[CruzIzabella]

[downtowndude]

I'm assuming the troll here is many of these are subjective statements with "correct/incorrect" interpretations by some apparently even-more-ignorant journal?

[feedcomnet]

For example, the comment about exploiting third-world workers -- there's two schools of thought, neither one more correct than the other:
1) You are providing employment to people who might otherwise not be employed
2) You are creating inhumane sweatshops, potentially with child labour

It's absurd to assert that there's a correct or incorrect answer with a loaded word like "exploit". It's subjective.

[orbidewa]

And free trade can lead to unemployment. All it takes is a single person laid off from his American factory because they're building a cheaper one on Mexico to make that statement true.

[Wluwsdtn]

Are you serious, Drake? Those were terribly subjective and controversial questions/statements.

As I said, I think that's the troll.

[CializCialiscsqw]

Because they've no other choice


Of course they have a choice. If working for the American company is worse than not working for the American company, then they would choose the latter.

[limpoporanique]

Because they've no other choice

Of course they have a choice. If working for the American company is worse than not working for the American company, then they would choose the latter. The presence of American companies is not in a vacuum. Their presence and their dominance impacts the formation of the developing economy.

You're not thinking big enough.

[RerRibreLok]

It's an embarrassment to universities.


To be fair, it's much less embarrassing than filosofy or the other humanities.

The presence of American companies is not in a vacuum. Their presence and their dominance impacts the formation of the developing economy.


Only an economic retard would believe that the presence of American companies in a third-world country magically dries up all the great jobs that would exist there otherwise.

I also don't see the logic in saying "minimum wage laws increase unemployment".


Of course you don't, Sloww. No one would ever expect you to understand such a basic concept.

[Effopsytupt]

Only an economic retard would believe that the presence of American companies in a third-world country magically dries up all the great jobs that would exist there otherwise. Only an economic retard would not understand the concept of momentum with specialized economies.

Once certain skillsets are developed in a region, more companies move in that meet that skillset. That encourages more people to train in that skillset, which encourages more companies that utilize that skillset.

This is basic economics and business theory.

[TeemFilla]

I also don't see the logic in saying "minimum wage laws increase unemployment".

Of course you don't, Sloww. No one would ever expect you to understand such a basic concept. Instead of being so arrogant without reason, why don't you explain it? I don't expect you to factually explain it, but explain your point of view.

[ErnestTU]

I'm assuming the troll here is many of these are subjective statements with "correct/incorrect" interpretations by some apparently even-more-ignorant journal?

There's nothing subjective about "minimum wage laws create unemployment". It's objective, empirically verifiable fact - or, alternately, it's wrong, and that's also empirically verifiable and objective.

[RedImmik]

I'm pretty sure such a concept doesn't actually exist.

It might not to economists, but it does in the real world.

Examples: Southern Ontario's manufacturing industry; Alberta's oil & gas industry.

Specifically with regards to Alberta, almost all Oil & Gas "white collar" jobs are in Calgary....far from where the actual oil & gas work is being done. And why is that? It's because there's a huge collection of people there with specialized skillsets pertaining to oil & gas management/business because there were originally a couple American headquarters there. The talent pool grew, spinoffs happened, and suddenly it's an epicentre for that segment of the economy even though it'd make much more sense to put such a place in Edmonton. But Calgary had the momentum.

Another example: Silicon Valley in California. A couple big tech companies, and suddenly it's a pretty specialized economy revolving around the tech sector. It's the dominant industry there.

[Promotiona]

There's nothing subjective about "minimum wage laws create unemployment". It's objective, empirically verifiable fact - or, alternately, it's wrong, and that's also empirically verifiable and objective.

I didn't say all of the statements were, I said many of them were subjective.

[blogforloversxx]

I don't have to read it. What Asher pointed out, and I agree, is that some jobs will go elsewhere, like Mexico. That's a narrow view of it, and not entirely true.

[DoctorIrokezov]

Hey Asher... I only have a minor in Econ (majored in Finance so there's that) and I can tell you right now that had you taken any courses beyond introductory ones (Econometrics for one), you would see that economics is far more than 'rules of thumb'. It is a scientific process more compellingly scientific than the other social sciences (which may not be saying much )

If you call economics a science again, I WILL smack you.

I do understand that later economics is math-heavy, but that doesn't make it a science either. Economics is about building models that approximate the real world and make best guesses as to how to proceed, they are not about understanding the real world. It's a pseudo-science.

But your opinions that you intuitively understand on many of these issues would only be further re-inforced. The effect of an increase in minimum wage or the application of a sales tax or anything else can result in vastly different outcomes depending on a number of conditions and variables, not too mention the fact that the outcome can be appraised with different sets of standards (is 'economic efficiency' the important value? Human social betterment? What do these terms mean?, etc.) I'm aware of all of the variables in such a situation, but this is why I think the study of economics largely fails. Economists obsess about the numbers, and they lose the big picture when they do. They don't see inhumane situations in third-world factories, they see cost-effective labour and new employment.

I consider many workers in third world countries exploited. What is the correct answer, according to this study?

[ThisIsOK]

Drake, I am curious as to your educational background in economics? Bachelors? Graduate degree?

I have a history degree from the University of British Columbia.


I've also worked in business, having designed the website for a health food store.

Sidenote: He didn't even go to UBC, which is a reputable school.

He went to the University of Northern British Columbia, a school I didn't even know EXISTED until he mentioned it. It's a small university in a small town. 4177 enrolled students.

[Retapleapse]

Economics is about building models that approximate the real world and make best guesses as to how to proceed

That's exactly what physics is, too.

[avavavava]

There is one, arguably two subjective questions on the survey, Asher: "third-world employees working for American companies are exploited" and "the standard of living is higher now than 30 years ago". That's "many"?

[womberte]

The Card and Kruger study, although controversial, indicates that other factors are involved


Ceteris paribus, *****.

[RokeIdeadioke]

I consider many workers in third world countries exploited. What is the correct answer, according to this study?

You're wrong, obviously. The lives of third worlders suck because they live in shitty countries, not because an American company came along to give them a better job that still sucks by developed world standards. They are being exploited, pure and simple.

The fact that the authors of this survey don't understand even the questions they're asking makes it a pretty awesome troll.

exploit: use or manipulate to one's advantage

How does this not apply to using cheap labour in foreign countries?