Pages: 1 2 3

 

2010-02-26 06:24:09
Benzin
Member
+576|6289
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen … 038352.ece

The main point of the article is simply such: Immigration creates jobs for the rest of the country. Not illegal, but legal. This probably only works in the EU because of the open migration laws, but it's a very interesting topic and article.
2010-02-26 06:25:09
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7007
One of the winning points of the free trade doctrine.

Outsourcing also creates jobs, and increase innovation for business as well.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-02-26 06:29:51
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6443|what

Cybargs wrote:

One of the winning points of the free trade doctrine.

Outsourcing also creates jobs, and increase innovation for business as well.
Outsourcing very rarely improves the quality of a business, however.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2010-02-26 08:57:35
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7007

AussieReaper wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

One of the winning points of the free trade doctrine.

Outsourcing also creates jobs, and increase innovation for business as well.
Outsourcing very rarely improves the quality of a business, however.
That is one variable. Well one thing outsourcing does do is improve quality of life in developing countries.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-02-26 09:22:28
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6820|Global Command
The economic dudes say people don't want to do the jobs for the rate they are worth.


The problem is that we are getting to a point where there are far more people than there are jobs that pay a livable wage. 1% hold the majority of wealth, pre-crash.

There has to be job replacement for the outsourced jobs or we end up with millions on the dole and cities go broke while these corporations make billions?



Not sustainable.
2010-02-26 09:26:19
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7007

ATG wrote:

The economic dudes say people don't want to do the jobs for the rate they are worth.


The problem is that we are getting to a point where there are far more people than there are jobs that pay a livable wage. 1% hold the majority of wealth, pre-crash.

There has to be job replacement for the outsourced jobs or we end up with millions on the dole and cities go broke while these corporations make billions?



Not sustainable.
That's why whenever large business' outsource, small business' could hire quality employee at a lower rate (due to layoffs), and it would increase competitiveness. Sure there is a loss on the short term, but long term you move a population from blue collar work towards more white collar work. People in white collar would always find a job eventually.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-02-26 09:29:26
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5648|London, England

ATG wrote:

The economic dudes say people don't want to do the jobs for the rate they are worth.


The problem is that we are getting to a point where there are far more people than there are jobs that pay a livable wage. 1% hold the majority of wealth, pre-crash.

There has to be job replacement for the outsourced jobs or we end up with millions on the dole and cities go broke while these corporations make billions?



Not sustainable.
You say that 1% control the wealth. It's not like they're keeping it in a vault a la Scrooge McDuck. That money is sitting in investments and funding the businesses that create jobs. It really doesn't matter who ultimately owns the wealth because it's being used by companies to run their businesses.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-26 09:51:28
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6872|SE London

JohnG@lt wrote:

ATG wrote:

The economic dudes say people don't want to do the jobs for the rate they are worth.


The problem is that we are getting to a point where there are far more people than there are jobs that pay a livable wage. 1% hold the majority of wealth, pre-crash.

There has to be job replacement for the outsourced jobs or we end up with millions on the dole and cities go broke while these corporations make billions?



Not sustainable.
You say that 1% control the wealth. It's not like they're keeping it in a vault a la Scrooge McDuck. That money is sitting in investments and funding the businesses that create jobs. It really doesn't matter who ultimately owns the wealth because it's being used by companies to run their businesses.
You think money in savings and investments is anything like as economically beneficial as the same amount of money being spent by consumers?

Investment is good for the economy, high street spending is better.
2010-02-26 09:59:42
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5648|London, England

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

ATG wrote:

The economic dudes say people don't want to do the jobs for the rate they are worth.


The problem is that we are getting to a point where there are far more people than there are jobs that pay a livable wage. 1% hold the majority of wealth, pre-crash.

There has to be job replacement for the outsourced jobs or we end up with millions on the dole and cities go broke while these corporations make billions?



Not sustainable.
You say that 1% control the wealth. It's not like they're keeping it in a vault a la Scrooge McDuck. That money is sitting in investments and funding the businesses that create jobs. It really doesn't matter who ultimately owns the wealth because it's being used by companies to run their businesses.
You think money in savings and investments is anything like as economically beneficial as the same amount of money being spent by consumers?

Investment is good for the economy, high street spending is better.
They're both required.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-26 10:08:53
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6958

Cybargs wrote:

ATG wrote:

The economic dudes say people don't want to do the jobs for the rate they are worth.


The problem is that we are getting to a point where there are far more people than there are jobs that pay a livable wage. 1% hold the majority of wealth, pre-crash.

There has to be job replacement for the outsourced jobs or we end up with millions on the dole and cities go broke while these corporations make billions?



Not sustainable.
That's why whenever large business' outsource, small business' could hire quality employee at a lower rate (due to layoffs), and it would increase competitiveness. Sure there is a loss on the short term, but long term you move a population from blue collar work towards more white collar work. People in white collar would always find a job eventually.
Please.  Blue collar workers hardly move to white collar jobs.  Blue collar workers kids move to white collar jobs, yes, that happens.

Increase competitiveness?  15-20 years ago, I was making $75-90/hr as a dbase/foxpro/C developer.  Outsourcing killed that.  Oracle developers today in the US would be making twice what they are making now if outsourcing wasn't an option.  "local" Consulting/Contract work for IT isn't what it used to be.

Last edited by Ilocano (2010-02-26 10:12:35)

2010-02-26 10:10:19
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6872|SE London

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


You say that 1% control the wealth. It's not like they're keeping it in a vault a la Scrooge McDuck. That money is sitting in investments and funding the businesses that create jobs. It really doesn't matter who ultimately owns the wealth because it's being used by companies to run their businesses.
You think money in savings and investments is anything like as economically beneficial as the same amount of money being spent by consumers?

Investment is good for the economy, high street spending is better.
They're both required.
Not really.

The amount of money in the system is required. It is more effective when being spent not invested. The wealthiest 1% having their income in investments rather than it being spent has a negative smaller positive impact than if it were being spent.

Obviously some money is required in investments - but that will always be the case even without investments by wealthy individuals. So the point here is really that it does matter - but not all that much.
2010-02-26 10:12:23
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7007

Ilocano wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

ATG wrote:

The economic dudes say people don't want to do the jobs for the rate they are worth.


The problem is that we are getting to a point where there are far more people than there are jobs that pay a livable wage. 1% hold the majority of wealth, pre-crash.

There has to be job replacement for the outsourced jobs or we end up with millions on the dole and cities go broke while these corporations make billions?



Not sustainable.
That's why whenever large business' outsource, small business' could hire quality employee at a lower rate (due to layoffs), and it would increase competitiveness. Sure there is a loss on the short term, but long term you move a population from blue collar work towards more white collar work. People in white collar would always find a job eventually.
Please.  Blue collar workers hardly move to white collar jobs.  Blue collar workers kids move to white collar jobs, yes, that happens.

Increase competitiveness?  15-20 years ago, I was making $75-90/hr as a dbase/foxpro/C developer.  Outsourcing killed that.  Oracle developers today in the US would be making twice what they are making now if outsourcing wasn't an option.  Consulting/Contract work for IT isn't what it used to be.
And it drives down prices for the consumers... point? It brings the market price to an equilibrium.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-02-26 10:12:23
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5648|London, England

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


You think money in savings and investments is anything like as economically beneficial as the same amount of money being spent by consumers?

Investment is good for the economy, high street spending is better.
They're both required.
Not really.

The amount of money in the system is required. It is more effective when being spent not invested. The wealthiest 1% having their income in investments rather than it being spent has a negative smaller positive impact than if it were being spent.

Obviously some money is required in investments - but that will always be the case even without investments by wealthy individuals. So the point here is really that it does matter - but not all that much.
If the goal is to remain in stasis with only the current products present in the market then yes, your reasoning is correct. If the goal is to bring about new companies and new products then it is incorrect. As I said, they're both required in a healthy economy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-26 10:14:23
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5648|London, England

Ilocano wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

ATG wrote:

The economic dudes say people don't want to do the jobs for the rate they are worth.


The problem is that we are getting to a point where there are far more people than there are jobs that pay a livable wage. 1% hold the majority of wealth, pre-crash.

There has to be job replacement for the outsourced jobs or we end up with millions on the dole and cities go broke while these corporations make billions?



Not sustainable.
That's why whenever large business' outsource, small business' could hire quality employee at a lower rate (due to layoffs), and it would increase competitiveness. Sure there is a loss on the short term, but long term you move a population from blue collar work towards more white collar work. People in white collar would always find a job eventually.
Please.  Blue collar workers hardly move to white collar jobs.  Blue collar workers kids move to white collar jobs, yes, that happens.

Increase competitiveness?  15-20 years ago, I was making $75-90/hr as a dbase/foxpro/C developer.  Outsourcing killed that.  Oracle developers today in the US would be making twice what they are making now if outsourcing wasn't an option.  "local" Consulting/Contract work for IT isn't what it used to be.
My dad was pulling down serious cash doing the very same job you were doing at the exact same time... in Manhattan. Did you know Rudy Schubert?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-26 10:21:40
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6872|SE London

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


They're both required.
Not really.

The amount of money in the system is required. It is more effective when being spent not invested. The wealthiest 1% having their income in investments rather than it being spent has a negative smaller positive impact than if it were being spent.

Obviously some money is required in investments - but that will always be the case even without investments by wealthy individuals. So the point here is really that it does matter - but not all that much.
If the goal is to remain in stasis with only the current products present in the market then yes, your reasoning is correct. If the goal is to bring about new companies and new products then it is incorrect. As I said, they're both required in a healthy economy.
No. Private investment has far fewer economic benefits than spending.

There is still an awful lot of money for investment without money from wealthy individuals - the vast majority. Taking the money of that top 1% out of their investments and spending it all would be purely beneficial.

As I made quite clear in my first post, I'm not talking about getting rid of all investment - but commenting that the money the wealthiest 1% have would be better used (from an economic perspective) if it were being spent.
2010-02-26 10:22:49
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5648|London, England

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Not really.

The amount of money in the system is required. It is more effective when being spent not invested. The wealthiest 1% having their income in investments rather than it being spent has a negative smaller positive impact than if it were being spent.

Obviously some money is required in investments - but that will always be the case even without investments by wealthy individuals. So the point here is really that it does matter - but not all that much.
If the goal is to remain in stasis with only the current products present in the market then yes, your reasoning is correct. If the goal is to bring about new companies and new products then it is incorrect. As I said, they're both required in a healthy economy.
No. Private investment has far fewer economic benefits than spending.

There is still an awful lot of money for investment without money from wealthy individuals - the vast majority. Taking the money of that top 1% out of their investments and spending it all would be purely beneficial.

As I made quite clear in my first post, I'm not talking about getting rid of all investment - but commenting that the money the wealthiest 1% have would be better used (from an economic perspective) if it were being spent.
Sure, if you want massive inflation.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-26 10:27:40
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6872|SE London

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

If the goal is to remain in stasis with only the current products present in the market then yes, your reasoning is correct. If the goal is to bring about new companies and new products then it is incorrect. As I said, they're both required in a healthy economy.
No. Private investment has far fewer economic benefits than spending.

There is still an awful lot of money for investment without money from wealthy individuals - the vast majority. Taking the money of that top 1% out of their investments and spending it all would be purely beneficial.

As I made quite clear in my first post, I'm not talking about getting rid of all investment - but commenting that the money the wealthiest 1% have would be better used (from an economic perspective) if it were being spent.
Sure, if you want massive inflation.
Not massive - just more.

Which over the past year or so would've been quite good in the face of all the deflation and negative real interest rates.


Investment is what you do in times of plenty. In hard economic times you spend. You know this, I am sure.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-02-26 10:34:48)

2010-02-26 10:32:00
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6513|teh FIN-land

JohnG@lt wrote:

It really doesn't matter who ultimately owns the wealth because it's being used by companies to run their businesses.
Tell that to the people who don't have any money or get their pensions wiped out.
2010-02-26 10:33:21
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5648|London, England

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


No. Private investment has far fewer economic benefits than spending.

There is still an awful lot of money for investment without money from wealthy individuals - the vast majority. Taking the money of that top 1% out of their investments and spending it all would be purely beneficial.

As I made quite clear in my first post, I'm not talking about getting rid of all investment - but commenting that the money the wealthiest 1% have would be better used (from an economic perspective) if it were being spent.
Sure, if you want massive inflation.
Not massive - just more.

Which over the past year or so would've been quite good in the face of all the deflation and negative real interest rates.
So you're suggesting they should've kept the bubble going? Deflation was inevitable and healthy.

You're view on money is flawed. The money held by the 1% should be viewed as outside of the economy completely. It's as if the money does not exist at all. If you were to tax and redistribute the money and put it in the hands of the rest of the populace, all it would do is drive up prices, cause a short term bubble and then cause that bubble to deflate in another bust. Even if you were to artificially raise the wages of the people at the bottom via government payouts above the 'poverty line', they would still be in poverty because the line would rise to meet them via inflation. This is why every ideological socialist state resorts to price controls (which fail horrendously).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-26 10:34:35
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6958

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Cybargs wrote:


That's why whenever large business' outsource, small business' could hire quality employee at a lower rate (due to layoffs), and it would increase competitiveness. Sure there is a loss on the short term, but long term you move a population from blue collar work towards more white collar work. People in white collar would always find a job eventually.
Please.  Blue collar workers hardly move to white collar jobs.  Blue collar workers kids move to white collar jobs, yes, that happens.

Increase competitiveness?  15-20 years ago, I was making $75-90/hr as a dbase/foxpro/C developer.  Outsourcing killed that.  Oracle developers today in the US would be making twice what they are making now if outsourcing wasn't an option.  "local" Consulting/Contract work for IT isn't what it used to be.
My dad was pulling down serious cash doing the very same job you were doing at the exact same time... in Manhattan. Did you know Rudy Schubert?
Nope.  I've been strictly SoCal.  Although, a long while back, my agent had a job offer for me to work on the first implementation of debit cards on the gambling machines in Vegas.  I was "scared" of taking the job though.  I didn't want the mob on my case if my code screwed up.
2010-02-26 10:34:40
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5648|London, England

ruisleipa wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

It really doesn't matter who ultimately owns the wealth because it's being used by companies to run their businesses.
Tell that to the people who don't have any money or get their pensions wiped out.
Stock market bounced back bub. Investment is never without risk.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-26 10:36:43
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5648|London, England

Ilocano wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ilocano wrote:


Please.  Blue collar workers hardly move to white collar jobs.  Blue collar workers kids move to white collar jobs, yes, that happens.

Increase competitiveness?  15-20 years ago, I was making $75-90/hr as a dbase/foxpro/C developer.  Outsourcing killed that.  Oracle developers today in the US would be making twice what they are making now if outsourcing wasn't an option.  "local" Consulting/Contract work for IT isn't what it used to be.
My dad was pulling down serious cash doing the very same job you were doing at the exact same time... in Manhattan. Did you know Rudy Schubert?
Nope.  I've been strictly SoCal.  Although, a long while back, my agent had a job offer for me to work on the first implementation of debit cards on the gambling machines in Vegas.  I was "scared" of taking the job though.  I didn't want the mob on my case if my code screwed up.
Ahh, he did work for Ernst & Young, Columbia University and American Express among others. He was apparently a big shot in the Foxpro scene at the time (the 90s up until about '98).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-02-26 10:37:25
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7007

ruisleipa wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

It really doesn't matter who ultimately owns the wealth because it's being used by companies to run their businesses.
Tell that to the people who don't have any money or get their pensions wiped out.
Get government job lelz.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-02-26 10:37:55
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6872|SE London

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Sure, if you want massive inflation.
Not massive - just more.

Which over the past year or so would've been quite good in the face of all the deflation and negative real interest rates.
So you're suggesting they should've kept the bubble going? Deflation was inevitable and healthy.

You're view on money is flawed. The money held by the 1% should be viewed as outside of the economy completely. It's as if the money does not exist at all. If you were to tax and redistribute the money and put it in the hands of the rest of the populace, all it would do is drive up prices, cause a short term bubble and then cause that bubble to deflate in another bust. Even if you were to artificially raise the wages of the people at the bottom via government payouts above the 'poverty line', they would still be in poverty because the line would rise to meet them via inflation. This is why every ideological socialist state resorts to price controls (which fail horrendously).
Nonsense.

If that were the case explain why quantative easing was being widely used?

Large injections of cash are exactly what economies in recession need.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-02-26 10:45:04)

2010-02-26 10:50:51
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5648|London, England

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Not massive - just more.

Which over the past year or so would've been quite good in the face of all the deflation and negative real interest rates.
So you're suggesting they should've kept the bubble going? Deflation was inevitable and healthy.

You're view on money is flawed. The money held by the 1% should be viewed as outside of the economy completely. It's as if the money does not exist at all. If you were to tax and redistribute the money and put it in the hands of the rest of the populace, all it would do is drive up prices, cause a short term bubble and then cause that bubble to deflate in another bust. Even if you were to artificially raise the wages of the people at the bottom via government payouts above the 'poverty line', they would still be in poverty because the line would rise to meet them via inflation. This is why every ideological socialist state resorts to price controls (which fail horrendously).
Nonsense.

If that were the case explain why quantative easing was being widely used?

Large injections of cash are exactly what economies in recession need.
Because they were trying to cushion the blow out of political expediency. Many would argue that they did far more harm than good because they propped up failed businesses and kept failed management from losing their shirts. Case in point? GM and AIG. Sure, they saved jobs, but at what long term cost?

'Priming the pump' is simply artificial short term growth that is unsustainable and delays the inevitable bottoming out that is required for a healthy recovery.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard