Why did the rust belt become the rust belt when it once was the industrial powerhouse of the world?
If every poor person moves out of NYC or San Francisco, who is going to work those jobs they had?
Partially because the execs of those companies discovered to their shock that people in other countries could make things also.
Innovate or die. It’s easy for those used to making lots of money to forget that, and care about their shareholders more than the future.
Not that this has anything at all to do with my point. I was just wondering where all the people moving to these places were going to find jobs.
The presence of the rust belt in what once was the center of industrial might is relevant to the concept of value of labor and the fungibility in modern global trade of said labor. Which is, of course, related to wage floors.
Then we get to see the free market at work.
Employers will raise salaries until they find employees that think the higher cost of living will be compensated.
or
When there are fewer people that want to live in an area prices of housing go down until there are people who think the cost of living will be within their means.
That is the beauty of UBI >> people have a choice, unlike a situation where people fear moving to a lower cost area because they are not certain they can provide in their basic needs. I believe the uncertainty of finding a job in a low cost area is driving up prices in popular, crowded areas and “locking” people in who live there. On the flip side it is slowly de-populating rural areas. I think UBI would counter that. Giving people the security they need to move to an area that fits their needs/income.
I have to admit that while I’ve often seen “tenants” used where “tenets” was meant, this is the first time I’ve seen it the other way around. Although it kind of works the way it is…
Also: moving is expensive. It’s not like poor people in New York can just relocate to North Dakota in pursuit of a lower cost of living without a significant (for them) expenditure. Considering the decision to remain where one is a “choice” for poor people is not entirely fair.
Isn’t this just a polite argument in favor of sweatshops?
No. But the fact is we as consumers consistently betray our stated values with our aggregate behavior.
Though I think this is much more of a “Yes, and…” than a “No, but …” I basically agree with you.
On all sides – supply, demand, and investment chief among them – we want absolutely everything under the sun, and we want it for pennies.
And like the sausage, we couldn’t give Crap One how it’s made.
“The High Cost of Low Price,” indeed.
Greed and ignorance … same as it ever was.
This article (warning, PDF) has a chart showing costs for steel mills. Labor costs, even for the US and Europe, are a small percentage of resource costs. China is cheaper, of course, but so is South Africa with labor costs about the same as ours.
Oddly, the US has higher energy costs than Europe, which makes me wonder if our mills are inefficient compared to theirs.
However I definitely encourage conservative politicians to run on the platform of reducing our standard of living to China’s. We’ll see how that works out.
I hear energy costs are real cheap in Texas . . . when they actually have energy that is.
The idea that a wage floor is compassionate and generous is so widely ingrained it would be foolish to suggest otherwise in any competitive national race. But Great Debates forum is not a political campaign.
You’d think running on a platform of real, full employment, higher national productivity, greater strength relative to our global rivals, and a higher standard of living would be compelling though. Even if that meant that the bottom 1-3% of workers made sub current minimum wage instead of 0 wage.
It sounds wonderful in the abstract.
Full employment is inflationary, and restrictive of growth, you need people who aren’t employed if you expect businesses to open or grow.
Higher national productivity sounds good, except we’ve been going gangbusters on productivity for the last 70 years, what good is it to the common man if productivity increases when that wealth goes into someone else’s pocket?
Greater strength to our global rivals? I mean… we’re competing against rivals with 4x our population. We’re doing pretty well considering.
Higher standard of living is something I can be interested in, but there’s no evidence that a tax cutting, welfare cutting, minimum wage free society will do this.
Minimum wage needs to be raised to $15/hour and there should be minimal exceptions, IMHO.
And Warren buffet thinks the system needs to change to increase what the rich pay as their “fair share”.
And now you’re making a polite argument for slavery.
Wrong. Working for an agreed upon wage that reflects market value is not the definition of slavery.
And it’s better for everyone involved to be somewhat productive earning some money and getting some social assistance then non productive or counterproductive, earning no money, and needing literally every expense paid for by the state.
The vast majority of the posts upthread from this one thoughtfully discuss a middle way.
I forgot how one says “Work makes free” in German, again …
Sigh.
So instead of refuting a rational policy that leads to a superior aggregate outcome you make a poorly veiled allusion to Nazi death camps?
My example is closer to Marx anyways. The whole “from each portion” of the philosophy that is conveniently excised.
I’ve refuted your basic premise time and again upthread, and my reference was to one very specific part of the camps.
You’re a gifted theoretician. Unfortunately, your theory is in practice all over the world. We tend to call them ‘emerging nations’ and they desperately lack a middle class. They have the very wealthy and the shockingly poor.
You provide a road sign that leads us that way. Personally, I’ll pass.
The lowest wage workers are subject to the inflationary effects of the higher/est income/wealth Americans. They can’t shelter from that. Pushing their wage further down does what, now ? Gives them the dignity that I referenced ?
I have endless issues with, and concerns about, unions, but absent collective bargaining, what you describe as market forces dictating what wage a low-skilled earner makes is really more akin to the old joke about two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
It’s the same old story of the powerful exploiting the desperation in the powerless – the desperation that they help create, and profit from perpetuating – that’s as old as time itself.
No. Technically, exploitative wages are NOT slavery. But if the RW had its way, it would be awfully close. Social programs that comprise the ‘social safety net’ would be vaporized. You would take the wage you’re offered and like it, and if that meant you slept in a tent, suffered through illness, and froze in the winter, then you had only the Free Market to blame.
Ignoring for the moment that this self-same RW also wants to gut health care and education – two imperatives in gaining purchase on the next rung on that ladder – unless you sell your soul to Jebus, that is.
But the argument you make is, ultimately, an argument for slavery, just like your previous one was an argument for sweatshops. You are justifying the extreme exploitation of the lowest rung of the workforce on the basis that it will increase wealth for everyone else. Where are you drawing the line that you believe will not be crossed? Shall we bring back the company store and indentured servitude? They also increase wealth for some at the expense of others’ labor, and you can wave your dictionary definition at them as well to justify them.
Of course, even not taken to its fullest conclusion it’s not really a valid argument - a downward wage spiral doesn’t just increase hardship in the poorest members of society, it also causes economic stagnation, increased social instability, decreased social mobility, and higher public debt. It’s a perfect recipe for turning the country into a third-world “shithole”, as some may describe such countries. What it doesn’t do is create the Randian utopia you’ve described - that has always been nothing more than a fantasy.
You keep missing the part of my get rid of minimum wage proposal which is the use of targeted social assistance. Yes, I’m a Republican but I’m for expansion of social programs if done comprehensively and with an eye towards rectifying the national problems due to globalization and automation.
Wage floors don’t do that.