🚀 go-pugleaf

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