6 ms·

> Raise the minimum wage > Make it easier for workers to bargain collectively for higher wages > Make more workers eligible for overtime pay > Provide earned

by csense 9y ago

> Raise the minimum wage > Make it easier for workers to bargain collectively for higher wages > Make more workers eligible for overtime pay > Provide earned sick time and paid family leave Good suggestions. Unfortunately, if you do this, the affected jobs will simply be moved overseas to countries where policies like this don't exist. Unless we get rid of free trade policies and impose taxes on foreign trade, to take the money companies save from this form of cost cutting out of their pockets. Trump is the first President in a long time to actually seriously consider rolling back globalization. People say it's a good thing, citing Ricardian theory. But it has essentially destroyed entire local economies (my hometown being one of them). Economic theory is all well and good, but theory needs to be tested against the real world. The evidence that globalization causes great harm is simply too obvious for me to ignore. I'm disappointed Trump is starting to get friendly with Xi, instead of following through on his campaign rhetoric and slapping some taxes on imports. I'm no xenophobe. As far as I'm concerned, those taxes can go away as soon as China stops crapping all over the environment and starts giving its workers the same rights and wages that we give our workers in the US. That way the playing field would be level, and companies would no longer be able to use free trade to exploit their workers.

crdoconnor 9y ago
"Good suggestions. Unfortunately, if you do this, the affected jobs will simply be moved overseas" Jobs like that can be moved largely already have been - we're left with the jobs that can't be moved (like McDonalds fry chef and Walmart checkout assistants). Those companies will eat any pay rises and post lower profits. This is partly why the fight for 15 has had some measure of success.
- kbutler 9y ago
  Take a look at the number of self-checkout terminals per Walmart assistant. McDonald's response to $15 is automation. Increasing labor cost makes capital expenditure on automation more attractive. Increasing minimum wage helps the people that keep a job, but hurts the people that can no longer find a job (especially high school, less educated, etc.) Just like mandated health insurance has pushed down working hour limits, so many workers have to have two half-jobs instead of one full-time job.
  - moosey 9y ago
    > McDonald's response to $15 is automation. Good, we should work to automate more low level work. In fact, all of it if possible. Our response to lower work availability will probably either be revolution or a better social safety net. But then again, the world of snowcrash is possible. > Increasing labor cost makes capital expenditure on automation more attractive. Tax automation. If it does the job of a human, tax it, like a normal human working. That's just one solution of many for the automation 'problem'. Of course, another option is to eliminate the minimum wage so that we never automate another thing, and there are a massive plethora of other responses to the problem, but mostly I'm just trying to avoid a false dichotomy logical fallacy while pointing out the two most extreme solutions. > Increasing minimum wage helps the people that keep a job, but hurts the people that can no longer find a job (especially high school, less educated, etc.) I have a feeling that this is going to become more true no matter the situation. Similar to how some energy companies have been coming out and arguing that no matter how much money we throw at oil, renewables are the future. The economy is changing, we are nearing a point where there are massive numbers of people that simply aren't needed to keep the modern economy running. The first time I really started following/believing (lacking a better term) this idea was when I read "Labour Markets: On Bullshit Jobs"[1]. If an economy makes enough for everyone, regardless of their ability to participate, perhaps we need to reconsider how the wealth is distributed a bit, especially if we have a falling population. > Just like mandated health insurance has pushed down working hour limits, so many workers have to have two half-jobs instead of one full-time job. Perhaps then we should reduce the number of hours in a full time job. Instead, we are currently going the opposite direction, with regulations moving towards no time and a half overtime pay. The shorter we make the hours, the more people hired, the more automated. Really, the problem is not with automation/high minimum wage/etc. The problem is with the response. Perhaps of assuming that companies are in the right with not hiring people and automating, thus protecting their massive profits that they have right now, we should be assuming that their massive profits are on the wrong side of history, and we should do something about that instead. [1]: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/08/labour-markets-0 http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/08/labour-m...
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    "McDonald's response to $15 is automation." Actually it's lobbying. Automation didn't work out so well for Horn & Hardart.
gremlinsinc 9y ago
How do you move in-store worker for Walmart or McDonald's overseas, I'm very curious.
- dforrestwilson1 9y ago
  You turn them into machines, manufactured overseas and sold to Walmart and McDonalds.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Then we tax the revenue generated by automation and distribute it as a per capita dividend.
pm90 9y ago
> I'm no xenophobe. As far as I'm concerned, those taxes can go away as soon as China stops crapping all over the environment and starts giving its workers the same rights and wages that we give our workers in the US. That way the playing field would be level, and companies would no longer be able to use free trade to exploit their workers. Its really hard for me to not burn with anger when I see comments like this. The US and the West did the exact same thing that you mention: crap all over their environment and treat workers terribly, to accumulate all the capital in their hands. That capital was re-invested in technology/research and that is the main reason why people in the West have higher standard of living now. And when Europe and US were in the path of industrial development, they DID have high import taxes as well. And now that China is doing essentially the same, you are not OK with that? That's just hypocrisy, plain and simple.
- sceew 9y ago
  China free-rode off of that investment by adopting Western technology with no virtually no R&D, greatly benefiting.
  - pm90 9y ago
    The US did an almost similar thing, riding off European technology with virtually no R&D greatly benefiting. And before that, Europe did a similar thing by riding off Chinese (gunpowder and paper) and Indian (arabic numeral) technology, with virtually no R&D, greatly benefiting.... See how hollow that argument is?
    - ska 9y ago
      The US did an almost similar thing Not an almost similar thing. Effectively the exact same thing, including the flagrant disregard of IP, etc. It's worth thinking about when discussing what countries "should" and "shouldn't" do, as you note.
    - gajjanag 9y ago
      Just to add to the above, this is also reflected in historical GDP figures (pre Renaissance say): https://infogr.am/Share-of-world-GDP-throughout-history https://infogr.am/Share-of-world-GDP-throughout-history
slg 9y ago
>The evidence that globalization causes great harm is simply too obvious for me to ignore. Globalization creates value. You can't just dismiss Ricardian theory because of your anecdotal experience. The problem is where the value that is created by globalization goes. It has increasingly gone to the richest of the rich. If that increased value was distributed fairly and we increased the social safety nets to help the people caught in the transition, like those in your home town, society as a whole would be much better off. Trying to turn back the clock on globalization is simply short term thinking on a problem that will continue to get worse if we don't come up with a lasting solution.
FussyZeus 9y ago
It's also worth noting though that the rewards reaped for that extremely cheap labor go to a lot of Americans too. Consumer goods and especially electronics are cheaper now than they've ever been, partially yes because we know how to make them cheaper, but also partially because all that shit comes from Shenzhen and Taiwan. Same for clothes, housewares, shit really any product you buy at Walmart (which really is pretty much everything you need to survive, minus a few things).
- theandrewbailey 9y ago
  It's not a good trade if more people are struggling to get by, and can barely afford those cheap goods. It's not good for others either, since those cheap goods have (more often than not) poorer quality.
  - FussyZeus 9y ago
    I agree that Made in China used to be a great indicator of poor quality, but that being said, it's gotten a lot harder to make that case. Chinese manufacturing is moving forward by leaps and bounds. There's still a language barrier that will come up with anything with an interface that wasn't made in the States, but in terms of actual functions, I own a lot of Shenzhen stuff that works totally fine. And yes I understand for those on the poverty line it doesn't really apply, just saying the buying power of everyone in general has gone up with the introduction of low cost labor. Even that is temporary though, already workers in these areas are demanding better conditions and wages.
thablackbull 9y ago
> giving its workers the same rights and wages that we give our workers in the US. You need to account for cost of living. Also, if you're really worried about low wages, maybe start complaining about other countries since wages in China continually and rapidly increase. Chinese wages now higer than in Brazil, Argentina and Mexico: https://www.ft.com/content/f4a260e6-f75a-11e6-bd4e-68d53499ed71 https://www.ft.com/content/f4a260e6-f75a-11e6-bd4e-68d53499e...
Ilverin 9y ago
Free trade has 3 kinds of benefits: #1 All consumers benefit #2 Vast majority of workers in the poorer country #3 Some number of workers in the richer country Basically, for every unemployed worker in the USA, there's a Chinese worker who benefited. In addition there are new jobs in the USA (such as in entertainment or banking or information technology). For this reason, both countries benefit in aggregate but if outcompeted workers fail to adjust to a different job, specific workers can suffer (like Mexican farmers suffered from NAFTA). Economists favor free trade, but they also favor redistribution of some of the gains of trade to the losers (this redistribution hasn't been done historically). http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/china-us-trade http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/china-us-trade http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/04/does_trade_with.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/04/does_trade_with....
- InitialLastName 9y ago
  > Free trade has 3 kinds of benefits: #1 All consumers benefit #2 Vast majority of workers in the poorer country #3 Some number of workers in the richer country #4: Economic disincentive for wealthy countries to fight wars with each other, leading to less dead workers on both sides.
- csense 9y ago
  Back in the day, a kid fresh out of high school could get a good job. By his early-to-mid twenties, afford to have a house, two cars, a family, and one spouse could be a full-time parent. Nowadays, college graduates struggle for that sort of decent middle class life. It looks an awful lot like the country, as a whole, is getting poorer. As for your statement that "specific workers can suffer," what I've seen firsthand is that it's more like the entire local and regional economy, based on particular manufacturing industries, has been completely devastated. The area's basically been in a depression for multiple decades. It's not so much about sending people to school for a few months or years to learn to do something else. It's more that, back when people who worked in the factories had money to burn, they spent it at a wide variety of secondary businesses in all kinds of different industries. Now the factories are mostly abandoned, rusting eyesores. A lot of the commercial real estate's gone downhill and is near rock bottom; people simply don't have money to spend on anything but necessities. The bad parts of town seem to be expanding, the drugs are getting bad, most of the ambitious kids and the people with money all pack up and leave for somewhere else. The closest thing to a growth industry is healthcare for the old folks who were born here and are going to stay here 'til they die. The fabric of an entire community's been torn apart. I've seen it with my own eyes. Simply saying "specific workers can suffer" is a euphemism that minimizes, or even denies, the true extent of the damage.
DanHulton 9y ago
Disappointed, fine, but you certainly shouldn't be surprised. This is the guy who was slamming China and globalization while producing his goods there. He was a hypocrite all through the campaign trail, why would you be surprised he's continuing that trend?
nerfhammer 9y ago
> slapping some taxes on imports Then other countries slaps taxes on their imports in retaliation, and then US exports are equally hurt... causing other economic contractions that could similarly "destroy local economies." And everything gets more expensive for everyone. This is generally always what happens when you try to raise import taxes. One example from history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Ac...
- slackingoff2017 9y ago
  Does it matter that China places huge tariffs on imported goods? Ever heard that they limit American movies to a few Chinese releases a year? Other industries are similar. China is incredibly protectionist of their own industries and engages in widespread subsidies and import tariffs. I'm not sure why anyone cares about the US returning the favor.
  - thablackbull 9y ago
    > I'm not sure why anyone cares about the US returning the favor. I don't think you realize that protectionist measures in America is nothing new; in fact, we have quite a lot of protectionist measures. It's just a media bias here that makes you think otherwise. Here's a chart from Euler Hermes (a unit of Allianz), Protectionism Is Not New: http://www.eulerhermes.com/economic-research/publications/Pages/publication.aspx?postID=1048 http://www.eulerhermes.com/economic-research/publications/Pa...
  - nerfhammer 9y ago
    Tariffs are generally always reciprocal. The US and China don't have a free trade agreement, but are both in the WTO. And both have relatively high import tariffs against each other already.

by csense 9y ago

crdoconnor 9y ago

"Good suggestions. Unfortunately, if you do this, the affected jobs will simply be moved overseas" Jobs like that can be moved largely already have been - we're left with the jobs that can't be moved (like McDonalds fry chef and Walmart checkout assistants). Those companies will eat any pay rises and post lower profits. This is partly why the fight for 15 has had some measure of success.

kbutler 9y ago
Take a look at the number of self-checkout terminals per Walmart assistant. McDonald's response to $15 is automation. Increasing labor cost makes capital expenditure on automation more attractive. Increasing minimum wage helps the people that keep a job, but hurts the people that can no longer find a job (especially high school, less educated, etc.) Just like mandated health insurance has pushed down working hour limits, so many workers have to have two half-jobs instead of one full-time job.
- moosey 9y ago
  > McDonald's response to $15 is automation. Good, we should work to automate more low level work. In fact, all of it if possible. Our response to lower work availability will probably either be revolution or a better social safety net. But then again, the world of snowcrash is possible. > Increasing labor cost makes capital expenditure on automation more attractive. Tax automation. If it does the job of a human, tax it, like a normal human working. That's just one solution of many for the automation 'problem'. Of course, another option is to eliminate the minimum wage so that we never automate another thing, and there are a massive plethora of other responses to the problem, but mostly I'm just trying to avoid a false dichotomy logical fallacy while pointing out the two most extreme solutions. > Increasing minimum wage helps the people that keep a job, but hurts the people that can no longer find a job (especially high school, less educated, etc.) I have a feeling that this is going to become more true no matter the situation. Similar to how some energy companies have been coming out and arguing that no matter how much money we throw at oil, renewables are the future. The economy is changing, we are nearing a point where there are massive numbers of people that simply aren't needed to keep the modern economy running. The first time I really started following/believing (lacking a better term) this idea was when I read "Labour Markets: On Bullshit Jobs"[1]. If an economy makes enough for everyone, regardless of their ability to participate, perhaps we need to reconsider how the wealth is distributed a bit, especially if we have a falling population. > Just like mandated health insurance has pushed down working hour limits, so many workers have to have two half-jobs instead of one full-time job. Perhaps then we should reduce the number of hours in a full time job. Instead, we are currently going the opposite direction, with regulations moving towards no time and a half overtime pay. The shorter we make the hours, the more people hired, the more automated. Really, the problem is not with automation/high minimum wage/etc. The problem is with the response. Perhaps of assuming that companies are in the right with not hiring people and automating, thus protecting their massive profits that they have right now, we should be assuming that their massive profits are on the wrong side of history, and we should do something about that instead. [1]: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/08/labour-markets-0 http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/08/labour-m...
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  "McDonald's response to $15 is automation." Actually it's lobbying. Automation didn't work out so well for Horn & Hardart.

gremlinsinc 9y ago

How do you move in-store worker for Walmart or McDonald's overseas, I'm very curious.

dforrestwilson1 9y ago
You turn them into machines, manufactured overseas and sold to Walmart and McDonalds.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Then we tax the revenue generated by automation and distribute it as a per capita dividend.

pm90 9y ago

> I'm no xenophobe. As far as I'm concerned, those taxes can go away as soon as China stops crapping all over the environment and starts giving its workers the same rights and wages that we give our workers in the US. That way the playing field would be level, and companies would no longer be able to use free trade to exploit their workers. Its really hard for me to not burn with anger when I see comments like this. The US and the West did the exact same thing that you mention: crap all over their environment and treat workers terribly, to accumulate all the capital in their hands. That capital was re-invested in technology/research and that is the main reason why people in the West have higher standard of living now. And when Europe and US were in the path of industrial development, they DID have high import taxes as well. And now that China is doing essentially the same, you are not OK with that? That's just hypocrisy, plain and simple.

sceew 9y ago
China free-rode off of that investment by adopting Western technology with no virtually no R&D, greatly benefiting.
- pm90 9y ago
  The US did an almost similar thing, riding off European technology with virtually no R&D greatly benefiting. And before that, Europe did a similar thing by riding off Chinese (gunpowder and paper) and Indian (arabic numeral) technology, with virtually no R&D, greatly benefiting.... See how hollow that argument is?
  - ska 9y ago
    The US did an almost similar thing Not an almost similar thing. Effectively the exact same thing, including the flagrant disregard of IP, etc. It's worth thinking about when discussing what countries "should" and "shouldn't" do, as you note.
  - gajjanag 9y ago
    Just to add to the above, this is also reflected in historical GDP figures (pre Renaissance say): https://infogr.am/Share-of-world-GDP-throughout-history https://infogr.am/Share-of-world-GDP-throughout-history

slg 9y ago

>The evidence that globalization causes great harm is simply too obvious for me to ignore. Globalization creates value. You can't just dismiss Ricardian theory because of your anecdotal experience. The problem is where the value that is created by globalization goes. It has increasingly gone to the richest of the rich. If that increased value was distributed fairly and we increased the social safety nets to help the people caught in the transition, like those in your home town, society as a whole would be much better off. Trying to turn back the clock on globalization is simply short term thinking on a problem that will continue to get worse if we don't come up with a lasting solution.

FussyZeus 9y ago

It's also worth noting though that the rewards reaped for that extremely cheap labor go to a lot of Americans too. Consumer goods and especially electronics are cheaper now than they've ever been, partially yes because we know how to make them cheaper, but also partially because all that shit comes from Shenzhen and Taiwan. Same for clothes, housewares, shit really any product you buy at Walmart (which really is pretty much everything you need to survive, minus a few things).

theandrewbailey 9y ago
It's not a good trade if more people are struggling to get by, and can barely afford those cheap goods. It's not good for others either, since those cheap goods have (more often than not) poorer quality.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  I agree that Made in China used to be a great indicator of poor quality, but that being said, it's gotten a lot harder to make that case. Chinese manufacturing is moving forward by leaps and bounds. There's still a language barrier that will come up with anything with an interface that wasn't made in the States, but in terms of actual functions, I own a lot of Shenzhen stuff that works totally fine. And yes I understand for those on the poverty line it doesn't really apply, just saying the buying power of everyone in general has gone up with the introduction of low cost labor. Even that is temporary though, already workers in these areas are demanding better conditions and wages.

thablackbull 9y ago

> giving its workers the same rights and wages that we give our workers in the US. You need to account for cost of living. Also, if you're really worried about low wages, maybe start complaining about other countries since wages in China continually and rapidly increase. Chinese wages now higer than in Brazil, Argentina and Mexico: https://www.ft.com/content/f4a260e6-f75a-11e6-bd4e-68d53499ed71 https://www.ft.com/content/f4a260e6-f75a-11e6-bd4e-68d53499e...

Ilverin 9y ago

Free trade has 3 kinds of benefits: #1 All consumers benefit #2 Vast majority of workers in the poorer country #3 Some number of workers in the richer country Basically, for every unemployed worker in the USA, there's a Chinese worker who benefited. In addition there are new jobs in the USA (such as in entertainment or banking or information technology). For this reason, both countries benefit in aggregate but if outcompeted workers fail to adjust to a different job, specific workers can suffer (like Mexican farmers suffered from NAFTA). Economists favor free trade, but they also favor redistribution of some of the gains of trade to the losers (this redistribution hasn't been done historically). http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/china-us-trade http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/china-us-trade http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/04/does_trade_with.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/04/does_trade_with....

InitialLastName 9y ago
> Free trade has 3 kinds of benefits: #1 All consumers benefit #2 Vast majority of workers in the poorer country #3 Some number of workers in the richer country #4: Economic disincentive for wealthy countries to fight wars with each other, leading to less dead workers on both sides.
csense 9y ago
Back in the day, a kid fresh out of high school could get a good job. By his early-to-mid twenties, afford to have a house, two cars, a family, and one spouse could be a full-time parent. Nowadays, college graduates struggle for that sort of decent middle class life. It looks an awful lot like the country, as a whole, is getting poorer. As for your statement that "specific workers can suffer," what I've seen firsthand is that it's more like the entire local and regional economy, based on particular manufacturing industries, has been completely devastated. The area's basically been in a depression for multiple decades. It's not so much about sending people to school for a few months or years to learn to do something else. It's more that, back when people who worked in the factories had money to burn, they spent it at a wide variety of secondary businesses in all kinds of different industries. Now the factories are mostly abandoned, rusting eyesores. A lot of the commercial real estate's gone downhill and is near rock bottom; people simply don't have money to spend on anything but necessities. The bad parts of town seem to be expanding, the drugs are getting bad, most of the ambitious kids and the people with money all pack up and leave for somewhere else. The closest thing to a growth industry is healthcare for the old folks who were born here and are going to stay here 'til they die. The fabric of an entire community's been torn apart. I've seen it with my own eyes. Simply saying "specific workers can suffer" is a euphemism that minimizes, or even denies, the true extent of the damage.

DanHulton 9y ago

Disappointed, fine, but you certainly shouldn't be surprised. This is the guy who was slamming China and globalization while producing his goods there. He was a hypocrite all through the campaign trail, why would you be surprised he's continuing that trend?

nerfhammer 9y ago

> slapping some taxes on imports Then other countries slaps taxes on their imports in retaliation, and then US exports are equally hurt... causing other economic contractions that could similarly "destroy local economies." And everything gets more expensive for everyone. This is generally always what happens when you try to raise import taxes. One example from history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Ac...

slackingoff2017 9y ago
Does it matter that China places huge tariffs on imported goods? Ever heard that they limit American movies to a few Chinese releases a year? Other industries are similar. China is incredibly protectionist of their own industries and engages in widespread subsidies and import tariffs. I'm not sure why anyone cares about the US returning the favor.
- thablackbull 9y ago
  > I'm not sure why anyone cares about the US returning the favor. I don't think you realize that protectionist measures in America is nothing new; in fact, we have quite a lot of protectionist measures. It's just a media bias here that makes you think otherwise. Here's a chart from Euler Hermes (a unit of Allianz), Protectionism Is Not New: http://www.eulerhermes.com/economic-research/publications/Pages/publication.aspx?postID=1048 http://www.eulerhermes.com/economic-research/publications/Pa...
- nerfhammer 9y ago
  Tariffs are generally always reciprocal. The US and China don't have a free trade agreement, but are both in the WTO. And both have relatively high import tariffs against each other already.