Post #138,726
1/29/04 10:26:39 PM
|
Um, I don't find that point obvious either
The point isn't whether or not people can get into this country legally - it's that capital can go where it damn well pleases, and it uses the relatively closed borders to play labor off against itself. That's how we end up with labor cost disparities like the ones between the U.S. and India - not "illegal" immigration.
Go read an Econ 101 book, then cross reference it with some Marx.
Let's assume that I have taken Econ 101, and have a passing familiarity with Marx. (Familiarity does not necessarily imply agreement, of course.) Can you please fill in the logic from which regional disparities inevitably should arise from not giving workers the freedom to attempt to travel?
I'll agree that open borders can reduce inequities as people move to areas of opportunity (and sometimes swamp said opportunities). But that outcome is not clear to me since you often get a "brain drain" since the best and brightest are most motivated to move since they are most likely to be able to take full advantage of opportunities.
Furthermore there are feedback mechanisms which can create sustained inequities even where no barrier to movement exists. For proof I need point no further than the fact that different areas of the USA have significant cost disparities. Compare average incomes in New York City with incomes in the typical small town of your choice. I don't have figures, but wouldn't be surprised to find that it was a factor of 2 or more. Yet this is true despite a relatively homogenous population, shared culture, and no barriers to movement.
Now I'll agree that companies like barriers to movement since it allows them to use things like the H1B program to put cheap talent in expensive areas, and to ship exportable production to cheap areas. They also want "free trade" to only mean capital, and not include things like labour and environmental standards. This allows them to drive domestic agendas in directions that the public is against. (See the WTO demonstrations for some unhappiness about this.)
But I don't believe that barriers to movement are the primary cause generating the inequalities that we see.
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #138,733
1/30/04 1:19:51 AM
|
Re: Um, I don't find that point obvious either
Hmm, it occurs to me that the thermodynamic model of money works here too, with something like a "chemical potential" and "molar number" dual to each other, operating to rearrange labor and captial.
-drl
|
Post #138,826
1/30/04 11:21:51 AM
|
But it isn't a closed system
The thermodynamics of closed systems is different than open systems with constant input.
Economics is an open system since innovation is constantly creating new forms of economic worth.
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #138,767
1/30/04 4:48:54 AM
|
No, let's not.
Ben arrogates to himself a presumption he denies others: Let's assume that I have taken Econ 101, and have a passing familiarity with Marx. Why should we assume anything of the kind?
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
You know you're doing good work when you get flamed by an idiot. -- [link|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/35/34218.html|Andrew Wittbrodt]
|
Post #138,770
1/30/04 5:20:33 AM
|
It's natural Canadian modesty
Can't be appreciated by auslanders.
-drl
|
Post #138,776
1/30/04 6:40:59 AM
|
I can
Econ 101 was Macroeconomics when I took it in college and it was required for an associate's degree. I earned a B in the class. I deduce that other colleges over the world also have it as a requirement. Ben strikes me as a college educated individual, so I deduce that he might have taken Econ 101 in his studies. As far as his experience with Marx, well I never read Marx in any of my studies, but perhaps his studies required him to read Marx or he read it in his leasure.
In any case, he is asking what the relationship between capital and labor is using Econ 101 and Marx.
Given that while labor may help earn capital, labor can be contracted out to the lowest bidder and need not be part of the organization that earns capital. Only a small part of capital can be used to pay labor, while the home organization has the Lion's Share of capital. This has happened before with moving manufactoring to other countries where labor is cheaper. Wal-Mart does this, giving huge capital amounts to their HQ in Arkansas. Perhaps a Finnish company with offices in the USA and India moves capital back to Finland, perhaps they make cell phones and the USA office sells them in the USA and the Indian office does the tech support help desk and has a factory that makes them? Then by ITC's definition of labor being related to capital, Finland needs to open up its borders to let more workers into their country because capital is moving there. Ignoring the fact that it does not matter where labor happens, as labor can be done virtually anywhere on the globe.
"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
|
Post #138,778
1/30/04 7:19:17 AM
|
OT: arrogates
I checked dictionary.com (not that I don't trust you.)
ar\ufffdro\ufffdgate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-gt)
tr.v. ar\ufffdro\ufffdgat\ufffded, ar\ufffdro\ufffdgat\ufffding, ar\ufffdro\ufffdgates
1. To take or claim for oneself without right; appropriate: Presidents who have arrogated the power of Congress to declare war. See Synonyms at appropriate.
2. To ascribe on behalf of another in an unwarranted manner.
I kinda like the example they gave... I said it was OT, didn't I?
|
Post #138,823
1/30/04 11:20:04 AM
|
Then don't, his choice.
If inthane wants to quiz me until he is satisfied that my claim is likely true first, that is his choice. But since I actually have done what is claimed, it likely will save time all around for him to start off assuming that I have the basic background that I claim. He also may remember me talking about economics in a way which suggests basic familiarity, although not true expertise. (Several other people who have been involved with IWETHEY understand economics far better than I do.)
Incidentally Econ 101 at the university that I took it at was basic micro-economics.
As for why I didn't give you that luxury before, I've had more than a few experiences with people who flame Creationists at the drop of a hat but, when push comes to shove, don't really understand evolution or the historical cases for (and against) it. Therefore I don't find that a good assumption to make on that topic.
So I didn't make it in your case. And you chose to get upset rather than demonstrate that the assumption would be warranted. And you have since chosen to bring the incident up every so often.
You know, there is something hypocritical about getting ticked off at me for not giving you the benefit of the doubt, while simultaneously doing nothing that might convince me that my doubt was unwarranted...
Regards,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
