Thread: The Paradigm Has Shifted – Employment Rebound Led By Low Quality Jobs

Originally Posted by galatin

Even if the Chinese government is autocratic, it cannot afford to subsidise everything and the USD is rather cheap actualyl compared to the past...

The PRC doesn't need to. There only needs to be a reasonable possibility that they MIGHT. Are you going to risk everything to compete with a Chinese company you can beat in price when you know the Chinese will go to Beijing? If Beijing says 'yes, subsidy authorized' -- you'll be in bankruptcy. Are you going to play that game? Or are you going to open a McDonalds? Planet Fitness?

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

That paradigm shifted a long time ago, and has continued despite which party was in control.

Neither major party is really interested in helping working people attain middle class status. What they're really interested in is getting reelected and making the other party look as bad as possible.

Could be all change with Bernie and Jezza! The consensus where we just had to accept market fundamentalism is crumbling.

Originally Posted by galatin

The level of wages in the US for some categories of workers puzzles me...... If people when working have salaries which do not cover the minimum necessary to cover their basic needs, is it worth accepting that companies which hired them remain in activity, because if anyway these people need social benefits to survive, it is indirectly the tax payer who subsidizes these company but for which prospects or future ? Better train workers for other jobs which offer real opportunities and least give an opportunity to people to be paid normally and be independant of social benefits....

Otherwise known as welfare for the rich.

Originally Posted by galatin

The level of wages in the US for some categories of workers puzzles me...... If people when working have salaries which do not cover the minimum necessary to cover their basic needs, is it worth accepting that companies which hired them remain in activity, because if anyway these people need social benefits to survive, it is indirectly the tax payer who subsidizes these company but for which prospects or future ? Better train workers for other jobs which offer real opportunities and least give an opportunity to people to be paid normally and be independant of social benefits....

What’s true for Lebron James, Tom Brady, Bryce Harper or Rinaldo is true for all nearly all workers in a competitive economy. As long as workers have the option to leave one job for a competing job, worker pay gets bid up to reflect workers’ productivity.

Originally Posted by publius3

The PRC doesn't need to. There only needs to be a reasonable possibility that they MIGHT. Are you going to risk everything to compete with a Chinese company you can beat in price when you know the Chinese will go to Beijing? If Beijing says 'yes, subsidy authorized' -- you'll be in bankruptcy. Are you going to play that game? Or are you going to open a McDonalds? Planet Fitness?

I have a couple of moans. First, the US is protectionist. It just doesn't do a very good job at it. Second, why the heck would it be in direct competition with China? It should be focused on innovation where the only threat is the fake trade. The over reliance on crap product is the result of internal policy, not anything initiated by China

Originally Posted by Æthelfrith

Could be all change with Bernie and Jezza! The consensus where we just had to accept market fundamentalism is crumbling.

Bernie's "policies" would give us Venezuela. Just how's that going to be helpful to the common man here I mean, other than weight loss.

Flashback: Bernie Sanders Praised Socialist Venezuela as Model for Ending Income Inequality

Originally Posted by fenrir

Bernie's "policies" would give us Venezuela. Just how's that going to be helpful to the common man here I mean, other than weight loss.

Flashback: Bernie Sanders Praised Socialist Venezuela as Model for Ending Income Inequality

The long term problems faced by the American people reflects neoliberalism. It encourages low wages and, by driving a wedge between wage and productivity, maintains structural deficiency

And let's not forget, even the IMF acknowledges that income inequalities are harming growth

Originally Posted by publius3

The PRC doesn't need to. There only needs to be a reasonable possibility that they MIGHT. Are you going to risk everything to compete with a Chinese company you can beat in price when you know the Chinese will go to Beijing? If Beijing says 'yes, subsidy authorized' -- you'll be in bankruptcy. Are you going to play that game? Or are you going to open a McDonalds? Planet Fitness?

Actually many Chinese companies have overestimated what they could sell and have production capacities which are unemployed. Furthermore other countries have production cost cheaper than China. It is a real challenge for China, especially if you consider that robots are producing more and more. So the consequence will probably be that countries able to invest into robots will spend less for manpower than before and China will have less the competitive advantage of a cheap manpower. This will force China to compete directly with Europeans on a same level. What will probably make the difference is the fulfillment of skilled manpower to finish the products and for that you need to train people. Everyone will try to keep its margins and the know how incorporated in products will be decisive for that. The loosers will the one manufacturing ordinary products with a limited margin and for that there will be always countries with very low wages and little industrial infrastructures but with a lot of unskilled manpower.

Originally Posted by Æthelfrith

Could be all change with Bernie and Jezza! The consensus where we just had to accept market fundamentalism is crumbling.

I hope so.

Originally Posted by fenrir

Otherwise known as welfare for the rich.

Exactly again.

The rich get the benefit, and the poor get the scorn.