3 ms·

So, you agree that outsourcing causes negative wage pressure but don't think it leads to any stagnation in real compensation? How does this make sense? Are you

So, you agree that outsourcing causes negative wage pressure but don't think it leads to any stagnation in real compensation? How does this make sense? Are you saying that all negative wage effects are offset by an equal rise in other benefits? Because that's not what the article you referenced states. And even to the extent that it does implicate benefits, it attributes only a small difference to this cause. In any event, the far more salient point in this discussion is that the relative income (and wealth) growth of the working/middle class has dramatically paled in comparison to that of the wealthiest. That is, as the economy has expanded, the former group has not--by any measure--participated proportionally in the rewards it conveys.

yummyfajitas 13y ago
I'm saying that so far, compensation has not stagnated. ...relative income (and wealth) growth of the working/middle class has dramatically paled in comparison to that of the wealthiest. Since I'm not the jealous sort, why should I care? Life has improved significantly for everyone. Why worry that it has improved for some more than others? That is, as the economy has expanded, the former group has not--by any measure--participated proportionally in the rewards it conveys. The former group has also not--by any measure--participated proportionally in expanding the economy. Here is a somewhat dated quote by a rather famous economist describing the 1980's (but it applies equally well to the 1990's and 2000's): "...growth in inequality is not a simple picture. Old-line leftists, if there are any left, would like to make it a single story--the rich becoming richer by exploiting the poor. But that's just not a reasonable picture of America in the 1980s. For one thing, most of our very poor don't work, which makes it hard to exploit them. For another, the poor had so little to start with that the dollar value of the gains of the rich dwarfs that of the losses of the poor..." Paul Krugman, The Age of Diminished Expectations, 1990, p. 22.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >Since I'm not the jealous sort, why should I care? Has nothing to do with jealousy. My income easily places me in the famed "One Percent". Of course, there are others in that cohort who are wildly richer than I am, however, that is to say that I've had more than my share of success. Doesn't mean I can't see the inequality or wish to benefit from it. Likewise with people like Warren Buffet who are certainly far wealthier than I, but who also agree that income equality, skewed tax codes, etc. are not good for America. Attempting to skew the argument to one of jealousy or "class-warfare" waged by the poor/middle-class (as if that were really possible) is small-minded, and a red herring. >Life has improved significantly for everyone. Why worry that it has improved for some more than others? It's not simply a matter of everyone's life improving, but some more than others. For many life is getting worse. Witness the increasing poverty rate in America to record highs in some categories. The system is not a meritocracy that has simply rewarded those who are more deserving more than those who are not. The system is rigged and does not deliver economic justice or opportunity. That's the problem. >The former group has also not--by any measure--participated proportionally in expanding the economy. That is a patently false right-wing generalization. Pretending that the middle class didn't bail out banks who profited wildly from their problematic activities and pretending that we don't subsidize one of the wealthiest industries on the planet (oil) is ridiculous. I could go on. The economy and our government have been completely rigged by wealthy interests who write the laws. The working/middle-class get utterly pimped, then people like you turn around and say, "hey, if you can't make it in America, it's your own fault". >...Paul Krugman, The Age of Diminished Expectations, 1990, p. 22. That quote is actually dated and helps to make my point. The last three decades have brought profound changes with regard to the very topic of this thread: globalization and outsourcing. As a result, we now have a rapidly growing class of so-called "working poor". So, there is very definitely a rapidly growing number of people who are being exploited. Working hard and still below the poverty line? In America? Further, there are also those poor who are unemployed due to these structural reasons. They have certainly been victimized (if you prefer that term to "exploited") by globalization.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    For many life is getting worse. Witness the increasing poverty rate in America to record highs in some categories. The poverty line is not a fixed measure of wealth. People below the poverty line are richer than the middle class of the past. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understandi... You have yet to demonstrate life getting worse for anyone. As a result, we now have a rapidly growing class of so-called "working poor". Over 10 years it rose from 2.3% to 3.4% of the population. (The "working poor" are still a small fraction of the total poor. Most poor choose not to work - as of 2010, only 15% of the poor attempted to work full time at least 50 weeks/year. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2000.htm http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2000.htm http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2010.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2010.pdf That [the fact that many poor/middle class have not contributed to growth of the economy] is a patently false right-wing generalization...Further, there are also those poor who are unemployed due to these structural reasons. You contradict yourself. People unemployed due to structural reasons are people who have nothing to contribute to the modern economy. That's what structural unemployment means.
    - unclebucknasty 13y ago
      >People below the poverty line are richer than the middle class of the past. Ah, yes, the ol' "Today's poor people have color TVs and cell phones" argument. Wow. What a strange rationalization. >You have yet to demonstrate life getting worse for anyone. Nearly half of all Americans (146 Million) don't earn enough to meet their basic needs (food, shelter, etc.). [1] http://finance.yahoo.com/news/census-shows-1-2-people-103940568.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/census-shows-1-2-people-103940... And, the number of people slipping below the poverty line is increasing. These any many others are simply objective measures of poverty. If you reject facts, then of course nothing can be proven to you. >Over 10 years it rose from 2.3% to 3.4% of the population. 1.) You're citing the wrong stat for the point you're trying to make but, but even that would be a 50% increase in just a decade. As I said, "rapidly growing" 2.) A decade does not begin to capture the period during which globalization's effects were most profound (i.e. the stat you cited started after the effects had begun to manifest). 3.) You're citing the BLS definition of poor. Many economists (and now the U.S. Census Bureau) better define "poor" so as to provide a fuller picture of poverty in the U.S. (see above re: 146 million such Americans). >You contradict yourself. People unemployed due to structural reasons are people who have nothing to contribute to the modern economy Why do they have nothing to contribute to the modern economy? And, how is it that the people to whom their jobs have been outsourced for pennies on the dollar do have something to contribute to the modern economy? No contradiction on my part. You're just talking in circles and failing to make the appropriate connections.

yummyfajitas 13y ago

I'm saying that so far, compensation has not stagnated. ...relative income (and wealth) growth of the working/middle class has dramatically paled in comparison to that of the wealthiest. Since I'm not the jealous sort, why should I care? Life has improved significantly for everyone. Why worry that it has improved for some more than others? That is, as the economy has expanded, the former group has not--by any measure--participated proportionally in the rewards it conveys. The former group has also not--by any measure--participated proportionally in expanding the economy. Here is a somewhat dated quote by a rather famous economist describing the 1980's (but it applies equally well to the 1990's and 2000's): "...growth in inequality is not a simple picture. Old-line leftists, if there are any left, would like to make it a single story--the rich becoming richer by exploiting the poor. But that's just not a reasonable picture of America in the 1980s. For one thing, most of our very poor don't work, which makes it hard to exploit them. For another, the poor had so little to start with that the dollar value of the gains of the rich dwarfs that of the losses of the poor..." Paul Krugman, The Age of Diminished Expectations, 1990, p. 22.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
>Since I'm not the jealous sort, why should I care? Has nothing to do with jealousy. My income easily places me in the famed "One Percent". Of course, there are others in that cohort who are wildly richer than I am, however, that is to say that I've had more than my share of success. Doesn't mean I can't see the inequality or wish to benefit from it. Likewise with people like Warren Buffet who are certainly far wealthier than I, but who also agree that income equality, skewed tax codes, etc. are not good for America. Attempting to skew the argument to one of jealousy or "class-warfare" waged by the poor/middle-class (as if that were really possible) is small-minded, and a red herring. >Life has improved significantly for everyone. Why worry that it has improved for some more than others? It's not simply a matter of everyone's life improving, but some more than others. For many life is getting worse. Witness the increasing poverty rate in America to record highs in some categories. The system is not a meritocracy that has simply rewarded those who are more deserving more than those who are not. The system is rigged and does not deliver economic justice or opportunity. That's the problem. >The former group has also not--by any measure--participated proportionally in expanding the economy. That is a patently false right-wing generalization. Pretending that the middle class didn't bail out banks who profited wildly from their problematic activities and pretending that we don't subsidize one of the wealthiest industries on the planet (oil) is ridiculous. I could go on. The economy and our government have been completely rigged by wealthy interests who write the laws. The working/middle-class get utterly pimped, then people like you turn around and say, "hey, if you can't make it in America, it's your own fault". >...Paul Krugman, The Age of Diminished Expectations, 1990, p. 22. That quote is actually dated and helps to make my point. The last three decades have brought profound changes with regard to the very topic of this thread: globalization and outsourcing. As a result, we now have a rapidly growing class of so-called "working poor". So, there is very definitely a rapidly growing number of people who are being exploited. Working hard and still below the poverty line? In America? Further, there are also those poor who are unemployed due to these structural reasons. They have certainly been victimized (if you prefer that term to "exploited") by globalization.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  For many life is getting worse. Witness the increasing poverty rate in America to record highs in some categories. The poverty line is not a fixed measure of wealth. People below the poverty line are richer than the middle class of the past. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understandi... You have yet to demonstrate life getting worse for anyone. As a result, we now have a rapidly growing class of so-called "working poor". Over 10 years it rose from 2.3% to 3.4% of the population. (The "working poor" are still a small fraction of the total poor. Most poor choose not to work - as of 2010, only 15% of the poor attempted to work full time at least 50 weeks/year. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2000.htm http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2000.htm http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2010.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2010.pdf That [the fact that many poor/middle class have not contributed to growth of the economy] is a patently false right-wing generalization...Further, there are also those poor who are unemployed due to these structural reasons. You contradict yourself. People unemployed due to structural reasons are people who have nothing to contribute to the modern economy. That's what structural unemployment means.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    >People below the poverty line are richer than the middle class of the past. Ah, yes, the ol' "Today's poor people have color TVs and cell phones" argument. Wow. What a strange rationalization. >You have yet to demonstrate life getting worse for anyone. Nearly half of all Americans (146 Million) don't earn enough to meet their basic needs (food, shelter, etc.). [1] http://finance.yahoo.com/news/census-shows-1-2-people-103940568.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/census-shows-1-2-people-103940... And, the number of people slipping below the poverty line is increasing. These any many others are simply objective measures of poverty. If you reject facts, then of course nothing can be proven to you. >Over 10 years it rose from 2.3% to 3.4% of the population. 1.) You're citing the wrong stat for the point you're trying to make but, but even that would be a 50% increase in just a decade. As I said, "rapidly growing" 2.) A decade does not begin to capture the period during which globalization's effects were most profound (i.e. the stat you cited started after the effects had begun to manifest). 3.) You're citing the BLS definition of poor. Many economists (and now the U.S. Census Bureau) better define "poor" so as to provide a fuller picture of poverty in the U.S. (see above re: 146 million such Americans). >You contradict yourself. People unemployed due to structural reasons are people who have nothing to contribute to the modern economy Why do they have nothing to contribute to the modern economy? And, how is it that the people to whom their jobs have been outsourced for pennies on the dollar do have something to contribute to the modern economy? No contradiction on my part. You're just talking in circles and failing to make the appropriate connections.