Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't make any sense. You're saying that outsourcing, alone, affects the GDP but then you're saying the relocating production within the nation does not.
Outsourcing, on its own, has NO impact on the GDP.
Example: Ford uses computers to design their cars. Ford outsources computer support to IBM. Ford is located in Detroit and IBM is located in New York. There is NO detrimental impact on GDP.
How does Ford outsourcing to IBM in this case have a negative impact on GDP?
NJ Best, the word “Import” when used in context of global trade is generally understood to mean outsourcing of a product from other nations.
Exporting, (the opposite of importing), when used in context of global trade is generally understood to mean providing products to other nations.
Domestic production for domestic or export markets are equally beneficial to the nation’s economy. Trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediate detriment to their nations’ GDPs.
NJ Best, the word “Import” when used in context of global trade is generally understood to mean outsourcing of a product from other nations.
Exporting, (the opposite of importing), when used in context of global trade is generally understood to mean providing products to other nations.
Domestic production for domestic or export markets are equally beneficial to the nation’s economy. Trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediate detriment to their nations’ GDPs.
Googled definition of”trade deficit”dollar is not a constant.
"Noun
The amount by which the cost of a country's imports exceeds the value of its exports".
You keep talking about international trade and GDP when outsourcing (as your definition states) is not about international trade and GDP. You're clearly not understanding what is being discussed here.
And I have to agree with what daddiesgirl said about your essays.
You keep talking about international trade and GDP when outsourcing (as your definition states) is not about international trade and GDP. You're clearly not understanding what is being discussed here.
And I have to agree with what daddiesgirl said about your essays.
NJ Best, you continue to discuss outsourcing in general. In general I have no objection to outsourcing and that should remain to be individual determinations. I am not opposed to USA’s foreign trade and that should remain to be individuals' determinations. I am not opposed to importing products, (i.e. international outsourcing) and that should remain individual determinations.
There is precedence of USA governments' recognizing certain specific agreements as being specifically or generally detrimental to our society’s best interests; (despite the mutually agreeing principles’ (usually correctly) considering the agreements to be in their own best interests. Our governments have deemed those agreements to be contrary to the publics’ best interests and sufficiently detrimental to the public good. The governments have prohibited some of such agreements.
We have laws forbidding oligopolies from conspiring to fix prices or otherwise act in concert against the public interest. We have laws forbidding human occupancy of fire traps. Zoning regulations may prohibit your neighbor leasing, selling or using his property for the establishment of a pig farm.
I agree with those that recognize annual trade deficits as ALWAYS being immediately detrimental to their nation’s GDPs. Annual trade deficits occur when the value of a nation’s annual imports, (i.e. international outsourcing) exceeds the nation’s exports.
I’m a proponent that would severely reduce, if not eliminate USA’s annual trade deficit of goods. Refer to Refer to the discussions of
” Trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediate detriment to their nations’ GDPs”,
last posted to on 10-18-2012 02:58 PM;
and “Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP & median wage”,
Last posted to on 12-06-2012 02:13 PM.
Care to cite an example of this? Try this one:
Manufacturing or processing plant moving from a high(er) wage rate area to a low(er) wage rate area.
The gross sales of the company shouldn't fall but their payroll surely will.
That would constitute a drop in GDP.
Mr. rational, the purchasing power of the U. S. dollar is not a constant. It is my opinion that economic discussionS in terms of un-indexed dollars lead to falsehoods.
If the relocation of production to a USA region of lesser dollar wage rates that are additionally of lesser purchasing power, USA’s labors’ standards of living and our GDP have both declined.
In the USA, generally the regions with lesser wage rates in terms if finite dollars are also the regions with lesser healthcare, healthcare insurance, educational achievement. They’re the regions that contribute the least to our federal tax revenues and consume greater per capita federal expenditures.
The short answer to your message is that considering production being relocated to regions of lesser wage rates only in terms of finite numbers of dollars and if relocation did not directly or indirectly increase the relocated factory’s units of production), then the relocation reduces the nation’s GDP.
On the other hand if we consider the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar at different times and different locations, the answer to your question are not so simply clear.
Truman once commented that he’d prefer to deal with a one armed economists. Each time he requests an economic opinion, the economists seem to always insert the phrase “but on the other hand".
There is precedence of USA governments' recognizing certain specific agreements as being specifically or generally detrimental to our society’s best interests; (despite the mutually agreeing principles’ (usually correctly) considering the agreements to be in their own best interests. Our governments have deemed those agreements to be contrary to the publics’ best interests and sufficiently detrimental to the public good. The governments have prohibited some of such agreements.
We have laws forbidding oligopolies from conspiring to fix prices or otherwise act in concert against the public interest. We have laws forbidding human occupancy of fire traps. Zoning regulations may prohibit your neighbor leasing, selling or using his property for the establishment of a pig farm.
WTF? Does this even make sense to anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Mr. rational, the purchasing power of the U. S. dollar is not a constant. It is my opinion that economic discussionS in terms of un-indexed dollars lead to falsehoods.
WTF?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
If the relocation of production to a USA region of lesser dollar wage rates that are additionally of lesser purchasing power, USA’s labors’ standards of living and our GDP have both declined.
GDP = gross domestic product. If Company A moves from New York where there is a $15 minimum wage and its yearly gross is 50,000 products decides to move to Lima, Ohio where the minimum wage is $7 an hour, but it creates the same amount of 50,000 products, the GDP is the same whether it hires 1000 workers in New York or 1000 workers in Ohio. It continues to output the same amount of products, paying the same amount of workers, just less in costs. The 1000 workers in New York will move on and find other work - they're not out of work forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
In the USA, generally the regions with lesser wage rates in terms if finite dollars are also the regions with lesser healthcare, healthcare insurance, educational achievement. They’re the regions that contribute the least to our federal tax revenues and consume greater per capita federal expenditures.
This can't be true. Can you cite where you're getting this information? Just because an area is more rural, have less population, or not as many jobs doesn't mean that it's taking more federal assistance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
The short answer to your message is that considering production being relocated to regions of lesser wage rates only in terms of finite numbers of dollars and if relocation did not directly or indirectly increase the relocated factory’s units of production), then the relocation reduces the nation’s GDP.
How? The factory simply moved, but it's outputting the same amount of products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
On the other hand if we consider the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar at different times and different locations, the answer to your question are not so simply clear.
Truman once commented that he’d prefer to deal with a one armed economists. Each time he requests an economic opinion, the economists seem to always insert the phrase “but on the other hand".
Supposn - first off, reading your posts remind me of when I was grading junior college students' essays. They seem to pick random things that sound good to try to prove a point, but none of what they put in their essays have anything to do with the point they're trying to argue. They just cite lots of statistics and things that only sound right, but are not right.
For example?
Quote:
Originally Posted by daddiesgirl
To that end, I think you are missing my point entirely. I am not against raising minimum wages as long as it's nothing ridiculous like what some are suggesting in this thread. Historical data shows that when minimum wages are raised, it's raised by like $0.50 or $1.00 or $2.00 at most. What most people are arguing here is to raise it dramatically to the point where almost everyone is "middle class" - whatever that means.
Daddy’s Girl, I’m an advocate of a minimum wage pegged to the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar; similar to social security retirement’s annual cost of living adjustments. Other than that I don’t recall advocating any explicit rate of minimum wage.
Originally Posted by Supposn:
Daddy’s Girl, regardless of how much less USA employers’ could reduce the rates of their labor expenditures, they’d be at no competitive advantage to other USA competitors who draw their labor from the same common pool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daddiesgirl
Huh? Can you explain that? Because what you wrote makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
If Company A is in New York, and the minimum wage is $15 an hour, and Company B is in Lima, Ohio and the minimum wage there is $7.25 an hour, you're saying there is no competitive advantage?
Daddy’s Girl, You are discussing two enterprises that draw their labor forces from two different pools. The labor pools for NY and Lima, Ohio are not a common labor pool.
The topic of this discussion is "Minimum wage in USA". I assumed that minimum to be the federal minimum wage rate which is the only minimum that is the common legal minimum throughout the entire 50 states. Due to a reduction of the federal minimum by $3/Hr, what would be any USA enterprises competitive advantage over any other USA enterprise?
QUOTE=Daddy’s Girl; 27658729].........That's why supervisors pay should be based on how well they perform - NOT because the government tells you how much your supervisor SHOULD make. [/quote]
Daddy’s Girl, You're introducing a "red herring". I'm not advocating and I'm unaware of any creditable movement to specify minimums for any particular task. There's only one federal minimum for almost all USA wages and salaries.
Refer to the discussions of
” Trade deficits are ALWAYS an immediate detriment to their nations’ GDPs”,
last posted to on 10-18-2012 02:58 PM;
and “Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP & median wage”,
Last posted to on 12-06-2012 02:13 PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Daddy’s Girl, I’m an advocate of a minimum wage pegged to the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar; similar to social security retirement’s annual cost of living adjustments. Other than that I don’t recall advocating any explicit rate of minimum wage.
Sure, that's like saying that I like cheese. I'm an advocate of cheese that is made from milk, similar to cheese that are made outside of the US. But I don't advocate any specific kind of cheese. I just like to talk about cheese in general. You must surely have some point that you are advocating for right? Say, raise the federal minimum to $10 or reduce it. You can't provide solutions that in general and not have any specific amount.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Daddy’s Girl, You are discussing two enterprises that draw their labor forces from two different pools. The labor pools for NY and Lima, Ohio are not a common labor pool.
The topic of this discussion is "Minimum wage in USA". I assumed that minimum to be the federal minimum wage rate which is the only minimum that is the common legal minimum throughout the entire 50 states. Due to a reduction of the federal minimum by $3/Hr, what would be any USA enterprises competitive advantage over any other USA enterprise?
When did the federal minimum wage get deducted? It hasn't been raised since 2009, but it hasn't been deducted.
Every state has its own laws and the fed minimum is only a basis to go off of. Costs of living, taxes and so many other things determine wage minimums by state. If you raise the fed minimum to, say, $20 an hour. People in New York would barely notice a difference since they're already making $15-18. But people in Lima, Ohio will throw a huge celebration and get drunk the very same night. Problem is, tomorrow their burgers will now be $10 a burger the next day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Daddy’s Girl, You're introducing a "red herring". I'm not advocating and I'm unaware of any creditable movement to specify minimums for any particular task. There's only one federal minimum for almost all USA wages and salaries.
Supposn - first off, reading your posts remind me of when I was grading junior college students' essays. They seem to pick random things that sound good to try to prove a point, but none of what they put in their essays have anything to do with the point they're trying to argue. They just cite lots of statistics and things that only sound right, but are not right.....
Daddies Girl, to some extent federal tax revenues and expenditures by states and by congressional districts or regions are not in balance with each other. It is not our government’s policy that that we attempt to balance them. Per capita, richer states contribute greater portions of our federal tax revenues and less wealthy states receive greater federal social benefits.
Googled ”comparisons of states' contributions to federal revenues and benefits received”:
Daddies Girl, to some extent federal tax revenues and expenditures by states and by congressional districts or regions are not in balance with each other. It is not our government’s policy that that we attempt to balance them. Per capita, richer states contribute greater portions of our federal tax revenues and less wealthy states receive greater federal social benefits.
Thank you for proving my point. If tax revenues and expenditures are not in balance from state to state, then why mandate a federal minimum wage to raise salaries all across the board? Shouldn't each state have the right to do that based on how much they spend or take in? Forcing a low-income state like Georgia with a federal minimum wage of $25 an hour won't help that small mom and pop shop now would it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Googled ”comparisons of states' contributions to federal revenues and benefits received”:
Citing political blogs aren't much to go off of. It's like citing Fox News. And what you cited are taxes that have little to do with the argument at hand, which is the federal minimum wage. It's obvious that states with less population will have less income. You don't really need to cite that and it's obvious people who make less will pay less in taxes. But by making your argument that people will do better if minimum wages are raised doesn't deal with any other problems. If wages are raised, it also means they're paying for more in taxes, inflation will rise and costs go up so businesses have to raise their prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Daddies Girl, "WTF" doesn't communicate a great deal of information. You're unable to write anything more explicit and specific?
WTF communicates a response when someone says something completely out of context or has nothing to do with anything, which was the response most people will have when reading your posts that I quoted.
Thank you for proving my point. If tax revenues and expenditures are not in balance from state to state, then why mandate a federal minimum wage to raise salaries all across the board? Shouldn't each state have the right to do that based on how much they spend or take in? Forcing a low-income state like Georgia with a federal minimum wage of $25 an hour won't help that small mom and pop shop now would it?...............
Daddies Girl, the short answer is no; we should not be satisfied with only state minimums.
The federal minimum is only a minimum that does not intervene with any USA state’s determining their minimum should be greater.
The federal minimum to some extent prevents the detriment to a state’ economy due to imports from other states that do not share the same regard for their own wage and salary earning citizens.
I understand that you do not share my approval of this concept. I’m pleased that thus far those who agree with you and disagree with me have been unable to legally eliminate the federal minimum wage laws.
IMO the federal should be “pegged” to the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar. I prefer an annually cost of living adjusted minimum wage similar to the current method of social security retirement benefits’ annual COLA.
Respectfully, Supposn
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
federal minimum wage laws
