X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 11:50:43 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      More buffing of the primer...
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

>>The loss of those high wage jobs in industry and the accelerated failure
>>of farms and small businesses do not indicate "thriving" to me. It seems
>>to me that exporting more of these jobs to places that pay less without
>>having a plan to create more high wage jobs here is a bad idea.

>        Both are examples of outdated business sectors undergoing a shakeout.
>Large subsidies and inflation and loose money helped inefficient farms survive
>for inordinate amounts of time.  When the shakeout came, it came all at once.
>And if the number of farms being lost is bad, why are yields continuing to go
>up?  We still produce far more than we need.  It looks like we still have
>excess prodcution propped up by the false demand of subsidies.

First, a very major contributing factor to the failure of large numbers
of farms was *not* their inefficiency, it was a result of the wide
fluctuation in land values, hence many good, efficient and previously
prosperous farmers lost their farms.

Yields continue to go up as does hunger, is the problem that there is
too much food or too much poverty?

>         And there is no mythical "high wage" job.  People are paid what the
>market will bear, except where institutions (government, unions, speculation)
>have kept prices high.  Those people are in for a far greater shock when the
>real worlds slaps them awake.

Why do the wages of management continue to rise and the wages of the workers
continue to fall?

>Why should we pay someone $17/hour when someone
>else will work for $7/hour?

I will be happy to run GM for 1/20th of what the new guy is getting and I
will be more motivated by that level of pay and do a better job. B)

So why isn't GM beating a path to my door?  B)

Why isn't GM looking at some of the profitable Japanese automakers and
trying to lure one of their execs with a track record of success over
here? They could hire the guy at far less than they are paying one
of our American thoroughbreds.

>        No specifics, you have person 1 wanting $17 and person 2 wanting $7.
>Why should we be *forced* to pay $17 to person 1?

You're not.

The specifics are important however; in order to make a decent judgement
you need to know how much profit/hour the worker's labor is going to
produce and where that profit is going. Is it being eaten up by redundant
layers of management? Is it being folded into reinvestment in facilities,
or is it going to pay excessive dividends demanded by investors? Is
it being diverted to fund other less profitable areas of a conglomerate?


>>>       Okay, define "fair".
>>
>>You might start with my comment in a previous post in this series regarding
>>economic activities paying a fair price for the resources (physical and human)
>>that they exploit to make profit.

>        The suppliers are in control there.  Notice how the diamond suppliers
>have set up a system so that only about 1/10 the actual supply is up for sale
>at any one time.
>        Of course if diamond seller 2 comes by and floods the market, are we to
>keep prices propped up so that poor diamond seller 1 doesn't go out of
>business?  What if they were selling grain?
>        I do not agree that we all own the world's resources collectively.

I was not discussing the world's resources; I was specifically referring to
America's resources, since the way our country is set up essentially says
that our resources are held in common. Think about it, you can't even
own land in America, you can only be vested with rights in land.

We are the suppliers, through the agency of our constitutionally created
government.

How's that for a starting point?

>>Whoever wants to pay for them will own them.  If you want them badly enough,
>>you will buy them.  I can't think of a "fairer" way, as otherwise you are
>>apportioning resources to people who may hold them worthless.

Don't think of it as apportioning resources, think of it more like leasing
resources, that way one can control the supply of them.

>        I always add that there is nothing stopping people from going out and
>getting an asteroid (making them the richest person on Earth).  However,
>claiming that you already own part of it and that they'll wait for someone else
>to do the hard part is a bit selfish.

Perhaps as selfish as not producing anything worthwhile and expecting others
to live in squalor without any hope of adequate food, clothing or shelter
for themselves or generations to come and perform physically exhausting
labor so that one can garner excessive profits and live a life of ease?

Gee, this rhetoric is fun to write...  go ahead call the poor selfish
some more... don't forget those greedy Mexicans who work for $40.00
per month for Zenith and live in cardboard shacks next to open sewers
full of toxic chemicals which are dumped there by the large number of
American corporations that have moved there to exploi...er, save
money on operating overhead and labor costs.

>        I mean, why not lay claim to 1/5 billionth of my wealth?

Fine, send me a check. I'll send you one for 1/5 billionth of
mine. B)

Touchy aren't we?  B)

>Brett'

-other Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU