On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 13:37:43 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/26/2011 11:16 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 09:41:18 -0600, wrote:

On 12/26/2011 9:31 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:01:33 -0500, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 12/25/2011 22:35, Ed Huntress wrote:
To anyone who thinks that US manufacturing salaries, including
benefits, are harming our industries or trade, consider that there are
13 other countries that pay mo

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...the-us/250460/

So much for that idea. Some of the countries on that list are among
the most successful exporters of manufactured goods.

Back to the drawing board...


As a lazy researcher when it comes to statistics, I'm gonna go out on a
limb and guess that most of the countries above us in the chart export
items that need a higher skill level to produce, thus the higher
production per hour cost.

Maybe, but I wouldn't count on it.

It doesn't have a simple answer. The closest thing to a summary
reason, though, is that the best exorters with high wages tend to have
strong coordination among labor, management, and government.
...

And, generally, have highly protectionist policies when it comes to
imports of the chosen competitive product areas.

Again, that varies. But if import restrictions in Germany have led to
a doubling of wages and a trade surplus, then it would be a good
argument in their favor.

But hardly then to make comparisons to those against whom those
restrictions are imposed as to their superiority....

No, I disagree. If they can pay double what we pay in the US, and
still run a trade surplus on premium products that are among the most
desired products in the world, then they're doing something right and
we're doing something wrong.

Again, the point is that unionization is not it -- they're more
unionized than we are. High wages and benefits aren't it -- they pay
twice as much as we do.

You can find an endless list of excuses for this, and I've probably
heard them all in the 35+ years I've reported on manufacturing and
trade. In the end, they're doing something right that we're doing
wrong.


Germany has had import restrictions on cars in the past (Japan was
once limited to 10% or 12% of the total German market; France did the
same thing), but I don't know their status on that now. It's unlikely
that there is any overt restrictions, or the WTO would have stepped
in.

Not hardly; the WTO is an European invention and is heavily biased in
that direction.

The US did the same thing at the time, with restrictions on light
truck imports and "voluntary" import limits with Japan on cars. That's
what created the Lexus, the Acura, and the Infiniti, if you followed
international trade and the car industry at the time. Japan moved into
the premium car market not for ordinary business reasons, but rather
to keep up dollar sales volume with fewer units.

And all of those trade barriers preceeded the WTO by more than ten
years. Now, if you follow WTO rulings, you'll see that they're biased
toward the wealthy countries, including the US, on most items.
Developing countries are supposedly given some slack -- China is still
living on it -- but it's mostly a smokescreen for truly underdeveloped
countries, who suck wind under the WTO agreements.

--
Ed Huntress