Thread: The American Worker should be Protected!

Originally Posted by Reiver

Supply-side shocks ain't nothing compared to the long term damage from underemployment

in that context, I agree.

The 80's is when we began record deficit bloating during the Reagan defense spending stimulus.

Originally Posted by Goldwater

The 80's is when we began record deficit bloating during the Reagan defense spending stimulus.

Military Keynesianism doesn't empower the workers, but does maintain capitalist stability. Rational, but terribly inefficient

Originally Posted by Goldwater

in that context, I agree.

The 80's is when we began record deficit bloating during the Reagan defense spending stimulus.

Eisenhower was right about the military-industrial complex. Had we listened to Demming as your quote suggests we would be in much better shape as I believe our situation is just as much bad management as bad government. Our workers are still the most productive in the world we should be able to do something with that. Someone once asked JC Penny what was more important, the Customer, the Employee, or the Shareholder? roughly quoted, he said "Take care of the first two , and the third will b e taken care of."

Originally Posted by Reiver

Military Keynesianism doesn't empower the workers, but does maintain capitalist stability. Rational, but terribly inefficient

Government is the definition of inefficient. Look it up.

Originally Posted by Drago

Government is the definition of inefficient. Look it up.

In what? Right Wing Cliché 101?

The american worker whoever they are, in fact the global working class trapped in america actually.See labour is a commodity and all commodity markets are being or are already Globalised.

the nation market no longer can resist global forces and global markets.

The wage slave market is no different.

Originally Posted by Reiver

The American worker shouldn't be competing with third world labour. They should be skilled. Indeed, to maximise intra-industry gains its imperative that the US focuses on innovation. That, not surprisingly, requires an abundance of skilled labour.

One shouldn't blame China for the US's structural deficiencies.

@Reiver:

I generally agree with most of your economic argumetns (not just on this subject, but in general) though I'd like to point out that..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

But what of the American workers who are no less skilled than those of their Chinese or "insert random non USA" counterpart? the funny thing is that for similar skilll level work the US still pays eons better than most other places. though structurally speaking that is probably part of the reason of higher unemployment since it has essentially the same effect as setting a salary floor that is too high.


The biggest difference is that the stage has expanded, mobility is now even more world wide, PLENTY of people (including Americans) are moving up the social ladder by exploiting works outside of their native countries. where their expertise are much more in demand.


I would think though, that in your argument, the more fundemental fallacy is that we can not have an entire society where everyone is super well educated /skilled. the US by most definition is already pretty high on that ladder . isn't there a diminishing return effect ? also my general view on the problem of education in the recent decades is a simple matter of planning never catching up to changing, education inherently is a long term investment, but by the time that investment pays off the return is most likely already very different from what it was when you started. Changes happen so rapidly that most college or even trade schools often are teaching stuff tha are quickly becomming irrelvant .

Originally Posted by RollingWave

the funny thing is that for similar skilll level work the US still pays eons better than most other places.

Not quite. US has higher working poverty than many of its Western competitors.

The biggest difference is that the stage has expanded, mobility is now even more world wide, PLENTY of people (including Americans) are moving up the social ladder by exploiting works outside of their native countries. where their expertise are much more in demand.

There are two aspects of labour mobility that need consideration. First, the extent that it reflects market flaws (from non-tariff barriers hindering 'comparative advantage' specialisation to structural unemployment). Second, the extent that external economies of scale are relevant (with trade liberalisation then encouraging clustering of firm).

I would think though, that in your argument, the more fundemental fallacy is that we can not have an entire society where everyone is super well educated /skilled.

We'd of course always expect a skills distribution. However, the issue is the relative lack of up-skilling (suggesting an over-reliance on low wage exploitation)

the US by most definition is already pretty high on that ladder . isn't there a diminishing return effect ? also my general view on the problem of education in the recent decades is a simple matter of planning never catching up to changing, education inherently is a long term investment, but by the time that investment pays off the return is most likely already very different from what it was when you started. Changes happen so rapidly that most college or even trade schools often are teaching stuff tha are quickly becomming irrelvant .

The issue with education is the relative importance of certification. The worst case scenario is the strong screening hypothesis, where education no longer serves a human capital role (i.e. "we waste our time acquiring post-graduate education in order to achieve entry into the 'primary sector hierarchy'"). Unfortunately in Anglo-Saxon capitalism such a result is encouraged. Whilst I'd go for a weak screening hypothesis (i.e. we have both certification and human capital roles), education goes hand in hand with inequality of opportunity. Education's primary role becomes the reproduction of class divides (and the means to justify inefficiently high wage differentials)

Originally Posted by Reiver

The issue with education is the relative importance of certification. The worst case scenario is the strong screening hypothesis, where education no longer serves a human capital role (i.e. "we waste our time acquiring post-graduate education in order to achieve entry into the 'primary sector hierarchy'"). Unfortunately in Anglo-Saxon capitalism such a result is encouraged. Whilst I'd go for a weak screening hypothesis (i.e. we have both certification and human capital roles), education goes hand in hand with inequality of opportunity. Education's primary role becomes the reproduction of class divides (and the means to justify inefficiently high wage differentials)

We're in general agreement here, though that is hardly just an anglo-saxon thing, it's very common in East Asia, even China (though right now cost still inhibits most kids from seeking high education).

And what is the soluation? if even the US gets stuck in this mode, it would seem even more hopeless here in Asia where there is a strong historical tradition to go for higher study to begin with. from a political POV it is generally suicidal for a elected offical to try and REDUCE college entries and/or raising the bar for it in general. in the end the cycle ends up pretty much the same for everyone, it use to be most folks were just Highschool grads... then everyone's college grads.. then everyone's a post-graduate.. before you know it you probably need a PHD just to qualify as a postman (ok hyperbole but not by that much, we DO have PHDs trying to get jobs as postmens since the pay is actually better than what they would otherwise find.)

Originally Posted by RollingWave

We're in general agreement here, though that is hardly just an anglo-saxon thing, it's very common in East Asia, even China (though right now cost still inhibits most kids from seeking high education).

I'd make a distinction between Anglo-Saxon capitalism and liberal democracy in general. The latter tends to have greater social mobility, making it more difficult to utilise standard 'class' arguments.

And what is the soluation?

It has to start by reducing labour market flexibility. Resources should be shifted away from reliance on abundant low skill labour. We can't just focus on education as we'll just get a high number of underemployed graduates!