[quote=SD Realtor]I am sorry I thought you had posted something about being in favor of wealth redistribution so I apologize for being incorrect about that.
I guess that we can agree to disagree about the value of labor. I think that capital and technology and research also play a far greater role in the production of goods and services then labor does with regards to private enterprise. You did once again refer to the exploitation of employees in other nations when in reality those exploited people probably have it a hell of alot better then their native citizens who do not have the jobs that they have. Once again, you view them as exploited simply because they get paid much less and have a much lower standard of living then the American counterpart who does the exact same job.
If the output of the two laborers is the same then isn’t the value of the product the same as well?
So your answer is to force the jobs to be in America simply to support an artificially high lifestyle?
Doesnt that seem peculiar to you?
I think the answer that you and I and everyone else knows to be true is the one we don’t want to face which is we have an incredibly high standard of living which is really not possible to maintain in the era of globalization. You can have as many isolationist policies as you like but eventually it will catch up. It really is not sustainable. A car is a car, a computer is a computer, they do not become more valuable because you paid an American 20x more to work on the line then you paid the Malaysian.
**************
It seems to me that perhaps one single possibility is to end all lobbying. No union contributions, no private contributions, no individual competitions. I thing ending political careers is good as well. There is no reason that anyone needs to be in congress or the senate for 30 years. A one or two term limit on any office seems to make sense to me. Perhaps a limit on advertising and campaining as well… At least some limitation such that the guy with the most money cannot win an election by bombarding the public with appearances and/or advertising.
The govt doesnt serve the people, it stopped doing that long ago.[/quote]
We’re basically in agreement about the lobbying. I just don’t want to see one side lose their voice unless the other side loses theirs as well. IMHO, we need a balanced system, and you can’t have that unless **everyone** is forced to play by the same rules.
The funny thing about globalization is that the consumers (who tend to be mostly Americans) lost far more than we’ve gained. We gained *somewhat* lower prices, but we did so at the expense of our jobs.
BTW, check out the prices of things, and you’ll see that we do not get the benefit of cheaper labor. The majority of that benefit goes to the corporation/shareholders/insiders (who no longer hire American workers). Profit margins are at historical highs…and consumers are out of jobs. We lost — big time — because of globalization.
So, if you value something based on what a consumer is willing to pay for it, the widget might cost a consumer 10%-30% less than it did as a result of globalization, but labor lost perhaps 20-60% (depends on what we’re talking about). I’d rather pay a bit more and have a society where the vast majority of people are able to work and provide for their families.
Also, capital, research, and technology ARE important to our economy. FWIW, I include “research” and “technology” under labor, not capital. Research and technology require somebody to actually work, whereas capital does not.
Did you know that the government is responsible for much of the basic research in the U.S.? Did you know that the government is behind most of our technological innovations? That’s your tax money at work.
For a look at some of the problems with private funding of research:
“But for many people who pay close attention to research and development (R&D), the biggest threat to science has been quietly occurring under the radar, even though it may be changing the very foundation of American innovation. The threat is money—specifically, the decline of government support for science and the growing dominance of private spending over American research.
The trend is undeniable. In 1965, the federal government financed more than 60 percent of all R&D in the United States. By 2006, the balance had flipped, with 65 percent of R&D in this country being funded by private interests. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, several of the nation’s science-driven agencies—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, and NASA—have been losing funding, leading to more “outsourcing” of what were once governmental science functions.”
But, according to some people, these govt-sponsored/paid researchers are apparently “unproductive,” since the government never does anything useful with our tax money…
