From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Tue Jun 18 2002 - 14:47:00 MDT
From: cryofan@mylinuxisp.com [mailto:cryofan@mylinuxisp.com]
"Dickey, Michael F" <michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com> said:
> From: Randy [mailto:cryofan@mylinuxisp.com]
>
> "I disagree. Here are my reasons: globalization is an effect of
> intelligent, directed efforts. It is directed by those who buy and
> sell labor, the fruits of others' labor. Because, as the ancient laws
> of commerce dictate, they profit when they buy low and sell high,
> they therefore want lower prices for labor. So tell me, please, why
> "things have a stronger chance to level up than level-out or down."
>
> The same ancient laws of commerce dictate that when demand exceeds supply,
> prices increase. The more organizations that vie for low cost labor, the
> more that labor costs. Since labor is a finite resource, the theory goes,
> demand would outpace it and thus increase the cost of it (that is, the pay
> to the laborers)
"You erroneously assume
1. That the growth rate of buyers of labor increases, period.
2. That the growth rate of buyers of labor increases at a greater rate than
the rate at which the supply of labor increases."
If the price of a product or service decreases, why wouldnt the growth rate
increase? If it is a successfull product, as many are, then as the price
drops a larger portion of the worlds population is able to afford it, and
thus there is a greater demand for the product. This is the rational behind
the economies of scale and drives capitalistic innovation and competition,
does it not?
Unless you back your statements up empirically, I can just as easliy say
that you erroneously assume that growth rates of buyers of labor DOES NOT
incerase at a rate greater than the supply of labor.
I would point to the continual material well being increase in the standard
of life globally as evidence that demand of labor outpaces supply of labor,
averaged over lengths of time that is... If the opposite were true, how
would any of us even afford food to live? If labor always outpaced demand,
and has continually been increasing, the worldwide poverty rates should be
higher than ever in human history. Would you agree with the contention that
they are not higher than ever before? I would even assert that they are
lower than ever in human history.
"Why should the more buyers come into the market at all? The current buyers
of
labor, the ones that buy pro-globalization laws from our Congress, are the
ones which have power and money, which they use to stifle new competition. "
Such are failings of the business influence on law, not the nature of
competition. If business use laws to stifle competition, then get rid of
the ability for those business to pass those laws, dont get rid of the
businesses.
Michael
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:53 MST