China’s labor is cheaper. So, we export labor there, resulting in temporarily lower costs here. But that simply raises labor rates in China, which eventually makes costs here higher again. So, we export our labor to Vietnam. Or India. Or another country until that country’s labor gets expensive.
In the case of China, we are taking advantage of a favorable rate of exchange (maintained artificially) and lower cost of living (= lower labor costs).
We could use cheaper labor here to produce lower costs. But that would mean artificially low wages - hence my comment on an effective “maximum wage”. Or lower costs of living = lower standard of living. In other words, you want to force people to either work for under market rates to artificially distort the market (i.e. truly a socialist position, rather than what the right wing calls Democrats these days) and/or accept a lower standard of living so they can live on those wages.
So again, your point isn’t complicated. It’s just wrong.
Oh, and I was raised in Arkansas, so no problem with Wal-Mart.
But I don’t mind shopping there too much because, ultimately, employees aren’t forced to work there and there’s a minimum wage.
You would tell people they can’t take a nice paying job or even have a shot at it for several years because you want to force them to work for low wages so you can get a price break. You also want to enact an effective maximum wage and set no real lower limit. Wal-Mart at least has to pay a minimum. Under your system, we could decide costs are too high, pay under market rates (or even under minimum wage) and tell the poor kids “it’s for your own good”. That’s some massive BS.
The term “maximum wage” has no applicability here. Enlisted youth would be paid a wage. Maximums and minimum have nothing to do with it unless you would argue that current child labor laws enforce a maximum wage as well. Furthermore, since they are not offering direct competition to private companies, their wages should not greatly affect private sector wages.
All of this talk about China is irrelevant.
Which is not really the point. The context of my question was your contention that I should have a problem when we, “artificially raise demand, artificially lower wages, which artificially lowers the standard of living for millions of people to benefit millions of others.” Governments and corporations do this (and the opposite) all the time. I took the subtext of your comment to be that lowering the standards of living for some to benefit others is somehow inherently problematic. I disagree. Feel free to correct me if that was not your contention.
Or, if the service period was flexible like it is in most countries that have compulsory service, you could find volunteers WITH a modicum of skills and training to build the damn bridges.
Mandatory Military Service Act - All able-bodied persons at the age of 18 shall be required to serve a minimum of two years in the military branch of their choosing.
Unless they: are still in high school, are enrolled in an accredited college or certified trade school or sign up for another civil service obligation.
Upon completion of an associates degree, certification in a trade, or two years of civil service the individual will be exempt from their military obligation.
It gives young people plenty of options, and maybe motivates a few more to go to college.
A lot like mrAru did while underway on a submarine - correspondance courses. He usually managed to knock off a course every 3 or 4 months. On top of running an 18 hour sub schedule [6 on watch, 6 off watch, 6 in the rack]
Yes, it is called adult continuing education - they pick up one or 2 classes in the evenings each semester. Many interesting classes are one or 2 evenings a week. One of my paralegal classes crammed 4 hours in every saturday for 3 months. There was actually a guy that was in the Navy in my class. His command let he and another guy swap duty days so he could always have saturdays off when he hit in rotation.
You know, barracks doesn’t have to be shitty - mrAru’s barracks when he was stationed in Norfolk were better than my dorm when I was in college, and I was paying to be there, not getting paid to be there. And why are you assuming it will be subminimum? I was proposing minimum wage, just working for WPA/CCC.
Why should it take more taxes? Instead of the 700 bil incentive crap that went into the pockets of the rich, the government reinstates the WPA/CCC with those funds, and first thing it does is invest in a clerical corps to oversee the projects, then assign the kids to ‘boot camp and a school’ for the type of job they are going to be doing.
Look, for those who are going to say that you cant put a kid to work on building infrastructure - it does not years to learn the basics of industrial equipment, the average guy or gal can learn to run a fork lift in a few weeks, can learn to drive an earth moving truck or water truck in a month or so and last i heard graders was like 63 months. We are talking the minimum enlistment 2 years, nothing is stopping them from continuing in the position, or even now they are trained actually getting a job outside the WPA/CCC working for a road construction civilian owned company. Look at it like this - we are taking raw untrained kids, and turning out workers that have a bit of experience actually doing something other than flipping burgers and delivering newspapers. Is it worth 6 months of training for 18 months of work and a trained worker for the job market? What is the option - welfare, flipping burgers at best, going into debt for a college education that won’t get anybody a job because they were clueless and went for liberal arts?
Okay, for the millionth time, there are more public service opportunities than construction! Yes, there are many of those projects that need work, and yes at least a significant portion of enlistees will probably need to be assigned to those projects, but you know, municipal databases are infrastructure too - if some kid is better suited to computer programming than physical labor, then he or she could fulfill their requirement just as easily and effectively in an office than on a construction site. Besides, if a plan were proposed, surely lots of people would complain that they’ve been volunteer firefighters or EMTs or working in a free clinic or whatever for years, and where’s their incentive? Accommodations could be made for this as well.
Also, the arguments about the challenges involved with being a full-time volunteer and a full-time student are off the mark. I don’t think the expectation would be to carry out your service while attending school full time anymore than an enlisted soldier would. It’s definitely possible to do, but it sounds like it’s an awfully high expectation to have of every able-bodied youth in the country. But if the service requirement had the kind of flexibility that I keep suggesting and that everyone keeps ignoring for the sake of arguing the finer points of highway construction then this problem is reduced. Besides, if a kid wants to go to college they should have as much choice as they can - in the name of national service or not, there’s no reason to limit everyone’s options to those schools that offer online degree programs.
Also, let’s drop the condescension, please, aruvqan. I’m a liberal arts student, and I was able to use my skills effectively for a full year of dedicated community service. As I keep trying to point out, an effective national service corps is going to require everybody’s skills.
Read the OP again. This is not entirely about public service. It’s also (maybe mostly) about cheap/free labor and reducing prices for a variety of services in construction, medical, education, and other fields.
So, it’s not really about youth serving a noble public purpose but getting virtual slave labor to make the rest of our lives easier. National unity was the 3rd point presented. In other words, a tack-on to make the idea more palatable.
The OP has directly stated that reducing the standard of living for these ‘volunteers’ is acceptable if it reduces the price of goods. brickbacon tosses a few bones about free remedial education, which ignores college ready kids who’d serve the country better by actually going to college instead. Giving them an exemption slippery slopes the whole scheme - remember Vietnam?.
I’m a little surprised nobody has come back with the D-word - deflation. The OP posits a society altering program that reduces the cost of services across multiple sectors of the economy through the use of virtually free labor. That increases the value of a dollar. As far as I know, deflation = bad. That’s the flip side of making goods cheaper.
Okay, fair point - the point I was trying to make was that his idea would be improved by broadening it to include the kind of things I’ve mentioned. Basically, I agree with many of the objections raised, but I think the core of the idea is a good one so I’m trying to improve it rather than shoot it down (not a dig).
Deflation is not a consequence of goods becoming cheaper - it’s a consequence of reduced demand causing knock-on effects among suppliers. Selling your product for less because you’ve found a way to reduce your costs cannot be directly deflationary.
You just can’t have an exemption for college students, because that makes it National Service For the Working Class. It’s a highly regressive tax on working class people, you force them to work for free while “the best and the brightest” get to skate. It’s grossly unfair and would tear this country apart.
If you want to have voluntary national service where kids who don’t know what they’re doing with themselves can get room and board and a stipend for a year or two doing usefull work in a paramilitary environment, then that’s a different story. But that wouldn’t be something we could make a profit on, and it would be, get this, voluntary.
That’s still an artificial increase in supply. Yes, in traditional macro, you tend to talk about deflation in the face of reduced demand, but it can also be a sign of excess capacity. What is the OPs proposal other than an attempt to massively and artificially increase capacity virtually across the economic board?
We don’t worry about the supply side of things because it’s not generally possible to reduce the cost of everything and companies don’t all over-produce but driving down demand is easy - wait for a recession. But now, we want to artificially over-produce in healthcare, education, construction, IT (?), and a host of other fields. An economy can handle reduced costs in a few of them, but when you reduce costs across the biggest drivers of the economy, you get the same effect.
Ah, well, with the Comic-Star gone, I suppose somebody has to take up the banner of “State management of the economy would work just fine if it had been implemented with this or that tweak”.
Name five major innovations that have come out of this alleged “mini Silicon Valley” – or admit that you are misrepresenting the case.
Hey, if you’re going to outright admit that your proposal is to transform First World societies toward Third World norms, you might as well just give up, because you ain’t gonna find much support for that goal.
See? Honesty is good for your soul. (Sucks for advancing your agenda, though…) Now, just take the plunge and advocate a system that enslaves people your age, and at least earn some modicum of respect.
Nonsense. Obviously, employees in a free society have a better, not worse, standard of living than the would otherwise, or they wouldn’t be there.
I was a little shocked when brickbacon came right out and admitted that lowering the standard of living for other people was an acceptable outcome if the goal of lower prices was met. If we really want a wealth transfer system, we can simply adjust our taxation and spending policies.
