Imagine A Politician Keeping Promises

[scribblet]

http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists...07/1567813.html

Imagine, a politician keeping promises

You have to admit, whether you agree with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's policies or not, it is refreshing to see a politician make good on his election campaign promises.

[Hicksey]

And we have just about every liberal here talking like him doing so will create the end of the world.

[fixer1]

Some of the promises will be a little watered down due to them only having a minority, but yes they are sticking to what promises they made during the election. What will be more telling then anything else will come after they have fore filled those promises and then move on to new ideas etc. If they then keep the enter to center right couse, they will almost certainly get a majority next election. The liberals will not be in any kind of shape to win much next time around and NDP.... well lets just say that they will be exactly what they are now.

[Hicksey]

Some of the promises will be a little watered down due to them only having a minority, but yes they are sticking to what promises they made during the election. What will be more telling then anything else will come after they have fore filled those promises and then move on to new ideas etc. If they then keep the enter to center right couse, they will almost certainly get a majority next election. The liberals will not be in any kind of shape to win much next time around and NDP.... well lets just say that they will be exactly what they are now.

IMHO the NDP is standing with one foot on either side of relevance. There are just enough socialists in this country that they get noticed on election day, but everyone knows thats the best they can ever hope for.

[Michael Hardner]

IMHO the NDP is standing with one foot on either side of relevance. There are just enough socialists in this country that they get noticed on election day, but everyone knows thats the best they can ever hope for.

Your statement is very tied to our times. As our industries become more and more globalized, there will be more highs and lows and less jobs that pay well. At some point, protectionism and unionism will come back - maybe at the point where a bus driver makes more than an chartered accountant.

[Riverwind]

At some point, protectionism and unionism will come back - maybe at the point where a bus driver makes more than an chartered accountant.

Actually, this is the biggest problem facing Canada as high paid export oriented service industries face competition from low cost economies. In most cases, these low cost countries can hire skilled people for a lot less than in Canada because they don't have to pay their bus drivers and other low skilled service industry people huge salaries. As time goes on - high paying low skilled jobs in the public sector will be put under pressure as Canadians realize that showering a select few with riches costs everyone else.

BTW - I realize driving a bus safely requires some skill - however, it is a skill that can be taught in a few months as opposed to years. I picked bus drivers because that is the example that Micheal used.

[Michael Hardner]

As time goes on - high paying low skilled jobs in the public sector will be put under pressure as Canadians realize that showering a select few with riches costs everyone else.

Riverwind:

This is sometimes known as the race to the bottom.

[Hicksey]

I never said all social programs were without merit.

I am a big believer in government re-training as a way to keep as skilled a workforce as possible to meet these demands. There are much smarter and better ways to fight that trend than unions and welfare. I think those programs sell our people short.

Its smarter and cheaper to spend the extra money to train people to fill voids in prospering markets and keep them as taxpayers than to revet to hnadouts.

[Michael Hardner]

I am a big believer in government re-training as a way to keep as skilled a workforce as possible to meet these demands. There are much smarter and better ways to fight that trend than unions and welfare. I think those programs sell our people short.

Its smarter and cheaper to spend the extra money to train people to fill voids in prospering markets and keep them as taxpayers than to revet to hnadouts.

We can import skilled help in pretty much any field and bring the wages down if we'd like to. High skills are no substitute for a union when it comes to keeping wages up. Would you rather go to university for four years and study electrical engineering or drive a streetcar ?

Three friends were in high school. One worked after high school, one went to community college, and one went to university. The one who went to work eventually got a union job paying $100k+, and the one who went to community college got a job in sales and marketing which can't really be outsourced. The university bound gentleman graduated worked hard in high tech for ten years until outsourcing started chipping away at his wages and by that time retraining had got much more expensive. He did the worse of the three.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Hardner,

At some point, protectionism and unionism will come back - maybe at the point where a bus driver makes more than an chartered accountant

Let's hope to hell not...but here are a few other numbers to consider.

In Calgary, there are ads out for bus drivers wanted. Starting at $24/hr. At 250 days worked a year, (8 hr shifts, plus 4% vacation pay, but not including overtime) that works out to almost $50,000/yr.

Some friends of mine own a hobby shop in Fort McMurray, and recently a young guy came in, saying he had just quit his job. He was upset that he wasn't getting any overtime, and could make more money elsewhere. He said he was clearing $1200 a week, setting up scaffolding on job sites.. At 50 weeks a year, that is $60,000 net (so the actual wage must have been near $100,000/yr.)

Then again, when my friends moved up there a few years ago,(one of them was born there, so it was actually 'going back home) they bought a mobile home for $128,000. Three years later, it has been valued at $340,000.

Mind you, when the sands get milked dry, that trailer probably won't be worth $50,000.

[Riverwind]

We can import skilled help in pretty much any field and bring the wages down if we'd like to.

A competant engineer in India or China works less than a burger flipper a MacDonald's in Canada. You can push down the wages of skilled workers by importing labour but that does not address the high cost of living in Canada created by high paying low skilled jobs. That is why Americans are split on the Mexican immigration issue - they know they need the cheap lobour pool in order to compete globally but are concerned about the concequences for their society.

In Canada we will be forced to import the cheap labour as well in order to ensure real value added service jobs (i.e. the one's that produce new wealth and don't simply spend tax dollars) have a chance to compete in the global marketplace.

[August1991]

There is so much nonsense on this thread, but at least one true "fact" shines through:

Some friends of mine own a hobby shop in Fort McMurray, and recently a young guy came in, saying he had just quit his job. He was upset that he wasn't getting any overtime, and could make more money elsewhere. He said he was clearing $1200 a week, setting up scaffolding on job sites.. At 50 weeks a year, that is $60,000 net (so the actual wage must have been near $100,000/yr.)

Then again, when my friends moved up there a few years ago,(one of them was born there, so it was actually 'going back home) they bought a mobile home for $128,000. Three years later, it has been valued at $340,000.

Mind you, when the sands get milked dry, that trailer probably won't be worth $50,000.

Exactly. You can make alot of money in Fort McMurray but then you'll have to pay rent (buy a house) there too. So, you're no better off. (I agree that conclusion is not perfect, but you get my point.)

Similarly, we won't have Third World workers coming to Canada to work at $3,000/year because they'll need far more than that to pay rent and taxes.

----

Because it is so simple to go off on crazy tangents with this kind of discussion, I suggest thinking in terms of new technology. If someone discovered a new device that replaces any particular job (for example hip surgeon), then everyone would say it was a great thing and there would be no further discussion about the matter. The same should apply to foreign trade, outsourcing, or having foreigners perform a task. These are all identical to discovering a new technology.

[August1991]

A competant engineer in India or China works less than a burger flipper a MacDonald's in Canada. You can push down the wages of skilled workers by importing labour but that does not address the high cost of living in Canada created by high paying low skilled jobs. That is why Americans are split on the Mexican immigration issue - they know they need the cheap lobour pool in order to compete globally but are concerned about the concequences for their society.

In Canada we will be forced to import the cheap labour as well in order to ensure real value added service jobs (i.e. the one's that produce new wealth and don't simply spend tax dollars) have a chance to compete in the global marketplace.

Riverwind, I have read your post several times and I can still make no sense of it.

If I change "importing labour" for "adopt new technology", you'll understand my confusion:

You can push down the wages of skilled workers by adopting new technology but that does not address the high cost of living in Canada created by high paying low skilled jobs. That is why Americans are split on the new technology issue - they know they need the new technology in order to compete globally but are concerned about the concequences for their society.

In Canada we will be forced to adopt new technology as well in order to ensure real value added service jobs (i.e. the one's that produce new wealth and don't simply spend tax dollars) have a chance to compete in the global marketplace.

[Michael Hardner]

If someone discovered a new device that replaces any particular job (for example hip surgeon), then everyone would say it was a great thing and there would be no further discussion about the matter. The same should apply to foreign trade, outsourcing, or having foreigners perform a task. These are all identical to discovering a new technology.

The difference being that there was a period of adjustment during the industrial age that produced a good amount of social strife, and violence. Farm labour flooded into the cities to take jobs at market rates and conditions which were unliveable. By the time it all settled out, we had protectionism unions and the affluent society.

It remains to be seen what will come out of the postindustrial age.

[Riverwind]

In Canada we will be forced to import the cheap labour as well in order to ensure real value added service jobs (i.e. the one's that produce new wealth and don't simply spend tax dollars) have a chance to compete in the global marketplace.

Riverwind, I have read your post several times and I can still make no sense of it.

An engineer living in India can live quite comfortably working for 10K/year. An engineer living in Canada needs that much just to make payments on student loans. The difference is a result of the expensive service sector in Canada. The Indian only pays pennies a day for people to collect the garbage, drive buses and provide similar services. The engineer in Canada has to pay wages which have been inflated by unions and laws restricting the movement of labour.

You could try to argue that we don't need any engineers working in Canada and that we should all become unionized bus drivers. However, that obviously makes no sense because somebody has to make the money that pays the taxes for the bus driver's salary.

This is the reality of the new global marketplace. The lovely bubble that we in the rich world lived in for the last 50 years is coming to an end. In 50 years the rich world is going to look a lot more like India and China today (i.e. a large pool of cheap workers forever trapped in poverty providing cheap services to a rich elite). In this new world, bus drivers making equivalent of 60K/year will be a quaint anchronism.

[August1991]

This is the reality of the new global marketplace. The lovely bubble that we in the rich world lived in for the last 50 years is coming to an end. In 50 years the rich world is going to look a lot more like India and China today (i.e. a large pool of cheap workers forever trapped in poverty providing cheap services to a rich elite).

Riverwind, you seem determined to prove that the world is going to collapse and you are going to find the proof whichever way you have to. That is a poor way to do science, or discover anything.

If I understand you properly, you fear that our economy is unsustainable since Indian engineers pay so little for local services and so they can live well on only $10,000. IOW, Indian engineers are cheap.

Once again, let's say that we discover a new device that makes all engineers obsolete. The device costs a thousand dollars and it replaces one engineer. Would that be a good thing or bad thing?

Now, what if I say the device in fact is an engineer in India. What's the difference? And what does this have to do with the wages of garbage collectors or bus drivers in Canada or in India?

You could try to argue that we don't need any engineers working in Canada and that we should all become unionized bus drivers. However, that obviously makes no sense because somebody has to make the money that pays the taxes for the bus driver's salary.

Rather, someone has to produce something to pay the Indian engineers for their services.

An engineer living in India can live quite comfortably working for 10K/year. An engineer living in Canada needs that much just to make payments on student loans. The difference is a result of the expensive service sector in Canada. The Indian only pays pennies a day for people to collect the garbage, drive buses and provide similar services. The engineer in Canada has to pay wages which have been inflated by unions and laws restricting the movement of labour.

So, the cost of engineering services is lower in India. IOW, Canadians must give up less to get the benefit of these services. This is the same as having access to a new technology and if we were discussing medical services, it would be front page news. "Canadian discovers way to cut cost of hip replacement surgery in half".

How can finding a cheaper, less costly way of doing something be bad for society? It is tantamount to saying that we should stop using the Internet because it is bad.

[Riverwind]

How can finding a cheaper, less costly way of doing something be bad for society? It is tantamount to saying that we should stop using the Internet because it is bad.

A new technology does not automatically eliminate every possible job. For example, computers greatly improved the productivity of engineering firms but it did eliminate jobs for people who created engineering drawings. However, the were still many jobs that these people could be retrained to do. The net result is everyone wins.

However, when someone loses their job to outsourced labour they are basically screwed. They could try to retrain to do a new job but chances are they will find that job will be outsourced too. This will leave them no option but to lower their wage expectations until they can compete with the offsource labour.

The only jobs in our economy that cannot be outsourced are jobs that must be done in a specific location. However, these jobs are only protected because of the trade barriers created by immigration laws. Eliminate those barriers and the pays scales in those jobs would collapse too (see the thread about importing Chinese labour into the tar sands).

All of this adds up to a pretty dismal future for most Canadians living today. That said, the picture looks really good if you are a macroeconomist and only care about aggregate increases in wealth and are not that concerned about what happens to individual people.

[August1991]

A new technology does not automatically eliminate every possible job. For example, computers greatly improved the productivity of engineering firms but it did eliminate jobs for people who created engineering drawings. However, the were still many jobs that these people could be retrained to do. The net result is everyone wins.

However, when someone loses their job to outsourced labour they are basically screwed. They could try to retrain to do a new job but chances are they will find that job will be outsourced too. This will leave them no option but to lower their wage expectations until they can compete with the offsource labour.

You are quibbling now. Does it matter to the person in question whether they lose their job due to outsourcing or due to new technology? And does it really matter that technology doesn't eliminate every job (only some jobs)? And do you really believe that new technology eliminates fewer jobs than outsourcing does?

Your post above offers quibbles to all these questions.

The deeper question is whether opening to trade or adopting new technology leads to greater income disparity or less. No doubt, in the immediate term, both lead to short run unemployment. Hence, they both lead to greater income disparity. In the long run however, all evidence points to lower income inequality.

Indeed, countries that refuse to adopt new technology or refuse to open to trade stagnate. One reasopn they stagnate is that a small minority wants to preserve its privilege.

[Riverwind]

The deeper question is whether opening to trade or adopting new technology leads to greater income disparity or less. No doubt, in the immediate term, both lead to short run unemployment. Hence, they both lead to greater income disparity. In the long run however, all evidence points to lower income inequality.

We have a world where wealth has been distributed unevenly for centuries. We are going to a world where wealth will be distributed much more evenly. This will be great for the people living in poor countries because their standard of living will go up. However, this leveling of wealth will cause the standard of living to decrease in rich countries.

To put it another way , we in the rich countries are the world's elite living in palaces that have been protected by various legal and technological barriers. These barriers are crumbling and mobs will take their share and we will have to make do with a lot less than we have today. I know you will say it will be ok because the 'pie grows' - my response is there are too many poor people in the world and the pie can never grow fast enough.

[August1991]

We have a world where wealth has been distributed unevenly for centuries. We are going to a world where wealth will be distributed much more evenly. This will be great for the people living in poor countries because their standard of living will go up. However, this leveling of wealth will cause the standard of living to decrease in rich countries.

You're back in apocalypse mode. Look, I suppose the heathen hordes could overcome us and we could fall into a dark ages. Then again, Marxists have been predicting a revolution for over a century.

But new technology or opening to trade will not lead to a revolution or a dark age. New technology and trade are like building a bridge. How can the construction of a bridge between two towns impoverish either side? It can only improve the overall standard of living on both sides.

If you believe that free trade or new technology will lead to the collapse of western civilization, you are mistaken. Western civilization may well collapse but it will be due to other reasons. Riverwind, have all the technological innovations of the past 100 years caused more or less income inequality?

Your reasoning suffers from an acute form of zero-sum thinking. The potential wealth in the world is far greater than what we now perceive. Most wealth is in the form of human capital. What we are observing in India and China is the result of a better use of their human capital. How can the better use of a resource make anyone poorer?

If you find a better way to drive to work, how does that make the world poorer?

I know you will say it will be ok because the 'pie grows' - my response is there are too many poor people in the world and the pie can never grow fast enough.

The pie can only grow to the extent these poor people work harder and produce more. You make it seem as if they will get their incomes from us. That's wrong. Instead, they will create their higher incomes and make the pie bigger. Indeed, the pie will be bigger for us all.

[Michael Hardner]

August:

The pie can only grow to the extent these poor people work harder and produce more. You make it seem as if they will get their incomes from us. That's wrong. Instead, they will create their higher incomes and make the pie bigger. Indeed, the pie will be bigger for us all.

You're ignoring what I posted about the social adjustments of the industrial age.

Untrained and poorly skilled workers were earning more than their global market worth due to protectionism and unions. When their jobs are outsourced, there will be no comparable employment for them.

Jobs eliminated due to technology are usually replaced by higher paying jobs, but those jobs are also being outsourced.

[August1991]

Untrained and poorly skilled workers were earning more than their global market worth due to protectionism and unions. When their jobs are outsourced, there will be no comparable employment for them.

To argue against free trade, you must also argue against new technology. If you say that outsourcing jobs will impoverish people, then you must also believe that introducing new technology will impoverish people. If you say that protectionism and unions prevent outsourcing, then you would be in favour of forbidding the introduction of new technology.

Jobs eliminated due to technology are usually replaced by higher paying jobs, but those jobs are also being outsourced.

There is no analytical difference between opening to trade and discovering a new technology. In practical terms, it makes no difference to a person whether they lose their job because of new technology or because a foreign competitor can offer the same service at lower cost.

I don't see why jobs lost to new technology lead to higher paying jobs but jobs lost to outsourcing don't. On what basis do you argue that? Anyone who loses a job for whatever reason tends to look for a new one.

I think we can agree too that new technology, despite the temporary loss in jobs, is what makes us all much better off than people were, say, 100 years ago. Indeed, the loss of job and then finding a new one is the very reason we're better off. Instead of wasting their time on an old task (say, washing clothes by hand), machines now wash clothes and people's time is now used for other tasks. As a result, we all have more.

Would you have us eliminate washing machines because this would create many jobs washing clothes by hand and make for a more egalitarian world?

Arguments against free trade have a similar logic.

In fairness, I can understand the confusion about this and why you and Riverview and many others to this forum (and other forums) disagree. As recently as fifty years ago, my arguments here were understood by a small percentage of the population. In some ways, the arguments are counterintuitive. Even the argument in favour of new technology has met resistance. Thankfully, the Internet and computers have convinced almost everyone in the Western world of the benefits of new technology.

It seems that the Left must be dragged kicking and screaming into this viewpoint. To their credit, Bob Rae, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair are examples of Leftists who have figured it out.

[Riverwind]

To argue against free trade, you must also argue against new technology.

To argue for free trade you must also argue for labour mobility. Laws that prevent willing workers from coming to Canada and taking jobs are barriers to trade. Of course, there are social costs to allowing labour mobility. But there are social costs to free trade in goods and services too. The only question is where each individual decides to put their foot down and say no more.

There is no difference between opening to trade and discovering a new technology. The two are analytically the same.

Technological change is limited by science - change can only happen relatively slowly. Outsourcing can happen extremely quickly since there is a near infinite supply of workers in poor countries.

[August1991]

To argue for free trade you must also argue for labour mobility. Laws that prevent willing workers from coming to Canada and taking jobs are barriers to trade.

Riverview, you have made this argument elsewhere. In fact, if everything could be traded freely, then there would be no need for labour mobility. People could stay where they are now and we could trade to obtain what they produce. To the extent that there are barriers to trade, then labour mobility can be beneficial. By and large, I am in favour of labour mobility, but this is not a critical feature of my argument in favour of free trade, and linking free trade to new technology.

Technological change is limited by science - change can only happen relatively slowly. Outsourcing can happen extremely quickly since there is a near infinite supply of workers in poor countries.

That's ridiculous. The changes caused by radio, cars, telephones, computers, the Internet, the printing press had dramatic consequences for people at the time.

[Michael Hardner]

August:

I'm not against free trade, or new technology. To argue against them, as in to argue that they should stop is arguing against nature. All I'm doing is talking about the problems that these advances present.

Though technology tends to increase wealth and leads to general welfare, look at what it took for the benefits of the industrial revolution to be shared across society. A binary and inflexible view of these things doesn't help. I'd like somebody to pay attention to the fact that there are losers here (many of us) and to do something about it.