You may want to watch this! Sorry...I'm just the Messenger.

[tstr14]

Does that mean eliminating minimum wage protections and workplace safety? A seamstress in a country like Vietnam makes the equivalent of $2.99 per hour, versus $18.00 in the US. That's a primary driver of why jobs left the US.

You are partly right, but in nearly all cases it was corporate greed that caused the jobs to move. I am aware of NO case in which a company dropped their prices when they went from paying $18 an hour to $2.99. Are you?

 

[anotherlab]

You are partly right, but in nearly all cases it was corporate greed that caused the jobs to move. I am aware of NO case in which a company dropped their prices when they went from paying $18 an hour to $2.99. Are you?

No one ever announces that they lowered prices by offshoring the manufacturing, but that is how Walmart lowers the prices for items that it carries.

The prices of consumer electronic equipment went down when manufacturing moved to Asia. Instead of seeing the price move down, it goes up less than the inflation rate. When adjusted for inflation, the price of the iPhone is less than the every previous year, save the first year.

 

[tstr14]

Consumer electronics prices started down when Japanese companies Sony, Panasonic and Samsung, none of whom were US based, entered the market. Prices weren't the only reason they became popular, quality was also high on the list. Walmart is a poor example as they never produced anything here and always sold the lowest price product they could find. If anything, their business model drove as many jobs overseas as greedy manufactures who abandoned American workers for cheap Asian labor. Walmart's bottom line is to make money, not save buyer's money.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Does that mean eliminating minimum wage protections and workplace safety? A seamstress in a country like Vietnam makes the equivalent of $2.99 per hour, versus $18.00 in the US. That's a primary driver of why jobs left the US.

"Protections" is a very loaded term. Generally it ultimately means "unfree".

When government regulates anything, it boils down to a particular viewpoint being forcibly applied to everyone, when there often are many who view things differently. The entire concept of "a living wage" is one of the best examples of that -- yes, a man with a wife and two kids needs to provide for his family, but a 16 year old saving to buy a used car does not. So what each can tolerate, and even judge to be "fair" is different in terms of pay rate to be a grocery store bagger.

When gubmint steps in and says you have to pay a certain minimum for all work regardless if it is economically justified, usually we all lose. People who were happy to work those jobs at a more realistic market rate (i.e. what all the rest of us judge to work to be "worth" based on our collective spending decisions) find themselves out of work. Consumers pay more.

So, what is the labor of a seamstress worth? Those of us on the free market side of the argument say, generally, what someone's willing to voluntarily accept to do the work. If they need more, there are unlimited ways to improve one's lot going forward. The easiest is to spend free time gaining skills and knowledge.

Of course, the real world isn't so tidy and simple. There are bad people out there. Bad actors exploit the difficulties of others and abuse them. These situations should not be ignored with a simple, "but the free market!" response. Yet, it is lazy to solved these problems with a broad brush that impacts everyone, some negatively. That's not "solving" a problem, that's shifting the victims.

Rather, hard work that it is, exploitation should be countered with targeted remedies, keeping the new non-english speaking immigrant from being exploited in a textile sweatshop, while still allowing the flexibility for Billy to work afternoons bagging groceries with an eye to that '86 Camero his friend is selling.

Billy should not have to join a union, or the grocer have to pay a "living wage" for something that requires no skill.

Funny thing... That's the America I grew up in, now long gone.

 

[anotherlab]

...Billy should not have to join a union, or the grocer have to pay a "living wage" for something that requires no skill....

This problem isn't limited to no or low-skilled jobs. Somewhere north of 850,000 high-paying, skilled jobs were eliminated in the US between 1993 and 2002. Most of this can be attributed to NAFTA, the rest ot global competition.

Funny thing... That's the America I grew up in, now long gone.

Every generation says that.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Every generation says that.

Always with some justification. Regardless, that fact doesn't invalidate the point being made.

 

[hank970]

"Protections" is a very loaded term. Generally it ultimately means "unfree".

When government regulates anything, it boils down to a particular viewpoint being forcibly applied to everyone, when there often are many who view things differently. The entire concept of "a living wage" is one of the best examples of that -- yes, a man with a wife and two kids needs to provide for his family, but a 16 year old saving to buy a used car does not. So what each can tolerate, and even judge to be "fair" is different in terms of pay rate to be a grocery store bagger.

When gubmint steps in and says you have to pay a certain minimum for all work regardless if it is economically justified, usually we all lose. People who were happy to work those jobs at a more realistic market rate (i.e. what all the rest of us judge to work to be "worth" based on our collective spending decisions) find themselves out of work. Consumers pay more.

So, what is the labor of a seamstress worth? Those of us on the free market side of the argument say, generally, what someone's willing to voluntarily accept to do the work. If they need more, there are unlimited ways to improve one's lot going forward. The easiest is to spend free time gaining skills and knowledge.

Of course, the real world isn't so tidy and simple. There are bad people out there. Bad actors exploit the difficulties of others and abuse them. These situations should not be ignored with a simple, "but the free market!" response. Yet, it is lazy to solved these problems with a broad brush that impacts everyone, some negatively. That's not "solving" a problem, that's shifting the victims.

Rather, hard work that it is, exploitation should be countered with targeted remedies, keeping the new non-english speaking immigrant from being exploited in a textile sweatshop, while still allowing the flexibility for Billy to work afternoons bagging groceries with an eye to that '86 Camero his friend is selling.

Billy should not have to join a union, or the grocer have to pay a "living wage" for something that requires no skill.

Funny thing... That's the America I grew up in, now long gone.

Whatever he earns, I hope that Billy has enough sense to save for something more noble than to buy a forty-year-old car that was crap when new and hasn't improved with age. It would be wiser of him to use his funds to improve his credentials, either academically or vocationally, so he becomes more competitive in the workplace and doesn't end up bagging groceries for the rest of his life. It would be better for the rest of us too.

Some jobs warrant more pay because they demand special skills and expertise. Other jobs may pay a bit more because few people want to do them. Would I be willing to bag groceries for minimum wage? Not on your life.

 

[anotherlab]

Always with some justification. Regardless, that fact doesn't invalidate the point being made.

Nor does it bring any context to the conversation. It brings the same thing to the table as a GIF of Grandpa Simpson yelling at a cloud.

Nostagia isn't what it used to be

 

[BossBob]

The real problem is that the cost of living across the world is not equal. If it were the seamstress in Vietnam would be asking around about the same wage as a seamstress in the states in which case there would be no cost saving having goods produced on the other side of the world and shipping them, saving on the cost and pollution of that shipping.

 

[anotherlab]

The real problem is that the cost of living across the world is not equal. If it were the seamstress in Vietnam would be asking around about the same wage as a seamstress in the states in which case there would be no cost saving having goods produced on the other side of the world and shipping them, saving on the cost and pollution of that shipping.

And it's not just the blue-collar jobs. A mid-level software engineer in Manila would be paid around $20-22K USD a year. In a market like Dallas, that same person would expect $110-140k. The cost of living in Manila is a fraction of what it takes to live in Dallas.

 

[MS Coast]

The real problem is that the cost of living across the world is not equal. If it were the seamstress in Vietnam would be asking around about the same wage as a seamstress in the states in which case there would be no cost saving having goods produced on the other side of the world and shipping them, saving on the cost and pollution of that shipping.

There's an issue on the high end of the employee salary scale, too. Many American company pay executives annual salaries in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars (plus benefits). That adds directly to the cost of the products they sell. Companies in Vietnam, Korea, China, Malaysia and others don't incur similar product cost penalties.

 

[Chip]

Nostalgia isn't what it used to be

That's a good one!

 

[tstr14]

And it's not just the blue-collar jobs. A mid-level software engineer in Manila would be paid around $20-22K USD a year. In a market like Dallas, that same person would expect $110-140k. The cost of living in Manila is a fraction of what it takes to live in Dallas.

Which explains why so many doctors in the US are from foreign countries. Who can blame them? Earn multiple times the amount of money they would have in their home country, and escape some of the armpits of the world to boot.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Which explains why so many doctors in the US are from foreign countries. Who can blame them? Earn multiple times the amount of money they would have in their home country, and escape some of the armpits of the world to boot.

The foreign IMG's are also willing to work cheaper than MD's and many are only DO's rather than MD's. Most MD's from American medical schools shy away from primary care practice because it doesn’t pay well, compared to specialties. Also, many states are actively recruiting IMG's with minimal residency requirements, to fulfill the shortage of domestic primary care doctors.

 

[Droning on and on...]

There's an issue on the high end of the employee salary scale, too. Many American company pay executives annual salaries in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars (plus benefits). That adds directly to the cost of the products they sell. Companies in Vietnam, Korea, China, Malaysia and others don't incur similar product cost penalties.

One of the most difficult issues to break down and determine what's real and what isn't.

The advocate of such pay packages would say these people are worth it, and what they bring to the table is what makes American companies such powerhouses. I certainly don't have the direct experience and depth of knowledge to endorse or dispute such claims.

Is Elon Musk worth his compensation? I don't know. He's certainly contributed to our world enormously with Tesla, SpaceX, AI, Neuralink, and a lot more. I don't see that sort of innovation and cutting edge progress coming out of Vietnam.

I don't know if such extreme compensation is "necessary". What I do know, however, is the freedom that enables such wealth has resulted in great benefit for Americans, including one of the highest standards of living in the world.

 

[MS Coast]

I don't know if such extreme compensation is "necessary". What I do know, however, is the freedom that enables such wealth has resulted in great benefit for Americans, including one of the highest standards of living in the world.

US businesses performed very well in the two decades following WWII in improving our own quality of life while simultaneously aiding the rebuilding of our former enemies. There were no even remotely similar executive salaries and tax rates on the wealthy were enormously more severe.

I've just looked at quality of life ratings from several sources. None showed the US ranked first and in most, the US doesn't rank in the top ten. Higher and similarly ranked countries do not show the same exorbitant high level management salaries.

 

[anotherlab]

One of the most difficult issues to break down and determine what's real and what isn't.

The advocate of such pay packages would say these people are worth it, and what they bring to the table is what makes American companies such powerhouses. I certainly don't have the direct experience and depth of knowledge to endorse or dispute such claims.

Is Elon Musk worth his compensation? I don't know. He's certainly contributed to our world enormously with Tesla, SpaceX, AI, Neuralink, and a lot more. I don't see that sort of innovation and cutting edge progress coming out of Vietnam.

I don't know if such extreme compensation is "necessary". What I do know, however, is the freedom that enables such wealth has resulted in great benefit for Americans, including one of the highest standards of living in the world.

The CEO-to-median-employee pay ratio in the US has changed radically over the last 50 years. A quick query from ChatGPT generated the following ratios with references.

• Mid-1960s: CEOs earned roughly 20–21× what a typical worker made. Economic Policy Institute+1
• Late 1970s (1978): The ratio was in the low 30s (≈31:1 by some measures). Economic Policy Institute
• Around 2000: Using realized/total compensation measures, the CEO:worker ratio peaked near the 300–370× range (EPI shows a peak ≈366:1 in 2000). Economic Policy Institute
• 2020: EPI reports about 351:1 (using realized compensation). Economic Policy Institute
• 2023–2024: Different reports show ratios in the ~280–320× range (EPI and AFL-CIO reporting ~290:1 in 2023 and ~281:1 / 285:1 for 2024 depending on the dataset/method).

You end up with companies where the CEO makes more money than they could realistically spend, and their workers can't afford to buy a house or pay off their student loans.

Take GM, for example. Using 2024 numbers, the CEO earned $29.5 million, and the median salary was $95k, which is a CEO-to-median-employee pay ratio of 310 :1. Much of GM CEO's compensation comes from short-term and long-term incentives set by the board of directors. Which would be tied to meeting sales and stock price performance goals. Perhaps raising the standard of living for employees should be considered a performance goal.

For a country with one of the highest standards of living, we have a lot of people on SNAP and getting their meals from food banks.