[TheForge] Peter Schiffer obituary OT

[Andrew Vida]

Peter Fels & Phoebe Palmer wrote:
> It seems obvious that we are seeing, with globalization, is the 
> worldwide leveling of wages.

	Were we in an "honest" economy, this would be a likely truth.  But we 
are not.  China artificially depresses its labor rates in order that the 
world will beat a path to its door for manufacturing.  Try to form a 
union there and see what happens to you.

	What we are seeing is the destruction of the standard of living in the 
"west" by dragging wages *down* there, rather than *up* in places like 
China.  This has some effects that range well beyond economics alone, 
the most notable to my eyes being the diminishing of political power in 
the general population.  More to the point, this should not be happening 
because Chinese labor adds value to the market chain and that added 
value should probably be enjoyed by everyone willing to put in their 
work and abilities, but it isn't.  The power and wealth that this 
represents is being taken by the lion's share into the hands of those 
controlling the markets - the big players.  I cannot blame them for 
wanting this, but why should be put up with it when it is ruining our 
ability to live comfortably?

	
 > As labor, we are now in much more direct competition with workers in 
poor countries.

	That's the problem - we are really not.  Were this the case, Chinese 
workers would not be averaging 66 cents per hour - literally slave 
wages.  I'll bet that the median income is even lower; probably 
significantly so.  The USA and Europe are the prime consumers of Chinese 
products because the Chinese cannot afford to buy most of what they make 
for the rest of the world.  Proof of this lies in the fact that the 
booming China economy has come to a screeching slow-down right in step 
with that of the USA.  If China were a free market economy, wages would 
have come WAY up as wage competition for skilled labor kicked in.  It 
isn't happening - there is no free market there or anywhere else. 
Therefore those ninnies who say Rand was wrong don't know what they are 
talking about because it has never been properly tried in the 
post/industrial era.

	Furthermore, if the Chinese government were anything better than 
malevolent, they would be pushing for a significant rise in the 
average/median income of its citizens.  It does precisely the opposite, 
the effect being to concentrate power in their hands ever more definitely.

 > That's good for them, but
> we are used to being at the top of the heap and it's rough on us. 

	It is good for government ministers and the very few who sit at the top 
of the economic heap.  It is shit for the poor slob who works for 50 
cents an hour and has little reason to expect his life to get much 
better in the foreseeable future.

	If those in power here were really interested in our wellbeing, we 
never would have gone to China in the first place.  Barring that, we 
should be reading the Chinese government the free market riot act.  Let 
up on your labor or we will go elsewhere and leave you in the dust to 
rot.  But who in their right mind at the top of the US economic heap 
would want to do such a thing when the current situation so greatly 
enriches and empowers them?  If I were a billionaire tycoon, I'd 
probably not be seeing a whole lot of reason to empower the people here 
when I can be one of the boys with a boot on the necks of the common man.

  pf
> 
> A Vida wrote:
>> Consumer at fault... to a degree, yes.  Artificial labor arbitrage due 
>> to trading with non-free economies such as China are a far bigger 
>> culprit.  Free market economies only work if in fact the markets are 
>> free.  ALL free.  As far as I can tell, none are.  Not a one.  We're the 
>> closest thing to it and we're not there by a fair shot.  Those who say 
>> "see!  free market capitalism doesn't work!" are numbskulls who don't 
>> know the first thing about the topic.
>>
>> The way of the world - humans.  Oh well.
>>
>> xlch58 at swbell.net wrote:
>>> Andrew Vida wrote:
>>>> PlumDon at aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>> Interesting  to note that he finally had to take a lot of his operation to 
>>>>> China. Not because  of the economics but because he could not get the 
>>>>> printmaking and formatting  quality he wanted here in the states.
>>>>>     
>>>> 	And people wonder why we're having economic problems.  Sheesh
>>> It was definitely the economics.   He couldn't get the printmaking and 
>>> formatting quality he wanted here in the states at the price he 
>>> wanted.   I know a lot of printers and all of the higher end ones are 
>>> struggling.  My wifes family has a very large operation and is known as 
>>> one of the top quality printers around, doing a lot of work in the past 
>>> with annual reports and prospectus' (two jobs that in the past, people 
>>> wanted the very best).  Problem is that print is declining in general, 
>>> and in economic situations like we have now, one of the first things 
>>> companies cut is their print budget.   It's well known enough, that 
>>> another printer friend looking for a loan was flat out told that 
>>> printers are on a "do not lend list" right now.    The in-laws have been 
>>> around for over a hundred years, so hopefully they will weather it.  
>>> Quality printing takes well maintained equipment and skilled employees 
>>> with an eye for detail.  Both cost here in the US, you don't get it by 
>>> running a different set of illegals through your business every week.   
>>> There is still a lot of art to it and every machine has its feel that 
>>> the press operator learns.  The US definitely has the quality printers, 
>>> just not cheap.   "could not get the quality they wanted here in the 
>>> states" is true in a very few specialized areas, but usually they are 
>>> not completing the idea, i.e. could not get the quality they wanted here 
>>> in the states at a price that allowed them the profit they wanted"  Not 
>>> to pick on Peter S, ultimately, it is often the consumer at fault.   The 
>>> consumer won't pay more than $50 for a picture book, and to get a 
>>> quality one done it is going to cost $51.  Negative margin.  If he is 
>>> addicted to quality he has to choose between no product and one made in 
>>> China. 
>>>
>>> Charles