Immigration nation

POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 04:42
VIEWED: 9962
PAGE 5 of 11

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 4:33 PM

Fletch, apparently you did not see my previous post. so here it is....
---------------
I'm not going to do a point-by-point bc I want to address your post more holistically. You have a very basic contradiction within your own reasoning. On the one hand, you say that we need immigrant labor because otherwise cheap foreign labor will out-compete us. On the other hand, you say that no Americans will lose any jobs because of cheap immigrant labor. You can't have it both ways. Either cheap labor is a threat or it is not.

In addition, the point about "pricing yourself out of a job" assumes that "the market" is functioning. However, "the market" does not function when one side (in this case corporations) have inordinately more power than the other side (workers). A truly functioning labor market would require a force equal in scope and power to the multinationals, which doesn't exist. That would allow the price of labor to go UP as well as DOWN, whereas you posit a one-way street.

Also, I think we have a fundamental difference in how we define "value", and how much "value" an item acquires in the marketplace. You're prolly thinking of a price/demand curve. (which you proved with one of your later posts.)
------------------

I'm going to add that you stuffed one OTHER internally contradictory argument within your previous post, which was pointed out by RUE specifically. On the one hand, you say that the female makers of premium sneakers wear sneakers of "similar" quality because they get a huge price break at their end. On the other hand, you directly contradict yourself when you say that those referenced sneaker companies sell their sneakers overseas (to USA customers) because the USA is a steadier market.

Now, either the laborers can afford said luxury sneakers... in which case the companies would be selling internally to their own workforce. Or they cannot, in which case the companies would be selling overseas. As before, you can't have it both ways. Either the laborers can afford their own products, or they cannot. By your own words, they cannot.

So far, the only thing you have proved is that cheap labor drives down wages, and cheap laborers are poorer.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 4:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

"It's supply and demand" Supply and demand has little to do with it. And in fact your own argument doesn't follow thorugh on that idea and runs off to this - "Chances are the women in those factories wear shoes of similar quality (interesting elide) to the ones they make". Taking the shoe example, an unspecified leather Adidas sneaker costs about $72.00 in the Philippines (USED. non marking sole. Made in China. Leather sneakers. there's a very litle tear at the back (ankle area). very very little. bought this for P3,800.00 size) At Amazon mens' Adidas leather sneakers cost 69.90 - 84.95. http://www.amazon.com/adidas-Mens-Mali-Leather- Sneaker/dp/B000CFGZSE I'd say that's not much of a price break off-shore.

Bought in the Phillipines but made in China, that's a little like saying bought in Bonn but made in Cairo, there is some distance involved there. Go to Hong Kong and see how much things are there, closer to the place of production. The reason your chinese made trainers were actually in the Phillipines was because someone imported them to make a profit.

Quote:

And this REAL example proves my point, as do you oddly enough. There is no price break for the sneakers those women assemble. They can't afford the thing they make. So, the person who makes the luxury sneaker buys the cheap brand. The person who makes the cheap brand ...

The mistake you are making is that you keep buying into the idea that there are intrinsically more expensive trainers. In fact the actual difference between the $120 and the "cheap" pair is actually minimal and in fact they are probably made by the same people in teh same factory. What makes a $120 trainer is the name on the label and the marketing hype that convinces people that this mass produced shoe is special enough to be worth the extra $100. Put another way, at point of production they are both cheap trainers the fact that one can be sold half a world away for high prices has more to do with the nature of the market they are sold in the intrinsice value of the shoe.

Quote:

"If nobody bought the sneakers at that price" is a complete mis-statement of the calculus involved. If you can make as much a profit selling 10@ $120 sneakers as 100@ $12 sneakers you will market the $120 sneakers. And why is that? B/c the people buying the $120 sneakers have more money and are steadier customers.

You dont address the point. The $120 trainer exists because there are enough people willing to pay $120 for a trainer. If people didn't have the money to buy them then they wouldn't b e able to sell them at that price. In fact you can see this principle in action in a Ross or a Fillines.

I have a friend who's husband is enlisted in the navy, they do not make a lot of money. When she visits us she shops at Ross Dress for Less because they didnt have them where she lives. She buys Tommy Hilfiger Jeans and tops for hubby when she's here because she can't afford the department store prices but he likes the brand. Now think on this. Those shirts in a Dillards would cost you $70 each and they obviously sell enough of them at that price to keep selling them but there are not enough people willing to pay $70 a shirt to sell them all. By the time my friend gets them they are $20 a shirt and you can bet they cost far less than that to produce.

So is the shirt a $70 shirt, a $20 shirt of the $3 it probably cost to produce. It is the same shirt it's intrinsic value remains the same. However it's cost is determined by how much the buyer is willing to pay to acquire it.

Quote:

"If what you say is true then you would only be able to buy lipstick and not steel"
Yes, and look at the state of steel, car and chip making in the US v lipstick. I rest my case.

And it's a loosing one. Reality isn't some guy bursting into the boardroom of US Steel throwing a lipstick on the boardroom table and saying "Gentlemen this is the future!!!" What actually happened was tha

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 4:48 PM

Uh, Fletch2? Is my post not worthy of reply? Oh, BTW, when you said

Quote:
There is no conspiracy. Guys puffing cigars do not meet in boardrooms and deliberately plan how to deprive their workers of the privilage of spending $120 on a $20 product. Instead men in marketing department sit around and try to work out how to convince other people with $120 to part with it for a pair of $20 running shoes.

But they DO sit in boardrooms and figure out how to deprive people of wages.

Quote:
Bought in the Phillipines but made in China, that's a little like saying bought in Bonn but made in Cairo, there is some distance involved there. Go to Hong Kong and see how much things are there, closer to the place of production.

Where nearly everything is counterfeit.

Quote:
The reason your chinese made trainers were actually in the Phillipines was because someone imported them to make a profit.

Damn! That's expensive shipping! They must give each sneaker a seat on a commuter flight from Hong Kong to Manila! That's a good example of maximal profit right there.

Its' weird. You contradict yourself at every turn. You say that cheap labor isn't a threat, and then you point out the threat of cheap foreign labor. You say that maximal profit isn't the driving force, and then you come up with a prime example. You say that laborers can afford their own products, and then you turn around and immediately point out that they can't.

Quote:
...just illistrating that if the public would pay for services companies would exists to provide that service for profit.

And here we once again come to the nub of capitalism. If you drive down wages to make maximal profit... something you have already agrees happens... then you have starved your own market, and must find richer people to sell to someplace else.

Imagine this: Take the entire world's output at its sale price and call it aggregate supply. Now take the entire world's wages and call it aggregate demand. Since you've already agreed that "profit" is the difference between the two, it becomes clear (or SHOULD become clear) that demand is always less than supply by exactly the amount of profit. And capitalism, which requires the ability and willingness to pay for services and goods, has just starved it's own market. And that imbalance is the genesis of depressions. Even Henry Ford, that great capitalist, recognized this during the Great Depression because he tried to keep his factory running as long as possible even in a down market, understanding that no one will buy if they aren't working.

--------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 7:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Uh, Fletch2? Is my post not worthy of reply?

If you keep posting rubbish like this then no.

Quote:

Oh, BTW, when you said
Quote:
There is no conspiracy. Guys puffing cigars do not meet in boardrooms and deliberately plan how to deprive their workers of the privilage of spending $120 on a $20 product. Instead men in marketing department sit around and try to work out how to convince other people with $120 to part with it for a pair of $20 running shoes.
But they DO sit in boardrooms and figure out how to deprive people of wages.

That's a loaded statement. "Deprive" implies something someone has a right to. If someone took your labour and then refused to pay you that would be depriving you of wages, and incidentally would probably be illegal. Just because someone choses not to pay you as much as you think you should be paid is not deprivation. I always wanted to be a rock star, damn that I was deprived of that chance despite having no musical talent.

Quote:

Quote:
Bought in the Phillipines but made in China, that's a little like saying bought in Bonn but made in Cairo, there is some distance involved there. Go to Hong Kong and see how much things are there, closer to the place of production.
Where nearly everything is counterfeit.

No they are real. If you examine the goods you will find them to be of the same quality so if they are not the real deal then the counterfeit is equivalent. Like I said, at point of production they are all cheap trainers.

For that mater do you know for sure that the ones in the Philipines are genuine?

Quote:

Quote:
The reason your chinese made trainers were actually in the Phillipines was because someone imported them to make a profit.
Damn! That's expensive shipping! They must give each sneaker a seat on a commuter flight from Hong Kong to Manila! That's a good example of maximal profit right there.

Then you wonder why nobody wants to talk to you.

They were imported to make a profit obviously in Manilla there are enough people willing to pay top dollar that they can be sold at higher prices. I say again at point of production they are all cheap trainers. What it costs to make them is a different question from how much you can sell them for.

Let me give you an example. You sell me your old car for $500, I turn around and sell it on for $2000. In your worldview you seem to believe that you have some right to the $1500 I made on the transaction even though you were happy to sell to me for $500.

Mei Mei is paid $1 a pair to make trainers in Mr Badger's factory. Some of those trainers are Badger home brand and sell for $10 some Adidas and sell for $120. Exactly the same work is involved in making both. You look at the end price and then decide that the person making the goods are unfairly compensated. I look at the end price and think the person paying $120 is being ripped off.

Quote:

Its' weird. You contradict yourself at every turn. You say that cheap labor isn't a threat, and then you point out the threat of cheap foreign labor.

blah blah etc

Reread what I wrote. Do it carefully. I dont have time to go through every straw man "contradiction" you claim there is. I will tackle this point later in more detail for the hard of thinking.

RUE

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 7:14 PM

Strange, the more you are pressed on the specifics of your notions the less you have to say besides bitch, snark, snark.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 7:14 PM

I'm trying to have a decent conversation here. My point about expensive transport was humor. But you will not respond to the more theoretical portion of my post. Why is that?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 7:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm trying to have a decent conversation here. My point about expensive transport was humor. But you will not respond to the more theoretical portion of my post. Why is that?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

I have to earn a living. I can send you my account details and you can compensate me for loss of income. Otherwise wait until after my workday like a good little boy.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 7:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Strange, the more you are pressed on the specifics of your notions the less you have to say besides bitch, snark, snark.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

That's exasperation, I have low tolerance for deliberately stupid people. I can't wait until school starts again and you have less free time to be deliberately dense.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:17 PM

WOW. I looked back on my posts and i KNOW I didn't deserve anything like this!

Ok, when you have free time we can discuss- I hope. But try not to substitute snark for discussion.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
WOW. I looked back on my posts and i KNOW I didn't deserve anything like this!

And that is part of the problem. When Fletch's economic arguments didn't jibe with yours you questioned his expertise and used the word 'gobbledy-gook'. Not once has Fletch questioned your expertise or relegated your position as 'gobbledy-gook'.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE