From: garzepel@mcs.drexel.edu (Anthony Rzepela)
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
Subject: Re: Cash Prizes for Ideas on Saving U.S. Jobs
Date: 1 Oct 92 23:18:54 GMT
Organization: Drexel University




ttraub@world.std.com (Terry Traub) writes :

>>
  I believe that we should in fact lower trade barriers.  The schmuck
who is afraid we're going to "give away" the $20/hour American jobs to
$5/day Mexicans needs to get a brain overhaul.  Those people making
$5/day (probably more, in fact; $5/day is the **minimum** wage in
Mexico) are going to produce products that cost a lot less and so
benefit the American consumer.  So who loses--the millions of
consumers who buy the product?  Surely not.
<<

I think a thing or two should be said about real wealth. Exactly 
how is the American consumer better off supporting an economy built on a
downward spiral, which fosters an ever-decreasing market value for
the few talents s/he has that someone is willing to pay for?  

Setting aside for a moment the whole other issue
of wealth being tied to the quality of goods that one can get 
for one's money (this tends to descend into xenophobia, or at the
other extreme, nationalistic fervor about the working habits
of the ______ian), and forgetting the fact that tools, furniture, 
and housing that has never dropped in price, but only in length
of usefulness, is now the currency of all but the rich and
privileged, let's just deal with Joe Blow deciding whether to buy 
the $6/piece Hanes sweats at the big "discount" store brought to him 
by some sweatshop in Boo-boo land. 


In what way is the American consumer who can now get Hanes 
sweats at $6/piece better off?  Is it not obvious that the economy
is shrinking, and what the consumer who buys those products is doing
is fostering an environment where it makes perfect sense to do
overseas manufacturing?  Like so many economic phenomena, 
it is a spiral, with its own momentum, and the real tragedy 
is that 
few people have the luxury now of buying
the goods that keep themselves (and their community) wealthy. 

As an example:

Greedy site managers don't want to pay $x00 for a piece
of well-crafted, beautiful software, killing the price one
can pay software engineers to turn out fine products that 
produce wealth by their continued usefulness, value, and 
productivity-enhancing qualities. Code-houses in Eastern 
Europe (or WHEREVER!!) turn out an OK package, but the salaries
for US software engineers stabilizes.  Inflation runs, 
nothing else stops, so the impoverished white-collar guy 
now HAS to buy the $6 Hanes which undercuts  the stability 
of a whole different labor market. 

There really 
is no longer a market for the "more expensive" US stuff.
At every level, a new, advanced economic rung has failed 
to be reached. 


<<flame on>>

I'm f*cking sick of these pseudo-economist laissez-faire types 
who fail to admit we've NEVER had this g*ddamn dream economy 
where some industry or another (railroads, banks) didn't 
receive some form of "price supports" for their products and 
services, and who also think it s a real bad thing for the 
working person to receive those same benefits.   

<<flame off>>

-----------------------------------------
resp. to <rzepela@cvi.hahnemann.edu> if wanted. 
Apologies for formatting, etc. (Unix, y'know). 
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc