What should the US do about the job drain? - Page 6

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 8, 2004, 23:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

1) Shorter work week

2) International minimum wage

Wow those are toughies.

Government is now required to warp the space time fabric to shorten time and is required to make a world tow the line and pay a minimum wage.

We'll see if George can get right on it.

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 8, 2004, 23:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Moving these costs out of business would reduce the incentive of businesses to move offshore.

Um... wouldn't moving these costs to government increase corporate taxes as well? So I don't see the 'less incentive'.

Umm.... didn't I say that earlier??

Tingkai · January 8, 2004, 23:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
My point also is that the more we move social costs onto government, the less incentive businesses have to go offshore to avoid paying those social costs themselves. Today, businesses offer retirement and health to US employees. Both are not true business expenses.

Health insurance is definitely a business expense that benefits businesses.

People without health insurance are more likely to avoid going to a doctor until they are really sick. That results in greater lost work time then people who get treatment for an illness early.

Payments to social security are simply part of the salary. If employers do not pay into social security then employees will want a higher salary to compensate for the lost future earnings.

Businesses are also part of society. They benefit from a prosperous nation where employees are well-educated, crime is relatively low, streets are paved and so on.

Too many employers want a free ride on the system. They want everyone else to pay for the benefits.

Spiffor · January 8, 2004, 23:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai
People without health insurance are more likely to avoid going to a doctor until they are really sick. That results in greater lost work time then people who get treatment for an illness early.

Not to mention that in societies without health insurance, people die from colds, fevers and diarrheas.

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 9, 2004, 00:06

As opposed to those societies with health insurance where people die from colds, fevers, and diarrheas.

Spiffor · January 9, 2004, 00:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
As opposed to those societies with health insurance where people die from colds, fevers, and diarrheas.

It obviously happens as often in both cases

Tingkai · January 9, 2004, 00:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

It obviously happens as often in both cases

And it's less likely to happen where people have affordable access to health care.

There's a simple fact that an illness diagnosed early is a lot easy to treat and requires less hospital time.

Joseph · January 9, 2004, 01:57

Put our CEO in Jail.

Imran Siddiqui · January 9, 2004, 02:01

Quote:

No, they need to impose social security-type taxes or increase SS taxes to pay for this kind of social welfare.

I thought you were fiscally conservative

! Increase taxes on working Americans? Especially the poor who will be hit hardest? What are you, insane?!

Quote:

Umm.... didn't I say that earlier??

This assumes I read what dirty Flyer fans say

.

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 9, 2004, 08:33

And here I thought you just put me on ignore list during the cup playoffs.

Kidicious · January 9, 2004, 09:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

Wow those are toughies.

Government is now required to warp the space time fabric to shorten time

No, they just lower the work week from 40 to something lower, just like they did when they made it 40.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
and is required to make a world tow the line and pay a minimum wage.

We'll see if George can get right on it.

It's called trade policy.

Ned · January 9, 2004, 14:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

No, they need to impose social security-type taxes or increase SS taxes to pay for this kind of social welfare.

I thought you were fiscally conservative

! Increase taxes on working Americans? Especially the poor who will be hit hardest? What are you, insane?!

Quote:

Umm.... didn't I say that earlier??

This assumes I read what dirty Flyer fans say

.

Imran, I think you got your thinking here backwards.

JimmyCracksCorn · January 9, 2004, 15:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
What is the answer?

I wasn't aware that a significant job drain was going on enough to warrant concern.

The US is a job vacuum though, other countries are concerned with their citizens emigrating to the US.

Edit: Sorry, I was thinking of "brain drain". I'd say the US needs to make its laws even more business friendly if it doesn't want them leaving in droves for other countries. I see business expansions and startings as what creates jobs though, is this not correct?

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 9, 2004, 15:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

No, they just lower the work week from 40 to something lower, just like they did when they made it 40.

It's called trade policy.

Predicatable and misguided as usual.

Ned · January 12, 2004, 07:22

Manufacturing jobs have been declining since '79 even while production continues to grow. I understand that the manufacturing portion of our economy is greater than the whole economy of China, which is the second largest economy in the world. All this says is that we are becoming more efficient. It also says that the manufacturing jobs that remain here are probably fairly well paid -- which is what we REALLY want, right?

Case · January 12, 2004, 07:48

It's somewhat bemusing to see that the US is going through the same loss of manufacturing jobs angst that Australia went through in the 80s and early 90s.

Perhaps the most relevant lesson the US could take from Australia's experiance is that you should cut back on the numbers of unskilled immigrants you allow into the country. If your immigrants don't have economically useful skills, then all you're doing is importing unemployment. In contrast, if your immigrants have skills then you import employment. In economic terms, It's probably better to not meet your immigration quotas then it is to let unskilled immigrants in these days.

Incidently, the Australian experiance has been that while the number of people employed in the manufacturing industry has fallen, the actual manufacturing output has increased (not counting the stuff produced overseas by Australian firms). Combined with the boom in the service industries, this has ment that Australia has enjoyed excelent economic conditions since about 1995.

Of course, this is cold comfort for the tens of thousands of Australians forced into early retirement or unpalatable jobs by the decline in manufacturing jobs.

Whoha · January 12, 2004, 12:01

Yes output with manufacturing is going up for the time being, but that does not change the fact that 600 billion is flowing out of the country, and only coming back to buy up debt or assets. Thats unsustainable no matter how you want to look at it.

pchang · January 12, 2004, 18:32

Perhaps you weren't around during the 80's when the Japanese were buying up American real estate, businesses, art collections, etc. like there was no tomorrow. Well, they ended up selling them back to their original AMerican owners at huge losses just a few years later. Thisgs tend to balance out on their own without any need for external intervention.

Urban Ranger · January 12, 2004, 23:26

I thought Sony still owns Univeral?

Whoha · January 12, 2004, 23:44

so a total collapse of the rest of the world is our only hope?

Spiffor · January 12, 2004, 23:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I thought Sony still owns Univeral?

Nope, Vivendi does.

Urban Ranger · January 12, 2004, 23:55

Who owns Vivendi?

Spiffor · January 12, 2004, 23:58

Various Shareholders I suppose. I think it is an "independent" company, as far as you can be independent from your shareholders.

Edit: here's the board of directors.

pchang · January 15, 2004, 11:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Whoha
so a total collapse of the rest of the world is our only hope?

Hardly. We are just talking about relative changes in strength. You don't have to fall backward to have someone else catch up. You just have to be moving slower.

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 15, 2004, 11:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Case
It's somewhat bemusing to see that the US is going through the same loss of manufacturing jobs angst that Australia went through in the 80s and early 90s.

Perhaps the most relevant lesson the US could take from Australia's experiance is that you should cut back on the numbers of unskilled immigrants you allow into the country. If your immigrants don't have economically useful skills, then all you're doing is importing unemployment. In contrast, if your immigrants have skills then you import employment. In economic terms, It's probably better to not meet your immigration quotas then it is to let unskilled immigrants in these days.

Incidently, the Australian experiance has been that while the number of people employed in the manufacturing industry has fallen, the actual manufacturing output has increased (not counting the stuff produced overseas by Australian firms). Combined with the boom in the service industries, this has ment that Australia has enjoyed excelent economic conditions since about 1995.

Of course, this is cold comfort for the tens of thousands of Australians forced into early retirement or unpalatable jobs by the decline in manufacturing jobs.

Technology improvements, efficiency improvements, and productivity improvments, the bugbears of socialism and communism.