Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
cheap foreign labour hasn't hurt Gulf nations.. not one bit. during the earlier years, they even went to the extent of abusing human rights, in order to keep foreign labour cheap. foreign labor is cheaper, so their citizens pay less for their products, hence they maintain strong purchasing power.
foreign labor will only accept what they can survive on. if a foreigner in a Gulf Nation needs $500 per month worth to survive, he won't work for any less than $500 per month because it woudn't make any sense.. he would eventually end up worse than the country he came from. its the same in the US. no foreigner will work for a Nickel an hour because then how would that person survive? he won't hence a job paying that much would NOT exist in america because no one would do it. who would work for $2 a week when your rent alone is $50 ? LOL.
i believe the higher purchasing power that foreign labor can bring will benefit EVERY american, especially the poor, rather than a select few who benefit from a wage hike.
The point you miss is longterm health and life quality may not be factored at all into the lowest accepted wage.
For an even more extreme example, suppose one person pays employees for a flight program that teaches you how to take off, fly plane in mid-air, and land.
In order to save money, they decide to instead offer a flight program that only teaches how to fly a plane in mid-air but not how to land the plane.... This program will save money it's much cheaper !
Nobody would want to pay for this pilot program unless they are willing to die. Some guy overseas IS willing to die and will use this program. Hence, this cheaper program is deemed successful. Person will enjoy the flight but not consider what happens after you are in the sky.
More practical example
People are willing to work for very cheap wages in coal fields. For Americans, there's a higher wage equilibrium price because there's an expectation to live 80-year lifespan and live to see your kids grow older and have kids of their own.
The foreign guy is cool with dying of asthma age 48 and has no family such value concern. The future health and medical cost savings this foreigner is going to invest is $0 so he doesn't need as high a wage to cover the other basic necessities. The foreign free market proposal will just mean sacrificing of an American way of living and saying hey....due to cost ....you better start competing with people who don't care if they die young, or you won't make a living anymore.
Here's where you go wrong. If foreigners are willing to work cheaper then they price an American out of a job. How can they have purchasing power with no job? Many of these foreigners send billions out of our country in the form of remittances back to family in their homelands. It doesn't get spent in our economy.
Less money spent in america, means high purchasing power.. again. supply and demand. the more money being spent in america on things, the higher the prices are going to be for those things because of high demand. when things are cheaper, you get more out of your dollars. that saying, a foreigner working really low wages won't have money to send to their homeland in the first place.
as for americans being "priced out of a job".. why can't an american price the foreigner out of jobs ? it is competetion. any american should EASILY out price any foreigner. with a strong enough purchasing power, an american earning even the lowest wage will be able to live off it and have money left to spare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricS39
The point you miss is longterm health and life quality may not be factored at all into the lowest accepted wage.
For an even more extreme example, suppose one person pays employees for a flight program that teaches you how to take off, fly plane in mid-air, and land.
In order to save money, they decide to instead offer a flight program that only teaches how to fly a plane in mid-air but not how to land the plane.... This program will save money it's much cheaper !
Nobody would want to pay for this pilot program unless they are willing to die. Some guy overseas IS willing to die and will use this program. Hence, this cheaper program is deemed successful. Person will enjoy the flight but not consider what happens after you are in the sky.
More practical example
People are willing to work for very cheap wages in coal fields. For Americans, there's a higher wage equilibrium price because there's an expectation to live 80-year lifespan and live to see your kids grow older and have kids of their own.
The foreign guy is cool with dying of asthma age 48 and has no family such value concern. The future health and medical cost savings this foreigner is going to invest is $0 so he doesn't need as high a wage to cover the other basic necessities. The foreign free market proposal will just mean sacrificing of an American way of living and saying hey....due to cost ....you better start competing with people who don't care if they die young, or you won't make a living anymore.
both your examples make sense. the first one however is oversimplified, and like you said, a bit extreme. lol.. no foreigner will deliberately go to america, to.. basically, end their life and life in abject poverty.. they go to better it. the economics of it are far more complicated than that also
as for the second example.. again, good point. HOWEVER, if you look more into it, you'd see that americans tend to have the lowest family value concerns.. american women are so career orientated, that they simple don't have time to raise a family, or leave till they are late into their 30s and even then, have 1 child.. and even then, she may be a single mum. some feminists go to the lengths of saying they don't want to have kids AT ALL.. foreigners, especially from poorer countries, tend place more value on family values rather than their career (because they usually don't have one).. in most poor countries, the father does the work, whereas the mother cares for the family, puts food on the tables and takes care of the father to work the next day.
Much better we just end all immigration for awhile. Abolish unemployment and welfare, and sit back and watch how it all shakes out.
I don't think I'd want to watch the show, but it would certainly - at first, at least - delight all those who see immigration and/or American slackers as the source of all the country's problems.
It's nonsense to state that most Americans think that immigration is the source of all of our country's problems. Illegal immigration is however one of the biggest problems our country has. American slackers? If you are implying that most Americans are slackers then you either have an agenda or you're not dealing in reality.
I am for legal immigration in numbers that fit our needs (not the needs of greedy employers who just want cheap labor to increase their profits). Immigration should be adjusted depending on the state of our economy, it should be diversified and the immigrant must prove they won't be a burden to our country but a benefit.
Less money spent in america, means high purchasing power.. again. supply and demand. the more money being spent in america on things, the higher the prices are going to be for those things because of high demand. when things are cheaper, you get more out of your dollars. that saying, a foreigner working really low wages won't have money to send to their homeland in the first place.
as for americans being "priced out of a job".. why can't an american price the foreigner out of jobs ? it is competetion. any american should EASILY out price any foreigner. with a strong enough purchasing power, an american earning even the lowest wage will be able to live off it and have money left to spare.
both your examples make sense. the first one however is oversimplified, and like you said, a bit extreme. lol.. no foreigner will deliberately go to america, to.. basically, end their life and life in abject poverty.. they go to better it. the economics of it are far more complicated than that also
as for the second example.. again, good point. HOWEVER, if you look more into it, you'd see that americans tend to have the lowest family value concerns.. american women are so career orientated, that they simple don't have time to raise a family, or leave till they are late into their 30s and even then, have 1 child.. and even then, she may be a single mum. some feminists go to the lengths of saying they don't want to have kids AT ALL.. foreigners, especially from poorer countries, tend place more value on family values rather than their career (because they usually don't have one).. in most poor countries, the father does the work, whereas the mother cares for the family, puts food on the tables and takes care of the father to work the next day.
Most Americans usually have more than one child so I don't know what you are talking about. American mothers used to stay at home and care for their families while the father worked but that all changed when income didn't keep up with the rising costs. We enjoy a pretty comfortable lifestyle here compared to many countries but it requires two wage earners in many cases. Sure women did start desiring a job outside of the home but what's wrong with that? Child rearing is the responsibility of both the mother and the father. Americans started having fewer kids due to the above but that doesn't mean they have inferior family values than any group of minorities/foreigners. Many of the groups mentioned rely on government subsidies to support their numerous kids. That's a good thing and represents superior family values? I don't think so!
Most Americans usually have more than one child so I don't know what you are talking about. American mothers used to stay at home and care for their families while the father worked but that all changed when income didn't keep up with the rising costs. We enjoy a pretty comfortable lifestyle here compared to many countries but it requires two wage earners in many cases. Sure women did start desiring a job outside of the home but what's wrong with that? Child rearing is the responsibility of both the mother and the father. Americans started having fewer kids due to the above but that doesn't mean they have inferior family values than any group of minorities/foreigners. Many of the groups mentioned rely on government subsidies to support their numerous kids. That's a good thing and represents superior family values? I don't think so!
like you said, there was a time in America where Americans fathers worked whereas American mother took care of the family. today, that is NOT the case. Not because they require 2 wage earners (because US is not that poor..yet), more because of the whole change in culture where women are encouraged to study/work for a living and be independent. In America, the concept of father providing, women caring is almost gone. a women raised in an environment where she is taught to be independent, and "strong" and self reliant, will obviously have inferior family values. she'll be less likely to need/want a provider (a husband) because she's raised to be independent. When it comes to having children, again, she'll have a choice between raising a child, or getting a promotion in their career (which they've studied and worked hard for pretty much their whole life). it makes sense for them to pick career over family.
like you said, there was a time in America where Americans fathers worked whereas American mother took care of the family. today, that is NOT the case. Not because they require 2 wage earners (because US is not that poor..yet), more because of the whole change in culture where women are encouraged to study/work for a living and be independent. In America, the concept of father providing, women caring is almost gone. a women raised in an environment where she is taught to be independent, and "strong" and self reliant, will obviously have inferior family values. she'll be less likely to need/want a provider (a husband) because she's raised to be independent. When it comes to having children, again, she'll have a choice between raising a child, or getting a promotion in their career (which they've studied and worked hard for pretty much their whole life). it makes sense for them to pick career over family.
You're wrong. As I said wages haven't kept up with inflation so two wage earners are needed to support the family. As I also said yes many women got tired of just being at home all day without any mental stimulation but that's only a part if the reason. Women in rural areas would tend more to be stay at home moms. Today unlike yesterday there is birth control widely available and large families are just no longer needed to work the farms and help the parents out. It is just two expensive to have many kids today. Our population growth has exploded also with shortages of jobs and resources.
You're wrong. As I said wages haven't kept up with inflation so two wage earners are needed to support the family. As I also said yes many women got tired of just being at home all day without any mental stimulation but that's only a part if the reason. Women in rural areas would tend more to be stay at home moms. Today unlike yesterday there is birth control widely available and large families are just no longer needed to work the farms and help the parents out. It is just two expensive to have many kids today. Our population growth has exploded also with shortages of jobs and resources.
its not really that expensive in USA.. the average disposable income in USA is still the highest in the world. count in the fact that it is also one of the cheapest countries to live in. norway's wages are similar to the US, but the prices for basic amenities will make your eyes water. sure the US is nowhere near its glory days but its still well ahead of everyone else. no way does it require 2 worker to raise a family in America.. the average disposable income in the US is around $3.2k a month. you can easily raise a family of 4 with spare change. compare that with some of the poorer countries in the world where they don't even get $3.2k in a year. mothers working in poorer countries makes sense but they don't because they stick to their family values.. even when they emigrate to the US.
It's nonsense to state that most Americans think that immigration is the source of all of our country's problems. Illegal immigration is however one of the biggest problems our country has. American slackers? If you are implying that most Americans are slackers then you either have an agenda or you're not dealing in reality.
I am for legal immigration in numbers that fit our needs (not the needs of greedy employers who just want cheap labor to increase their profits). Immigration should be adjusted depending on the state of our economy, it should be diversified and the immigrant must prove they won't be a burden to our country but a benefit.
I agree, and in fact we need to get tough on immigration with a points system like Canada has, where you simply do not get to live here unless you have in demand skills that are needed/in short supply in this country. Our country has no need for poor/unskilled immigrants- it is not our responsibility to rescue them from whatever bad situation they have back in their home country.
like you said, there was a time in America where Americans fathers worked whereas American mother took care of the family. today, that is NOT the case. Not because they require 2 wage earners (because US is not that poor..yet), more because of the whole change in culture where women are encouraged to study/work for a living and be independent. In America, the concept of father providing, women caring is almost gone. a women raised in an environment where she is taught to be independent, and "strong" and self reliant, will obviously have inferior family values. she'll be less likely to need/want a provider (a husband) because she's raised to be independent. When it comes to having children, again, she'll have a choice between raising a child, or getting a promotion in their career (which they've studied and worked hard for pretty much their whole life). it makes sense for them to pick career over family.
It is actually required in many, many areas of America to have two wage earners to get by. It's not about being poor- most of us are not. It's just that even the median income in most places for an individual is not enough to raise a family- housing and everyday items are very expensive, and we need 2 times that median individual income to be able to pay for all of those things.
It's nonsense to state that most Americans think that immigration is the source of all of our country's problems. Illegal immigration is however one of the biggest problems our country has. American slackers? If you are implying that most Americans are slackers then you either have an agenda or you're not dealing in reality.
I am for legal immigration in numbers that fit our needs (not the needs of greedy employers who just want cheap labor to increase their profits). Immigration should be adjusted depending on the state of our economy, it should be diversified and the immigrant must prove they won't be a burden to our country but a benefit.
"greedy employers". employers can only profit from giving low wages if there is no competition. when there is competition, other employers can price out high prices/low wage employers simply by selling stuff/service cheaper. no one wants to pay more for the same product. put it this way..
there are 2 electronics store is selling PS4's, they all sell PS4 for $500.. they both make the same profits.. however, electronic store 1 decides to decrease prices to $450. everyone starts buying from electronic store 1 because they are the cheapest. electronic store 1 is making profit purely through volume rather than increasing product prices.. electronic store 1 wins because its making money, the consumers win because they save $50 to spend elsewhere. everyone wins apart from the electronic store 2. in order for the other electronic stores to avoid going bankrupt by not selling any products, they have to decrease prices to less than $450 to get customers. they can decrease to $400, hence the consumers end up saving $100 and electronic store 2 starts to make profit. decreasing wages only allows the price war to continue deeper, hence we.. as consumers, keep winning. ofcourse in order for this to happen, we there needs to be competition, the more.. the better.
remember, its not only wages that increase/decrease.. when wages decrease, so do comsumer prices, unless there was economic crash. immigration/increase in labour is NOT an economic crash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm31828
It is actually required in many, many areas of America to have two wage earners to get by. It's not about being poor- most of us are not. It's just that even the median income in most places for an individual is not enough to raise a family- housing and everyday items are very expensive, and we need 2 times that median individual income to be able to pay for all of those things.
i think you need 2 workers if someone tried to raise a family in the city of Manhattan, where both parents are McDonald workers.. ofcourse, you'd have to be light headed to want to raise a family in such an expensive area of the country with such low wages when there are SOO many beautiful, safe little towns in the US that are significantly cheaper, and more suitable for raising a family for low wage earners. its more to do with common sense, rather than 2 workers in a family being a necessity in America. Manhattan is no place for a poor person to live a decent life, let alone raise a family.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
