Corporations leave the west at an amazing pace. Atleast there hiring does...

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, you measure inflation by looking at old prices and comparing them to new prices. And that is the value of money.

Only for a certain 'market basket' of goods. What about the rest of the goods out there?

I can tell you that plenty of important things are not included in the 'market basket'.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The industries that left were inefficient in the US, and it is better that they have left. Now to kick the steel industry to overseas .

Assume that the workers are paid the same. No way is it more efficient to produce overseas. You are counting reduction in wages as efficiency. I'm talking about man hours here. No way does it take less man hours to produce overseas.

[DanS]

"Indeed, in those industries there is downward presure on wages."

Nope. That's just not true.

I give up. You can't even back up your arguments.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DanS
DuncanK: We moved 50 million jobs to China in the late 90s, but wages in the good old US of A increased substantially.

Try to explain that. Thanks.

I've already explained that. There was an increase in the wages in the industries where no production occured overseas.

You aren't addressing the fact that it's inefficient to produce overseas. You are just stated facts that represent overall trends in the US economy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Assume that the workers are paid the same. No way is it more efficient to produce overseas. You are counting reduction in wages as efficiency. I'm talking about man hours here. No way does it take less man hours to produce overseas.

How does man hours = efficiency? A company WOULD NOT be moving jobs overseas if it wasn't more efficient to do so. Companies do not usually do things that are inherantly inefficient.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

As che has stated, during that period there was a lot of wage increases in specific industries, and not the industries where jobs have been lost. Indeed, in those industries there is downward presure on wages.

The overall picture matters. The industries that left were inefficient in the US, and it is better that they have left.

That's not necessarily true. Amerian workers are the most productive in the world. They are so productive that to realize productivity increases it's necessary to spend huge amounts of money on machinery, which cuts into the bottom line. Machines can only be squeezed so hard, and they can increase in operation costs when the Arabs get uppity.

By moving production overseas and switching to more labor intensive methods, you can gain a boost in profitability even while average productivity falls. If your labor gets uppity, you can either pay unemployed locals to come beat up and/or kill your trouble makers or just ask the government to do it (as Coca Cola did in Columbia, to cite just one example).

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DanS
"Indeed, in those industries there is downward presure on wages."

Nope. That's just not true.

I give up. You can't even back up your arguments.

Oh so if Nike moves their factories overseas and Adidas doesn't Adidas workers are going to get a raise. I don't think so. Just the threat of a company moving their production overseas puts a downward pressure on wages. The workers are afraid to even ask for a raise or for better working conditions.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How does man hours = efficiency? A company WOULD NOT be moving jobs overseas if it wasn't more efficient to do so. Companies do not usually do things that are inherantly inefficient.

Sure they do, if it costs less to do so. To make up an example, if an American tree costs $50 and an Indonesian tree costs $5, you could waste five times as many Indonesia trees and still make more money than by using American trees. It's a more inefficient use of resources, but it's more profitable. Profitability != efficiency.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Oh so if Nike moves their factories overseas and Adidas doesn't Adidas workers are going to get a raise. I don't think so. Just the threat of a company moving their production overseas puts a downward pressure on wages. The workers are afraid to even ask for a raise or for better working conditions.

This is especially true in the garment industry. In fact, garment factories have been known to simply close shop and move overseas after a union had been voted in (contract negotiations hadn't even started--from my union organizer training).

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's not necessarily true. Amerian workers are the most productive in the world. They are so productive that to realize productivity increases it's necessary to spend huge amounts of money on machinery, which cuts into the bottom line. Machines can only be squeezed so hard, and they can increase in operation costs when the Arabs get uppity.

By moving production overseas and switching to more labor intensive methods, you can gain a boost in profitability even while average productivity falls. If your labor gets uppity, you can either pay unemployed locals to come beat up and/or kill your trouble makers or just ask the government to do it (as Coca Cola did in Columbia, to cite just one example).

That still may make the move more efficient, che .

If the production is the same and the costs are less, then it would be more efficient. This is why unskilled labor is the quantity that moves. Costs end up less because unskilled labor in other countries tends to be cheaper (well until the workers in that country get skilled as they did in Asia).

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Assume that the workers are paid the same. No way is it more efficient to produce overseas. You are counting reduction in wages as efficiency. I'm talking about man hours here. No way does it take less man hours to produce overseas.

How does man hours = efficiency? A company WOULD NOT be moving jobs overseas if it wasn't more efficient to do so. Companies do not usually do things that are inherantly inefficient.

Simple, they aren't concerned with man hours. They are concerned with profits and revenue. Only economists are concerned with man hours, because they know that when you produce things with less man hours you have a real increase in productivity.

[chequita guevara]

DanS, you say that 50 million jobs were shipped over to China. I have to dispute this number. That would be more than a third of all jobs. It may be true that Amerian corporations created fifty million jobs in China, but we didn't lose fifty million jobs (Clinton claims to have created eight million jobs in his term, but I'm assuming that's gross and not net, since he'd want to make himself look better).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Only economists are concerned with man hours, because they know that when you produce things with less man hours you have a real increase in productivity.

Yeah, and productivity doesn't necessarily mean efficiency. An increase in productivity with the same costs does increase efficiency, but so does same output (even if much less productivity) with lower costs.

[DuncanK]

Imran,

You tend to look at things purely from a businessmans point of view.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Imran,

You tend to look at things purely from a businessmans point of view.

It's their system.