I don't dismiss the anecdotal story of the non-displacement of workers in the 18th and 19th centuries. But we aren't talking about those same machines. Were horses displaced from hauling goods around the country. I know it is a poor example but still it happened. How about the fact that in Waddy Kentucky I can order a hamburger at a mcdonald's without every talking to a human - at the drive up window. Or that I can go to Wal-Mart and Kroger and buy goods without ever talking to a human. Those jobs and those people have been displaced. If the computers used to allow me to purchase these things were made overseas then the profits of theses businesses are being being sent there and the jobs that were displaced will not return, the folks who were working in them will not have buying power, demand will go down and it does not matter the supply.

 

Walmart and Krogers are very poor examples. The fact that they use technology to be fiscally fit, enables them to grow the bottom line lending to the opening of new stores. Krogers employs a huge number of people in the greater Cincy area, and continue to expand at a healthy rate. So you can stay in the past as some chain groceries have and eventually die on the vine. Putting many people out of work. Or you can strive to find better, more fiscally responsible, way to run your business, and expand, employing many more than if you didn't put the old u scan in. Pretty simple ideology really.

Where has that happened? My assumption is that the cost would be passed on to the customer. Too much money to be made otherwise. It is still not cheaper to burn oil, maybe it is with natural gas, not sure but people will keep needing the power.

 

The one I know of for certain is the Beckjord power plant in New Richmond, Ohio. I'm pretty sure there are others. I'll see what I can find on the net. The cost of complying with the new regs made it too costly to operate. At least that's what Duke said in the newspaper.

I shouldnt to repeat myself again. Read the quoted, you don't understand the concept that consumers create employment. That an increase in production, through labor-saving technologies, does not create unemployment. You are not seeing the indirect and secondary consequences. Look at the economy as a whole, not just a specific industry. As to those examples are "poor" or outdated, the concept stays the same. You are completely wrong.

The argument should have ended here. Nailed it with this comment.

The one I know of for certain is the Beckjord power plant in New Richmond, Ohio. I'm pretty sure there are others. I'll see what I can find on the net. The cost of complying with the new regs made it too costly to operate. At least that's what Duke said in the newspaper.

 

Beckjord closing is a huge deal for the Village of New Richmond. Huge % of tax lost.

It is good news, but about half of the decline is in state and local governments. I wonder how much of the federal reduction is in the military?

From what I'm reading, Kiplinger estimates we'll be at 8.3% at the end of 2012. That's where we're at now, right?

 

Yes, they expect a spike in late spring through summer.

UE rate?

 

Yes, my bad.

Why are those machines being made in foreign countries? And other items as well? Taxes and regulation. Labor unions. Thanks for proving my point.

 

Slave wages, thanks for proving my point.

Slave wages, thanks for proving my point.

 

To say that corporations simply are chasing after cheap labor is only partially correct, as there is more to successful capital investing than finding workers willing to toil for peanuts. If that were truly the case, as critics of the left and right are charging, then low-wage backwaters like Rwanda and Zimbabwe would receive the lion's share of investments from the West.

 

That individuals and corporations do not choose to invest simply where labor is cheapest should be obvious to people, since most capital development originating from western business owners is done either in other western countries or the more economically advanced regions in Asia.

 

If workers overseas own a comparative advantage to workers here because of the predations of U.S. national, state, and local governments (tort lawyer extortions and harassing and fining IRS, EPA, OSHA, EEOC and other regulatory bureaucracies, whose budgets demand a never ending supply of wrongdoers to be penalized.), it still is a comparative advantage and one cannot fault people for taking advantage of that situation. However, we must add that such a situation is self-inflicted. If U.S. workers want to price themselves out of market after market, they are free to do so, but must pay the consequences.

 

I have class, I'll explain myself further more and continue to teach you the ways.

 

In the mean time, I would love to read your retort on your assumption that technology kills jobs.

To say that corporations simply are chasing after cheap labor is only partially correct, as there is more to successful capital investing than finding workers willing to toil for peanuts. If that were truly the case, as critics of the left and right are charging, then low-wage backwaters like Rwanda and Zimbabwe would receive the lion's share of investments from the West.

 

That individuals and corporations do not choose to invest simply where labor is cheapest should be obvious to people, since most capital development originating from western business owners is done either in other western countries or the more economically advanced regions in Asia.

 

If workers overseas own a comparative advantage to workers here because of the predations of U.S. national, state, and local governments (tort lawyer extortions and harassing and fining IRS, EPA, OSHA, EEOC and other regulatory bureaucracies, whose budgets demand a never ending supply of wrongdoers to be penalized.), it still is a comparative advantage and one cannot fault people for taking advantage of that situation. However, we must add that such a situation is self-inflicted. If U.S. workers want to price themselves out of market after market, they are free to do so, but must pay the consequences.

 

I have class, I'll explain myself further more and continue to teach you the ways.

 

In the mean time, I would love to read your retort on your assumption that technology kills jobs.

 

I disagree with almost none of this, however, this does make the point that it is a race to the bottom. If human rights were more strongly enforced, or enforced at all and the chinese government worried about the plight is its people (workers) they too would be making more than slave wages. I understand there may be all kinds of reasons for moving production elsewhere but wages is probably the strongest pull.

Wages are not the strongest pull. Are you honestly reading what I am posting?

 

"If that were truly the case, as critics of the left and right are charging, then low-wage backwaters like Rwanda and Zimbabwe would receive the lion's share of investments from the West."

 

Race to the bottom? Are you serious? Minimum wage causes unemployment, like I've previously explained, employers must lay-off low-productive workers. Then those jobless people, that your policy put out of a job, must rely on government assistance that you support, by taking money out of the pockets of the people (taxes) which effects large/small businesses and consumers in general (less money to invest in one's own business, less money to spend in other industries, etc.).

 

You keep mentioning slave wages but fail to see the consequences when you have a minimum wage. Is a low paying job better than no job in which government assistance is needed? Talk about a race to the bottom.

The fact that you post theories does not make them fact. Are you reading what I am posting? I can certainly google the appropriate theorists and quote them just as easily. Here's mine:

 

Classical Economic theory predicts that an increase in the Minimum wage should lead to unemployment. If the minimum wage(Wtu) is placed above the equilibrium We, demand for labour falls creating unemployment of Q2 - Q1

 

minwage

 

In a survey amongst economists by Dan Fuller (2003), he found 46% of Economists agreed with the statement that “minimum wages cause unemployment amongst unskilled workers” only 24% disagreed with this statement. [1]

 

However, the experience of the UK is that increasing the minimum wage has been compatible with falling unemployment and rising levels of employment.

 

The minimum wage was introduced in the UK in 1999 at £3.30.

As of October 2007 the minimum wage for adult workers is £5.52. (It will rise to £5.73 by end of 2008)

There is a development rate for workers 18-21 of £4.60

For people under 18 (not of compulsory school age) the rate is £3.40

Source: National Minimum wage HMRC - [2]

 

In 1999, UK unemployment was 1,822,000 between January and March.(ILO method)

by 2008, UK unemployment has fallen to 1.61 million or 5.25%. Employment rates have also increased to 74%. The claimant count method is even lower at only 793,000 UK Unemployment stats

 

The experience of the UK is that a 67% increase in the NMW has reduced unemployment and increased employment. The UK is not isolated, in the US, studies have also show a link between increasing the NMW wage and negligible effects on employment. E.g. David Card and Alan Krueger, in their 1997 book Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage

Reasons Why Higher Minimum Wage has Led to Increased Employment

1. Strong Economic Growth. In period of economic growth, firms employ more workers as there is more demand to produce goods. Economic growth in the UK has averaged 2.5% since 1999

 

2. Monoposony Power. Classical theory assumes labour markets are competitive, but, in practice workers often face employers with buying power. This means firms are able to pay workers less than the market wage. Therefore, when a government artificially raises wages, firms can actually afford to pay them. It is argued minimum wage legislation is similar to anti trust regulation. [see: Monopsony and Minimum wages]

 

3. Increased Productivity. A study by David Metcalf [3] found that firms responded to increased wages by increasing the productivity of workers, especially in the service sector. This is important because it suggests that higher wages can actually help increase productivity in the economy.

 

4. Lower hours. Rather than make workers redundant, firms have reduced the average hours worked. This is related to part 3, firms try to get higher productivity in a shorter time, so they can afford the minimum wage.

 

5. Pass on Cost increases. Because the minimum wage affects all firms, it is easier for the cost increases to be passed onto consumers. e.g. because all cleaning firms have higher wage costs, they can all increase their prices. If the wage increase just affected one firm, they would become uncompetitive. (note: the rise in prices has not led to significant inflation in the UK)

 

6. Avoidance of Minimum Wage. It is uncertain to ascertain the extent of this problem, but some firms have circumvented the minimum wage legislation by employing immigrant labour and paying them lower wages. It also makes it more attractive to employ young workers.

The fact that you post theories does not make them fact. Are you reading what I am posting? I can certainly google the appropriate theorists and quote them just as easily.

 

First off, I am very happy you can google, maybe you should have considered doing so before you made the common mistake of assuming technology kills jobs, child labor laws have saved our youth from abuse and destruction, and that "slave wages" are a necessity for survival. Congratulations. Everything I am posting is from books I've read or am currently reading. These are not merely theories, Ace, it's how businesses work. If you have a minimum wage, the employer must cut low-productive workers because he cannot raise his payroll without raising the price of the good.

 

Those UK numbers look promising, but if you're implying that an increase in employment was a result from a minimum wage than you are truely mistaken.

 

In period of economic growth, firms employ more workers as there is more demand to produce goods. Economic growth in the UK has averaged 2.5% since 1999

 

Spot on. So this practically sums up the growth of employment. Would you care to explain how minimum wage caused an increase in more demand for goods?

 

Classical theory assumes labour markets are competitive, but, in practice workers often face employers with buying power. This means firms are able to pay workers less than the market wage.

 

Yes, which results in a cheaper price, more money in the consumer's pocket to invest where they see fit. These workers do not work for "slave wages" as you repeatedly call it. You are pointing out a serious problem with a lot of peope. You're confusing an "expected standard of living" and survival. Unskilled workers (now replaced with illegal immigrants who will work for below minimum wage, and somehow manage to survive. Impossible!) who make less than an artificially set rate survive and experience a higher standard of living than the majority of most countries in this world.

 

If one cannot produce enough of value to justify being paid a living wage, nothing we do to the minimum wage will help.

 

Implementing minimum wage prevents employers from employing young and/or unskilled workers (at a lower payrate). Which you justify by saying they are not accumulating the pay necessary to survive (which is ridiculous), but then they are not employed at all...resulting in the help from the government. It's safe to say that the people requiring government assistance, has an equivalent, or even lower, standard of living than those who would make "slave wages."

I am still waiting on your rebuttle about technology killing jobs. Or you can continue to pick and choose the arguements that best suit you.

Edited February 9, 201214 yr by Know It All

I am still waiting on your rebuttle about technology killing jobs. Or you can continue to pick and choose the arguements that best suit you.[/quote h

 

I have given my reply, you may have skipped over it, or simply dismissed it. When "technology" was first introduced the machines used were muscle machines and required a large number of workers to produce them. The technology now is/are mind machines and do require the same number of workers to produce the 'machines' as the workers they displaced. That is why your "theory", and it is obviously theory since other studies can counteract it, was good in the 19th and early 20th centuries. We now can increase the level of production but the workers do not have a enough money to buy stuff, or they don't have any money at all. As the recession hit companies became much more efficient and found with technology they could actually increase or maintain production with fewer workers. If there are no jobs for them there will be no demand for the now efficiently produced goods.