There was no "glee" about it. Its just simple maths. It's the electronics industry.
Sounded like glee from where i sat reading it but OK, i'll read on.
Far from being the "hi-tech knowledge wave" that most imagine, it's actually just basic manufacturing, generally low paid assembly work, with a low level of skill.
Like most "high - tech" stuff, what you actually have is a small group of people with the high tech knowledge. They do the design, write the software and move on to the next project.
The manufacturing is low tech. As long as the correct component is soldered in the correct hole, the job is done. The worker needs few skills, will never need to know how the product works, and by and large doesn't care.
Here lies the problem. Those who belong to the skilled group get well paid, have a wide choice of employers, and over a working career design millions of dollars worth of products.
and within that explanation lies part of the problem with capitalism and indeed, with the problem in NZ as well.
relying on cheap labour because of mechanisation means that the business itself is of less social value to the voters of the nation: it makes great profits for the capitalist but is of far less benefit to a larger number of people.
Likewise, the reduction of employee requirements to menial unskilled tasks because of mechanisation lowers the required skill levels of employees who are then fixed more easily to a serf like existence because they don't have the time to become educated, employers won't assist with education and the government charges high fees for that 'privelage' even though education is constantly identified as one of the leading reasons for low productivity in this country.
But those who belong to the unskilled group are in trouble. It's easy to claim the capitalist is the source of those problems, it makes a nice flag, and III seems to like waving it.
yes, they ARE in trouble and that is the cognitive dissonance of the skilled worker/high productivity issue. How CAN we have high productivity if that relies on education but provision of said education is refused by employers and unafforable to workers except if they are prepared to leave the country to pay off their loans? The fact is that the wide gap between the haves and have nots creates a situation that benefits only those already wealthy people and creates a large number of permanently uneducated and underpaid people (great for businesses like yours apparently).
The reality is, that the unskilled are always at the bottom of the heap in ANY system,and there is actually no way of changing that. (Other than voting them into parliament).
Actually the solution can be seen in the very words you use: UPSKILL THEM and they won't be unskilled.
Socialists like to argue that the minimum adult wage is one of the mechanisims to keep the unskilled a bit better off.
They are right ! But it also has the effect of pricing the commodity (the labour of the unskilled) off the market. The effect of this depends on just how well the economy is going. If its dancing along on the back of high commodity prices, then we don't really see a big hit, there are other unskilled jobs to be had, so there are few tears.
No, that's not quite what we argue. What we actually argue is that minimum wages go some way toward mitigating the fact that capitalism preys on the weak and both forces wages down while at the same time making those on low wages compete against each other for the crumbs from the tables of the wealthy.
The major benefit in highly profitable business that pays minimum wages is to the owner. It is of far less benefit to the nation, to society and to the people. As such it would be better for those kinds of business to exist in low wage nations and for government to concentrate on upskilling NZ employees so they can focus more on building a REAL knowledge economy with far greater remuneration on average for all.
The race to the bottom is a stupid one but that's basically what unskilled manufacturing businesses are about.
When the economy is slow, we see a rise in unemployment. We deal with this by taxes - either directly to pay the dole, or indirectly by using tarrifs to keep the old sock factory in Norsewood or where-ever going.
Of course. Capitalism has always relied on the manipulation and control of the labour market. Given that fact, Government responsibility is to help the victims of a system that preys on the weak not help those who are easily able to look after themselves: the wealthy.
Long term, both of these methods will fail, as all they do is reduce market size. In other words the sock maker can stay in business, as long as he only wants to sell his socks in NZ. They will be too expensive to sell overseas.
Life is not all about markets and money. That's the capitalist fantasy and delusion.
Does being wealthier make people less likely to be depressed? Does it make people happier? Do large income gaps create conditions that increase crime rates? Should Government serve people or corporations? Should it be responsible for the defence of the wealthy who are more than capable of looking after themselves or should it be more focussed on helping those abused by others and those born into situations that would mean effective serfdom for the rest of their lives?
The upshot is that a focus on the economy that diverts attention and assistance away from those most in need will inevitably result in a system similar to the US where corporations have steadily been given more power and rights than people, where corporations OWN politicians and political promises are bullshit from start to finish, where corporate ideals mean that companies like Nike seek ways to circumvent laws in order to make higher profits, where pharmaceutical companies don't research cures because these are self defeating in terms of ongoing profits. Instead they research pain management, illness management and other ways of maintaining the illness AND the addiction to their drugs.
I don't know what the solution is, although I know what won't work.
No, I believe you just 'know' what YOU don't want and care little for others.
Sadly this thread has just turned into a slinging off session, as there are some good thinkers here, so I doubt this will be the right place to find those answers.
Yes it did. Notice from this that when you post a non abusive post, you get a non abusive reply? That's always been my 'MO'.
Ocean deserves credit for (largely) posting relatively intelligent debate that is almost free of abuse. I might disagree with his ideas but I respect him for his style.
So do businesses buy machines to replace workers because they hate workers ? Of course not.
Good grief, what nonsense. That's called a False Dilemma and yes, it's a fallacy argument.
But our products will not sell if they are not seen as good value by customers.
Perhaps if NZ hadn't been so damn quick to 'lead the world' in dropping protection for our home grown businesses you might be able to create viable 'Buy NZ' campaigns.
Other countries, including the richest economies, are much smarter. They KNOW that protection is necessary and that their own economies were BUILT on protectionism.
There's no point at all in being the only real open economy in the world.
This is actually the mechanisim by which we as a country become richer. We make a product. We invest our profits back in our product to make them better quality, higher featured, cheaper or all three. We see it all the time. Todays cars have air-bags, CD players, ABS etc etc and seldom break down. In 1975 a radio and heater were options, and in real terms the car cost much more.
Again, If richer doesn't make you happier or more contented, what is its point? Wealth for the sake of wealth is a stupid argument. In addition, what use is a high average wealth if the average is merely inflated by a massive rich/poor gap and fantastically wealthy people at the top using their economic power to effectively become neo-monarchs who own and manipulate people to their own ends?
This "deflation" is actually us becoming more wealthy.
Thats why simple tools like taxes, tarrifs, and minimum adult wages, however well intentioned work against us.
Nope, they PROTECT us from those who would abuse for personal gain.
Long rant this time !
Originally Posted by RantyDave
UKMC #64
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks