The Line Between Jobless Benefits, and Welfare

[Guest042611]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Define what you mean by "a product made in the U.S.". It is not a simple answer. The truth is that most products are "world" products.

I'm sure you're right... I typically read the tags of clothing I buy or see if I can determine something where something was made by the box, but I guess this is only a small piece of it. I try to purchase things manufactured in first-world countries when given the choice, because there's a better chance the workers had decent labor conditions.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Ah the middle class. http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?page_id=9798
You have all heard of this site perhaps but a refresher is needed to keep it real.

[atlcomedy]

Isn't this about the time in this thread when someone suggests we all go hobby in the 3rd World for pennies on the dollar? Afterall NPOA is worth.....

[Ansley]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Isn't this about the time in this thread when someone suggests we all go hobby in the 3rd World for pennies on the dollar? Afterall NPOA is worth.....

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I don't care where the labor comes from or where the laborer does his work. I don't care about his citizenship. That is a matter of a simple accident of birth. It is, in a word, irrelevant.

And why should it be relevant? The entire point of international trade, whether in goods or labor, is to benefit from comparative advantage. Remember the England can produce wool with so many units of labor and wine with so many units of labor; Portugal does the same with different numbers, etc. If we let Portugal produce all the win and England produce all the wool, we all get more wool and more wine from ECON 1301? Remember comparative advantage? It works in labor markets, too.

Frankly, the entire concept of nationhood is becoming mostly irrelevant in the 21st century. International borders are largely irrelevant and too weak to keep out something as powerful as the laws of economics no matter what laws you pass.

If a Brit (or an Indian) can lawyer in the U.S. more effectively or efficiently than an American, why shouldn't he. He will lower you bill for legal services, force me to lower my rates, or force me to get more efficient. If I can represent a British client more effectively than a barrister over there, what difference does my nationality make? Right now, we're seeing lots of radiology work being farmed out to Indian docs. They are well trained, the films are zapped around the world on the internet, and they work for less. Are you really going to shed a tear for some U.S. radiologist because he wants to make $350k instead of $150k like the guy in India so long as they both read your X-ray equally well?

Why do arbitrary national boundaries, or the accident of where the radiologist (or lawyer) is born matter in this case? Why should it?

Did anyone else feel the vibration, I think the earth has shaken on it axis -- I knew that would happen if I ever agreed with TTH.

I particularly agree with the item I bolded. In fact, the changes in nationhood are just an extension of the same economic forces that have radiologists in India reading film. Nations are becoming just a competing set of laws -- some more or less boneheaded than others.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Natalie

I'm sure you're right... I typically read the tags of clothing I buy or see if I can determine something where something was made by the box, but I guess this is only a small piece of it. I try to purchase things manufactured in first-world countries when given the choice, because there's a better chance the workers had decent labor conditions.

Well I was thinking broader than that. My definition of made would include the design of the item. For example, a skirt is more than just fabric and stitches holding it together -- that is typically the least valuable piece of a fashion item. The skirt is just as much the design -- the length, the way it hang, etc. and the way it is marketed. Typically, very little of the later comes from third world countries. But when it does, it is a good thing because enabling those people to participate in that value chain raises their standard of living.

[Ansley]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

The skirt is just as much the design -- the length, the way it hang, etc.

Is that you PJ? What is your fascination with skirts this morning?

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Ansley

Is that you PJ? What is your fascination with skirts this morning?

I was still rattled from agreeing with TTH. But you interrupted me. I was talking about a skirts, the length, the way it hangs, the way you take it off,...

Now does my fascination with skirts make sense?

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I was talking about a skirts, the length, the way it hangs, the way you take it off,...

It really doesn't need to come off

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

It really doesn't need to come off

Now see that gets into design. Some skirts are long and tight -- and they do need to come off (or be rolled way up). Others are short and loose and can just be placed out of the way. Isn't design fascinating?

BTW, what were we talking about? I seem to have lost my train of thought.

[mietk]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I don’t see why we don’t do some of FDR type workers’ programs. Unemployment benefits puts money only in the beneficiary’s pocket. If we institute workers’ programs, then the money spent on the project pays workers a compensation, pays suppliers, pays taxes, pays non-direct labor – it would feed the economic machine as a whole. But that’ll never happen.

That's what the stimulus plan was suppose to do, stimulate private industry...........did it work?

On a side note the government should not be competing against the private sector, although there are a number of legacy 'businesses' that do.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I don’t see why we don’t do some of FDR type workers’ programs. Unemployment benefits puts money only in the beneficiary’s pocket. If we institute workers’ programs, then the money spent on the project pays workers a compensation, pays suppliers, pays taxes, pays non-direct labor – it would feed the economic machine as a whole. But that’ll never happen.

From Wikipedia on CCC: The ECW Act was signed on 31 March 1933; on 5 April Director Fechner was appointed and War Department corps area commanders were given task to commence enrollment; the first CCC enrollee was selected 7 April and subsequent lists of unemployed men were supplied by state and local welfare and relief agencies for immediate enrollment. On 17 April the first camp, NF-1, Camp Roosevelt, was established at George Washington National Forest near Luray, Virginia. Subsequently, by 1 July 1933 there were 1,463 working camps with 250,000 junior enrollees (18-25 years of age), 28,000 veterans, 14,000 American Indians, and 25,000 Locally Enrolled (or Experienced) Men (LEM).

It took less than 3 months to put more than 300,000 unemployed workers to work under the program. I think instead of funding "projects," under the stimulus plan, we should have funded jobs/work and come up with the projects after people were already working.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by MrGiz

Given your above statements.... can I imagine you're in agreement with Rush Limbaugh, on his potential Costa Rican preferences?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/286856

Giz

I'm not averse to receiving medical attention in other countries, and I and others in my family have done so quite a few times in France and once in the UK. (Satisfied on all occasions, by the way.) But I see no reason to fly all the way to Costa Rica just to go to the doc (although if I were there, I wouldn't be averse to seeing on there. As for Limbaugh, I'm told he makes a lot of sense if you have half a brain!

[charlestudor2005]

I hear/read one of the new places of choice is SE Asia. Guess the medical care is comparable at a fraction of the cost.

[npita]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Well I was thinking broader than that.

The FTC has a set of (rather complex) guidelines that determine what fraction of a product has to be ``made in the USA'' to qualify for the ``Made in USA'' logo. The rules are rather lax in that the minimum requirements for that logo don't require much work to actually be done here.