Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (93365)	1/12/2005 11:23:04 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

"So if companies go to China and there are no manufacturing jobs here... " The article you posted implies that job losses here are due to productivity-enhancing technology, not "jobs moving to China". "20 dollar and hour jobs with health care?" The relevant issue is the standard of living of the American worker, not the nominal wage rate. Both trade and higher productivity work to improve standards of living. What's more, neither destroys jobs in the long run, but simply reallocates labor to its most productive use. "How do we provide those when we have free trade with a country that has workers willing to work for 40 cents an hour." The difference in absolute wage rates between countries is irrelevant. What matters is relative opportunity costs - i.e. comparative advantage - which makes it possible for both nations to benefit from trade even when one has an absolute advantage in all goods because of, for example, very low nominal wage rates. "Ok- maybe there are no jobs, rather than wages coming down to a cheaper hourly wage." That would amount to the same thing, but it is still wrong. "When I see people taking posts from here to mock somewhere else ..." I'd mock here, but then I'd get banned and would have to stop giving you economics lessons.