Re: interesting little tidbit about our cheap food

[Guest guest]

>It isn't the case though

>> that a " working poor " person can necessarily bootstrap

>> themself into a better job. YOU could, and I could (and

>> did!). But a lot of my classmates could not, unless

>> society changes drastically.

>

>Why not?

Because of the changes in the types of jobs

and available pay scales. Look at it this

way ... the average IQ is 100. By definition.

Most of the higher paying jobs require

not a strong back (which used to be the criteria)

but the ability to use a spreadsheet, speak

well, add numbers, stuff like that. There

is a lot of on the job learning.

Now, half the country has an IQ over 100.

Half has less. Those with an IQ of less

than 100 have a very difficult time learning

the stuff you have to know to get the 'better'

jobs. Even something like bartending, it is

the nice, hip, vocal bartenders (and, dare

I say, the cuter ones?) who get the best tips.

Talking and mixing drinks, keeping tabs

on 10 tables at a time, takes MEMORY.

I had a friend once who had an IQ

of about 90. She wasn't " retarded " but

she had limited options. She was sweet

and wonderful but I have no idea what kind

of jobs she could get. She really could not

think quickly. She was afraid to run the

bathwater when she stayed at my house,

it was hard for her to figure out the faucets.

Now if you add in the people who ALSO have

to be on drugs for various mental problems,

and you have a lot of people who are stuck

in really low paying (or no) jobs.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Because if you're getting paid, the net income is the pay you take home, but

>when you are looking at the larger economic picture, tax money is no less

> " net " then non-taxed income, because it all goes somewhere in the economy, so

they

>use " disposable " as the income that can be disposed of in some way by people.

>*shrug*

>

>Chris

When I was in a " how to spend your money " class though, they

defined " disposable " as what you had after you paid for rent,

utilities ... the " fixed " stuff. Or maybe " discretionary " would

be a better term.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>I like Barbarah Erenreich and I haven't read the book but have wanted to for

>a long time, but I don't think it's accurate to describe her that way. What

>she is is a hardcore radical leftist who went into the jobs as a hardcore

>radical leftist intending to write a book, and then wrote the book. She writes

for

>The Nation, (and the WAPF journal!) and she also writes for ZNet, which is

>home to the likes of Chomsky, Zinn, etc.

Ok, well how about reading Newsweek then, this week:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/997103.asp

Even if you’ve never been to the Rescue Mission, all the evidence for this

is in a damning new book called “The Betrayal of Work” by Beth Shulman, a book

that should be required reading for every presidential candidate and member of

Congress. According to Shulman, even in the go-go ’90s one out of every four

American workers made less than $8.70 an hour, an income equal to the

government’s poverty level for a family of four. Many, if not most, of these

workers have no health care, sick pay or retirement provisions.

We salve our consciences, Shulman writes, by describing these people as

“low skilled,” as though they’re not important or intelligent enough to deserve

more. But low-skilled workers today are better educated than ever before, and

they constitute the linchpin of American industry. When politicians crow that

happy days are here again because jobs are on the rise, it’s these jobs they’re

really talking about. Five of the 10 occupations expected to grow big in the

next decade are in the lowest-paying job groups. And before we sit back and

decide that that’s just the way it is, it’s instructive to consider the rest of

the world. While the bottom 10 percent of American workers earn just 37 percent

of our median wage, according to Shulman, their counterparts in other

industrialized countries earn upwards of 60 percent. And those are countries

that provide health care and child care, which cuts the economic pinch

considerably.

In America we console ourselves with the bootstrap myth, that anyone can

rise, even those who work two jobs and still have to visit food pantries to feed

their families. It is a beloved myth now more than ever, because the working

poor have become ever more unsympathetic. Almost 40 years ago, when Lyndon

declared war on poverty, a family with a car and a Dutch Colonial in the

suburbs felt prosperous and, in the face of the president’s call to action,

magnanimous. Poverty seemed far away, in the shanties of the South or the worst

pockets of urban blight. Today that same family may well feel impoverished,

overwhelmed by credit-card debt, a second mortgage and the cost of the stuff

that has become the backbone of American life. When the middle class feels poor,

the poor have little chance for change, or even recognition. Does anyone think

twice about the woman who turns down the spread on the hotel bed?

[Guest guest]

>But this is a problem with deficient family structure, not the economic

>system (not that there aren't problems with the economic system). By what

standard

>is the father-mother-child unit the fundamental family unit? Where are all

>the grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins?

>

>Chris

All those folks SHOULD be in the picture, and that is part

of what makes our society generally dysfunctional. We

don't really have a working " culture " , what we have is

a lot of individuals working really hard to buy

products and pay rent, or living on the fringes.

I said our society is generally dysfunctional ...

part of that is economic, part of it is our culture

or lack thereof. It is clear that some other countries are

doing better than us at this. However the one

person I don't blame is the individual: taken as a whole

Americans are pretty much programmed like Danish

or Australians or Africans. People as a group don't

vary that much (though they do as individuals).

But the start of the

message was the question " why don't they just get

a better job? " and the answer is ... some folks will

get better jobs. But some folks will wind up in

the 1/4 jobs that don't pay enough to live

above the poverty line:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/997103.asp

While the bottom 10 percent of American workers earn just 37 percent of our

median wage, according to Shulman, their counterparts in other industrialized

countries earn upwards of 60 percent. And those are countries that provide

health care and child care, which cuts the economic pinch considerably.

Now, if you interview well, and are smart and

motivated, you will probably get the job.

What do you think happened to the other 20

people that ALSO interviewed? Some of them

will get good jobs. A lot of them won't. If you

are a white male, you are more likely (statistically)

to get higher paying jobs, esp. if you are young.

Try looking at the statistics, try looking at the

whole picture, before you extrapolate too

much from your own (earned) success.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>> That's where you get into the " class " system of jobs.

>> SOME jobs are paying quite nicely, and some create

>> a class of the " working poor " .

>

>Just to clarify, you're not saying that the jobs make them poor, are

>you?

Depends. If you need to work for $8 an hour and raise a kid, you

end up being poorer than if you didn't work, in some instances.

>> It isn't the case though

>> that a " working poor " person can necessarily bootstrap

>> themself into a better job. YOU could, and I could (and

>> did!). But a lot of my classmates could not, unless

>> society changes drastically.

>

>Why not?

Because they could never, ever meet the criteria for the

higher class of jobs. Because of their upbringing, because

of their families, because of their lack of ability to do math

and abstract thinking. Because their moms took drugs.

Now you can say " well, then it's their fault " . Sure, in some

sense. But it's my problem too -- those people, on the street,

don't make this place a nice place to live! Plus some were friends.

Sure, it is a cycle.

But let me tell you about one success story. She is a lady

whose family (by her account) are a bunch of losers. In and

out of jail and rehab. However, when she was 16 or so she

got sent to " camp " in one of those " new society " kinds of

programs. For 6 weeks she got trained in " how to get a job "

and " how to keep a job " and " how to handle money " . And you

know what? She's made great decisions with her life

and done some really intelligent things, even when she

had no money. The rest of her family did not.

She also made some contacts at camp outside her

normal " dysfunctional " society set. Who helped her

get jobs later.

So there is an example of a fairly simple policy decision

that kept one family out of poverty.

>> Plus, most jobs now are facing competition from

>> cheap overseas labor (even programmers!) and

>> that will drive down wages.

>

>It may drive down nominal wages, assuming no inflation. However, it will

>also drive down prices if the government has the good sense not to slap

>on huge tarifs in a fit of protectionism, so real wages for everyone

>except programmers will rise as a result (as a programmer myself, I

>assure you that you need shed no tears for me). Consider the following

>thought experiment:

Sure, in the LONG run things even out. It is like breaking

the dam in the Mediterannean .. for a long time it flooded,

then folks had a new sea. However, in the short run, a

lot of folks drowned. One of the jobs of gov't is to ease

the transition. Or, you can believe it is the job of all

of us to just grab the nearest liferaft.

There is SUCH a huge difference in wages right

now that it is a big flooding effect. The programmer

loses his job, he loses his house maybe (I know

at least once case of that). He stops buying stuff.

His town suffers. In 5 years, it'll all be normal again.

But really, was it humane?

The profits, at least in the current scenario, go

mainly to the top 10% of humans. The ones at

the lower regions are watching real wages drop.

Again, this could be mitigated. Folks in other

countries will do better, in the long run. I'm all

for that!

>The explanation is simple: TVs, computers, Internet connections, and the

>like are not considered necessities, and therefore there has been little

>attempt to regulate them or make them more " accessible " to the poor. As

>a result, quality has improved while prices have fallen.

Hmm. Actually I doubt that. Most of those things can be made

cheaply overseas, or by robot. Houses cannot, and there is

a huge competition for location. The health industry is in

total disarray. If you want to look at the results of privitization,

look at energy prices and Enron.

I would be very interested to hear an example of a country in which

>water was cheap and clean under public ownership and the situation

>deteriorated as the result of establishing a free market in water.

India. There is a lady (I don't have her name offhand) who is lobbying

about precisely that issue. And for electricity, you have my electric

bills, which have doubled courtesy of " privitization " . If there was

truly competition, I grant you these things would not happen, but

in the current scenario " privitization " is the same as " monopolization " .

>You mentioned earlier that the two expenses which have increased the

>most in recent decades are health care and housing. It's worth noting

>that both of these have seen tremendous increases in regulations over

>the same time period.

I can tell you don't like regulations! The health care folks don't cite

those as a reason ... actually one of the better programs

about the issue had to do with investments. Health insurers

make most of their money on the stock market ... when the

market falls, they lose money. But they typically blame

lawsuits. Me, I blame lack of prevention (if we all ate a paleo

diet, no wheat especially, we'd cut illness drastically).

Another group blames the WAY we insure people. People

tend to get insured, get lots of work done, then drop the

insurance. A lot of gov't money also goes to support

emergency rooms, where people end up (at great expense)

when they could not get preventative care.

Anway, some other countries ARE doing better than us

at this, and they still have regulations. Regulations

are a way of life, for better or worse, and I thank heaven

for them every time there is an earthquake and my

house doesn't fall down. They can be MUCH easier

to implement though, they are a mess at the moment.

>The biggest problem, I think, is that so much policy is made, period.

Yep, this guy doesn't like policy. Maybe we should

go back to the Wild West, it's every man for himself!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

At 06:05 PM 11/30/2003 -0800, you wrote:

>

>>Because if you're getting paid, the net income is the pay you take home,

but

>>when you are looking at the larger economic picture, tax money is no less

>> " net " then non-taxed income, because it all goes somewhere in the

economy, so they

>>use " disposable " as the income that can be disposed of in some way by

people.

>>*shrug*

>>

>>Chris

>

>When I was in a " how to spend your money " class though, they

>defined " disposable " as what you had after you paid for rent,

>utilities ... the " fixed " stuff. Or maybe " discretionary " would

>be a better term.

>

>-- Heidi

Thats how l took it in the beginning. Whats left after mortgage/rent,

utilities, gasoline, car, homeowners insurance, property taxes, excise

taxes. Can be car payments, day care in there too. Utilities, gasoline and

all insurances have increased in the last few years. Wonder if

unemployed/underemployed is factor here. Forget which Democrat in a debate

month or so ago said this Bush administration has lost more jobs than the

last 11 presidents put together.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>>Why not?

>

>Because of the changes in the types of jobs

>and available pay scales. Look at it this

>way ... the average IQ is 100. By definition.

>Most of the higher paying jobs require

>not a strong back (which used to be the criteria)

>but the ability to use a spreadsheet, speak

>well, add numbers, stuff like that. There

>is a lot of on the job learning.

>

>Now, half the country has an IQ over 100.

>Half has less. Those with an IQ of less

>than 100 have a very difficult time learning

>the stuff you have to know to get the 'better'

>jobs. Even something like bartending, it is

>the nice, hip, vocal bartenders (and, dare

>I say, the cuter ones?) who get the best tips.

>Talking and mixing drinks, keeping tabs

>on 10 tables at a time, takes MEMORY.

Food and environmental allergies, chronic ailments and the quality of life

outside of the job too determine if one's IQ can function to do the job at

level.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

> Even if you’ve never been to the Rescue Mission, all the evidence for

this is in a damning new book called “The Betrayal of Work” by Beth Shulman,

Coincidence you brought this up, Heidi. Pretty sure l've mentioned l clean

private homes. Work for some great people who don't think dignity is a

right that must be earned. Spend their lives fighting for everyone's

dignity. Am fortunate all others there's mutual respect too. Anyway they

had this book on their coffee table recently.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Wanita Sears " <wanitawa@...>

> Pretty sure l've mentioned l clean...

Okay, I have to ask--did you type a lower-case 'L' instead of an

upper-case 'i' because it's slightly faster and looks the same in many

fonts, or was it just a typo? If it was the former, that's pretty

clever.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/1/03 2:02:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Now, if you interview well, and are smart and

> motivated, you will probably get the job.

> What do you think happened to the other 20

> people that ALSO interviewed? Some of them

> will get good jobs. A lot of them won't. If you

> are a white male, you are more likely (statistically)

> to get higher paying jobs, esp. if you are young.

> Try looking at the statistics, try looking at the

> whole picture, before you extrapolate too

> much from your own (earned) success.

Actually, I don't have any on hand, but I remember reading statistics that

indicated that people mostly hold the bottom fifth or so of jobs as temporary

positions. My family's experience bears this out-- we've been on welfare, and

we've made six figures, and now we're making about $30K.

It's true that if 1/4 jobs don't pay above the poverty line, but this doesn't

mean much because the poverty rate is nowhere near 25% of families. To a

16-year-old, $7/hr is a lot of money, and it can help out the family a lot.

My first job when I was 13 paid $3.50 an hour on a farm, and I was working

12-hr days for a while. The minimum wage was something like $5.15 at the time

for non-farm/non-restaurant workers. Now if my MOTHER was making that, we

would have been starving on the street, but when *I* was working that job, it

was

one more job that wouldn't have existed (along with the farm) if the farm was

required to pay minimum wage and obey child labor laws, and it gave me a sense

of independence, work ethic, and the ability to buy my own stereo (something

other kids whose parents had more money bought for them), not to mention pizza

cigarettes and pot. lol. Anyway, all I can say is thank God for child

labor!

So I imagine many or most of these folks making min wage are teenagers. And

then, good! That'll teach them to work for their money instead of bumming it

off their parents, something they otherwise wouldn't learn if the minimum wage

was $12/hr. What would happen then is parents could live easier without

their kids working, but kids would have no opportunity to work cause there

wouldn't be any mroe jobs. Is that what we need? More pampering?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/30/03 8:10:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, irene@...

writes:

> Working

>

> At 04:53 PM 11/30/03, you wrote:

> >Where are all

> >the grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins?

Hmm... most grandparents retire at some point, and fulfill their historical

role of helping the next generation raise children. My grandmother played a

big role in raising me. She started working as a lunch lady and crossing guard

when I started going to school, which helped out a lot, but quite obviously

the kids being raised my family was more important than anyone having extra

spending money.

Even if everyone has to work, there's no reason everyone has to work the same

shift. There are roughly three shifts in a day, and a family that is

moderately functional should be able to pull something off so that the kids are

mostly or completely raised by family. If they don't want to do that, then if

the

fundamental familial unit lacks any remote sense of cooperation, how can you

expect us to have healthy " cooperativity " at the government level? The idea

that we should become more communitarian through the federal government because

we are incompetent at doing so at the community and even family level is

backwards. Families should be functional cooperative units first, then we'll

see

what tasks are left undone for the government.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/1/03 2:42:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Used to be and still is in families with multiple children that the oldest

> child replaces the rest of the family working or moved away for better

> employment. My Mom went to work when I was 10. Youngest brother was in

> kindergarten, brother and sister in between. Mom had to work, worked 3-11,

> Dad 9-5. Was me and three siblings after school until Dad got home and full

> supper on the table then. Now latchkey children (children supervising

> themselves while parents work) are of great concern because society's ills

> have increased in the last 40 years. Its no longer just about the maturity

> of the child, children. Its about outside degradation. Did all l could so

> my children didn't have to grow up as fast as l did.

Wasn't there a parent home most of the day, since your parents worked

different shifts?

My grandfather worked and my grandmother stayed home to raise the eight kids.

Working didn't bring in much money, so my grandfather started a business

after saving, and had to work a night job for a year and a half before he took a

cent out of the business. So he ran the business during the day, then worked

another 8 hours or whatnot repairing tvs at night. Then had the kids work in

the store with him when it got off its feet.

My mom raised me single, but we only had one kid and we lived with my

grandparents.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Coincidence you brought this up, Heidi. Pretty sure l've mentioned l clean

>private homes. Work for some great people who don't think dignity is a

>right that must be earned. Spend their lives fighting for everyone's

>dignity. Am fortunate all others there's mutual respect too. Anyway they

>had this book on their coffee table recently.

>

>Wanita

That is neat! My grandfather and father spent thier

lives cursing the rich, mainly because they treated

their servants (my grandad being one of them) like

dirt. I've also interviewed folks who told me some

interesting stories about working for the really rich ...

they really don't see the " help " as people. But I

do know there are some on the other side, which

is wonderful to hear. There has been a movement

(along with vegetarianism, Fung Shui, and all the

rest) among rich intellectuals to treat humans respectfully,

even if they work for you.

-- Heidi

(if I ever get rich, remind me I said that!)

[Guest guest]

>Food and environmental allergies, chronic ailments and the quality of life

>outside of the job too determine if one's IQ can function to do the job at

>level.

>

>Wanita

Ha. Ain't that the truth. For several years I

had a bit of narcolepsy and was lucky if I could

stay awake. The stats are now that some amazing

percent (20%?) of the workforce has IBS so bad

it effects their work. I hate to think about the

folks with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue

syndrome, who mainly get branded as malingerers.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

> By what standard

>is the father-mother-child unit the fundamental family unit? Where are all

>the grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins?

>

>Chris

Used to be and still is in families with multiple children that the oldest

child replaces the rest of the family working or moved away for better

employment. My Mom went to work when I was 10. Youngest brother was in

kindergarten, brother and sister in between. Mom had to work, worked 3-11,

Dad 9-5. Was me and three siblings after school until Dad got home and full

supper on the table then. Now latchkey children (children supervising

themselves while parents work) are of great concern because society's ills

have increased in the last 40 years. Its no longer just about the maturity

of the child, children. Its about outside degradation. Did all l could so

my children didn't have to grow up as fast as l did.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

--- In , Wanita Sears <wanitawa@b...>

wrote:

>

> Coincidence you brought this up, Heidi. Pretty sure l've mentioned

l clean

> private homes. Work for some great people who don't think dignity

is a

> right that must be earned. Spend their lives fighting for everyone's

> dignity. Am fortunate all others there's mutual respect too. Anyway

they

> had this book on their coffee table recently.

Just curious, but why do you substitute lowercase l's

for uppercase I's?

[Guest guest]

>Now latchkey children (children supervising

>themselves while parents work) are of great concern because society's ills

>have increased in the last 40 years. Its no longer just about the maturity

>of the child, children. Its about outside degradation. Did all l could so

>my children didn't have to grow up as fast as l did.

>

>Wanita

I think there is something about teaching kids here too.

Kids used to hang around adults and learn from them.

Now they hang around other kids. The house used to

be the center of the universe, now it is school or the

office and houses are places to sleep. I feel like we've

sold our souls, somehow, as a country.

I saw a movie once about old Mexico. Half the movie

took place in the kitchen, where about 5 women

practically lived. Talking, laughing, cooking, tending

kids. So one could just sit chopping, or washing.

So what if one wasn't too bright, or was old ... you

could still be valuable and part of the group. The

kids could kind of float in and out -- the older

girls helped in the kitchen or watched siblings,

the older boys were out in the fields.

Gads, that just seems so much more human to me.

I've tried to replicate that life some, here, to

see how it can work in a more modern world.

Some of the Asian families are doing it stilll,

which is cool, but it requires a kind of social

change (the Asian cultures tend to be much

more homogenous, which makes it easier).

Anyway, I quit " work " before the first

kid was born and have been freelance since.

It's a very different life from the corporate

ratrace. I feel like I got my soul back. I'm not

sure people in other fields CAN do that so

easily though ... one of the changes I'd

make if I were Queen would be to make

the small business laws easier and make

it easier to get medical insurance, and change

the zoning laws. Simple changes. My relatives

in Germany lived above a bakery -- the whole

family worked at the bakery downstairs and

lived upstairs. That is illegal in most places

in the US.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

At 09:36 AM 12/1/2003 -0800, you wrote:

>

>>Coincidence you brought this up, Heidi. Pretty sure l've mentioned l clean

>>private homes. Work for some great people who don't think dignity is a

>>right that must be earned. Spend their lives fighting for everyone's

>>dignity. Am fortunate all others there's mutual respect too. Anyway they

>>had this book on their coffee table recently.

>>

>>Wanita

>

>That is neat! My grandfather and father spent thier

>lives cursing the rich, mainly because they treated

>their servants (my grandad being one of them) like

>dirt. I've also interviewed folks who told me some

>interesting stories about working for the really rich ...

>they really don't see the " help " as people. But I

>do know there are some on the other side, which

>is wonderful to hear. There has been a movement

>(along with vegetarianism, Fung Shui, and all the

>rest) among rich intellectuals to treat humans respectfully,

>even if they work for you.

>

>-- Heidi

>(if I ever get rich, remind me I said that!)

None of them l consider rich. Amazingly, they all teach in some way. Like

to think making their life easier helps the next generation out. Don't

allow abuse. Had that where l last worked as a bank teller. Have quit

cleaning jobs when there was " you're less than me " hinted or advantage is

taken. I'm a person and adopted family member even at every home l've kept.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

> The stats are now that some amazing

>percent (20%?) of the workforce has IBS so bad

>it effects their work.

>-- Heidi

Probably more when you add all the one's who get traveler's constipation,

have to be out the door for work time, wheather the body worked eliminating

or not before and can't go anywhere but home too. Definitely slows all

functioning down.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

-

>Suppose that a programmer, working for $50,000/year in Macrosoft's US

>branch, can produce $75,000 worth of software.

I don't have any current figures, but I'm pretty sure nonetheless that your

guess is way off.

But for the sake of the hypothetical, let's stick with your 50/75 example.

>The $75,000 worth of software is still being produced. No loss there.

Assuming the software is no buggier, but how are you tabulating the

losses? Who would potentially incur one? Macrosoft only?

>Essentially what

>happens is that the Indian will be able to buy $20,000 worth of goods

>and services from Americans.

No, that's not what happens -- not essentially, not generally, not even

sort of. The Indian will be able to buy $20,000 of stuff, yes, but that's

where reality and your hypothetical part company. You're forgetting the

Indian stuff he'll buy and the non-American foreign goods and services

he'll buy, and those two categories could well account for the entire

$20,000. The Indian programmer isn't locked into some sort of company town

and issued scrip redeemable only for American goods and services.

>That means that we spend $20,000 to get

>$75,000 worth of software, for a net gain of $55,000.

Not we, Macrosoft. Macrosoft acquires the $55,000, and Macrosoft can use

it to hire workers in foreign countries (thus sending money back outside

the States), can invest it (in American or foreign investments),

etc. Perhaps 90% of that extra $30,000 will go into Macrosoft's main

shareholders' pockets, and the chairman, Ball Gates, will donate it to

pharmaceutical companies.

" We " as in you and I and Heidi and everyone else on the list don't

necessarily gain anything.

>If Macrosoft had

>kept the American, he would have been able to buy $50,000 worth of

>goods, giving us a surplus of only $25,000.

Again, because you're assuming that the Indian is stuck buying American

goods and services, your math is off.

>In effect, the US as a whole

>is made $30,000 richer by outsourcing the job to India. Macrosoft can

>use that $30,000 to return profits to its shareholders, make more

>software, or lower prices (most likely some combination of the three).

Even accepting your incorrect numbers for the sake or argument, Macrosoft

isn't making " us " richer unless by " us " you mean " billionaire corporate

executives " .

>Eventually, all money that gets sent overseas will

>come back in the form of purchases of American goods or services. What

>else are foreigners going to do with it? Stuff teddy bears with it?

Some of them might buy Le Creuset pots and pans. Others might spring for

Honda Accords.

-

[Guest guest]

>So I imagine many or most of these folks making min wage are teenagers. And

>then, good! That'll teach them to work for their money instead of bumming it

>off their parents, something they otherwise wouldn't learn if the minimum wage

>was $12/hr. What would happen then is parents could live easier without

>their kids working, but kids would have no opportunity to work cause there

>wouldn't be any mroe jobs. Is that what we need? More pampering?

>

>Chris

Well, this is probably a karmic attack ...

when I was in college I believed exactly

the same.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>None of them l consider rich. Amazingly, they all teach in some way. Like

>to think making their life easier helps the next generation out. Don't

>allow abuse. Had that where l last worked as a bank teller. Have quit

>cleaning jobs when there was " you're less than me " hinted or advantage is

>taken. I'm a person and adopted family member even at every home l've kept.

>

>Wanita

Good for you! I have someone who helps with the house

too, and I notice she has her pick of clients. Good house

cleaners are hard to find ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Quoting Idol <Idol@...>:

> >Suppose that a programmer, working for $50,000/year in Macrosoft's US

> >branch, can produce $75,000 worth of software.

>

> I don't have any current figures, but I'm pretty sure nonetheless that

> your guess is way off.

Absolutely. It wasn't even a guess, really. I'm just giving hypothetical

figures. I could say X and Y and the point would still hold, but actual

numbers tend to be easier for most people to grasp.

> >The $75,000 worth of software is still being produced. No loss there.

>

> Assuming the software is no buggier, but how are you tabulating the

> losses? Who would potentially incur one? Macrosoft only?

I'm talking about the effect on the sum of the wealth of every person in the

nation. It's a very crude measure, but it has its uses.

> >Essentially what

> >happens is that the Indian will be able to buy $20,000 worth of goods

> >and services from Americans.

>

> No, that's not what happens -- not essentially, not generally, not even

> sort of. The Indian will be able to buy $20,000 of stuff, yes, but

> that's where reality and your hypothetical part company. You're

> forgetting the Indian stuff he'll buy and the non-American foreign

> goods and services he'll buy, and those two categories could well

> account for the entire $20,000. The Indian programmer isn't locked

> into some sort of company town and issued scrip redeemable only

> for American goods and services.

Actually, that's pretty much what US dollars are. Suppose the Indian

programmer decides to spend most of his money at home. Really, it would be

absurd to assume otherwise. Then some other Indians will get those dollars.

Eventually, some of them will buy Chinese or French or Bolivian goods, and

then the dollars will end up in those countries. Sooner or later, one of

two things is going to happen: either those dollars come back to the US via

foreign trade, or they don't--and I would argue that the latter alternative

is more desirable.

Suppose, hypothetically, that all those dollars eventually get spent on

American goods. What that means is that, in exchange for the $75,000 worth

of software produced by the Indian programmer, we have to produce $20,000

worth of goods and give them to people in other countries. This gives us a

surplus of $55,000. But suppose that, for some inconceivable reason, the

programmer just takes his paycheck and burns it. We still have the $75,000

worth of software, but we get it for free. We don't have to ship $20,000

worth of goods overseas, and our surplus is $75,000. Isn't that better?

> >That means that we spend $20,000 to get

> >$75,000 worth of software, for a net gain of $55,000.

>

> Not we, Macrosoft. Macrosoft acquires the $55,000, and Macrosoft can use

> it to hire workers in foreign countries (thus sending money back outside

> the States), can invest it (in American or foreign investments),

> etc.

Again, I'm referring to the total amount of wealth in the nation. It has a

way of spreading around. Macrosoft might lower their prices a bit, or they

might make more and better software. Maybe they invest it, which increases

worker productivity. Or maybe they'll throw a bone to the Keynesians and

spend it on something frivolous.

> Perhaps 90% of that extra $30,000 will go into Macrosoft's main

> shareholders' pockets, and the chairman, Ball Gates, will donate it to

> pharmaceutical companies.

It's very unlikely that it would really work that way, but suppose it

does--Isn't that a good thing? Yes, yes, I know that pharmaceutical

companies aren't very popular around here (although I'm really excited

about some of the things that the biotech industry is working on), but

maybe he spends it on something that is.

> " We " as in you and I and Heidi and everyone else on the list don't

> necessarily gain anything.

Maybe I have stock in Macrosoft. Maybe I buy their products. Maybe one of

their shareholders buys something from me. Maybe one or more of the above

is true of one of the thousands of other companies engaging in outsourcing.

You or I might not gain anything personally from this particular instance

of outsourcing, and as a programmer, I might actually be hurt in the short

term by having my wages driven down, but in the long term I'll find a job

in another industry, and I'll benefit through falling prices and the

general increase of wealth in the US.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/2/03 12:42:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> >So I imagine many or most of these folks making min wage are teenagers.

> And

> >then, good! That'll teach them to work for their money instead of bumming

> it

> >off their parents, something they otherwise wouldn't learn if the minimum

> wage

> >was $12/hr. What would happen then is parents could live easier without

> >their kids working, but kids would have no opportunity to work cause there

> >wouldn't be any mroe jobs. Is that what we need? More pampering?

> >

> >Chris

>

> Well, this is probably a karmic attack ...

> when I was in college I believed exactly

> the same.

You behaved exactly the same as what? You mean you worked for your money

like me instead of getting it in an envelope from your parents?

Chris

[Guest guest]

You are very lucky to have had a healthy grandmother. Mine had alzheimers.

We took care of her.

Irene

At 02:04 PM 12/1/03, you wrote:

>In a message dated 11/30/03 8:10:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, irene@...

>writes:

>

> > Working

> >

> > At 04:53 PM 11/30/03, you wrote:

> > >Where are all

> > >the grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins?

>

>Hmm... most grandparents retire at some point, and fulfill their historical

>role of helping the next generation raise children. My grandmother played a

>big role in raising me. She started working as a lunch lady and crossing

>guard

>when I started going to school, which helped out a lot, but quite obviously

>the kids being raised my family was more important than anyone having extra

>spending money.

>

>Even if everyone has to work, there's no reason everyone has to work the same

>shift. There are roughly three shifts in a day, and a family that is

>moderately functional should be able to pull something off so that the

>kids are

>mostly or completely raised by family. If they don't want to do that,

>then if the

>fundamental familial unit lacks any remote sense of cooperation, how can you

>expect us to have healthy " cooperativity " at the government level? The idea

>that we should become more communitarian through the federal government

>because

>we are incompetent at doing so at the community and even family level is

>backwards. Families should be functional cooperative units first, then

>we'll see

>what tasks are left undone for the government.

>

>Chris

>

>

>