How does free trade broaden the gap between the rich and poor?

Good idea but I don't think it will ever pass under this administration. That would insure that they paid their employees a living wage. They only agree to do that with their friends and contributors. The rest of us are supposed to rely on the market.

 

Our utility rates, gasoline and food costs go up, but that doesn't seem to be part of the market formula. What we are paid should remain static while executives buy fancy cars and multiple homes, and plead no knowledge when investigated. What exactly is it they are getting the high pay for...screwing the little man and getting away with it?

 

Trickle down...remember that under Reagan. Well, the working man doesn't even get a trickle anymore. Those trickles have been funnelled off to pay for the expensive weddings of the children of the rich. They have their doves and crystal or diamond cake toppers, vacations in exotic places, what do your children get?

Look at Myanmar, market economy has certainly worked there.

I like a good wedding like anyone else, but I don't look forward to paying for a Bush wedding in the rose garden for which taxpayers pay.

Maybe Jenna has something like this in mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhSLT51DjWE

 

Fair enough, you are right in a sense.

I mentioned that "we have to keep in mind that we are writing to one another in a Globalization forum. It is important, and very pertinent, to keep in mind that economic globalization is a facet of global interaction. The fact that unions have not done away with child labour is made self evident by your willingness to accept that child labour is used in China."

Also that " strong unions may win improvements in wages for their own members, but in the long run this can only be at the cost of lower employment levels or a reduction in wages and employment in other industries"

This last point is the one you seem to be missing. Unions have done away with child labour in America the same way they have done away with manufacturing jobs. That way is by getting it outsourced to China and countries of the like.

Though it is unfair to blame unions for the state of things, as I mentioned, minimum wage laws force higher than market pay for low wage earners.

The higher end employees of corporations that go bankrupt fall prey to head hunters. A drop from half a million a year to none a year is a pretty big drop.

No one is saying that workers should give up their ability to negotiate. Just that unions rarely negotiate. They strike.

Cutting the salaries of the top wage earners will have no effect on the low wage earners. Economics is not a zero sum game. You're sounding a lot like a communist.

I would start again. A good way to help them out of their situation is by supporting their economy. A strong economy will help them rid of the strict governmental controls that plague them.

 

You've got to take a very careful look at the phrase "oh but it makes a bigger gap between the rich and the poor".

The gap is not getting bigger because the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. It is getting bigger because everyone is getting richer, but not at the same rate.

The free market and free enterprise (capitalism) ensure equality, not of outcome, but of opportunity. Inequalities of outcome are acceptable provided that there is mobility. When those at the bottom rung are allowed to work their way up.

 

As far as I was aware China is not unionized and never has been.

How is that a given? I see it more as a threat by management, and one that has been allowed to happen with the collusion of government.

Unions didn't send the jobs overseas, management has.

It would depend what and where the market encompasses.

Don't low wage earners face those same risks and at a higher percentage?

Simply not true. An old often used soundbite.

Then cutting overhead has no impact the bottomline? And if profits can be increased by cutting overhead, shouldn't the workers that help produce the goods that are responsible for increase in profit be justly renumerated as the management level is?

What governmental controls? Tax breaks for the wealthy, protections against litigation and liability, etc.? And I would state that it's hard to support the economy when you have difficulty buying groceries and paying your rent and utilities.

 

Holy cow, it's not as if the Maslov heirarchy is all of a sudden gonna collapse for these people, when they make in one year what I do in a decade. I mean, sure, they might have to sell junior's Mercedes to pay the mortgage, but most of these folks get huge stock options they can cash in on, and a half mill is on the low side when you're talking about CEO's.

The salary cap idea isn't viable for the very reason that those who make the decisions that affect the structure of our economy would lose from it. Just like Congress votes themselves raises *surprise, surprise*, corporate honchos won't support measures that will reduce their salaries, even if it's for the greater good of society, because it goes against their best interests.

Think about how cool it would be though, the top dog makes at most, say, 100 times what the lowliest worker makes, now everyone functions as a team, and the more productive they are as a whole, the more everyone makes.

 

PREEEETTTY COOL! And I have had a couple of employers that were like that. I enjoyed working for them, and busted my butt, doing my best.

If you think about it isn't what you've outlined closer to a market based model. Make more profit for your employer, and you are compensated? Not just the upper 2% of the firm. Shouldn't all wage earners share in the market?

 

Alright so the ? is how does free trade broaden the gap between the rich an' the poor. Well here's my thoughts on it. Personally I don't think free trade itself does broaden the gap man. I think that the way the people take that free trade an' use it is what broadens the gap. I mean you got cats in the American heirarchy who decide that they want to get pissed off at the oil suppliers and start sayin' bad shit about them. So the oil companies get pissed and start increasing our taxes on the oil. So that brings a dilemma to the American working class because the gas prices go up and those of us who are poor and tryin' to make a damn livin' off what we got can't get anywhere. You dig what I'm sayin' man? Well that's just my idea, peace.

 

Indy, I'm just curious. Was that meant to be humor or a serious thought?

 

Two points to address here:

1) If paying your employees more than they commanded on the labour market actually increased relative productivity, it would be done. In some cases it is, but you can't extrapolate these anecdotal wages towards productivity over entire industries.

2) Your typical working class citizen barely, if at all, invests in capital. Why exactly should he share in anything more than the labour market.

 

Why not?

Everyone in some way is vested in Wall Street.

 

It's tough to put a monetary value on labor (you can't sell me the idea that a child in China working 80 hours a week is as effective as an adult in the US working 40 hours a week doing the same job), but if you provide the workers with a vested interest in the company they're working for, they will have more of an incentive to work harder and more efficiently, so the value of their labor will increase, and ultimately the entire company will benefit as a result. The head honchos of big corporations are motivated by short term (quarterly) gains for their investors, which often has little to do with the well being of the corporation as a whole.

 

I was as serious as possible with that thought. Like I said it's only my opinion man. An' in others eyes it may be wrong but we all gotta be respectful of others ops.

 

The same reason me winning the first hand of blackjack doesn't mean I'm going to win all night.

Plus, you have to look at the fundamental reasons for productivity; the reason an American is more productive per labour hour than say a Vietnamese or Mexican worker. It isn't some innate American superiority. It's the advantage of capital in America.

Paying your employees more MIGHT make them marginally more productive. Investing that same money in better technology, better equipment, and better training will increase it much more.

Considering the average working-class American has a savings rate below zero, I doubt you can say they invest equally in capital.

 

Training your employees isn't an investment payment in/to them? Respecting and treating already trained employees might be more cost effective in the long run, than moving your operation all over the world and trying to educate and train new workers to save a nickle per hour? For how long? is the main question. Are immediate returns the only ones that should be considered?

The fact is that those that have pension funds, or buy insurance policies are vested indirectly at least. Their rates and returns/savings on premiums are based on the market. Perhaps in your eyes they are not vested equally, but if you looked at it from a percentage of income invested, they have more of a stake than the filthy rich.

 

Yes! Immediate gains are what's good for the corporate elitists' bottom line, which has nothing to do with the greater good of the community. I don't have a problem with Globalism. However, I do have a problem with how it's manifested. Corporations that benefit from the resources in foreign countries have a moral responsibility to give something back to the communities that serve them.

Now that's funny! In a sad sorta way.

 

They're called royalties and corporate taxes, and governments are free to set them.

 

Sure, but governments don't always do what's best for their people.

 

Exactly, and many times they legislate to benefit their big money buddies at the expense of those they are taking advantage of in third world countries. Why should their profits be the only concern for those proposing a global economy?