- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/6745228
TLDR: Apple wants to keep china happy, Stewart was going after china in some way, Apple said don’t, Stewart walked, the show is dead.
Not surprising at all, but sad and shitty and definitely reduces my loyalty to the platform. Hosting Stewart seemed like a real power play from Apple, where conflict like this was inevitable, but they were basically saying, yes we know, but we believe in things and, as a big company with deep pockets that can therefore take risks, to prove it we’re hosting this show.
Changing their minds like this is worse than ever hosting the show in the first place as it shows they probably don’t know what they’re doing or believe in at all, like any big company, and just going for what seems cool, and undermining the very idea of a company like Apple running a streaming platform. I wonder if the Morning Show/Wars people are paying close attention.
For that you need 2 data pieces:
You then use the second to convert the first into US Dollars so that you compare the Chinese salaries in USD to American salaries is USD.
Merely the second piece of data wIthout the first means nothing if you’re trying to compare salaries.
For example, before the Euro the Italian Lira used to have a cross currency exchange rate with the dollar which was thousands of lire per dollar and that didn’t mean Italians in the 80s were incredibly poor: because for every dollar the average US worker received in their salary the average Italian worker got thousands of lire, all put together mean they got about 1/2 to 1/3 of a US salary rather that the 1/1000 that by your the exchange rate alone suffices “logic”.
By the way, that cross currency exchange rates are meaningless to compare incomes or costs without the actual incomes and prices in the local currency, is really, really, REALLY basic financial knowledge.
You don’t need to do this because you only need to look at the fact that those jobs are competed for to see that they are desirable.
Wage parity isn’t a meaningful discussion when discussing comparative advantage. Too many other factors come into play.
Okay but you realize that any job would be competitive in situations of poverty right? That’s why you need the second data point.
That’s specifically why comparative advantage is a good thing - lifting people out of poverty is a good thing.
To fully measure Comparitive Advantages, you must include the differences in manpower costs, which brings us back to salaries (plus, since this is to compare manpower costs, you also need things like the employer-side tax costs such as social security payments), which then needs to be converted to a single currency using cross-currency exchange rates.
Further, every single monetary elements of calculating Comparitive Advantage which is in local currencies needs to go through those cross-currency exchange rates in order to be comparable.
There is no way you can calculate comparative advantage merelly with the single datapoint which is a cross-currency exchange rate because all that tells you is the relation between two units of measurement and says nothing about the actual quantities being measured.
As I said, this is incredibly basic financial stuff.
To give you a really basic non-financial example which hopefully will make you understand it:
What you wrote in your original post is equivalent to saying that “The farm in Britain produces more milk because 1 pint = 1.759754 liters”.
You don’t know anything about how many pints the British farm produces, or about how many liters the Dutch farm produces, yet you claimed the ratio between two measurement units is enough by let you draw conclusions production numbers even though you used no prodution numbers.
If I was to bet I would say you’ve read some articles about how the exchange rate of the Yuan vs USD is kept artificially low to increase the competiviness of Chinese exports, didn’t quite understand how it works and still though you knew enough and applied it were it wasn’t applicable and/or in the wrong way.