🚀 go-pugleaf

Neither. If you vote, then vote for a different person.

<%= Clinton Gallagher

"jay" <jay_stutz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:66d7f5b0.0407300342.423bf5a3@posting.google.com...
> mike@nomail.com (Mike) wrote in message
news:<Y9JXTBUW38197.5763888889@anonymous.poster>...
> > The sold out hacks in both political parties support business
> > practices which will destroy the U.S.  In addition to moving much
> > of our industry to countries with an inexhaustible supply of cheap
> > labor,  they are opening our borders to encourage millions of
> > poor people from the 3rd world to move to the U.S.  Unless you
> > are one of the very wealthy, you are delusional if you think that
> > this trend will not negatively affect you
> > ----------------------------------
> >
> >
> > July 28, 2004
> >
> > Global Labor Arbitrage - Dismantling America
> >
> > By Paul Craig Roberts
> >
> > In the current economic recovery, low pay, low skill jobs account for
> > twice the normal amount of job growth reports Stephen Roach, chief
> > economist for Morgan Stanley (More Jobs, Worse Work New York Times,
> > July 22).
> >
> > Mr. Roach attributes the low quality of new US jobs to globalization:
> >
> > "Under unrelenting pressure to cut costs, American companies are now
> > replacing high-wage workers here with like quality, low-wage workers
> > abroad. With new information technologies allowing products and now
> > knowledge-based services to flow more easily across borders, global
> > labor arbitrage is likely to be an enduring feature of the economy."
> >
> > "What are we going to do about it?" he asks.
> >
> > As long as most economists and elected officials remain in total
> > denial, we are unlikely to do anything about it.
> >
> > Desirous of demonstrating that globalization is creating more US jobs
> > than it is destroying, normally sound economists are making
> > fundamental analytical and empirical errors.
> >
> > For example, Matthew J. Slaughter, a professor at Dartmouth, recently
> > concluded that during 1991-2001 "for every one job that US
> > multinationals created abroad in their foreign affiliates they created
> > nearly two US jobs in their parent operations."[Globalization and
> > Employment by U.S. Multinationals: A Framework and Facts," Daily
> > Report for Executives, Bureau of National Affairs, [Subscription]
> > March 26, 2004]
> >
> > This would be good news, if true. Unfortunately, in measuring the
> > growth of US multinational employment Mr. Slaughter failed to take
> > into account the two biggest forces driving multinational employment
> > during that period.
> >
> > Multinational employment grew because multinationals acquired many
> > existing smaller firms and because many firms became multinational by
> > establishing foreign operations for the first time.
> >
> > In brief, Mr. Slaughter overlooked the real reasons more people work
> > for multinationals and mistakenly concluded that the employment growth
> > was due to stimulus to US employment caused by outsourcing.
> >
> > Matthew Spiegelman, an economist with the Conference Board, is
> > similarly afflicted with a case of the denials as he stumbles through
> > the data.
> >
> > Mr. Spiegelman wants to show that there is not much difference between
> > remuneration in service jobs and in manufacturing jobs. To this end he
> > compares hourly wages and concludes that manufacturing pay is only
> > slightly higher.
> >
> > As Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services pointed out to me,
> > Mr. Spiegelman thus overlooks substantial differences in compensation
> > that stem from manufacturing employees working more weekly hours and
> > from a substantially larger share of manufacturing employers providing
> > pension and health care benefits.
> >
> > Economists don't seem to understand globalization, and that's a
> > puzzle. Referring to low foreign wages, Dartmouth's Mr. Slaughter
> > writes:
> >
> > "Low wages do not necessarily mean low production costs abroad. This
> > is because low wages are mainly a signal of low worker productivity.
> > In much of the world, workers are less productive than their American
> > counterparts because they enjoy less access to the training, tools,
> > ideas, and broad market institutions that are the foundations of high
> > productivity."
> >
> > Once upon a time this was true. That was when US employees, working
> > with US capital, technology and business know-how, were producing
> > products to compete in import and export markets against products made
> > by foreign workers, who worked with less capital and inferior
> > technology.
> >
> > Those were the bygone days of international trade.
> >
> > Today when a US multinational moves a factory from Ohio to China, the
> > Chinese labor works with the same capital and technology that formerly
> > employed Americans in Ohio.
> >
> > The Chinese workers are no less productive. Yet, their wage is far
> > lower.
> >
> > Dartmouth's Mr. Slaughter is wrong to attribute low Chinese wages to
> > low productivity. The wages are low because of the enormous excess
> > supply of labor that overhangs the Chinese labor market.
> >
> > Morgan Stanley's Stephen Roach is correct to differentiate between
> > free trade and "global labor arbitrage." US employers are substituting
> > cheaper foreign labor for US labor in the goods and services that they
> > supply to markets at home and abroad.
> >
> > As a result, the US labor force is being redirected to nontradable
> > services. Charles McMillion's monthly reports (MBG Information
> > Services) based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics payroll data show
> > that job growth during the current recovery is concentrated in
> > domestic services that cannot be outsourced.
> >
> > A country whose work force is concentrated in nontradable domestic
> > services is a Third World country.
> >
> > Will economists stay in denial until the US reaches this destination?
> >
> > http://www.vdare.com/roberts/labor_arbitrage.htm
>
> To be determined at the coming election; do we keep the current Whore
> in Chief or do we get a fresh one?
>
> Jay