Nope. I've asked for evidence that links working poverty and trade liberalisation. You haven't provided any. I've also referred to the low % of US GDP represented by trade. Once you also take into account intra-industry trade (which has smaller redistribution effects and also creates productivity gains) your attempt at referring to real income declines looks particularly dodgy! And that reflects US specific structural problems and also the adoption of neo-liberalism (none of which can be used to attack trade liberalisation) There's nothing to discuss on it. Its a nonsense argument based only on ignoring the real problems faced by the economy. Claim? Wage gains are a mere reality. Trade liberalisation helps them. To generate genuine positive change it is the market that will deliver.
I mentioned the Feenstra study which is seminal. But if you need one that's linkable, here you go. Honestly this isn't even in dispute: Trade with China is a net loss for unskilled workers in America, both in higher unemployment and lower real wages. Period. There has been no rebuttal. Even the loonies at the Cato Institute admit this, and they're on your side on this one. The fact that other factors have also lowered their wages hardly makes your position any more cogent. The fact that the rest of us are better off also isn't a rebuttal. We are focusing on the lower end of the economic scale, and you have not provided an argument that would convince any of them to support trade with China under current terms. http://www.epi.org/publication/bp219/
You've provided a poor source (for what I've asked for). To demonstrate a link between working poverty and trade liberalisation you'd need cross-country analysis. Can you provide that? If you can't you're really only referring to US structural problems
No I don't need to provide that. The Scott study shows that unskilled workers in the US have experienced declining real income due to trade with China. There are of course other causes for the decline. But it is one and it is the topic on the table at this point. We can discuss the other issues later. I suspect I agree with you on them. If you have a rebuttal of the Scott study, let me know. If not, just say so.
More precisely, you cannot provide it. And that's all you have: reference to US-specific problems and her low skilled equilibrium. Using that to tut at trade liberalisation just won't wash!
I'll take this to mean you can't rebut the Scott study. I'm not an economist, so I'll rely on him until you can show better research.
I have nothing to rebut. You've offered a study that, for my requirements, isn't fit for purpose (i.e. it cannot be used to show a link between working poverty and trade liberalisation). You don't have to be an economist to realise that. One just has to refer to the importance of trade elsewhere (with much greater openness, as demonstrated by high import shares as proportion of GDP) and their much lower poverty rates
Reiver, that's exactly what the study purports to do. If you can rebut the methodology or results, fine. He's a Ph.D. economist and I'm going to rely on his study for now. The study is directly on point with the topic. But the above doesn't appear to be a serious rebuttal. And if we are now NOT going to rely on studies (though you asked for one) but rather rough logic, the rough logic is that trading with sweatshop nations that ban unions will result in economic hardship for low wage workers here since they will face wage suppression due to a weakening of demand for their labor and loss of negotiating power. Indeed you don't have to be an economist to see that. One way or another, it is indisputable that trade with China has harmed low wage workers in America.
That's obviously untrue. Its a whinge about Chinese trade. It makes two references to poverty, but makes no reference to working poverty and trade openness. The techniques employed are also simplistic. There is no attempt to appreciate the dynamic gains from trade, with simplistic conclusions driven purely from trade flows. In terms of a more advanced approach you'd need to utilise an econometric technique capable of properly isolating the various trade effects. For example, we'd arguably expect specific effects from imports from developed countries; with these imports impacting on x-inefficiencies. Indeed, those effects will arguably dominate. You've googled a poor article that you don't understand. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with you continuing using a study completely incapable of doing what I've asked you to do: show a link between working poverty and trade openness. You know you can't do that as countries with greater import 'burdens' will typically have much lower poverty rates than the US. To derive an understanding of the wage effect you'd have to refer to the isoquant and how, through specialisation into capital intensive product, labour demand effects lead to wage reductions. However, that analysis is purely static and ignores the positive consequences of trade (as experienced in countries which subsequently see upskilling) What harms US workers is the low skilled equilibrium. That isn't created by China. You continue to ignore the real problem
Landru Guide Us let me try and help if I can. http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/ http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/06/a_lost_decade_f.html More later got work to do.
Hope it will be better quality and capable of assessing trade effects. So far we've seen poor technique incapable of appreciating the gains from trade or the specific structural problems that exist
Cause and effect. We have a case where the causes are many and it may be that they are completely interdependent but I believe each factor stands alone. Trade is a cause in and of itself and though definitive numbers can not be presented strongly supporting this they also can not be not be presented in such a way that it can be dismissed. It is undeniable that trade has had an effect (negative) on jobs. What can not be identified are the actual numbers. I have read enough to know that even if we kept everything like it is and redirected stimulus to reopening factories and putting PPL in welfare roles along with the unemployed that it would help the economy. Over 14 million people that can be put to work. You seem like a smart guy and you can see the positive implications of this.
You need a study that attempts to take into account the complexities of trade and the determinants of employment. Not one has been provided so far! This is wrong. Trade theory predicts no such simple result. Indeed, in terms of comparative advantage analysis, it predicts consumption outside the possibility production frontier. In terms of intra-industry analysis, we merely have a shift towards monopolistic competition (but with lower price and higher quantity sold) Now you can refer to transitional problems, such as structural unemployment created through specialisation. However, even then you're on dodgy ground as that specialisation creates opportunities elsewhere. The problem with the likes of the US is then not trade, but a failure to offer labour mobility and to eliminate structural flaws such as the underclass.
How long has it been since you compared what is predicted in economic models with reality? In theory it works one way, on paper it works that way as well. In practice the most unpredictable variable comes into play: People. And the economists who make these predictions simply say oops. Economists are failing with their predictions because some of them can't seem to understand that everyone aspirations are not what they think they should be. Many of us love jobs where we bust our ass and go home and the only thing about work that crosses our mind is getting up and doing it again the next morning. You people need to understand that some people just are not brains and do not care about higher education. These are semi skilled people with no place to practice their skill. I think all of these people making the rules up out of air need to find out first hand about those people. Your concepts will fail because the people are sick of your kind. We do not need you; you need us. We can live with nothing in the woods and in the elements and all you can do is live off of us. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4s0nzsU1Wg"]This[/ame] is why we do not need you. You bankers and economists are parasites sucking societies dry. You are nothing.
Do you want to deny the relevance of comparative advantage? Go ahead (and struggle). Do you want to deny the relevance of intra-industry trade (and the use of new trade theory used to explain the trade patterns that cannot be explained through Ricardian analysis)? Go ahead (and struggle). Economic theory is actually vital for empirical analysis. It provides the means to quantify and to separate effects. And note you still haven't provided one piece of evidence that adequately supports your position. Why are you struggling to support this reality of yours? People take into account opportunity costs. People take into account the gains from economies of scale. There's no point in pretending otherwise, particularly as these effects are all tested and supported. Rant expected from those that ignore economic reality, creating a bubble of ponce and prance to hide from economic argument
A man walking along a road in the countryside comes across a shepherd and a huge flock of sheep. The man tells the shepherd, "I will bet you $100 against one of your sheep that I can tell you the exact number in this flock." The shepherd thinks it over; it's a big flock so he takes the bet. "973," says the man. The shepherd is astonished, because that is exactly right. Says "OK, I'm a man of my word, take an animal." The man picks one up and begins to walk away. "Wait," cries the shepherd, "Let me have a chance to get even. Double or nothing that I can guess your exact occupation." The man agrees. "You are a professor of economics at the university," says the shepherd. "Amazing!" responds the man, "You are exactly right! But tell me, how did you deduce that?" "Well," says the shepherd, "put down my dog and I will tell you."
I can prove it all very easily. 1. Before the Great Corporate treason workers made less money and had a herder time of things. They may not have gotten the credit to buy a home but they survived, had a roof and did not need government support. 2. Economists and others started playing with the math and of of the sudden everyone could get a house and have a good job. 3. Go try and find some American made retail products. 4. Go preach this crap in Broke town USA and see if you live through it. The economic model is flawed because it can not account for the human being. The economists miss estimates all the time all the time and it is more often than not. No body notices because economics is more of an explanation of what did happen than it is a predictor of what will happen. The human factor of economics is what is flawed and we are now showing you that we will take back more control of our destinies. We can do without you. Not saying you but the flawed economic theories. They generally only work when there is as much or more new wealth being generated than there is wealth leaving the arena. I also helps when trading partners are not being protectionist themselves and manipulating currency values. In a perfect world I could agree with you but in a your version of the perfect world everyone but the top bends over and takes it with no complaints. Our asses hurt and now is your time to bend over. Get out in the streets and show me pal don't show me numbers only. I can back myself (numbers) up with people who need work and you can back yourself up with what?
I happen to agree with Toby. Trade is unfair at best. Once the Chinese treat and pay their workers as well as we do, and that includes benefits, we may have a chance. What's more, and that is what worries me the most is that, when protesting unemployment numbers and the evil 1%, most do it clad in clothing, and networking on equipment, Made in China. It gives 'not seeing the writing on the wall' a whole new meaning. Perhaps jeans Made in USA cost a bit more ( although that's disputable nowadays), but at least more people have jobs to pay for them, have a chance to get off the Gov dole, instead of living off moneys borrowed from the Chinese. Hey, I am not economically educated, but looking at the unemployment numbers and those on welfare, having to search high and low to find goods MADE IN USA vs Made in China, tells me all I need to know. Here's some export comparison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports
The real problem with fairness is first mover advantages, with trade liberalisation forced on developing countries (to the benefit of the 'rich North').
You will dismiss my data as quickly and easily as I will dismiss yours. The real picture is there and we can both see it. There is a difference though. I see all the factors and see unfair trade as the major issues and I feel that what you present is just a distraction to ream our rears some more for more money hoping we will give you the last dime. You see all the factors and put trade in the mix near the bottom because you have not finished screwing the hard working Americans yet. You just want to go deeper. I have lived with my eyes wide shut long enough. Go find my 401k thread and splain thangs to me bro.
I'm not interested in your 'data'. I'm interested in an empirical study that supports your position. That you cannot defend your 'reality' has so far been obvious
Have you looked at the unemployment lines, the foreclosures, the homeless... That is plenty of data to support the notion that our current trade agreements aren't working. As for the self employed, the business people who haven't been hit yet...the day will come if we keep it up.
And you will dismiss it as not credible because it is not what you want to see. I am not going to waste my time and play your game.
