4 ms·

20 times as much as who? As far as I can figure out, there is a minimum wage in China, for example, which is between $2 and $3 per hour. So who works for 36 ce

by elipsey 10y ago

20 times as much as who? As far as I can figure out, there is a minimum wage in China, for example, which is between $2 and $3 per hour. So who works for 36 cents hour? EDIT: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-hourly-rate-for-a-factory-worker-in-China https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-hourly-rate-for-a-... Welp, there's one answer. I guess either this is common knowledge, or no else cared enough to check. :p

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
The traditional US manufacturing jobs we "want" pay middle class wages.
- elipsey 10y ago
  You said "we have is a choice between fewer American manufacturing jobs (automation) or no American manufacturing jobs (outsourcing). People don't want to hear that, but those are the alternatives." Why is it impossible to pay closer to the world market rate for labor, at the U.S. federal minium wage of $7.25/hr? I'm not saying you're wrong, these are intended as real questions :)
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    In practice the answer was traditionally "unions". The United Auto Workers won't let you eliminate all pensions and benefits and pay minimum wage, but they can't stop you from building a factory in Mexico, so what happens? In theory we could try to compete with Asia on labor costs, but nobody really wants that. It's better to have middle class jobs than a larger number of subsistence-level jobs, especially when the output is the same.
    - Jabanga 10y ago
      People will take the best job available on the market. If bringing back manufacturing brings back a lot of subsistence level jobs, you won't have people in middle class jobs leaving those jobs for the subsistence jobs. The only people who take those new jobs are those who are in a worst position than what the subsistence level would provide them, and thus are better off with the subsistence level job than without. This is basic free market economic theory that any economist (other than perhaps Marxians) would agree with.
    - hebdebble 10y ago
      I think quite a few companies would love to try and compete with Asia on labor cost, and a good many have. I'm not trying to argue against the value of corporations or anything, but I think it's generally agreed that the goal of corporations is to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. To that end, companies are going to pursue profits (i.e. lowering labor costs) over creating good paying jobs whenever they can. I'm sure many CEO's would, in theory, prefer to keep middle class jobs over profits, but in reality many of them know that they will be replaced if they do. It's rare that they can have it both ways. Also, it seems to me that given the choice between creating a few middle class jobs or a larger number of subsistence level jobs, large corporations have more often chosen the latter. "creating" more jobs looks better on paper and it's easier to fire someone if you have a larger pool of candidates to replace them with, or, better yet, pick up their slack while being paid the same. On the subject of unions, I was interested to see here, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm, that in 2016 only 10.7% of workers were union. I certainly agree that unions have traditionally been a force in keeping wages high, but I don't think they are really the best case to use as an example of US manufacturing as a whole. I'll be the first to say that I haven't really researched it, but it seems to me that quite a lot more then 11% percent of US manufacturers have moved their operations overseas.
vkou 10y ago
An American manufacturing worker from the 80s, adjusted for inflation, earned between $20 and $60/hour. And a corporate pension. The point still stands.
- rgbrenner 10y ago
  Well $20/hr: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES3000000008 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES3000000008 Jan 1980: $6.82/hr, adjusted for inflation is $20.16 https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=6.82&year1=1980&year2=2017 https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=6.82&year1=198... Current wages: $20.62
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Standard inflation rates exclude too many things to be reliable. And the basket has changed, over time. I suspect that's why parent said $20-$60 per hour.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    Those comparisons are tricky, especially in hot markets. My childhood home in NYC was $30k in 1980. My grandparents lived in a nicer house up the block on a sanitation workers salary. That home sold a year ago for $1.2M. The 2016 version of my parents or grandparents would be living in some distant suburb.
    - rgbrenner 10y ago
      Ok.. but this is an article about manufacturing. So which manufacturing town in the US is a hot market? They don't call it the rust belt for nothing. Edit: Average home price in Detroit: $38k
      - Spooky23 10y ago
        The rust belt are the places that lacked diversification. There are lots and lots of little rust belts that were overshadowed. For example, New York City. NYC had 875k manufacturing jobs in the mid 60s, which plummeted 60% by 1993. The same thing happened for complimentary industries like wholesaling. Info: https://www.bls.gov/mlr/1993/02/art4full.pdf https://www.bls.gov/mlr/1993/02/art4full.pdf Those cool hipster spaces in Brooklyn, etc are there because hundreds of people were working there until the 80s.

by elipsey 10y ago

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

The traditional US manufacturing jobs we "want" pay middle class wages.

elipsey 10y ago
You said "we have is a choice between fewer American manufacturing jobs (automation) or no American manufacturing jobs (outsourcing). People don't want to hear that, but those are the alternatives." Why is it impossible to pay closer to the world market rate for labor, at the U.S. federal minium wage of $7.25/hr? I'm not saying you're wrong, these are intended as real questions :)
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  In practice the answer was traditionally "unions". The United Auto Workers won't let you eliminate all pensions and benefits and pay minimum wage, but they can't stop you from building a factory in Mexico, so what happens? In theory we could try to compete with Asia on labor costs, but nobody really wants that. It's better to have middle class jobs than a larger number of subsistence-level jobs, especially when the output is the same.
  - Jabanga 10y ago
    People will take the best job available on the market. If bringing back manufacturing brings back a lot of subsistence level jobs, you won't have people in middle class jobs leaving those jobs for the subsistence jobs. The only people who take those new jobs are those who are in a worst position than what the subsistence level would provide them, and thus are better off with the subsistence level job than without. This is basic free market economic theory that any economist (other than perhaps Marxians) would agree with.
  - hebdebble 10y ago
    I think quite a few companies would love to try and compete with Asia on labor cost, and a good many have. I'm not trying to argue against the value of corporations or anything, but I think it's generally agreed that the goal of corporations is to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. To that end, companies are going to pursue profits (i.e. lowering labor costs) over creating good paying jobs whenever they can. I'm sure many CEO's would, in theory, prefer to keep middle class jobs over profits, but in reality many of them know that they will be replaced if they do. It's rare that they can have it both ways. Also, it seems to me that given the choice between creating a few middle class jobs or a larger number of subsistence level jobs, large corporations have more often chosen the latter. "creating" more jobs looks better on paper and it's easier to fire someone if you have a larger pool of candidates to replace them with, or, better yet, pick up their slack while being paid the same. On the subject of unions, I was interested to see here, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm, that in 2016 only 10.7% of workers were union. I certainly agree that unions have traditionally been a force in keeping wages high, but I don't think they are really the best case to use as an example of US manufacturing as a whole. I'll be the first to say that I haven't really researched it, but it seems to me that quite a lot more then 11% percent of US manufacturers have moved their operations overseas.

vkou 10y ago

An American manufacturing worker from the 80s, adjusted for inflation, earned between $20 and $60/hour. And a corporate pension. The point still stands.

rgbrenner 10y ago
Well $20/hr: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES3000000008 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES3000000008 Jan 1980: $6.82/hr, adjusted for inflation is $20.16 https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=6.82&year1=1980&year2=2017 https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=6.82&year1=198... Current wages: $20.62
- mirimir 10y ago
  Standard inflation rates exclude too many things to be reliable. And the basket has changed, over time. I suspect that's why parent said $20-$60 per hour.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Those comparisons are tricky, especially in hot markets. My childhood home in NYC was $30k in 1980. My grandparents lived in a nicer house up the block on a sanitation workers salary. That home sold a year ago for $1.2M. The 2016 version of my parents or grandparents would be living in some distant suburb.
  - rgbrenner 10y ago
    Ok.. but this is an article about manufacturing. So which manufacturing town in the US is a hot market? They don't call it the rust belt for nothing. Edit: Average home price in Detroit: $38k
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      The rust belt are the places that lacked diversification. There are lots and lots of little rust belts that were overshadowed. For example, New York City. NYC had 875k manufacturing jobs in the mid 60s, which plummeted 60% by 1993. The same thing happened for complimentary industries like wholesaling. Info: https://www.bls.gov/mlr/1993/02/art4full.pdf https://www.bls.gov/mlr/1993/02/art4full.pdf Those cool hipster spaces in Brooklyn, etc are there because hundreds of people were working there until the 80s.