Time to tax the poor?

[tschu]

In general he product coming from China is cheaper to produce because of the borderline slave labor. It's not a quality issue.

Labor costs are a big obstacle but some people will still pay more money for a better product.

...a Chinese product can be of better quality and cost the same as an inferior American-produced product. That's the issue.

[JJ Husker]

"Some" will pay more for a better product but most will not - evidence Wal-Mart and the decline of smaller retailers and mom & pop stores. There has to be a healthy mixture of buy American sentiment, protectionist polices and tariffs, and regulatory support (not job killing strangulation). We can't expect the average consumer to electively pay more for most goods. It's time to level the playing field with cheap Asian labor. We need to reshore some of these low tech, low education jobs. If we do it with livable wages and acceptable safety and work conditions, tariffs can do the rest of the job.

Free market choice + government manipulation?

 

Yes, generally I would be against government manipulation but I've pretty much resigned to accept that at least some is here to stay. I would much prefer manipulation that would encourage employment and consumption of US made goods rather than policies that necessitate off shoring of jobs and purchasing foreign made goods.

[BigRedBuster]

So, let me ask this, if i am an American company and i am taxed heavily if i send manufacturing to China, but a Chinese company can import products without any added tariff, how am i supposed to compete?

 

 

 

I would agree that many of those jobs that used to pay a livable wage do not seem to exist anymore. I think our economy and value are way out of whack due to the loss of so many manufacturing jobs. I'm not often accused of being overly brilliant but I would say we're on the wrong path, sending more and more of our money to foreign countries to buy things our people could be making, all the while we create a few more service industry (starbucks, fast food) type jobs. The day is coming that $5 coffees aren't going to cut it. Instead of fixing this root problem, we extend unemployment benefits and continue paying slave labor in Asia to provide necessities. That's not the fault of any one party. It's a collective failure of our government and our citizens that don't seem to have even a remedial grasp of how it all works.

 

Who do you think sent the jobs to Asia? Your job creators who you don't want to increase taxes on, that's who.

Make a better product than the product coming from China?

 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen.....

 

Welcome to the reason why manufacturing as left the US.

 

Thanks for playing along.

[carlfense]

In general he product coming from China is cheaper to produce because of the borderline slave labor. It's not a quality issue.

Labor costs are a big obstacle but some people will still pay more money for a better product.

...a Chinese product can be of better quality and cost the same as an inferior American-produced product. That's the issue.

I agree. Chinese products can be of better quality but it's hardly like the deck is stacked entirely in favor of the Chinese.

 

It's just a noticeable change to see some who want the government to let them run their business as they see fit calling for the government to step in and save their business.

 

Government assistance is always bad unless it's helping me.

[carlfense]

Ladies and Gentlemen.....

 

Welcome to the reason why manufacturing as left the US.

 

Thanks for playing along.

They left because they can't make and market a better product than communist China?

[TGHusker]

Labor costs aren't the only reason for the price advantage Chines goods have, China's currency is held at an artificially low value - making our goods imported into their country more expensive & their goods coming to us artificially low. I know both Obama and GWB admins have addressed this wt China - but to no avail. So, 2 can play at this game - to offset and make a even playing field - tarriffs may be needed. Free trade must be fair trade for it to work. We as a society have to decide what we value more - cheap prices regardless of origin of the goods or more home based manufacturing jobs. It starts wt individual choices. When I buy athletic socks at Walmart - I have a choice of cheaper foreign made or I can pay about a $1 more per package for Fruit of the Loom - I buy the FotL.

 

The more 'sinister' thing at play, is that big corporations like the cheap price of overseas labor. Big Govt (repub and dem) have worked together wt big corps for too long to drive greater profits wt cheap labor. I'm not an economist, but I have to believe in the long term this has unforeseen ramifications in our low job participation rate (other thread) & our cost of govt. Do we end up making up with the cheap consumer goods, by paying more in taxes to support the high # of people without jobs? Perhaps one of you have more insight into this -

[carlfense]

Labor costs aren't the only reason for the price advantage Chines goods have, China's currency is held at an artificially low value - making our goods imported into their country more expensive & their goods coming to us artificially low. I know both Obama and GWB admins have addressed this wt China - but to no avail. So, 2 can play at this game - to offset and make a even playing field - tarriffs may be needed. Free trade must be fair trade for it to work. We as a society have to decide what we value more - cheap prices regardless of origin of the goods or more home based manufacturing jobs. It starts wt individual choices. When I buy athletic socks at Walmart - I have a choice of cheaper foreign made or I can pay about a $1 more per package for Fruit of the Loom - I buy the FotL.

I'd support some sort of trade reciprocity legislation. If other countries enact tariffs on US goods we should mirror them.

 

The more 'sinister' thing at play, is that big corporations like the cheap price of overseas labor. Big Govt (repub and dem) have worked together wt big corps for too long to drive greater profits wt cheap labor.

I thought the general argument from the right was that the Democratic Party is beholden to organized labor?

[strigori]

Good point HSKR. And no, I don't think a majority of our manufacturing jobs were off shored by our own job creators or primarily by the republican party. If I had to assign blame along party lines, I would be looking at the job killing policies of the dem party. Out of control unions, overbearing regulations, OSHA safety bs that far exceeds our global competition, a total lack of protectionist policies, and selfish consumers who can't comprehend the effect they have when they choose to not buy American.

The 'out of control unions' line is propaganda heavy. Company's are very quick to call anything that is not the CEO's line 'out of line' The mass misinformation around the Hostess collapse and it being the 'fault of unions' comes to mind right away.

 

OSHA could use a revamp, but it is needed. It was created for a reason. And Europe is at least on par with us, and using China or India as a comparison makes no sense.

 

We have protectionist policies, just not on things that make sense, and are generally only in existence to protect a small political interest. Sugar comes to mind. We absolutely could use some new legislation. But we had the red party block tax incentives for companies bringing jobs back to the US.

 

Consumers are morons by and large. And too prone manipulation. TV ads equates to 'truth' for far too many.

 

The explosion of the pay for the 'management' of companies over the last 30 years or so is one of the biggest issues, and one that gets far too little attention.

[TGHusker]

Labor costs aren't the only reason for the price advantage Chines goods have, China's currency is held at an artificially low value - making our goods imported into their country more expensive & their goods coming to us artificially low. I know both Obama and GWB admins have addressed this wt China - but to no avail. So, 2 can play at this game - to offset and make a even playing field - tarriffs may be needed. Free trade must be fair trade for it to work. We as a society have to decide what we value more - cheap prices regardless of origin of the goods or more home based manufacturing jobs. It starts wt individual choices. When I buy athletic socks at Walmart - I have a choice of cheaper foreign made or I can pay about a $1 more per package for Fruit of the Loom - I buy the FotL.

I'd support some sort of trade reciprocity legislation. If other countries enact tariffs on US goods we should mirror them.

 

The more 'sinister' thing at play, is that big corporations like the cheap price of overseas labor. Big Govt (repub and dem) have worked together wt big corps for too long to drive greater profits wt cheap labor.

I thought the general argument from the right was that the Democratic Party is beholden to organized labor?

That can go both ways - big labor is beholden to the dems and visa versa - they both scratch each others back. However, that is probably more of a pre- 1990 arguement that is getting old and out dated. The unions, outside of the NEA, and the govt workers union, don't have as much punch as they use to.. i think with the advent of NAFTA and other free trade agreements, both parties have polished their corp cronyism (sp?) game. While non-govt union membership has gone down, the power now resides more and more in the corp boardroom.

We see both dems and repubs cuddling up with the Mansanto's (I think your thread) & other big ag corps to fashion Agriculture bills, we see GE (think green industry and wind turbines) getting a big seat at the Obama party, and large defense companies getting cozy wt Bush Cheeny before that, and big banks cozy with both - just a couple of examples. Isn't facism, in one form, the mingling of big govt with big corporations - picking winners as a result. This is why, in so many ways you don't see a lot of difference between the parties - in the actual practice of govt. They both can talk a good game on how they are different - but are Obama's solutions that much diff than Bush's (after the crash)? Both went to bailouts, stimulus, corp welfare. Even in the war - there was not a drastic change in Afgan after Obama can into office - just a slow withdrawal. In practice, I think we have Dem and Dem Lite even if the rhetoric is different. We'll see this played out in the immigration bill now being discussed.

[Someone]

Strig- Getting land from the govt in that time period cannot be compared to the govt handouts of today. To make that land payoff a person had to do something with it. It was basically worthless without adding your own toil and sweat.

 

So is it a handout if the farmer takes federal crop insurance?

 

I pay premiums every year for federal crop insurance.

Your premiums are not enough to cover the benefits paid out.

[Saunders]

Strig- Getting land from the govt in that time period cannot be compared to the govt handouts of today. To make that land payoff a person had to do something with it. It was basically worthless without adding your own toil and sweat.

 

So is it a handout if the farmer takes federal crop insurance?

 

I pay premiums every year for federal crop insurance.

Your premiums are not enough to cover the benefits paid out.

Man... You'd think he was paying for insurance or something.

[NUance]

Moreover, even before January's tax hikes, the rich were carrying a greater and greater share of the burden. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2009 the top 20% of households by income paid 94.1% of all federal income tax liabilities -- up from 65% in 1979. Compare this with the declining share for the middle 20% (2.7% versus 10.7%) and the bottom 20% (-6.6% versus 0%, due to increased tax credits).

Wow. That's sort of a shocking fact from the OP article.

[zoogs]

Isn't that just because the rich are getting richer?

 

The top 20% of households, how much income do they earn combined? Versus the middle 20%? Versus the low 20%?

[strigori]

Isn't that just because the rich are getting richer?

 

The top 20% of households, how much income do they earn combined? Versus the middle 20%? Versus the low 20%?

That's exactly the reason.

 

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/04/23/a-rise-in-wealth-for-the-wealthydeclines-for-the-lower-93/

 

 

the 8 million households in the U.S. with a net worth above $836,033 saw their aggregate wealth rise by an estimated $5.6 trillion, while the 111 million households with a net worth at or below that level saw their aggregate wealth decline by an estimated $0.6 trillion.

 

and

 

 

The upper 7% of households saw their aggregate share of the nation’s overall household wealth pie rise to 63% in 2011, up from 56% in 2009. On an individual household basis, the mean wealth of households in this more affluent group was almost 24 times that of those in the less affluent group in 2011. At the start of the recovery in 2009, that ratio had been less than 18-to-1.

[carlfense]

Strig- Getting land from the govt in that time period cannot be compared to the govt handouts of today. To make that land payoff a person had to do something with it. It was basically worthless without adding your own toil and sweat.

 

So is it a handout if the farmer takes federal crop insurance?

 

I pay premiums every year for federal crop insurance.

Your premiums are not enough to cover the benefits paid out.

Man... You'd think he was paying for insurance or something.

The difference being that I doubt that the federal government is paying 62% of your car insurance premiums and administrative costs. They are paying those for crop insurance premiums like BRBs. (The welfare queen! )