Best Methods For Fixing Unemployment

Any industry that can't survive having the necessary workers being paid a necessary wage is an industry that necessarily must not survive.

Sure. Though most probably it will just move overseas.

That's fine by me. We'll just have to develop other things.

Which missed the point of limiting automation as it is to increase local workers being hired.

edited 1st May '12 11:53:11 PM by IraTheSquire

Yeah, I totally forgot we were talking about limiting automation XD

Yeah, I don't agree with that.

My understanding is that this because most of them are also responsible for dealing with teenage pregnancies and drama. Why they're making them do this is beyond me, but hey.

Well, that's a useful service, sure, but that ain't job preparation.

Re: Automation: only valid when it becomes cheap enough for any entrepreneur off the street to start using the tech. When I can build a car factory in my garage for under 10k and start my own car manufacturing business doing custom jobs for locals as a little independent start-up, then we can talk about automation helping the economy from the bottom-up.

Okay, seriously, I keep hearing about how much better everyone else's universities are than ours. Is there anything to back this up?

Or, is it just that most foreign workers won't have pesky things to deal with like minimum wage laws and most of the time a lower-standard of living?

Generally speaking yes. The big difference, from what I can see is because of the lack of inflation in other places people can afford to live comfortably on less.

It's why one of the potential solutions (the one the Republican party "promotes"..no they don't..but this is actually the solution they talk about in closed circles) is to lower wages so that more jobs are viable locally, and you'd see prices go down to accommodate the lower wages. I actually don't think that's necessarily the case, unless you see wages go down across the board (and larger wages go down more on a percentage basis.)

I simply don't think this is realistic.

I do think that college needs to change fundamentally, it used to be that colleges were about teaching you how to think, that is, a broad education was best. But as we're moving towards more specialized skills, and less about a college degree as being a "class marker" as it used to be, and colleges are going to have to adapt to the times. Things such as massive amounts of electives are probably going to have to be pushed away towards a more focused (and quicker) approach to the curriculum, although that might be difficult, considering that a lot of the electives are filler because you have to finish the prerequisites before going on to the follow-up courses.

That said, I actually think things are at the point where even the requirements for specialized skills are SO specialized that even a college degree doesn't cut it, and they actually are serving as class markers again. In this case, to be honest it's a matter of time before the Mc Donaldization of labor starts to be truly applied to what are traditionally "skilled" jobs.

Damn, what a depressing thought.

Perhaps someone can answer me a question — what exactly do all of those management degrees teach?

The management course I took was mostly about office organization (a useful topic) and a bit of pulp science (not a useful topic).

Actually, you can't really divine the price of automated production from that. All it means is you have to pay Americans less than ten dollars a day in order to compete with Foxconn slaves who are desperate enough to work for less than ten dollars a day.

Which is more than they'd make otherwise, let me add. Of course, Foxconn's labor practices put them more or less in hock to the Company Store, so the higher wages are somewhat illusory. However, there's a reason people line up for the jobs, and it's not the joy of working with toxic chemicals.

Our goal should be to raise those people to something approximating a First World standard of living. Apple is getting away with those grossly absurd profit margins because it can. Because we as a nation are allowing it to, pure and simple.

It's necessarily true that automation in the US costs more than slave labor in China. Slave labor in china costs 10 dollars a day. Ergo, automation in the US costs more than 10 dollars a day.

Aside from consumers collectively deciding to boycott Apple products (It's what I do!), how do you expect to change the system? Institute autarchy? Invade China?

edited 2nd May '12 2:30:56 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Fair enough. My point was to clarify that if Foxconn labor is the cheapest thing around, that doesn't quite tell you how expensive automation is compared to American labor.

Bear in mind, though, the prices of necessities in China are way lower than in the US. USD $2 can get you a really decent meal in China (the quality is of another matter entirely). So what is slave labour in US might be an affordable wage in China.

edited 2nd May '12 2:34:17 PM by IraTheSquire

Chinese workers are paid in Chinese, so I imagine the conversion already accounts for the Real Conversion Rate.

Tomu, if I were to try to enforce some sort of morality in the matter, I'd put tariffs on imported products based on the labor cost involved in making them: in a nutshell, you pay 110% of the difference between what you paid to make it and some arbitrary wage standard.

That's just a really off-the-cuff idea, and I have no idea how well it would work in practice, but it's the kind of thing I'm brainstorming.

I am well aware of the differences in local cost of living. What is a living wage in China, in direct conversion to U.S. dollars, probably wouldn't keep a small child alive in this country. The point is that we should be promoting increased living standards in other countries, not exploiting them for all the cheap labor we can get. Business doesn't concern itself with morality, but we as citizens of the planet ought to, and not just because it has ramifications on our own employment.

edited 2nd May '12 2:39:14 PM by Fighteer

I'm generally anti-protectionism, which is really what that turns into. There's a huge argument against that that's really well beyond the scope of this thread though.

I personally don't agree with using the government as an agent of change in other nations, because I feel that subverts the notion of sovereign rule.

"What, so you would have let Hitler just walk over Europe? You NAZI!"

Okay, so, maybe there are exceptions to the rule.

edited 2nd May '12 2:43:51 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Not really. I remember back when I was in Hong Kong people rush to China to buy things because it is so cheap there. For example, the same novel in Hong Kong cost about HKD $36, when in China it's about RMB $5-10. HKD $1 is roughly the same as RMB $1 and USD $1 is always roughly around HKD $7.8. Also, earning RMB $1000 a month is a rich man. HK people on average earn around ten times that and they live like kings when they went to China back then.

edited 2nd May '12 2:47:15 PM by IraTheSquire

Well, there's goes your nomination for the Republican primary.

"Sovereign rule" is not really the issue here. I see it more as a case of, "If China wants to get our manufacturing business, they can't get it by undermining our wages." In short, they have to meet us at our standards.

I wasn't really considering it, but thanks for the laugh.

edited 2nd May '12 2:48:03 PM by Fighteer

Yeah, but usually that kind of economic policy goes south really quick.

How? I agree that in the modern marketplace, we're already strongly beholden to third-world manufacturing, so pulling out now and in such a massive fashion would have catastrophic effects, but it is in American economic interests to stop sending so much manufacturing overseas.

I admit that it'll cause some repercussions when Little Suzie's mommy goes to Wal-Mart to buy her a toy and can't get it in the $1 "Made in China" aisle. Hmm... maybe an economist should do some analysis on that.

edited 2nd May '12 2:50:26 PM by Fighteer