Re:POLITICS: Having Babies

[Guest guest]

>~~~But, they didn't go out to work much at all until after womens' lib. That's

my point. I wasn't talking about rights. I was talking about what actually

happened.

>Carol

A lot of Women's Lib was about " equal pay for equal work " ... not about GOING to

work.

My Mom and Aunt both worked, but they got paid a lot less than their male

counterparts.

To me it is a lot about POWER. If a woman produced 80% of what a family ate,

then that

woman had a lot of say about how the family was run. But in the 50's paradigm,

the man

" went to work " and the woman " kept the house " , which by that point was a nominal

job since automation had done most of the work. My Mom, for one, was unhappy

and bored. I swore never to be in THAT boat! The 50's housewife was alone in an

empty house, the kids at school, very little esteem. That was an historical

anomoly.

Women rebelled, but by that point they didn't know what the " right " paradigm

might be,

and really, we still don't. I'm trying something different, and it's working

pretty well,

but it's still an experiment.

Ideally, a woman raising kids has as much power and say-so as her husband, over

the

household and the children's well-being, and finances. She can breastfeed and

still

be more than a servant. Most women at this point in time take for granted that

their

husband cannot beat them or rape them legally, as was the case in the early

1900's,

and they can vote and spend money and own property. Elsewhere in the world, this

is still not the case, and women are more 'property' than 'people'.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>~~~~> You're contrasting two things that ought to be thought of as

>complimentary. The " supply and demand " of money is determined by government

>intervention in the money market, upon which the demand for housing rests.

>

>Chris

Some of it. Some of it is *climate*. People are moving to the coasts,

for a number of reasons, and in my area, the " yuppies " are investing

heavily in real estate. You have this 5% of the people who own 95%

of the dollars, and they buy stuff. Horse farms, big houses. For some reason,

people like the moderate climate of the coasts, and they invest a lot.

The net result is that while prices fall in the interior, the go up

astronomically

on the coasts.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>>But wouldn't it be suicidal for government

schools to teach economics? Unless they really

mangled it, of course.

Aven<<

~~~Not at all. I took it in high school as an elective. It doesn't get into

the particulars of the money spent by the government. It teaches economics

itself. When you take bookkeeping, you don't learn about any one company, you

learn how bookkeeping works in general.

Carol

[Guest guest]

>>>~~~> Women had the right to work before and after women's lib.<<

~~~But, they didn't go out to work much at all until after womens' lib. That's

my point. I wasn't talking about rights. I was talking about what actually

happened.

Carol

[Guest guest]

Out sourcing jobs, brings the price of goods down. When that happens, we have

more money to spend. When we have more money to spend, we spend it and that

creates more jobs, many of which will be small businesses right here in our

country. If we stop out sourcing, prices will go up instead, and the reverse

will happen. It's basic economics, which we all should have learned in high

school. Things would be better for it.

Carol

~~~~~> Of course, it should, for perspective, be considered that the choice

to employ people in other countries is a reciprocal choice between the

employer and those willing to work for that employer in those countries. Are

the

workers in these countries as greedy as the employers? Or, are the employees

who

would retain these jobs if government were to intervene as greedy as these

employers for wishing to use force to retain their higher-paying jobs?

[Guest guest]

> I'm not sure I understand the question. Certainly I'd like to see the laws

> repealed, and federal spending reduced to pre-WWI levels (< 5% of GDP).

That was what I wanted to know.

>

> To give me an idea of where you're coming from, what do you think would

> happen if the United States repealed all labor laws? Conversely, what

> do you

> think would happen if a very poor country such as Ethiopia ($700 per

> capita

> GDP) adopted US labor laws?

>

>

>

That's a good question. I don't know the answer, but I would imagine

that if labor laws were repealed here in the US, wages would drop for

one thing. If a poor country adopted US labor laws, we'd pay more for

shoes.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Deanna [mailto:hl@...]

>

> Bravo, Chris. You have made some very fine points here. But

> about the minimum wage: Companies are outsourcing even some

> good paying engineering jobs to countries with lower overall

> wages. So, I think regulation must reign in major corporate

> greed to some extent.

I agree, 100%! Businesses shouldn't be allowed to pay an Indian $15,000 per

year to do a job when there's a white man who's perfectly willing to do it

for $75,000!

[Guest guest]

I think it's more than basic economics. It's basic human rights in some

real world cases. I actually choose to pay more for shoes from places

OTHER than Walmart. Gee, isn't it nice Americans can consume so much of

the world's resources for such little money, getting fatter every day,

while third world children produce most of these cheap products with

serious health consequences acquired from repetitive stress injuries

among other problems, often without adequate food nor any pay.

Deanna

Carol wrote:

> Out sourcing jobs, brings the price of goods down. When that happens,

> we have more money to spend. When we have more money to spend, we

> spend it and that creates more jobs, many of which will be small

> businesses right here in our country. If we stop out sourcing, prices

> will go up instead, and the reverse will happen. It's basic

> economics, which we all should have learned in high school. Things

> would be better for it.

> Carol

>

>

>

> ~~~~~> Of course, it should, for perspective, be considered that the

> choice

> to employ people in other countries is a reciprocal choice between the

> employer and those willing to work for that employer in those

> countries. Are the

> workers in these countries as greedy as the employers? Or, are the

> employees who

> would retain these jobs if government were to intervene as greedy as

> these

> employers for wishing to use force to retain their higher-paying jobs?

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think you also need to look at technology leaving the US. I'm

surprised China isn't making our weapons systems. National security

plays a role that is much more important than the price of shoes. We

should be safeguarding our secrets, but we are not. We are exporting

them at our own peril.

Deanna

Deanna wrote:

> I think it's more than basic economics.

>

[Guest guest]

Well, without our jobs, they may not have anything at all.

Carol

Gee, isn't it nice Americans can consume so much of

the world's resources for such little money, getting fatter every day,

while third world children produce most of these cheap products with

serious health consequences acquired from repetitive stress injuries

among other problems, often without adequate food nor any pay.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

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

From: Deanna

" ...Gee, isn't it nice Americans can consume so much of

the world's resources for such little money, getting fatter every day,

while third world children produce most of these cheap products with

serious health consequences acquired from repetitive stress injuries

among other problems, often without adequate food nor any pay. " Deanna

Isn't it great that organizations that promote fair labor practices have

done such a great job of educating the world on child labor and fair labor

practices? I know several very large manufactures and I myself am a small

manufacturer. I have talked with these friends who are in large scale

clothing manufacture (one is the largest baby bib manufacturer in the US)

and some smaller scale manufacturers and this is one of the first things

they look at when selecting a cut and sew contractor: Fair labor practices.

They all say that they travel there and observe for themselves first-hand

the conditions in the factories before contracting with anyone.

I myself traveled to Haiti 2 years ago to look into outsourcing some of my

manufacturing. I was taken around by a woman who is the head of a

government (Haitian gov't) sponsored manufacturing and trade assoc that

regulates labor practices in manufacturing in port au prince. She took me

to 4 factories where I met with the owners. I saw no children in any of

these places and I think there are enough unemployed adults in Haiti that a

child wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting a job doing anything that

paid a wage. The folks working in these factories were all paid what is a

fair wage in that country and all took a lunch break about 1pm after which

they sat around and rested for a while before returning to their sewing

machines.

I asked specifically about fair labor practices after visiting the smallest

and poorest of these factories and she told me a story about something that

a large factory had done. They had bought ergonometric chairs for the

seamstresses to sit on at the sewing machines. The seamstresses all brought

pieces of wood to place in the bottoms of the chairs. Her organization went

in to find out what was going on. The seamstresses explained that the

chairs were uncomfortable and they needed the firmness of the wood to sew

more comfortably.

I do think there is much less child labor in most of these places than is

commonly thought. After all, Wal-Mart couldn't purchase huge numbers of

Mexican and Haitian made clothing lines if they were made by children or

under any unfair labor practices.

I would still like to outsource to Central America or Haiti when the time is

right. I would feel that I was helping keep one little family in food and

shelter in a country where abject poverty is the rule and not the exception

and nutrition is having a piece of cassava bread for breakfast and some rice

with bean sauce for dinner and if you were lucky a bit of goat's meat. (Gosh

I mish that Haitian food!)

Connie Bernard

http://www.PandoraPads.com

Organic Cotton Feminine Pads, Tampons, Nursing Pads,

Natural Progesterone Cream, and Children's Supplements. 

On-line Discount Voucher: nn242g223

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

> >~~~~> You're contrasting two things that ought to be thought of as

> >complimentary. The " supply and demand " of money is determined by

> >government intervention in the money market, upon which the

> demand for housing rests.

>

> Some of it. Some of it is *climate*. People are moving to the

> coasts, for a number of reasons, and in my area, the

> " yuppies " are investing heavily in real estate. You have this

> 5% of the people who own 95% of the dollars

The top 40% have 95% of the wealth. The top 5% have about 60%.

> and they buy

> stuff. Horse farms, big houses.

What do horse farms and big houses have to do with lower- and middle-class

housing?

> For some reason, people like

> the moderate climate of the coasts, and they invest a lot.

> The net result is that while prices fall in the interior, the

> go up astronomically on the coasts.

Speculative bubbles do happen, but they rarely last long, and those involved

usually lose a lot of money unless they get out at the right time. The real

question is, with prices as high as they are, why aren't builders keeping up

with demand? One possible factor is the so-called " smart growth " initiatives

that limit the supply of new housing. General red tape around construction

is another. Keep in mind also that housing prices haven't tripled everywhere

in Washington (if I were you, I'd sell the house, buy a cheaper one

elsewhere, and pocket the difference, but that's just me). You just happen

to live in a particularly hot neighborhood, and your experience is not the

norm.

Anyway, if some people can't afford to live in the nicer areas, what's the

problem? Let them move. They may even make some money on their houses once

sanity returns to the market.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/04 2:12:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, cah@...

writes:

> The point I was trying to make about the vote, (that evidently was lost

> somehow), was that it and women going to work had little to do with each

other.

> They've been linked together as if they go hand in hand, and I feel they're

> unrelated to each other.

_____

~~~~> Yes you did say that-- I think it was lost on me because I didn't

really understand why anyone would suggest that they *were* related, which had

never occurred to me.

_____

I wasn't saying one was any more important than the other, OR, for that

matter,

> that either one was even important at all in the grand scheme of things.

> They're both just a part of history. My only real point was that the womens'

> movement had a great influence on women going to work......that it hasn't

> only been a high divorce rate that's caused it. And, that womens' entrance

into

> the work force pretty much in 'droves' in the 60s and 70s has greatly

> influenced the wage rates.

____

~~~> Good points.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/04 2:31:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Some of it. Some of it is *climate*. People are moving to the coasts,

> for a number of reasons, and in my area, the " yuppies " are investing

> heavily in real estate.

_____

~~~~> That explains regional differences, not the overall upward trend of

home prices.

______

You have this 5% of the people who own 95%

> of the dollars,

______

~~~~> I think your confusing a couple statistics and am not sure what you're

saying. You say " own " but your speaking of " dollars, " and the former seems to

indicate your speaking of wealth while the latter seems to indicate your

speaking of income, which are two different statistics.

______

and they buy stuff. Horse farms, big houses. For some reason,

> people like the moderate climate of the coasts, and they invest a lot.

> The net result is that while prices fall in the interior, the go up

> astronomically

> on the coasts.

______

~~~~> Regardless of what rich people want in some areas, as long as there are

less monied folks who want homes, and builders of homes are not restricted

from building homes that can sell at prices those folks can afford, there will

be homes that those folks can afford.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/04 9:56:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, hl@...

writes:

> Cute, . By this economics only view:

> If $15,000 per year to do a job is better than paying $75,000 for the

> same job,

> then $0 per year to do a job is better than paying $15,000.

> Therefore, let us allow slavery to maximize the cheapness of goods and

> services.

_______

~~~~> Are you seriously suggesting that volunteer work should be illegal? An

Indian *not willing* to do the job for $0/year but forced to do it anyway, is

a slave. An Indian willing to do the job for $0/year is a volunteer, not a

slave.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/04 10:38:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,

hl@... writes:

> Come on. Someone willing to volunteer is fine. Slavery can and does

> exist today. Do you think forced child labor is okay?

_____

~~~~> No, of course not. But you presented the issue of slavery as a

reduction of 's argument. You suggested that there was a continuum that

connects $75,000/yr, $15,000/yr, and slavery, and that being equally permissive

towards the first two logically required being equally permissive to the final

point on the continuum, slavery.

My point is not that slavery does not exist, but that slavery does not exist

on the continuum described above. It is a separate phenomenon that is

distinguished by its involuntary character, making it fundamentally different

from

the voluntary worker who receives either $75,000/yr or $15,000/yr.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> I agree, 100%! Businesses shouldn't be allowed to pay an Indian

> $15,000 per

> year to do a job when there's a white man who's perfectly willing to do it

> for $75,000!

>

>

>

Cute, . By this economics only view:

If $15,000 per year to do a job is better than paying $75,000 for the

same job,

then $0 per year to do a job is better than paying $15,000.

Therefore, let us allow slavery to maximize the cheapness of goods and

services.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/04 3:16:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes:

> >Hey if I am willing to endure rape to save the lives

> >of my children, does that mean I volunteered for it? It is

> >not so cut and dry. When faced with a dilemma, many people

> >will be willing to do things they would not consider otherwise.

>

> This lacks context. Why are your children's lives in danger? Are they

> starving, and is a man offering to feed them in exchange for sex from you?

> Or is he threatening to kill them if you don't have sex with him? There's a

> big difference. In one case, you're already in a bad situation that has

> nothing to do with him, and he's offering to help you for a price. You're

> free to accept or refuse based on your scale of values. In the other, you're

> doing just fine and then he comes along and threatens to kill your children

> if you don't do something for him. I'm slightly afraid to ask this, but

> which do you think is a better analogy for low-wage factory workers?

____

~~~~>I didn't see Deanna's email yet, but I'll wait till she responds to

now anyway as I'd be interested to see the context.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Come on. Someone willing to volunteer is fine. Slavery can and does

exist today. Do you think forced child labor is okay?

Deanna

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> In a message dated 11/27/04 9:56:04 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> hl@...

> writes:

>

> > Cute, . By this economics only view:

> > If $15,000 per year to do a job is better than paying $75,000 for the

> > same job,

> > then $0 per year to do a job is better than paying $15,000.

> > Therefore, let us allow slavery to maximize the cheapness of goods and

> > services.

> _______

>

> ~~~~> Are you seriously suggesting that volunteer work should be

> illegal? An

> Indian *not willing* to do the job for $0/year but forced to do it

> anyway, is

> a slave. An Indian willing to do the job for $0/year is a volunteer,

> not a

> slave.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hey if I am willing to endure rape to save the lives of my

children, does that mean I volunteered for it? It is not so cut and

dry. When faced with a dilemma, many people will be willing to do

things they would not consider otherwise.

Deanna

> An Indian willing to do the job for $0/year is a volunteer, not a slave.

> >

> > Chris

>

[Guest guest]

>The top 40% have 95% of the wealth. The top 5% have about 60%.

Still buys a lot of houses!

>> and they buy

>> stuff. Horse farms, big houses.

>

>What do horse farms and big houses have to do with lower- and middle-class

>housing?

A high tide floats all boats? I don't know exactly how it works, but I'd guess

the guy in the mobile home who sold his place for mass bucks has to go

out and buy something else. Plus the influx isn't *just* the massively

rich, a lot of it is folks who just are richer than the folks who used to

live here. It happened out on the islands too ... used to be full of poor

hippie types, now it's full of richer types, both the acreage and the more

crowded places that used to be rundown lower income housing.

>Speculative bubbles do happen, but they rarely last long, and those involved

>usually lose a lot of money unless they get out at the right time. The real

>question is, with prices as high as they are, why aren't builders keeping up

>with demand?

Partly because we DO value quality of life around here and don't want

to turn into another Los Angeles or San Franscisco. Sure, we could cut

down every last tree and put in a ton of housing tracts (and that is

happening, plus loads of apt. dwellings). But then, of course, the *desireable*

housing is where it is zoned so that can't happen, which is exactly why

we moved here, and why other folks want the same place. All the poor

folk, of course, should move to where it is crowded, dirty, has lots of

tornadoes, high crime, which is exactly what happens.

> One possible factor is the so-called " smart growth " initiatives

>that limit the supply of new housing. General red tape around construction

>is another. Keep in mind also that housing prices haven't tripled everywhere

>in Washington (if I were you, I'd sell the house, buy a cheaper one

>elsewhere, and pocket the difference, but that's just me). You just happen

>to live in a particularly hot neighborhood, and your experience is not the

>norm.

It is the long-term experience norm, however. Housing has gone up, land

prices have gone up, as the population has gone up. And yeah, building

rules etc. have a lot to do with that, plus wages for contractors (they

are expensive!). But even with all the rules, mobile home prices have

remained reasonable and they are nicely built, and people can and do

build their own homes with their own labor quite cheaply. So I blame

the land prices and cost of contractor labor. I just got a 4 bedroom

mobile, 6-inch energy efficient insulation, 1300 square feet, new,

for $53,000 delivered (including appliances and carpet), and it meets

all the codes nicely. That's for my Mom to live in. Same house in LA or Seattle

or Snohomish, built on the property, would sell for over $200,000. The mobiles

are stick built just like regular houses, actually to higher standards than

most.

>Anyway, if some people can't afford to live in the nicer areas, what's the

>problem? Let them move. They may even make some money on their houses once

>sanity returns to the market.

Let them eat cake! Sure, they will move, but the prices haven't come down over

the years. The nice spots, with a view or clean air to breath or on a lake, will

keep going up by the inexorable laws of capitalism, and the poor get the

worst, the most crowded, the most polluted, etc. That's the way it's supposed

to be, right?

However, you also have to remember the job market. A poor person pretty

much has to live where the job is, and if they want a support network, where

their friends and family are. (aren't you always talking about how it's the job

of kids to take care of their parents etc?). That's one reason LA has become

like it is. ALL the houses there, even in the bad neighborhoods, are pricey!

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/04 4:36:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, hl@...

writes:

> No. It is not racist or chauvinistic. It is a nationalistic view I am

> taking.

______

~~~~> With respect to the objective elements of the definition of

" chauvinism, " one of which, according to my Websters, is " excessive or blind

patriotism, "

nationalism is chauvinism, as " patriotism " is, according to the same source,

a love of one's country. " Excessive " is a subjective term, and one of scale,

so it would depend where on that scale your view lies, in the eyes of the

person using the word, but it is certainly applicable to the extent it can be

objectively defined.

______

> Do we want to outsource national

> defense? If not, why not?

> ______

~~~~~> Nations are made of people, and people have their own interests, some

of which coincide with those of others within a nation while clashing with yet

others. There is therefore no such thing as " national defense " per se,

because resources are limited, not unlimited, and therefore must be allocated

selectively, necessarily defending some interests of some people at the expense

of

other interests of the same people or of other people. Thus, there is only

defense of certain things pertaining to certain groups of individuals within a

nation, rather than a unified defense of a monolithic national interest.

As an example, for a long time the oil in Iraq was selectively defended with

a much greater amount of resources by US troops than other property within

Iraq. Had the same resources been put towards protecting the property of store

owners or individuals, or different businesses, or archeological interests,

etc, different groups of individuals would have benefited at the expense of

those

who had a greater interest in protecting the oil.

When 9/11 happened, the government failed to protect the World Trade Center

and those involved in the tragedy. When the Republican National Convention

occurred, a force of 10,000 police men successfully defended the President. A

smaller amount of human resources were employed in the search for Osama bin

Laden. These are more examples of how allocating resources in different amounts

to different tasks results in the selective defense of some interests at the

expense of other interests within a nation.

Since the government is able to levy its fees by force, without regard to its

success at the task of defense, it is not required to be successful to

maintain its revenues. A firm located within, or outside of, the US that must

perform successfully at providing its defense services, has a greater incentive

to

protect the property entrusted to it than does the US government, because

protecting US property could generate an enormous amount of revenue, and failing

the task or deliberately avoiding it would result in a loss of that revenue.

This is reflective of Bastiat's dictum, " If goods don't cross borders,

soldiers will. " The tying of financial interests between nations creates a

common

interest in peace, because the various interests within the various nations are

dependent on the protection of the property involved in their financial

assets for the continuous generation of revenue.

On the other hand, a defense firm that maintains its revenue by the use of

force (such as the US government) could not only be incompetent, but even

deliberately avoid defending the property entrusted to it, and not only continue

its

revenue, but even use this incompetence or other failure as a political

justification for increasing the revenue it acquires by force.

It is relatively easy to slip by incompetently or deliberately failing to

defend the " national interest " when there is no such thing. A firm that had

specific property to defend with specific amounts of resources to achieve

specific

results could be objectively evaluated by its customers as to whether it was

failing or succeeding to perform the duties being paid for.

Maybe " outsourcing " " national " defense isn't such a bad idea?

Chris

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Deanna [mailto:hl@...]

> > I agree, 100%! Businesses shouldn't be allowed to pay an Indian

> > $15,000 per year to do a job when there's a white man who's

> perfectly

> > willing to do it for $75,000!

>

> Cute, . By this economics only view:

What economics-only view? I was just pointing out the racism (or chauvinism)

inherent in the anti-outsourcing movement once you peel back the thin veneer

of--actually, there is no veneer. I find it tremendously amusing to see

leftists state in no uncertain terms that Americans deserve better jobs than

foreigners simply by virtue of being Americans, and that if an Indian is

happy to do the same job for less, then he can go to hell.

> If $15,000 per year to do a job is better than paying $75,000

> for the same job, then $0 per year to do a job is better than

> paying $15,000.

All else being equal, absolutely. I have a thought experiment that I like to

pull out for this. Suppose that tomorrow someone published a software

program that could generate any other program from a brief, natural-language

description of how it should behave. This would completely destroy the

software industry. I'd be out of a job. So would Heidi, unless she could

find a way to make Glutenating a full-time job. Would you consider this a

blessing or a curse?

> Therefore, let us allow slavery to maximize the cheapness of

> goods and services.

Do I really have to explain to you what's wrong with that line of reasoning?

If you can offer any plausible evidence that any product is made with slave

labor, please tell me, and I'll never buy it again. I'll also tell all my

friends never to buy it again. Keep in mind, though, that slave labor is not

defined as a job with wages below some arbitrary point. The slave analogy is

especially absurd when applied to Indian programmers in light of the fact

that the $15,000-$20,000 prevailing salary is 5-7 times the per-capita GDP

of $2900 (CIA World Factbook).

As for your rape analogy from a later post...

> Hey if I am willing to endure rape to save the lives

> of my children, does that mean I volunteered for it? It is

> not so cut and dry. When faced with a dilemma, many people

> will be willing to do things they would not consider otherwise.

This lacks context. Why are your children's lives in danger? Are they

starving, and is a man offering to feed them in exchange for sex from you?

Or is he threatening to kill them if you don't have sex with him? There's a

big difference. In one case, you're already in a bad situation that has

nothing to do with him, and he's offering to help you for a price. You're

free to accept or refuse based on your scale of values. In the other, you're

doing just fine and then he comes along and threatens to kill your children

if you don't do something for him. I'm slightly afraid to ask this, but

which do you think is a better analogy for low-wage factory workers?

[Guest guest]

And no one steals children away from mothers. They voluntarily give them

up for a time in order to free up that time to earn money. -

-------------------------

,

You are correct in the case of daycare that it is voluntary. However,

compulsory attendance age laws are, in fact, a way states steal away

children parent(s), also taking from them the right to control when

their children begin and end education. Did you know there are active

cases in many states to make preschool compulsory? Not only is that

ludicrous, but my younger son will graduate high school by age 16,

possibly sooner. Well, until recently, depending on our state of

residence, he might not be able to attend college because of compulsory

age attendance laws. But recent developments have helped. The feds

trump the states yet again.

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200204301.asp

" This means that any home schooled graduate, regardless of age, is

beyond the age of compulsory attendance under federal higher education

law. The result is that institutions may enroll such students,

regardless of age, without fear losing eligibility for federal benefits. "

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> What economics-only view? I was just pointing out the racism (or

> chauvinism)

> inherent in the anti-outsourcing movement once you peel back the thin

> veneer

> of--actually, there is no veneer. I find it tremendously amusing to see

> leftists state in no uncertain terms that Americans deserve better

> jobs than

> foreigners simply by virtue of being Americans, and that if an Indian is

> happy to do the same job for less, then he can go to hell.

No. It is not racist or chauvinistic. It is a nationalistic view I am

taking. And my politics don't fit neatly into left or right pockets, if

you were lumping me in with leftists. Do we want to outsource national

defense? If not, why not? Taking science and technology secrets and

outsourcing them to other countries could hurt our nation in the long

run. Computer chips being built overseas are a prime example of an

industry using foreign labor and spilling sensitive technologies to

countries that may use them for hostilities towards the US in the

future. In fact, Intel is poised to make chips in India:

http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/outsourcing/story/0,10801,97594,00\

..html?SKC=outsourcing-97594

I don't think it is for racial diversity that they do this. It is cheap

labor and relaxed environmental laws. India will have some nice

technology to exploit as they please, possibly against the US,

theoretical. This is why we usually require security clearances for

sensitive positions in the US. Chip manufacturing overseas is a

security risk to the US, imo. For another instance, it is illegal to

export any browser with 128 bit encryption, yet everyone's got it now.

Would you like to open wide the doors to globalization? Well, if so

then copyrights might as well be abolished too. Just one, big, happy

village, where everyone can learn how to build and aim ballistic

missiles at their neighbors? Whose laws would govern such an

experiment? Or are we all just supposed to get along?

>

> > If $15,000 per year to do a job is better than paying $75,000

> > for the same job, then $0 per year to do a job is better than

> > paying $15,000.

>

> All else being equal, absolutely. I have a thought experiment that I

> like to

> pull out for this. Suppose that tomorrow someone published a software

> program that could generate any other program from a brief,

> natural-language

> description of how it should behave. This would completely destroy the

> software industry. I'd be out of a job. So would Heidi, unless she could

> find a way to make Glutenating a full-time job. Would you consider this a

> blessing or a curse?

You would have to adapt. Heidi would Glutenate the world. That is just

not the same as the outsourcing of jobs, though. This kind of thing

happens all the time. Industries rise and fall on innovation. It has

always been that way.

>

> > Therefore, let us allow slavery to maximize the cheapness of

> > goods and services.

>

> Do I really have to explain to you what's wrong with that line of

> reasoning?

> If you can offer any plausible evidence that any product is made with

> slave

> labor, please tell me, and I'll never buy it again. I'll also tell all my

> friends never to buy it again. Keep in mind, though, that slave labor

> is not

> defined as a job with wages below some arbitrary point. The slave

> analogy is

> especially absurd when applied to Indian programmers in light of the fact

> that the $15,000-$20,000 prevailing salary is 5-7 times the per-capita GDP

> of $2900 (CIA World Factbook).

>

Fine, you win. Slavery was a poor example. Pornography, especially the

exploitation of children is an example of slave labor. Images are

considered a product and not a service. Of course, how would you know

you were contributing to it by simply using pornographic materials? You

wouldn't, possibly. We do know, however, that the sex trade is alive

and well, especially in Southeast Asia. So does that mean you and your

friends will abstain completely (not that you indulge in such practices,

of course, but it is a valid response to your offer)

This does have some bearing on the rape example. But honestly, it was

only an example to show willingness is relative. But the third choice

you gave below was that to which I referred.

Deanna

> As for your rape analogy from a later post...

>

> > Hey if I am willing to endure rape to save the lives

> > of my children, does that mean I volunteered for it? It is

> > not so cut and dry. When faced with a dilemma, many people

> > will be willing to do things they would not consider otherwise.

>

> This lacks context. Why are your children's lives in danger? Are they

> starving, and is a man offering to feed them in exchange for sex from you?

> Or is he threatening to kill them if you don't have sex with him?

> There's a

> big difference. In one case, you're already in a bad situation that has

> nothing to do with him, and he's offering to help you for a price. You're

> free to accept or refuse based on your scale of values. In the other,

> you're

> doing just fine and then he comes along and threatens to kill your

> children

> if you don't do something for him. I'm slightly afraid to ask this, but

> which do you think is a better analogy for low-wage factory workers?

>

>