Labor and Energy Costs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 1st, 2013

Economics 101

If you want to Destroy an Industry and Kill Jobs all you have to do is Raise the Cost of Labor

What happened to American manufacturing?  The Industrial Revolution swept through the United States and made America an industrial superpower.  By the beginning of the 20th century the United States became the world’s number one economic power.  Immigrants poured into this country for those manufacturing jobs.  Even though some of these jobs may have come out of a Dickens novel.  Because being able to eat had it all over starving to death.  And in America, with a good factory job, you could put food on your family’s table.

Most of those manufacturing jobs are gone now.  Why?  What happened to the once booming textile industry?  The once booming steel industry?  The once booming automotive industry?  Unions happened to them.  That’s what.  These jobs were so horrible and unfit for humans that unions stepped in and organized them.  But the jobs never got better.  Based on the ever more generous union contracts they kept demanding.  Increasing the cost of labor more and more.  Which chased the textile industry out of the country.  And much of the steel and automotive industries as well.

Is there anything we can learn from this?  Yes.  If you want to destroy an industry, if you want to kill jobs, if you want to damage the economy, all you have to do is raise the cost of labor.  The largest cost to most businesses.  Which is why many businesses have been replacing people with machines.  Advanced machines.  Computer-controlled machines.  Robots.  Because they can work 24/7.  They’re never late.  Never hung over.  Never out sick.  They don’t take lunch.  And they will work as fast as possible without ever complaining.  This is why businesses like machines.  For they let them lower their costs.  Making them competitive.  So they can sell at prices lower than their competitors.  Allowing them to remain in business.

Uncompetitive American Manufacturers go to Emerging Economies where they can be Competitive

Labor is a big cost of business.  Especially in an advanced economy.  With a high standard of living.  Where people own houses and cars.  Where those houses have central heat, air conditioning, televisions, sound systems, kitchen appliances, washers and dryers, etc.  These things cost money.  Requiring paychecks that can afford these things.  As well as pay for clothes, groceries, gasoline, utilities, etc.  Common things in an advanced economies.  But not all that common in an emerging economy.  Where factory workers aren’t accustomed to those things yet.  And don’t demand paychecks that can pay for those things.  Yet.

Still, people in developing economies flock to the new factories.  For even though they are paid far less than their counterparts in advanced economies these factory jobs are often the highest paying jobs in their countries.  And those who have these jobs have a higher standard of living than those who don’t.  Even when the occasional factory burns to the ground or collapses killing everyone inside.  As sad as that is.  But if you want to eat and provide for your family these factories often offer the best opportunity.

So this is where American manufacturing jobs go to.  Where labor costs are lower.  Allowing business to stay competitive.  Because if they can’t be competitive no one will buy what they are selling.  And without any revenue they won’t be able to pay their suppliers.  Their employees.  Or their energy costs.  Another large cost of business.  Especially for manufacturers.

Unions and Regulatory Costs haven’t made Emerging Economies Uncompetitive Yet

A lot of houses today come with a 200-amp electric service.  Assuming a house uses about 100 amps on average that comes to 24,000 watts (100 amps X 240 volts).  Now consider a large manufacturing plant.  Like an automotive assembly plant.  That can have anywhere around 8 double-ended unit substations.  Which are pieces of electrical distribution equipment to feed all of the electrical loads inside the plant.  Each substation has two 13,800 volt 3-phase primary electrical services.  If you’re looking at one you will see the following from left to right.  A 600-amp, 15,000 volt switch, a transformer to step down the 13,800 voltage to 480 voltage, a 480-volt main switch, a bunch of 480-volt switches to feed the electrical loads in the plant, a ‘tie’ switch, another bunch of 480-volt switches, another 480-volt main switch another transformer and another 600-amp switch.

The key to a double-ended unit substation are the two 480-volt main switches and the tie switch.  Which normally distributes the connected electric load over the two primary services.  With both 480-volt main switches closed.  And the tie switch open.  If one service fails because a car knocks down a cable pole these switches will sense the loss of that service.  The 480-volt switch on the side of the failed service will open.  And the tie switch will close.  Feeding both sides of the unit substation on the one live primary service.  So each primary service carries half of the connected load.  Or one primary service carries the full connected load.  Assuming each unit substation uses 600 amps on average (2 services at 300 amps or 1 service at X 600 amps) that comes to approximately 13,194,070 watts (600 amps X 13,800 volts X √3 X .92 PF).  Where we multiply by the square-root of 3 because it is three phase.  And assume a 0.92 power factor.  If a plant has 8 unit substations that comes to 105,552,562 watts.  Which equals approximately 4,398 houses with a 200 amp service.  Now to further our crude mathematical approximations let’s take a typical electric bill for a house.  Say $175 on average per month.  If we multiply this by 4,398 that comes to a monthly electric bill for this manufacturer of about $769,654.  Or $9,235,849 per year.

So here is another way to destroy an industry, kill jobs and damage the economy.  By increasing the cost of electric power.  Which is already a very large cost of business.  And ‘going green’ will make it even more costly.  As the Obama administration wants to do.  With their war on coal.  The cheapest source of electric power we have.  By increasing regulations on coal-fired power plants.  Even implementing some kind of a carbon tax.  To punish these carbon emitters.  And to subsidize far more costly green energies.  Such as solar.  And wind.  Going from the least costly to the most costly electric power will greatly increase a business’ electric utility costs.  Easily adding 15%.  30%.  40%.  Or more.  A 40% increase in our example would increase the electric utility cost by $3,694,340 each year.  If a plant has 1,200 workers that’s like adding another $3,000 per worker.  And we’ve seen what higher labor costs have done to companies like General Motors.  Chrysler.  And the textile industry.  By the time you add up all of these new regulatory costs (Obamacare, green energy, etc.) businesses will be so uncompetitive that they will have to follow the textile industry.  Out of the country.  To a country that will let them be competitive.  Such as an emerging economy.  Where unions and regulatory costs haven’t made them uncompetitive.  Yet.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The American Left likes the Government that takes Children away from their Parents to Earn Olympic Gold

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 4th, 2012

Week in Review

The American Left has long attacked the competitive spirit in America.  They stopped keeping score when their kids played in sports matches.  They awarded participation ribbons to everyone participating instead of first place, second place and third place trophies.  They’ve altered the educational system to grade on effort more than on being right.  To protect the students’ self-esteem.  And yet it’s these same people that want to model America after the communist Chinese.  To have a powerful central government managing the economy.   A government so powerful that it can do things for the people’s own good without having to deal with elections.  Or an ungrateful electorate too stupid to know what’s good for them.   They yearn for a strong China-like government.  Even when that same government would never hand out a participation ribbon (see Family kept grandparents’ deaths secret from Chinese diver until she won gold medal by Martin Rogers posted 8/1/2012 on Yahoo! Sports).

Chinese diver Wu Minxia’s celebrations at winning a third Olympic gold medal were cut short after her family revealed the details of a devastating secret they had kept for several years.

Wu’s parents decided to withhold news of both the death of her grandparents and of her mother’s long battle with breast cancer until after she won the 3-meter springboard in London so as to not interfere with her diving career…

The story of Wu’s family secret has generated huge discussion in China, where the pursuit of success has been chased by the government-backed sports national sports program with unshakeable zeal over the past two decades…

Now there seems to be a backlash against the win-at-all-costs mentality after the revelations about Wu followed fierce criticism from a national newspaper when a 17-year-old weightlifter failed to medal.

In China, athletes are often taken away from their families at a young age and placed in specialist training schools where they practice for hours every day. Wu began training daily at a diving camp at the age of 6. By the time she was 16, she had left home to be installed in a government aquatic sports institute…

The Chinese government’s attitude towards the performances of its athletes is now coming under greater scrutiny than ever before. Messages of congratulations from the government to athletes through the state news agency have been sent only to gold medalists, not those winning silver or bronze.

The Chinese may govern like the American Left would like.  But the Chinese are not a bunch of namby-pamby pansies like the American Left.  They’re tough.  And are very competitive.  So much so that they will take children away from their parents.  Steal their childhood.  All so they can earn a gold medal for China.  And if they fail they heap abuse on them.  This is the strong central government that the American Left so admires.  Which makes the American Left a true enigma.  They want a strong central government that can rule against the will of the people while being a bunch of namby-pamby pansies that just shrink away from harsh words of criticism.  Like, “Sorry, Johnny, 2+2 is 4.  Not 5.  You’re wrong.”

They’re either enigmas.  Or they’re just not that bright.


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

FT109: “Liberals attack marriage and motherhood because their narcissism prevents them from doing either well.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 16th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

The Institution of Marriage is the Original Synergy where the Whole is Greater than the Sum of its Parts

A bird’s life is not an easy one.  They have to suffer through horrible storms.  Struggle to find food during the winter.  Stay on guard at all times lest some cat eats them.  They have to build a nest every spring to lay their eggs in.  And raise their babies.  Find food for them.  Protect them.  Then teach them how to be a bird.  And kick them out of the nest so they learn how to use their wings.  As they fly off into the cruel world to start their own short and hard lives.  Leaving the mothers to do it all over again next year.

It’s not quite the same for humans.  They don’t grow up so fast.  And require a whole lot more nurturing.  For the human baby is about the most helpless of all babies in the animal kingdom.  Requiring far more care and teaching before they can go off on their own.  And live their own lives.  Where the bird takes a few months it takes the human about 18 years.  So raising children is a bit different.  And a bit more involved.  Requiring a lot more effort and work on the part of the parents.

Enter the institution of marriage.  The most basic division of labor.  A man and a woman join in marriage to raise children.  The original synergy.  Where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  From the most basic biological level.  (The woman has eggs but cannot create life without fertilization.  A man has fertilization but cannot create life with eggs.)  To financial.  (A woman cannot work when bringing new life into the world.  So the father works to pay the bills and provide a home for the new life.)  To parenting.  (Men and women are different and bring different skills to parenting.  This diversity makes children better adapted to enter the world.)

Liberals are more likely to abort their Babies and Divorce as they are too Competitive and Aggressive to arrest their Alpha Desires

Raising children isn’t easy.  Both mother and father have to make great sacrifices in their personal lives for their children.  And to support each other.  Which means parents have to love their children and each other more than they love themselves.  Which is why narcissists make poor spouses.  And poor parents.  Because they can’t sacrifice enough of their self-love to be a good spouse.  Or a good parent.

Liberals are narcissists.  They believe in big government.  As long as they run it.  Because they think they are smarter than everyone else.  And should tell everyone else how to live their lives.  Atheists tend to be liberals.  (Not all for the followers of Ayn Rand are typically atheists, too.)  Because they refuse to live in a world where there is a higher power than theirs.  Celebrities tend to be liberals because they yearn for the fawning adulation of their fans.  College professors tend to be liberals because they enjoy the fawning veneration of their students.  Artists tend to be liberals for the fawning admiration of their fans.  Women advancing in the corporate or political world tend to be liberals because they love to bask in the self-satisfaction of making it ‘in a man’s world’.  And the accolades that go with it.  Further stroking their already huge egos.  You see, everything a liberal does is to feed their narcissism.  Everything is about them.  And getting married or having kids isn’t.  Which is why they can pursue excellence in all other endeavors but these.

Liberals are alpha males.  In a non-physical, narcissistic way.  Even the women.  Where the liberal feminist wants to be everything a man can be.  Everything is a competition.  To prove that they are better than everyone else.  And to show everyone that they’ve made it.  Especially to those who have bested them earlier in their lives.  From the bullies in school.  To the boys and girls who wouldn’t date them.  To the talented geeks that went on to be entrepreneurial geniuses.  And billionaires.  To the men who have always had the best careers.  And the best stuff.  But now it’s payback time.  Where the expression ‘the best revenge is living well’ really means something.  Which explains why liberals are more likely to abort their babies.  And have their marriages end in divorce.  They are just too competitive and too aggressive to arrest their alpha desires.  To knock that chip off of their shoulders.  To let go of their anger.  Their ambition.  Too consumed with their own existence to share their only love (self-love) with a spouse.  Or a child.  In their all out pursuit of liberal happiness.  Affirmation.  That they do matter.  That they have a purpose.  That they are special.

Liberals think Happily Married Women raising Families are just too Stupid to Know that they should be as Miserable as they Are

Liberals want to get married.  And have children.  But on their terms.  Where it doesn’t interfere with their lives.  Or change them.  Or inconvenience them.  They enter into these arrangements with the idea that they will remain the center of the universe. 

Celebrities are always getting married.  And having children.  Which proves that they like the institution of marriage.  And children.  But their marriages often end in divorce.  And their subsequent custody battles are often ugly.  And aired in public.  Which is why liberals condemn the stay-at-home mother.  Who gives up on being everything she could be.  To be the only thing that liberals can’t be.  Happily married and raising a family. 

And that’s what really bugs them.  They’re happy.  To a liberal this is just not fair.  They’re the ones who should be happy.  Because they matter.  They’re special.  They have the nicer stuff.  And what really gets in their craw is that these happily married women raising families are just too stupid to know that they should be as miserable as they are.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, Interstate Commerce Act, Sherman Antitrust Act, Sherman Silver Purchase Act, Federal Reserve, Nixon and Reagan

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 31st, 2012

History 101

Government Induced Inflation caused the Panic of 1893 and caused the Worst Depression until the Great Depression

Britain kicked off the Industrial Revolution.  Then handed off the baton to the United States in the latter half of the 19th century.  As American industry roared.  Great industrialists modernize America.  And the world.  Andrew Carnegie made steel inexpensive and plentiful.  He built railroad track and bridges.  And the steel-skeleton buildings of U.S. cities.  Including the skyscrapers.  John D. Rockefeller saved the whales.  By producing less expensive kerosene to burn in lamps instead of the more expensive whale oil.  He refined oil and brought it to market cheaper and more efficiently than anyone else.  Fueling industrial activity and expansion.  J.P. Morgan developed and financed railroads.  Made them more efficient.  Profitable.  And moved goods and people more efficiently than ever before.  Raising the standard of living to heights never seen before. 

The industrial economy was surging along.  And all of this without a central bank.  Credit was available.  So much so that it unleashed unprecedented economic growth.  That would have kept on going had government not stopped it.  With the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 and the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.  Used by competitors who could not compete against the economy of scales of Carnegie, Rockefeller and Morgan and sell at their low prices.  So they used their friends in government to raise prices so they didn’t have to be as competitive and efficient as Carnegie, Rockefeller and Morgan.  This legislation restrained the great industrialists.  Which began the era of complying with great regulatory compliance costs.  And expending great effort to get around those great regulatory compliance costs.

Also during the late 19th century there was a silver boom.  This dumped so much silver on the market that miners soon were spending more in mining it than they were selling it for.  Also, farmers were using the latest in technology to mechanize their farms.  They put more land under cultivation and increased farm yields.  So much so that prices fell.  They fell so far that farmers were struggling to pay their debts.  So the silver miners used their friends in government to solve the problems of both miners and farmers.  The government passed the Sherman Silver Purchase Act which increased the amount of silver the government purchased.  Issuing new treasury notes.  Redeemable in both gold and silver.  The idea was to create inflation to raise prices and help those farmers.  By allowing them to repay old debt easier with a depreciated currency.  And how did that work?  Investors took those new bank notes and exchanged them for gold.  And caused a run on U.S. gold reserves that nearly destroyed the banking system.  Plunging the nation in crisis.  The Panic of 1893.  The worst depression until the Great Depression.

Richard Nixon Decoupled the Dollar from Gold and the Keynesians Cheered 

J.P. Morgan stepped in and loaned the government gold to stabilize the banking system.  He would do it again in the Panic of 1907.  The great industrialists created unprecedented economic activity during the latter half of the 19th century.  Only to see poor government policies bring on the worst depression until the Great Depression.  A crisis one of the great industrialists, J.P. Morgan, rescued the country from.  But great capitalists like Morgan wouldn’t always be there to save the country.  Especially the way new legislation was attacking them.  So the U.S. created a central bank.  The Federal Reserve System.  Which was in place and ready to respond to the banking crisis following the stock market crash of 1929.  And did such a horrible job that they gave us the worst depression since the Panic of 1893.  The Great Depression.  Where we saw the greatest bank failures in U.S. history.  Failures the Federal Reserve was specifically set up to prevent.

The 1930s was a lost decade thanks to even more bad government policy.  FDR’s New Deal programs did nothing to end the Great Depression.  Only capitalism did.  And a new bunch of great industrialists.  Who were allowed to tool up and make their factories hum again.  Without having to deal with costly regulatory compliance.  Thanks to Adolf Hitler.  And the war he started.  World War II.  The urgency of the times repealed governmental nonsense.  And the industrialists responded.  Building the planes, tanks and trucks that defeated Hitler.  The Arsenal of Democracy.  And following the war with the world’s industrial centers devastated by war, these industrialists rebuilt the devastated countries.  The fifties boomed thanks to a booming export economy.  But it wouldn’t last.  Eventually those war-torn countries rebuilt themselves.  And LBJ would become president.

The Sixties saw a surge in government spending.  The U.S. space program was trying to put a man on the moon.  The Vietnam War escalated.  And LBJ introduced us to massive new government spending.  The Great Society.  The war to end poverty.  And racial injustice.  It failed.  At least, based on ever more federal spending and legislation to end poverty and racial injustice.  But that government spending was good.  At least the Keynesians thought so.  Richard Nixon, too.  Because he was inflating the currency to keep that spending going.  But the U.S. dollar was pegged to gold.  And this devaluation of the dollar was causing another run on U.S. gold reserves.  But Nixon responded like a true Keynesian.  And broke free from the shackles of gold.  By decoupling the dollar from gold.  And the Keynesians cheered.  Because the government could now use the full power of monetary policy to make recessions and unemployment a thing of the past.

Activist, Interventionist Government have brought Great Economic Booms to Collapse 

The Seventies was a decade of pure Keynesian economics.  It was also the decade that gave us double digit interest rates.  And double digit inflation rates.  It was the decade that gave us the misery index (the inflation rate plus the unemployment rate).  And stagflation.  The combination of a high inflation rate you normally only saw in boom times coupled with a high unemployment rate you only saw during recessionary times.  Something that just doesn’t happen.  But it did.  Thanks to Keynesian economics.  And bad monetary policy.

Ronald Reagan was no Keynesian.  He was an Austrian school supply-sider.  He and his treasury secretary, Paul Volcker, attacked inflation.  The hard way.  The only way.  Through a painful recession.  They stopped depreciating the dollar.  And after killing the inflation monster they lowered interest rates.  Cut tax rates.  And made the business climate business-friendly.  Capitalists took notice.  New entrepreneurs rose.  Innovated.  Created new technologies.  The Eighties was the decade of Silicon Valley.  And the electronics boom.  Powering new computers.  Electronic devices.  And software.  Businesses computerized and became more efficient.  Machine tools became computer-controlled.  The economy went high-tech.  Efficient.  And cool.  Music videos, CD players, VCRs, cable TV, satellite TV, cell phones, etc.  It was a brave new world.  Driven by technology.  And a business-friendly environment.  Where risk takers took risks.  And created great things.

History has shown that capitalists bring great things to market when government doesn’t get in the way.  With their punishing fiscal policies.  And inept monetary policies.  Activist, interventionist government have brought great economic booms to collapse.  Who meddle and turn robust economic activity into recessions.  And recessions into depressions.  The central bank being one of their greatest tools of destruction.  Because policy is too often driven by Big Government idealism.  And not the proven track record of capitalism.  As proven by the great industrialists.  And high-tech entrepreneurs.  Time and time again.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If it weren’t for High Labor and Regulatory Costs there would be no need for Currency Manipulation

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 2nd, 2011

Minimum Wage Earners only become Valuable after Costly on the Job Training

Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs.  And they’re starting to get that in the UK (see Minimum wage harming job opportunities for young by Richard Tyler and James Kirkup posted 10/2/2011 on The Telegraph).

Firms may be reluctant to create jobs by recruiting inexperienced staff because they are put off by the increased wage bill, the Low Pay Commission has suggested.

The Commission’s intervention comes amid calls from businesses for minsters to freeze or even cut the rate to enable more young people to find work…

Official figures last month showed that almost 1 million of the 2.5 million people officially counted as unemployed in Britain are aged between 16 and 24.

Almost 220,000 have been out of work for more than a year and some economists fear a “lost generation” of young people who never learn the habits of work and face a lifelong struggle ever to find employment…

“The concern is that the current rate is discouraging some employees from taking on young people and giving them a chance to get into the workplace,” he said. “Some companies are finding the rate is a real problem.”

The New England Patriots pay Tom Brady more money than the Detroit Lions pay Mathew Stafford.  Stafford was the number one draft pick.  Brady wasn’t.  But Brady has 3 Super Bowl rings.  Stafford doesn’t have one.  Yet.  He may have one soon, though.  He’s having a very good season.  Undefeated through 4 weeks.  But Brady is better.  Because of his 3 Super Bowl rings.  And his experience.  It’s that experience that makes him worth more.

What’s true for quarterbacks in the NFL is true for workers everywhere.  Experience makes a worker worth more to an employer.  Inexperienced workers are worth less.  So they’re paid less.  Just like in the NFL.

The New England Patriots pay Brady a lot of money.  But they can’t pay everyone that amount of money.  Most players will make less than him.  Just like in the workforce.

Key employees are paid more.  And less critical employees are paid less.  Entry level workers with the least skill and the least experience get paid the least.  These are the minimum wage workers.  Who are just starting their working careers.  Most of who are grateful for the work experience.   Because they know if they show ability they can move up.  Gain more experience.  And earn more as they become more valuable to their employer.  Or to their employer’s competitor.

So of course employers oppose high minimum wages.  Because minimum wage earners only become valuable after costly on the job training.  That’s why they’re paid the least.  They come in with nothing.  And don’t provide any value until the employer gives them value through training.  Mentorship.  And experience.

If you Protect your Markets too much from Imports you will Hurt your own Export Markets

Costs are costs.  And labor costs are some of the more expensive costs.  Because there are a lot of other costs attached to wages.  They add up.  And often are a percentage of an employee’s wages.  The higher the wage, the higher these other costs.  Which makes it harder for a business to be competitive.  And in today’s competitive global economy, nations will help their businesses be competitive any way they can.  To try and make up for all those onerous regulations they impose on their businesses (see One more such victory posted 10/1/2011 on The Economist).

A YEAR ago Brazil’s finance minister, Guido Mantega, declared that the world had entered into a “currency war”. He worried that in a depressed global economy, without enough spending to go around, countries would sally forth and grab a bit of extra demand for themselves by weakening their currencies. The dollar, for example, fell by 11% against Brazil’s real in the year to August 2011, much to the chagrin of Brazil’s manufacturers. Like other emerging economies it fought back by imposing taxes and other restrictions on foreign purchases of local securities…

A cheaper real, zloty and rupee will help emerging economies win a bigger share of global spending. But that is small consolation if global spending declines…

Falling export orders was one of the complaints voiced by Chinese manufacturers in a preliminary survey of purchasing managers published by HSBC last week.

Yes, a cheaper currency gives you an advantage.  So a nation wants it.  But so do other nations.  And what’s more, these other nations don’t want your nation to have a cheap currency.  Because a cheap currency means more exports.

But a currency war is a double edged sword.  If you protect your markets too much from imports you will hurt your own export markets.  Yeah, you may succeed in having a cheap currency but little good that will do if your primary export market slaps a punitive tariff on everything you sell there.

And then there’s the danger of releasing the inflation genie from its bottle.  If you devalue your currency too much your own manufacturing costs will rise.  It’ll take more dollars to buy the stuff you need to manufacture the things you sell.  Which means you’ll have to raise prices.  And anyone who buys from you will have to raise their prices.  And so on until this inflation ends in a recession.  Which will slash overall consumer spending.  Making any win in a currency war a hollow one.

The Senate Bill to Punish China for Currency Manipulation is nothing more than Pandering to a Recession-Weary America

So rational thinking bets against any currency war.  Or antagonizing any trade relationships.  Of course, in an election cycle, rational takes a back seat to winning an election (see Senators court 2012 voters with China currency bill by Doug Palmer posted 10/2/2011 on Reuters).

For lawmakers eyeing their re-election prospects next year, this week provides a chance to show they mean business about cracking down on China’s currency practices and returning jobs to America…

“It is very easy to say that China is the bogeyman,” said Doug Guthrie, dean of business at George Washington University. He said the bill would do little to help U.S. jobs and would raise U.S. import costs, but said it might yet pass…

The Senate bill is the wrong approach because most of the goods the United States imports from China are no longer made by U.S. industry, Frisbie [president of the U.S.-China Business Council] said.

“I’ve always been of the view that, if the Chinese currency were to appreciate, we’re not going to get those jobs back in the U.S. They will migrate to Indonesia or Vietnam or Bangladesh perhaps Sub-Saharan African — the lowest next lowest cost place,” Lardy [a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics] said.

So this Senate bill is nothing more than pandering to a recession-weary America.  It won’t help the economy.  And probably will end up making things worse.  By making life that much more expensive for the American consumer.  By replacing those cheap Chinese goods with almost as cheap goods from Indonesia, Vietnam, Bangladesh or Sub-Saharan Africa.  All the while creating zero American jobs.   It will just make life more difficult.  But it may elect a politician or two.  And really, now, isn’t that what’s really important?  I’m jesting, of course.

Why Exactly is the ‘Made in USA’ Stamped Stuff more Expensive?

Perhaps it isn’t the Chinese.  Or the other emerging economies.  Perhaps it isn’t the weak currencies of our trading partners.  Maybe it’s us.  I mean, why do we play with the currency in the first place?  To make our goods cheaper.

So the issue we should be addressing is why are our goods more expensive in the first place.  Why exactly is the ‘Made in USA’ stamped stuff more expensive?  Higher labor and regulatory costs.  Such as the minimum wage.  And the hundreds of other costly regulations American businesses have to comply with.  Remove these and America can be competitive again.  With anyone.  Anywhere.  And in any industry.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Liberal Opines on things Economic, Confirms why they Suck at Creating Jobs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 16th, 2011

Liberals don’t know Business or Jobs but they have their Big Keynesian Words

If you want to know why liberals are so bad at stimulating economic activity just read Paul Krugman’s Wages and Employment, Again (Wonkish) posted 1/16/2011 on The New York Times.  He pontificates with an erudite air of all-knowing condescension.  He’s smart.  And he wants to make sure you get this.  So he writes with big words and references big demand-side macroeconomic theories that he and his kind accept as undisputed fact.  Despite what the lessons of history say. 

Krugman is a Keynesian.  So, as a Keynesian, he knows nothing about business.  But, like a Keynesian, that doesn’t stop him from opining on the subject of business.

Here’s a fundamental truth (FT) about business.  FT 1:  If you make the cost of doing business high, you will reduce the amount of business a business does.  Here’s another.  FT 2:  If the people are NOT buying whatever they’re selling, this will also reduce the amount of business a business does.  A couple of key things a business needs here.  To have the cost of doing business kept low enough so they can sell at a price that makes them competitive in the market place.  And they need people to have jobs so they can buy their competitively priced goods or services they place into the market place.

Liberals never seem to get either of these points.

High Wages have never Stimulated Economic Activity

Keynesians believe if you give money to people that fixes everything.  When Krugman says:

…I’ve also argued a number of times that cutting wages now would probably make the slump worse, not better.

That’s Keynesian.  You cut wages and the people have less money spend.  So that’s why Keynesians are all about high wages.  Of course, they miss the other side of high wages.  High wages mean fewer jobs.  Because high wages limit the number of employees a business can hire and still sell at prices that are competitive in the market place.

High wages have never stimulated economic activity.  They just raise costs.  This let the Japanese take huge chunks of market share away from the Big Three.  And it’s bankrupting our big blue cities and states that are drowning in debt because of their public sector union contracts.  If Krugman was right, these cities would be booming in economic activity because of those fat public sector pay and benefits.  But they’re not.  The only thing those high wages are doing is bankrupting these cities and states.

Liberals never seem to get this point.  So they trade off economic activity for votes, blissfully unaware of the extent of economic damage they’re doing.  Or they’re aware and they just don’t care.

Easy Money begets Irrational Exuberance which begets Asset Bubbles which begets Recessions

Another favorite of the Keynesians is manipulating interest rates.

…a rise in the real money supply reduces interest rates, leading to a rise in demand.

Read ‘a rise in real money supply‘ as printing money.  The idea here is to make money cheap and plentiful so people will borrow it to buy things.  Like houses.  Like they did during Bill Clinton’s and George W Bush’s presidencies.  And, boy, did they.  Times were good.  Real good.  Only one problem.  Irrational exuberance.

Clinton and Bush thought they found the magical economic elixir.  Home ownership.  So they did everything in their power to extend homeownership.  Even to the people who couldn’t afford it.

Easy money.  Monetary policy that keeps money cheap and plentiful.  To entice people to borrow.  And they were.  Borrowing.  And buying houses.  So much so that they bid up the prices into a huge asset bubble.  Meanwhile, people who couldn’t afford to buy a house were buying houses, too.  The federal government pushed lenders to lend. Or face the consequences.  Be investigated for discriminatory lending.  Or, worse, suffer the public spectacle of having Jesse Jackson or an Al Sharpton publically calling them racist (a lot of the inner city poor were black).  So they came up with some creative ways to qualify unqualified people for mortgages.  We call them subprime mortgages.  And we know how those came back to bite us in the ass.

The problem with bubbles is that they burst.  And when they do, the life blows out of the economy like the air out of a popped balloon.  Deflationary spirals often follow.  And nasty, horrible and painfully long recessions.

Liberals never seem to get this point, either.  You’d think that they would as it has happened so often.

For Narcissists, it’s not the economy.  It’s their Egos, Stupid.

Krugman’s column really shows the problems with liberals.  They’re a bunch of narcissists.  Who love their superior minds.  They love to hear themselves talk.  And love to read what they write.  They write to impress.  And to stimulate themselves.  If you know what I mean.  Only those in his elite circle can understand what the hell he is writing about.  Not us.  The sloped-brow, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthals who didn’t go to the Ivy League schools.  We just work and live in the real world.  Raise our families.  And pay our taxes.

Liberals like to complicate things.  And to try to control the complex.  The economy will work fine on its own.  And when it does we experience some of the greatest economic expansions.   But when they tinker with their Ivy League knowledge, bad things typically happen.  Such as the subprime mortgage crisis.  The Great Recession.  Even the Great Depression.  All of which resulted from liberal tinkering.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,