3 ms·

What happened is that all the manufacturing jobs that used to supply middle class lifestyles for the unskilled got shipped to China (or otherwise overseas). Mas

What happened is that all the manufacturing jobs that used to supply middle class lifestyles for the unskilled got shipped to China (or otherwise overseas). Mass immigration has expanded the labor poor diluting earnings for all, and massively increasing competition at the lower ends of the wage scale. "The rich got richer" because there is less competition than ever. Housing will only ever get MORE expensive as more and more people take up more and more space making single family homes pricing more resemble the luxury that they actually are. You could reverse all these trends and fix inequality but I can all but guarantee that you wouldn't employ any of the policy tools necessary to make it happen. Such as restricting immigration for the unskilled and enforcing border controls, thus reducing competition at the lower end of the wage scale and directly improving the lot of poor people in the US. The reduced competition might even incentivize employers to raise wages.

3pt14159 8y ago
At the end of the day this devolves into tariffs, because the worlds workforce truly is competitive. If you want fat, state protected corporations then fine, but I'd rather have specialization. Though I do think we need to be harsher on some actors that steal IP, like some Chinese corporations.
- ManFromUranus 8y ago
  "At the end of the day this devolves into tariffs" No not really, you boil it down to that, but that's simply your framing nothing more. There's also the regulatory environment, so no it's not all about tariffs. There are almost no environmental controls or labor laws in China. So that is a huge factor. There is equal or more possibility that companies wish to avoid the responsibility of ensuring compliance as they do with merely avoiding taxes. "If you want fat, state protected corporations then fine" How does restricting the supply of unskilled labor from illegal immigrants and border crossers, visa holders of various stripes have anything to do wit fat protected corporations?
  - 3pt14159 8y ago
    I agree that we need to harmonize regulations for trade, but guess what? We're already doing that and the Chinese are responding by getting cleaner so they can compete in more areas. In fact the US is one of the most pollution-heavy developed countries, so if anything the US is exploiting our shared global environment. The reality is that, globally, there is a low skill labour glut because most countries are only now developing advanced education systems. If you want to stop competition from low skill labour you ultimately need high tariffs or extreme mechanization / automation, neither of which are good in the long run for poor people here.
beat 8y ago
If your argument were true, we'd see increased unemployment. But employment is near effective maximum, and has been for most of the post-1980 period where wages have stagnated relative to productivity. Try again, this time taking observed facts into account.
- jhoechtl 8y ago
  Employment is a rather weak term. The fact that you are working 10 hours a week makes you employed but doesn't say a word about the quality of the job (uber driver?) or if you can support / nourish a family
  - beat 8y ago
    I'm not talking about the quality of the job. I'm talking about the idea that sending jobs overseas + illegal immigration explains the current situation. It does not.
- ManFromUranus 8y ago
  No, not necessarily. We would see wage depression as supply of applicants depresses wages because the demand remains relatively constant. Which might explain why wages stagnated but productivity simultaneously went up.

3pt14159 8y ago

At the end of the day this devolves into tariffs, because the worlds workforce truly is competitive. If you want fat, state protected corporations then fine, but I'd rather have specialization. Though I do think we need to be harsher on some actors that steal IP, like some Chinese corporations.

ManFromUranus 8y ago
"At the end of the day this devolves into tariffs" No not really, you boil it down to that, but that's simply your framing nothing more. There's also the regulatory environment, so no it's not all about tariffs. There are almost no environmental controls or labor laws in China. So that is a huge factor. There is equal or more possibility that companies wish to avoid the responsibility of ensuring compliance as they do with merely avoiding taxes. "If you want fat, state protected corporations then fine" How does restricting the supply of unskilled labor from illegal immigrants and border crossers, visa holders of various stripes have anything to do wit fat protected corporations?
- 3pt14159 8y ago
  I agree that we need to harmonize regulations for trade, but guess what? We're already doing that and the Chinese are responding by getting cleaner so they can compete in more areas. In fact the US is one of the most pollution-heavy developed countries, so if anything the US is exploiting our shared global environment. The reality is that, globally, there is a low skill labour glut because most countries are only now developing advanced education systems. If you want to stop competition from low skill labour you ultimately need high tariffs or extreme mechanization / automation, neither of which are good in the long run for poor people here.

beat 8y ago

If your argument were true, we'd see increased unemployment. But employment is near effective maximum, and has been for most of the post-1980 period where wages have stagnated relative to productivity. Try again, this time taking observed facts into account.

jhoechtl 8y ago
Employment is a rather weak term. The fact that you are working 10 hours a week makes you employed but doesn't say a word about the quality of the job (uber driver?) or if you can support / nourish a family
- beat 8y ago
  I'm not talking about the quality of the job. I'm talking about the idea that sending jobs overseas + illegal immigration explains the current situation. It does not.
ManFromUranus 8y ago
No, not necessarily. We would see wage depression as supply of applicants depresses wages because the demand remains relatively constant. Which might explain why wages stagnated but productivity simultaneously went up.