[andrekuper]

If you read Batra's "Myth' you will see a reference to the work of one (very conservative Economist), U. of Nebraska's Wallace Peterson.

Peterson, who synopsized what is and has been happenening to our economy for years, in his 1991 work 'The Silent Depression' found that those who derive their funds from wages (eg, 'workers') constitute 80% of our population (along with dependents, of course), while the other 20% of the population (he didn't give them a label, so I'll just call them 'elites') derive their funds from investments, fees, bonuses.

He further found that the workers' economic conditions/security was dropping like a cat with a 50 lb. stone around its neck, while the exact inverse was true of the elites.

Therefore, he concluded, that when economists say (as they do) that free trade helps 'consumers' but hurts 'workers', they we actually saying that the only 'consumers' who are in reality helped are those 20% at the top.

Couple this with the ignorance of the general populace about how Wal-Mart (for example) 'rolls back prices' (wonder how the public would feel if the slogan was designed to reflect reality and said 'We're rolling back wages'?) and you can conclude that the demand for cheap goods comes from the top- not the bottom.

[JohnVK]

If you read Batra's "Myth' you will see a reference to the work of one (very conservative Economist), U. of Nebraska's Wallace Peterson.

Peterson, who synopsized what is and has been happenening to our economy for years, in his 1991 work 'The Silent Depression' found that those who derive their funds from wages (eg, 'workers') constitute 80% of our population (along with dependents, of course), while the other 20% of the population (he didn't give them a label, so I'll just call them 'elites') derive their funds from investments, fees, bonuses.

He further found that the workers' economic conditions/security was dropping like a cat with a 50 lb. stone around its neck, while the exact inverse was true of the elites.

Therefore, he concluded, that when economists say (as they do) that free trade helps 'consumers' but hurts 'workers', they we actually saying that the only 'consumers' who are in reality helped are those 20% at the top.

Couple this with the ignorance of the general populace about how Wal-Mart (for example) 'rolls back prices' (wonder how the public would feel if the slogan was designed to reflect reality and said 'We're rolling back wages'?) and you can conclude that the demand for cheap goods comes from the top- not the bottom.

Exactly.

[HaroldMY]

If you read Batra's "Myth' you will see a reference to the work of one (very conservative Economist), U. of Nebraska's Wallace Peterson.

Peterson, who synopsized what is and has been happenening to our economy for years, in his 1991 work 'The Silent Depression' found that those who derive their funds from wages (eg, 'workers') constitute 80% of our population (along with dependents, of course), while the other 20% of the population (he didn't give them a label, so I'll just call them 'elites') derive their funds from investments, fees, bonuses.

He further found that the workers' economic conditions/security was dropping like a cat with a 50 lb. stone around its neck, while the exact inverse was true of the elites.

Therefore, he concluded, that when economists say (as they do) that free trade helps 'consumers' but hurts 'workers', they we actually saying that the only 'consumers' who are in reality helped are those 20% at the top.

Couple this with the ignorance of the general populace about how Wal-Mart (for example) 'rolls back prices' (wonder how the public would feel if the slogan was designed to reflect reality and said 'We're rolling back wages'?) and you can conclude that the demand for cheap goods comes from the top- not the bottom.

Thank you for the explanation. I think this is how I see it as well, although I couldn't express it as well.

So in short what it means, if I understand it correctly, the bulk of purchases are made by those average workers who are slowly losing their jobs. This results in a need for even lower prices which results in further cuts... Meanwhile, those CEOs et al (the other 20%) are not effected because they depend on the company to make money, not the worker.

Sorry to simplify this so much for you Joao but I want to make sure I understand it properly.

If this is the case, the follow through I can see is that social programs will have to be put in place for these workers in order to maintain their spending habits. Without this spending, the corporations will not be able to meet their targets (ie make profits) and either close or have to re-organize. As well, since more and more people will have to get social assistance to make ends meet (there are already working poor and this trend may continue) it will be up to the other 20%~ to pay for these programs.

If I am wrong, or way out in left field, please let me know. I have broad shoulders.

[AnthonyKing]

Thank you for the explanation. I think this is how I see it as well, although I couldn't express it as well.

So in short what it means, if I understand it correctly, the bulk of purchases are made by those average workers who are slowly losing their jobs. This results in a need for even lower prices which results in further cuts... Meanwhile, those CEOs et al (the other 20%) are not effected because they depend on the company to make money, not the worker.

Sorry to simplify this so much for you Joao but I want to make sure I understand it properly.

If this is the case, the follow through I can see is that social programs will have to be put in place for these workers in order to maintain their spending habits. Without this spending, the corporations will not be able to meet their targets (ie make profits) and either close or have to re-organize. As well, since more and more people will have to get social assistance to make ends meet (there are already working poor and this trend may continue) it will be up to the other 20%~ to pay for these programs.

If I am wrong, or way out in left field, please let me know. I have broad shoulders.

Since the tax cuts take bigger percentages off of what the upper class pay then they will not be paying more for these programs which means either deficits will get even larger or programs will be cut such as what has been done recently only on a smaller scale.

[mirvokrug]

Correct, Partofme:

The people who have lost the most income are being called upon to pay the most (in % terms) to provide what is left of the safety net for their compatriots.

And meanwhile, the Rich skate out...................

Zedrow,

You've got the overall, except that those corporations are making up profits, or attempting to, which are lost here by gaining revenues from overseas markets.

Thus, the phenom of the 'American' corporation HQed in Bermuda with production facilities in China. and a call center in India.

That is how the 'race to the bottom' is working.

[Dabdklwu]

Couple this with the ignorance of the general populace about how Wal-Mart (for example) 'rolls back prices' (wonder how the public would feel if the slogan was designed to reflect reality and said 'We're rolling back wages'?) and you can conclude that the demand for cheap goods comes from the top- not the bottom.

Are you saying the general populace does not really want cheap goods?

[Weislenalkata]

Are you saying the general populace does not really want cheap goods?

Of course people want cheap goods but not if it means they lose their jobs or their wages are lowered because they are producing the goods that have to be cheap. This benefits those that invest in the companies but it hurts those that have jobs that can't compete with the low pay in third world countries. Driving down prices means driving down wages or moving to countries with no labor standards.

[tevyrefficy]

What really amazes me about this thread is that it's subject has more impact on Americans lives than most issues discussed on this site yet nobody is really debating it and it isn't all that active other than with a few members.

No wonder. It's too depressing...

[sisuarmalmicy]

No wonder. It's too depressing...

It's depressing but not even facing it isn't going to lead to ideas of how to change things.

[janeemljr]

This process of lowering american wages seems like a pretty raw deal for the American Worker, but does that mean the developing world's workers are finally seeing an increase in labor conditions or that the corporations are screwing them too?

I hope some libertarian economist (Antiutopian) comes here to provide some arguments for the corporations, because its almost scary how much of a consenus everybody here is making.

[Flieteewell]

Cheap labor is a result of two things...first feminism.
Women wanted to enter the job market to prove their value (go figure)
This was during the late 60's, In America in 1975, 70% of our households - the woman stayed at home, by 1995 - it was the exact opposite.
This created a boom of employable people. Like supply and demand, wages began to decline, today two paychecks is not a luxury - it is a requirement.

Secondly, lowered tarriffs and eased restrictions on domestic companies importing their own products.
Then - as good ole' Howard would say...is the rest of the story.

[PilotVertolet]

Of course people want cheap goods but not if it means they lose their jobs or their wages are lowered because they are producing the goods that have to be cheap. This benefits those that invest in the companies but it hurts those that have jobs that can't compete with the low pay in third world countries. Driving down prices means driving down wages or moving to countries with no labor standards.

Obviously people would rather not lose their job than pay a little extra for the goods they buy. But how many people even consider that when shopping at the local discount mega-store? The problem is I don't think most people give a damn if people somebody in another country, or somebody in another state, or somebody in another county, or even sombody across the street loses his or her job. What they do care about is saving 8 cents on a frozen pizza and consequences be damned. I just think it's ridiculous to say that the general populace doesn't demand cheap goods. Whether or not that's the best thing, or most rational thing, is up for debate.

[Longwow]

What no comment on feminism as one of the primary causes of cheap labor.
Lot's of data to support it.

[Nemerov]

Obviously people would rather not lose their job than pay a little extra for the goods they buy. But how many people even consider that when shopping at the local discount mega-store? The problem is I don't think most people give a damn if people somebody in another country, or somebody in another state, or somebody in another county, or even sombody across the street loses his or her job. What they do care about is saving 8 cents on a frozen pizza and consequences be damned. I just think it's ridiculous to say that the general populace doesn't demand cheap goods. Whether or not that's the best thing, or most rational thing, is up for debate.

Well the problem is that most people do not bother to think about what they are doing. That is sad. And most people are so worried about their personal situation that they do not realize they are contributing to a situation that might be hurting them but not in an obvious and direct way. For the most part people just do not think and are also ignorant of how much low prices really cost most Americans.

[55TRATTERENRY]

What no comment on feminism as one of the primary causes of cheap labor.
Lot's of data to support it.

I wouldn't say it doesn't have some impact since more people had to compete for jobs but then again I wouldn't say it isn't a woman's right to advance herself if that is how she would choose to live her life either.

[Hammaduersnes]

I wouldn't say it doesn't have some impact since more people had to compete for jobs but then again I wouldn't say it isn't a woman's right to advance herself if that is how she would choose to live her life either.

Your last comment is irrelavant though, it isn't how you feel about it - it is simply a fact. I could go on..but I don'y want to turn the thread into how feminism is systematically destroying our country...nor will I comment on equal pay..or voting rights...that is civil rights and has nothing to do with feminism.

But getting back to the point..feminism strongly encouraged women to get out in the world..go your own way, earn your own money...so in less than a decade, the workforce dramatically increased, and like anything else when there is an abundance of it..costs drop.

Just FYI - not to say a woman can't or shouldn't work outside the home..just stating the facts ma'am.

[Xutrsavf]

People, please keep in mind that production is meant for consumption; production is not an end in itself. And it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that a society is more prosperous if it has higher costs of production.

It's also ridiculous to look at a single factor (in this case, wages) and declare a crisis or decline or whatnot. That is economic tunnel-vision. What matters is the standard of living, which is a combination of several factors (e.g. wages, prices, quality.) Given that the standard of living is higher now than it was in the 1970's, the benefits of this "evildoer capitalist free tradeification" are outweighing the costs. It's not a matter of evil corporate CEOs benefitting at the expense of the worker; it is a matter of lower prices (and more so, a higher wage/price ratio) benefitting the consumers.

That's my rant for tonight.

[allvideO]

Your last comment is irrelavant though, it isn't how you feel about it - it is simply a fact. I could go on..but I don'y want to turn the thread into how feminism is systematically destroying our country...nor will I comment on equal pay..or voting rights...that is civil rights and has nothing to do with feminism.

But getting back to the point..feminism strongly encouraged women to get out in the world..go your own way, earn your own money...so in less than a decade, the workforce dramatically increased, and like anything else when there is an abundance of it..costs drop.

Just FYI - not to say a woman can't or shouldn't work outside the home..just stating the facts ma'am.

I'm not going to deny that it didn't have any influence over the situation although in this case it was a matter of women wanting independence which is understandable while pure greed and lack of compassion for what happens to others are reprehensible. I just want to note that before anybody just assumes I am against the rights of women. That is all.

[Czrzftmz]

I'm not going to deny that it didn't have any influence over the situation although in this case it was a matter of women wanting independence which is understandable while pure greed and lack of compassion for what happens to others are reprehensible. I just want to note that before anybody just assumes I am against the rights of women. That is all.

Yeah but feminism isn't about rights of women - that is civil rights, which is not what feminism is about.
I am a staunch anti-feminist...but that in no way means I think I am any better than a women on any level. Nor that they should have different rights or any restrictions whatsoever.
Feminism is about stripping away what is great about a woman, and turning her into a self-centered monster.

[MannoFr]

Yeah but feminism isn't about rights of women - that is civil rights, which is not what feminism is about.
I am a staunch anti-feminist...but that in no way means I think I am any better than a women on any level. Nor that they should have different rights or any restrictions whatsoever.
Feminism is about stripping away what is great about a woman, and turning her into a self-centered monster.

I don't know what you mean exactly.