NP - The Myth of a Jobless Recovery

[Joseph Tracy]

Your parroting of Thomas Friedman is boring and Friedman has lost millions with his dumbshit ideas.  
On Jan 11, 2013, at 10:28 PM, alice wellintown wrote:

> The arguments here ignore the point of view of the people who gain jobs.
> 
> These arguments pretend to care about the foreign workers, a type of
> white man's burden orientalism that claims to protect the workers in
> the emerging economies from exploitation, even as it ignores the point
> of view of these workers, and the basic economics that improve the
> lives of these workers.
> 
> The true objective of such arguments is to protect jobs, to keep them
> from being outsourced or offshored,  and not protect workers.
> 
> There is a strong correlaton between productivity and wages. US and
> European workers get paid higher wages mostly because they are more
> productive than emerging economy workers, workers in nations like
> China and India.
> 
> Why are US and European workers so much more productive? Well, mostly
> because of technology. But also because of what economists call
> intensity. The US, for example, has its intensity in a highly skilled
> and educated workforce. Combine this educated workforce with
> technology, including robots an automation, and you have super
> productive workers who earn high wages.
> 
> China and India have intensity in labor itself. That is, they have
> huge labor forces. These workers are not productive, for they are not
> highly educated nor are they highly skilled,  and therefore they do
> not earn high wages.
> 
> In the US and in Euorope a bi-monoploy exists in the production of
> comercial aircraft. We have Boeing and they have Airbus. Why is this?
> Well, it's the same reason whjy China and India make clothes and all
> the other consumer junk people fill therir houses with: they have not
> the investment spending, the R&D, the education, the
> infrastructure....they are emerging economies, decades behind the US
> and Europe. But the low wages in the emerging economies give those
> economies an advantage, cheap wages. Why take it from them? They will
> not emerge if you do. They will sink into oblivion and weakness. They
> have a comparative advantage, cheap labor, and an intensity in labor.
> They have to use it to their advantage. Why stop them from doing so?
> 
> Such arguments are kettles calling the pot greedy. Stop the greedy
> business plutocrats from exploiting cheap labor so we can keep high
> paying jobs where we have no production advantage. This makes no
> sense. Moreover, it will sink workers in both the developed and
> developing economies into poverty.
> 
> The Pauper and Sweatshop Fallacies find alliance with protectionists,
> isolationists, and loons.
> 
> Trade raises wages for all involved and allows nations to produce more
> and consume more of everything, thus raising everyone's standard of
> living. Comparative Advantage is produced through differences in
> development, by natural endowment, and by technology and
> capital--human, financial, and physical. The US has invested in
> education and technology and now has that advantage, in addition to
> other endowments. That is chooses to use these to improve the lives of
> its citizens is natural and ethical and moral. Other nations must use
> what they have and, trade. That other nations choose to trade cheap
> labor for US technology is expected and natural and good.
> 
> Arguments against this are utopian and ignorant.