OT: The next President of the United States: ★★★ Donald Trump ★★★

[coldfish]

This globalization talk is very interesting. Every side has their data sets/justifications. The bottom line is jobs will go where cheap labor/efficiency exists. It is human nature to explore that avenue.

I can think of two things I was reading recently. For example, even a poor country like India cannot compete in making shoes . Some Indian shoe companies find it cheaper to make their shoes in China and import it to India. The infrastructure is already there to make it more efficiently in China compared to India.

There is also big American global agricultural companies in poor countries killing(literally making them commit suicide) the small farmers. This is efficiency killing even cheap labor.

The thing is these treaties/policies have to be flexible and look towards the future.

Just to note, transportation cost is a big issue. Earlier, Dantown noted that the US is doing well in heavy manufacturing. Its actually cheaper to ship out of the US than into it for a variety of reasons. Beyond that, something that is large and heavy costs a ton of money to ship. Even if there is a manufacturing price penalty for making something in the US, often times the delivered price is cheaper when made domestically.

I also think that trade treaties(even if sometimes unfavorable to the US) has helped reduce global poverty. This has helped some other American company eventually because those people who grow out of poverty in other countries eventually buy some American product.

My conspiracy theory is that after WWII, the global elites didn't want to do that again. The US basically sold its own middle class down the river for global stability. They knew what they were doing. As much as I don't like our trade treaties, I'm glad we are trading smart phones with China instead of artillery shells.

We really don't want to unwind our global economic system. We just need to tweak it. You can only push people so far. Today we have #Brexit and Donald Trump. If we don't fix this stuff soon, what is next? Let's just tap the brakes a little on globalization and get middle class incomes in 1st world nations growing a little.

[Mech Engineer]

Another issue relating to international trade and problems for the US is that it leaves us vulnerable IMO to produce exports in such a few sectors in big numbers. Maybe I'm missing something but it seems like most of our exports are food, major machinery, intellectual property (entertainment), and technology.

It just sets us up long term to be leveraged by other nations. To me, that is reason enough to diversify our domestic production more. And the most effective way to do that might be tariffs on imports or something like that.

Self sufficiency is inherently good IMO.

Here's another take.... one which I tend to subscribe to..

http://www2.itif.org/2015-myth-american-manufacturing-renaissance.pdf

CONCLUSION
Conditions for U.S. manufacturing are certainly better than they were a decade ago, as employment and output are both growing, albeit slowly. Despite this improvement, there
is not yet evidence to support the notion of a U.S. manufacturing renaissance. Much of the
growth since the recession’s lows was just a cyclical recovery instead of real structural
growth that will improve long-term conditions, and there is a strong possibility that manufacturing will once again decline once domestic demand recovers. American manufacturing has lost a net of over a million jobs and over 15,000 manufacturing establishments since the beginning of the Great Recession. Value added is also down by 3.2 percent from 2007 to 2013, despite overall GDP growth of 5.6 percent. Moreover, America faces a $458 billion trade deficit in manufacturing goods.
In short, it is unwise to assume that U.S. manufacturing will continue to rebound without
significant changes in national policy. The optimistic message of the manufacturing renaissance provides the public, business leaders, and policymakers with a dangerous sense of complacency that reduces the urgency and necessity for Congress and the administration to take the bold steps needed to truly and sustainably revitalize American manufacturing. To realistically assess our options, it is important to have a clear idea of where we are. The debate on U.S. manufacturing should not be informed by anecdotal evidence, consulting reports for industry, or think tanks with agendas of keeping bad news from dampening support for further global integration

One thing I want to add is the discussion about tax. When these American companies take their manufacturing to China, they need to be penalized for all the benefits they have got from American taxpayers. These companies grew big on the backs of tax benefits/incubation environment in the US and now they end up stiffing the guys who helped them grow. That is not fair. I don't know the exact solution but it seems very unfair when a company like Boeing or Apple who used everything the US provided while growing and now are not paying back the US when they move to China or somewhere else. It is kind of a double whammy to an average American employee who loses his job.

[DanTown8587]

I refuse to engage a conversation with someone who takes data, refutes with their own anecdotes, then claims they're right.

If you're so right about wages, workers, automation, and the like the data should be sitting there for you to refute my point and my data.

You can sit there and say that automation doesn't lead to less jobs because you need people to work in factories. Well that's right but think about that kind of worker: the kind of person who can build and fix machines is no longer an unskilled worker, which is your entire point about who has to work in a factory. If a factory goes from people to machines, it goes from unskilled to skilled labor as well; it's not as if a factory takes a high school graduate and then trains him to create machinery.

Again, your claims backed by data would be nice. But the old "I walk into Wal-Mart and everything is made in China so ergo I'm right" isn't data.

There is data that says that when companies in America are manufacturing, they're doing it with LESS workers. You seem to refute that entire point.

My counter-points

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-griswold-globalization-and-trade-help-manufacturing-20160801-snap-story.html

According to a recent study by the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University, productivity growth caused 85% of the job losses in manufacturing from 2000 to 2010, a period that saw 5.6 million factory jobs disappear. In that same period, trade accounted for a mere 13% of job losses.

American factories and American workers are making a greater volume of stuff than ever — high-tech, high-value products that are competitive in markets around the world. In the last 20 years, which include enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement and China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, real, inflation-adjusted U.S. manufacturing output has increased by almost 40%. Annual value added by U.S. factories has reached a record $2.4 trillion.

What has changed in recent decades is what our factories produce. Americans today make fewer shirts, shoes, toys and tables than we did 30 years ago. Instead, America’s 21st century manufacturing sector is dominated by petroleum refining, pharmaceuticals, plastics, fabricated metals, machinery, computers and other electronics, motor vehicles and other transportation equipment, and aircraft and aerospace equipment.

The problem with trade is that people like you walk into a Wal-Mart and see that everything is made in China and assume that means we cannot make those goods. No, America manufactures a ton of **** (2.1 trillion) but it's a ton of expensive **** (i.e Boeing airplanes or Catepillar machinery) that we trade for cheap **** we do not make (i.e consumer goods).

Your point should have easy data behind it, so find it.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS?locations=US

US imports 16% of GDP in goods and services now as opposed to 4% in 1950.

Quite frankly, I'm shocked I had to support that. This is common knowledge level stuff. If I say "the sky is blue", I shouldn't have to go out to the internet and find a link to support it.

Anticipating your next comment, US exports have also grown.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?locations=US

From roughly 5% to 13%. So, yeah, the net isn't nearly as awful as it is if you just look at it from an import side. However, when you dig into our real exports it starts getting ugly again. You mention Boeing, which is a good example of trade treaties harming our workers. Airbus is EU supported and gets many advantages as a result. Our trade treaties should not allow that and if they didn't, we would have more highly paid aerospace workers here.

Airbus versus Boeing is yet another common knowledge point. I shouldn't have to link anything going over how much Boeing has gotten screwed globally, but here:

http://www.boeing.com/company/key-orgs/government-operations/wto.page

Regardless, the end result is that industries that the US really is competitive in globally get screwed over. Fixing this would bring more high paying jobs to the US.

But yeah, if I have to come up with links for common sense points, please don't debate me. It'll save me some time.

Onto a more interesting discussion . . . .

So since 1980, the manufacturing labor force is down 1/3 in terms of number of workers yet exports have gone from 9.5% of GDP to around 13%. Tell me again how US manufacturing is doing so terribly.

You're right, the United States used to have a role for unskilled workers but due to both lower cost of that worker in foreign markets AND better capital investment, those workers will never find a job again.

Globalization didn't kill their jobs, technology did. Proof of that is the US manufacturing data.

[League Circles]

So since 1980, the manufacturing labor force is down 1/3 in terms of number of workers yet exports have gone from 9.5% of GDP to around 13%. Tell me again how US manufacturing is doing so terribly.

You're right, the United States used to have a role for unskilled workers but due to both lower cost of that worker in foreign markets AND better capital investment, those workers will never find a job again.

Globalization didn't kill their jobs, technology did. Proof of that is the US manufacturing data.

Two things:

GDP is an absolute piss poor way to measure, well, anything. It's the economic equivalent of PER IMO.

The second thing is a question - you refer to manufacturing data but then "exports". When you refer to "exports", are you only referring to manufactured exports?

"Exports" may very well include things like entertainment (TV and movies where we do extremely well worldwide), as well as food, which often doesn't involve increased jobs for American citizens (because so many foreign migrant workers in agriculture).

Could this be a source of disconnect?

[coldfish]

I refuse to engage a conversation with someone who takes data, refutes with their own anecdotes, then claims they're right.

If you're so right about wages, workers, automation, and the like the data should be sitting there for you to refute my point and my data.

You can sit there and say that automation doesn't lead to less jobs because you need people to work in factories. Well that's right but think about that kind of worker: the kind of person who can build and fix machines is no longer an unskilled worker, which is your entire point about who has to work in a factory. If a factory goes from people to machines, it goes from unskilled to skilled labor as well; it's not as if a factory takes a high school graduate and then trains him to create machinery.

Again, your claims backed by data would be nice. But the old "I walk into Wal-Mart and everything is made in China so ergo I'm right" isn't data.

There is data that says that when companies in America are manufacturing, they're doing it with LESS workers. You seem to refute that entire point.

My counter-points

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-griswold-globalization-and-trade-help-manufacturing-20160801-snap-story.html





The problem with trade is that people like you walk into a Wal-Mart and see that everything is made in China and assume that means we cannot make those goods. No, America manufactures a ton of **** (2.1 trillion) but it's a ton of expensive **** (i.e Boeing airplanes or Catepillar machinery) that we trade for cheap **** we do not make (i.e consumer goods).

Your point should have easy data behind it, so find it.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS?locations=US

US imports 16% of GDP in goods and services now as opposed to 4% in 1950.

Quite frankly, I'm shocked I had to support that. This is common knowledge level stuff. If I say "the sky is blue", I shouldn't have to go out to the internet and find a link to support it.

Anticipating your next comment, US exports have also grown.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?locations=US

From roughly 5% to 13%. So, yeah, the net isn't nearly as awful as it is if you just look at it from an import side. However, when you dig into our real exports it starts getting ugly again. You mention Boeing, which is a good example of trade treaties harming our workers. Airbus is EU supported and gets many advantages as a result. Our trade treaties should not allow that and if they didn't, we would have more highly paid aerospace workers here.

Airbus versus Boeing is yet another common knowledge point. I shouldn't have to link anything going over how much Boeing has gotten screwed globally, but here:

http://www.boeing.com/company/key-orgs/government-operations/wto.page

Regardless, the end result is that industries that the US really is competitive in globally get screwed over. Fixing this would bring more high paying jobs to the US.

But yeah, if I have to come up with links for common sense points, please don't debate me. It'll save me some time.

Onto a more interesting discussion . . . .

So since 1980, the manufacturing labor force is down 1/3 in terms of number of workers yet exports have gone from 9.5% of GDP to around 13%. Tell me again how US manufacturing is doing so terribly.

You're right, the United States used to have a role for unskilled workers but due to both lower cost of that worker in foreign markets AND better capital investment, those workers will never find a job again.

Globalization didn't kill their jobs, technology did. Proof of that is the US manufacturing data.

There is no proof in the manufacturing data. That's spin. The US economy has grown and our appetite for manufactured products has grown with it. Our actual manufacturing has not kept up with it, which is why our imports have grown more than our exports. If it had, we would have more workers employed and that would create wage pressures which would lift the middle class.

In your earlier reply, you wrote this:

You can sit there and say that automation doesn't lead to less jobs because you need people to work in factories.

I don't know how you could possibly read that into what I have wrote in this thread. For example, I wrote this in the very post you replied to:

OK, a long time ago, people used to hit things with rocks to shape them. That was cumbersome and slow. Someone eventually came up with the idea of attaching a stick to the rock. That stone hammer sped things up. Then we figured out metal and made normal hammers which lasted longer. Eventually we came up with nail guns that allowed a single person to put in a tremendous number of nails. His productivity went up and in the short term, one guy could replace dozens.

You are either not reading what I am writing or you are intentionally straw manning me. Like you said, just don't have a discussion with me. Its easier for us both.

[TheSuzerain]

My main critique with coldfish is that he seems to be grouping all the forces working against demand for US Labor under the header of "globalization" even though several of the strongest forces are not globalization at all.

The most obvious and effective way to increase middle class income would be a tax cut for such people.

The most obvious and effective way to create more jobs and push the economy toward productive capacity would be expanded federal spending, probably in the form of infrastructure projects.

[League Circles]

My main critique with coldfish is that he seems to be grouping all the forces working against demand for US Labor under the header of "globalization" even though several of the strongest forces are not globalization at all.

The most obvious and effective way to increase middle class income would be a tax cut for such people.

The most obvious and effective way to create more jobs and push the economy toward productive capacity would be expanded federal spending, probably in the form of infrastructure projects.

The obvious problem with these obvious measures is that expanded federal spending + tax cuts probably means a growing budget deficit. Even if you tax the rich enough to make up for it, you're really pushing things to tax the rich so much that:

1. we can increase spending
2. the middle and lower classes can get tax cuts
3. we can chip away at the actual debt, not just the deficit

As long as we don't do #3, we're just kicking the can down the road to our children, handing them an enormous burden.

[coldfish]

My main critique with coldfish is that he seems to be grouping all the forces working against demand for US Labor under the header of "globalization" even though several of the strongest forces are not globalization at all.

The most obvious and effective way to increase middle class income would be a tax cut for such people.

The most obvious and effective way to create more jobs and push the economy toward productive capacity would be expanded federal spending, probably in the form of infrastructure projects.

I wrote this earlier:

Corporations have got in bed with governments and have acted to stifle competition. This isn't a globalization issue but its a huge problem worth a different discussion. By constantly merging or shutting out competition, corporations have made it so that they don't get undercut on price and can retain the profits they make from higher productivity. This is one of the primary mechanisms of income disparity in the US.

Its not my intent to lump all problems under globalization. I could go on at length about issues with health care, education, corporatism, etc. This particular tangent was about trade treaties. I'll summarize what I think:

1. Our trade treaties are somewhat slanted against the working middle class
2. We produce a certain percentage of what we consume and export other goods and services.
3. If our trade treaties were better, a slightly higher percentage of goods and services would be done by americans.
4. This would increase the number of americans employed and create wage pressures which would increase median income

Fixing our trade treaties certainly isn't an end all type solution. However, it would make a positive difference.

[TheSuzerain]

My main critique with coldfish is that he seems to be grouping all the forces working against demand for US Labor under the header of "globalization" even though several of the strongest forces are not globalization at all.

The most obvious and effective way to increase middle class income would be a tax cut for such people.

The most obvious and effective way to create more jobs and push the economy toward productive capacity would be expanded federal spending, probably in the form of infrastructure projects.

The obvious problem with these obvious measures is that expanded federal spending + tax cuts probably means a growing budget deficit. Even if you tax the rich enough to make up for it, you're really pushing things to tax the rich so much that:

1. we can increase spending
2. the middle and lower classes can get tax cuts
3. we can chip away at the actual debt, not just the deficit

As long as we don't do #3, we're just kicking the can down the road to our children, handing them an enormous burden.

I disagree.

Under current parameters, I'd argue we should expand the deficit.

[League Circles]

The one thing you can almost always be sure of is that politicians will almost never speak the truth if it is something the people don't want to hear.

The obvious truth is that to be where we want to be economically speaking, we need to produce more and consume less.

It's mind boggling that no politicians tell people to slow down on spending and increase savings. Both at the individual and government levels. It's actually incredibly simple and obvious. When people were scared of scarcity back in the day, they produced and saved. And they had leverage as a result.

One of the reasons they don't tell the people this, besides the fear that they won't be popular, is that the constant (unethical) expansion of the money supply means that interest rates will be low, which prevents people from having an incentive to save and invest.

Don't worry, though, Hilary will definitely get China to keep funding all of our centrally planned bad investments (not saying Trump would be any better but I'm expecting Hilary to be president and she most definitely will continue the money supply charade).

[League Circles]

I disagree.

Under current parameters, I'd argue we should expand the deficit.

What is so special about the current parameters?

Why should we spend our kids' money? Obligate them to paying back money that they didn't get a voice in whether or not we borrowed. SMH

It's highly immoral IMO.

[waffle]

So since 1980, the manufacturing labor force is down 1/3 in terms of number of workers yet exports have gone from 9.5% of GDP to around 13%. Tell me again how US manufacturing is doing so terribly.

You're right, the United States used to have a role for unskilled workers but due to both lower cost of that worker in foreign markets AND better capital investment, those workers will never find a job again.

Globalization didn't kill their jobs, technology did. Proof of that is the US manufacturing data

BING. And research has shown that. The role of Technology has been the primary driver. "Factory Jobs" don't exist as much anymore. What used to take a workforce now takes a caretaker force.

[TheSuzerain]

I disagree.

Under current parameters, I'd argue we should expand the deficit.

What is so special about the current parameters?

Why should we spend our kids' money? Obligate them to paying back money that they didn't get a voice in whether or not we borrowed. SMH

It's highly immoral IMO.

Because we aren't "spending our kids' money".

There is a bad (but understandable) habit for people to equate federal debt with household debt.

We will never pay of the entirety of our federal debt, nor should we.

[League Circles]

I disagree.

Under current parameters, I'd argue we should expand the deficit.

What is so special about the current parameters?

Why should we spend our kids' money? Obligate them to paying back money that they didn't get a voice in whether or not we borrowed. SMH

It's highly immoral IMO.

Because we aren't "spending our kids' money".

There is a bad (but understandable) habit for people to equate federal debt with household debt.

We will never pay of the entirety of our federal debt, nor should we.

Of course we're spending kids money. We issue 30 year treasury bonds. The people who pay the interest and principle on those bonds are minors and even yet-to-be-born citizens. They will be taxed to pay debt that they had no say in incurring. If you ask me it's taxation without representation.

A treasury bond issued this year will be paid towards for 12 years at least by someone who isn't even born yet. For 30 years by someone just young enough to not be able to vote.

Why shouldn't we pay off our federal debt? Do you believe that there is no cost to debt service? Oh, oh, but the interest rates are so low that it's OK right? Because it's less than inflation right? We should be experiencing price DEFLATION due to technology.

Isn't the goal to get more for our efforts? Why would we want to pay debt forever when fiscal responsibility would mean more return on our efforts?

The more we borrow, the more worldwide wealth is transferred from the public to private investors.

Take a look at this data. I'll give you a hint - it's better to be in one list than the other:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance

[DuckIII]

Allright, well, let's hear it.

I am not waffle. But let me give my counterpoint. It's a good thing to call racists racists. Just say it. If they don't like it, or people who it isn't directed at don't like it, it's of no consequence.

Here's the straight cheese: You support Trump, odds are you are a racist piece of **** with a lot of other problems too. And if you are not, and support him nonetheless, it doesn't bother you if racists take a seat of power. Which makes you a pussy. And also probably racist.

One of my sons asked me the other day why a neighbor had Trump signs in his yard. I told him it was a good thing. Because it lets you know who they are.

Ouch.

I know a lot of Trump supporters. Not one of them is racist in any traditional sense of the word. Many of them are rather uninformed, to be quite honest, and are just angry at the political system. I suppose you could say that they "don't care if a racist takes a seat of power". That doesn't make a person a racist or a pussy. Other issues just take precedence in their minds.

As a counter analogy, I also know a lot of pro-life people. I believe you are one of them. On the extreme, there are some pro-life people who feel that anyone who is pro-choice is a murderer. By that logic, every single Hillary supporter is a murderer.

Is that how we should define people? Just pick one issue and demand that everyone prioritize it above all others? Does this election come down to racists versus murderers?

Personally, I think not.

As I said, not everyone who supports Trump is a racist. But everyone who supports Trump is okay enough with racism to support him. Hence the pussy comment. Tacitly supporting obvious racism in the name of politics is still deplorable.

And you are right, I am a liberal who is anti-abortion (which some liberals might say means I am not actually a liberal). But that is an issue as you note. Supporting Trump is not an isolated issue.

[DuckIII]

nevermind... not getting involved in the racist debate.

It's not a debate. It's just something that is.

[League Circles]

As I said, not everyone who supports Trump is a racist. But everyone who supports Trump is okay enough with racism to support him. Hence the pussy comment. Tacitly supporting obvious racism in the name of politics is still deplorable.

And you are right, I am a liberal who is anti-abortion (which some liberals might say means I am not actually a liberal). But that is an issue as you note. Supporting Trump is not an isolated issue.

I'm not going to say this because I don't believe it, but what would you say to someone who says that you're OK enough with baby murder to support, say, Clinton, and that you're a pussy for doing so? That supporting "obvious baby murder" in the name of politics is deplorable?

How would you respond to that in a way that separates you from some Trump supporters?

Is "racism" worse than "baby murder"?

[DuckIII]

I wouldn't dispute it. As a Democrat I try to encourage others in my party to change their views on abortion. I consider it a wedge issue that I want my party to abandon. I was once pro choice. Once I started having children I obtained a new point of view, which I strongly believe in. Birth is an arbitrary measure of life. Scientifically. Not religiously. I don't believe in God and think the religious aspect of the abortion debate is detrimental to anti-abortion arguments.

But I am not going to vote Republican because of that one view. And that might indeed make me a pussy when it comes to abortion. I don't deny it.

[League Circles]

I wouldn't dispute it. As a Democrat I try to encourage others in my party to change their views on abortion. But I am not going to vote Republican because of that one view. And that might indeed make me a pussy when it comes to abortion. I don't deny it.

Cheers. I'm a pussy too sometimes haha.

[DuckIII]

I wouldn't dispute it. As a Democrat I try to encourage others in my party to change their views on abortion. But I am not going to vote Republican because of that one view. And that might indeed make me a pussy when it comes to abortion. I don't deny it.

Cheers. I'm a pussy too sometimes haha.

As you can see one one of the things that bothers me is ownership. Supporting Trump means something. It matters. If one supports him and takes ownership of that meaning, at least I can respect the honesty if not the belief.