidance of price increases or a slower pace of price increase for any given product.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Enough money to pay the bills; to pay for the North American standard of living. That's what a manufacturing job in North America should provide.
That sounds like a very outdated "entitlement" perspective that's unsustainable in any economy, IMO. "the North American standard of living" sounds either a bit ignorant (i.e. assuming that there's only one) or perhaps even communistic (i.e. there should be only one and I get to define what it is). You're welcome to clarify your position on this for me.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
...I'm specifically speaking about outsourcing when I talk about loss of jobs and you know that, so why try and muddy the issue with comments like that?
Respectfully, I was simply addressing your vilification of "the corporations" for "eliminating" jobs, so I don't view that as muddying the issue at all. Is your view that you expect "the corporations" to not only create jobs, but also to indefinitely maintain those same jobs in the same country in which they were created (that is, if that country is a first-world one)?
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Doing what exactly?
Finding out what people are willing to pay for and doing that. And I'm not implying that it'd be at the same pay rate as previous. This can take different forms such as changing industry, or changing career, or creating a business. It's called adaptation and it's been occurring for millennia.
Additionally, there are not a finite amount of jobs because new positions are continually being created and older positions continually being eliminated (with outsourcing being only one of many reasons). Think of these: telephone exchange/switchboard operator, telegraph operator, elevator operator, lighthouse operator, clockwinder, and dunny man.
Lastly, jobs aren't the only way to earn money (i.e. create a business).
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
If it was as easy as just going out and getting a new job, do you not think people would be doing that?
I never implied that it was easy.
It mustn't be easy.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
At what cost? If a company can make 400 million a year manufacturing intake manifolds in Texas, but then cans everybody and sends those jobs to Shanghai so they can make 425 million a year, that's a net loss to America as a country, as you've just burdened the system with all of those unemployed people. But hey, the company (that was already turning a profit) made even more money so it is all good right?
You're claiming that a given country experiences a net loss simply via the elimination of jobs in one or more geographical areas within that country? That's faulty logic. For example: that company likely has a significant quantity of shareholders (even those who are indirectly invested via mutual funds, etc.) who are also residents of that same country where jobs were eliminated/outsourced. If the relocation of jobs helps that company either maintain a given margin or increase its margin, those shareholders benefit, wouldn't you agree?
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
...It is when the jobs leave the country, particularly to a place with lower costs simply due to lax environmental laws and a much lower standard of living.
Why does it matter to which other country they're exported?
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Historically, the first world nations have never been dependant on places like China or India. It has been only recently that we have manufactured dependence on their labour and manufacturing capabilities with outsourcing, all in pursuit of bolstering profit margins. There is no cost savings that is passed down to the consumer from this either
Yes, you're right about that historical element. However, here in the early 21st century, both technological innovation and the relatively low cost to transport goods across very long distances (i.e. relatively low cost of fuel) are largely responsible for us even being able to enjoy this higher standard of living than would otherwise be possible. For example, if all the electronics you might ever purchase were manufactured either local to you or in "nations with a common standard of living", you assuredly wouldn't be buying nearly as much of them because you likely wouldn't want to buy them (or possibly couldn't afford to buy them) due to the higher cost of the product due to the higher labor costs and higher corporate taxes that must be passed on to the buyers. So, while you might be technically correct that there aren't any cost savings, per se, there are definitely economic benefits to consumers via avoidance of price increases or a slower pace of price increase for any given product.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Enough money to pay the bills; to pay for the North American standard of living. That's what a manufacturing job in North America should provide.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
...I'm specifically speaking about outsourcing when I talk about loss of jobs and you know that, so why try and muddy the issue with comments like that?
Respectfully, I was simply addressing your vilification of "the corporations" for "eliminating" jobs, so I don't view that as muddying the issue at all. Is your view that you expect "the corporations" to not only create jobs, but also to indefinitely maintain those same jobs in the same country in which they were created (that is, if that country is a first-world one)?
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Doing what exactly?
Finding out what people are willing to pay for and doing that. And I'm not implying that it'd be at the same pay rate as previous. This can take different forms such as changing industry, or changing career, or creating a business. It's called adaptation and it's been occurring for millennia.
Additionally, there are not a finite amount of jobs because new positions are continually being created and older positions continually being eliminated (with outsourcing being only one of many reasons). Think of these: telephone exchange/switchboard operator, telegraph operator, elevator operator, lighthouse operator, clockwinder, and dunny man.
Lastly, jobs aren't the only way to earn money (i.e. create a business).
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
If it was as easy as just going out and getting a new job, do you not think people would be doing that?
I never implied that it was easy.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
At what cost? If a company can make 400 million a year manufacturing intake manifolds in Texas, but then cans everybody and sends those jobs to Shanghai so they can make 425 million a year, that's a net loss to America as a country, as you've just burdened the system with all of those unemployed people. But hey, the company (that was already turning a profit) made even more money so it is all good right?
You're claiming that a given country experiences a net loss simply via the elimination of jobs in one or more geographical areas within that country? That's faulty logic. For example: that company likely has a significant quantity of shareholders (even those who are indirectly invested via mutual funds, etc.) who are also residents of that same country where jobs were eliminated/outsourced. If the relocation of jobs helps that company either maintain a given margin or increase its margin, those shareholders benefit, wouldn't you agree?
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
...It is when the jobs leave the country, particularly to a place with lower costs simply due to lax environmental laws and a much lower standard of living.
Why does it matter to which other country they're exported?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: diver1972
Since this dialogue has gone on for a bit now, I'd like to clarify my intent here: to engage in friendly debate on important topics. While my questions are often pointed and direct, they're not intended to ruffle feathers; however, I understand that inevitably occurs. Thus, please understand that any feather-ruffling that has or may occur is an unintended side effect of both the passionate topic and rather flat communication medium upon which we exchange our thoughts.
I get that, but yes, there are certain things we are most definitely not going to agree on here despite the civility of the debate.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
Yes, you're right about that historical element. However, here in the early 21st century, both technological innovation and the relatively low cost to transport goods across very long distances (i.e. relatively low cost of fuel) are largely responsible for us even being able to enjoy this higher standard of living than would otherwise be possible. For example, if all the electronics you might ever purchase were manufactured either local to you or in "nations with a common standard of living", you assuredly wouldn't be buying nearly as much of them because you likely wouldn't want to buy them (or possibly couldn't afford to buy them) due to the higher cost of the product due to the higher labor costs and higher corporate taxes that must be passed on to the buyers. So, while you might be technically correct that there aren't any cost savings, per se, there are definitely economic benefits to consumers via avoidance of price increases or a slower pace of price increase for any given product.
I don't agree, and here's why:
For almost every out-sourced "made in China" product there is, if you look, a first-world sourced version of the same product selling for a similar price. I created a thread on here about the parts I've bought for my M5, none of which are made in China, and all being priced equally or even less expensive than the Mexican-sourced parts for my Ford. That shouldn't be possible based on what you are theorizing here.
Our higher standard of living has been that way long since before the widespread availability of electronics, and this ties into what Trav mentioned earlier about America being the envy of the world back in the 50's, 60's....etc. The standard of living was high then, just like it is now. But products were not imported from China then, nor were jobs sent overseas.
Regarding electronics purchasing practices my home network consists of about $5,000 worth of Cisco switching and routing gear (some of it US-made), my computer case was made in Japan and is a beautiful aluminum piece....etc. It used to be nice when I could buy ATI video cards, which were made in Markham, Ontario, about a 60 minute drive for me. That was not very long ago and they were competitively priced. I will buy first-world sourced electronics whenever I can. I don't spend frivolously in this area, I am not a "Walmart shopper". Every purchase is calculated and researched before it is made. And yes, COO plays a role in my purchasing decisions.
My speakers are vintage Cerwin-Vega, made in the USA, my sub box is McIntosh, as are the tweeters the CV's were re-powered with. My amplifier is Yorkville, made in Toronto, Ontario. I put my money where my mouth is sir. The effect on my personal purchasing practices by products not being made in China would be relatively small compared to somebody who power shops for the latest and greatest not giving the origin of those products as much as a passing glance.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
That sounds like a very outdated "entitlement" perspective that's unsustainable in any economy, IMO. "the North American standard of living" sounds either a bit ignorant (i.e. assuming that there's only one) or perhaps even communistic (i.e. there should be only one and I get to define what it is). You're welcome to clarify your position on this for me.
How is a cyclical self-feeding economy unsustainable? I mean based on the current economic climate with people like yourself fawning over the merits of out-sourcing, I fail to see how this has worked out any better? Multi-trillion dollar deficit, soaring unemployment....etc. Those don't strike me as the signs of a successful system. If anything sounds outdated it is the posturing that what worked in the past is irrelevant and we must embrace this new "global economy" which seems to be playing out just swimmingly for a growing portion of the unemployed population and a country headed for bankruptcy. That certainly seems like a modern recipe for success to me
The "North American standard of living" is no different than the German standard of living, the French standard of living, the English standard of living, the Japanese standard of living, the Australian standard of living....etc. It isn't hinting at communism or ignorance, it is defining a quality of life that first world nations have and that, in a first-world nation, the people, those who are willing to work, should be able to experience.
Yes, it may sound a bit "entitled", but entitlement in the current economic climate speaks of those who feel they can sit on their posteriors and suck back tax dollars because it pays better than a job at Walmart. It speaks to those who feel the large corporations and the successful need to be even more heavily taxed because they are "making too much money". That's not what I am talking about AT ALL. People who are willing to work have the right to make enough money to feed their families and live comfortably. That's part of what defines a first world nation!! So removing those jobs from the country (and they are not being replaced... I'll get to that later where you address that) just to increase profits for a select few is not a viable economic long-term game plan. It will lead to a collapse as the unemployment continues to rise.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
Respectfully, I was simply addressing your vilification of "the corporations" for "eliminating" jobs, so I don't view that as muddying the issue at all. Is your view that you expect "the corporations" to not only create jobs, but also to indefinitely maintain those same jobs in the same country in which they were created (that is, if that country is a first-world one)?
Indefinitely? No. Jobs change, companies change. Product changes, focuses change....etc. But being able to provide employment to a company's home country should most definitely take precedence over sending those same jobs overseas, unemploying your neighbours, just to earn an extra few bucks on a trinket that is going to be sold for the same price as it was when it was made here. It's called having a corporate conscience and is not a foreign concept.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
Finding out what people are willing to pay for and doing that. And I'm not implying that it'd be at the same pay rate as previous. This can take different forms such as changing industry, or changing career, or creating a business. It's called adaptation and it's been occurring for millennia.
LOL! That's exactly what is happening and why we are having more and more people living off the system! They are working at these jobs that pay nothing because their jobs that were able to feed their kids got taken away!
Empires have been collapsing for a millennia. They rise and fall. Saying that people have been adapting to that really doesn't explain anything. Adapting to your decline simply means you won't starve tonight. It isn't a long-term solution. And creating a business doing what? Most small businesses were crushed by the giants like Walmart. There are only so many ways to peddle the Chinese trinkets. Not everybody can provide a service, at the end you need to MAKE something; manufacturing. But that's where the vacuum is, because that was one of the easiest things to send overseas.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
Additionally, there are not a finite amount of jobs because new positions are continually being created and older positions continually being eliminated (with outsourcing being only one of many reasons). Think of these: telephone exchange/switchboard operator, telegraph operator, elevator operator, lighthouse operator, clockwinder, and dunny man.
It isn't whether there is a finite amount of jobs or not, it is whether more jobs are being created than eliminated and that is not the case. That's why you have soaring unemployment. The people that lost their manufacturing jobs are NOT finding new jobs! While jobs, their definition and placement within a hierarchy change with the evolution of technology and product, ultimately that evolution continues to employ people. It would be foolish to argue that jobs need to remain the same; to persist indefinitely. But there is a significant difference between a job evolving and a job disappearing because it was cheaper to have somebody do it overseas.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
Lastly, jobs aren't the only way to earn money (i.e. create a business).
Only so many are business-minded sir. A person's capabilities are what they are. Some people can sit on a line and put together radios all day. That is what they are good at, assembling things. I would much rather Jim make $15/hour putting together radios in Arkansas and feeding his family than making $8.00 working part-time at Walmart and getting assistance because he can't feed his family anymore. If Jim is making the $15/hour, he's a tax-paying citizen contributing to the financial health of his country (no matter how small that contribution might be). If Jim is working the $8/hour part-time gig and getting assistance, he is a burden on that same system, a cost that you and I must cover with the money we make.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
I never implied that it was easy.
It mustn't be easy.
But if there are no decent paying jobs that fall within the abilities of the individual then that individual cannot make a living and will become a burden on the system. Decent jobs for these people used to exist. They now exist elsewhere. A place that isn't North America.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
You're claiming that a given country experiences a net loss simply via the elimination of jobs in one or more geographical areas within that country? That's faulty logic.
No, I'm claiming the opposite. That as long as the job loss in one area by a given corporate entity means job creation from the same corporate entity elsewhere in the country, it all evens out. But when those jobs are sent OVERSEAS, then there is a net loss. The jobs are removed from the economy.
Quote:
For example: that company likely has a significant quantity of shareholders (even those who are indirectly invested via mutual funds, etc.) who are also residents of that same country where jobs were eliminated/outsourced. If the relocation of jobs helps that company either maintain a given margin or increase its margin, those shareholders benefit, wouldn't you agree?
But when the shareholders make more money at the expense of thousands becoming unemployed because it was cheaper to have their jobs done in India, then it is a net loss to the country, because somebody has to pay the bills. That's the point I was making about corporate conscience.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
Why does it matter to which other country they're exported?
Because the cost of doing business in a first-world nation is what it is to pay for the regulations and policies that are in place regarding the environment, living conditions....etc.
This is why the EU has a myriad of tariffs and anti-dumping laws in place to regulate this sort of thing. They do it to level the playing field and to prevent Chinese corporations (and corporations that have moved their manufacturing to places like China) from undercutting those companies that have kept their manufacturing base in Europe and comply with the laws and regulations that are in place for the manufacture of that product.
It is quite obvious that we are not going to come to any sort of agreement here. You aren't going to convince me that any of what you've stated is for the net benefit of America or Americans. I see things quite differently than you. And it sounds like we live quite differently as well. So on that note
to disagreement as I think we might as well end it here.
Since this dialogue has gone on for a bit now, I'd like to clarify my intent here: to engage in friendly debate on important topics. While my questions are often pointed and direct, they're not intended to ruffle feathers; however, I understand that inevitably occurs. Thus, please understand that any feather-ruffling that has or may occur is an unintended side effect of both the passionate topic and rather flat communication medium upon which we exchange our thoughts.
I get that, but yes, there are certain things we are most definitely not going to agree on here despite the civility of the debate.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
Yes, you're right about that historical element. However, here in the early 21st century, both technological innovation and the relatively low cost to transport goods across very long distances (i.e. relatively low cost of fuel) are largely responsible for us even being able to enjoy this higher standard of living than would otherwise be possible. For example, if all the electronics you might ever purchase were manufactured either local to you or in "nations with a common standard of living", you assuredly wouldn't be buying nearly as much of them because you likely wouldn't want to buy them (or possibly couldn't afford to buy them) due to the higher cost of the product due to the higher labor costs and higher corporate taxes that must be passed on to the buyers. So, while you might be technically correct that there aren't any cost savings, per se, there are definitely economic benefits to consumers via avoidance of price increases or a slower pace of price increase for any given product.
I don't agree, and here's why:
For almost every out-sourced "made in China" product there is, if you look, a first-world sourced version of the same product selling for a similar price. I created a thread on here about the parts I've bought for my M5, none of which are made in China, and all being priced equally or even less expensive than the Mexican-sourced parts for my Ford. That shouldn't be possible based on what you are theorizing here.
Our higher standard of living has been that way long since before the widespread availability of electronics, and this ties into what Trav mentioned earlier about America being the envy of the world back in the 50's, 60's....etc. The standard of living was high then, just like it is now. But products were not imported from China then, nor were jobs sent overseas.
Regarding electronics purchasing practices my home network consists of about $5,000 worth of Cisco switching and routing gear (some of it US-made), my computer case was made in Japan and is a beautiful aluminum piece....etc. It used to be nice when I could buy ATI video cards, which were made in Markham, Ontario, about a 60 minute drive for me. That was not very long ago and they were competitively priced. I will buy first-world sourced electronics whenever I can. I don't spend frivolously in this area, I am not a "Walmart shopper". Every purchase is calculated and researched before it is made. And yes, COO plays a role in my purchasing decisions.
My speakers are vintage Cerwin-Vega, made in the USA, my sub box is McIntosh, as are the tweeters the CV's were re-powered with. My amplifier is Yorkville, made in Toronto, Ontario. I put my money where my mouth is sir. The effect on my personal purchasing practices by products not being made in China would be relatively small compared to somebody who power shops for the latest and greatest not giving the origin of those products as much as a passing glance.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
How is a cyclical self-feeding economy unsustainable? I mean based on the current economic climate with people like yourself fawning over the merits of out-sourcing, I fail to see how this has worked out any better? Multi-trillion dollar deficit, soaring unemployment....etc. Those don't strike me as the signs of a successful system. If anything sounds outdated it is the posturing that what worked in the past is irrelevant and we must embrace this new "global economy" which seems to be playing out just swimmingly for a growing portion of the unemployed population and a country headed for bankruptcy. That certainly seems like a modern recipe for success to me
The "North American standard of living" is no different than the German standard of living, the French standard of living, the English standard of living, the Japanese standard of living, the Australian standard of living....etc. It isn't hinting at communism or ignorance, it is defining a quality of life that first world nations have and that, in a first-world nation, the people, those who are willing to work, should be able to experience.
Yes, it may sound a bit "entitled", but entitlement in the current economic climate speaks of those who feel they can sit on their posteriors and suck back tax dollars because it pays better than a job at Walmart. It speaks to those who feel the large corporations and the successful need to be even more heavily taxed because they are "making too much money". That's not what I am talking about AT ALL. People who are willing to work have the right to make enough money to feed their families and live comfortably. That's part of what defines a first world nation!! So removing those jobs from the country (and they are not being replaced... I'll get to that later where you address that) just to increase profits for a select few is not a viable economic long-term game plan. It will lead to a collapse as the unemployment continues to rise.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
Respectfully, I was simply addressing your vilification of "the corporations" for "eliminating" jobs, so I don't view that as muddying the issue at all. Is your view that you expect "the corporations" to not only create jobs, but also to indefinitely maintain those same jobs in the same country in which they were created (that is, if that country is a first-world one)?
Indefinitely? No. Jobs change, companies change. Product changes, focuses change....etc. But being able to provide employment to a company's home country should most definitely take precedence over sending those same jobs overseas, unemploying your neighbours, just to earn an extra few bucks on a trinket that is going to be sold for the same price as it was when it was made here. It's called having a corporate conscience and is not a foreign concept.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
Finding out what people are willing to pay for and doing that. And I'm not implying that it'd be at the same pay rate as previous. This can take different forms such as changing industry, or changing career, or creating a business. It's called adaptation and it's been occurring for millennia.
LOL! That's exactly what is happening and why we are having more and more people living off the system! They are working at these jobs that pay nothing because their jobs that were able to feed their kids got taken away!
Empires have been collapsing for a millennia. They rise and fall. Saying that people have been adapting to that really doesn't explain anything. Adapting to your decline simply means you won't starve tonight. It isn't a long-term solution. And creating a business doing what? Most small businesses were crushed by the giants like Walmart. There are only so many ways to peddle the Chinese trinkets. Not everybody can provide a service, at the end you need to MAKE something; manufacturing. But that's where the vacuum is, because that was one of the easiest things to send overseas.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
Additionally, there are not a finite amount of jobs because new positions are continually being created and older positions continually being eliminated (with outsourcing being only one of many reasons). Think of these: telephone exchange/switchboard operator, telegraph operator, elevator operator, lighthouse operator, clockwinder, and dunny man.
It isn't whether there is a finite amount of jobs or not, it is whether more jobs are being created than eliminated and that is not the case. That's why you have soaring unemployment. The people that lost their manufacturing jobs are NOT finding new jobs! While jobs, their definition and placement within a hierarchy change with the evolution of technology and product, ultimately that evolution continues to employ people. It would be foolish to argue that jobs need to remain the same; to persist indefinitely. But there is a significant difference between a job evolving and a job disappearing because it was cheaper to have somebody do it overseas.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
Lastly, jobs aren't the only way to earn money (i.e. create a business).
Only so many are business-minded sir. A person's capabilities are what they are. Some people can sit on a line and put together radios all day. That is what they are good at, assembling things. I would much rather Jim make $15/hour putting together radios in Arkansas and feeding his family than making $8.00 working part-time at Walmart and getting assistance because he can't feed his family anymore. If Jim is making the $15/hour, he's a tax-paying citizen contributing to the financial health of his country (no matter how small that contribution might be). If Jim is working the $8/hour part-time gig and getting assistance, he is a burden on that same system, a cost that you and I must cover with the money we make.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
I never implied that it was easy.
But if there are no decent paying jobs that fall within the abilities of the individual then that individual cannot make a living and will become a burden on the system. Decent jobs for these people used to exist. They now exist elsewhere. A place that isn't North America.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
You're claiming that a given country experiences a net loss simply via the elimination of jobs in one or more geographical areas within that country? That's faulty logic.
No, I'm claiming the opposite. That as long as the job loss in one area by a given corporate entity means job creation from the same corporate entity elsewhere in the country, it all evens out. But when those jobs are sent OVERSEAS, then there is a net loss. The jobs are removed from the economy.
Quote:
For example: that company likely has a significant quantity of shareholders (even those who are indirectly invested via mutual funds, etc.) who are also residents of that same country where jobs were eliminated/outsourced. If the relocation of jobs helps that company either maintain a given margin or increase its margin, those shareholders benefit, wouldn't you agree?
But when the shareholders make more money at the expense of thousands becoming unemployed because it was cheaper to have their jobs done in India, then it is a net loss to the country, because somebody has to pay the bills. That's the point I was making about corporate conscience.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
Why does it matter to which other country they're exported?
Because the cost of doing business in a first-world nation is what it is to pay for the regulations and policies that are in place regarding the environment, living conditions....etc.
This is why the EU has a myriad of tariffs and anti-dumping laws in place to regulate this sort of thing. They do it to level the playing field and to prevent Chinese corporations (and corporations that have moved their manufacturing to places like China) from undercutting those companies that have kept their manufacturing base in Europe and comply with the laws and regulations that are in place for the manufacture of that product.
It is quite obvious that we are not going to come to any sort of agreement here. You aren't going to convince me that any of what you've stated is for the net benefit of America or Americans. I see things quite differently than you. And it sounds like we live quite differently as well. So on that note
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
It is quite obvious that we are not going to come to any sort of agreement here.
I feel we found a tiny bit of common ground. Regardless, it's the civil disagreement and point-counterpoint that makes it an interesting and hopefully thought-provoking exercise on both sides.
In fact, this whole exchange has inspired me to do more specific research into this topic so that I can become better educated about the facts, whether pro or con.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
So on that note
to disagreement as I think we might as well end it here.
Indeed!
I was thinking the same thing after my last post.
It is quite obvious that we are not going to come to any sort of agreement here.
I feel we found a tiny bit of common ground. Regardless, it's the civil disagreement and point-counterpoint that makes it an interesting and hopefully thought-provoking exercise on both sides.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
So on that note
Indeed!
Overkill, it kind of sounds like you don't agree with the free market. Consumers have choice and resources get allocated to provide goods and services to them efficiently. The outcomes you don't like are largely a result of the free choice of buyers and sellers.
You may have a point that there are market distortions that the EU rectifies through tariffs and quotas, but apart from that, I don't see what your proposal is beyond interfering with the market.
I do have empathy when people are displaced and the people have the ability to create all sorts of social programs to help with that. But its a fine line between protectionism and smoothing out economic transitions.
As you know, the bail out of the US auto industry is still derided by many as were the bail out of financial institutions when the alternative ie collapse would clearly not have been the outcome if those industries were left to face natural economic forces. So I don't know what market interference you would be for but it would likely be more "socialist" than those bailouts.
You may have a point that there are market distortions that the EU rectifies through tariffs and quotas, but apart from that, I don't see what your proposal is beyond interfering with the market.
I do have empathy when people are displaced and the people have the ability to create all sorts of social programs to help with that. But its a fine line between protectionism and smoothing out economic transitions.
As you know, the bail out of the US auto industry is still derided by many as were the bail out of financial institutions when the alternative ie collapse would clearly not have been the outcome if those industries were left to face natural economic forces. So I don't know what market interference you would be for but it would likely be more "socialist" than those bailouts.
Btw, US manufacturing has begun to increase. The cost difference has narrowed. A similar thing happened with call center outsourcing. The cost saving is not as great as the wage difference.
The market dealt with this by itself. Americans, both entrepreneurs and workers, responded to the challenge. The market forces people to adapt and do things better. These are the same forces that in the circumstances of decades ago meant living standards went up in America before the rest of the world.
Now I don't disagree with transitional assistance but it has to be well constructed.
And here's another interesting economic development. The rise if China, India, Brazil etc means energy prices are up. So that leads the market for energy exploration in every country to become active. The US, being very free market orientated, has responded very quickly. And take a look at the highly paid jobs in Texas, Dakota and elsewhere. There is opportunity due to worldwide economic development for those who know how to respond. Part of the reason China did so well in manufacturing was because they could do something's better and faster, not always just cheaper. Take a look for example at a company that is building office blocks in 10 days through new building techniques.
The market dealt with this by itself. Americans, both entrepreneurs and workers, responded to the challenge. The market forces people to adapt and do things better. These are the same forces that in the circumstances of decades ago meant living standards went up in America before the rest of the world.
Now I don't disagree with transitional assistance but it has to be well constructed.
And here's another interesting economic development. The rise if China, India, Brazil etc means energy prices are up. So that leads the market for energy exploration in every country to become active. The US, being very free market orientated, has responded very quickly. And take a look at the highly paid jobs in Texas, Dakota and elsewhere. There is opportunity due to worldwide economic development for those who know how to respond. Part of the reason China did so well in manufacturing was because they could do something's better and faster, not always just cheaper. Take a look for example at a company that is building office blocks in 10 days through new building techniques.
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: Trav
Time will tell all.
Carry on.
That's some interesting coffee you're drinking there.
It would have to be very interesting coffee to make me that blue. It is really Ganja tee man.
A cheap fishing trip for sure and hardly worthy but I had to use the only bait that was available.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Time will tell all.
Carry on.
That's some interesting coffee you're drinking there.
It would have to be very interesting coffee to make me that blue. It is really Ganja tee man.
A cheap fishing trip for sure and hardly worthy but I had to use the only bait that was available.
You know that there's a lot of thinking that many legal ingredients and substances are comparable in their effects to substances considered problematic.
You have things in foods and drinks and parents giving kids Gatorade. Then you have doctors treating behavior disorders potentially caused by diet with more man made substances. Some Prescription drugs work in similar ways to illegal drugs.
When we see society behaving the ways it does, these things together with popular culture really make me wonder if we have things in perspective.
After all, in France, young teens get wine at the table, kids in Germany have been known to get very low alcohol beer at school, and in the Netherlands, there are lots of coffee shops.
But in the US, anything made in a lab, be it food, drink, prescription medicine, is consumed without question, while substances more naturally occurring are forbidden.
You have things in foods and drinks and parents giving kids Gatorade. Then you have doctors treating behavior disorders potentially caused by diet with more man made substances. Some Prescription drugs work in similar ways to illegal drugs.
When we see society behaving the ways it does, these things together with popular culture really make me wonder if we have things in perspective.
After all, in France, young teens get wine at the table, kids in Germany have been known to get very low alcohol beer at school, and in the Netherlands, there are lots of coffee shops.
But in the US, anything made in a lab, be it food, drink, prescription medicine, is consumed without question, while substances more naturally occurring are forbidden.
You mean like cocaine, heroin and other opiates? How about tobacco that's a natural product?
what's next legalizing the opium den again?
I see you point though, that would really speed up the dumbing down process of our kids instead of one puff at a time with pot.
what's next legalizing the opium den again?
I see you point though, that would really speed up the dumbing down process of our kids instead of one puff at a time with pot.
Originally Posted By: Trav
...I see you point though, that would really speed up the dumbing down process of our kids instead of one puff at a time with pot.
Extraordinary claims (like this one) require extraordinary evidence (which I've not yet seen after significant research). How 'bout sharing some compelling evidence along with your propaganda?
...I see you point though, that would really speed up the dumbing down process of our kids instead of one puff at a time with pot.
I'm curious, there's a viewpoint that we shouldn't regulate guns because people, not guns kill people.
So aren't drugs the same? Only those who choose to abuse them will come to harm. The drugs themselves are harmless. It's only people misusing them that come to harm, and they harm themselves, not others.
Prescription drug abuse kills more people than all illegal drug use combined, so regulating drugs just doesn't work since people find a way around those restrictions.
It seems double standards to me that some want no restrictions on any guns, guns which can and do harm innocent people, while calling for restrictions on drugs which only harm the individual that chooses to use them.
So aren't drugs the same? Only those who choose to abuse them will come to harm. The drugs themselves are harmless. It's only people misusing them that come to harm, and they harm themselves, not others.
Prescription drug abuse kills more people than all illegal drug use combined, so regulating drugs just doesn't work since people find a way around those restrictions.
It seems double standards to me that some want no restrictions on any guns, guns which can and do harm innocent people, while calling for restrictions on drugs which only harm the individual that chooses to use them.
Originally Posted By: diver1972
Originally Posted By: Trav
...I see you point though, that would really speed up the dumbing down process of our kids instead of one puff at a time with pot.
Extraordinary claims (like this one) require extraordinary evidence (which I've not yet seen after significant research). How 'bout sharing some compelling evidence along with your propaganda?
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
Quote:
Marijuana overactivates the endocannabinoid system, causing the high and other effects that users experience. These include distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and disrupted learning and memory.
If you want to smoke dope thats your business but BITOG is not the place for this kind of discussion. Please enough with the dope already.
Originally Posted By: Trav
...I see you point though, that would really speed up the dumbing down process of our kids instead of one puff at a time with pot.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
Quote:
Marijuana overactivates the endocannabinoid system, causing the high and other effects that users experience. These include distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and disrupted learning and memory.
If you want to smoke dope thats your business but BITOG is not the place for this kind of discussion. Please enough with the dope already.
Trav If you want to smoke dope thats your business but BITOG is not the place for this kind of discussion. Please enough with the dope already. [/quote said:
Originally Posted By: Trav
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
Quote:
Marijuana overactivates the endocannabinoid system, causing the high and other effects that users experience. These include distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and disrupted learning and memory.
Yay! Good job on referencing a US government agency as a completely objective and credible source on marijuana.
Ever hear of the oh-so-successful and very cost-effective "war on drugs"?
Any source, such as this one, claiming that marijuana is addictive is clearly either simply ignorant or just pushing a particular agenda and not interested in the facts. But smile, cuz Mr. Mackey agrees with you.
Originally Posted By: Trav
...but BITOG is not the place for this kind of discussion. Please enough with the dope already.
Really? Here's a reminder that you're the one who not only originally broached the drug topic in this thread ( source ), but also replied in a manner that welcomed further dialogue ( source ).
Originally Posted By: Trav
If you want to smoke dope thats your business...
FWIW, I haven't partaken in a decade; nonetheless, in the the decade before that I rarely partook and you'd never know it in any way shape, form, or fashion.
This is anecdotal for sure, but it's about as addictive as beef, pork, dairy, and wheat and less addictive than nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, and high fructose corn syrup.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
Quote:
Marijuana overactivates the endocannabinoid system, causing the high and other effects that users experience. These include distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and disrupted learning and memory.
Yay! Good job on referencing a US government agency as a completely objective and credible source on marijuana.
Originally Posted By: Trav
...but BITOG is not the place for this kind of discussion. Please enough with the dope already.
Originally Posted By: Trav
If you want to smoke dope thats your business...
FWIW, I haven't partaken in a decade; nonetheless, in the the decade before that I rarely partook and you'd never know it in any way shape, form, or fashion.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
