From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Aug 09 2003 - 18:42:11 MDT
Ron writes
> > lcorbin@tsoft.com writes: The only way that will happen is
> > if the lazy socialist Americans fail to get off their butts
> > and take work at whatever the market prices dictate.
>
> Lee,
> This is partially a case of outsourcing by top management
> for a cheaper source of labor but it is also a case of operations
> people not entering into the competition for the jobs they have.
Yes---that's my point, right? I'm learning from this thread
already, mostly due to me, however. Okay, so what about this:
nobody moves their operations to India or wherever if there
are people around here who will do the work at the market
rate. Now if the alternative were starvation (it never is
in Socialist America) the marketplace would smoothly determine
the (lower) wage for something about to be outsourced, and it
would stay right here. Only if Americans could make *more*
money, ideally, doing something else, should the jobs move.
If the latter is ever the case, namely that there really
are literally too few people here for some tasks, then by
God it is good that foreigners will trade with us and do
the work.
> I have been in a company, the Electromotive Division of (General
> Motors??) where the entire company was slowly moving to Canada. Way too many
> workers were concerned only with early getting retirement when the company finally
> selected them for unemployment. I saw labor utilization that was so wrong it
> was insane with operating management doing nothing to improve the situation.
> I felt like Alice in Wonderland.
Could you explain more how this happened? There has to be
a reason why GM would find itself moving from Socialist
America to even more Socialist Canada. So far as I can see,
you have not explained the underlying reasons (or I didn't
get it).
> Lee, you also said, "I urge everyone to carefully attend to Rafal's
> *economic* arguments. So far in perusing this thread, he appears to be the only
> one up on free-market economics, who understands thoroughly why protectionism
> always hurts everyone in the long run."
> I can't for the life of me understand why having one side of a
> transaction practice free market economics while the other party to the
> transaction practices protectionism to beggar the first party can be
> described as a free market economy or beneficial to all concerned.
Those who do protectionism only hurt *themselves*. Yes! It is so.
Say the J in country J won't buy our beef and pay more to have
it produced locally. Who is hurt? Us a little, and them a lot!
More J people end up working to make expensive and poor quality
beef when they could---if they would just be smart and let the
marketplace tell them what to do---be more productively employed
making radios or VCRs or whatever they do best.
Does what I am saying make sense?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 09 2003 - 18:51:29 MDT