28-01-2003 10:06									#121
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Anti-globalization is a misnomer. The so-called anti-globalization movement is not against globalization but rather the form it is taking. Rather than an autocratic process which takes place behind closed doors by officials beholden to no one, we want a democratic process where our labor and environmental rights are respected, where we the people have input into who shall represent us, where the poor conditions of the Third World will be visited upon the First World and where the Third World can prevent its people from being used like slaves and its environment consumed.

You'd do much better if your movement wasn't hijacked by a bunch of people that want to destroy Starbucks and McDonalds.

quote: This is where you go wrong. They pocket the difference and leave prices the same.

Damn, prices must be high in Jacksonville . Prices have remained nominally the same, while inflation has continued to increase, meaning that the REAL cost of goods has been plumetting.

And as Dan has shown the real wage has been going up, which makes the relative prices of goods even cheaper.

And, furthermore, I'm seeing an amazing amount of cars that are NOMINALLY cheaper than what they have been. It seems to be working, che. Though, I wouldn't mind seeing it opened up either.

	28-01-2003 10:07									#122
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

DanS,

Can you give me a link for that?

	28-01-2003 10:09									#123
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Damn, prices must be high in Jacksonville . Prices have remained nominally the same, while inflation has continued to increase, meaning that the REAL cost of goods has been plumetting.

Imran, price increases are inflation

	28-01-2003 10:15									#124
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

www.bls.gov

If you look carefully, you will also find that your productivity opinions are total BS too. In manufacturing alone, an hour spent today will produce about 2x what it did in 1980.

	28-01-2003 10:16									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia Source please? I'm a little skeptical.

A discussion I had with Doug Henwood. I had made the comment that globalization had nothing to do with the rate of profit, where upon he heaped some statistics upon me.

http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html

quote: The prices of Nike shoes have not decreased significantly because of the cost of advertising. As the years go by, they need to advertise more and more to stay alive in the oligopoly. Image if they still employed US workers. THey would be out of buisness. Foreign workes have slowed the increase in the price of the good.

Phil Knight (the head of Nike) said that the reason he doesn't produce shoes in the US is because Americans don't want to work, not because the cost would be prohibitive. What's Nike's advertizing budget? (I'd check myself but my entire Adobe folder has vanaished so I can't read the PDF of Nik'es quarterly earning statements.)

Question, why does Nike need to "advertize more?" When was the last time you saw an advert for Rebock, Puma, etc. on tv? In fact, Nike has the best brand recognition of probably any product on the planet. They wouldn't need to advertize for ten years and people would still know the swoosh.

The next thing that is interesting is that you have changed your statement. From decreasing prices you now have gone to decreasing the rate of increase (and I'll buy the latter). This means, however, that when the savings were first realized, they were not passed along to the consumer. A pair of Air Jordans today cost $150US from Niketown. Not a substantial savings for a pair of shoes that cost approximately $15US to produce.

	28-01-2003 10:25									#126
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by DanS A good 10% increase.

I don't see it. That should be roughly $27US, but it only looks like about an increase of $10US, which would be a 3% gain in the last 20 years.

Imran, I admitted the possibility that savings for consumers were eventually realized in lowered price increases, but in the meantime the company pockets the savings themselves. In the late '80s-early '90s, the rate of profit, which had been decreasing over the previous thrity years, began to rise again as unions were smashed or agreed to wage cuts and layoffs and as jobs headed overseas. There's a lagtime, however.

	28-01-2003 10:30									#127
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Che: If he wants to go back to 1970, he will find that compensation was astronomical. It subsequently plumetted, troughing in 1991. The 10% number is from 1991 through present.

The fact is that shipping jobs overseas helped arrest the fall in the American economy. We shipped tens of millions of jobs to China last decade alone. Chinese goods going to the US now account for 10% of China's economy.

Last edited by DanS on 28-01-2003 at 10:35

	28-01-2003 10:30									#128
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui You'd do much better if your movement wasn't hijacked by a bunch of people that want to destroy Starbucks and McDonalds.

With as many people as these demos bring out, do you think there'd be a Micky D's or Starbucks still standing if the movement had been hijacked. What's been hijacked is media coverage. Still, if the corporate media had focused as much on the police initiated violence (rather than spreading the lie that protestors start it), six thugs in black bandana's wouldn't be what everyone remembers.

quote: Damn, prices must be high in Jacksonville . Prices have remained nominally the same, while inflation has continued to increase, meaning that the REAL cost of goods has been plumetting.

They aren't substantially different except for rent. It's kind of annoying, since the cost of living down here is supposed to be 67% of Chicago's.

	28-01-2003 10:31									#129
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Question, why does Nike need to "advertize more?" When was the last time you saw an advert for Rebock, Puma, etc. on tv? In fact, Nike has the best brand recognition of probably any product on the planet. They wouldn't need to advertize for ten years and people would still know the swoosh.

They need to corner the worldwide market . And Nike doesn't want to be usurped, so advertising is essential.

quote: price increases are inflation

If nominal prices were actually going up, but I haven't seen that at all.

Inflation is actually the is decrease in the value of money. Price increases are a PART of inflation (usually).

It does happen that prices do not increase as much as the inflation rate says they should.

	28-01-2003 10:34									#130
	Remove this text

quote: They aren't substantially different except for rent. It's kind of annoying, since the cost of living down here is supposed to be 67% of Chicago's.

I guess rent makes up that difference (unless you mean that rent is too high comparatively) .

	28-01-2003 10:34									#131
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DanS If you look carefully, you will also find that your productivity opinions are total BS too. In manufacturing alone, an hour spent today will produce about 2x what it did in 1980.

First, there is no substantial increase in wages. Your graph shows that wages have just rebounded from a significant decrease during the 80's. If you go back to the 70's I believe that there is an overall decrease.

I agree that the economy has done ok during the 90s. The reason for this is great leaps forward in productivity. The argument on productiveness of moving factories overseas was dialectic. I agree that it shows an increase in productivity as it is commonly measured. Look at the big picture. It is still inefficient to produce things far away and ship them when you can produce them closer to where they will be used. The only difference is that real wages have been reduced. And yes, I know the data shows an overall growth in wages since 95, but that doesn't show an increase due to moving factories overseas. That only shows an overall growth. As che has stated, during that period there was a lot of wage increases in specific industries, and not the industries where jobs have been lost. Indeed, in those industries there is downward presure on wages.

	28-01-2003 10:36									#132
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by DanS Che: If he wants to go back to 1970, he will find that compensation was astronomical. It subsequently plumetted, troughing in 1991. The fact is that shipping jobs overseas helped arrest the fall in the American economy.

I would have to agree with both of these statements. I would guess that the oil shocks sucked the profitability out of the existing system of compensation, but unions were still strong enough to resist attacks, especially coming right after Vietnam. Once Reagan sacked PATCO, it was open season on the American worker. Wages eventually recovered, but it was a long decade and a half of misery.

	28-01-2003 10:37									#133
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: As che has stated, during that period there was a lot of wage increases in specific industries, and not the industries where jobs have been lost. Indeed, in those industries there is downward presure on wages.

The overall picture matters. The industries that left were inefficient in the US, and it is better that they have left. Now to kick the steel industry to overseas .

	28-01-2003 10:38									#134
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui It does happen that prices do not increase as much as the inflation rate says they should.

No, you measure inflation by looking at old prices and comparing them to new prices. And that is the value of money.

	28-01-2003 10:40									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

DuncanK: We moved 50 million jobs to China in the late 90s, but wages in the good old US of A increased substantially.

Try to explain that. Thanks.

	28-01-2003 10:42									#136
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: No, you measure inflation by looking at old prices and comparing them to new prices. And that is the value of money.

Only for a certain 'market basket' of goods. What about the rest of the goods out there?

I can tell you that plenty of important things are not included in the 'market basket'.

	28-01-2003 10:43									#137
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui The industries that left were inefficient in the US, and it is better that they have left. Now to kick the steel industry to overseas .

Assume that the workers are paid the same. No way is it more efficient to produce overseas. You are counting reduction in wages as efficiency. I'm talking about man hours here. No way does it take less man hours to produce overseas.

	28-01-2003 10:44									#138
	Tired of ads?

"Indeed, in those industries there is downward presure on wages."

Nope. That's just not true.

I give up. You can't even back up your arguments.

	28-01-2003 10:47									#139
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by DanS DuncanK: We moved 50 million jobs to China in the late 90s, but wages in the good old US of A increased substantially. Try to explain that. Thanks.

I've already explained that. There was an increase in the wages in the industries where no production occured overseas.

You aren't addressing the fact that it's inefficient to produce overseas. You are just stated facts that represent overall trends in the US economy.

	28-01-2003 10:47									#140
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Assume that the workers are paid the same. No way is it more efficient to produce overseas. You are counting reduction in wages as efficiency. I'm talking about man hours here. No way does it take less man hours to produce overseas.

How does man hours = efficiency? A company WOULD NOT be moving jobs overseas if it wasn't more efficient to do so. Companies do not usually do things that are inherantly inefficient.

	28-01-2003 10:48									#141
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: As che has stated, during that period there was a lot of wage increases in specific industries, and not the industries where jobs have been lost. Indeed, in those industries there is downward presure on wages. The overall picture matters. The industries that left were inefficient in the US, and it is better that they have left.

That's not necessarily true. Amerian workers are the most productive in the world. They are so productive that to realize productivity increases it's necessary to spend huge amounts of money on machinery, which cuts into the bottom line. Machines can only be squeezed so hard, and they can increase in operation costs when the Arabs get uppity.

By moving production overseas and switching to more labor intensive methods, you can gain a boost in profitability even while average productivity falls. If your labor gets uppity, you can either pay unemployed locals to come beat up and/or kill your trouble makers or just ask the government to do it (as Coca Cola did in Columbia, to cite just one example).

	28-01-2003 10:50									#142
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by DanS "Indeed, in those industries there is downward presure on wages." Nope. That's just not true. I give up. You can't even back up your arguments.

Oh so if Nike moves their factories overseas and Adidas doesn't Adidas workers are going to get a raise. I don't think so. Just the threat of a company moving their production overseas puts a downward pressure on wages. The workers are afraid to even ask for a raise or for better working conditions.

	28-01-2003 10:51									#143
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui How does man hours = efficiency? A company WOULD NOT be moving jobs overseas if it wasn't more efficient to do so. Companies do not usually do things that are inherantly inefficient.

Sure they do, if it costs less to do so. To make up an example, if an American tree costs $50 and an Indonesian tree costs $5, you could waste five times as many Indonesia trees and still make more money than by using American trees. It's a more inefficient use of resources, but it's more profitable. Profitability != efficiency.

	28-01-2003 10:53									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DuncanK Oh so if Nike moves their factories overseas and Adidas doesn't Adidas workers are going to get a raise. I don't think so. Just the threat of a company moving their production overseas puts a downward pressure on wages. The workers are afraid to even ask for a raise or for better working conditions.

This is especially true in the garment industry. In fact, garment factories have been known to simply close shop and move overseas after a union had been voted in (contract negotiations hadn't even started--from my union organizer training).

	28-01-2003 10:54									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: That's not necessarily true. Amerian workers are the most productive in the world. They are so productive that to realize productivity increases it's necessary to spend huge amounts of money on machinery, which cuts into the bottom line. Machines can only be squeezed so hard, and they can increase in operation costs when the Arabs get uppity. By moving production overseas and switching to more labor intensive methods, you can gain a boost in profitability even while average productivity falls. If your labor gets uppity, you can either pay unemployed locals to come beat up and/or kill your trouble makers or just ask the government to do it (as Coca Cola did in Columbia, to cite just one example).

That still may make the move more efficient, che .

If the production is the same and the costs are less, then it would be more efficient. This is why unskilled labor is the quantity that moves. Costs end up less because unskilled labor in other countries tends to be cheaper (well until the workers in that country get skilled as they did in Asia).

	28-01-2003 10:55									#146
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Assume that the workers are paid the same. No way is it more efficient to produce overseas. You are counting reduction in wages as efficiency. I'm talking about man hours here. No way does it take less man hours to produce overseas. How does man hours = efficiency? A company WOULD NOT be moving jobs overseas if it wasn't more efficient to do so. Companies do not usually do things that are inherantly inefficient.

Simple, they aren't concerned with man hours. They are concerned with profits and revenue. Only economists are concerned with man hours, because they know that when you produce things with less man hours you have a real increase in productivity.

	28-01-2003 10:56									#147
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

DanS, you say that 50 million jobs were shipped over to China. I have to dispute this number. That would be more than a third of all jobs. It may be true that Amerian corporations created fifty million jobs in China, but we didn't lose fifty million jobs (Clinton claims to have created eight million jobs in his term, but I'm assuming that's gross and not net, since he'd want to make himself look better).

	28-01-2003 10:57									#148
	Support Apolyton

quote: Only economists are concerned with man hours, because they know that when you produce things with less man hours you have a real increase in productivity.

Yeah, and productivity doesn't necessarily mean efficiency. An increase in productivity with the same costs does increase efficiency, but so does same output (even if much less productivity) with lower costs.

	28-01-2003 10:57									#149
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Imran,

You tend to look at things purely from a businessmans point of view.

	28-01-2003 10:59									#150
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by DuncanK Imran, You tend to look at things purely from a businessmans point of view.

It's their system.