"4th fundamental mistake- Chinese people are somehow less deserving of wealth and prosperity than we are. Do you complain when someone in Texas starts a business and gets wealthy? How is that any different than people in other countries. Some arbitrarily defined line is the only difference, and to think its okay for Texans to get wealthy, but not some other nation's people is simply racist."

How is wanting revenue to stay localized "racist?" At the very least you've chosen a clearly loaded word to present your point. If a local firm in Germany develops an AIDS vaccine the revenue created will be injected into local taxes, local economic development, and local job creation. Of course some of the money will be exported into the global economy, but the fact of the matter is that one company can turn a town around. I think it's entirely ethical to want those towns, those communities injected with surplus wealth to be in the U.S. Liberals often argue that the reason we have to pay increasing taxes is because the taxes collected twenty, fifty, or a hundred years ago are the monies that created the foundation for the ability for you to create personal wealth. There is no reason to be enthusiastic about exporting U.S. bred technology and entrepreneurship paid for by U.S. taxes to foreign countries, as far as I can see. If China has made technological leaps that I'm unaware of, I'd be willing to concede parts of my point, but at this point they seem to be leaching off of the global economy with nothing to offer except cheap labor.


[Edited on August 16, 2006 at 12:58 PM. Reason : page 2 is off topic ]

8/16/2006 12:57:12 PM

Quote :

"Take my business for example. Wal-Mart pays us around 20 million per year to make toys. We pay pretty much all of that, except for the worker salaries to our HK subsidiary (tax shelter). The money is used to make the toys and they are shipped to the U.S. Most of the money is never repatriated."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHASHAHA

What do they do with the money? Bury it? It gets repatriated eventually, because that's what it has to do.

We have a trade deficit...sure, what is known as a current accounts deficit. It is 100% equally offset by what is known as a capital accounts surplus, which is the money people invest in the US because its the best place for their funds.

See, people in other countries have two choices for what they do with their dollars. They invest them in US securities or they buy US goods. (They may exchange them with someone else to get another currency, but the new party is then faced with those two choices) If they invest them, they will eventually be spending the money on consumption...eventually. Otherwise, why would they want the money?

This is basic fucking economics. Your poor interpretation arises from not understanding that dollars aren't exchanged for Yen freely. They must go throug the FOREX, which has a rate set by supply and demand.

8/16/2006 12:59:40 PM

Quote :

"No tariffs are fine, if there is a somewhat level playing field. Goods from China are not so cheap just because the labor, its also because of the environmental standards. I am not talking about global warming prevention. I am talking about not dumping toxic chemicals into the water, however, they are doing it every day. Look at Hong Kong. A great area making a lot of money facilitating the China trade. However most people walk around the city wearing masks, because of all the polution wafting over from China. That polution is starting to reach the U.S. from as far away from China and also from Mexico."

Look at Chicago in the 19th and early 20th Century. They dumped into the rivers and water supply too. Eventually they were wealthy enough to decide that health was more important, and they invested some of their wealth into higher standards.

Why should we force the Chinese to make that decision now, when they're simply in the poor phase of growth that the US was in 100 years ago.

Lastly, you say a small group of people are getting rich and destroying the lives of the laborers? Why would the laborers work if it made them worse off? They wouldn't, its that fucking simple.

8/16/2006 1:02:34 PM

On second thought, if you don't have the patience to learn economics...

Go watch the "They took our jobs!" episode of South Park. It actually does a really good job with some of these issues.

8/16/2006 1:07:04 PM

OH NO LOGIC IS DANGEROUS!

8/16/2006 1:07:09 PM

8/16/2006 1:27:58 PM

TGD, is that book good?

I also like "Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy" by Thomas Sowell

8/16/2006 1:44:19 PM

Hazlitt's book is awesome for the layman. No graphs. No numbers. Just economic theory that is written so the everydayman can understand.

8/16/2006 1:45:07 PM

^^
abonorio basically hit it. Hazlitt was an exceptionally good writer, and the book is excellent for people just starting to learn economics. Covers all the basic left-wing fallacies.

Sowell's book is a good read too, especially on the deficit issue. 

8/16/2006 1:54:53 PM

Quote :

"abonorio basically hit it."

I like that phrasing

8/16/2006 1:55:52 PM

Quote :

"bgmims: Lastly, you say a small group of people are getting rich and destroying the lives of the laborers?[sic] Why would the laborers work if it made them worse off?"

What do you mean by "worse off?"

8/16/2006 2:51:00 PM

Quote :

"There is no reason to be enthusiastic about exporting U.S. bred technology and entrepreneurship paid for by U.S. taxes to foreign countries, as far as I can see."

They're paying for it, that is why we are exporting it. Chinese firms pay a huge sum of money every year in royalties for our technology and they're getting what they paid for.

bgmims is right, BTW. Read it and understand.

8/16/2006 3:04:44 PM

What does he mean by "worse off?"

[Edited on August 16, 2006 at 3:07 PM. Reason : I understand words like worse to be subjective and carry many meanings. Am I wrong?]

8/16/2006 3:07:07 PM

Gamecat, I mean worse off in a utilitarian sort of way. (sorry it took me a while, I had appointments to keep)

Worse off in a way that is different individually to each person. If I take a job that pays very little, I take it because without it I would be worse off. Perhaps I could get a better job, but this one provides me less stress. I'm worse off with the higher standard of living because of the added stress.

In the cases of "wage slaves" it usually means they get more utility out of working long, hard, low-paid hours than they do out of staying at home and picking through the trash dumps for scaps of food.

Thus, they would be worse off without the job, so they work.

8/16/2006 3:15:43 PM

if 85% of Americans support an increase in the minimum wage, that anticapitalist government supported socialist floor , how does that make you feel?

8/16/2006 3:22:36 PM

Quote :

"PinkandBlack: if 85% of Americans support an increase in the minimum wage, that anticapitalist government supported socialist floor , how does that make you feel?"

people are easily swayed by kook propaganda that tells only the warm and fluffy half of the story?

8/16/2006 3:26:40 PM

Pink, lets say 85% of Americans say we should also nuke South America...does that mean we should?

And ^TGD FTW

8/16/2006 3:28:06 PM

then i guess you guys are doing a terrible job of informing the slackjawed yokels in this country that are being lied to by the liberal media.

^ surely this situation can be likened to something so absurd! heaven forbid that we look at things from the democratic perspective.

[Edited on August 16, 2006 at 3:52 PM. Reason : ..]

8/16/2006 3:49:14 PM

Quote :

"people are easily swayed by kook propaganda that tells only the warm and fluffy half of the story?"

People like our Federal Reserve Chairman?

Quote :

"SANDERS: Chairman Bernanke, should the Congress raise the minimum wage so that every worker in America who works 40 hours a week escapes from poverty? A very simple question, sir. BERNANKE: I'm going to be an economist and give you the one hand, the other hand. On the minimum wage, it's actually a very controversial issue among economists. Clearly, if you raise the minimum wage, then those workers who retain their jobs will get higher income and therefore it helps them. The concerns that some economists have raised about the minimum wage are first, is it as well targeted as it could be? That is, how much of the increase is going to the teenage children of suburban families, for example? And secondly, does it have any employment effects? That is, do higher wages lower employment of low-wage workers? SANDERS: And your response is? BERNANKE: My response is that I think it doesn't lower employment."

8/16/2006 3:56:07 PM

Did you miss where he didn't answer the part about how much of it goes to helping the poor and how much goes to the 95% of people who actually make minimum wage...that aren't poor?


Also, he's correct in that some people believe its good because it helps the poor. That's not the same thing as being economically efficient. That's the difference between normative and positive economics...where one isn't actually economics at all, more like "policy"

8/16/2006 3:59:31 PM

Quote :

"if 85% of Americans support an increase in the minimum wage, that anticapitalist government supported socialist floor , how does that make you feel?"

It yet again makes me feel glad that we don't have a pure democracy, where the minimum wage would probably be $20/hour.

8/16/2006 4:13:12 PM

and inflation would be insane

there's a reason the italians were walking around with 28719209 lira on them at any time and it wasn't because they were rich

8/16/2006 4:18:07 PM

lol, I like that^

8/16/2006 4:23:03 PM

Gamecat: if you're going to start quoting blogs, at least include everything...

Quote :

"UPDATE: FYI - per the last note I sent out, there is now some controversy as to whether Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said the minimum wage "doesn't" or "does" lower employment. The transcript from Congressional Quarterly on Lexis-Nexis - widely relied on as the official transcript of such hearings - says, as I reported, that Bernanke said the minimum wage "doesn't lower employment." However, Reuters has reported it differently, saying he said he believes the minimum wage "does lower employment." From the context of the quote, it's seems possible that the official transcript is wrong, as Bernanke goes on to say "However" and then cite experts who have, in fact, argued that the minimum wage does not hurt employment. Still, though, that alone does not validate whether the transcript has an error or not. In the interest of accuracy (which I pride myself on) - I wanted to flag this for readers. If you have access to Lexis-Nexis, you can validate this yourself. The transcript is from CQ Transcriptions from the House Financial Services Committee hearing on February 15th, 2006."

Beyond that, of course an increase in the minimum wage would only have a small/negligible impact on employment when the market is already paying wages above the price floor.

If it didn't affect employment at all, let's raise it to $1,000.00/hr tomorrow. We can all get rich overnight. 

8/16/2006 4:37:47 PM

^ Damn, beat me to it.

8/16/2006 4:38:35 PM

^^^ I went hunting for the "however" but couldn't find shit on Google, Congress, CNN, or any other news' transcripts anywhere. What'd he say after that? That it actually does lower employment? I find it hard to believe Bush would appoint such a nuanced guy...

Quote :

"bgmims: Did you miss where he didn't answer the part about how much of it goes to helping the poor and how much goes to the 95% of people who actually make minimum wage...that aren't poor?"

Sure I did. And so did you. It's not available unless you have access to Lexis-Nexis...

Quote :

"bgmims: Also, he's correct in that some people believe its good because it helps the poor."

Is he also correct that it doesn't lower employment? A versy simple question, sir.

Quote :

"bgmims: That's not the same thing as being economically efficient."

And no nation on this entire planet will ever strive to have perfect economic efficiency be the goal. That might explain why economists aren't elected to be heads of state. But if you feel like mentally masturbating for us all, please by all means do so.

I'd certainly be curious to see how an economist would explain the merits of allowing the purchasing power of the poorest 1.5 million participants in the labor force to erode to its lowest level in 51 years.

[Edited on August 16, 2006 at 5:06 PM. Reason : ...]

8/16/2006 5:03:09 PM

and then places like Bi-Lo who have credit options for lower class people get lambasted by left wings for "exploiting the poor"

8/16/2006 5:05:59 PM

Sounds like you're describing a boogeyman.

8/16/2006 5:08:28 PM

no i'm describing whats been in the news in charlotte the last 2 days

8/16/2006 5:11:21 PM

Link?

8/16/2006 5:14:31 PM

saw it on the news the past 2 nights, dont have a link

BASICALLY Bi-Lo, which is a grocery store if you didnt know, has many items marked as EBT, I believe, which essentially says you can use food stamps to purchase them...they cater to a higher percentage of lower class people than say Harris Teeter or Food Lion...they recently have begun to offer a type of credit card for low-income people...the credit limits are around $100-$200 and the price of the card is about $4 to buy it, and about $4 each time you use it...the idea is that if somebody is struggling to make ends meet and have virtually no money on a Wednesday, for example, they can go to the grocery store, get food to feed their families, and Bi-Lo can take it out of their paychecks on Friday or whenever...essentially giving credit to people with "bad credit or no credit"...seems some leftists think this is exploiting the poor by charging them the $4 fees, even though people who don't have the credit scores for a credit card, and don't have the steady money to be able to use cash or a debit card, are essentially getting credit when nobody else will give it to them

8/16/2006 5:20:13 PM

let me guess...

and then theyll propose some kind of state supported system that takes money from us?

8/16/2006 5:21:48 PM

^^and who is this "some leftist"? a democratic politician? the liberal media? some random guy that you thought looked like a hippy? youre leaving out key points here.

8/16/2006 5:25:07 PM

the liberal media, as you put it

8/16/2006 5:29:03 PM

is that like the jewish media?

8/16/2006 5:42:16 PM

is that like, ignoring the whole content of the story except where i mention liberals?

8/16/2006 5:45:34 PM

Quote :

"Gamecat: ^^^ I went hunting for the "however" but couldn't find shit on Google, Congress, CNN, or any other news' transcripts anywhere. What'd he say after that? That it actually does lower employment? I find it hard to believe Bush would appoint such a nuanced guy..."

Quote :

"Gamecat: ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT?"

 

8/16/2006 6:00:11 PM

Quote :

"The Wal-Mart You Don't Know The giant retailer's low prices often come with a high cost. Wal-Mart's relentless pressure can crush the companies it does business with and force them to send jobs overseas. Are we shopping our way straight to the unemployment line?"

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

Quote :

"One 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,750 per year. This cost comes from the following, on average: * $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families. * $42,000 a year for low-income housing assistance. * $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families. * $100,000 a year for the additional expenses for programs for students. * $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP) * $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance. "

Quote :

" * Between 2003 and 2005, state and federal environmental agencies fined Wal-Mart $5 million. * In 2005, Wal-Mart reached a $1.15 million settlement with the State of Connecticut for allowing improperly stored pesticides and other pollutants to pollute streams. This was the largest such settlement in state history. [Hartford Courant, 8/16/05] * In May 2004, Wal-Mart agreed to pay the largest settlement for stormwater violations in EPA history. The United States sued Wal-mart for violating the Clean Water Act in 9 states, calling for penalties of over $3.1 million and changes to Wal-Mart’s building practices. [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 12, 2004, U.S. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 2004 WL 2370700] * In 2004, Wal-Mart was fined $765,000 for violating Florida’s petroleum storage tank laws at its automobile service centers. Wal-Mart failed to register its fuel tanks, failed to install devices that prevent overflow, did not perform monthly monitoring, lacked current technologies, and blocked state inspectors. [Associated Press, 11/18/04] * In Georgia, Wal-Mart was fined about $150,000 in 2004 for water contamination. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2/10/05] "

http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/tour/facts/

Walmart bankrupts American companies, forces workers into welfare programs, and pollutes the environment.

I will never shop at Walmart again and neither should you.

8/16/2006 7:36:02 PM

these people would be workign low wage jobs ANYWAY! It's not like Walmart forces poverty. These people are uneducated and unskilled. It's unlikely that they'll be an engineer if they didn't have their greeter job.


more liberal propaganda. That is probably the worst argument ever on tww.

0/10, b.

8/16/2006 7:48:23 PM

^^^ Allegedly he said "however" after making the seemingly damning comment (are you really defending the REUTERS transcript? ). I was unable to find a full transcript anywhere on the Internet to support that conclusion despite about 30 minutes of looking.

[Edited on August 16, 2006 at 9:28 PM. Reason : .]

8/16/2006 9:27:48 PM

Quote :

""One 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,750 per year. This cost comes from the following, on average: * $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families. * $42,000 a year for low-income housing assistance. * $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families. * $100,000 a year for the additional expenses for programs for students. * $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP) * $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance. ""

Clearly then the answer is to cut all the federal assistance programs, leaving no costs to the federal government and forcing Wal-Mart to pay a livable wage or face loss of employees (whether by death or competition is irellevant).

8/16/2006 9:42:46 PM

I suggest building a platform out of that...

8/16/2006 9:49:40 PM

I tried, but people would rather have money given to them from the feds rather than work for it themselves (I know I would)

8/16/2006 10:03:25 PM

Quote :

"Clearly then the answer is to cut all the federal assistance programs, leaving no costs to the federal government and forcing Wal-Mart to pay a livable wage or face loss of employees (whether by death or competition is irellevant)."

I advocate this, unless more states start instating universal programs (it's best done at the local levels). It's gotta be one or the other. Lower business costs by providing univ. healthcare, or lower taxes and make co.'s foot the bill.



[Edited on August 16, 2006 at 10:50 PM. Reason : .]

8/16/2006 10:50:18 PM

Quote :

"Is he also correct that it doesn't lower employment? A versy simple question, sir."

This is a loaded question, it is too difficult to answer because there are too many variables, hence the conflicting reports from the world's economists (these are humans, after-all, and unlike apples suffer from free-will).

// Begin Quoting
There is an abundance of research on the minimum wage and literature reviews regularly report that raising it induces firms to hire fewer workers and to cut back on hours. The effects are not huge but they are significant.

In a recent study, economists David Neumark and Olena Nizalova documented the long-run negative consequences of following the Democrats' favorite policy (and, sadly, some Republicans').

They began with the insight that minimum wages are particularly tough on young adult workers; the literature shows that lengthy unemployment can have a "scarring effect" on them, the economists noted. That is, young adults unemployed for a long period have significantly more negative labor-market experiences well into adulthood.

This effect often has resulted in an increased propensity to engage in criminal activity, among other things. Neumark and Nizalova reasoned that the negative employment effects of high minimum wages may increase this "scarring" and therefore continue to harm the victims as they grow older.

A 29-year-old worker who grew up in a state with higher minimum wages has a significantly lower wage on average than a similar individual from a state with a lower minimum wage. This effect was especially strong for black workers.

It is true that those folks who are on the minimum wage and don't lose their job have higher earnings. But the trade-off is morally ambiguous at best.

Shouldn't the terrible disruption to the lives of those who are fired be more of a concern to us than the extra money for those who are not? Is it right to redistribute from the worse-off poor to the better-off poor?
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_461933.html

"Eight Out of Ten Labor Economists Agree: Low-Wage Workers Lose in 'Living Wage' Laws"
A national survey of labor economists in the American Economic Association was conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center for the Employment Policies Institute. The conclusion shows nearly eight in ten labor economists (79%) believe that a typical living wage law applied locally would cause employers to hire entry-level employees with greater skills or experience than the applicants they previously hired. Seven out of ten labor economists (71%) believe that even modest local living wage proposals would cause employers to reduce the number of entry-level employees.
http://www.epionline.org/news_detail.cfm?rid=3

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 1:20 AM. Reason : .,.]

8/17/2006 1:14:51 AM

I was fine with the "minimum wage = DEATH" explanation in Intro to Economics. Although correlation and ad populum seemed to have worked their way into your submitted evidence, suppose I was to say that I'm convinced that your premise is true to an extent.

Can you explain his reasoning (or potential reasoning, since the transcript's unavailable)?

I'll admit that I can't. At least not beyond TGDs explanation (i.e. the statistics don't show that many people making at or below the minimum wage...).

8/17/2006 2:02:23 AM

EBGames opened up right next to walmart down here and some of the people were working second jobs there, walmart threatened to fire them for working at the competition

8/17/2006 3:29:54 AM

hahaha

classic

next thing you know

wal-mart employees will have to sign noncompete clauses

barring them from working in retail EVAR!!1

8/17/2006 9:03:15 AM

And you don't have to sign it.

8/17/2006 9:28:16 AM

I love anecdotal evidence

set 'em up

8/17/2006 10:19:19 AM