The proprietor of www.ssotu.com responded to my first letter to him with an e-mail asking me a question. Here's my reply:
Proprietor, www.ssotu.com
Melbourne, Australia
Dear Mr. ________:
Opposing free trade, you challenge me to answer the following question:
"You
[Boudreaux] are appointed the Chief Terminator of Economic Ignorance at
a salary of $150,000 a year. Things are going great for a while, then
one day you're told your job will now be done from India for just
$10,000 a year. How are you going to feed your family?"
Such a
question elicits many complementary answers. Here, for now, is just
one – in the form of some questions for you: Suppose that people no longer
wish to incur the cost of escaping economic ignorance; suppose that
people's preferences change – say, people switch from preferring
economic education to preferring more chemistry or theology education,
subjects about which I know nothing. Demand for my services as an
economic educator dries up.
Does the fact that my income falls
dramatically as a result of this economic change give me the right to
force people to continue to purchase my services? Are people morally
obliged, having once voluntarily paid me well to perform a service for
them, to continue to pay me well for as long as I wish to be occupied in supplying that service? Does a change in my economic circumstances entitle me (either directly, or through my representatives in government or through some street thugs whom I might hire) to prevent people from spending their money on instruction in chemistry
or theology or on other goods and services?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Share
{ 47 comments }
He posted similar tripe on your last post about his email. I wonder if he'll visit the Cafe again…
This person is making an appeal to emotions and not to reason.
This is the core of political pandering.
It strikes me that Mark's response sounds essentially like selfish post-modernism applied to economics.
"This makes me feel not good, and any system needs to relate to my feelings, therefore the system needs to change."
Here's my answer: I would do anything I possibly could to feed my family. I would find a new job, I would retrain, I would pick up a minimum-wage job, I would pick-up a part-time job. Whatever it takes.
The idea that a person who is unwilling to put effort into working should be allowed to continue like this entirely at the expense of those who are willing to work their hardest is disgusting.
Let's apply some game theory to this question. If you answer his question like you did, then in his eyes, you're being dishonest. If you answer his question the way he's set it up, then you're guilty of hypocrisy.
Instead, you need to turn this question on its head. Let's say you're the employer who is paying Professor Boudreaux $150K/year for this service. And you find some chap in India who can do the same thing for $10K/year. Which are you going to choose? And why not cut Professor Boudreaux's pay to $140K/year and have him mow your lawn part time? Even with that monumentally ignorant management decision, ahead of the stupidly patriotic route of saving Professor Boudreaux's job from foreign competition.
Hmmm….
I wonder if this guy is willing to forgo the things he wants because he is forced to pay Professor Boudreaux (and everyone else) for something he doesn't want.
My response:
You are an Indian economist who is willing and able to eradicate economic ignorance for a mere $10,000 a year, a princely sum in India. But protectionist policies give the job to an American economist instead, despite the fact that he charges much more for providing the same service. How are you going to feed your family?
Or does our letter writer's concern only extend to Americans?
People fear the reverse lottery, where they play by the rules, do everything right, but are chosen by fate to lose everything (or at least a lot of what they had). Protectionists are folks who focus on reducing one of the factors that increase the frequency of reverse lottery losers.
I thought the question was: "How are you going to feed your family?" I never saw an answer to that (as well as the short term implications of that question).
Support buggy whip makers—pass a law making everyone convert to Amishism.
Only then should Congress take on the BSC.
Here is my answer: I would vote for a Democrat.
Here again, the "rights" argument gets nowhere with this guy in Australia, because he can't take it seriously. He sees "not right" stuff all around him every day, so when you suggest that he organize his life or his thinking around some abstract morality, he only rolls his eyes. What is he, Jesus? He's supposed to be the sacrificial lamb for Don's "rights", even while Don sits in his ivory tower in a state university enjoying his tenure? No sale.
So my answer to these questions is different. Who cares? That's the answer. You can also tell me to give my possessions to the poor and turn the other cheek. That sounds nice too, but I won't be pursuing this strategy unilaterally, regardless of how "right" it seems, so you needn't bother.
I would ask different questions. What makes you think that replacing me with a $10,000 Indian worker harms me? I've changed jobs several times in my life already. I'm not only a disagreeable sort in this forum, so I've been encouraged to change jobs a few times. Every time, without except thus far, I end up better off. My compensation increases, every time.
So if someone tells me that they might replace me with someone earning a fraction of my income, I ask myself some questions. Am I really so valuable? Should I be exploring other lines of work?
This guy tells me that I'm easily and cheaply replaced. Is he conning me? Does he also believe that nine women can make a baby in one month? Will he regret a decision replace me? Can I find another employer pursuing a different strategy?
Can I fire my boss instead? Can I hire the $10,000 Indian worker and assume the role that my boss expects to play when he's fired me? Can my boss really add more value to the Indian's labor as I could add myself in the leadership role, or is my boss conning himself?
I'm a professional software developer in mid-career, even late career by the standards of a profession which grows rapidly and absorbs a lot of young talent. I've listened to MBAs in blue suits for years telling me that my work is destined for Bangalore, but maybe they're confusing my job with theirs. Maybe their self-assurance is so much wishful thinking. Maybe they're the ones in the unemployment line now.
H1-B Visas were made for my profession. My potential employers would quadruple the number if they could. Does this fact scare me? No. In fact, I'd quadruple the number too. Why? Because I'm an experienced worker, and experience really is valuable in my profession. That's not just a lot of bullshit peddled by entrenched interests in some corporatist establishment seeking seniority rents. It's true.
The way I see it, keeping Indian software developers out of the U.S. only slows the growth of software development here, and that can't be good for me.
Plac Ebo said:
Easy…utilize the insurance I have through my fraternal organization…ahh…err…that's right…those were regulated out of existence by the government.
No. You should be happy you are a member of a society that offer you the opertunity of unemployment due to outsourcing your job to a lower bidder.
You now have more incentive to seek opertunity, which improves your chances of capitalizing on new opertunity.
You could, for instance, offer your services for less money than the rate in India, and in this way, increase overall efficiency.
K Ackermann likely believes that he scores points with his uninformed ridicule. I recommend that he take the opportunity to read the economic arguments for free trade.
Don, time to repost your column on polio vaccine.
Plac –
Don's answer to the original question was indirect. I suspect the direct answer would be the same as my answer: "I would find something else to do."
Sure, there are always people who, for whatever reason, find themselves completely incapable of doing anything other than X, where X is a job that has disappeared. But, the right answer isn't to do X; it's to encourage them to find a Y that hasn't disappeared.
Well, I might point out that the twit from Australia appears to assume that Don has been squandering every single penny of his alleged $150,000 a year salary and being severed from employment means instant poverty. Not too bright an assumption in my view, just argumentative and ignorant is all.
But hey, for Australian, and even Californian, socialist twits, I guess it makes sense to squander everything as soon as you get it……sugar daddy super nanny government is there to pick you up and feed you.
How are you going to feed your family?
Doing something else. Duh!
Chief Terminator of Economic Ignorance, YOU'RE FIRED…well or at least demoted. Because of the expectations that come with your job title and because of No Muirgeo Left Behind legislation, we're replacing you someone who will TrUmPeT misinformation all day long at a fraction of the cost and changing the job title as well
Martin,
You mentioned on another thread that sometimes block quotes are published, but not every time. It may be that if you hit preview, and then hit the post button below the Comments box, instead of using the Post button in the This is only a preview box, that you lose HTML when it posts.
That seemed to happen to me earlier. Hope this helps.
My insightful (not inciteful)comment was deleted unfairly, I believe. Can you only stand the sound of your own voice? In that case, I won't sign up for your Econ. 101 class or recommend you to my friends. You may be out of a job if no one signs up for your class. The unemployment line awaits you…, too. Perhaps you can work as a censor somewhere. No training is required, evidently.
Russ Roberts recently pointed out that the wealth of our society is due in no small part to the Division of Labour which requires that workers/companies be Specialized. A workers whose specialty is no longer required is IN TROUBLE because of the time and money require to get RESPECIALIZED. That assumes that person is retrainable and that the older worker stands a chance against an energetic, and eager younger worker. You can foolishly, heartlessly believe in letting the chips fall where they may, but I don't believe Main St. is a Vegas casino, except when it comes to the thieves on Wall St.
Those of you who are living off your parents' inheritances, or have a cushy job don't seem to understand the harsh facts of life. That's too bad. No one should listen to your slanted views; they should be extirpated by a conscientious redactor.
Why should the taxpayers of Australia be forced to spend $150,000 on my services when they can get them for a mere $10,000? With such high prices, how can they feed their families?
Mr. Trumpit, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Tom,
If this were my blog, I would delete your nasty comment because it added nothing but vituperation to the discussion. You are plainly a troll. That is the lowest, most demeaning job out there. No training or specialization is required to be a troll, only obnoxiousness. Can you add some VALUE to the discussion? If not, society will discard you in favor of someone who can.
LCJ,
"Why should the taxpayers of Australia be forced to spend $150,000 on my services when they can get them for a mere $10,000? With such high prices, how can they feed their families?"
This is not fair to the POOR taxpayer either. I don't like to screw the RICH taxpayer needlessly either. I would only screw them when necessary, like to pay for Bush's war in Iraq which a lot of rich republicans voted for, and made hay out of.
How can the poor Bangladeshi Phd in economics feed his family when teaching positions in the U.S. are being protected from fair competition? There ought to be a law to stop that nonsense once and for all. He or she spent 10 years in college getting an education only to have to work at 7-11 selling beer during the graveyard shift. There ought to be a law.
http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComic.mpl?date=2009/5/4&name=Dilbert
"Mr. Trumpit, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
-Tom
Take it easy psyco! I'm sure t-pit has never seen Billy Madison
"You are plainly a troll."
-t-pit
You calling someone a troll is like {enter lame cliché about hypocrisy here].
"…like to pay for Bush's war in Iraq which a lot of rich republicans voted for, and made hay out of…."
-t-pit
No dems voted for the war?
MWG,
I would tax all rich taxpayers equally, whether they be Rep. or Dem. even if morally the Rep. should be taxed at a higher rate. I don't think that the Constitution would permit deferentiating on the basis of party afiliation. I never really like that expression about justice being blind. Should it be deaf as well?
Trumpit,
Why do you believe that the republican should morally be taxed higher? I thought that republican and democratic members generally made comparable incomes. Is it because they voted for the war which consumed more resources? Does this imply that those that consume more in other areas should morally be taxed more?
Tom,
Despite the fact the fact that I don't think we should feed the troll, that was very funny.
MWG, Cheers,
The troll has never added anything particularly germane to any post that Don or Russ has made, and he doesn't respond very well when replied to. Why bother?
You evaded the question Don. You went in a different direction. Firms are not outsourcing because people are not demanding less software. Thought: perhaps a direct answer once and a while would be better than being condescending all the time (though I'm sure you deny being so).
"How can the poor Bangladeshi Phd in economics feed his family when teaching positions in the U.S. are being protected from fair competition? There ought to be a law to stop that nonsense once and for all. He or she spent 10 years in college getting an education only to have to work at 7-11 selling beer during the graveyard shift. There ought to be a law."
Hahahaha. Now you're talking Trumpit!
Thanks, Brotio. I've been looking for a repeatable pattern. Hope that's it.
MnM, I know… Sometime I just can't help myself…
Well, it seems that the person who was previously paying $150,000 a year for education now has that covered and has an extra $140,000 a year to spend.
A good answer to the question is, "What does that who just saved $140,000 a year want me to do?" Money saved by outsourcing is money that can now be spent on other things. Demand for other goods will increase, and job opportunities along with it.
Yes, but I will apply realism and logic as much as I am able. Trumpit may not respond, but he/she does listen, and that's sufficient for me.
Interesting point about taxing Rep's versus Dem's. Aren't the Dem's the ones that want gov't spending? I actually, wish they'd pass a law that when the speaker of the house is a Dem then taxes go up by 20% retroactively that year.
Anyway, what is the Director of Economics going to do. Simple, if he is really worth that much they he should be able to find employment elsewhere at something close to that salary. If he was overpaid, then he'll be working alongside the Bangladeshi in a bulletproof vest at the convenience mart during graveyard.
Mr Boudreaux:
My compliments to you on taking the moral stand on this issue. You went to the very heart of the question: If people have no more need for your services, do you have the right to force them to pay you for those services anyway? This is what free markets are all about, individual freedom.
Don,
Small tip:
If people have trouble understanding the basic economic principles, then it could be a smart thing to do to make your arguments a bit more 'down to earth'.
To expose what I believe to be the labor and border protectionist core of the question posed by ssotu, why not substitute the city of Ballarat for the one where the comparatively cheaper professional in India resides? It also helps minimize the potential for race vilification and makes the argument much less potentially xenophobic.
Ballarat is 105 km (65 mi.) northwest from Melbourne (where ssotu is), both in the state of Victoria, Australia (and I am assuming Don Boudreaux would have relocated to Melbourne for his $150K job – the city is beautiful and well worth the move). It would make it easier for the Ballaratian to replace Don, especially if direct contact was required to exchange any asset-specific knowledge required by the role.
I guess this would demolish the argument, wouldn’t it? Or could ssotu complain that a fellow Australian (or resident of Australia, or anyone with the right to work in Australia) would contest that market by offering the same product (services) at a fraction of the cost by means of a better process?
The way the question was framed at ssotu may be a symptom of the ill-founded belief that that others a) should be denied the capability or b) naturally do not have the ability to develop technology that can provide the same outcome by less costly methods (technical progress, anyone?). It unfortunately deflects the thread of the argument to an undefined ‘they’ as the cause of ‘our’ problems, ‘they’ being out of reach (of local protectionist barriers) and generally foreign.
Sincerely,
Mauro Mello Jr.
Sydney, Australia
How would you feed your family? Are you an economist or an activist? It would be great to be freed form economic ignorance for 10,000 a year, then we`d have 140,000 more to feed your´s by our imports dont you think?
I think Mauro Mello Jr. hits it out of the park. Allow me to be the first to welcome you tot he Cafe.
I read the first few comments regarding this posting. The jackasses who responded should take the time to clarify their thoughts before posting them on this Web site.
In fact, Boudreaux should close comments on his entries. Who cares what all the hacks who post comments say?
{ 2 trackbacks }