On 5/30/2010 8:27 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Peter wrote:
On 5/29/2010 2:34 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
wrote:

The problem is the Chinese slave workforce. And the fact they hold
don't allow their currency to float. These sort of things never
went on in Smith's day.

Wrong at least twice. The workforce in China is not slave. In many
respects, it is more free than workforces in the US and UK. The
Chinese may take any job they can get hired for, at any wage, and
with any benefits they can negotiate. True, in many cases, those
wages are far less than the US or UK. But, in many cases, it beats
the hell out of working in a rice paddy. And slavery certainly existed in
Adam Smith's day, both in the US
and the UK. -- Doug

I thought that in the U.S. and U.K., anyone can take any job they can
get hired for, at any wage and benefits that they can negotiate.

Uh, no, not by a long-shot.

First, you have minimum-wage laws and all sorts of nanny-state workplace
rules. Then there are unions. Next is government licensing and permitting
for many occupations. Some jobs are intrinsically illegal! On and on.


How does that change the basic fact that anyone in the U.S. can take any job
they can get hired for? You are arguing that the hiring playing field is not
level. That's a completely different issue. Bottom line, you are free to
change jobs to any job an employer is willing to pay you to do. Restrictions on
the employer's hiring choices is a different subject entirely. Stop changing
the subject every time someone catches an inaccuracy (or worse) in what you say!