Conquer Club

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AAFitz: Based on current trends and my observations in the real world, free markets are prone to fail because X, Y, and Z.

BBS: "But we don't have a free market, so how can your observations on the inputs and outcomes of the real world apply to free markets?"

Except the supposed "solutions" to the current crisis all involve moving us much futher toward true capitalism, becuase, see anything to do with "socialism" is just to be avoided.. nevermind what benefits society as a whole.

Because, behind all this anti-"socialism" rhetoric, the REAL story is that corporations are continuing to pollute.. and leaving us to pick up the tab (both in damage from failed cleanups and from any eventual attempts to fix the problems), are continued to seriously endanger any ability of most of us to earn a real income because, "of course", its just "too expensive" to hire US workers who actually demand a wage that will allow them to do things like have houses, etc... and oh, yeah, that is quickly changing as people are forced to take on 2-3 jobs to achieve those ends.

BUT, hey. even the thought of asking those at the top to pay their WORKERs a bit more, never mind the teachers, police officers, fire fighters, highway workers, water and sewage treatment workers, and multitudes of others that make their way of life the positive one it is.. asking to pay more for any of that is "socialism" and BAAAD.

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote: the illegal practices (stealing, job threats) are on an individual basis and it's fallacious to indict an entire corporation for the actions of a few people.

Bullshit. If it were only "a few people", that might be the case. Yet it has been documented that managers have consistently been fired shortly following refusing to manipulate the pay records for overtime. Sure, there are always excuses, but in almost every case the excuses are exceptionally weak...this is absolutely an "unwritten corporate policy". Of course, WalMart has gained the wonderful advantage of having their employees BE UNABLE TO SUE THE COMPANY VIA CLASS ACTION with a similarly weak excuse, so these situations are always viewed as individual accounts rather than as the oversight policy that it clealry is.

I have to be honest here...anyone who advocates for WalMart's practices are either heartless or ignorant (as in they haven't looked into the situation). Which are you?

manipulating pay records is illegal, is it not? why are people not being prosecuted over this?

Because it's exceedingly difficult to prove WHEN THE RECORDS HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED.

john9blue wrote:furthermore, that's a problem with our class action laws. if you attack wal-mart because of their practices, another corporation will just take their place. you're going after the symptom, not the cause.

You don't believe that WalMart had anything to do with the ruling in the particular class action lawsuits against them? Of course I have no proof, but there's no question in my mind that they very much did.

john9blue wrote:and i don't advocate for their illegal practices, where the hell did you read that?

I didn't say that you did. Would you care to read my quote again...it's right there above. There's a phrase for changing someone's words and then arguing against them...what is that phrase now...hmmm....

Woodruff wrote:There's a phrase for changing someone's words and then arguing against them...what is that phrase now...hmmm....

Good clean fun?

There's actually evidence that Chinese labour is starting to increase in cost. For instance in "developing asia" they are the third most expensive in terms of labour costs http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2011 ... -asia.html.

Combine that with china recently becoming a more Urban than rural country and this means the factories have begun to soak up all the people will to work for the lowest wages. As a result wages have begun to increase as producers must now compete for workers , along with these increases we should see increases in working conditions as well.

By the way this up-tic in Asian wealth is resulting in substantial economic growth in Africa http://www.economist.com/node/21541015.

It is my belief that as the developing nations raise their wealth to levels more on par with ours we will then see manufacturing shift more evenly around the globe. I also believe that the cold war was responsible for these distortions in economic wealth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... 682710.stm

I'm moving there soon. I'll keep you posted on how awesome it is (and how attractively thin the citizens all are).

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AAFitz: Based on current trends and my observations in the real world, free markets are prone to fail because X, Y, and Z.

BBS: "But we don't have a free market, so how can your observations on the inputs and outcomes of the real world apply to free markets?"

Except the supposed "solutions" to the current crisis all involve moving us much futher toward true capitalism, becuase, see anything to do with "socialism" is just to be avoided.. nevermind what benefits society as a whole.

How does the continued adherence and updating of Keynesianism lead the country toward "truer" capitalism?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AAFitz: Based on current trends and my observations in the real world, free markets are prone to fail because X, Y, and Z.

BBS: "But we don't have a free market, so how can your observations on the inputs and outcomes of the real world apply to free markets?"

Except the supposed "solutions" to the current crisis all involve moving us much futher toward true capitalism, becuase, see anything to do with "socialism" is just to be avoided.. nevermind what benefits society as a whole.

How does the continued adherence and updating of Keynesianism lead the country toward "truer" capitalism?

Removing controls and restrictions leads to increased capitalism, but that "must be avoided" because that means "socialism". Same for the safety nets for the bottom parts of society.

Capitalism simply says he who has the most money gets to decide, because money is the inherent judge of what is good and bad for society.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AAFitz: Based on current trends and my observations in the real world, free markets are prone to fail because X, Y, and Z.

BBS: "But we don't have a free market, so how can your observations on the inputs and outcomes of the real world apply to free markets?"

Except the supposed "solutions" to the current crisis all involve moving us much futher toward true capitalism, becuase, see anything to do with "socialism" is just to be avoided.. nevermind what benefits society as a whole.

How does the continued adherence and updating of Keynesianism lead the country toward "truer" capitalism?

Removing controls and restrictions leads to increased capitalism, but that "must be avoided" because that means "socialism". Same for the safety nets for the bottom parts of society.

Capitalism simply says he who has the most money gets to decide, because money is the inherent judge of what is good and bad for society.

Is that the goal of Keynesianism?

Baron Von PWN wrote:There's actually evidence that Chinese labour is starting to increase in cost. For instance in "developing asia" they are the third most expensive in terms of labour costs http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2011 ... -asia.html.

Combine that with china recently becoming a more Urban than rural country and this means the factories have begun to soak up all the people will to work for the lowest wages. As a result wages have begun to increase as producers must now compete for workers , along with these increases we should see increases in working conditions as well.

By the way this up-tic in Asian wealth is resulting in substantial economic growth in Africa http://www.economist.com/node/21541015.

It is my belief that as the developing nations raise their wealth to levels more on par with ours we will then see manufacturing shift more evenly around the globe. I also believe that the cold war was responsible for these distortions in economic wealth.

How is the term "labor cost" defined?

How does being the third most expensive labor cost in Asia show improvement?

john9blue wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

john9blue wrote:
manipulating pay records is illegal, is it not? why are people not being prosecuted over this? if they can be forced to hire a certain amount of women, then they can be forced to not fire someone who did nothing wrong.

furthermore, that's a problem with our class action laws. if you attack wal-mart because of their practices, another corporation will just take their place. you're going after the symptom, not the cause.

and i don't advocate for their illegal practices, where the hell did you read that?

Youre suggesting that just because someone was not prosecuted, that it did not happen, and we should continue to give them their business.

that's not what i was suggesting, but i guess it can be read that way.

i was instead suggesting that it's a failure of our law enforcement structure that corporations that commit these crimes are not being punished.

And I fully agree, and further suggest it is our responsibility to protect our fellow citizens by not enabling companies to get away with such behavior.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AAFitz: Based on current trends and my observations in the real world, free markets are prone to fail because X, Y, and Z.

BBS: "But we don't have a free market, so how can your observations on the inputs and outcomes of the real world apply to free markets?"

Except the supposed "solutions" to the current crisis all involve moving us much futher toward true capitalism, becuase, see anything to do with "socialism" is just to be avoided.. nevermind what benefits society as a whole.

How does the continued adherence and updating of Keynesianism lead the country toward "truer" capitalism?

Removing controls and restrictions leads to increased capitalism, but that "must be avoided" because that means "socialism". Same for the safety nets for the bottom parts of society.

Capitalism simply says he who has the most money gets to decide, because money is the inherent judge of what is good and bad for society.

Is that the goal of Keynesianism?

It is the result of current political "freedom" and "reduce government" stances, regardless of any labels people wish to use.

Baron Von PWN wrote:
It is my belief that as the developing nations raise their wealth to levels more on par with ours we will then see manufacturing shift more evenly around the globe. I also believe that the cold war was responsible for these distortions in economic wealth.

The problem is this utterly ignores the environment, which, once destroyed is NOT easily restored and, once destroyed cuts into people's ability to make money outside of the repressive industrial system.

This is what angers me and many others. All this talk of "freedom" is about taking away individual choices from those who have NOT decided to become investment bankers, wallstreet tycoons, etc, because we value time with our families, health, good food, etc, etc, etc.

Really, its about saying " I am jealous of you... I want not just the money I have, but I want to make sure you have no choice but to take the very bottom levels of my system or make the same choices I do. Worse, the cuts in educaton ensure that even fewer people who want to change/move up, who have the innate ability, will actually be able to do so.

Oh yeah.. and if you want to blame me for the damage I CAUSE.. too bad. I set the rules and since you cannot clearly come up with a definitive list .. or, well, keep that list short enough to keep my attention.. then too bad. Economics is just much, much more important. (never mind that the "ecnomics rule" argument is ONLY about the top levels "winning".. not society as a whole).

thegreekdog wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:There's actually evidence that Chinese labour is starting to increase in cost. For instance in "developing asia" they are the third most expensive in terms of labour costs http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2011 ... -asia.html.

Combine that with china recently becoming a more Urban than rural country and this means the factories have begun to soak up all the people will to work for the lowest wages. As a result wages have begun to increase as producers must now compete for workers , along with these increases we should see increases in working conditions as well.

By the way this up-tic in Asian wealth is resulting in substantial economic growth in Africa http://www.economist.com/node/21541015.

It is my belief that as the developing nations raise their wealth to levels more on par with ours we will then see manufacturing shift more evenly around the globe. I also believe that the cold war was responsible for these distortions in economic wealth.

How is the term "labor cost" defined?

How does being the third most expensive labor cost in Asia show improvement?

The costs of employing a labourer. (Wages, payroll taxes ect.).

China wasn't allways the third most expensive, they used to cost much less. It shows improvement because it means worker's pay is increasing in China. This was inevitable as the labour supply decreases employers have to compete for workers especially skilled/semi skilled workers.

This means that as time go on employers won't be able to supply a work environment leading to the stories in op and maintain a workforce. It also means China's comparative advantage in terms of labour is decreasing with time.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:
It is my belief that as the developing nations raise their wealth to levels more on par with ours we will then see manufacturing shift more evenly around the globe. I also believe that the cold war was responsible for these distortions in economic wealth.

The problem is this utterly ignores the environment, which, once destroyed is NOT easily restored and, once destroyed cuts into people's ability to make money outside of the repressive industrial system.

This is what angers me and many others. All this talk of "freedom" is about taking away individual choices from those who have NOT decided to become investment bankers, wallstreet tycoons, etc, because we value time with our families, health, good food, etc, etc, etc.

Really, its about saying " I am jealous of you... I want not just the money I have, but I want to make sure you have no choice but to take the very bottom levels of my system or make the same choices I do. Worse, the cuts in educaton ensure that even fewer people who want to change/move up, who have the innate ability, will actually be able to do so.

Oh yeah.. and if you want to blame me for the damage I CAUSE.. too bad. I set the rules and since you cannot clearly come up with a definitive list .. or, well, keep that list short enough to keep my attention.. then too bad. Economics is just much, much more important. (never mind that the "ecnomics rule" argument is ONLY about the top levels "winning".. not society as a whole).

How are your statements related to my statement?

are you just rageing at capitalism in general? Do you dislike seeing foreigners becoming more prosperous? do you dislike the idea of wealth levels evening out across the globe?

please clarify because I have no idea as to what you are talking about.

Baron Von PWN wrote:The costs of employing a labourer. (Wages, payroll taxes ect.).

China wasn't allways the third most expensive, they used to cost much less. It shows improvement because it means worker's pay is increasing in China. This was inevitable as the labour supply decreases employers have to compete for workers especially skilled/semi skilled workers.

This means that as time go on employers won't be able to supply a work environment leading to the stories in op and maintain a workforce. It also means China's comparative advantage in terms of labour is decreasing with time.

I asked the question because one could get varying answers. For example, cost of labor could be, as you indicated, wages and payroll taxes and employee benefits. It could also include supplies, housing, etc. for use by employees.

I think it shows improvement if China increases its labor costs, but I also think it's way behind. It's like if a straight-F student starts getting D minuses.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:
It is my belief that as the developing nations raise their wealth to levels more on par with ours we will then see manufacturing shift more evenly around the globe. I also believe that the cold war was responsible for these distortions in economic wealth.

The problem is this utterly ignores the environment, which, once destroyed is NOT easily restored and, once destroyed cuts into people's ability to make money outside of the repressive industrial system.

This is what angers me and many others. All this talk of "freedom" is about taking away individual choices from those who have NOT decided to become investment bankers, wallstreet tycoons, etc, because we value time with our families, health, good food, etc, etc, etc.

Really, its about saying " I am jealous of you... I want not just the money I have, but I want to make sure you have no choice but to take the very bottom levels of my system or make the same choices I do. Worse, the cuts in educaton ensure that even fewer people who want to change/move up, who have the innate ability, will actually be able to do so.

Oh yeah.. and if you want to blame me for the damage I CAUSE.. too bad. I set the rules and since you cannot clearly come up with a definitive list .. or, well, keep that list short enough to keep my attention.. then too bad. Economics is just much, much more important. (never mind that the "ecnomics rule" argument is ONLY about the top levels "winning".. not society as a whole).

How are your statements related to my statement?

are you just rageing at capitalism in general? Do you dislike seeing foreigners becoming more prosperous? do you dislike the idea of wealth levels evening out across the globe?

please clarify because I have no idea as to what you are talking about.

Becuase unless you take the whole picture into account, you lose site of the true picture. JUST looking at wages and company profits is part of the big problem. The Chinese employees may be making more money, may even get better working conditions, but if that means (as it does) that their neighbors in and folks downstream of the water sources are facing pollution, illnesses, etc.. if it means that these people no longer have real time to spend with their kids (that is not such a huge deal in China right now), etc.

Also, if they get more wages, but then have to go buy a water purifying system, etc, etc... economically, well that means more products to buy. The wages are higher, so the "standard of living" is higher.. all "good". Except, you are talking about people living with unclean water (and yes, I realize that many places in China already have unclean water) .. and ignoring any impacts not fixed by putting a water filter on a faucet. (to simplify in the extreme).

It's not capitalism, per se that is the problem.. any more than socialism, per se is the problem. The problem is pretending that it has to be either or and that looking at just one is some kind of solution. What we need is a little of each (or "none of the above", perhaps... given that so many people insist on staying strictly with one or the other as the real goal.. maybe we just need a third definition that avoids EITHER extreme!).

thegreekdog wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:The costs of employing a labourer. (Wages, payroll taxes ect.).

China wasn't allways the third most expensive, they used to cost much less. It shows improvement because it means worker's pay is increasing in China. This was inevitable as the labour supply decreases employers have to compete for workers especially skilled/semi skilled workers.

This means that as time go on employers won't be able to supply a work environment leading to the stories in op and maintain a workforce. It also means China's comparative advantage in terms of labour is decreasing with time.

I asked the question because one could get varying answers. For example, cost of labor could be, as you indicated, wages and payroll taxes and employee benefits. It could also include supplies, housing, etc. for use by employees.

I think it shows improvement if China increases its labor costs, but I also think it's way behind. It's like if a straight-F student starts getting D minuses.

That's true. However even if it were the case it would suggest more being spent on workers which would also mean better working conditions.

Of course it is still much further behind than the west. Chinese workers making 150$ a month instead of 100$ are seeing a big gain, but compared to western wages its still much less. In terms of big picture though It means a gradual improvement and I think an eventual meeting in the middle. Though most of that meeting will be made through gains in the east rather than losses in the west.

Meaning I also believe that unfortunately due to increased global competition western wages will fall . Which we have already seen through the lack of wage growth for lowest earners and in some cases wage reductions.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:
It is my belief that as the developing nations raise their wealth to levels more on par with ours we will then see manufacturing shift more evenly around the globe. I also believe that the cold war was responsible for these distortions in economic wealth.

The problem is this utterly ignores the environment, which, once destroyed is NOT easily restored and, once destroyed cuts into people's ability to make money outside of the repressive industrial system.

This is what angers me and many others. All this talk of "freedom" is about taking away individual choices from those who have NOT decided to become investment bankers, wallstreet tycoons, etc, because we value time with our families, health, good food, etc, etc, etc.

Really, its about saying " I am jealous of you... I want not just the money I have, but I want to make sure you have no choice but to take the very bottom levels of my system or make the same choices I do. Worse, the cuts in educaton ensure that even fewer people who want to change/move up, who have the innate ability, will actually be able to do so.

Oh yeah.. and if you want to blame me for the damage I CAUSE.. too bad. I set the rules and since you cannot clearly come up with a definitive list .. or, well, keep that list short enough to keep my attention.. then too bad. Economics is just much, much more important. (never mind that the "ecnomics rule" argument is ONLY about the top levels "winning".. not society as a whole).

How are your statements related to my statement?

are you just rageing at capitalism in general? Do you dislike seeing foreigners becoming more prosperous? do you dislike the idea of wealth levels evening out across the globe?

please clarify because I have no idea as to what you are talking about.

Becuase unless you take the whole picture into account, you lose site of the true picture. JUST looking at wages and company profits is part of the big problem. The Chinese employees may be making more money, may even get better working conditions, but if that means (as it does) that their neighbors in and folks downstream of the water sources are facing pollution, illnesses, etc.. if it means that these people no longer have real time to spend with their kids (that is not such a huge deal in China right now), etc.

Also, if they get more wages, but then have to go buy a water purifying system, etc, etc... economically, well that means more products to buy. The wages are higher, so the "standard of living" is higher.. all "good". Except, you are talking about people living with unclean water (and yes, I realize that many places in China already have unclean water) .. and ignoring any impacts not fixed by putting a water filter on a faucet. (to simplify in the extreme).

It's not capitalism, per se that is the problem.. any more than socialism, per se is the problem. The problem is pretending that it has to be either or and that looking at just one is some kind of solution. What we need is a little of each (or "none of the above", perhaps... given that so many people insist on staying strictly with one or the other as the real goal.. maybe we just need a third definition that avoids EITHER extreme!).

Ok. However I would point out that those pollution problems have existed for a long time, and when taken in terms of output to pollution were much worse in more communist times. Back in the day they were polluting more for less economic output.

Regardless, how do you expect them to improve their environment (or even care about it) when they already struggle to survive? I don't think the rural farmer going to the big city is going to take to "I'm sorry we can't give you a better paying job as that would make your polluted river more polluted" argument to well.

Though these are mostly propaganda the Chinese government has been making efforts to improve the amount of pollution put out by its economy. This at least means there is a long term goal of reducing pollution, a goal far more achievable if the Chinese have money to carry it out.


Finally we here in the Americas have gone through a simmilar process. It was not too long ago that a river in the USA caught fire due to all the chemicals in it or that the entire area around a Canadian city was pure black rock because the pollution had killed all of the plant life. Once we had the resources to care about this stuff we dealt with it (more or less). It will likely be the same with the Chinese.

PLAYER57832 wrote: It is the result of current political "freedom" and "reduce government" stances, regardless of any labels people wish to use.

Would you care to be more specific? Maybe mention specific institutions or organizations or key individuals?

Baron Von PWN wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:The costs of employing a labourer. (Wages, payroll taxes ect.).

China wasn't allways the third most expensive, they used to cost much less. It shows improvement because it means worker's pay is increasing in China. This was inevitable as the labour supply decreases employers have to compete for workers especially skilled/semi skilled workers.

This means that as time go on employers won't be able to supply a work environment leading to the stories in op and maintain a workforce. It also means China's comparative advantage in terms of labour is decreasing with time.

I asked the question because one could get varying answers. For example, cost of labor could be, as you indicated, wages and payroll taxes and employee benefits. It could also include supplies, housing, etc. for use by employees.

I think it shows improvement if China increases its labor costs, but I also think it's way behind. It's like if a straight-F student starts getting D minuses.

That's true. However even if it were the case it would suggest more being spent on workers which would also mean better working conditions.

Of course it is still much further behind than the west. Chinese workers making 150$ a month instead of 100$ are seeing a big gain, but compared to western wages its still much less. In terms of big picture though It means a gradual improvement and I think an eventual meeting in the middle. Though most of that meeting will be made through gains in the east rather than losses in the west.

Meaning I also believe that unfortunately due to increased global competition western wages will fall . Which we have already seen through the lack of wage growth for lowest earners and in some cases wage reductions.

What is the cost of living like in China (and I guess the related question is what is the living situation like)? Is there a middle class and if so, is the middle class made up of skilled laborers at all (as opposed to, say, professionals?

I agree with you completely on the final paragraph and I'm very concerned about that.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:There's actually evidence that Chinese labour is starting to increase in cost. For instance in "developing asia" they are the third most expensive in terms of labour costs http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2011 ... -asia.html.

Combine that with china recently becoming a more Urban than rural country and this means the factories have begun to soak up all the people will to work for the lowest wages. As a result wages have begun to increase as producers must now compete for workers , along with these increases we should see increases in working conditions as well.

By the way this up-tic in Asian wealth is resulting in substantial economic growth in Africa http://www.economist.com/node/21541015.

It is my belief that as the developing nations raise their wealth to levels more on par with ours we will then see manufacturing shift more evenly around the globe. I also believe that the cold war was responsible for these distortions in economic wealth.

How is the term "labor cost" defined?

How does being the third most expensive labor cost in Asia show improvement?

The costs of employing a labourer. (Wages, payroll taxes ect.).

China wasn't allways the third most expensive, they used to cost much less. It shows improvement because it means worker's pay is increasing in China. This was inevitable as the labour supply decreases employers have to compete for workers especially skilled/semi skilled workers.

This means that as time go on employers won't be able to supply a work environment leading to the stories in op and maintain a workforce. It also means China's comparative advantage in terms of labour is decreasing with time.

Labor isn't homogenous. Simply calculating the cost of labor doesn't show expected changes across sectors which demand varying skill levels of labor, so you can't conclude that "China's comparative advantage in terms of labour is decreasing with time" based on the article's evidence.

Comparative advantage differs across the various sectors and skill levels of labor.

But I agree that China will increasingly lose its comparative advantage in cheap, low-tech labor over time. Much of this is being picked up by relatively poorer nations nearby China.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: The problem is this utterly ignores the environment, which, once destroyed is NOT easily restored and, once destroyed cuts into people's ability to make money outside of the repressive industrial system.

This is what angers me and many others. All this talk of "freedom" is about taking away individual choices from those who have NOT decided to become investment bankers, wallstreet tycoons, etc, because we value time with our families, health, good food, etc, etc, etc.

Really, its about saying " I am jealous of you... I want not just the money I have, but I want to make sure you have no choice but to take the very bottom levels of my system or make the same choices I do. Worse, the cuts in educaton ensure that even fewer people who want to change/move up, who have the innate ability, will actually be able to do so.

Oh yeah.. and if you want to blame me for the damage I CAUSE.. too bad. I set the rules and since you cannot clearly come up with a definitive list .. or, well, keep that list short enough to keep my attention.. then too bad. Economics is just much, much more important. (never mind that the "ecnomics rule" argument is ONLY about the top levels "winning".. not society as a whole).

How are your statements related to my statement?
are you just rageing at capitalism in general?

Baron, meet PLAYER...PLAYER, meet Baron. Now you can get to know one another!

thegreekdog wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:The costs of employing a labourer. (Wages, payroll taxes ect.).

China wasn't allways the third most expensive, they used to cost much less. It shows improvement because it means worker's pay is increasing in China. This was inevitable as the labour supply decreases employers have to compete for workers especially skilled/semi skilled workers.

This means that as time go on employers won't be able to supply a work environment leading to the stories in op and maintain a workforce. It also means China's comparative advantage in terms of labour is decreasing with time.

I asked the question because one could get varying answers. For example, cost of labor could be, as you indicated, wages and payroll taxes and employee benefits. It could also include supplies, housing, etc. for use by employees.

I think it shows improvement if China increases its labor costs, but I also think it's way behind. It's like if a straight-F student starts getting D minuses.

That's true. However even if it were the case it would suggest more being spent on workers which would also mean better working conditions.

Of course it is still much further behind than the west. Chinese workers making 150$ a month instead of 100$ are seeing a big gain, but compared to western wages its still much less. In terms of big picture though It means a gradual improvement and I think an eventual meeting in the middle. Though most of that meeting will be made through gains in the east rather than losses in the west.

Meaning I also believe that unfortunately due to increased global competition western wages will fall . Which we have already seen through the lack of wage growth for lowest earners and in some cases wage reductions.

What is the cost of living like in China (and I guess the related question is what is the living situation like)? Is there a middle class and if so, is the middle class made up of skilled laborers at all (as opposed to, say, professionals?

I agree with you completely on the final paragraph and I'm very concerned about that.

I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your questions to a great degree of certaincy. From the readings I've done there is an emerging middle class, this is why you see car sales booming in china. It also explains thee large number of chinese I saw/interacted with in Russia. From what I've heard food and other consumer goods are inexpensive, though compared to local wages I'm not sure. This web page gives a break down of costs of living http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/co ... ntry=China.

Wikipedia gives 250$, though their number includes both Rural and Urban, whereas the web page I gave is likely drawn from urbanites.

A search of "Chinese middle class" results in allot of newspaper articles but few hard statistics. Though one article claimed China's middle class was larger than the population of the USA so 350mil+. From the articles the middle class is made up of, entrepreneurs, skilled workers, professionals, middle management types ect.

Also a number of articles mentioned "grey income" so many Chinese likely make more than they officially do.

It's interesting to note the rise of the middle classes in India and China after they adopted more market-friendly policies (i.e. stepped toward the economic system of capitalism and away from socialism).

I wish I had some "grey income." Stupid IRS.

Anyway, thanks BvP... I think this bears watching.