Originally posted by sh76If it becomes cheaper to hire low-paid personnel, more companies will do so. This seems to make a lot of sense to me, since labour cost tends to be a significant factor in making hiring decisions. To show that it really works, someone has to try it first, I'd say.
The tax credits have not gone down during job destroying recessions and have not gone up during the eras of no unemployment. While lack of correlation doesn't prove that a bigger tax credit wouldn't help, given the absence of correlation and the common sense principle that people don't hire merely because of a tax credit, I think the burden is on the proponent of the idea that government can ensure full employment.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe use of public spending to alleviate unemployment has been amply demonstrated and the opposite consequence of austerity is being amply demonstrated today in Europe. Reducing public spending does not liberate the market - it kills the market by destroying spending power. The more public spending is cut the worse things get
If it becomes cheaper to hire low-paid personnel, more companies will do so. This seems to make a lot of sense to me, since labour cost tends to be a significant factor in making hiring decisions. To show that it really works, someone has to try it first, I'd say.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo you are saying that minimum wages drive up costs of employment, so we need enough immigrants who are willing to work at or below minimum wage so that companies can survive.
If it becomes cheaper to hire low-paid personnel, more companies will do so. This seems to make a lot of sense to me, since labour cost tends to be a significant factor in making hiring decisions. To show that it really works, someone has to try it first, I'd say.
I suppose if you believe in a peasant class it makes perfect sense. If you want a large peasant class, importing large number of 3rd world immigrants makes perfect sense. I understand your position completely.
Originally posted by EladarAs long as corporate America is allowed to offshore jobs to those willing to work for 10-20 dollars a day they're going to do it. What these short sighted companies don't seem to understand is for every job they take away from an American citizen they remove one potential customer from their customer base. Do you think these foreign workers are going to shop in America? No way. But at least it will look good on the balance sheet for a few quarters. 😞
http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/19/fewer-us-born-americans-have-jobs-now-than-in-2007/
[b]Almost one in every two jobs added since 2009 have gone to foreign-born workers.
In November 2014, one in every five U.S. jobs was held by a foreign-born worker, up from one-in-six jobs in January 2010, according to federal data highlighted by the Center for Immig ...[text shortened]... risen by two million, from 23.1 million in November 2007 to 25.1 million in November 2014.
[/b]
Originally posted by bill718Suppose a Texas company wants to hire an Oklahoma employee. Should the government stop them?
As long as corporate America is allowed to offshore jobs to those willing to work for 10-20 dollars a day they're going to do it. What these short sighted companies don't seem to understand is for every job they take away from an American citizen they remove one potential customer from their customer base. Do you think these foreign workers are going to shop in America? No way. But at least it will look good on the balance sheet for a few quarters. 😞
Originally posted by bill718If someone in the world can do your job for 10-20 dollars a day then you really aren't very productive and you shouldn't be disappointed when your high salary demands aren't met.
As long as corporate America is allowed to offshore jobs to those willing to work for 10-20 dollars a day they're going to do it. What these short sighted companies don't seem to understand is for every job they take away from an American citizen they remove one potential customer from their customer base. Do you think these foreign workers are going to shop in America? No way. But at least it will look good on the balance sheet for a few quarters. 😞
Originally posted by quackquackThat's not an inherent reason not to adopt protectionist policies that discourage the outsourcing of jobs to the regions wherein there are people willing to work for 1/10 of minimum wage.
If someone in the world can do your job for 10-20 dollars a day then you really aren't very productive and you shouldn't be disappointed when your high salary demands aren't met.
Originally posted by sh76If we can produce things significantly cheaper elsewhere then we should benefit from cheaper goods. The replaced American worker is by definition overcompensated in the market and we should take advantage of the cheaper foreign alternative. To legislate otherwise is silly as we deny ourselves the benefits of cheaper products.
That's not an inherent reason not to adopt protectionist policies that discourage the outsourcing of jobs to the regions wherein there are people willing to work for 1/10 of minimum wage.
Originally posted by quackquackI don't know about productive, but definitely not skilled.
I never actually said that but I'll stand by my actual statement: if you can be replaced by someone who makes 10-20 dollars a day, you probably aren't that productive.
I'd say there are a great many hard working productive people not getting paid what they should be getting paid. They are basically working for slave wages because they work for immoral people.