Economics 101: Supply & Demand only works when laws are not broken. Increase in the demand for labor and the price of labor increases. Increasing the number illegals causes the price of labor to fall ILLEGALLY.

Supply and demand is an economic law. It always works. Drugs are a prime example in case you need facts. Supply and demand has nothing to do with legality or illegality. That is Econ 101. For those of us who actually took the course.

Good to know you are OK with illegal trade & business practices like a monopoly, mafia criminal activity, corruption, nationalizing your business, but to name a few. How does your supply & demand work out for you then? Or is it only OK when you benefit from illegal activity that it is OK?

You are talking about two different things. The law of supply and demand is not legal or not or immoral or not it simply is.

Illegal trade is another thing. And legal trade is another thing. Supply and demand works all the time not only when laws are not broken as you said in the above post. To recap; you said, "Supply & Demand only works when laws are not broken." That statement is false.

You can't have it both ways, supply and demand is not allowed to work when laws are broken. Illegal business practices see to that, otherwise they would not do them. Just because you can find or force people to work as slaves does not make it right nor legal nor moral. Blood Diamonds come to mind or in this case Blood Products.

You can't have it both ways, supply and demand is not allowed to work when laws are broken. Illegal business practices see to that, otherwise they would not do them. Just because you can find or force people to work as slaves does not make it right nor legal nor moral. Blood Diamonds come to mind or in this case Blood Products.

Of course supply and demand works when laws are broken. What do you think determines the price of street drugs? Supply and demand. Supply and demand have nothing whatsoever to do with right and wrong.

You can't have it both ways, supply and demand is not allowed to work when laws are broken. Illegal business practices see to that, otherwise they would not do them. Just because you can find or force people to work as slaves does not make it right nor legal nor moral. Blood Diamonds come to mind or in this case Blood Products.

You are mixing oranges and apples.

Supply and demand is the basis of the system - subversion's will include price-collusion, intrusive laws or strong unions. It's not a matter of legal vs illegal, it is a matter of roadblocks towards a free market.

You can't have it both ways, supply and demand is not allowed to work when laws are broken. Illegal business practices see to that, otherwise they would not do them. Just because you can find or force people to work as slaves does not make it right nor legal nor moral. Blood Diamonds come to mind or in this case Blood Products.

Of course supply and demand works when laws are broken. What do you think determines the price of street drugs? Supply and demand. Supply and demand have nothing whatsoever to do with right and wrong.

Street drugs has more to do with the supply of bullets than the supply and demand of the drugs.

For a man who came up with the "invisible hand" , he did have his softer side too, all in the individuals self interest of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments

The first appearance of the invisible hand in Smith occurs in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) in Part IV, Chapter 1, where he describes a selfish landlord as being led by an invisible hand to distribute his harvest to those who work for him:

How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner. That we often derive sorrow from the sorrows of others, is a matter of fact too obvious to require any instances to prove it; for this sentiment, like all the other original passions of human nature, is by no means confined to the virtuous or the humane, though they perhaps may feel it with the most exquisite sensibility. The greatest ruffian, the most hardened violator of the laws of society, is not altogether without it.

You can't have it both ways, supply and demand is not allowed to work when laws are broken. Illegal business practices see to that, otherwise they would not do them. Just because you can find or force people to work as slaves does not make it right nor legal nor moral. Blood Diamonds come to mind or in this case Blood Products.

Of course supply and demand works when laws are broken. What do you think determines the price of street drugs? Supply and demand. Supply and demand have nothing whatsoever to do with right and wrong.

Street drugs has more to do with the supply of bullets than the supply and demand of the drugs.

Good on ya. At least we all know you are not a drug dealer.

a. The profits for exporters are transfer priced out of the country via hong kong. The taxes of the employees are negligible because the wages are below the threshold, and the food that they consume is usually classed as a free benefit. If you work in a restaurant they will pay less, but give you food for nothing. Give a Thai 300 baht, and 295 gets spent in Thailand, give a Cambodian 175 baht, free accomodation and free food, 100 gets spent in Thailand.

b. It appears it is only called exploitation if you underpay a Thai.

c. Equality has nothing to do with minimum wages. Giving wages lower than minimum to foreign workers hurts Thai's, and the Thai economy since the wages are exported out of the country.

But that helps the Burmese and Cambodian workers, as well as the Thai businesses. Why are you equating "good" with "good for Thais"?

If we're simply arguing that minimum wage should apply to all legal workers, then I'd agree with that, because I think the unintended consequences would cause all kinds of problems.

However if you tried to start replacing immigrant workers with Thais, then prices would really rise across the board and profits fall. To pay a Thai for hard physical labor outdoors these days would probably cost B500 a day, probably more - not counting local casual agriculture of course. And office workers wouldn't stand for their dark-skinned upcountry compatriots making higher wages would they, creating more upward cost pressures.

a. The profits for exporters are transfer priced out of the country via hong kong. The taxes of the employees are negligible because the wages are below the threshold, and the food that they consume is usually classed as a free benefit. If you work in a restaurant they will pay less, but give you food for nothing. Give a Thai 300 baht, and 295 gets spent in Thailand, give a Cambodian 175 baht, free accomodation and free food, 100 gets spent in Thailand.

b. It appears it is only called exploitation if you underpay a Thai.

c. Equality has nothing to do with minimum wages. Giving wages lower than minimum to foreign workers hurts Thai's, and the Thai economy since the wages are exported out of the country.

But that helps the Burmese and Cambodian workers, as well as the Thai businesses. Why are you equating "good" with "good for Thais"?

If we're simply arguing that minimum wage should apply to all legal workers, then I'd agree with that, because I think the unintended consequences would cause all kinds of problems.

However if you tried to start replacing immigrant workers with Thais, then prices would really rise across the board and profits fall. To pay a Thai for hard physical labor outdoors these days would probably cost B500 a day, probably more - not counting local casual agriculture of course. And office workers wouldn't stand for their dark-skinned upcountry compatriots making higher wages would they, creating more upward cost pressures.

Minimum should apply to all workers is what I am arguing, and positions should be offered to Thai workers first, not filled en masse with imported labour, without being offered to the local market first.

a. The profits for exporters are transfer priced out of the country via hong kong. The taxes of the employees are negligible because the wages are below the threshold, and the food that they consume is usually classed as a free benefit. If you work in a restaurant they will pay less, but give you food for nothing. Give a Thai 300 baht, and 295 gets spent in Thailand, give a Cambodian 175 baht, free accomodation and free food, 100 gets spent in Thailand.

b. It appears it is only called exploitation if you underpay a Thai.

c. Equality has nothing to do with minimum wages. Giving wages lower than minimum to foreign workers hurts Thai's, and the Thai economy since the wages are exported out of the country.

But that helps the Burmese and Cambodian workers, as well as the Thai businesses. Why are you equating "good" with "good for Thais"?

If we're simply arguing that minimum wage should apply to all legal workers, then I'd agree with that, because I think the unintended consequences would cause all kinds of problems.

However if you tried to start replacing immigrant workers with Thais, then prices would really rise across the board and profits fall. To pay a Thai for hard physical labor outdoors these days would probably cost B500 a day, probably more - not counting local casual agriculture of course. And office workers wouldn't stand for their dark-skinned upcountry compatriots making higher wages would they, creating more upward cost pressures.

Minimum should apply to all workers is what I am arguing, and positions should be offered to Thai workers first, not filled en masse with imported labour, without being offered to the local market first.

Thailand has a shortage of workers. Australia has a shortage of workers. Burma has a surplus of workers. Now what do you think is going to happen? It has nothing to do with minimum wages. It has to do with supply and demand.

Should is the key word in your post. Who says should? The company? It's stockholders? The politicians that are in the company's pocket? Of course the people who run Thailand want millions of migrant laborers in the country as it makes real wages lower. My hotel room was cheaper because of Burmese labor. My shirt is cheaper because of Burmese labor. My only question is when it will trickle down to the bar level. I would estimate currently only 10% of bar employees are Burmese.

And it will put millions of Thais out of jobs. If that is what is wanted, lets wait and see where Thailand ends up in 5 years time. We aren't talking about a country with massive social safety nets here. If millions of 300 baht a day workers are bid out of jobs by Burmese on 200 baht a day, what the hell is going to happen to society here? This isn't Saudi where the GDP per head is 30k+ USD per year.

I was in a chicken processing factory the other day, world class installation, 2 Japanese managers, maybe 20 Thai middle managers, and over 1000 Cambodians living in apartments specifically built for housing them. 95% of the product exported to Japan. The entire business model of the place was based around essentially exploiting Cambodian wage rates whilst securing investment under Thai law. All very well and good you could say, but after asking around, they never actually advertised the jobs for the local population to apply, so whilst a few middle guys get paid, the economic benefits of the investment fly their way across the border to Cambodia every month.

Get with the program. The Thais go to Australia. This all works. Where the Aussies go I don't know. But this is not an Aussie Econ thread anyway.

We come back to Thailand.Win win.

a. The profits for exporters are transfer priced out of the country via hong kong. The taxes of the employees are negligible because the wages are below the threshold, and the food that they consume is usually classed as a free benefit. If you work in a restaurant they will pay less, but give you food for nothing. Give a Thai 300 baht, and 295 gets spent in Thailand, give a Cambodian 175 baht, free accomodation and free food, 100 gets spent in Thailand.

b. It appears it is only called exploitation if you underpay a Thai.

c. Equality has nothing to do with minimum wages. Giving wages lower than minimum to foreign workers hurts Thai's, and the Thai economy since the wages are exported out of the country.

But that helps the Burmese and Cambodian workers, as well as the Thai businesses. Why are you equating "good" with "good for Thais"?

If we're simply arguing that minimum wage should apply to all legal workers, then I'd agree with that, because I think the unintended consequences would cause all kinds of problems.

However if you tried to start replacing immigrant workers with Thais, then prices would really rise across the board and profits fall. To pay a Thai for hard physical labor outdoors these days would probably cost B500 a day, probably more - not counting local casual agriculture of course. And office workers wouldn't stand for their dark-skinned upcountry compatriots making higher wages would they, creating more upward cost pressures.

Minimum should apply to all workers is what I am arguing, and positions should be offered to Thai workers first, not filled en masse with imported labour, without being offered to the local market first.

Thailand has a shortage of workers. Australia has a shortage of workers. Burma has a surplus of workers. Now what do you think is going to happen? It has nothing to do with minimum wages. It has to do with supply and demand.

Does it really have a shortage of workers?

Thailand has a shortage of workers. Australia has a shortage of workers. Burma has a surplus of workers. Now what do you think is going to happen? It has nothing to do with minimum wages. It has to do with supply and demand.

Does it really have a shortage of workers?

Yes

Aren't those Thais driven out of their jobs by the immigrants (laborers, semi - skilled workers) exactly those who

voted overwhenlmingly for Yingluck last year ???

Aren't those Thais driven out of their jobs by the immigrants (laborers, semi - skilled workers) exactly those who

voted overwhenlmingly for Yingluck last year ???

What Thais? No Thais were driven out of jobs. Can't find Thais to do the jobs. Did you read the thread? It has been years since there has been a Thai maid or construction worker.

Blood Seafood/Products.

Did slaves catch your seafood?

Thailand, a major source of fish imported to the US, depends on forced labor for its product

http://www.salon.com...h_your_seafood/

How is this supply and demand?