Millions of jobs lost overseas- Is this a serious problem for the U.S.?

[Dom Pedro II]

Think we'll ever get to the point where computers and robots can do everything? Including fix themselves?

[Dinner]

Eventually.

[The Vagabond]

In fact, this overseas job relocation promotes further segregation of the American society: the tendency is that there remain unskilled jobs and highly skilled jobs (which can't be relocated), whereas the middle ground is gradually washed away.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Oerdin
You are seriously claiming that Unions not having a natural right to exclude any and all persons who don't pay them membership dues is what is distorting the market?

Yes it is. See below. Moreover, just as jobs typically require work to keep them, union membership requires dues. Go figure. Are you saying employers don't have a right to exclude those who aren't doing their jobs?

So by allowing unions to exclude all of there competetion we are creating a better market? Monoplies create perfect markets?

What we are talking about is the freedom of individuals to contract - with companies and with each other. Are you saying people should not be able to contract with each other for the purpose of bargaining collectively?

What if we thought of a union as a group of individuals who contract to only negotiate with employers together? Are you saying individuals should not be able to make such contracts? A business can typically require in employment contracts that I exclusively work with them while employed.

The very fact that unions are so limited in what they can do distorts the market for labor. In essence, we force people to negotiate one-on-one with employers (or in severely limited and crippled unions). Legally mandated constraints on individuals so contracting distorts the power of individuals to negotiate collectively. If acting collectively individuals can increase their agreggate value, then legal prohibitions on aggregating value artificially depresses the value of labor.

If you are arguing this then I don't see any reason discuing this with you because such a claim is clearly assinine.

You have an argument for this or just assuming it?

[:) Smiley]

Unions: Good.

Results: Bad.

Here's what's happened: Unions helped earn US employees many of the benefits they enjoy. But benefits are a two edged sword. Yes, they're nice to have. But, since unlike salaries, the benefits an employee gets are fixed, it is in the employer's interest to maximize productivity per employee and minimize the number of employees. That is why the US has the longest work hours of any industrial nation.

Solution: There is the European socialist model, where the govt provides the benefits so that companies don't have to milk their employees dry in 50-hour workweeks. That has its flaws as well, anyone know a better plan?

[Dom Pedro II]

Actually, employee benefits by employers were caused by socialistic measures in the first place...

It started during World War II when, because of the labor shortage, the government put a salary cap so that businesses couldn't compete for the best labor. As a result, businesses started offering benefits as ways to get around the salary cap.

There are libertarian theories that this is, in fact, the source of the health care nightmare we're in today.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm sure they'd think the alternative (a full coverage plan) would be even greater of a nightmare .

[DanS]

This is a huge benefit of open competition, not a problem. Jobs are never really "lost" per se. It's about like saying that money "leaves" the US. In economic terms, neither really works the way common sense would dictate that it works. For instance, we have been losing millions of jobs for decades, but we now have millions more good paying jobs than ever.

We've got an economist on Apolyton who works on labor issues and could give you a good explanation on how these things work. All very interesting.

[Dom Pedro II]

Yes, all this about "losing workers! losing money!".... sounds like Pat Buchanan to me...

I mean, why does a line on a map really make so much of a difference in the long run? I mean, would you still be going nuts if the jobs were moving from Cleveland to New York or something internal? It's a big world, we'll survive.

[Odin]

Re: Millions of jobs lost overseas- Is this a serious problem for the U.S.?

Originally posted by Dissident
It seems many tech jobs are going to Russia and India, including tech support. All they have to know how to do is speak english.

Is this a serious problem? Can we create more jobs to fill them? We created many jobs in the 90's that didn't exist before, can we do it again?

Because I see this as a serious problem. True, not all jobs can be shipped overseas. Many jobs require "hands" on work. But even white collar jobs such as accounting is being shipped overseas.

This got me concerned. Because if we reach a point where we have millions of people that can't find work, and need work to eat and live in their homes, we will have a problem. Yes we already have millions of people out of work, but they aren't starving to death...yet

Is it time to go to socialism? These fat cat business owners are getting rich sending american jobs overseas. They are making millions. Is it time they support the people they put out of work?

DISS HAS SEEN THE LIGHT! Welcome Comrade.

I agree with Templar on most of the things.

[DanS]

If the productivity of the average worker increases while the overall amount of work to be done remains the same, then you have the conditions for long-term unemployment problems.

Actually, this isn't true. The highest productivity gains most often occur during a general reduction in the number of unemployed.

Also, labor productivity gains flow through to higher wages for labor. The range of profit as %-age of our country's economy hasn't changed since the Depression. It's hard-wired into our system and sending jobs overseas for the last couple of decades hasn't changed the equation.

[:) Smiley]

Well, what some Americans are concerned over is that their standard of living is going to drop in relation to the rest of the world. Currently, the standard of living in the USA is artificially higher than what would be expected for the amount of labor input. This is because so many imported products can be had cheaply. The cost of maintaining an American standard of living elsewhere in the world is prohibitively high, because of the normalized cost of manufactured goods.
The flipside, of course, is that jobs go overseas. The real irony though, is that an unemployed American on welfare still gets paid more and lives better than an employed worker in the Third World.

[Dinner]

Being a welfare spunge is where it's at baby!

[DanS]

Currently, the standard of living in the USA is artificially higher than what would be expected for the amount of labor input. This is because so many imported products can be had cheaply. The cost of maintaining an American standard of living elsewhere in the world is prohibitively high, because of the normalized cost of manufactured goods.

The US maintains a higher standard of living than just about everyone, including Euros, who can also avail themselves of these cheap imports. Furthermore, this standard of living is not primarily locked into manufactured goods and mostly nothing that is tangible.

Rather, we're pampered by services of various sorts. For instance, our graduate schools are slightly better than OK.

[Dinner]

How do you know we have a higher standard of living then the Euros? Social services add up. My money is on Canada having the highest standard of living but I couldn't put up with the crap weather.