Unemployment Rate

[opebo]

Probably 20-25% by 2011. This country has a negligible amount of manufacturing. Where are all these jobs going to be created?? And what kind of jobs will they be?

Well, they'll be very poorly paid whatever kind of job they are - that is the nature of economic 'globalization'.

[opebo]

Holy sh**t some of you are optimistic.  Are you batsh**t insane or just hopelessly desperate?

I don't think I can give a number to how high it will go, but the U-3 will exceed 15% within the next 2 years, and I suspect it will exceed 20% at some point.  And that is the U-3.  What do you think the U-6 and the REAL rate will be, the rate that the government isn't fiddling with?

This is going to be so WONDERFUL.  It is hard not to sit and laugh at the misery that is coming.

Hey, welcome back!  Are you making $400,000/year in Dubai or whatever it was yet?

With the underemployed the actual rate is around 16.9%. Change you can believe in!

Not giving him much time, eh?  The stimulus money has barely been spent.  But you're right, it's bad.

It is bad, but it has nothing to do with Obama.  (by that I mean he in no way had anything to do with the creation of the problem, nor can he solve it, but certainly it may destroy him).

[opebo]

haha, the minimum wage boogeyman again!

[opebo]

haha, the minimum wage boogeyman again!

Do you think companies just sit back and lose money and nothing happens?

If you think McDonalds and WalMart are going to lose money by paying $7 something instead of $5 something I would say you're being a bit unrealistic, Gustaf.

[opebo]

haha, the minimum wage boogeyman again!

Do you think companies just sit back and lose money and nothing happens?

If you think McDonalds and WalMart are going to lose money by paying $7 something instead of $5 something I would say you're being a bit unrealistic, Gustaf.

Ok, let's back up. Jim has 2 dollars. Jim then has to give those 2 dollars to Bob.

Did Jim just lose money.

I say yes.

I mean, I know mathematics is not your strong suit, but seriously. Thinking that you don't lose money when you, for lack of a better expression, lose money is thick-headed stupidity even by your standards.

Obviously by 'lose money' I meant - enter into a state of unprofitability.  Please strive, in future, Gustaf, to conduct yourself more like a young gentleman and avoid ad hominem attack.

[opebo]

...Most companies try and maximize their profits.

Precisely, Gustaf!  So why shouldn't people working at McDonalds and Walmart try to do that too?

[opebo]

...Most companies try and maximize their profits.

Precisely, Gustaf!  So why shouldn't people working at McDonalds and Walmart try to do that too?

That's not relevant. They already are, through negotiations over payment contracts. But nice way of trying to wriggle your way out of being proven wrong.

The point is that when the company has re-adapted to maximize its profits it is not given that all its employees will have benefited. What is likely to occur is that the least productive of them get fired while the remaining can cash in the higher wage. Thus, we see an increased inequality.

Which is why I have always advocated a generous dole from which the privileged (employers) must tempt workers with high pay, Gustaf.  I believe that is a better method of moving towards privilege reduction than a simple minimum wage.

[opebo]

So, I take it that you are admitting that I was right and you wrong. Why couldn't you do it openly and honestly to begin with instead of wriggling around and throwing away smart-ass remarks?

What, you are saying that you were right in claiming that $7/hour is more than $5/hour?  Sure, but I think we all knew that, Gustaf.

[opebo]

You didn't seem to. You claimed that one does not lose money through paying more wages. Anyway, what I claimed more specifically was that it is not given that a higher minimum wage will benefit workers since companies are not likely to sit back and accept the loss. Then you claimed that the losses did not exist. I showed that they did and you then claimed they weren't very big. I then explained why that did not matter.

My apologies.  As I have stated repeatedly, I was referring to 'loss' as in 'going out of business'.  I don't know how many times I have to restate this, but I do apologize that we were referring to different things.

You see, I always look at economic arrangements as hierarchies, not as absolute 'amounts'.  Which is why I always think that the upper class seems a bit nit-picky when it disputes the difference between $5/hour for its serfs and $7/hour.  The way I look at it, they are still clearly on top, riding around on the fellow, and the amount is pretty irrelevant to the position in the hierarchy.

[opebo]

Now you are applying your personal, subjective moralistic outlook.

There is nothing moralistic or subjective about the analysis that the owner is above the worker in a hierarchy.  This is fairly demonstrable in various ways - the direction in which commands pass, the relative power over this or that, punishments, rewards, etc.

I was merely pointing out that there is nothing stopping employers from firing people in order to maximize their own profit.

Yes, this is a political reality, Gustaf.  It is completely arbitrary that we arrange things in this way.  We all know that the owners have all the power.  I merely object to it as policy.  You seem to pretend that it is some sort of rational inevitability. 

Minimum wage is a policy which can only be very useful or effective when combined with other measures.  To say 'well the owners can just utilize their powers and destroy workers in return' if we implement the minimum wage does not, to me, suggest that we should just give up and acquiesce, but that we must remove that power from the owners (after all our State gives it to them in the first place).

Btw, do you pay your hookers minimum wage? Or are you too busy being on top?

Hookers in Thailand make between $10 and $60 per hour (more or less than that range being a rarity), and certainly the majority closer to $15 than $60.  And of course they don't provide 40 hours of service per week, so much of their time is spent waiting.  But as for hours worked, $15/hour is a reasonable guess.

This is, as you can imagine, a very comfortable living in a country where meals are $1-2 and apartments $70-100/month.  The great majority of prostitutes have a very easy life compared to people who work at regular jobs - at least until they're 35 or so, when marketability becomes slightly impaired.  But its a great life up until that age.

Most of my service providers make nearly what I make, and some make more.

[opebo]

Anyway, these must be foreigner-only prices, correct? Since I assume Thais would be unable to pay these kinds of prices.

Thailand has an enormous middle class, Gustaf.  And anyway even working class Thais could afford a $15 hooker visit say once a month.

I suppose many people such as yourself are a bit out of date or confused about the standard of living in developing countries.  This one is not so poor at all.

[opebo]

Since you have argued innumerable times that the American workers are poor, how do you reconcile that with the idea that Thai workers are well-off?

I never said 'well off', I said that they could afford a $15 hooker visit once a month.

So, I'm going to be rude again  and include pesky little facts in my post: US GDP per capita, PPP, so as to include reference to the prices in the country is roughly 47 000 USD, which is about 6th to 8th in the world. Thailand is about 8 000. So America is about 6 times as rich. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Sounds very familiar, considering I knew all that before.  And considering that a decent hooker back home, if you can find one, is probably 6 times as expensive as here, it all makes a good deal of sense, doesn't it? ($15 times 9 = $90; it would probably be more like 120-150)

Now, THailand's gross natioal income in nominal terms is about 3 400 USD. Which means that the average Thai has about 300 USD a month to spend (or 10 USD a day). So, either the poorest, cheapest street-hookers are 10 times richer than the average Thai or you're talking nonsense. Or they work only 1 hour per day. All of them.

The cheapest, realistically, that any Thai in Bangkok can get laid would be 500 baht, and upcountry 300 would be the cheapest.  But this is the absolute bottom.  Doubling those prices is closer to commonplace. 

However, you have to keep in mind that in most venues where the girl is not freelancing, she must split her fare 50/50 with the management.  So, say she does 3 customers per day, 400 baht per time, and keeps half, that leaves her with 600 baht per day, or about $18.  Now, this is extremely low end, but keep in mind that hookers almost always make more than run-of-the mill working people - its the main attraction of the job. 

Also keep in mind that the official figures probably drastically understate real GDP per capita for Thais, simply because government tracking of economic activity is not that great, and there is a large black or simply undocumented economy.  So figure +20-30% on top of that nominal per capita GDP figure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said 'the poor' have it pretty good, I made the observation that prostitution is a relatively lucrative field for poors compared to other fields available to them.  Basically I only deal with middle class people, purveyers of food (who are roughly middle class in income if not status), and prostitutes.  I tend to go for the middle-market type of working girl so she makes basically the same as a middle class bureaucrat.  I don't make any value judgements about this, just observation.

Come check them out in person Gustaf - they'll untwist your panties for you.

[opebo]

Let me get some fact straight here:

1. You think workers are better off in the United States than in Thailand? Is that on the record?

Yes, they have more money in toto, certainly.  I have never claimed otherwise.

2. Hookers have to give HALF the money to the owner? Sounds like they are being used and exploited to me. (and I'm going to save you the embarassement of saying "why, Gustaf, you silly Swede, half is a lot more than the slaves under American capitalism can expect" and tell you right now that labour providers typically recieve about two-thirds of GDP in developed countries, with capital owners getting roughly a third). Besides, I did a little internet research and it seems as if half is the best they can hope for.

Yeah, 1/2, 1/3, whatever.  I'm sure that there are plenty of hookers in Thailand who only pay 1/3 to the owner.  There are those - freelancers - who seem to get away with paying nothing.  Most girls working in bars which cater to foreigners tend to make a bigger percentage - probably more like 70%.  When I mentioned 50/50 I was referring to the lower end Thai venues - basically describing a 'worst case scenario'.

.. But that is for Swedish 50-year olds going to bars specifically catering to them. I'm pretty sure Thais buy their prostitutes much, much cheaper.

Some thais do, but middle class ones typically spend more than Swedes or Americans on holiday.  Thai men are very picky.  But, as you say, 500-1000 back (say 15-30 dollars) is normal in cheap beach towns, and double that is the norm in expensive bangkok.  High end Thai venues will be 1,500-2,500 per 1.5 hour session, with a very few in the 2,500-5,000 baht range who have to be 'model quality'.  Basic Thai brothels and so forth will be around 500 or so.

As you said, the foreigner serving girls usually get only a couple per day, while those in thai venues usually get several, and the lower down the rungs, they more they get.

And you talk about the attraction of the job - do you mean to imply that these Thai  prostitutes are free agents following their ultimate goal in life, as opposed to the rest of us deluded drones working in the West?

No, its just like any other job, Gustaf.  Perhaps with a little more social stigma and a big of a pay bonus as a result, but basically just like any other job.

[opebo]

So, they too are being exploited by their owners, living as miserable wretches under the capitalist boot, unable to do what they really want with their lives?

Obviously.  Only owners have power, Gustaf, as you well know.  However, being a cute young girl does have some advantages, particularly in an aging society like Thailand (or the US, or most parts of the world).

[opebo]

And do you feel any moral qualms about exploting them, being the owner of the boot that presses them into the mud, so to speak?

Gustaf, you don't seem to know me very well after all these years.  I have always poo-pooed the idea of objective morality.  I never have any moral qualms.

[opebo]

And do you feel any moral qualms about exploting them, being the owner of the boot that presses them into the mud, so to speak?

Gustaf, you don't seem to know me very well after all these years.  I have always poo-pooed the idea of objective morality.  I never have any moral qualms.

So, you do not then, I trust, have any objections to other people exploiting the poor? This compassionate warm heart that you sometimes refer to is just pretending, I gather?

The objection is a political one and to some extent an intellectual one, Gustaf, not a moral one.  I don't think of it as 'wrong' that the rich eat the poor, but I just find it somewhat dubious that the poor don't seem to mind.  It seems they may be taken in by some deceptions, or in any case their political actions do not seem to serve their own interests.