Leif Erikson wrote:
Brent P wrote:
In article . com, Leif Erikson wrote:
Brent P wrote:
In article om, wrote:
Of course there is another aspect of this that you completely overlook.
And that is the great benefit of people being able to buy that car for
$7000. All the folks who complain about jobs lost to lower cost
labor completely ignore the fact that everyone is also receiving a huge
positive benefit from this. This is especially true of lower income
families. If they had to pay 2X for everything they buy at Walmart and
everywhere else, it's not clear that they would be any better off.
Lower income people in the USA cannot compete with near slave wages. It
cuts them out of the job market.
There is less than 5% unemployment. No one is being cut out of any job
market.
I take it you are totally unfamiliar with how unemployment rate is
calculated. The persons of whom I speak don't get counted in the
unemployment rate.
I'm quite familiar with how it is calculated. The method of
calculating it hasn't changed much for a long time. Lots of people
don't get counted in it, but they weren't counted before, either.
This is a common canard - in plainer English, bull**** - of whining
economics-illiterates: that the "real" unemployment rate is much
higher than what is reported. It simply isn't true. Those people who
are excluded from the official definition of the workforce are properly
excluded. If you're not seeking work and you're not working, you're
not counted - and you *shouldn't* be counted. But dopes like you want
to pretend there are some tens of millions of people who have dropped
out of the workforce due to being discouraged, etc., and there simply
is no valid basis for your belief. The only basis for it is your
class-consciousness and your overweening negativity. Your ideology
demands that you make these absurd, outlandish claims, even though
there isn't a shred of theory *or* fact to back them up.
Leif, this Brent guy is absolutely amazing. All this started when I
simply pointed out that cheap imports are not all bad and that you have
to look at the positive side of the ledger too, one of which is people
can buy goods for less money. And I pointed out that this is a good
thing for everyone, especially low income families. Tthis is so
elementary, and obvious, it's incredible anyone, even those who haven't
taken an economics course, would attempt to argue it.
Equally amazing is his continual refusal to acknowledge that you need
to look at economic numbers relative to others that represent the size
of the economy and the ability to pay. I still don;t know what debt
level he thinks should be the reference point. Sounds like maybe
whatever it was in 1776 and it should only go down from there. As I
tried to point out to him before, if you look at govt debt, per capita
private debt, etc, a country like Germany that is advanced is going to
have a hell of a lot more than say Sudan or Haiti, because it goes hand
in hand with economic progress and a rising std of living. But
according to him, it's a sign of impending doom.
Also, good to see someone else can spot the clueless STRAWMAN defense.
Most times I ask a simple question, his answer is STRAWMAN! It's
quite laughable.