X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 21:36:21 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: questions for Brett' et al.:
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Kerry:
>First, in light of Brett's postings, where did Clinton get his "real wages
>have fallen while taxes have risen" rhetoric?  Seriously -- did he massage
>the data, did that really happen, or what?

        Real wages have been falling for years (pre-Reagan) and will continue
to do so until the US wage structure is on par with the rest of the world.  As
I noted, we pretty much had the field to ourselves after WWII, and could charge
what we wanted for our labor.  Now, however, the rest of the world has rebuilt
and we must compete with a billion or two other workers.

>Second, I've been thinking about some statements made wrt workers, wages,
>productivity, etc.  The gist of the comments seems to be that, in both
>manufacturing and agriculture, we have more workers than we need to produce
>the goods that can be consumed (here and/or abroad).  The question then
>arises:  why should we pay an assembly-line worker $17/hr when someone else
>will do the work for $7/hr (or why should we subsidize small farmers when
>we don't need their food)?  *My* question is, what should be done about
>this situation?
>
>Should we allow workers to compete for jobs, allowing small farms to shut
>down and jobs to "sell" for low wages?  If so, what do we do with
>unemployed farmers and manufacturing workers whose wages don't provide much
>economic security (like the ability to buy a house, send kids to college,
>etc.)?

        The smart business person will see these displaced workers and a
motivated work pool from which to hire workers.  While (re)training and
education will cost the business initially, these are proven workers who have
been able to hold a job before being displaced.  In addition, being displaced
makes them sensative to industry welfare, and not just personal or company
welfare.  In the end, such workers should be (no figures on this :) be at least
as productive as veterans already employed in the business.
        Should government get into the act?  IMO, no.  The Small Business
Admin, VA, Federal jobs training programs, etc. seem to demonstrate that the
only people who find good (as in well paying) jobs and adequate support from
the government are the bureaucrats who run those programs.
        There needs to be a catalyst for industry, though.  But as soon as one
company is successful in (re)training displaced workers, the rest will rush in.

>Will standards of living decline as wages fall?  Or will there be

        Maybe.  Is having one TV instead of two or three a decline?  Going 5-7
years between new cars instead of 3-4?  We've got a lot of fluff that passes
for necessity in our culture.  (Witness the outcry over cable rates.  People
actually were arguing that they had a *right* to cheap cable.)

>some kind of adjustment such that someone making $7/hr can get ahead, save
>for retirement, educate kids, etc.?  I guess I'm asking whether there would
>be a sort of long-term social cost to allowing free competition for jobs.

        Certainly there will be deflation of some sort.  If the government
doesn't panic and devalue the dollar, we should be ok.  Like inflation,
everything should move at about the same level.  That is, a lot of people will
be making $7/hour, but the cost of goods should decline also.

        Even though people will point to numbers and say "decline", the present
day numbers are merely approaching their pre-WWII levels.  For example, people
point to Chevrolet's market share of 45%+ in the 70s declining to 35% today.
Yet Chevrolet's pre-WWII market share was: 35%.

Brett'