Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

Once again, the main issue isn't necessarily buying foreign products. Like many of you are saying, yes, it's beneficial sometimes to get cheaper products from other countries.

 

The problem that Trump continues to mention is that so many of our major companies are leaving and setting up factories in other countries and face no penalty in doing so. Then people complain that there aren't enough good jobs. Something has to be done to keep these companies from fleeing to other countries.

 

Or is that not an issue either?...

How has Trump proposed to fix this?

I am still interested in this question.
I seem to recall him saying he wants tariffs, or higher tariffs, for companies that have their products made outside the U.S. This should have happened 30 years ago when Wal-mart was claiming to sell American products in order to lure customers but was actually having the majority of their products made cheaply using low-quality materials by children and other low-paid workers in China. Now almost all companies have followed suit and we've already lost so many jobs. I'd think it'd be kind of hard to start some of these manufacturing places over again. And now I'm guessing a lot of the type of workers who had decent paying manufacturing jobs are now working minimum wage jobs at places like... Wal-mart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Define children Morraine. The laborists try to use 17 and younger, and even then I see it's like 10% employment rates.

 

And it continues decline as automation in processes increase.

 

Tariffs would be a horrible solution for everyone except special interest labor groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, let's assume I own a company that is competing with a company based in China and that Chinese company is importing products that are the same quality as mine but 30% cheaper and it's taking all of my sales. If the only way I believe I can compete is to also produce my products in China, I'm going to be penalized by my own government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, let's assume I own a company that is competing with a company based in China and that Chinese company is importing products that are the same quality as mine but 30% cheaper and it's taking all of my sales. If the only way I believe I can compete is to also produce my products in China, I'm going to be penalized by the government?

If you run a real estate company, you're probably fine with this approach.

 

(You're hitting on all the obvious pitfalls with the populists' messages, by the way... But I wouldn't expect Bernie or Trump supporters to answer you directly)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Once again, the main issue isn't necessarily buying foreign products. Like many of you are saying, yes, it's beneficial sometimes to get cheaper products from other countries.

 

The problem that Trump continues to mention is that so many of our major companies are leaving and setting up factories in other countries and face no penalty in doing so. Then people complain that there aren't enough good jobs. Something has to be done to keep these companies from fleeing to other countries.

 

Or is that not an issue either?...

 

It's a huge issue. I'd love to keep more jobs and taxes in America, but to address this would require federal government regulation and anti-free market policies of the highest order, as long as you're down with that precedent.

 

U.S. employers also complain that Americans simply aren't willing to take the kind of jobs we ship overseas, which is why they rely on immigrants to fill the positions.

 

Right now we're the victims of our own success and it will require some major shifts in cultural attitude -- moreso perhaps than public policy -- to turn things around.

 

 

first, I think we need to understand the magnitude of the labor shifts, which I think are exaggerated. Second, we need to talk about how we can make keeping jobs in depressed American areas, cities or rural, as attractive as moving them overseas. Third, we need to seriously consider how we can efficiently and fairly redistribute the fruits of globalization and its increased productivity, especially for those who are termed "short term losers" as their functions are moved to lower cost regions.

 

 

Along with the exodus to cheap overseas labor, the big shift in the last half-century (probably more) is that Americans believe their upwardly mobile offspring must go to college, after which they are entitled to the high paying jobs that come with college education.

 

That investment into college no longer adds up. Not like it did when you wanted to escape the family legacy of working for the same farm or factory.

 

We need to get rid of the stigma against trade school and service jobs. Maybe by pointing out that electricians, plumbers and furniture makers make far more than unemployed lawyers, without those crippling college loans to pay off.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Once again, the main issue isn't necessarily buying foreign products. Like many of you are saying, yes, it's beneficial sometimes to get cheaper products from other countries.

 

The problem that Trump continues to mention is that so many of our major companies are leaving and setting up factories in other countries and face no penalty in doing so. Then people complain that there aren't enough good jobs. Something has to be done to keep these companies from fleeing to other countries.

 

Or is that not an issue either?...

 

It's a huge issue. I'd love to keep more jobs and taxes in America, but to address this would require federal government regulation and anti-free market policies of the highest order, as long as you're down with that precedent.

 

U.S. employers also complain that Americans simply aren't willing to take the kind of jobs we ship overseas, which is why they rely on immigrants to fill the positions.

 

Right now we're the victims of our own success and it will require some major shifts in cultural attitude -- moreso perhaps than public policy -- to turn things around.

 

 

first, I think we need to understand the magnitude of the labor shifts, which I think are exaggerated. Second, we need to talk about how we can make keeping jobs in depressed American areas, cities or rural, as attractive as moving them overseas. Third, we need to seriously consider how we can efficiently and fairly redistribute the fruits of globalization and its increased productivity, especially for those who are termed "short term losers" as their functions are moved to lower cost regions.

 

 

Along with the exodus to cheap overseas labor, the big shift in the last half-century (probably more) is that Americans believe their upwardly mobile offspring must go to college, after which they are entitled to the high paying jobs that come with college education.

 

That investment into college no longer adds up. Not like it did when you wanted to escape the family legacy of working for the same farm or factory.

 

We need to get rid of the stigma against trade school and service jobs. Maybe by pointing out that electricians, plumbers and furniture makers make far more than unemployed lawyers, without those crippling college loans to pay off.

 

 

Bernie never made a peep about trade schools in his campaign. As the candidate with decidedly the most robust stance on post-secondary education, I never understood why. Trade schools would have been necessary in conjunction with his plan to eliminate tuition at state schools that likely would have pushed some folks out of colleges.

 

But you're absolutely right about the bolded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, let's assume I own a company that is competing with a company based in China and that Chinese company is importing products that are the same quality as mine but 30% cheaper and it's taking all of my sales. If the only way I believe I can compete is to also produce my products in China, I'm going to be penalized by my own government?

I guess nobody who supports Trump wants to discuss how exactly he is going to accomplish what he says he will do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, let's assume I own a company that is competing with a company based in China and that Chinese company is importing products that are the same quality as mine but 30% cheaper and it's taking all of my sales. If the only way I believe I can compete is to also produce my products in China, I'm going to be penalized by my own government?

I guess nobody who supports Trump wants to discuss how exactly he is going to accomplish what he says he will do?

 

 

Did you just attack... yourself? :P

 

Haha. Took me a second to realize you were just bumping your own post.

 

No, I think the Brexit camp really sh#t the bed after they got the result they wanted. It's looking like Theresa May may wind up being the new PM. She's the Home Secretary and an ardent "Remain" supporter. Farage resigned, Johnson resigned, this Gove guy got killed in the first vote for PM... There's really very little vocal leadership for the Leave camp right now.

 

They don't seem to have a whole lot of answers beyond "We want all the benefits and none of the immigration that comes with being an EU member."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So, let's assume I own a company that is competing with a company based in China and that Chinese company is importing products that are the same quality as mine but 30% cheaper and it's taking all of my sales. If the only way I believe I can compete is to also produce my products in China, I'm going to be penalized by my own government?

I guess nobody who supports Trump wants to discuss how exactly he is going to accomplish what he says he will do?

 

 

Did you just attack... yourself? :P

 

Haha. Took me a second to realize you were just bumping your own post.

 

No, I think the Brexit camp really sh#t the bed after they got the result they wanted. It's looking like Theresa May may wind up being the new PM. She's the Home Secretary and an ardent "Remain" supporter. Farage resigned, Johnson resigned, this Gove guy got killed in the first vote for PM... There's really very little vocal leadership for the Leave camp right now.

 

They don't seem to have a whole lot of answers beyond "We want all the benefits and none of the immigration that comes with being an EU member."

 

That's the problem with so many political movements that people get emotionally caught up in.

 

There isn't any rational thought of what happens if they actually get their way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Once again, the main issue isn't necessarily buying foreign products. Like many of you are saying, yes, it's beneficial sometimes to get cheaper products from other countries.

 

The problem that Trump continues to mention is that so many of our major companies are leaving and setting up factories in other countries and face no penalty in doing so. Then people complain that there aren't enough good jobs. Something has to be done to keep these companies from fleeing to other countries.

 

Or is that not an issue either?...

If you want cheap goods, how will bringing rhe jobs back to US shores help that? It's a catch 22. Yes the low paying jobs woukd be nice for some to have, over no job at all... but cheap goods...

 

 

 

If you think that Ford moving its factories to Mexico is going to make Ford vehicles cheaper for consumers in the US, that's very misguided. Companies don't move out of the US to make their products cheaper (typically). They do it so they can increase their margins, and that's incredibly easy for them to do by moving out of the country since there is currently no penalty for doing so.

 

 

 

Once again, the main issue isn't necessarily buying foreign products. Like many of you are saying, yes, it's beneficial sometimes to get cheaper products from other countries.

 

The problem that Trump continues to mention is that so many of our major companies are leaving and setting up factories in other countries and face no penalty in doing so. Then people complain that there aren't enough good jobs. Something has to be done to keep these companies from fleeing to other countries.

 

Or is that not an issue either?...

 

It's a huge issue. I'd love to keep more jobs and taxes in America, but to address this would require federal government regulation and anti-free market policies of the highest order, as long as you're down with that precedent.

 

U.S. employers also complain that Americans simply aren't willing to take the kind of jobs we ship overseas, which is why they rely on immigrants to fill the positions.

 

 

 

You realize these huge companies lay off thousand of workers who happen to be American in order to move out of the US, right? So the idea that Americans don't want these jobs is tremendously off-target. You're 100% right about the college idea from a few posts ago.

 

Regarding free-market principals, I think we have a mix-up on that idea as well. Here in the US, yes, interstate trade should be absolutely free market with very few necessary regulations where the consumers decide what products they want to buy and what to pay for them. When it comes to trade with other countries, that's where the currency exchange rate, labor cost differences, and other factors need to be taken into account in order to protect (not harm) American businesses so they can compete. People can complain about it hurting the consumer, but the better off American companies are, theoretically the better paying and higher number of jobs they will be able to provide to American workers, and the more money American workers will have to spend on goods. And with lower tax rates on American workers and businesses that Trump will work to implement, goods should decrease in cost a little, more jobs will be available, and workers will have more money to take home from their paychecks rather than pay 30-35% to the government.

 

It's a cyclical effect, and we've been trending the wrong direction for decades now. It's time to turn it back again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

If you think that Ford moving its factories to Mexico is going to make Ford vehicles cheaper for consumers in the US, that's very misguided. Companies don't move out of the US to make their products cheaper (typically). They do it so they can increase their margins, and that's incredibly easy for them to do by moving out of the country since there is currently no penalty for doing so.

 

 

That is absolutely so misguided and wrong it's ridiculous.

 

I personally know multiple companies who did this to survive. To survive they needed to compete with imported products and the only way to do that is to also import their products because it's produced cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shark, are you serious? Cheaper production means more investment in development and, as long as we have a free markets, cuts (or slower growth) in prices, both of which benefit consumers.

 

You're drawing distinctions without differences as you try to split the hair between free trade among states and free trade among nations. Currency and labor values effectively vary from state to state (look at the average cost of a product in Nebraska versus LA, for example). Labor in Alabama is cheaper than NYC.

 

Your suggestion seems to be that companies should be awarded various types of subsidies (corporate welfare) so they can compete better. My question is, who pays for that and who gets to control the purse strings? You've struck me as a conservative and fan of people like Reagan who beat a drum against government largesse, intervention and managed economies. Why are you ok with what would be a massive expansion of those programs?

 

You also seem to be using cyclical math... Or more aptly, circular math... In your last paragraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your suggestion seems to be that companies should be awarded various types of subsidies (corporate welfare) so they can compete better. My question is, who pays for that and who gets to control the purse strings?

 

Never once did I say that or make any reference that would hint of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your suggestion seems to be that companies should be awarded various types of subsidies (corporate welfare) so they can compete better. My question is, who pays for that and who gets to control the purse strings?

 

Never once did I say that or make any reference that would hint of that.

 

 

 

Yes, you absolutely have.

 

How else would we "protect (not harm) American businesses so they can compete."?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Your suggestion seems to be that companies should be awarded various types of subsidies (corporate welfare) so they can compete better. My question is, who pays for that and who gets to control the purse strings?

 

Never once did I say that or make any reference that would hint of that.

 

 

 

Yes, you absolutely have.

 

How else would we "protect (not harm) American businesses so they can compete."?

 

 

 

When it comes to trade with other countries, that's where the currency exchange rate, labor cost differences, and other factors need to be taken into account in order to protect (not harm) American businesses so they can compete.

 

Meaning if we trade with Mexico on products that American companies also produce, and the difference in labor costs, currency exchange, etc. figures up at 23%, then there ought to be a tariff or trade tax on those goods of 23% in order to protect our businesses.

 

I'm not worried about passing a little cost onto consumers, because the strengthened economy and job market that will result from this trade arrangement, as well as lowered taxes that Trump is proposing will more than make up for the slight increase in cost of goods. We're a country that is spoiled with unnecessary goods already. Most welfare and unemployment collectors already have iphones and Xboxes, so people really can't complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×