Is Mexico the new China in manufacturing?

[Ordie]

Is Mexico the new China?

Skyrocketing fuel costs may lure manufacturing firms back to Mexico.

By Rafael Rivero | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor
and Sara Miller Llana (http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl?ID=B2B0B0B3B0B7B1B0B1B4B4B9B4B5&url=/2008/0911/p01s02-woam.html) | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor from the September 11, 2008 edition

Mexico City - Just as Mexico was becoming the rising star of global manufacturing in the 1990s, China's even cheaper wages turned that country into the world's factory.
But now, with skyrocketing oil prices, escalating labor costs in China, and an appreciating currency there, companies targeting the US market are doing the math and giving Mexico another look. So-called "nearshoring" could generate a reverse globalization that brings manufacturing back to Mexico.
"China was like a recent graduate, hitting the job market for the first time and willing to work for next to nothing," says German Dominguez, who advises companies that are considering producing in Mexico from his base in Ciudad Juárez. Now, China's experiencing the "perfect storm," he says. "It's making Mexico, a country that had been the ugly duckling when it came to costs, look a lot better." The driving factor of nearshoring is high oil prices, which is raising the price of shipping. "In a world of triple-digit oil prices, distance costs money," states a recent report by Canadian investment bank CIBC World Markets. "And while trade liberalization and technology may have flattened the world, rising transport prices will once again make it rounder."
Producers of heavy or bulky items, such as refrigerators or cars, are being hit hardest by the spike in freight costs. According to the CIBC report, when oil sold for $30 per barrel in 2000, it cost American importers 90 percent more to ship their goods from East Asia than to transport them from Mexico. At May's prices of about $130 per barrel it cost 150 percent more.
Many companies targeting the US market wonder whether outsourcing in Asia is still worth it.
Mark Stephens, the director of logistics for the consumer products company Faultless Starch/Bon Ami in Kansas City, Mo., says his company is actively pursuing partners closer to the US.
For example, he says, the company is looking to manufacture some garden tools currently being produced in China and resold in the US. "It's to shrink the supply chain," he says.
Some have already made the move. The printing company Lexmark, for example, relocated its molding operations for printer cartridges back to Mexico from China, with new facilities in Reynosa and Ciudad Juarez, according to Gulf Shipper, a weekly industry publication. Lexmark could not be reached for comment.
While many analysts are talking about reverse globalization, most companies are still at the early stages of rethinking their logistics networks, says Antonio Boccalandro, vice president for Latin America for i2, a supply chain management solutions company in Dallas, in part because of transportation costs and limited capacity at US ports. Still, two years ago, he says, no one was even interested in such scenarios.
Even in industries like mining – a primary, labor-intensive industry that once looked to China as its solution – US manufacturers are giving Mexico another chance.
"It was a whisper in the end of 2007," says Lisa Reisman, a metals specialist and managing director at Chicago-based Aptium Global.
Her clients, she says, have warmed up to Mexico as their cost savings in China dropped from a high of 35 percent to about half that. "When they hit that 15 percent range, they started scratching their heads and said, 'in Mexico, there's a shorter supply chain, I have less inventory in my chain, we're on the same time zone, and I can get 20 percent savings.' "
It's not all about high oil prices, either. China's export taxes have risen, and its workers are demanding higher wages, trends aggravated by the rapid appreciation of the Chinese currency against the US dollar. While the Mexican peso has also strengthened against the dollar, the change has been much less dramatic.
"There is increasing cost of labor in China. China still handles the textiles and apparel, but a lot of people on the margin are looking at the exchange rate moving slowly but unfavorably. The quality of labor in China is probably increasingly suspect as well," says Bill Gilmer, vice president in charge of the El Paso Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. "This is all positive for Mexico."
Those companies that remained in Mexico during the flight to China – particularly those in the automobile industry – have since developed more advanced processes and techniques. In recent years, the country has experienced strong growth in high-value-added industries, such as pharmaceuticals, custom-order electronics, and biotechnology.
To be sure, Mexico must confront a number of challenges.
The high costs of raw materials and grid energy continue to weigh on foreign producers. Labor is still more expensive than in Asia, and inflation has ticked up. And Mexico must compete with China's army of technicians and engineers.
"China's strength is not only in its huge numbers," says Greg Cudahy, global managing partner of supply chain strategy at Accenture. "It's also that its educational push has been focused on the kind of skills that build manufacturing capability. Education is really going to have to continue to be pushed by the Mexican government and by the corporations that invest in Mexican manufacturing. That's needed for sustainability."


source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0911/p01s02-woam.html

[Laworkerbee]

Good post Ordie, thanks.

[Weasel]

Yesterday I attended a meeting of three sourcing specialists just returning from and now reporting about their search on the american continent for foundries and manufacturers of metal parts. The best companies they found wouldn´t even fullfill our minimum requirements in Europe. China and India was much more successful.

[Hot Lips]

Here's a thought... move the work into the target market and disperse profits more equitably across the local workforce instead of constantly looking to move labor to countries that will take advantage of their population to pad the pockets of the guys at the top.

I understand perhaps moving to were natural resources are, but moving because workers want to be appropriately compensated and you'd rather pay someone else peanuts to do the same work. Are these savings being passed along to consumers? Anyone seeing any big drops in prices?

It's only natural that China's workforce is demanding higher wages. If the work moves to Mexico, their workforce will eventually also. And then these companies will figure out they should have just kept the work with the target market instead of taking on the expense of constantly relocating their operations in an effort to avoid the inevitable... workers that expect to be compensated in accordance with the success of their efforts.

[sinophile]

Here's a thought... move the work into the target market and disperse profits more equitably across the local workforce instead of constantly looking to move labor to countries that will take advantage of their population to pad the pockets of the guys at the top.


In the words of Adam Smith, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

The work you think benefited only the guy at the top created one of the fastest growing middle classes in the world and brought millions out of near starvation and illiteracy. It forced many Western countries to either compete at a higher level or redirect investment into areas where they could compete.

It closed the books on the idea of trickle down economics. It works.

It also exposed the fact that capitalism unaccompanied by political freedoms and individual rights leads to corruption, environmental destruction and huge economic risk. Many of these bills have yet to come due.

Mexico won't be another China anytime soon. Here's why:

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=5949&fuseaction=topics.event_summary&event_id=399932

[seathru]

It also exposed the fact that capitalism unaccompanied by political freedoms and individual rights leads to corruption, environmental destruction and huge economic risk. Many of these bills have yet to come due.

None of these happened in developed countries? None of these problems are unique to China. The foreign investment in China has been concentrated on the industries of high pollution and high energy segments in the past 20 to 30 years. Chinese government is starting to shift away from these industries. The environment damage is not done in one day. And the damage will be repaired little by little through the years ahead. There is will not be a single bill due in the future. The financial situation in China is much better than U.S. and Europe for now, and will remain so in the foreseeable future.

BTW, China is not a capitalist country. It absorbed some capitalist methods, but overall China is unique.

[Noble713]

Here's a thought... move the work into the target market and disperse profits more equitably across the local workforce instead of constantly looking to move labor to countries that will take advantage of their population to pad the pockets of the guys at the top.

I love that "taken advantage of" argument. Third-world peasants choose to work in factories for pennies for a reason: because it pays better than being a third-world peasant! But really if you think about it, ALL laborers are being taken advantage of: the source of a capitalist's profits is paying workers less than the value of their labor (if you want a detailed explanation, just ask).



I understand perhaps moving to were natural resources are, but moving because workers want to be appropriately compensated and you'd rather pay someone else peanuts to do the same work. Are these savings being passed along to consumers? Anyone seeing any big drops in prices?

A corporation's financial obligations are not to the consumers, but to the shareholders. We (i.e. the poor saps who buy the crap they make) are just a means to an end. They would only cut prices if demand for their goods is highly elastic (so a small price cut will cause a large increase in the quantity demanded, yielding a net increase in revenues). It's all about the money.

[sinophile]

None of these happened in developed countries? None of these problems are unique to China. The foreign investment in China has been concentrated on the industries of high pollution and high energy segments in the past 20 to 30 years. Chinese government is starting to shift away from these industries. The environment damage is not done in one day. And the damage will be repaired little by little through the years ahead. There is will not be a single bill due in the future. The financial situation in China is much better than U.S. and Europe for now, and will remain so in the foreseeable future. BTW, China is not a capitalist country. It absorbed some capitalist methods, but overall China is unique.

Thank you for reminding me that to see China correctly you must appreciate timing. You are correct it will take time to correct some of the mistakes of excessive growth.

With regard to the single bill and financial condition... how can you or I know? Neither of us can see inside a house with no windows.

[Hot Lips]

I love that "taken advantage of" argument. Third-world peasants choose to work in factories for pennies for a reason: because it pays better than being a third-world peasant!

Isn't that the same argument some used after the slaves were freed.... it's better than being a slave. It's better than not having a job at all. It's better than....

[Noble713]

Isn't that the same argument some used after the slaves were freed.... it's better than being a slave. It's better than not having a job at all. It's better than....

.....What's your point?

[Hot Lips]

That throwing a starving dog a bone doesn't make you one of the good guys.

[Eventine]

That throwing a starving dog a bone doesn't make you one of the good guys.

Better than kicking it in the nuts.

[147258]

I love that "taken advantage of" argument. Third-world peasants choose to work in factories for pennies for a reason: because it pays better than being a third-world peasant! But really if you think about it, ALL laborers are being taken advantage of: the source of a capitalist's profits is paying workers less than the value of their labor (if you want a detailed explanation, just ask).

hmm. And _why_ do they choose to work there? Could this be that the harsh competition of the foreign giant companies destroyed their local sources of employement?

[Noble713]

That throwing a starving dog a bone doesn't make you one of the good guys.

To paraphrase Ash: "Good, bad, I'm the guy with the profits."

Although, considering real wage growth since 1980, I'd say there are about....oh...300 million Chinese and Indian laborers who would disagree with you. Pick up a copy of Martin Wolf's "Why Globalization Works" for all the details.


hmm. And _why_ do they choose to work there? Could this be that the harsh competition of the foreign giant companies destroyed their local sources of employement?

Ahhh, now you are touching on something I agree with: that massive government subsidization of the agricultural sector (the US and France are the most notable culprits here) has rendered Third-World agriculture highly uncompetitive. That needs to stop.

[Hot Lips]

"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the profits."

Greed at it's core. I'd rather be the guy with enough profits to live a good life and still treats the people that earn him profits justly, but you define yourself however you please.

Will India and China still agree when businesses pull out of their country for the next low ball bidder willing to offer up their workforce for peanuts... ensuring that the little guy never rises to high.

Corporations are moving work out of countries that have fought for employment laws that protect the interests of their workforce and then, what... turning their backs on new ones that get a little too big for their britches? All the while undermining their home workforce.

Just don't see how this mentality raises us up as a whole... as opposed to creating a larger gap between the classes as the low and middle classes are slowly trained to stab each other in the back for scraps from above. In the long run, I think we hurt ourselves.

[147258]

Ahhh, now you are touching on something I agree with: that massive government subsidization of the agricultural sector (the US and France are the most notable culprits here) has rendered Third-World agriculture highly uncompetitive. That needs to stop.

But the onus is not on the US and France to not subsidise their own agriculture! The onus is on the third world countries to protect theirs. As well as protecting/building their own fledgling manufacture. Because, if the cornerstone of capitalism is competion, the best situation for everyone would happen if different companies from different countries had to compete for markets and workforce, and this can best be achieved by the host country using protection to create effective local competition to the foreigner. As things are now they do the opposite: they encourage the foreigner and give him tax breaks, so that the foreign giant comes into an area, crushes all local competition, and then can do pretty much what it likes. That's not capitalism, that's monopolism.

With agriculture as you rightly point out it's the same thing, except this time it's producers on the first world soil that do the damage. But why does US subsidise its agriculture? I presume it is because in case of a war, in case of a naval blockade, you want to still have something to eat. The UK in its heyday of the XIXth century didn't bother maintaining its agriculture, and during world war one they nearly starved. That's a lesson to everyone: help your farmers or else.

[Sand Man]

Here's a thought... move the work into the target market and disperse profits more equitably across the local workforce instead of constantly looking to move labor to countries that will take advantage of their population to pad the pockets of the guys at the top.

I understand perhaps moving to were natural resources are, but moving because workers want to be appropriately compensated and you'd rather pay someone else peanuts to do the same work. Are these savings being passed along to consumers? Anyone seeing any big drops in prices?

It's only natural that China's workforce is demanding higher wages. If the work moves to Mexico, their workforce will eventually also. And then these companies will figure out they should have just kept the work with the target market instead of taking on the expense of constantly relocating their operations in an effort to avoid the inevitable... workers that expect to be compensated in accordance with the success of their efforts.

I like your style.

[Noble713]

Greed at it's core. I'd rather be the guy with enough profits to live a good life and still treats the people that earn him profits justly, but you define yourself however you please.

The entire source of profits is paying laborers less than the value of their labor. With that in mind, talking about "treating people justly" is laughable.



But the onus is not on the US and France to not subsidise their own agriculture!

Subsidies are a huge market inefficiency which only hurt everyone in the long-run. They have some uses in the short-term (see below).


As well as protecting/building their own fledgling manufacture. Because, if the cornerstone of capitalism is competion, the best situation for everyone would happen if different companies from different countries had to compete for markets and workforce, and this can best be achieved by the host country using protection to create effective local competition to the foreigner.

Subsidizing fledgling industries is a worthwhile investment, but once the industries mature and become competitive....you're supposed to stop the subsidies. Keeping the spigot open only a) wastes taxpayer dollars and b ) stifles innovation. Take a look at most of South America. They tried Import Substitution Industrialization throughout the 20th century, but with their largely Socialist governments they never stopped throwing money at the locals for popular support. Net result? Extremely poor economic growth and not much in the way of competitive heavy or high-tech industries.


But why does US subsidise its agriculture? I presume it is because in case of a war, in case of a naval blockade, you want to still have something to eat. The UK in its heyday of the XIXth century didn't bother maintaining its agriculture, and during world war one they nearly starved. That's a lesson to everyone: help your farmers or else.

The strategic importance of domestic food production cannot be denied, but the output of the US greatly exceeds demand, to the point that we are flooding the market with cheap goods (at least until ethanol came onto the scene). Subsidies should be kept low enough our food production (and production growth) is kept in-line with our population/population growth.

[Hot Lips]

The entire source of profits is paying laborers less than the value of their labor. With that in mind, talking about "treating people justly" is laughable.

Excessive greed is not an admirable quality no matter how hard you try to spin that and in the long run it drags us all down.

It's sad that you find the endeavor to treat human resources better is laughable.

[Noble713]

Excessive greed is not an admirable quality no matter how hard you try to spin that and in the long run it drags us all down.

It's sad that you find the endeavor to treat human resources better is laughable.

Who defines what is excessive and what isn't? It's entirely subjective.

[Hot Lips]

Round and round you go. Keep chasing your tail. You're not convincing me that trying to stick it to the front line workforce as much as possible for the sake of profits for the few isn't ultimately a losing proposition for us all.

[drunken sailor]

I hope not. Anyone ever see one of the little four wheeler ATVs that are made in China? If you get one you will need to rebuild the chassis just so it will drive straight and not wobble.

Evinrude outboards had their electrical and ignition parts made in Mexico for a long time till Bombardier bought OMC years ago. They found that most of the stuff made in Mexico did not last so they now make most of them here in the U.S. woot . Now that the economy is bad they have just built a new factory in China :-(for their new 25-30hp E-Tec engines that will be made next year because all the engines in that size are made in Japan or China now so they had to do it to compete in price.

Evinrude claims that they are going to have the same dependability with strict standards at that factory but we will have to just wait and see.

I take some comfort in the fact that these engines will be used by special ops and Evinrude knows they need to be reliable or else. They designed the engine so it will have the least parts out of any engine in its class by a long shot and by doing so making it easier for the Chinese to get it right the first time.

Just to point something out. Years back when Evinrude started having their ignition parts made in the U.S., I have not seen one fail yet. I have see hundreds fail from Mexico.

[Noble713]

Round and round you go. Keep chasing your tail. You're not convincing me that trying to stick it to the front line workforce as much as possible for the sake of profits for the few isn't ultimately a losing proposition for us all.

*scratches head* There is nothing circular about my argument. If you would post a clear, rational, linear argument, something more substantive than a few empathetic talking points about helping the common man, I'd be happy to read it.....and then destroy it. Feel free to dissect my own position, expounded on below in greater detail:

1. The only "winning proposition" is to eventually achieve a condition of post-scarcity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity). We will only get there through process innovation (aka improved technology, which leads to efficiency improvements, which decrease labor/material/energy inputs required for a given output until such inputs are effectively zero). Process innovation hinges upon investment (experimentation often involves failure, and failure is expensive).

2. Poor laborers don't invest, and increasing their incomes generally leads to higher consumption levels. When Joe the Wage Slave get's a raise, he doesn't think "Hmmm, I think I'll give someone my money so they can invent fusion power", he thinks "Lemme go buy a HDTV". While this also results in greater revenues for producers, and hopefully some of those revenues are re-invested, it is a less direct method than the alternative. Rich capitalists invest (i.e. their marginal propensity to consume is substantially lower). Stuffing more money in their pockets means there should be more money going into investment (and therefore being turned into process innovation).

3. The problem (at least in the US) is the nature of the economy and subsequent investment methodology. For comparison, look at the economic histories of South Korea, Taiwan, and now China. All have made substantial investments in several key areas: scientific education, national infrastructure, and manufacturing. The opening article mentions how China now has a huge quantity of competent engineers and technicians. Economic productivity has skyrocketed and quality of life has risen along with it.

Here in the States our education system is abysmal, our infrastructure broken, and the only things we put our money into are a) shuffling around money to make even more money and b) building McMansions. The purpose of investment should always be to foster productivity growth, but in the US it has instead been spent so we can all live like kings. It's finally starting to dawn on us that all the sh1t we've been buying hasn't been improving our ability to make money...or make anything else for that matter.

4. The bottom line is that if you want people to live better lives, you need to make better stuff. Throwing pay raises at the masses only enables them to buy more of the same inefficient crap that we already make. Joe the Wage Slave having enough money to own two Model-T cars instead of one is not a quality of life improvement. He needs to be able to buy a diesel-electric hybrid instead. Or he needs access to a maglev train so he can ride to work in 15 minutes instead of driving for 45 (commuter traffic is a HUGE productivity drain). He can't do that if nobody has bothered to invest in the invention/development/mass production of one.

I largely blame our useless Legislative branch and totally distracted Executive branch for all of this. If they properly funded education in the sciences we'd have a bunch of smart people eager to produce new stuff. If they properly funded infrastructure our transportation and other overhead costs would be lower and that stuff the engineers make would be more competitive on the world market. Investors will put their money behind ideas/products that appear profitable. Failing to foster technological ingenuity and failing to provide oversight for the housing & mortgage sector (big-ticket consumption items with little or no productivity improvements) has instead left us with a rapidly evaporating economy of nothing.

[Hot Lips]

2. Poor laborers don't invest, and increasing their incomes generally leads to higher consumption levels. When Joe the Wage Slave get's a raise, he doesn't think "Hmmm, I think I'll give someone my money so they can invent fusion power", he thinks "Lemme go buy a HDTV". While this also results in greater revenues for producers, and hopefully some of those revenues are re-invested, it is a less direct method than the alternative. Rich capitalists invest (i.e. their marginal propensity to consume is substantially lower). Stuffing more money in their pockets means there should be more money going into investment (and therefore being turned into process innovation).

roflThis cracks me up. When Joe the Wage Slave get's a tiny raise of course he's going to buy some luxuries he's otherwise been deprived of.... same as the guys at the top! The guys at the top also invest because they have far far more expendable income. You assume that if Joe the Wage Slave had more expendable income than just enough for a HDTV that he wouldn't also invest. I'm sure slave owners used similar mentality to justify not setting their slaves free, or once they were free paying them decent wages. Afterall, WTF were they going to do with money... buy a home... buy a car.... buy an HDTV. Better to keep all the $$ in the hand of the high and mighty because they are the only ones with the sense to invest once they reach a level where they have the income to do so.

Pathetic.

[Hot Lips]

4. The bottom line is that if you want people to live better lives, you need to make better stuff. Throwing pay raises at the masses only enables them to buy more of the same inefficient crap that we already make. Joe the Wage Slave having enough money to own two Model-T cars instead of one is not a quality of life improvement. He needs to be able to buy a diesel-electric hybrid instead. Or he needs access to a maglev train so he can ride to work in 15 minutes instead of driving for 45 (commuter traffic is a HUGE productivity drain). He can't do that if nobody has bothered to invest in the invention/development/mass production of one.

So the guys stockpiling all the profits by not paying Joe the Wage Slave aren't investing, yet you are trying to blame Joe the Wage Slave by arguing in favor of not dispersing better income and benefits to Joe the Wage Slave.... what's to say that wouldn't inspire Joe the Wage Slave to want to take pride in his job and the future of his company and career instead of resenting it and the people who pay him and therefore is content to drone on making the crappy products the guys at the top are pushing out the door because they dont' want to invest in something that might pull profits from their own pockets (much like giving better wages to their workforce)..... all that considered why should Joe the Wage Slave give a flying f**** about quality, innovation, etc..... their effort and caring will get them nothing from men that think as you anyway.

Is that not a self fulling prophecy on your part. Keep the common man down, then blame him for not taking a greater interest in the growth and success of a corporation that would sell him out in a heartbeat.

[Noble713]

roflThis cracks me up. When Joe the Wage Slave get's a tiny raise of course he's going to buy some luxuries he's otherwise been deprived of.... same as the guys at the top! The guys at the top also invest because they have far far more expendable income. You assume that if Joe the Wage Slave had more expendable income than just enough for a HDTV that he wouldn't also invest. I'm sure slave owners used similar mentality to justify not setting their slaves free, or once they were free paying them decent wages. Afterall, WTF were they going to do with money... buy a home... buy a car.... buy an HDTV. Better to keep all the $$ in the hand of the high and mighty because they are the only ones with the sense to invest once they reach a level where they have the income to do so.

Pathetic.

Yes, your counter-argument is.

What I *think* you are trying to argue is that giving $1 million in wage increases to your labor force would yield higher investment than the capitalist keeping the same $1 million. As I stated before, marginal propensity to consume largely declines with income, so on average $1 million extra in the hands of a millionaire capitalist will always result in a higher quantity available for investment vs the same $1 million spread across hundreds or thousands of Wage Slaves.

The only way this WOULDN'T be the case is if at some point along the curve the MPC drops and then rises again, such that the increase in wages would put the laborers at a lower MPC than the wealthy capitalist. I really doubt that's ever the case.


So the guys stockpiling all the profits by not paying Joe the Wage Slave aren't investing, yet you are trying to blame Joe the Wage Slave by arguing in favor of not dispersing better income and benefits to Joe the Wage Slave.... what's to say that wouldn't inspire Joe the Wage Slave to want to take pride in his job and the future of his company and career instead of resenting it and the people who pay him and therefore is content to drone on making the crappy products the guys at the top are pushing out the door because they dont' want to invest in something that might pull profits from their own pockets (much like giving better wages to their workforce)..... all that considered why should Joe the Wage Slave give a flying f**** about quality, innovation, etc..... their effort and caring will get them nothing from men that think as you anyway.

Is that not a self fulling prophecy on your part. Keep the common man down, then blame him for not taking a greater interest in the growth and success of a corporation that would sell him out in a heartbeat.

I find your lack of punctuation disturbing. It turns making sense out of this stream-of-consciousness gobbledeegook you've posted into a strenuous exercise.

I addressed the issue of poor investment by the rich, chalking it up to government failure, not Joe Wage Slave as you seem to think. As for capitalists failing to re-invest due to contentment with their current revenue streams, I'd say that's pretty rare, even for fairly monopolistic industries (like diamond mining). There's always pressure to do better, partly because market conditions are always in flux.

If you are changing your argument (which was originally blanket "just" pay increases) to suggest that wages/compensation for employees be tied to individual worker innovation, I don't have a problem with that at all.

...but forking over extra money to every Tom, **** and Harry who puts a nut on a bolt just because some random person thinks it's the "just" thing to do? Never.

[Hot Lips]

LOL at restoring to addressing punctuation.

So let's see. Rich people not investing properly is the problem, but that's the fault of the government, and the solution is to keep outsourcing to the bidder willing to lowball Joe the Wage Slave and his peers because the rich people HAVE to sacrifice dispersing that $1 million across the entire workforce rather than forego that third mansion, private jet, etc. Oh no, wait, they aren't the problem, it's actually the little guys that manage to get meger raises for buying an HDTV instead of picking up the investment slack for the rich people who aren't investing properly because of the bad government.

Um, yeah. OK sport.

[Noble713]

LOL at restoring to addressing punctuation.

I'm not going to apologize for preferring to read clear, legible posts with an argument that consists of more than just distortion and dismissal. If you can't make them, why even bother to post at all?

http://i38.tinypic.com/rgz9cy.jpg

[Hot Lips]

I'll keep in mind that you are easily confused. Distortion and dismissal are your areas of expertise... along with diversion.

You start off sarcastically dismissing the "taken advantage" statement, by pointing out that peasants "choose" to work for peanuts because they have no other options - in essence supporting that they are being taken advantage of because of their lack of options.

Then you start the greed is good campaign "I'm the guy with the profits" and fall back on the old plantation owner mentality... what does Joe the Wage Slave need with money/freedom - he obviously wouldn't know what to do with it if he had it! Better to keep the money with the rich.

Then you relent that the rich don't invest properly, BUT of course it's not their fault! It's the lazy governments fault... and those middle class peasants that dare to want to buy a few non-essentials for themselves when they do get their head above water rather than continuing to live like the lower class and turn over their extra income to those rich people... you know the the only ones that know what to do with that money, but choose not to... because of the lazy government.

But wait! The real answer is to inspire innovation, a desire to learn, to progress... but we all know that money never motivated anyone, right? Well, except the rich people that want to take advantage of those peasants with no other options... rather than invest in their domestic workforce.

;)

[Noble713]

You start off sarcastically dismissing the "taken advantage" statement, by pointing out that peasants "choose" to work for peanuts because they have no other options - in essence supporting that they are being taken advantage of because of their lack of options.

No one FORCES them to be factory workers. They could stay peasants. By your logic, I'm being taken advantage of because I lack the option to be the CEO of multi-billion dollar company. Or every McDonald's employee is taken advantage of because they get paid minimum wage, surely McD's could afford to pay everyone $15/hr? Oh, those poor, oppressed, fast food workers. :roll: Hopefully you recognize how ridiculous this thought process is, but that's unlikely, considering that you initiated it.



Then you start the greed is good campaign "I'm the guy with the profits" and fall back on the old plantation owner mentality... what does Joe the Wage Slave need with money/freedom - he obviously wouldn't know what to do with it if he had it! Better to keep the money with the rich.

Nice straw man. Your posts are completely devoid of substance. While you manage to bleet about how horrible this all is, you provide no solutions.



Then you relent that the rich don't invest properly, BUT of course it's not their fault! It's the lazy governments fault... and those middle class peasants that dare to want to buy a few non-essentials for themselves when they do get their head above water rather than continuing to live like the lower class and turn over their extra income to those rich people... you know the the only ones that know what to do with that money, but choose not to... because of the lazy government.

I don't "blame" worker class consumers for consuming. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's what they do, just accept it (or undertake a massive social engineering program to encourage saving and frugality). It plays an important role, actually. As I already mentioned, people will put their money behind a good, innovative product idea if they think they will profit. Revenues only come in if Joe the Wage Slave buys sh1t.




But wait! The real answer is to inspire innovation, a desire to learn, to progress... but we all know that money never motivated anyone, right? Well, except the rich people that want to take advantage of those peasants with no other options... rather than invest in their domestic workforce.
;)

A blanket wage increase isn't an investment, it's a subsidy. Education (which increases worker productivity through higher skill levels) and health care (which minimizes the time a worker is unproductive due to illness) are investments. Looking over the history of this thread, at no point have you advocated either of those.


I'd like to see YOUR plan for achieving post-scarcity, but I suspect that you have none.


To an extent I think this entire conversation is a reflection of our respective avatars. You have a pair nice legs and a bottle of wine, suggesting a slightly hedonistic romantic. Given the quantity of protectionist talking points you've spewed at every turn, it's obvious you think with your heart and your emotions.

I, on the other hand, have a boot stomping a face. I make cold, rational cost-benefit analyses, backwards plan, and undertake courses of action to maximize gain......my gain.

At the end of the day, it's not about legs and wine.* No matter how we try to sugar coat the world around us, it all boils down to competition for resources, who's getting stomped on and who is doing the stomping.

I endeavor to keep the boots on my feet rather than on my face, and as long as they are on my feet, I intend to do some stomping.



*As a funny aside. I just came from Miami Improv ft. Gary Owen. He recalled an incident in a club, which practically every guy has had happen to him, where some chick he was hitting on got pissed and said "I wouldn't have *** with you if we were the last two people on Earth." That's such a stupid thing to say, when you think about it, because if we're the last two people on Earth....I'M GONNA FVCK YOU EVERY DAY. Scream for help all you want, nobody hears you, THEY'RE ALL DEAD. :) His boot, her face. Same concept as the above.

[California Joe]

Are you threatening women on my board now Erkle?

Arguing with a woman and casually throwing in colorful little anecdotes about face stomping and hilarious subjects like rape could be taken the wrong way don't you think champ?

[Noble713]

Are you threatening women on my board now Erkle?

Arguing with a woman and casually throwing in colorful little anecdotes about face stomping and hilarious subjects like rape could be taken the wrong way don't you think champ?

Is it not the point of a forum to engage in rational discourse with others? If someone posts a poorly thought-out position on a subject that I actually care about (few and far between, really) I'm going to lay into them, regardless of the poster's gender/religion/race/****** orientation. :)

As for the issue of "hilarious subjects", a theater professor recently pointed out to me that comedy is inherently tragic. The stuff that we laugh at isn't funny to the people that are living it. Your mileage may vary.

[Hollis]

Is it not the point of a forum to engage in rational discourse with others? If someone posts a poorly thought-out position on a subject that I actually care about (few and far between, really) I'm going to lay into them, regardless of the poster's gender/religion/race/****** orientation. :)

As for the issue of "hilarious subjects", a theater professor recently pointed out to me that comedy is inherently tragic. The stuff that we laugh at isn't funny to the people that are living it. Your mileage may vary.

And your Claim to fame is?

I would suggest reading the forum rules. It is not about how big you can bloviate, correct other's grammar, get into pissing matches, stomp other, etc.

We do expect a reasonable amount of civility. Not some misogynistic rants that you consider to be humor or your theories of economics. I guess sci-fi economics is your forte', maybe find a nice sci-fi forum.