My employer hires boatloads of H1B[*] programmers. I don't think they're underpaid. The salaries range from $75K to somewhere around $125K. Without H1Bs, all of the jobs would likely be somewhere else, though they've started moving some of that work off-shore anyway (for tax reasons, I'm sure).
[*] All H1B job postings have to be displayed on company boards, along with descriptions and salaries. These listings have from one to over a hundred positions each, so there are a *lot* of jobs involved. The number is sorta amazing since there are only 65K H1Bs allowed.
The world already is competitive. Wherever you go there are successful businesses. In the developed world the government needs to get out the way a lot more. Only in the 3rd world does government have a real job to do changing things.
+2. Why most are like that I really don't understand.
Centrally planned socialists systems. The modern socialist systems in Germa ny and Scandinavia don't try to run the economy from the centre - they are happy to let the free market direct resources where they are needed.
They do provide some central planning to get the workers trained and educat ed - which is too long-term and investment for the free market - and they p rovide enough social welfare to keep the unemployed fed, housed and healthy while thye are being retrained for the next job, and to keep their kids we ll-fed and health enough to take full advantage of the education on offer.
That mind-set does also persuade them that the free market does require som e regulation - left to it's own devices it goes into boom and bust, with th e weaker players being bankrupted in the process until you end up with mono polies, which have to be regulated to prevent them rippin g off their custo mers.
Not always that easy. When I've tried it, I've been knocked back as "over-q ualified" - "you'd just resign and go to a better job as soon as the econom y revives -"
s
Sure. Those Asians who have the enterprise to move to a new continent are e nterprising enough to do well when they get there, and their kids shared th eir parent's enterprising attitude
When I was a graduate student, and a part time demonstrator in practical ch emistry classes - which in Australia, at the time, included some 30% "Colum bo Plan" student from South East Asia, I rapidly found that the Chinese fro m Taiwan and the Indians from India could be a bit culture-bound and diffic ult to persuade that practical skills mattered. India from anywhere but Ind ia and Chinese from anywhere but China and Taiwan were no trouble at all - less trouble than the local students, who could tend to treat University as one more institution to be gamed.
un.
d
Not really. It's not government that creates the jobs, but rather the incre ased complication of society as we can do more things for more people (and make money on the deal). Turning autistic kids into ace programmers takes a n investment in training, but it does pay off as long as you need ace progr ammers.
r
It's not the current administration. The US has become progressively more u nequal since Reagan came to power, and much as Obama would like to reverse the trend (as Clinton did, to some extent) the Republican majority blocks p retty much every move.
Granting that the money sink in the whole deal - the health insurance indus try - had to be bribed to get the legislation through Congress - it's not s urprising that that it hasn't helped health costs much. Since the primary a im was to extend health cover, this isn't a strong criticism of Obamacare . Atul Gawande thinks that Obamacare is having positive effects in practice , and writes about it (well) in the New Yorker, so I'm inclined to trust hi s opinion more than yours.
Every population includes special cases, who make fine anecdotal evidence, but lack statistical effect.
Where? When?
d
,
f
s
They aren't doing that in Australia. The savings rate has gone up, and the administration is worried that this is causing the economy to grow more slo wly than they'd like.
People who get their priorities wrong end up poor in most cultures.
Protestant work ethic, and a positively Calvinistic attitude to minor indul gences - except those involving mountain biking.
e
r
Business As Usual was Googles most plausible suggestion.
In a modern economy, new technology and new products mean that jobs are van ishing all the time, and being replaced by difference jobs in different ind ustries. Unions actually do serve as useful social purpose - until greedy e mployers bribe them into criminal uselessness. The employers then complain that the bribe-taking union officials - that the employers have encouraged and supported in their pursuit of profitable power within the unions - are corrupt criminals.
Not the philosophy in Germany and Scandinavia. There the governments think that educating and training future workers (and retraining workers whose skills have become obsolete) is definitely one of their responsibilities.
None of these restrictions on starting a business are put in place to stop businesses starting up. About 80% of new start-ups fail, so a certain thres hold to discourage the more impetuous may be serving a useful social purpos e, quite a[part from the useful social purposes served by all those regulat ion that James Arthur dislikes on Bastiat-derived principle.
s
ters:
Youtube is where one puts emotional appeals. James Arthur claims to engage in rational argument, but his rhetoric has a way of skating over inconvenie nt detail.
Scandinavia and Germany don't seem headed for financial collapse anytime in the foreseeable future. Germany even seems to have a permanent positive ba lance of payments which strikes me as a whole lot more sustainable than the negative trade balance that the US has been running since Reagan was in po wer.
But James Arthur has a way of explaining that away that keeps him happy.
The reality is that the deficit essentially pays for the oil that the US ha s to import to keep on driving around in big cars, and continuing to make i t's 25% contribution to the rising CO2 level in the atmosphere - which is a lso unsustainable, unless you think like James Arthur, and write off anthro pogenic global warming as a scientific fraud driven by climatologists hungr y for more research grants (which they'd get anyway - it isn't as if climat ology is a uniquely, or even particularly well-funded field of research).
Not exactly correct. There are assumptions there that James Arthur doesn't agree with, but the "extra information" he offered was a rant on YouTube, which isn't going to information but rather a point of view.
He tells us that the rant "proves" that "all of the welfare states--ours, & Europe's--are absolutely unsustainable, and all headed to fiscal collapse" which will come as a surprise to the Scandinavians and Germany.
James Arthur has a soft spot for monetarist economists and will believe the most arrant rubbish as long as it based on the nonsensical concept of the perfect free market (which can do no wrong, until some rotten Keynesian tries to correct it).
By more successful, that generally is filled by the Walmart, Target, and other big box and deep discount stores, that sell mostly cheap consumer goods made elsewhere, and pay employees poverty wages.
More like the "five year plans" that modern hot-shot MBA's implement, where they pay themselves and their cronies exorbitant salaries and bonuses while they milk the lifeblood from the employees and resources, then sell out while they can make the most of it before it crashes and burns.
You need to buy a politician to work out a mutually beneficial deal
Medical technology is only accessible by people who still have a lot of money or good jobs with top notch health insurance. But there are lots of disadvantaged people who can't afford good health care. It's better now with the ACA and Medicare but if the privileged affluent 1% destroy those programs, demand will drop (since it requires ability to pay).
See above. Whether it's goods and services people really need, or just want, it must be accompanied by the ability to pay.
As I said, it makes scant difference unless people can pay for what they want or need.
Most conservatives believe the former but deny the latter.
Actually, it's just hyperbole :)
The consumer economy and many retail businesses depend on what might be termed "unwise" spending on frivolous and short-lived items. That is why planned obsolescence has been a major part of business models in the consumer manufacturing and retail sector. Have a gander at this:
formatting link
Many of them already are, and good riddance. It is no longer the best way to make money by investing in domestic businesses that pay high salaries and offer good jobs to "ordinary" people like those that operated machines and assembly lines in the 50s and 60s.
The logical result of dramatically increased individual productivity and the use of automation and robotics, is that the present level of consumption will be satisfied by only a few workers, or the same number of people working only maybe 6 hours a day and 3 or 4 days a week. But unless their wages are greatly increased, they will be unable to pay for the products and services, and consumption will drop. There is also no realistic expectation of much greater exports to compensate.
These principles, which seem logical and obvious to me, may be hard to accept by those who cling to BAU (Business As Usual).
more impetuous may be serving a useful social purpose, quite a[part from t he useful social purposes served by all those regulation that James Arthur dislikes on Bastiat-derived principle.
with less obstacles & taxes in the way more businesses would survive. Its b asic stuff.
minimum wage is not poverty, far from. And there are loads of smaller businesses And the big ones do contribute money, goods & services too
ke
re
le
ie they create a successful business, then sell to realise the profit, to p eople that know they couldn't create it and thus lack the skill to keep it going successfully. That well worn pattern is an inherent feature of capita lism. In those cases other businesses move into the mall later. Goods & ser vices have been provided, jobs created for 5 years, and the mall built. So even such failures are a win for society.
s
le
and
e
l
d
some is, some isn't.
ith
Reality is the medical sector is both profitable and in a useful percentage of cases serving a genuine need.
eed
s.
nt,
It is. Developed societies are awash with disposable income - even people o n welfare have it.
nd
they can. The amount of pointless spending is enormous in the developed wor ld
n
d
pse
e
nd
r
to
es
Yup. There's no shortage of potential to turn that spend toward more useful things
I've always understood it to be for simple profit motive
'The Light Bulb Conspiracy combines investigative research and rare archive footage to trace the untold story of Planned Obsolescence, from its beginn ings in the 1920s with a secret cartel, set up expressly to limit the life span of light bulbs,'
I've heard that before, but it's a twisted take on it. Shorter lived filame nt lamps are better for the customer & the economy because they use less en ergy to do their job, and their energy use greatly outcosts their productio n. The 1920s standardisation deal ended all the marketing bs and fighting b etween producers, and gave consumers a good lamp life outcome. Today it wou ld have been done openly through legislation.
' to present-day stories involving cutting edge electronics (such as the iP od) and the growing spirit of resistance amongst ordinary consumers.'
That's the one area where the Soviet central planning approach did work. Ru sski goods were not wasteful in the wasy the western stuff was at that time . Because their designs had to appeal to efficiency rather than just to ign orant customers & marketing bs. Which also meant the goods were not seen as so desirable by the customers.
I'm not going to defend that dysfunctional system, but like any system it d id have its plusses too.
em
%,
re
its
So you're glad for the wealth creating percentage of society to go abroad. Something very wrong there.
d
Pay today is far higher in real terms. The technological development of soc iety does mean there are less grunt level jobs, that's a downside of tech d evelopment, but well worth it.
the
and
or unless products become cheaper, which they will and are doing, and have been doing for a long long time. Look at what the monitor top fridge cost i
5k usd) today, just for a little fridge.
like all of us there are flaws in your argument as well as good points
About as funny as James Arthur's attempt at irony (signalled by the :-)), w hich it was intended to reflect.
he more impetuous may be serving a useful social purpose, quite apart from the useful social purposes served by all those regulation that James Arthur dislikes on Bastiat-derived principle.
s
Without regulations and taxes society doesn't survive either, which is equa lly basic stuff. Talk about the balance between taxation, regulation and in novation, and I'll believe that you aren't a right-wing nitwit, but you've posted often enough here to make it clear that you aren't into subtle detai l.
It may not be poverty, but it's not that far from it, and long way short of prosperity.
make
here
hile
people that know they couldn't create it and thus lack the skill to keep i t going successfully.
That doesn't follow,. Creating a business requires different skills and tal ents from keeping one running. The people that can do the creating get bore d when stuck with maintenance.
Creating a business that looks good for a couple of years, but is ultimate ly going to crash and burn is a slightly different skill, and quite a few s eem to have mastered it. Mitt Romney is reputed to have specialised in "res cuing" duff business by making them look good enough to sell without actual ly fixing the fundamental problems, and selling them on before the problems became obvious (again).
s other businesses move into the mall later. Goods & services have been pro vided, jobs created for 5 years, and the mall built. So even such failures are a win for society.
ods
e
le
That doesn't follow either. A high-tech business in a high-wage society do esn't slice up the work the same way that the same business would in a low- wage environment. Apple makes it's phone in China, but it makes it's money
- and pays its engineers - in the US. Of course, it accountants arrange tha t it makes it's profits in the Netherlands and Ireland, but that's a legal fiction.
es
Steve Jobs wouldn't have been quite as famous - and as rich - if advertisin g could create demand for me-too cell phones, and the US auto industry woul d be in better shape if advertising alone could persuade people to buy part icular cars.
ood
se
ge of cases serving a genuine need.
"
ser > > > ills.
on welfare have it.
mand
y
orld
in
n
and
or
's
into
goes
Nice theory, and pretty much what happens when the economy is running norma lly. As Keynes pointed out, once the people with money to invest decide tha t there's a recession going on, they sit on it in the hope that their compe titors will go bankrupt and they can pick up some bargains. Banks get caref ul about who they lend to, too.
n
ul
No obvious mechanism though - apart from collecting it in taxes and having the government spend it, as the Scandinavians and Germans seem to do. Those governments do seem to concentrate on spending their - fairly high - tax t ake on keeping the work-force well-fed, well-educated and well-trained, and leave business to work out where that work force can most profitably be de ployed.
ve footage to trace the untold story of Planned Obsolescence, from its begi nnings in the 1920s with a secret cartel, set up expressly to limit the lif e span of light bulbs,'
ment lamps are better for the customer & the economy because they use less energy to do their job, and their energy use greatly outcosts their product ion. The 1920s standardisation deal ended all the marketing bs and fighting between producers, and gave consumers a good lamp life outcome. Today it w ould have been done openly through legislation.
iPod) and the growing spirit of resistance amongst ordinary consumers.'
Russki goods were not wasteful in the way the western stuff was at that tim e. Because their designs had to appeal to efficiency rather than just to ig norant customers & marketing bs. Which also meant the goods were not seen a s so desirable by the customers.
did have its plusses too.
seem
o
90%,
.
were
Equality was higher in the US in the 1960's, but not all that high. Scandin avia probably does better now than the US did then, and while Scandinavia's measures of social mobility are now much better than the US measures are n ow, it still helps - even there - to have well-off parents. Some people wil l always have fairer chances than others.
:
t
. Something very wrong there.
They don't move in significant numbers. It's easier to start a profitable b usiness in a rich country, and the size of your domestic market makes a dif ference to the amount of money you can make out of your new business.
nd
and
The technology of the 1950's and 1960's generated different kinds of jobs f rom today's technology. We have to train people for different sort of jobs these days.
ociety does mean there are less grunt level jobs, that's a downside of tech development, but well worth it.
d
of
ess
Happily, people consume more as technology offers them more things to consu me, so the workers are kept busy producing a wider variety of consumables.
Australia's rural population peaked in the 1890's - thereafter progressivel y fewer people were needed to keep the country fed, and the cities got a lo t bigger a people concentrated there to provide other goods and services.
e been doing for a long long time. Look at what the monitor top fridge cost
Minimum wage is under $15,000 per year. That is below the poverty level for households of two or more. I guess you can have children and put them to work.
Ignorance is showing. What does it take to start a business? It is beyond the financial reach of many. It is also a poor way to try to make a living as most businesses don't become profitable and go under.
That's local planning. Those are barely the size of U.S. states, homogeneous cultures with a fraction of US' diversity. And even then, their welfare states are long-term tanking.
[...]
The financing needed to fund Obama's spending benefits the wealthy, at the expense of the poor. It *is* his fault. You're right about "progressively" though.;-)
Exactly the point. It shouldn't be--businesses themselves don't take much. Why, you could baby-sit, wash clothes, or bake things, mow lawns, fix things, once upon a time. Not now. Not without your Obamacramp and SS, IRS, OSHA, worker's comp, unemployment, EPA, FDA, blah blah blah, that's a CRIME!
It's the State that makes it so. (But we're soooo much safer, it's double-plus fabulous!)
Tying your laces is a poor way to secure your shoes too. The first attempts rarely succeed.
The thing about starting or runing a biz in the USA is that foreign competition drives prices down, and the tax and regulation burden in the USA drives costs way up.
One type of biz would do something that doesn't compete with imports (like a restaurant or a roofing or painting company) but uses cheap, off-the-books, immigrant labor. That biz model here is common. The owner can make a lot of money and the workers don't. It's an income inequality machine. Here, painting used to be done by Irish guys. Now a few Irish still own the painting companies, but all the painting is done by people who speak Spanish.
Another biz model, more relevant to s.e.d., is to make really high-tech stuff and charge a lot for it, enough to run a smallish, fully legit business in the USA, with good pay and benefits. Fortunately, there isn't much foreign competition yet for niche-type precision instrumentation; not sure why.
It is possible to start and grow an electronics business with basically zero capital. The internet helps a lot.
I usually don't converse with a deranged person. I have a friend who babysits and cleans houses and pet sits. No one is stopping her. Where is this nanny state you seem to be talking about?
What states make it hard to fix things or to mow lawns? My lawn is mowed by someone who runs a farm. He has less than full time employment there, so he branches out.
You are off in raving loony land on this.
None of these things put you above the poverty level. My friend who babysits is on medicaid and sometimes qualifies for food stamps. She works as much as she can, but there is a lot of competition. She is very proactive about finding work and would like to have enough customers that she can raise her rates, but there is a lot of competition.
Another friend who does adult day care has lots of trouble finding work. There is just too much competition at $10 an hour so she works less than 12 hours a week in that field. She fills in as part time help in a pawn shop for $90 a day. She is also on Medicaid.
Yes, starting a business is a *great* way to deal with poverty.
Yes, the state has created all the poverty by keeping the minimum wage so low and creating a huge pool of workers that will work for poverty wages.
Sloman, who hasn't worked in decades, and didn't seem to be very productive ever, thinks he's competant to plan entire economies. That's absured.
The USA, and California in particular, have been described as "fine-tuned job killing machines." The policies that pretend to reduce income inequality have the opposite effect.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.