-1 vote

Is Ron for the Import of 14 cent Chinese Labor?

I constantly sing the virtues of Ron to the masses. However his advocacy of open borders for willing employers/willing workers is deeply troubling.

The prospect of competing against 14 cent an hour Chinese labor imported under an open borders willing employer/worker philosophy should be rejected soundly by any Average Joe worker with a brain.

Why would any worker support that?

Do you understand that, when brought up, Average Joes will rightly reject this "Wage Slave" scenario?..... crickets

How do I argue for that? What am I missing?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You asked

"why would you not want the high standard of living the socialists are enjoying."

Which ones, looks like most you have listed lived beyond their means. Especially the ones you mentioned.

http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock

Debts over 32% of GDP are the norm. High public debt per person, I don't see how a debt that outstrips the ability to repay it is a high standard of living? What are you talking about??

What I see from the Economist graphic is the debt-ridden countries attacking or threatening solvent countries. China, Libya, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Yemen.

Clarke and Dawe - European Debt Crisis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5QwKEwo4Bc]

You better find a better teacher, because the one you have is feeding you a lot of misinformation.

Free includes debt-free!

one thing that you are missing is what does 14 cents buy

if you live in China. What IS the cost of living?

Why is it so much cheaper to live in China than in the US?

Why are prices in the USA so high for fundamental life needs like food and health care?

What has driven up those prices and made the US non-competitive?

One might need $20 per hour to just survive in NYC. I doubt it not at all. But in Henan that would be a LOT and you could live very comfortably. It may be hard for people who have never been outside the USA to understand what a Raw Deal they are getting.

you avoid the question

regardless of what they make in China. under Rons open borders willing employer/ willing imported employee
labor could be imported for 2.00 an hour a meal an cot

why would any American worker in his right mind support that?

reedr3v's picture

Like it or not we have entered an age of a

global economy. Protectionism limits the efficiency and productivity of an isolated economy. If workers are barred from entry, and tariffs stop outside goods, businesses will flee and jobs with them. The economy will stagnate.

Government solutions are no solutions, they always backfire and make things worse.

how bout the business solutions

how have they done? bubbles, lower standard of living, corruption, owning the polititians high unemployment

business has been running the show for sometime but their totally unregulated CDS and other securities were not the cause of recession
it was the Governments refusal to do away securities Modernasation act

business has never been less regulated

SEC shredds docs for em

They are Golden Boys and blameless
it was just the people wanting retirement and medical care like every other developed country-greedy bastard Americans

you can have trade that is

good for both.

the race to the bottom with unlimited imported labor in a race to the bottom will and should be soundly rejected by American workers.

Sending your manufacturing base over seas in the name of Globalism is about to come home to roost as one of the biggest distasters in US history.

Japan treats its Automoble industry as anation security issue for a bunch of good reasons

your global perspective that is a race to the bottom for workers has a competitor in Norway,sweden, Canada, Germany, Finland

A worker would be an idiot to advocate for your world

reedr3v's picture

I guess you style yourself a friend of

"the worker." As if that were some one-dimensional Marxist stereotype. Workers are all of us who work. We don't all have the same view as you. For one, your economic education is shallow. Are you seriously holding up Japan as a model of a good economy?
If you have a serious interest in learning economics I recommend mises.org which offers many free educational materials.
If you're not interested in freedom and freed markets, why are you on this forum?

i consider myself a patriot

i dont dislike workers. to point out about how Rons policies would affect workers it would be logical that i would talk about the subject

why dont you answer the question proffered in the post

no you just imply that i said Japan was a good economic model

on Mises- explain the why Norway, Sweden, the Dutch have the highest standards of living in the world

ill help ya- they didnt study nor follow mises nor conservative principles-

where has mises had success

the facts defeat your non-argument

reedr3v's picture

Looks like our words are passing each other

by due to semantic disconnects. You are belligerent in your certainty of being "right," and are totally missing my responses that don't meet you on the same ground.

I am not into some capitalism-socialism spectrum of possibilities. I think there are many viable and good possibilities for people to live by. If the people of Sweden, etc. are happy with their systems, good for them. If they feel served well by their economies, yay.

The many factors I mentioned in this thread are complex, IMO, but you are stuck on one belief system and I don't care about arguing that out with you. I prefer liberty for each individual. If you come up with a way that can happen with a pure socialist economy, you will break new ground. And if you want to settle for those existing models you emulate, that's your choice.

I'm just not in your fight except to assert the right of individuals to opt out of a single, authoritarian system of any kind. Panarchy can work with any economic models. And IMO no economic model is ideal without acceptance of peace/freedom.

Ron is not for open borders,

Ron is not for open borders, but I do believe he doesn't really like immigration quotas (he views the welfare state as a problem with unlimited immigration, so I'm not sure what kind of policies he would implement as long as we had one).

You're using quite a few fallacies. First off, protectionism has always failed whenever it has been tried. Second, I'm not sure where you got the 14 cent figure, but to address the general low wage issue; The cost of living in third world countries is not nearly as high as it is in the US or Europe, One dollar goes a lot farther in China than the US. Second, US workers are more productive than Chinese workers (better educated, trained, etc.). If someone makes twice as much money, but is three times as productive, they will make the company more profit in the end. Paying as little as possible is a very poor business strategy, cause you end up with unqualified people doing very important jobs, lower productivity, and ultimately you lose a lot of money. That's why the vast majority of people make more than minimum wage. Third, the lower prices help everyone and free up money to be spent or saved elsewhere. And contrary to popular myth, China has actually seen the number of manufacturing workers decrease by millions over the past two decades, as have most major manufacturing economies. Much of this is due to the increasing automation of the industry. US manufacturing output is actually at an all time high.

If someone makes twice as much money,but is three times as pr

who has entered into "protectionism" and failed?
why are Canada, Germany, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden and Findland doing so well

protectionism has agood deal to do with it

unlike the US their high priced labor markets are doing very well supporting a much higher standard of living than in the US

You also act like America's PAST advantages no longer exist with China and India producing a million Engineers a year

the "quite a few fallacies" seem to rest with the concept that importing cheap labor would help that labor- just see Walmart

why do the Countries I have listed have the highest standards of living in the World-
How does that not defeat your arguement?

as clarification

Ron is not for E-verify, nor deporting the illegals nor securing the border in a meaningful way( it may be used to keep you in)

Ron also wants no interference between employer/employee- to incude a minimum wage

NOTHING in Ron's philosophy would preclude the import of cheap labor if that is what the business wanted--No gov involvement

additional Ron has indicated that wages need to go down

all of that is true again why would any worker support that policy

Ron isn't for using police

Ron isn't for using police state tactics to deport illegals, but he's against amnesty, etc. He is against the fence, but he does support securing the border. Quit using Rick Santorum logic. What's your problem with immigrants? You're buying xenophobic propaganda. I'm against illegal immigration, but if people want to come here legally, work, and not leach off the state, I have no problem. Cheap labor only gets you so far if the workers are unproductive and unskilled. The average worker isn't going to compete with a Chinese peasant. Even with all the unemployment we have, some farms have been complaining about labor shortages as immigration rates have fallen and deportations have risen. The minimum wage is pointless, because an employer will not pay a worker more than he is worth to the company. All it does is price low skilled people out of the market. Ron has said wages may need to go down to correct for the inflation that's taken place over the years (this would be accompanied by price reductions). One of the reasons the Great Depression lasted so long is because Hoover and Roosevelt either pressured or forced business leaders into keeping wages artificially high, which created mass unemployment for over a decade.

Ron is against police state tactics"

Every country in the world secures its borders. E-verify would dry up the employment for illegals

Very police state- to like the rest of the police state world, without exception, secure the borders and have control over who emigrates to your country

if you are caught in other Countries you are deported immediately- persona non-grata

Ron is for securing borders.

Ron is for securing borders. E-verify is easy to get around, and it places the burden of immigration enforcement on business. It isn't their job to enforce the laws of the country.

in the last debate he indicated

that he did not have that much interest in that- " it could be used to keep you in

other comments have already acknowledged that Ron wants wages to come down

and its clear he would not want the government involved movement of goods or labor- that not debatable

again why would any worker vote for that race to the bottom wage suppression?

He's against a fence, not

He's against a fence, not border security altogether, you're using Rick Santorum logic where no fence = no security. There are other ways of doing it, and there are ways of getting around fences.

On the economics of wages, I've explained myself as best I can. I suggest reading some of the quick links I gave you that show things weren't quite as bad as you think over the last 30 years. To gain a real understanding of where our economy is at, start reading up on Austrian economics (Von Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard are probably the three most important figures historically and all had great influence on RP). Modern day Austrians include Robert Murphy, Tom Woods, Bill Anderson, and Walter Block. Check out mises.org for more information on the subject.

Ron is Clear if you get here

i wont send you back, that is an invitation. He would like to make that illegal immigration legal as long as there is a willing worker willing employer relationship. No Gov involvement

Employers would be importing as low a wage workers as they could as fast as they could

Again WHY would any American worker support that race to the bottom?

There are farms across the

There are farms across the country that do not have enough workers, due to decreasing immigration with the recession. There are not enough Americans willing to take them, even in the bad economy. Why not let people in to take these jobs? Your main problem is your theory of wages is bad. You seem to think the only thing businesses think about when hiring is how little they can pay the person. That doesn't take into account productivity, skills, etc. If your logic was correct, no one would ever make more than minimum wage. If those immigrants (let's assume for argument's sake they were legal to make the argument purely economic) are worth more than their employer pays them, they'll look elsewhere (obviously illegals have less bargaining power). If their not, then it makes no economic sense to overpay people to perform those jobs. There probably are some people who might make less as a result of this, and I don't blame them for supporting their narrow self-interests (same reasons big companies fight for government privileges). The difference between me and you is, I don't think government exists to serve the self-interests of individuals, but rather to let people live freely, unless they violate the liberty of others through force or fraud.

China and India produce about as many

highly productive workers as can be imported
from engineers on down

college kids heavy with debt having the open borders willing imported worker/ willing employer crowd wanting to fill their jobs with Indian and chinese workers

these "productive" American kids are no match for the low import machine that wont pay them enough to pay off their student loans

it will not be long before forgein workers will take engineering jobs for 20,000 a year on our race to the bottom

So now we're shifting the

So now we're shifting the debate from low-skill to high-skill labor? You really have a problem with smart, educated foreigners moving here? These people are engineers, but they're so stupid that they take an engineering job for $20,000? How long until a competitor offers them several times that? There's a reason talented people earn more money. They have more skills to offer, and if an employer offers them too little, they will take their skills elsewhere. $20,000 for an engineer? LMAO

its clearly applicable to both

China has got engineers over here now working in the 40's

they are graduating over a million engineers a year it is supply and demand

as the supply continues to increase the wages will get lower

would an engineer work for a loaf of bread if he was hungry enough? the answer is yes

China just needs to employ people period

people in computer professions are open about saying they are being replaced by cheaper, younger, imported labor- its not a secret

Why work for a loaf of bread

Why work for a loaf of bread when you have the skills to earn so much more?

if i have a thousand

hungry engineers and 1 job.

Let me explain. just because you produce more engineers is much different than producing engineering jobs.

if i produce a million engineers a year to take 25,000 engineering jobs. you would see the wages for engineers going down.

the employer would not be saying " oh you have skill i need to pay you more because of that.

it will be -who works the cheapest.

you have seen this in the US south low wage low standard of living

The South was historically

The South was historically poor for a variety of reasons. They also have a much lower cost of living. States like New York, Hawaii, and California have some of the lowest median incomes adjusted for cost of living, right down with states like Mississippi. Your point on the general concept of labor market is right, but in the long run, fewer people will become engineers if there are not enough jobs to employ everyone. Engineers are very smart people who could probably pick up most jobs pretty well.

it is a misunderstanding to

believe that because your smart you will be paid well.look at the doctors in Cuba working as waiters in resorts

they will continue to graduate as many as they can and thus lower the wages

my freind, in the world of the free market your98% correct In the real, corporatist world, they will be cranked out sufficiently to lower their wages to the lowest posible level. that is what benefits the corps and that makes you dead wrong

Cuba? Since when is Cuba a

Cuba? Since when is Cuba a free market paradise? I think your problem is you take what I say too literally. People aren't always going to make the 100% maximum amount they possibly could. Corporations will look to pay lower wages if they can, but there are plenty of potential drawbacks to doing so. Again, if your theory was correct, no one would ever make more than minimum wage (and yet only 2-3% do in real life, and most of these are young, unskilled, and/or uneducated - very few are heads of households, and a majority of people who start out making minimum wage get a raise within a year)

I'm speaking in generalities here. I think history has shown that societies that are relatively free market and capitalist see rising wages and standards of living for all as time goes on.

i used Cuba as an

example of over graduating professionals

in Cuba's case many doctors work as waiters because there are so many doctors

wheres your example for that capitalist prospertity being showered on the people by corps

All the socialist countrys are considered capitalist

only N Korea, China Venezuela and Cuba are true socialist countries

not even Venezuela- they have freeand fair elections

Your Cuba example doesn't

Your Cuba example doesn't work cause they are a communist country that has socialized health care. It's a bad example.

Well the fact is that the countries you consider "socialist" are relatively capitalist and free market. I don't think big corporations are the source of prosperity, but rather the competition between companies, big and small, and individuals through the market process. The USA was pretty prosperous before we had any (or barely any) welfare state. The Industrial Revolution greatly increased the standard of living of everyone (yes conditions weren't great in the early days, but that's because they were even worse before then). And all of these socialist miracles you tout were not socialist UNITL THEY WERE RICH. Sweden had one of the freest and least socialist economies in the world and became one of the richest countries. The first foundations of the welfare state didn't occur till the 30's and it didn't really get going until the 50's and 60's. Same thing with the other countries. They got rich and then became socialist, and have done well IN SPITE of their socialism (just like the US)

the industrial revolution did nothing

for workers. workers unionizing brought the higher standards of living. Owner did not suddenly say lets pay them more money.
SS/medi, 40 hour work week OSHA saftey standards, child labor laws, workers rights, womens rights, and many more all brought to us by unions

difference canada, germany, Norway ect all kept their unions and their sustainable high standards of living

The US is just about done getting rid of its unions and high living standard

we trade it for corporatism am oligarchy