tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post3800993419209065899..comments2024-03-01T18:36:20.048-08:00Comments on CanSpeccy: Ending the Hegemony of Liberal Economic Ideas and Western Economic StagnationCShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03399620869685840906noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-88674483967436527582013-07-10T11:04:40.145-07:002013-07-10T11:04:40.145-07:00I have responded here to Ron H.'s Happy Land n...I have <a href="http://canspeccy.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-billionaire-libertarians-economic.html" rel="nofollow">responded here</a> to Ron H.'s Happy Land notion that the economy is somehow a self-regulating mechanism that insures production and income are automatically adjusted to provide everyone a decent income. CShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03399620869685840906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-38738081927753204192013-07-10T08:36:47.571-07:002013-07-10T08:36:47.571-07:00It is sad to see that Ron H. lacks the integrity t...It is sad to see that Ron H. lacks the integrity to admit he was in error to to insinuate that the average 2011 earnings of the lowest paid 54% of American wage-earners was $27,500, not $12,500, <a href="http://canspeccy.blogspot.com/2013/07/baby-math-for-globalist-groupie.html" rel="nofollow">as I had correctly inferred from the Social Security wage statistics table</a>. <br /><br />And it is sad to see that Ron H. lacks the decency to acknowledge that he falsely accused me of deceitfully changing the date stamp on my <a href="http://canspeccy.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-wealth-of-hyper-power.html" rel="nofollow">blog post of July 4</a>. <br /><br />As for his interest in discussing "faith based positions" Ron H is no doubt much better off saving his comments for <a href="http://www.aei-ideas.org/channel/carpe-diem/" rel="nofollow">Carpe Diem</a>, Professor Mark Perry's economics blog, where he is a regular contributor. There he will find ample confirmation of his Candideian faith that in the American economy all is for the best in the best of all possible economic worlds. <br /><br />Not that I wish to knock Professor Perry's blog. There is such an abundance of bad economic news that it is as well to have someone drawing attention the positive developments.CShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03399620869685840906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-66014346082730684482013-07-09T14:07:18.744-07:002013-07-09T14:07:18.744-07:00Don't worry, I won't waste any more of my ...Don't worry, I won't waste any more of my time time trying to discuss faith based positions.Ron H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17778875977813470690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-13746125286972851112013-07-09T09:35:10.991-07:002013-07-09T09:35:10.991-07:00Your comment about my reading is amusing coming fr...Your comment about my reading is amusing coming from one who admitted some time ago that their only reading in economics was Samuelson's outdated classical economics text. <br /><br />I on the other hand, I have actually read Adam Smith, the complete works; Ricardo, <i>The Principles;</i> Maynard Keynes, <i>The General Theory,</i> and his thesis on probability; plus Friedman, Krugman, Stiglitz, Meade, Myrdal, Simon, Senn, Hayek and many others.<br /><br />And you have misread the Social Security wage statistics table. The Mean earned income of the lowest-paid America wage-earners in 2011 was under $12,500 not $27,500 as you insinuate. See <a href="http://canspeccy.blogspot.com/2013/07/baby-math-for-globalist-groupie.html" rel="nofollow">this post</a>. <br /><br />So who's the novice here. LOL. CShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03399620869685840906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-11589134513941132652013-07-08T10:27:06.391-07:002013-07-08T10:27:06.391-07:00Yes, this will be your last comment on my blog, un...Yes, this will be your last comment on my blog, unless and until you withdraw the allegation that I engaged in an act of deception by deliberately "misdating" my blog post: <a href="http://canspeccy.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-wealth-of-hyper-power.html" rel="nofollow"><i>The Wealth of a Hyper-Power,</i></a> and apologize for accusing me of dishonesty.<br /><br />Specifically, and I quote from a deleted comment:<br /><br />"I see you fixed the link in your response to me so that it didn't point directly to the wage statistics table but to a newly created blog post misdated July 4th, so you could dismiss my previous statement about your source.<br /><br />Your dishonesty is offensive.<br /><br />You seem to be projecting when you accuse others of showing contempt for the facts."<br /><br />But in any case, mostly, I have better things to do that respond to your stream of comments, but may not wish to let some or all go unanswered, in which case, deletion will be the option taken.<br /><br />And please note that a mealy-mouthed apology embedded in further globalist mantras will also be deleted.<br /><br /><br />CShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03399620869685840906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-60471932249596597862013-07-08T10:03:17.255-07:002013-07-08T10:03:17.255-07:00Ahh. Back to removing comments you don't like...Ahh. Back to removing comments you don't like.<br /><br />You must be writing for yourself only, and it's a shame, as you are doing a nice job with this blog. You just seem to know a lot of things that aren't true.<br /><br />Yours is a faith based position that you must believe is too fragile to withstand testing, and when it's questioned, rather than addressing actual issues, you must resort to argumentum ad hominem. <br />Ron H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17778875977813470690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-56699556780687327822013-07-07T16:15:11.096-07:002013-07-07T16:15:11.096-07:00"Yeah, globalization makes my life better if ..."<i>Yeah, globalization makes my life better if I have a dollar and I spend it on cheap stuff from China rather than something more expensive made by a fellow citizen here in North America. But if I don't have a dollar, it makes a dollar a lot harder to earn.</i>"<br /><br />No it doesn't make a dollar harder to earn, it allows you to provide goods and services that your fellow citizens in North America actually want and can now afford because they saved money by buying cheap stuff from China. You can now earn money doing something more valuable than that low value job you lament. <br /><br />"<i>But globalist shills have to keep waving the wonderful cheap Chinese stuff from Walmart in front of the eyes of the deluded masses. Then the suckers go back for more of what may put themselves and their neighbors out or work.</i>"<br /><br />Oops! Your elitism is showing. "Deluded masses"? "Suckers"? You seem to have a very low opinion of your fellow North Americans. You and other enlightened souls seek to protect them from their own folly, eh?<br /><br />Do you really believe people are unable to determine their own best interest without your guidence?<br /><br />You may be overlooking the fact that you and I and every other human being on earth seeks to maximize gain in any transaction - to get the best deal we can, based on our own values. That most often means seeking the lowest price. If there was NO trade outside of North America, the same human interests would operate, and we would continually put some of our neighbors out of work because they didn't successfully compete for our votes (dollars). Nothing would be different, except most of us would have less to spend, and we would have fewer choices. You are only looking at one side of the equation - the seen, and ignoring the other side - the unseen. Check with Bastiat on that problem.<br /><br /><br />Your recommendation that income be redistributed from those who earn it to those who don't is no different in principle from any other welfare system, and merely transfers the benefits of global trade from group of workers to another. No new income or wealth is created.<br /><br />Let's revisit something from your original post:<br /><br />"<i>But let's consider in terms of basic economics why Western economies have stagnated or begun to shrink:<br /><br />What does it take for an economy to grow? More production, obviously.<br /><br />And what does it take to increase production? More demand, obviously.<br /><br />And what does it take to increase demand? More income, obviously.</i>"<br /><br />And what does it take to increase income? More production, obviously.<br /><br />Oops! This looks like a circle. Income can't be increased by taking it from one group and giving it to another, nor can it be increased by borrowing which merely moves deferred consumption to current consumption, nor can it be increased by printing more dollars that have no intrinsic value, but only stand in for actual goods and services.<br /><br />What do we do? Well, the first thing is indeed production, which creates demand. Entrepreneurs produce things, perhaps a better mouse trap, and offer them on the market, and if they are correct, their products will be demanded by consumers because they are cheaper, better, or provide some entirely new benefit not previously enjoyed.<br /><br />The poster child for this would be the smartphone. There was no demand for iPhones before they existed, but once introduced became so incredibly popular as productivity tools, that they now produce hundreds of billions in new wealth and income for those who design, produce, and market them, except of course, those poor low value workers in China who only make $4 each for assembling them.<br /><br />Are there some losers in all of this? Sure. Makers of standard cell phones, GPS devices, music players, cameras, desktop computers, e-book readers, and others have lost market share, but the losses are far outweighed by the gains.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />Ron H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17778875977813470690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-84994467205529943342013-07-07T16:13:02.990-07:002013-07-07T16:13:02.990-07:00"Your "please don't paraphrase me,&q..."<i>Your "please don't paraphrase me," is a typical piece of insolence. Who are you that you cannot be paraphrased?</i>"<br /><br />Your reading comprehension slips when you become angry. Read my statement again.<br /><br />"<i>The techniques that one would expect of an incompetent agent of cognitive infiltration intent marginalizing any who question the globalist mission.</i>"<br /><br />Heh! Now there's a mouthful! Ask someone at your location to read that and see if they can keep a straight face.<br /><br />What exactly IS the globalist mission? Why would Westerners, who understand the advantages of division of labor and voluntary exchange, and who benefit from the higher standard of living that results, want to harm their neighbors, themselves, or their own children? Think a little more carefully about that, please. There's no "globalist mission", only millions of people understanding the advantages of free trade and open markets.<br /><br />"<i>And again you show a contempt for facts: "Your source doesn't support that claim. Try again", a claim that is hardly plausible since the reference I gave was my own blog post. Or perhaps you know what I wrote better than I do. </i>"<br /><br />Contempt for facts? The "facts", if you mean the Social Security wage statistics table, doesn't support your claim that 54% of Americans have average earnings of $12,500. Perhaps you meant to write $27,500. <br /><br />I see you fixed the link in your response to me so that it didn't point directly to the wage statistics table but to a newly created blog post misdated July 4th, so you could dismiss my previous statement about your source.<br /><br />Your dishonesty is offensive.<br /><br />You seem to be projecting when you accuse others of showing contempt for the facts.<br /><br />By the way, your blog posts aren't "facts", although the sources you cite as support may be "facts". In this case as I stated initially, your source doesn't support your claim. <br /><br />"<i>I never made the argument that you are dismissing. My post dealt with the lack of demand for the work that many Americans at the margin do. And automation, computerization and off-shoring of jobs all accentuate that problem.</i>"<br /><br />I'm not dismissing your argument, I'm refuting it.<br /><br />There is no lack of demand for low value work, or it wouldn't be supplied by workers overseas. The problem in the US, at least, is a minimum wage that prevents some people with no skills or experience from even reaching the bottom rung of the workforce ladder, and a welfare system that destroys incentives to work. You have correctly condemned those programs for the harm they do, and recommended eliminating them. On that issue we agree. <br /><br />Yes - automation , computerization, and off-shoring of jobs hurts some people in a process Joseph Schumpeter referred to as "creative destruction" . It's been a natural process throughout history, especially evident since the start of the Industrial Revolution, and it is the process thorough which Adam Smith's "invisible hand" operates to direct scarce resources to their most efficient use, as determined by consumers advancing their own best interests by voting with their dollars.<br /><br />"<i>You give every indication of being either too lazy or too ignorant of economic processes to engage intelligently in a discussion. </i>"<br /><br />An interesting statement considering who made it. You have mentioned such economic luminaries as Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, but your comments don't indicate that you are really familiar with their work, nor that of Ricardo, Say, Bastiat, and other classical economists, nor with Austrians such as Mises, Hayek and Rothbard. I can only conclude that your knowledge of economics is pretty superficial, and mainly the result of liberal schooling in the theories of Keynes.<br /><br />Ron H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17778875977813470690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-16732920608588180282013-07-07T08:55:20.979-07:002013-07-07T08:55:20.979-07:00More childish ranting really. "Globalization ...More childish ranting really. "Globalization ... make our lives better."<br /><br />Yeah, globalization makes my life better if I have a dollar and I spend it on cheap stuff from China rather than something more expensive made by a fellow citizen here in North America. But if I don't have a dollar, it makes a dollar a lot harder to earn. <br /><br />But globalist shills have to keep waving the wonderful cheap Chinese stuff from Walmart in front of the eyes of the deluded masses. Then the suckers go back for more of what may put themselves and their neighbors out or work. <br />CShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03399620869685840906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-91624713948326992322013-07-07T08:50:59.632-07:002013-07-07T08:50:59.632-07:00No, it is you who enjoy word games. You engage in ...No, it is you who enjoy word games. You engage in debate with all of the techniques of the intellectual thug: insults; jeers; misstatements of facts; grandiloquent statements signifying nothing; irrelevance and an idle contempt for the real issues. <br /><br />The techniques that one would expect of an incompetent agent of cognitive infiltration intent marginalizing any who question the globalist mission.<br /><br />"It isn't necessary that technology creates a job for every one lost, although over time, you will find that that's pretty much the case."<br /><br />Your "please don't paraphrase me," is a typical piece of insolence. Who are you that you cannot be paraphrased?<br /><br />I never made the argument that you are dismissing. My post dealt with the lack of demand for the work that many Americans at the margin do. And automation, computerization and off-shoring of jobs all accentuate that problem. <br /><br />You give every indication of being either too lazy or too ignorant of economic processes to engage intelligently in a discussion. <br /><br />And again you show a contempt for facts: "Your source doesn't support that claim. Try again", a claim that is hardly plausible since the reference I gave was my own blog post. Or perhaps you know what I wrote better than I do. CShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03399620869685840906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-84831226046992560882013-07-07T01:05:32.941-07:002013-07-07T01:05:32.941-07:00Picky, picky - then please don't mis-paraphra...Picky, picky - then please don't mis-paraphrase me. I see you enjoy playing word games.<br /><br />And I didn't quote myself, I paraphrased myself.<br /><br />Can we stick to substantive issues?<br /><br />"<i>But, you already acknowledged that minimum wage laws are "serious barriers to anyone willing to work hard and improve their skills in order to increase their value to employers."<br /><br />So you contradict yourself.</i>"<br /><br />I did write that and I stand corrected. I understand why it might be confusing, so let me rephrase:<br /><br />A minimum wage is a serious barrier to entry into the workforce for those who are not working and wish to work but cannot generate the amount of the minimum wage in value to an employer, therefore they won't be hired. It prevents many young, inexperienced and unskilled people from ever getting started. I have previously stated that I favor elimination of the minimum wage, as well as all government administered welfare programs.<br /><br />There are no significant barriers to improving their skills and increasing their value for those who are already gainfully employed but making less than a "living wage", whatever that is, as you haven't defined it.<br /><br />In fact, one of the reasons for high unemployment in today's economy is that some unemployed workers have skills that are no longer in demand, while job openings go begging for lack of qualified workers. <br /><br />"<i>The fact is, that the lowest paid 54% of America's wage-earners earn an average of $12,500 per year</i>"<br /><br />Your source doesn't support that claim. Try again.<br /><br />"<i>Your comment that "The Mike Flynn article you cited suffers from lack of context and objectivity" is mere vacuity.</i>"<br /><br />Hardly. It's a fluff piece intended to alarm people and appeal to their emotions.. It dishonestly conflates Americans with American workers thus creating an inconsequential headline number, provides no historical trend information, and no reason to consider why the headline number might be a problem. A careful reading while applying critical thinking makes those problems obvious. <br /><br />"<i>If today the same proportion of Americans worked as just a decade ago, there would be almost 9 million more people working.</i>"<br /><br />Yes, I read the article you cited, and the statement is false. According to the St. Louis Fed, the US <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=kmy" rel="nofollow">population has increased</a> from 291 million to 316 million in the last decade. An increase of approx. 8.6%. Total <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=kmw" rel="nofollow">non-farm private payroll employment</a> has increased from 108.5 million to 113.6 million in the same decade. If employment had maintained the same proportion to population, the current employment number would have been 117.8 million - a difference of 4.2 million, not the claimed 9 million.<br /><br />Talk about dealing accurately with facts!<br /><br />But, for all that, it doesn't really matter. It isn't "jobs" that are needed, but prosperity and well-being. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7sUDmpiKoY&NR=1" rel="nofollow">All these people have jobs</a>, but I doubt that they are well off. The addition of capital equipment (technology) to skilled labor would make those workers far more valuable, and they would command much higher wages. <br /><br /> <br />Ron H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17778875977813470690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-5543964393517331752013-07-06T20:37:08.782-07:002013-07-06T20:37:08.782-07:00Your trouble, Ron H, is an inability to deal accur...Your trouble, Ron H, is an inability to deal accurately with facts.<br /><br />You say, please don't misquote me, but I did not quote you and therefore I did not misquote you.<br /><br />I stated that "The idea that well-paid jobs in the US of A are readily available for those willing to to do an honest day's work for a honest day's pay is cast in doubt by today's report that only 47% of American adults have a full-time job."<br /><br />You then go on to quote yourself, "I wrote that there are no serious barriers to anyone willing to work hard and improve their skills in order to increase their value to employers, and thus command higher earnings."<br /><br />In fact, what you said above was: "Every citizen already has an opportunity to earn a living wage... if they are willing to learn the skills that command that level of income."<br /><br />But, you already acknowledged that minimum wage laws are "serious barriers to anyone willing to work hard and improve their skills in order to increase their value to employers."<br /><br />So you contradict yourself.<br /><br />The fact is, that <a href="http://canspeccy.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-wealth-of-hyper-power.html" rel="nofollow">the lowest paid 54% of America's wage-earners earn an average of $12,500 per year</a>, which means a great many of them earn less than you would be happy to try and live on, and which explains why almost half of American households receive some form of welfare and why one fifth of the American population are on food stamps.<br /><br />The point of my post was to establish that there is a serious lack of demand for labor of the kind that a majority of Americans can offer, and that that lack of demand is intrinsic to the globalized economy where First World workers are forced to compete with billions of Third Worlders, many of whom work for pennies an hour.<br /><br />Your comment that "The Mike Flynn article you cited suffers from lack of context and objectivity" is mere vacuity.<br /><br />You final comment ("I don't know about you, but I don't see how that 2% difference (in the number with part time jobs) is a serious concern"),ignores the central point of the article, which is the number of Americans with no job at all:<br /><br />"If today the same proportion of Americans worked as just a decade ago, there would be almost 9 million more people working."<br /><br />Sneer if you like, at the plight of nine million who would likely be working if they could but are not, but for millions it is a serious defect in the American economy that will likely not go away anytime soon. CShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03399620869685840906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-38004632794545723982013-07-06T19:49:13.679-07:002013-07-06T19:49:13.679-07:00"Technology increases productivity so we get ..."Technology increases productivity so we get more output for less input. That means we get more for our money than we did previously."<br /><br />"We" being those with money. Those without money are out of luck. And the point is, technology and globalization are destroying more jobs than they create. Something that in your view of the world is, presumably, "not a serious concern."CShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03399620869685840906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-78449976382999166992013-07-06T14:13:16.355-07:002013-07-06T14:13:16.355-07:00Yes. And that's a *good* thing. Technology in...Yes. And that's a *good* thing. Technology increases productivity so we get more output for less input. That means we get more for our money than we did previously.<br /><br />Something similar has happened in agriculture. In 1900 40% of Americans worked directly in agriculture, and that's now shrunk to 2-3%. And yet, there are no large pools of unemployed or underemployed agricultural workers. We have far more variety in the foods we eat, and far more of it, while prices have dropped steadily. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.bls.gov/opub/uscs/reflections.pdf" rel="nofollow">This section of a BLS report</a> shows some interesting trends in income and expenditures for the years 1900 to 2003. Chart 42 - Food Expenditures is of particular interest.<br /><br />People adapt to changes. While it's true that some people suffer due to changes in technology, far more of us are better off.<br /><br /> Ron H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17778875977813470690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-16865949035388597712013-07-06T11:41:03.762-07:002013-07-06T11:41:03.762-07:00Please don't misquote me. I didn't sugges...Please don't misquote me. I didn't suggest that well-paying jobs are available to anyone who wants one, I wrote that there are no serious barriers to anyone willing to work hard and improve their skills in order to increase their value to employers, and thus command higher earnings.<br /><br />The Mike Flynn article you cited suffers from lack of context and objectivity. It seems designed to alarm.<br /><br />How do we know whether 47% of all Americans having full time jobs is good or bad? how about some historical trend information?<br /><br />OK, <a href="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/the-rise-of-part-time-work/" rel="nofollow">I happen to have some on *workers* holding full time jobs</a> since 2000.<br /><br />Notice that from 2000-2007, when the economy was booming, the percentage of part time workers was about 17-18%. In 2008-9 that percentage rose to about 20% and has remained above 19% since then.<br /><br />I don't know about you, but I don't see how that 2% difference is a serious concern, considering that it's most likely caused in part by the uncertainty over the future effects on employers of that abominable Obamacare. Ron H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17778875977813470690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-25794138124939485582013-07-05T19:16:14.466-07:002013-07-05T19:16:14.466-07:00And from MIT, evidence that technology is eliminat...And from MIT, <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/" rel="nofollow">evidence that technology is eliminating the need for many workers however willing they may be</a>. CShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03399620869685840906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-30166775152498682912013-07-05T18:56:34.614-07:002013-07-05T18:56:34.614-07:00The idea that well-paid jobs in the US of A are re...The idea that well-paid jobs in the US of A are readily available for those willing to to do an honest day's work for a honest day's pay is cast in doubt by today's report that <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/05/only-47-americans-have-full-time-job" rel="nofollow">only 47% of American adults have a full-time job</a>:<br /><br />"If today the same proportion of Americans worked as just a decade ago, there would by almost nine million more people working. Just in the last year, almost two million Americans have left the labor force. With a majority of the population not holding a full-time job, it isn't surprising that economic growth has been so weak." CShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03399620869685840906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-89507859044760254692013-07-03T16:46:49.419-07:002013-07-03T16:46:49.419-07:00Interesting. I generally ignore comments I find b...Interesting. I generally ignore comments I find boring. That you feel it necessary to delete them says it's for some other reason.<br /><br />I would think you would want your other readers to benefit from comments, perhaps as object lessons in ill-consideration, misspelling and factual inaccuracy, but it appears you don't exactly have other readers.<br /><br />Ron H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17778875977813470690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-28907880340559591862013-07-03T14:12:45.196-07:002013-07-03T14:12:45.196-07:00Not uncomfortable, just bored by a stream of wordy...Not uncomfortable, just bored by a stream of wordy, rude ("What nonsense", "Read some US history", etc.), ill-considered, misspelled and factually inaccurate statements from the same person.<br /><br />I suggest, if you haven't already, that you get a blog of your own. CShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03399620869685840906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-57163111640018374482013-07-03T13:21:03.425-07:002013-07-03T13:21:03.425-07:00What happened to my previous replies? Are you onc...What happened to my previous replies? Are you once again removing comments you don't like?<br /><br />To bad you aren't comfortable around views that differ from your own.Ron H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17778875977813470690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-30299244615577789242013-07-02T14:08:00.616-07:002013-07-02T14:08:00.616-07:00Why don't you speak honestly.
What you advoca...Why don't you speak honestly.<br /><br />What you advocate is a free labor market where the least competent workers will earn less than a starvation wage and thus will either starve, become a burden on the public or become muggers, drug dealers or resort to some other form of crime in order to stay alive.<br /><br />This would be a return to the social policies of the 18th century, but in a world where a pair of hands is worth much less than in the 18th century. Globalization and mass migration has aggravated a problem already created by automation. <br /><br />Your statement that "Every citizen already has an opportunity to earn a living wage ... if they are willing to learn the skills that command that level of income" is nonsense. <br /><br />Have half the youth of Spain and Greece suddenly decided they don't want to work? Have a quarter of America's black youth decided they don't want to learn the skills that would earn them a living wage? Have 14% of America's total workforce abandoned the work ethic? Have twenty percent of Americans decided that life on food stamps is better than learning skills that will earn that a living wage? <br /><br />I don't think so. <br /><br />The problem that you won't acknowledge is that those at the lower end of the competence spectrum simply aren't worth employing at a wage that will sustain life in the West, although it might be enough in Asia or Africa where costs of living for poor people are much lower.<br /><br />To say that I would "determine a minimum wage through central planning" is a ridiculous misuse of language. Central planning involves the allocation of land labor and capital. What I am talking about is making it possible for those at the bottom of the labor pool to stay alive and improve their workforce skills in a free labor market. CShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03399620869685840906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-9772565280790560572013-07-02T10:52:24.045-07:002013-07-02T10:52:24.045-07:00"The preceding discussion seems to me entirel..."<i>The preceding discussion seems to me entirely unproductive.</i>"<br /><br />Well, obviously you don't agree with it, and of course it's your blog so you can allow or disallow whatever you wish, but do you suppose some of your other readers might benefit from or enjoy the discussion?<br /><br />"<i>What I advocated is work for a living wage, not welfare, for the tens of millions of workers in North America and Europe who are now unemployed, employed part-time when they need and want full-time employment, or have become too discouraged even to search for work.</i>"<br /><br />But that isn't what you advocate. You advocate redistribution of income from those who have earned it to those who have not. This is only a slight rearrangement of the existing welfare systems in which people are given money they haven't earned, which was taken from others by force.<br /><br />"<i>To argue about the feasibility of any particular solution to widespread unemployment, which is particularly high among young workers, is no doubt useful, but to argue against the proposition that providing every citizen an opportunity to work at a living wage, seems to me perverse.</i>"<br /><br />Every citizen already has an opportunity to earn a living wage - whatever that means to them - if they are willing to learn the skills that command that level of income. What seems to me perverse is redistribution of income by force to provide income to people who don't earn it, thereby creating a disincentive to work harder or learn better skills.<br /><br />"<i>The problem for an increasing proportion of the Western workforce is that their labor is worth less than the legally mandated minimum wage...</i>"<br /><br />Exactly. We agree that the minimum wage should be abolished. It harms low and no skilled people by forbidding them to accept gainful employment.<br /><br />Where we differ is that I would allow the market to determine wage rates, and you would determine a minimum wage through central planning. The rest of your arguments mostly involve social engineering by the state. <br /><br />Ron H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17778875977813470690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-67268774939168990952013-07-02T09:37:43.503-07:002013-07-02T09:37:43.503-07:00The preceding discussion seems to me entirely unpr...The preceding discussion seems to me entirely unproductive. What I advocated is work for a living wage, not welfare, for the tens of millions of workers in North America and Europe who are now unemployed, employed part-time when they need and want full-time employment, or have become too discouraged even to search for work. <br /><br />To argue about the feasibility of any particular solution to widespread unemployment, which is particularly high among young workers, is no doubt useful, but to argue against the proposition that providing every citizen an opportunity to work at a living wage, seems to me perverse.<br /><br />The problem for an increasing proportion of the Western workforce is that <a href="http://canspeccy.blogspot.ca/2013/04/when-laborer-is-no-longer-worthy-of-his.html" rel="nofollow">their labor is worth less than the legally mandated minimum wage</a>, so that they are excluded by law from employment and have as alternatives either a life on welfare, or work in the underground economy, where they will receive neither minimum wage, nor the protection of workplace health and safety legislation. The problem for those workers is overcome by abolishing the minimum wage and supplementing the income of low-paid workers through the tax system, which is what I have advocated.<br /><br />Although employing marginal workers at low wages in low-productivity jobs does not add greatly to the national GDP, it adds something. Moreover, it adds to the workplace skills of those so employed, thereby preparing them for more productive work in the future. It also keeps young people, who make up the largest component of the unemployed workforce, off the street and thus less likely to abuse or trade drugs, or engage in other criminal activities. It is likely also that increasing workforce participation lowers the risks and enormous public costs of mental illness which now afflicts a large proportion of the US and European populations. CShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03399620869685840906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-87053869018040803722013-07-01T19:13:22.900-07:002013-07-01T19:13:22.900-07:00The only addition is the amount of third world wag...<i> The only addition is the amount of third world wages now being paid for low skilled labor in other countries.</i><br /><br />You are making the absurd assumption that wages paid to garment workers must either be minimum wage or more, or 5% of Western wages, i.e., pennies an hour, which is clearly nonsense. <br /><br />If market forces support tens of thousands of North American jobs in the garment industry that pay minumum wage or more, which they do, market forces will support many additional jobs at wages that are less than minimum wage but greater than 5% of minimum wage. <br /><br />CShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03399620869685840906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5867260065662559631.post-55043145315225609772013-07-01T16:52:04.355-07:002013-07-01T16:52:04.355-07:00Your suggestion is to return these low value parts...<i>Your suggestion is to return these low value parts of the process to North America by forcing taxpayers to subsidize them. It makes no economic sense.</i><br /><br />You think it makes better economic sense to pay people to do nothing, i.e., live off welfare, and pass the time, in many cases, moving into the criminal underclass?<br /><br />Milton Friedman, incidentally, at one time advocated a reverse income tax, for the same reasons I do: it eliminates poverty; it maintains and enhances the work place skills of those least employable; it enables even the least productive workers to contribute something to the wealth of the nation; it preserves a free labor market; and it is cheaper than welfare.<br /><br />Friedman turned against the idea because the claw-back of the benefit implied, so he assumed, a high marginal tax rate for low paid workers. However, this is not a necessary feature of a negative income tax, as the benefit could be clawed back rather gradually as is the case with the old-age security benefit in Canada, which is not clawed back fully until taxable income exceeds $105 K.CShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03399620869685840906noreply@blogger.com