Political Roundtable Part XII

[AFM]

The WSJ the other day pointed out that if Trump did one of his "create 1000 jobs for Americans" deals every single day, it'd take him 20 years to create the number of jobs that the American economy produces in one month. More lies from the media? No.

How's this work? That's 7,300,000 jobs.

It would be more like 180 days?

[montestewart]

The WSJ the other day pointed out that if Trump did one of his "create 1000 jobs for Americans" deals every single day, it'd take him 20 years to create the number of jobs that the American economy produces in one month. More lies from the media? No.

How's this work? That's 7,300,000 jobs.

It would be more like 180 days?

PIF's a numbers guy. You just have to trust him.

PS: Agree with the sentiment of his post, but WHOOPS! on that calc. Couldn't find a link to an article online

[dckingsfan]

Responding to either kind of lie by telling the truth is the job of the media. Staying away from the issue is not the media's job. It would be avoiding doing its job.

Cosign PIF, you hit an important point and nerve at the same time. The responsibility of the fourth estate used to be truth above all else (or Seek Truth and Report It): http://www.spj.org/pdf/spj-code-of-ethics.pdf

Since the early days of internet reporting, the alternate view was that reporting on the is a self-correcting mechanism, thus making it acceptable to leave out the fact checking and allow the web to "self-correct".

I think we know how this one is ending... it is more like not-self-correct.

[Benjammin]

This was the media equivalent of using someone's "just woke up and haven't combed hair yet" selfie for an official mugshot. It's not technically wrong, but it sure as hell is misleading and designed to make them look bad.

I do call that deceptive. It's a kind of deception that happens all the time, from every major news service (obviously including Fox and right-wing side dishes like Breitbard). Personally, I'm sick of how politicized every article and newscast seems to be. It's deeply frustrating how many people care more about agenda than truth.

I used to follow the news and educate myself about policy issues and foreign affairs (minor in Foreign Affairs from UVA), but I honestly don't bother anymore because all news seems to come from a political slant, from one side or the other.

Sent from my XT1650 using RealGM mobile app

You realize it's virtually impossible for news to be completely free of political slant, right? News is created by humans.

Wow, thanks for that epiphany for me. The extreme partisan nature of "news" reporting from both sides is greater than at least it used to appear to be. I believe that's in large measure for ratings and targeting a segment of the population.

Sent from my XT1650 using RealGM mobile app

[nate33]

The WSJ the other day pointed out that if Trump did one of his "create 1000 jobs for Americans" deals every single day, it'd take him 20 years to create the number of jobs that the American economy produces in one month. More lies from the media? No.

It's true that a few 1000 jobs here or there are a drop in the bucket. The announcement of these is more PR than anything else. However, it's worth noting that 1000 manufacturing jobs that would have otherwise gone to another country has a multiplier effect. Those 1000 new manufacturing jobs also means thousands of more jobs in the local economy as store owners, waitresses, hairdressers, garbage men, etc.

[gtn130]

The WSJ the other day pointed out that if Trump did one of his "create 1000 jobs for Americans" deals every single day, it'd take him 20 years to create the number of jobs that the American economy produces in one month. More lies from the media? No.

It's true that a few 1000 jobs here or there are a drop in the bucket. The announcement of these is more PR than anything else. However, it's worth noting that 1000 manufacturing jobs that would have otherwise gone to another country has a multiplier effect. Those 1000 new manufacturing jobs also means thousands of more jobs in the local economy as store owners, waitresses, hairdressers, garbage men, etc.

is there anything you don't agree with Trump on?

[AFM]

Does she have the hardest job in the world?

Watch on YouTube

[AFM]

Holy poop, I can't even get through the whole clip. If I was married to her, I would commit seppuku

[montestewart]

Does she have the hardest job in the world?

Watch on YouTube

Mine's harder. Wait, what were we talking about?

[queridiculo]

I love Donald Trump #AlternativeFacts

[queridiculo]

Using that 5 7 5 formula, it's real easy to come up with Kellyanne Conway Haiku's. The first 5 and last 5 syllables are a given.

I'm afraid I'll have to report this post - trying to circumvent the profanity filter.

[nate33]

The WSJ the other day pointed out that if Trump did one of his "create 1000 jobs for Americans" deals every single day, it'd take him 20 years to create the number of jobs that the American economy produces in one month. More lies from the media? No.

It's true that a few 1000 jobs here or there are a drop in the bucket. The announcement of these is more PR than anything else. However, it's worth noting that 1000 manufacturing jobs that would have otherwise gone to another country has a multiplier effect. Those 1000 new manufacturing jobs also means thousands of more jobs in the local economy as store owners, waitresses, hairdressers, garbage men, etc.

is there anything you don't agree with Trump on?

WTF?

I just ceded the point that Trump's big announcements on jobs are essentially a PR stunt. I just want it understood that manufacturing jobs that would have otherwise gone overseas are worth more than just any old job. When a 1000-employee factory shuts down, an entire town and all the service jobs associated with it dies. When a 1000 employees open a new plant, an entire town is born. So Trump doesn't need to create 10 million manufacturing jobs. A much smaller number will do. But certainly, a few thousand here and there isn't enough.

[Ruzious]

Using that 5 7 5 formula, it's real easy to come up with Kellyanne Conway Haiku's. The first 5 and last 5 syllables are a given.

I'm afraid I'll have to report this post - trying to circumvent the profanity filter.

Oh poop. Can't say that.

Kellyanne ploops out her mouth.

That should be ok.

[payitforward]

The WSJ the other day pointed out that if Trump did one of his "create 1000 jobs for Americans" deals every single day, it'd take him 20 years to create the number of jobs that the American economy produces in one month. More lies from the media? No.

How's this work? That's 7,300,000 jobs.

It would be more like 180 days?

PIF's a numbers guy. You just have to trust him.

PS: Agree with the sentiment of his post, but WHOOPS! on that calc. Couldn't find a link to an article online

I'll find the link and post it if possible. The calculation obviously depends on how big that average Trump deal was -- I think the article may have been using the so-called "save 700 jobs" deal rather than my off the cuff number.

The American economy produces about 5,000,000 jobs a month. Of course, it also eliminates jobs each month -- the process is a dynamic one, & the net has been somewhere in the vicinity of 200,000 net job growth a month for quite some time in the Obama era.

The article was using the raw job-creation figure. Of course, you could use the net plus per month figure if you think it's more meaningful. OTOH, Trump isn't going to be able to gin up a 700-job publicity stunt every day either.

Overall, jobs emerge from core economic activities. Neither Donald Trump nor Barack Obama for that matter can create new jobs -- it's kind of a silly idea.

Now, the claim would be that if Donald Trump can stimulate growth in manufacturing in the US, & if he can promote "reshoring" (i.e. bringing back manufacturing that's been off-shored), then he can have a big effect on job growth.

That is a myth. Manufacturing becomes more automated every day, and that process isn't going to slow down.

Yes, companies started manufacturing in China because the cost of labor made products cheaper to build, but that's an advantage only to the degree that human labor is involved. And automation is steadily reducing that advantage day by day. For that reason, for example, Foxconn (the biggest Chinese electronics manufacturer: they make Apple's products, for example) has an initiative to reduce manpower by 30% over the next decade (I think... maybe slightly longer).

New factories will use far fewer people than existing ones, reducing cost. Which means that to compete all manufacturers will move in this direction. I read last week about a new textile factory in I think N. Carolina that produces something like 1.5 million pounds of cotton yarn a week -- with 125 employees!

Moreover, ask yourself where the American economy has grown & will grow in the future. 20 years ago there was no Google. Shortly before that, no company like Google would have been possible at all. Google has a market cap of @ $550 billion. The company employs 60,000 people.

General Motors has a market cap 1/10th as big as Google. It employs @ 115,000 people in the US. Not that long ago GM employed 4 times that many people in the US.

At the time Facebook acquired SnapChat for I think $22 billion, the company had 55 employees. Compare that to GM for an understanding of where the growth of the US economy is taking place. No, that is not going to be reversed.

On the plus side, the more automation reduces manufacturing labor costs the more sensible it is to bring factories back to the US -- to the degree, that is, that this is the market, this is where the customers are. Building close to the customer also reduces costs. But this will have nothing to do with Donald Trump. It's a function of core economic realities.

For anyone interested in the subject, I recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Second-Machine-Age-Prosperity-Technologies-ebook/dp/B00D97HPQI/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1485181410&sr=1-1&keywords=mcafee

Btw, you can give Barack Obama some credit, a lot of credit, for GM's market cap being somewhere @ $50b. Right after his inauguration, in Feb 09, the company's market cap sank below $1 billion. All those conservatives now behind Donald Trump were for letting the company (the whole American automobile industry, pretty much) simply fail.

If Obama hadn't stood up for saving it, most of those disgruntled workers who think their jobs aren't good enough any more, who supported Donald Trump, would have been out of work long ago.

[dckingsfan]

One only needs to look at this graph to understand the fallacy of the argument.



The real jobs in the manufacturing space are in automation. And those jobs go to engineering types - of which we don't have enough to really ramp up our production.

One of the principle reasons to "relocate" a manufacturing facility is to get away from the union rules to allow a more automated facility. If find it interesting that those that support union jobs don't also agree with Trump. It is a very interesting dichotomy.

If you really want to take the manufacturing base back from China - you would drive fully automated factories - we just can't compete on labor, either from a cost or sheer number perspective. Although that message isn't politically expedient.

[dckingsfan]

Btw, you can give Barack Obama some credit, a lot of credit, for GM's market cap being somewhere @ $50b. Right after his inauguration, in Feb 09, the company's market cap sank below $1 billion. All those conservatives now behind Donald Trump were for letting the company (the whole American automobile industry, pretty much) simply fail.

If Obama hadn't stood up for saving it, most of those disgruntled workers who think their jobs aren't good enough any more, who supported Donald Trump, would have been out of work long ago.

Agreed with this - but you should also credit Bush. On December 19th, one of his last acts was to direct the 17.4B TARP funds to GM and Chrysler. Bush could have easily have not initiated this and Obama would have been faced with the liquidation of the two companies on his first days in office.

[gtn130]

It's true that a few 1000 jobs here or there are a drop in the bucket. The announcement of these is more PR than anything else. However, it's worth noting that 1000 manufacturing jobs that would have otherwise gone to another country has a multiplier effect. Those 1000 new manufacturing jobs also means thousands of more jobs in the local economy as store owners, waitresses, hairdressers, garbage men, etc.

is there anything you don't agree with Trump on?

WTF?

I just ceded the point that Trump's big announcements on jobs are essentially a PR stunt. I just want it understood that manufacturing jobs that would have otherwise gone overseas are worth more than just any old job. When a 1000-employee factory shuts down, an entire town and all the service jobs associated with it dies. When a 1000 employees open a new plant, an entire town is born. So Trump doesn't need to create 10 million manufacturing jobs. A much smaller number will do. But certainly, a few thousand here and there isn't enough.

You gave the most wildly optimistic analysis of Trump's futile crusade against automation.

I wasn't being rhetorical, I'm actually curious if there are any issues you fundamentally disagree with Trump on. It seems like you're ready to defend basically everything/anything he's done or will do.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[payitforward]

It's true that a few 1000 jobs here or there are a drop in the bucket. The announcement of these is more PR than anything else. However, it's worth noting that 1000 manufacturing jobs that would have otherwise gone to another country has a multiplier effect. Those 1000 new manufacturing jobs also means thousands of more jobs in the local economy as store owners, waitresses, hairdressers, garbage men, etc.

is there anything you don't agree with Trump on?

WTF?

I just ceded the point that Trump's big announcements on jobs are essentially a PR stunt. I just want it understood that manufacturing jobs that would have otherwise gone overseas are worth more than just any old job. When a 1000-employee factory shuts down, an entire town and all the service jobs associated with it dies. When a 1000 employees open a new plant, an entire town is born. So Trump doesn't need to create 10 million manufacturing jobs. A much smaller number will do. But certainly, a few thousand here and there isn't enough.

Nate... Donald Trump can't create any jobs. Barack Obama can't create any jobs. No President can create any jobs (I'm leaving out directly-created Federal Government jobs obviously).

Economic growth creates jobs. A President can't create economic growth. Of course, a President can do things to get in the way of economic growth. For example, it does seem that tariffs get in the way of economic growth for example. In general, holding down trade seems to get in the way of economic growth. Or, at least we can say that unfettered trade and globalization has led to global economic growth.

Of course, it's possible to argue that it doesn't provide economic benefits here, or at least not at a parity level. But parity benefits would be impossible given the difference in starting economic conditions in different parts of the world. & why should it matter? If there's a net benefit to people in the US of globalization over non-globalization, why should people here prefer non-globalization of the economy.

Put more concretely, how many iPhones would have been sold in the US if they had had to be manufactured here (& priced accordingly)? How many flat panel TVs? The factory workers employed making them -- would they be able to afford to buy those products at US-made prices? Could they afford to buy other products that government policies forced to be made here at higher cost?

If Ford was going to build a factory in Mexico because it brought down manufacturing costs, & now that factory will be built in the US, then one result, clearly, will be increased manufacturing costs. Manufacturing costs get multiplied down the line from tier to tier until they are represented in consumer cost at some significant multiple of the increase.

I.e. a $1 increase in manufacturing cost leads to way more than a $1 increase in product cost to the consumer. Even if all that increased manufacturing cost goes into higher salaries for the workers in the US factory, the net may stil lbe a loss in US consumer purchasing power.

Your subsidiary argument (increasing manufacturing jobs leads to more jobs in other sectors in that locality) may be true, but a) it ignores the above, and b) something still has to create the need for 1000 new manufacturing jobs. The government can't create that need.

Above all, wherever they are located, manufacturing jobs are more likely to go down in number than up -- even as manufacturing itself increases. See my example of the cotton factory. How does an economic policy based on promoting manufacturing industries lead to increased prosperity?

[closg00]

Does she have the hardest job in the world?

Watch on YouTube

On it's face it appears insane to spout lies that can easily be fact-checked, but if you are a connoisseur of conservative media you know that Trumps low-information/poorly educated supporters (that segment), can't distinguish between opinion, fact, and bold-faced lies. It is this segment of the population that Trumps Minister of Propaganda is addressing her remarks.