About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 7:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think it's a case of the chickens coming home to roost. Some late 1800s industrialists wanted government-run schools so that they'd have a ready supply of obedient worker-bees for their factories. Now the industrialists of this century are finding that the worker-bees made by the government's schools just aren't good enough.

Post 1

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 9:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Page You Requested Is Available Only to Subscribers 
Please log in below to access the Online Journal (remember that all log-in information is case-sensitive).
 A few years ago, The Freeman carried a little blurb I wrote based on an article I saw in Scientific American from about 1890 - 1899.  That areticle praised the German method of technical education where each person learns to do one job extremely well.  The article advised us (and Britain) to adopt this mode. 

The chief problem in comparing high school test scores or whatever is that in America we educate everyone.  Elsewhere, they cull kids out and only the selected get the best education.  So, there is that. 

It is also true that in that system, a German who graduates from "high school" has the equivalent of an American with two years of college, i.e, what we for 40 years now call an  "associate's" degree.  So, there is that as well.

The whole idea of educating children has always held some merit, but I think it would be better to put them work. Especially now, in an information and service economy, it ius safe and appropriate to let children be productive.  Let kids work for 30 years and when they are older, they will have more money, be better parents, etc.  Also, while they are minors, certainly, their incomes can go to their parents, which also makes sense.

Finally, laissez faire and all are fine, but consider...  Which is more effective: cooking your own food, or eating out (or carrying in)?  How much wealth do you have to create before your time is worth so much that housework is counterproductive?  Do you pay someone now to come in and do the dishes?  Of course not.  (At least most of us do not.)  My point is that by buying imported goods, we are exporting the value of our labor and losing the value of it.  In buying imported goods, Americans are like ordinary people hiring dishwashers and vacuumers and wondering why we cannot afford anything else.

Consider this:  American farmers can sell rice to Japan by the shipload for far less than the Japanese pay for it.  However, the Japanese have made a political decision never to be dependent on anyone else for food. So, their trade barriers on rice protect their "inefficient" farmers.

Now that we have offshored our manufacturing -- and even the call centers and information processing -- was that such a smart idea? 


Post 2

Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 5:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"A few years ago, The Freeman carried a little blurb I wrote based on an article I saw in Scientific American from about 1890 - 1899. That areticle praised the German method of technical education where each person learns to do one job extremely well. The article advised us (and Britain) to adopt this mode.
The chief problem in comparing high school test scores or whatever is that in America we educate everyone. Elsewhere, they cull kids out and only the selected get the best education. So, there is that."

Well, first of all, the US system of education is almost similar to the Scandinavian model, which means that all pupils are educated in one class of school (High School f.e.). In Germany, we have selection after the forth grade (which may or maynot be good at that time, I still dunno). But it eliminates the problem of worse pupils hindering the better ones. We divide those children in 3 groups: Hauptschule, Realschule and Gymnasium (while Gymnasium is the most respectable school with the highest requirments). All in all, we have formed the American role-model of challenge, ability and reward into a school system. There is only limited choice in the High Schools in the US. I have had several friends that went to the US during their 10th or 11th grade and made their high school graduation in the US. While they had an Abitur of B to C in Germany, they all graduated with an A in the US. So, there must be a real difference. I don't know whether the seperation of young children is the road to success, but I think the requirement of ability is the ultimate source of our outstanding performance (despite a dismal education system).

"It is also true that in that system, a German who graduates from "high school" has the equivalent of an American with two years of college, i.e, what we for 40 years now call an "associate's" degree. So, there is that as well."

I don't know about that, but I think since we lowered the years in Gymnasium from 8 to 7, this comparison might lack certain criterias. I would also consider that in Germany, weh have a federal education, which means that people in the south are generally better educated than in the North (due to differences in the school system).

"The whole idea of educating children has always held some merit, but I think it would be better to put them work. Especially now, in an information and service economy, it ius safe and appropriate to let children be productive. Let kids work for 30 years and when they are older, they will have more money, be better parents, etc. Also, while they are minors, certainly, their incomes can go to their parents, which also makes sense."

I don't know. Many kids are not made for the kind of work you seem to think of, but are very talented in the natural sciences or in engineering. It'd be a waste of ressources to send them working. Or did I take this one wrong?

"Finally, laissez faire and all are fine, but consider... Which is more effective: cooking your own food, or eating out (or carrying in)? How much wealth do you have to create before your time is worth so much that housework is counterproductive? Do you pay someone now to come in and do the dishes? Of course not. (At least most of us do not.) My point is that by buying imported goods, we are exporting the value of our labor and losing the value of it. In buying imported goods, Americans are like ordinary people hiring dishwashers and vacuumers and wondering why we cannot afford anything else.
Consider this: American farmers can sell rice to Japan by the shipload for far less than the Japanese pay for it. However, the Japanese have made a political decision never to be dependent on anyone else for food. So, their trade barriers on rice protect their "inefficient" farmers."

Just look at the EU, you will find plenty of protectionist examples ;)

"Now that we have offshored our manufacturing -- and even the call centers and information processing -- was that such a smart idea?"

I don't think it was a smart idea and certainly the service will get worse (which has prompted some companyies in Germany to call back their services to Germany). I think all of the western industrialized nations will have to reconsider their stand. Either they will start being protectionists, or they will have to transform their economic system. I don't want to blame any company, because this would result in socialist tendencies to have a claim on their work and their property.
Do you want that?


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 1:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As far as I can see, education is not the primary reason for outsourcing. It is just that the world is opening up politically and a huge country of English-speakers are willing to work cheap.

Like most trade done freely, it is a good thing.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 2:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael can you clarify what you mean by this?

"Finally, laissez faire and all are fine, but consider...  Which is more effective: cooking your own food, or eating out (or carrying in)?  How much wealth do you have to create before your time is worth so much that housework is counterproductive?  Do you pay someone now to come in and do the dishes?  Of course not.  (At least most of us do not.)  My point is that by buying imported goods, we are exporting the value of our labor and losing the value of it.  In buying imported goods, Americans are like ordinary people hiring dishwashers and vacuumers and wondering why we cannot afford anything else.

Consider this:  American farmers can sell rice to Japan by the shipload for far less than the Japanese pay for it.  However, the Japanese have made a political decision never to be dependent on anyone else for food. So, their trade barriers on rice protect their "inefficient" farmers.

Now that we have offshored our manufacturing -- and even the call centers and information processing -- was that such a smart idea?  "


It seems as though you don't fully understand the Ricardian "law of association" (as explained by Mises) -- which explains why outsourcing, when executed properly is beneficial for everyone involved.  Your post sort of alludes to this but you are arguing that this may not be advantagous from a nationalistic perspective -- which, coming from you is surprising and of course I think arguments along these lines are outragous.  Or maybe I am totally misunderstanding you and if so it wouldn't be the first time that has happened :) 

In any event outsourcing doesn't have anything to do with a lack of American education or something along those lines.   It has to do with the efficient division of labor and the positive economic developments that are taking place over seas just as Ms. Saraswati explained above in her excellent first post. 

 - Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 12/14, 6:54pm)


Post 5

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 4:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes - the Japanese are paying dearly for their farmers' protectionism, which takes out from their pockets much more of their income [save value] than otherwise would if were able to gain imported rice...  more spent on that rice means lots less spent elsewhere...

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 10:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think that I need to make my argument on this subject even more clear so here it is : 

A better educated and economically productive population actually leads to much more "outsourcing" and the movement of many domestically dominated industries over seas.  This is a very positive development.

This is because a better educated population will be far more apt to create new avenues for business and technology and will be much more suited to "knowledge work" -- administrative, analysis and R&D.  This creates a comparative advantage both for the more educated population of one country to focus on the areas in which it is most productive (creative mental work) and the peoples of the less developed countries who gain opportunities for employment and economic growth because of the education, creative ability and superior productivity of the more educated peoples in economically developed countries.   Of course what I am saying is not anything new and I probably shouldn't have to say it on a site dominated by capitalists.   Protectionist economists and talking heads are prominent in the media, but that doesn't mean that their assertions should be taken seriously.

 - Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 12/15, 10:56am)


Post 7

Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 2:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A 'protectionist economist' is an ignorant in sheepskin...

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.