Posting Towards Gomorrah

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Spanky
Then why do they hire so many part time workers? Obviously some sort of benefits come with full time work that they are trying to avoid. We just need to make it as expenisve to avoid whatever it is they are trying to avoid.

As Burger said, they are likely hiring part-time workers so that they don't have to provide benefits. Wal-Mart likely has a policy that states that only full time employees (40 hrs week) are entitled to health care and other benefits. Don't have them work 40 hrs = no paying these benefits.

aV

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I know you're kinda persona non grata as it is, but I think the GOP keeps extra stakes on hand to burn heretics who write shit like this.

We got Arnold to support the increase in the minimun wage and so far no villagers with torches and stakes have arrived at my house. The Adam Smith society of San Diego county has asked for my head on a platter, but they don't seem to have much pull.

I call them Economic fundamentalists. Free markets have become a religion with no rational basis for these guys. The first rule of economics is practical results trump all theory. These guys are just like the socialists they detest. Socialists and anti free trade zealots simply ignore the effects their proposed policies have had around the world. Like the opponents of CAFTA, they say all these terrible things will happen when CAFTA is implemented, but of course no free trade agreement has ever hurt a country. They can't point to one free trade aspect of CAFTA that has had a net negative result for a country when implemented in prior agreements. But they ignore that and go back to "theoretical" reasons why it won't work.

The Free Market zealots are the same way. When certain free market philosophies have failed, they just ignore the facts and stick to theory.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by andViolins
As Burger said, they are likely hiring part-time workers so that they don't have to provide benefits. Wal-Mart likely has a policy that states that only full time employees (40 hrs week) are entitled to health care and other benefits. Don't have them work 40 hrs = no paying these benefits.

aV

Of course, there are types of benefits you cannot exclude someone from under a 40 hr/week rule. Because there is a 1,000/year rule.

Given their newfound sensitivity to optics, they probably have a rule that says that part-time workers who work at least 35 hours (or even 30 hours) a week get benefits -- then they can say they *do* provide benefits to part-time workers. But, they probably make it very difficult to get scheduled to work that much (e.g. by only doing it if the person is willing to work wildly irregular hours -- so, in theory, someone could get enough shifts, but in reality, it would make it impossible to e.g. schedule day care, etc. AND get in sufficient hours). A friend (whose husband was a GA) worked at the gap and experienced this when her store got a new manager who was trying to cut costs.

I can't get onto the walmart page for some reason -- it seems to be down.


ETA of course, no employer is required to provide any benefits AT ALL to anyone. It makes it hard to recruit a skilled workforce, but you could do fully insured health plans and only cover high-paids. Retirement is a bitch, though -- difficult to get any kind of tax deferral if you don't cover many of the little people.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Then why do they hire so many part time workers? Obviously some sort of benefits come with full time work that they are trying to avoid. We just need to make it as expenisve to avoid whatever it is they are trying to avoid.

And today's youth seem to enjoy eating a meal that consists of a patty of ground meat between a bun and long rectangular pieces of fried potato. Why do they eat this? Obviously they must taste good in some way.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
We got Arnold to support the increase in the minimun wage and so far no villagers with torches and stakes have arrived at my house. The Adam Smith society of San Diego county has asked for my head on a platter, but they don't seem to have much pull.

I call them Economic fundamentalists. Free markets have become a religion with no rational basis for these guys. The first rule of economics is practical results trump all theory. These guys are just like the socialists they detest. Socialists and anti free trade zealots simply ignore the effects their proposed policies have had around the world. Like the opponents of CAFTA, they say all these terrible things will happen when CAFTA is implemented, but of course no free trade agreement has ever hurt a country. They can't point to one free trade aspect of CAFTA that has had a net negative result for a country when implemented in prior agreements. But they ignore that and go back to "theoretical" reasons why it won't work.

The Free Market zealots are the same way. When certain free market philosophies have failed, they just ignore the facts and stick to theory.

Daddy?

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Spanky
I call them Economic fundamentalists. Free markets have become a religion with no rational basis for these guys. The first rule of economics is practical results trump all theory. These guys are just like the socialists they detest. Socialists and anti free trade zealots simply ignore the effects their proposed policies have had around the world. Like the opponents of CAFTA, they say all these terrible things will happen when CAFTA is implemented, but of course no free trade agreement has ever hurt a country. They can't point to one free trade aspect of CAFTA that has had a net negative result for a country when implemented in prior agreements. But they ignore that and go back to "theoretical" reasons why it won't work.

The Free Market zealots are the same way. When certain free market philosophies have failed, they just ignore the facts and stick to theory.

Dude, look in the mirror.

The economic benefits of free trade to wealthy countries are based on comparative advantage, not absolute advantage. Countries like China and India violate the principles of comparative advantage by stealing intellectual property (the Chinese engage in rampant piracy), imposing requirements of direct investment in the local country in order to sell goods there (check ownership requirements to operate in China or India), and other things. Adam Smith and David Ricardo would support retaliatory tariffs against countries engaging in obvious protectionist behavior like this, or violations of GATT, currency manipulation, and dumping.

If the principles for competition are violated, free trade results in benefits based on absolute advantage. This means that some countries LOSE. This is a huge difference.

Nonsense like this is why median wages per worker have been stagnant since 1980. And why shifty right-wingers like to change the subject to median household income and talke about how it's grown. Well, the only reason median household income has grown is that the mrs, kids and grandparents all got jobs.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Dude, look in the mirror.

I do every day. I would suggest that you may want to crack open an economics text book.

Originally posted by Tables R Us
The economic benefits of free trade to wealthy countries are based on comparative advantage, not absolute advantage. Countries like China and India violate the principles of comparative advantage by stealing intellectual property (the Chinese engage in rampant piracy), imposing requirements of direct investment in the local country in order to sell goods there (check ownership requirements to operate in China or India), and other things. Adam Smith and David Ricardo would support retaliatory tariffs against countries engaging in obvious protectionist behavior like this, or violations of GATT, currency manipulation, and dumping.

Have you talked to Adam Smith or Ricardo recently? As Reagan once responded when asked about retaliatory tariffs, "if the guy at the other end of the boat in which we are sitting punches a hole in the bottom of his side of the boat how does it help that I do the same"?

Originally posted by Tables R Us If the principles for competition are violated, free trade results in benefits based on absolute advantage. This means that some countries LOSE. This is a huge difference.

Your argument implies that our country is worse off because of our trade relationship with China and India. Or in other words, that because of certain restrictions China and India have placed on our respective trading relationships (and their unwillingness to enforce some international property rights agreements), our comparative advantage with these countries has been lost and therefore India and China have gained absolute advantages. Therefore in our respective trade relationships they are the winners and we are the losers.

To say that because of some restrictions on domestic investing and lack of respect for intellectual property, our country is no longer experiencing a net profit from our trade relationships with China and India has to be the most economically ignorant statement said on this board to date. If you don't think we are experiencing a net gain from our trading relationships with China and India, then shutting down trade completely between our nations would actually put our country in a better economic position than exists now. About as many economists would support that idea, as astronomers support the idea the Sun revolves round the earth.

There are still a myriad of comparative advantages our country still enjoys by trading with China and India Even with the restrictions they impose, or treaties they don't enforce, our country benefits immensely from our relationship. There are many economists that argue, and I agree with them, that the restrictions imposed by India and China on free trade hurt these countries more than they hurt us. I definitely believe that China's and India's lack of enforcement of property rights hurt their economies more than they hurt ours.

Of course we want these countries to change their domestic rules so their economies are less restrictive, and we want them to enforce international copyright treaties. But such changes will benefit them more than they benefit us.

Originally posted by Tables R Us Nonsense like this is why median wages per worker have been stagnant since 1980. And why shifty right-wingers like to change the subject to median household income and talke about how it's grown. Well, the only reason median household income has grown is that the mrs, kids and grandparents all got jobs.

Median wage per worker? You may want to look at prior posts on this board where I explained why the term Median when it comes to statistics, is a useless one. How about the average wage per worker or the average wage per worker in every quintile?

Can you cite one example where the US has increased its trade restrictions against another country (as you suggest we do with India and China) and such restrictions have benefited the United States?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Median wage per worker? If you may want to look it prior posts on this board where I explained why the term Median when it comes to statistics, is a useless one.

Dude, give it up. You just sound foolish.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Dude, give it up. You just sound foolish.

Does anyone else share Ty's opinon on this?

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Spanky
Have you talked to Adam Smith or Ricardo recently? As Reagan once responded when asked about retaliatory tariffs, "if the guy at the other end of the boat in which we are sitting punches a hole in the bottom of his side of the boat how does it help that I do the same"?

Smith advocated retalitatory tarrifs in the wealth of nations:

The second case, in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry, is, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter. In this case, it seems reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former.

Link to Wealth of Nations

David Ricardo did the same in other books, but I don't have time to find them now.

Originally posted by Spanky
Median wage per worker? You may want to look at prior posts on this board where I explained why the term Median when it comes to statistics, is a useless one. How about the average wage per worker or the average wage per worker in every quintile?

Mean (or "average") wages is a highly deceptive concept. Mean wages are skewed upward by highly compensated persons.

Originally posted by Spanky
Can you cite one example where the US has increased its trade restrictions against another country (as you suggest we do with India and China) and such restrictions have benefited the United States?

Give a Democrat president some time, and with advice of left-wing economists like Harvard professor Richard Freeman, you'll see good effects from imposing trade barriers.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Mean (or "average") wages is a highly deceptive concept. Mean wages are skewed upward by highly compensated persons.

That is why I asked if anyone has split it into quintiles. What has happened to the average wage of a worker in the bottom one fifth of the salary scale? What has happened to the average wage of a worker in the middle fight of the salary scale. The term "Median" is too easy to manipulate by statisticians on both the left and the right.

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Give a Democrat president some time, and with advice of left-wing economists like Harvard professor Richard Freeman, you'll see good effects from imposing trade barriers.

In other words you can't cite one example where a country has imposed "retalitory" tariffs that have brought a net economic benefit to the country.

The last Democrat president we had, as far as I know, didn't raise any tariffs. He only reduced them. In fact, he kept renewing China's MFN status (eventhough, when running against the current president's father, he promised not to).

What makes you think his wife will be any different? I believe she voted for CAFTA.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Smith advocated retalitatory tarrifs in the wealth of nations:

Link to Wealth of Nations

Could you be a little more specific in this citation. I remember smith advocating tariffs to help a domestic industry that is critical for defense, or to help domestic "infant industrys" but I don't remember retalitory tariffs.

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Spanky
In other words you can't cite one example where a country has imposed "retalitory" tariffs that have brought a net economic benefit to the country.

Hah, I can cite a study by some economists (Rodrik and Rodriguez) that did statistical analysis to show that there isn't all that much evidence that free trade is positively correlated with economic growth:

The authors emphasise that they do not believe that restrictions are necessarily good for growth, just that the converse has not been demonstrated. They closely examine the most prominent empirical studies on the benefits of free trade published in this decade. They argue that the persistent interest in this area reflects ‘the worry that the existing approaches haven’t gotten it ‘quite right’’.

Quote from article:

The tendency to greatly overstate the systematic evidence in favour of trade openness has had a substantial influence on policy around the world. Our concern is that the priority afforded to trade policy has generated expectations that are unlikely to be met.

Buy the article

Originally posted by Spanky
The last Democrat president we had, as far as I know, didn't raise any tariffs. He only reduced them. In fact, he kept renewing China's MFN status (eventhough, when running against the current president's father, he promised not to). What makes you think his wife will be any different? I believe she voted for CAFTA.

She's not electible, but some of the pro-union democrats are.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
Does anyone else share Ty's opinon on this?

yes.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
Does anyone else share Ty's opinon on this?

No.

But as disagreements on this Board go, it's pretty bland.