A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
The trouble with your plans to push free trade with and immigration from low wage countries is that you will depress the middle class' standard of living relative to the upper class and perhaps also in absolute terms.

YOu state that like it is obvious when it is totally untrue. When has free trade ever depressed middle class incomes. Free trade may cause some temporary displacements, but what country has every had an entire class cross section of it society have its income reduced by free trade policies.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
In my experience, the University President has two jobs that are intertwined: recruit good faculty and raise a shitload of money. I'm not seeing how the comments could lead to either result.

There are a lot of people, particularly rich, conservative people, who may be more likely to donate to Harvard if the president stands up to the liberal hegemony of the current faculty.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
There are a lot of people, particularly rich, conservative people, who may be more likely to donate to Harvard if the president stands up to the liberal hegemony of the current faculty.

At the last reunion I was at, Biff, Atticus and I all made ths point to him (yes even Atticus feels the faculty has gone too far- mostly because of the "girls not shaving legs" part, but still he is solid on board)

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Several responses:

1. I think you assume a static, rather than dynamic economic state. I also think you are failing to fully consider the likely affect on our exports. Free trade is not one sided.

...

5. Your plan to compensate people sets up exactly the wrong incentive. Given a choice between work and no work, what would you choose? Retraining is a different matter and has some merit, but I would rather see those costs absorbed by the ultimate beneficiaries of that training (i.e., the employers).

On your first point, I am considering the benefits of exports. I rationally assume the bulk of the benefits go to Americans in the capacity as shareholders, so that the bulk of the benefits go extremely wealthy and/or high earning people in the US. Not the middle class. And yes, I assume a largely static economy. God man, it will be ages before wages in India and China are bid high enough that they aren't depressing US wages.

On your fifth point, how are you going to adequately compensate people if you are structurally changing the economy to reduce the percentage of jobs that provide a "fair" living relative to the upper class. Training won't even do any good if the percentage of jobs that provide such a living drops.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Spanky
YOu state that like it is obvious when it is totally untrue. When has free trade ever depressed middle class incomes. Free trade may cause some temporary displacements, but what country has every had an entire class cross section of it society have its income reduced by free trade policies.

The US because of supposedly free trade with China and India. (Of course, it's not actually free trade because of their currency manipulation and various trade barriers.) It's not just high levels of productivity that have prevented wage gains during the current economic expansion. Corporate profits, in contrast, have been doing quite well.

[megaloman]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't think chicks are wired properly to fully understand administrative roles in Universities.

'

As Camilla Paglia once said:

"If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts. "

Amen.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
There are a lot of people, particularly rich, conservative people, who may be more likely to donate to Harvard if the president stands up to the liberal hegemony of the current faculty.

From my limited understanding of hiring at Harvard, the administration can do precious little to improve the hiring of minorities or women, except to cajole the faculty, which makes the decisions. So Summers managed to piss people off on a subject as to which he exercises very little sway. A fine way to use the bully pulpit.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by megaloman
'

As Camilla Paglia once said:

"If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts. "

Amen.

that's what GGG's and posse ended up building.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
that's what GGG's and posse ended up building.

wow, you really are ticked that I didn't let you take credit for your avatar idea. My revealing to you that I am incredibly self-absorbed was PRIVATE and PERSONAL. I have built up this whole caring, other-centric persona here, and you torpedo it. Bastard.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
wow, you really are ticked that I didn't let you take credit for your avatar idea. My revealing to you that I am incredibly self-absorbed was PRIVATE and PERSONAL. I have built up this whole caring, other-centric persona here, and you torpedo it. Bastard.

Dear, I am far more uncaring and self-absorbed than you. I am so that way that I stold the line w/o asking permission. Top that?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Dear, I am far more uncaring and self-absorbed than you. I am so that way that I stole the line w/o asking permission. Top that?

You gave me attribution on it, though.

Send me a donut.

[SlaveNoMore]

megaloman
'

As Camilla Paglia once said:

"If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts. "

Amen.

When can we expect a tank post?

[Hank Chinaski]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Send me a donut.

I had my paralegal send out a supeona duces tacum to the caf in your building requiring 2 donuts go to your attention (I said Fringe- local counsel for Plaintiff) each morning as long as the "presiding judge" retains jurisdiction. If they send it to their lawyer it'll fall flat- but I'm hoping they'll just comply.

Let us know how it turns out. If they send bad varities let me know and I'll call the cashier and threaten sanctions.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
On your first point, I am considering the benefits of exports. I rationally assume the bulk of the benefits go to Americans in the capacity as shareholders, so that the bulk of the benefits go extremely wealthy and/or high earning people in the US. Not the middle class. And yes, I assume a largely static economy. God man, it will be ages before wages in India and China are bid high enough that they aren't depressing US wages.

On your fifth point, how are you going to adequately compensate people if you are structurally changing the economy to reduce the percentage of jobs that provide a "fair" living relative to the upper class. Training won't even do any good if the percentage of jobs that provide such a living drops.

Wow. It has been a while since I have met someone that actually buys this psuedoeconomic B.S. coming from the the unions. It is like listening to the Christian Coalitions statements on evolution and believing that.

"First the bulk of the benefits to to shareholders". What about lower prices in america that benefit everyone. Especially the poor. The consumer is by far the biggest beneficiary. As someone who has lived in seven countries I can tell you that money goes a great deal farther in the US than anywhere. In Japan you have to make three times the amount of money you make here to have the same standard of living. Yet, on average American workers make more money. More money and products are cheaper.

As far as foreign wages depressing US wages. That is comparing apples and oranges. You need to look at productivity of the workers and looking at the comparable pay for comparable productivity. In addition, if free trade repressed domestic wages how do you explain Hong Kong and Singapore. Singapore has the highest paid workers in Asia. In 1960 they were a third world nation and now they are a first world nation. And according to almost any published ranking, Singapore has the freest economy in the world. So why doesn't the phillipine workers right next store making a dollar a day depress Singapores wages.

Opening markets has never reduced the number of living wages. NAFTA increased wages in this country.