Senate Derp, DERP. Derpitimus Maximus. Derpity deeeeeeerp...

That's actually wholly unrelated to what I said, but thank you for reinforcing the point about the assumptions being made out of ignorance.

In simple terms; the jobs are offshored because consumers want to pay less for goods. They can and will vote with their wallet.

Unskilled labour is always the lowest valued commodity in the labour market. Why? Anyone can do it. So if you are faced with a readily available labour pool with a fraction of the costs, you will take it.

Unions and governments have successfully put off the inevitable by arranging for subsidies of these wages, which inflates their value artificially and creates an additional cost to the consumer by way of their tax.

The question I've never seen answered properly by those opposed to jobs going overseas is:

1) Are you willing to pay double for your goods?
2) Do you not like competition, and
3) Why do you hate the poor? Bangladesh and China have seen substantial increases in their living standards as a result of this - why would you strip them of opportunity?

 

Load of crap. Wages here bring larger price tags and larger price tags bring larger wages. This idea that someohow everything is stuck and the only option is slave labor overseas is some of the foulest kool aid of the right wing. And sweatshop workers do nto have opportunities, they are sweatshop workers.

 

Wow. Really? Wow.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wage-push-inflation.asp

Here's some simple econ for you, VLM.

An object costs me $10 to produce. For me to retain a profit that affords my continued operation, because I have to factor in OPEX and CAPEX (i.e. if my cost is $10 that includes parts and labour, but I have to pay for other labour costs that don't directly produce the good such as my administration team, my office costs, transport and delivery) I need to sell it at, say, $30. Obviously these are all hypothetical numbers.

Now, generally I would have to increase wages and costs equal to CPI each year. So it now costs me $12 to produce at the same end. I have two options; I can find efficiencies in the production cycle, which would be what I have spent CAPEX on. I might have to raise prices to remain in business.

Or I might find cheaper labour.

Let's say of my widget, that $10/$12 production widget contains $4 in labour costs. If I can pay $1 in labour costs and the logistics are such that I am still spending less than I did before, of course I will take it.

Did it ever occur to you that when you look at your Kenner SW toys from your childhood it used to say "Made in Taiwan" and now it says "Made in China"? And how China's getting more expensive as wages grow but it manages to leverage off its substantial infrastructure to stay in business making the devices we're typing our posts on?

Your concern was with jobs that are offshored. Whilst some service roles, typically customer service ones like call centres, are offshored mostly it's labour because people who have no university degrees and therefore specialised knowledge/training are replaceable. You have a minimum wage and labour laws. Of course it costs more to make in America, and consumers want to pay less. I mean, like I feel I'm wasting my time because you're either an enormous troll or a monstrous idiot for not knowing this most basic and immutable law of capitalism.

 

At the same time, and to a certain extent, we've also restructured our education system too much for "21st century jobs in a global economy". In high school, a lot of the focus is "get ready to go to college", even though college is absolutely not the best option for everyone. Some people can't afford it, even with significant financial aid. Other people simply are not a good fit, and drop out before completing. Still more people go to college, but come out under crushing debt with degrees that are almost worthless for getting them a job.

Currently, there is a shortage of skilled tradesmen - electricians, plumbers, and the like - in the US. These are jobs that traditionally only require a high school diploma and maybe 1-2 years of trade school. Most of the education required is on-the-job under an apprentice system. The median pay for electricians nationwide is around $50000, relatively close to the median pay for the US as a whole (about $52000).

These are jobs that simply can't be outsourced to India, China, or other parts of the world. When your toilet is leaking, it can't be fixed over the phone. It's hard to install a new circuit breaker in Boston through a video chat with Mexico. When your car breaks down in Phoenix, you can't just ship it overseas to be repaired.

Yes, technology jobs are important, but there are also a whole host of other jobs out there that just as critical to the economy, if not more so. All the programmers, designers, or engineers aren't very useful if the lights go out, the plumbing stops working, or the air conditioning in your server room breaks down.

 

At the same time, just because something has gotten more computerized doesn't necessarily mean that you need significantly more training to work with it. An auto mechanic doesn't need to know how to design an on-board computer in order to troubleshoot it or replace it, just like how they don't need to know how to design an internal combustion engine in order to fix one.

And more computerization doesn't necessarily mean that you need more technical skills to work on it. For example, when I first started using computers, our computer was a Heathkit H89. When a part broke on that computer, we literally had to get the replacement from Radio Shack, open up the computer, and solder the new part into place. Years later, when we got a blazing fast 286, if we wanted to upgrade or replace a part, we would have to adjust various jumpers to set the IRQ, or configure the speed of the serial ports, etc. Today, if I want to upgrade or replace a part in my desktop computer, all I have to do is pop the old part out and plug the new part in. No soldering, no jumpers, no nothing. Today's computers are far more complex, but they are also far easier to maintain with less knowledge.

In the same way, car manufacturers have made it far easier for professionals to diagnose and maintain cars. For example, it used to require more specialized knowledge of how a car works in order to identify which cylinder wasn't firing right, or numerous other issues. Today, you can buy a handheld device that you plug into a standardized port on any car made after 1997, and it will tell you precisely which cylinder is the problem, or whether your O2 sensor is failing, or any other such problem. And then, the manufacturers publish step-by-step directions for how to address each and every code that gets reported. All the technician needs to know is how to connect that device, and then how to look up the codes it reports. Those are skills that can be taught relatively quickly while on-the-job, especially when you consider that each manufacturer's system will be different.

Just because things are more technologically advanced doesn't necessarily mean that they require greater amounts of training or skills to work with.

 

Really, though, a lot of that training can be had on-the-job, and isn't something that you can expect the schools to provide.

 

Nobody is disputing this though; we, in fact, have launched simultaneous programmes to cater for it by way of apprenticeships and Subclass 457 Skilled Migration Visas.

To me, anyone in the last 10 years who went into unskilled labour - and I would emphatically call trades skilled labour - was either firmly in denial or a bit lazy. Manufacturing, unless in some sort of perishable good that can only be made locally, is going where jobs are cheaper. Logistics will eventually end up in full automation - look at Port of Rotterdam in Nederlands as an example, where loading, unloading and stacking of containers is done by robotics. It won't be long, maybe next decade, before most if not all delivery is done by automation with select courier roles being manual.

This is progress; it is not a Republican conspiracy to ship jobs overseas to weaken the poor and frankly if I ever make a statement as barking mad as that I expect you all to get out of the way, directly behind me, as I don't want to run you over when I eventually furiously backpedal away from it.

And for the temptation to dismiss it as not progress but something else, tell you what. Find me a thatcher, a cooper, a miller, or a smith and ask them about the proliferation of their work.

 

If your employers are anything like those in the UK, then yes, KK, they will expect the school system to provide it!

They want perfect, oven-ready employees that require no training! (Failing that, there's always the foreign option.)

 

Not everyone has the opportunity to get educated or learn trade skills.

 

The point about schooling, and tertiary education, is that it prepares the mind to think objectively about situations first and foremost. There's of course the practical element of industry specific knowledge too, but the reality is those places teach you to think laterally and critically.

If you skip university, there may be good reason for it but the higher learning aspect is overlooked entirely as a result.

So they're in denial then?

Offshoring of labour is not an <11 year old phenomenon.

 

Do you know what the word opportunity means?

 

Yes, Vivec.

Do you know what denial means?

Let's look at workers in the automotive industries, or as you would say "auto workers".

Cars made in Australia by GM Holden, and the United States, retain some appeal to segments of the market (the Ford F250, stupid though it will always be, continues to sell vast numbers). But for most consumers, low build quality than Japanese or Korean imports + higher fuel consumption than Japanese or Korean imports = low incentive to buy.

This is again, not just a 2003 onwards phenomenon.

How, pray tell, have many Detroit marques and GM Holden continued to survive?

Subsidies, or as I like to call it, a wing and a prayer.

Imagine if the money hadn't been spent propping up crappy car industries and was instead spent on training initiatives?

 

So how is that the fault of unskilled workers who haven't had the opportunity to learn a skill trade? You understand it's possible for them to not be denial and still not be in a position to learn a skilled trade?

 

Do they charge or, in your grand tradition, overcharge?

(I don't get why education and health are so obscenely expensive over there)

Are prospective tradespeople able to get student loans for these colleges?

 

Yes, of course.

Can we also understand I'd prefer not to have my taxable income contributing to waste by subsidising sectors that neither compete effectively nor innovate?

And what we're both saying then is that these workers, faced with little choices, entered into jobs they knew were highly insecure and mobile, and have no right to protest the inevitable offshoring of their roles?

And here they swear to workers they will fight to keep their jobs, that they'll be saved etc. The union official keeps their job, knowing full well that the offshoring is coming but having spent years increasing union dues and getting benefits for workers above and beyond the value of the labour they've made sure the workers are resistant to retraining and left in the lurch when they should be preparing to retrain. Gosh unions love workers!

 

We've made trade offs. We've traded many manufacturing jobs here in the states for cheaper ones overseas. But that's not the only thing we get: we get cooperation among nations when we do that. This engenders a greater sense of trust. Trust can lead to peace. Global trade lowers all kinds of costs all across society and contributes to culture.

Yes, there are some negatives: job loss and dislocation, wages, etc.

But those can all be mitigated by a government with some safety net programs in place.

 

The reason they entered into those jobs is because they had no other opportunities and they have to put food on the bloody table. They have every right to protest when it goes away.

 

I agree people have a right to protest jobs being sent overseas. That is their right. However, there is a reason Costco, Wal-Mart and all these huge box stores offering cheaper versions of higher-end things once unattainable by the working class are so popular. And I just gave it.
You adopt a nativist economic program and our purchasing power would drop precipitously and the cost of products would skyrocket, to say nothing of creating more job loss in the transition back to a neo-mercantilist economic program. Overall, costs would go up, trade and diplomacy would decline and alliances would suffer.

The economy is connected to everything. Pull a loose thread and it will undo more than you might want.

 

My issue here is Ender decrying all the unskilled workers as lazy and/or in denial, refusing to acknowledge that people might have not have opportunities.

Privilege blinds.