No you are at a loss because you fail to accept that there is more than one legitimate view of this and also the model you seem to support does not work.
Your stance is 2 a penny. We'll wait for some proper economic comment as you have nothing but grunt that makes right wingers look clever. Bye
Bye, Bye now. I enjoyed it Oh and I blame the political right for the mess of stupidly bad economic application that we are enduring. I shoot up the middle I hat both sides equally.
Well, I see the problem but it was the best I could find on such short notice. Here is a paper that I think fits the bill. http://www.iie.com/publications/pb/pb.cfm?ResearchID=94 The conclusions are a mixed bag; I think supporting some of your positions and some of mine. I am not, by the way, talking about income inequality. That's a separate issue and I agree it can be best dealt with not by modifying trade patterns but opportunity among the lower brackets. My concern is actual decline in real income in the lower percentiles. I have to admit I see some ambiguity about this in the paper. And Feenstra's work seems to conclude that all boats are rising, just at different rates. I'd note that Reich's Aftershock provides an extensive bibliography for the claim of falling real income. It's the book's major point. If real income is not falling among unskilled workers, then there is no issue -- I agree that we just need to deal with the inequality of the benefit. But if real income is falling and if (as it appears) trade policy plays a role in that, then a case can be made for revisiting the terms of our trade policies. The lower brackets should not bear the burden of trade if they do not share in increasing income. Anyway, the linked article seems to address the issue more or less on point, though again, I think some ambiguity creeps in between these two issues. Always a pleasure to debate with you, by the way, Reiver. Your knowledge on economic matters is impressive.
I'd suggest that the conclusions are rather clear and support my stance: "Despite the finding that trade probably has had some unequalizing impact, it does not follow that increased trade protection would benefit American workers. For one thing, probably about half of the impact of increased trade stems not from trade policy but from technological changes that have reduced transportation and communication costs. Moreover, simulations of the TIDE model and findings from earlier work (including on the distributional impact of textile protection costs) strongly suggest that while higher protection might reduce real skilled wages, it would do little to raise real unskilled wages....What the findings do imply, however, is that the market process alone does not necessarily assure that the gains from trade are evenly distributed" So we don't have an argument that protectionism will reduce working poverty (given, for example, dynamic effects). We do, however, have the need to consider distribution effects.
You've changed the issue a bit; I've never argued for trade protection. I've argued that our current trade regime differentially harms unskilled workers in the US. The study supports that. Based on that, I don't think you can produce an argument to that sector of our population that trade with sweatshop nations is good for them under current terms. Since immiserating a significant and vulnerable portion of our population is not only bad for them, but the rest of us (in the long run), it seem rational to review our current trade regime and amend it. Specifically, we should not globalize capital without globalizing the right to unionize and other worker protections. That isn't trade protectionism -- it's insisting that sweatshop nation's play by certain rules of labor relations, just like they agreed to play by certain rules of capital transactions. We negotiated vigorously to institute a trade regime that basically turned China's economic system on its head to protect US capital. So we should do the same with workers. By protecting the rights of workers in China and other sweatshop nations, we aren't preventing trade, we're decreasing the burdens of globalizing capital on workers and shifting it to owners of capital, who can better afford those burdens.
I've changed nothing. I've only asked for evidence and, when you provide it, admitted that it agrees with my stance. Where? Quote the sentence. If you can't you're guilty of misrepresentation
How would we guarantee that they honor their word? So far they have been doing everything to maintain an unfair advantage in trade with the US.
Then what are you complaining about? CBO data shows that the after tax median income in America has climbed 35% in the last 30 years. I mean, how much do you expect?
Compared to other developed nations, the US has severe inequalities of opportunity and a low skilled equilbria (which, by definition, ismt supply side oriwntated; with education investments likely to lead to increases in underemployment). Crikey, they're one of the few countries with an empirically verifiable underclass
Fail! My argument acknowledged that the 'market process alone does not necessarily assure that the gains from trade are evenly distributed'. Try again!
Low skilled "equilbra", or left wing talking points. Welfare reduces benefits if the father is around, lots of single parent homes. Social justice tells the poor they are owed a living, the result, a 30% high school drop out rate. Low opportunity, or entitlement mentality? As far as inequities of opportunity, what crap. The unemployment rate drops as level of education increases. Education isn't required, just find a problem and sell a solution. You deal in emphirical data, my son, with no college, is starting his 3rd business (one and two don't need his full attention).
Merely a reference to the low wage abundance. Its not a heterodox economic approach so whining about being left wing won't work. Even right wingers can, perhaps only now and then mind you, realise that economic outcome cannot be understood by restricting comment to supply-side grunt. The US welfare state isn't generous. Why do you think other countries exhibit much greater social mobility rates whilst also utilising more generous welfare systems? Why don't they have documented underclasses? Its easy to refer to the inequalities of opportunity (and the repercussions, such as intergenerational social immobility. As an example, see Lefranc et al (2008, Inequality of Opportunities vs Inequality of Outcomes: Are Western Societies All Alike?, Review of Income & Wealth, Vol. 54 Issue 4, pp 513-546). Here's the abstract: This paper analyzes the relationship between income inequality and inequality of opportunities for income acquisition in nine developed countries during the 1990s. Equality of opportunity is defined as the situation where income distributions conditional on social origin cannot be ranked according to stochastic dominance criteria. We measure social origin by parental education and occupation and use the database built by Roemer et al. (2003). Stochastic dominance is assessed using nonparametric statistical tests. Our results indicate strong disparities in the degree of equality of opportunity across countries and a strong correlation between inequality of outcomes and inequality of opportunity. The U.S. and Italy show up as the most unequal countries in terms of both outcome and opportunity. At the opposite extreme, income distributions conditional on social origin are almost the same in Scandinavian countries even before any redistributive policy. We complement the ordinal comparison by resorting to an original scalar “Gini” index of opportunities, which can be decomposed into a risk and a return component. In our sample, inequality of opportunity is mostly driven by differences in mean income conditional on social origin, and differences in risk compensate the return element in most countries.[/i] I deal in the evidence and you're restricted to tabloidism. Can we refer 'the poor boy came good' in any society? Of course. However, its a matter of fact that the US suffers from immobility (aping, in some ways, the limey class system) and a relative lack of self-employment
Ignorance will get you nowhere pal. You know good and well what is being spoke of here and you choose to ignore it. You are as a foolish child wanting to get in on adult conversation.
Indeed, which is why I always adopt an evidence based approach. Not Amused has allowed an ideology to skew his understanding of economic reality. You've just piped it with rant
What evidence? Theories are not evidence, talk is not evidence nothing you present really equates to evidence. Only data is evidence. Interpretation of said data is evidence. You present? What? Show me.
Crikey, read the post you ranted about again. Note the direct reference to the testing of inequality of opportunity.
I can not read the entire article. If I can not read it how can I make an informed reply. Again I say; what evidence?
