5 ms·

> Because the study shows there is negligible impact. Every laborer is also a spender. If the person saves, then every laborer is also an investor. See the swea

> Because the study shows there is negligible impact. Every laborer is also a spender. If the person saves, then every laborer is also an investor. See the sweatshops, guess they are just "another spender": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103798/Revealed-Inside-Apples-Chinese-sweatshop-factory-workers-paid-just-1-12-hour.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103798/Revealed-Ins...

projectramo 10y ago
I said immigration may not cost jobs. And you responded with poverty is bad. If that was a response to what I said, I don't see how.
- program_whiz 10y ago
  Your point was that the impact of using non-American labor was essentially nil in every study ever done. My point was that replacing a $25 / hr union factory worker who has healthcare and PTO, with a $2/hr factory worker in a "suicide sweatshop" is not nil. You said that in general, the replacement workers are just economic spenders too, and I provided a counter example (don't seem like these Chinese workers are likely to buy $800 iphones anytime soon).
  - projectramo 10y ago
    Okay, I now see what you are saying. So let's take apart those two points. You might be asking how could replacing a $25 worker with a $2 worker -- foreign, domestic, etc doesn't matter -- have no economic impact on jobs and wages? So one might argue the following: The company paying the $25 to the first worker, now has $23 in profit/savings. What happens to that money? They might reinvest it, they might pay it out as dividends, or they might use it for an acquisition, or they might reduce the cost of the good sold (passing it to the consumer). And so on. Whatever they choose to do will end up creating more jobs and boosting wages in something else. Now, you might say -- and I won't disagree -- that if they pay them out as dividends then the kinds of jobs they will produce is ship building for yachts, and massages for rich people and perhaps you don't agree with that kind of redistribution. That may be, but purely from an economic perspective the net impact of jobs and wages has not been significant.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - RobertoG 10y ago
      "from an economic perspective the net impact of jobs and wages has not been significant." I suppose you mean "from a global financial economic perspective". And you are right, of course: income equals expenditure. From a economic local perspective, you have now a worker that before won 25$ and now doesn't. He is pissed off, and it's going to vote somebody that looks angry too. You have 23$ in profit that will go (with a short stop in Ireland first) to buy an empty condo-mine in London or will be invested in places with 2$ waves in order to repeat the operation. But, yes, the USA commercial deficit is totally the fault of the Chinese.
      - projectramo 10y ago
        No, I did not mean from a "global" perspective. Most of that money is likely to be re-invested or spent in the United States. You make a whole host of claims in your 4th sentence about the London condo mines etc. which I don't understand. Just to be clear: the price of commodities don't get magically untaxed by Ireland. The transfer pricing only applies in cases where the value-add is not objective such as IP. If the $23 were re-invested it would increase jobs and increase wages too.
    - digler999 10y ago
      > Whatever they choose to do will end up creating more jobs and boosting wages in something else. not if they stash it in an offshore tax-haven in the Cayman Islands.
  - valuearb 10y ago
    If Walmart replaces it's american made bikes with chinese bikes, and saves every family in america that shops there $10 on their bike purchases, that savings gets spent elsewhere in america. The dollars that go to china get either spent or reinvested here. And Chinese purchases of iPhones has exploded over the last few years.

projectramo 10y ago

I said immigration may not cost jobs. And you responded with poverty is bad. If that was a response to what I said, I don't see how.

program_whiz 10y ago
Your point was that the impact of using non-American labor was essentially nil in every study ever done. My point was that replacing a $25 / hr union factory worker who has healthcare and PTO, with a $2/hr factory worker in a "suicide sweatshop" is not nil. You said that in general, the replacement workers are just economic spenders too, and I provided a counter example (don't seem like these Chinese workers are likely to buy $800 iphones anytime soon).
- projectramo 10y ago
  Okay, I now see what you are saying. So let's take apart those two points. You might be asking how could replacing a $25 worker with a $2 worker -- foreign, domestic, etc doesn't matter -- have no economic impact on jobs and wages? So one might argue the following: The company paying the $25 to the first worker, now has $23 in profit/savings. What happens to that money? They might reinvest it, they might pay it out as dividends, or they might use it for an acquisition, or they might reduce the cost of the good sold (passing it to the consumer). And so on. Whatever they choose to do will end up creating more jobs and boosting wages in something else. Now, you might say -- and I won't disagree -- that if they pay them out as dividends then the kinds of jobs they will produce is ship building for yachts, and massages for rich people and perhaps you don't agree with that kind of redistribution. That may be, but purely from an economic perspective the net impact of jobs and wages has not been significant.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - RobertoG 10y ago
    "from an economic perspective the net impact of jobs and wages has not been significant." I suppose you mean "from a global financial economic perspective". And you are right, of course: income equals expenditure. From a economic local perspective, you have now a worker that before won 25$ and now doesn't. He is pissed off, and it's going to vote somebody that looks angry too. You have 23$ in profit that will go (with a short stop in Ireland first) to buy an empty condo-mine in London or will be invested in places with 2$ waves in order to repeat the operation. But, yes, the USA commercial deficit is totally the fault of the Chinese.
    - projectramo 10y ago
      No, I did not mean from a "global" perspective. Most of that money is likely to be re-invested or spent in the United States. You make a whole host of claims in your 4th sentence about the London condo mines etc. which I don't understand. Just to be clear: the price of commodities don't get magically untaxed by Ireland. The transfer pricing only applies in cases where the value-add is not objective such as IP. If the $23 were re-invested it would increase jobs and increase wages too.
  - digler999 10y ago
    > Whatever they choose to do will end up creating more jobs and boosting wages in something else. not if they stash it in an offshore tax-haven in the Cayman Islands.
- valuearb 10y ago
  If Walmart replaces it's american made bikes with chinese bikes, and saves every family in america that shops there $10 on their bike purchases, that savings gets spent elsewhere in america. The dollars that go to china get either spent or reinvested here. And Chinese purchases of iPhones has exploded over the last few years.