Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
The Nations Econ IQ is Pathetically poor
Published on February 7, 2005 By Dr Guy In Current Events

Reading through some of the other blogs today a simple fact smacked me upside the head.  Most people dont understand the simplest of economic theory!  And yet, I bet they practice it day in and day out without understanding why they do.

Take the issue of outsourcing Jobs. Forget the fact that in the net, the US in-sources more jobs than it outsources.  For now, lets look at WHY jobs are outsourced.  The answer is simple.  Profits.  Now that is a dirty word to many who fail to understand that PROFITS for a company does not go into some super secret cave to be greedily counted by the CFO and CEO.  No, the profits go to 2 things.

1. To grow the business.  That is they expand their capacity and physical plant so they can sell more and make more money. Why?

2. For the stock holders. These are everyday people, you me, your mother, your sister and brother, who took some money they had EARNED and decided to try to make more money with it.  So they bought stock (or their mutual fund, 401k or IRA did) in the expectation that the company would grow and make money and pay them dividends or increase sales so that the actual price of stock goes up, thus making MONEY for the individuals. 

So the next time you jump on the outsourcing bandwagon (that has been going on long before Bush came to office and actually accellerated under Clinton), think about that $500 PC you bought.  Would you voluntarily spend another $200-300 for that machine so you could keep the jobs in the US?  I think not or you would not have bouth the $500 PC to begin with.

Another area of ignorance is in wages.  Everyone wants to increase wages for the lowest paid to give them a living wage. Yet these same people fail to understand that the money for those magnificant wages do not come from the money tree, but from the employer's pockets.  While it may be stated that the employer is a rich fat cat trying to keep the poor man down, I would again point out that there are not a lot of those around unless you count everyone in the explanation above.

No, if you increase the wages arbitrarily, 2 things will happen.  Once is the employer will figure out how to get along with fewer employees.  That is called automation, or lately, out sourcing.  The second, for the fortunate few that do not lose their job over it because the employer has to have the worker, the money will go to pay the higher prices that is caused by the higher wages!

Yes, a very little known and sorely misunderstood fact is that to pay the higher wages, the employer will increase prices. Thus negating the apparent (and illusory) raise the lowest paid people got.

Finally, when I say you practice economics on a daily basis, I meant you make decisions based upon price and quality every day.  You are maximizing the return on your hard earned dollar.  Want that new car?  Do you buy it from Dealer A for $20k or dealer B for $18k?  It is the exact same car, but one is having a sale.

So to do employers maximize their payrol dollar.  You want $10/hr but Sam wants $8/hr?  Well, as long as you and sam are both qualified, the employer is going to hire Sam not you.

So before jumping on the "Out sourcing is just a greed grab" or "everyone should make a living wage", just think who the 'greedy' are, and where the money is coming from.  Chances are the greedy are you and I, and the money is going to come out of our pockets.

Unless we buy made in India instead. Then we just outsourced a job, but kept money in our pockets!


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Feb 07, 2005
Profits from smarmy companies do not go to everyday people. The vast majority of shareholders are very well fixed. Profit does not account for the corruption and bloated salaries of company officials. Such a clean and tidy theory, but not the truth.
on Feb 07, 2005
The driver in our economy is called Demand. To have demand people who consume the goods and services need JOBS. Per the Bureau of Labor Statists, we have created a net increase of 119,000 over the past four years. During that same period, 5 million new workers have enteted the work force looking for jobs. Where are their jobs? How do they buy goods and services without a JOB? Problem, the economic and fiscal policy we are following (Supply Side - tax cuts to the wealthy) is not producing growth at a rate to provide the jobs and increase demand. We need to try some more effective policies targeted at the demand side of the economy! Invest in rebuilding our country ( Schools, bridges, dams, electric grid, water/sewer systems) and tax cuts to the low and middle income members of our country. Use the money from restoring the tax rates on the top two brackets, the estate tax (Cuts take place 2011) and on dividends. Those tax cuts do not help demand.

This is Economics 101. George must have missed this class!
on Feb 07, 2005

Profits from smarmy companies do not go to everyday people. The vast majority of shareholders are very well fixed. Profit does not account for the corruption and bloated salaries of company officials. Such a clean and tidy theory, but not the truth.

It is the truth.  And the salaries paid to the fat cats, usually (as there are always exceptions) are due to market demand.  Company A wants the best CFO, they have to bid against othere companies for his/her service.

And second, the profits go to everyday people that have IRAs, 401Ks and the like.  I am not a fat cat, yet I would not invest and dont invest in failing concerns.  I try to buy low and sell hi.  That is the truth, and you are just to ignorant of simple Econ to understand it.

on Feb 07, 2005

The driver in our economy is called Demand. To have demand people who consume the goods and services need JOBS. Per the Bureau of Labor Statists, we have created a net increase of 119,000 over the past four years. During that same period, 5 million new workers have enteted the work force looking for jobs. Where are their jobs? How do they buy goods and services without a JOB? Problem, the economic and fiscal policy we are following (Supply Side - tax cuts to the wealthy) is not producing growth at a rate to provide the jobs and increase demand. We need to try some more effective policies targeted at the demand side of the economy! Invest in rebuilding our country ( Schools, bridges, dams, electric grid, water/sewer systems) and tax cuts to the low and middle income members of our country. Use the money from restoring the tax rates on the top two brackets, the estate tax (Cuts take place 2011) and on dividends. Those tax cuts do not help demand.

This is Economics 101. George must have missed this class!

The 119k figure does not include farm (no much there) jobs or the Self Employed!  That is where they are.  And you must have been sleeping to spew that garbage.  The tax cuts do not go under the mattress as you would like us to believe.  What is not spent is invested, and both those actions (not just spending) is what drives job creation and a growing economy.

on Feb 07, 2005
Another area of ignorance is in wages. Everyone wants to increase wages for the lowest paid to give them a living wage. Yet these same people fail to understand that the money for those magnificant wages do not come from the money tree, but from the employer's pockets......


That’s a rather simplistic approach to the problem. There are no doubts that very high wages will be harmful to the economy but the cost of the workforce in a very small determinant of the exterior and global competitiveness. Just look at Europe for example, Portugal and Spain have very low wages in their industries, yet have rather poor economies compared to the other nations with a much higher cost of their workforce like Germany or Belgium.

Higher wages encourage innovations in the companies and if the wages are too low, it may have a depressing effect on the investment. If wages aren’t periodically made higher to correlate with the inflation and other factors, it could have a very negative impact on the demand. Historically, the general demand for higher wages when the economy is rapidly growing is always part of a “virtuous” cycle which inevitable greatly heightens the demand. Sometimes it’s good for a company to give higher wages, at least macroeconomically.

on Feb 07, 2005
The comparison is the payroll survey both in Jan 2001 and Jan 2005. There may have been some additional jobs created by small business (household survey) but not close to 5 Million. In addition, the compensation of the jobs lost compared with the jobs created is very different. The economy is improving by increased productivity and profits. We need jobs that people can support themselves and their families with to grow the economy. The policies we are following attempt to stimulate growth with investment (smaller element) and fail to properly use the demand side.
on Feb 07, 2005

Higher wages encourage innovations in the companies and if the wages are too low, it may have a depressing effect on the investment. If wages aren’t periodically made higher to correlate with the inflation and other factors, it could have a very negative impact on the demand. Historically, the general demand for higher wages when the economy is rapidly growing is always part of a “virtuous” cycle which inevitable greatly heightens the demand. Sometimes it’s good for a company to give higher wages, at least macroeconomically.

The true and unbiased source of higher wages is demand.  I work in a field that just a few years ago was bidding up wages through the roof.  So 2 things happened, one was more H1B workers, and the other was software that replaced the need for so many people doing the same job.  The result?  demand fell (it did not hurt that Y2K was just a scare and not real), and I lost my job.  I got another one, but at a lower salary.  3 years later, I finally am making as much as I did when I was laid off.

Arbitrarily inflating wages only leads to inflation and unemployment (the biggest increase in the Minimum wage came during the 70s when we had what is now called stag flation).

on Feb 07, 2005

The comparison is the payroll survey both in Jan 2001 and Jan 2005. There may have been some additional jobs created by small business (household survey) but not close to 5 Million. In addition, the compensation of the jobs lost compared with the jobs created is very different. The economy is improving by increased productivity and profits. We need jobs that people can support themselves and their families with to grow the economy. The policies we are following attempt to stimulate growth with investment (smaller element) and fail to properly use the demand side.

I think you mis-spoke as the figures for Jan 2005 are no where near ready yet,  Typically it takes 12-18 months to compile them.  And while self employed is small employers, it typically is with an S corp, so it is not reflected in wage data as the person is paid by the profits of the business.  Both I and a cousin went that route (I am now employed by another agency).  So technically, we were not re-employed, yet we were making money and not on the public dole.

on Feb 07, 2005
The Fed released the numbers last week. They may be preliminary but they will not change to the tune of 5 Million. Glad to hear you have income to support yourself. The problem is the people who can not find a job that they can live on and that have resonable benefits Healthcare, retirement etc.
on Feb 07, 2005
Stagflation in the 70s was caused by abrupt crises that couldn't be fixed with normal revival economic policies. In that case, it was the ending of the Bretton Woods gold standard for the American dollar in 1971 and the oil crisis of 1973.
on Feb 07, 2005

Stagflation in the 70s was caused by abrupt crises that couldn't be fixed with normal revival economic policies. In that case, it was the ending of the Bretton Woods gold standard for the American dollar in 1971 and the oil crisis of 1973.

Check out the Phillips curve.  You will see that every time there is a minimum wage increase, it is puched outwards.  While the Oil crises helped with inflation, we have seen a bigger run up in energy prices this year, and without the resultant inflation.  Going off the gold standard had nothing to do with inflation or unemployment as it was a standard in name only long before then.

on Feb 07, 2005

The Fed released the numbers last week. They may be preliminary but they will not change to the tune of 5 Million. Glad to hear you have income to support yourself. The problem is the people who can not find a job that they can live on and that have resonable benefits Healthcare, retirement etc.

I think I misunderstood your numbers then.  because the figures released by the Feds apply to the fortune 1000 only, and not to every mom and pop shop around (where the vast majority of workers are actaully employed).  That is why they are always revising the numbers months after the fact as they get more data in that pushes it higher or lower depending on what the 'little' economy did.

And BTW, I played russian roulette.  I went without Medical insurance for almost a year.  If I had Cobra-ed it, it would have cost about $350/mn, and being self employed means no steady paycheck.

on Feb 07, 2005
Phillips curves and the natural rate of unemployment that goes with it are extremely questionable (especially after the 90s). Comparing the 1973 crisis to anything else that happened recently is ridiculous. I’m guessing that you were alive in 1973... Don’t you remember the general panic and the all the measures the government took. It really shook the economy. As for the gold standards, well, I suppose you could argue otherwise depending on your ideology, but its official failure was a shock for the economy. Many economists would argue it caused inflation.
on Feb 07, 2005

Phillips curves and the natural rate of unemployment that goes with it are extremely questionable (especially after the 90s). Comparing the 1973 crisis to anything else that happened recently is ridiculous. I’m guessing that you were alive in 1973... Don’t you remember the general panic and the all the measures the government took. It really shook the economy. As for the gold standards, well, I suppose you could argue otherwise depending on your ideology, but its official failure was a shock for the economy. Many economists would argue it caused inflation.

The Phillips curve is a theory yes.  Like Evolution is a theory.  It has been proven correct many times.  As for the Oil crisis, yes, and I was POed to have to pay 50 cents a gallon or more, when just before I started to drive, the price was in the 30s.  However it was not the 'crises' itself that led to the Stagflation, but the choices made subsequent to it.  Just 4 years ago we were paying less than a dollar a gallon for gas, and now it is almost 2 dollars.  Yet with the same 'shock' to the economy, we dont have double digit unemployment or inflation.  We also have not had a minimum wage increase in over 10 years.

Think about that.  And Clinton's glory years of great growth.

on Feb 07, 2005
All I’m saying is that 70s were that bad because of those crises and not because the upped minimum wage (and why did this turn into minimum wage debate (especially during the 70s)? I said “Historically, the general demand for higher wages when the economy is rapidly growing is always part of a “virtuous” cycle which inevitably greatly heightens the demand.”). The stagflation of the 70s wouldn’t have been nearly that bad without them (if it would have occurred).

The 1973 oil crisis was a lot more than just a raise in the price of gas. One fifth of the gas stations in the United States were dry for a week and many panicked with the rise of OPEC. Recently, the prices went up mainly because of the weakness of the American dollar.
2 Pages1 2