Are you watching Trump lie in Florida about bringing jobs back?

[Marion Morrison]

Nice attempt at deflection and delegitimization. No I didn't read the fine print on those. Real stories, they are not good sites, though.

Dude, you cited "American Renaissance", a known hate group site.

So of course, their bread and butter is running stories about 'The Darkies are after your women". Because, frankly, nothing plays better with white insecurities than that.

How was I to know? I don't keep up with "hate groups" and all that. I know now, thanks.

It says in very small print "Anti-semittism"

 

[danielpalos]

His ignorant base is cheering him. Not a mention of automation.

Germany has twice the level of manufacturing employment that we do.

FUnny how automation has had so much LESS impact over there...

Why not cite sources?

The German economy faces a trend of structural transformation with a secular decline of manufacturing and rising service employment due to an aggregate technology trend. The same is true in many other high-income countries. Yet, unlike in the case of the US, rising trade with emerging low-wage countries (like China or Eastern Europe) did not speed up this trend in Germany. Trade, in fact, slowed it down because rising exports to the new markets stabilised industry jobs.

Our analysis is consistent with the intuition of Paul Krugman (2016) that rising trade with China contributed to the decline of US manufacturing employment only because of the extremely large and persistent US current account deficit. In a surplus country like Germany, trade did not lead to a net destruction of industry jobs. It triggered notable compositional shifts within manufacturing, both at the industry and at the regional level, but on balance it retained those jobs in the economy. Put differently, the expansion of services in Germany would have been even larger without the rising net export exposure from China and Eastern Europe.--http://voxeu.org/article/globalisation-and-sectoral-employment-trends-germany

 

[danielpalos]

The AP story pointed out that Trump owned between $15,000 and $50,000 in stock for a Texas company called Energy Transfer Partners. He had between $500,000 and $1 million the year before that. He also owned between $100,000 and $250,000 in stock in energy company Phillips 66, which the AP says has a one-quarter share of the pipeline.--http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/16/learnprogressorg/trump-caught-investing-dakota-access-pipeline-appr/

 

[Norman]

His ignorant base is cheering him. Not a mention of automation.

Yes, I am watching. The only lies I am seeing are the media's lies that Trump eviscerates.

 

[Correll]

1. So, you admit that total manufacturing jobs can "pick up". Thank you. That is very reasonable of you. Such a result would result is millions of better jobs for millions of American families with good secondary effects rippling though society greatly.

2. How do you conclude that "gone jobs" won't be the ones coming back?

A few may come back, but most are gone for good for multiple reasons. First, the market adjusts prices to reflect government policy. Trump wants to slap on a 20% tariff on goods from Mexico because he wants to raise the cost of production in Mexico. Since Trump was elected, the Mexican peso has fallen 10%, meaning the cost of production in Mexico has already fallen 10%. If Trump gets his wish, the peso will fall even further, and the tariff will wind up not having much of an effect. All that will happen is that the government will get more tax money and the consumers will have less. A tariff is merely a tax on consumption.

The peso is not driven solely by ability to export to America, surely.

Second, even in areas where there has been investment in manufacturing, it has been in high-end manufacturing, often with few or no jobs. That's technology displacing labor. Those are never coming back. I was on a tree farm last year, watching trees being cut down and hauled out. I don't think there were 10 people on the site. 30 years ago, 200 people would have been working. Those jobs are never coming back. Manufacturing is no different.

That is under the current government policy that assures that American labor cannot compete with Third World labor.

But that's not a surprise. In 1900, nearly half of all jobs in the US were in agriculture. Today, it's 3%. But we produce 50x more agricultural products than we did back then. That's because of technology. We're transitioning away from a manufacturing economy like we did an agricultural economy for the same reason. It sucked if your livelihood was dependent upon being a farmhand, but it's hard to argue that cheaper, more abundant food was a bad thing for America.

No one is arguing to fight against automation.

If Trump goes ahead and strips away many regulations - which I fully support - we could see a surge in job creation, and that would include some manufacturing jobs. But most jobs will be created in the services economy.

I have posted the WTO airbus ruling in threads with you before. IMO, that example shows that highly skilled highly paid manufacturing jobs have been/are being stolen from us by cheating trading partners.


It is easy to say that in 100 or even 50 years that manufacturing will be like agriculture, but that is generation(s) of highly paid work that can make the difference for tens of millions of Americans.

The ironic thing is that if Trump's deregulation leads to an acceleration in the economy, it will likely mean a surge in inflation, interest rates, and the dollar, making American manufacturing even more uncompetitive. Wages were already beginning to accelerate. Trump's policies will likely fuel that.

If Trump's policies fuel wages, that is a good thing.

If that makes drives up the dollar, we can adjust government policy accordingly.

 

[Correll]

now their left wing HATES corporations maybe that's it. Oil, gas, coal, timber, mining, fishing.

The left doesn't "hate corporations". They don't believe that corporations have the same rights as people and that Citizens United was a very bad decision.

Right, when we caught Obama and Hillary on camera vowing to destroy the coal industry we just imagined it? Obama banning oil exploration on vast tracks of public lands, imagined? I lived through the Clintons attack on the timber industry, trust me they HATE timber. They destroyed countless small towns that relied on timber, it was devastating to the middle class.

These are fantasies of your fevered imagination. Fracking killed coal, not regulation. No one is using coal, just like no one is using buggy whips anymore. Clean energy is replacing fossil fuels, but no fossil fuel is more dangerous than coal.

The United States became energy self-sufficient under the Obama Administration. The price of gas went from $5 a gallon under W to $2 a gallon, because of the reduced dependency on fossil fuels. The environment is cleaner and fewer people are dying due to pollution because of it.

But let's ignore facts and go with right wing talking points.

Coal is still 39% of our electricity production.

YOur claim that coal is dead is completely delusional.

Then that is a problem because coal is inefficient and highly polluting. Even the Chinese have stopped using it because it kills people, including the miners.

Over 50% of electricity production in China is by Coal.

Electricity sector in China - Wikipedia


Whoever is telling you this shit is lying to you.

Stop listening to them.

 

[Correll]

[


1. Seely already made the point about their unions.

2. And higher taxes encourage manufacturing jobs, how?

Keeps the rich from getting too greedy. No point in screwing over working folks if the government won't let you keep it.

[
3. Your odd belief system that BENEFITS are the primary or even major reason is unsupported.

Of course it is. Let's take the simple one. Universal health care. Since they only spent 10% of their GDP on health care and because it isn't added as an expense onto every product made because the employers aren't running it, they can invest more into the actual quality of the product.

[
4. We both have very generous immigration policies. So, there is no reason to believe THAT is the reason their manufacturing sector is so much larger.

Of course it is. Because at the end of the day, they have a labor pool to do the scrub work that white people just don't want to do.

[
5. We invest heavily in education and scientific research too.

No, we don't. Not nearly enough.

[
6. Your racism has been long established, but thanks for the reminder that you are a racist asshole.

Yawn, guy, you aren't a 'race', you're a culture. A culture that has been dumb and mean for 200 years.

1. As I said, we have a large immigrant pool, and that has not given us a manufacturing sector like GErmany's. And your racism is noted, you racist asshole.

2. link that we don't invest enough.

3. Your racism has been long established, but thanks for the reminder that you are a racist asshole.

 

[Toro]

1. So, you admit that total manufacturing jobs can "pick up". Thank you. That is very reasonable of you. Such a result would result is millions of better jobs for millions of American families with good secondary effects rippling though society greatly.

2. How do you conclude that "gone jobs" won't be the ones coming back?

A few may come back, but most are gone for good for multiple reasons. First, the market adjusts prices to reflect government policy. Trump wants to slap on a 20% tariff on goods from Mexico because he wants to raise the cost of production in Mexico. Since Trump was elected, the Mexican peso has fallen 10%, meaning the cost of production in Mexico has already fallen 10%. If Trump gets his wish, the peso will fall even further, and the tariff will wind up not having much of an effect. All that will happen is that the government will get more tax money and the consumers will have less. A tariff is merely a tax on consumption.

Second, even in areas where there has been investment in manufacturing, it has been in high-end manufacturing, often with few or no jobs. That's technology displacing labor. Those are never coming back. I was on a tree farm last year, watching trees being cut down and hauled out. I don't think there were 10 people on the site. 30 years ago, 200 people would have been working. Those jobs are never coming back. Manufacturing is no different.

But that's not a surprise. In 1900, nearly half of all jobs in the US were in agriculture. Today, it's 3%. But we produce 50x more agricultural products than we did back then. That's because of technology. We're transitioning away from a manufacturing economy like we did an agricultural economy for the same reason. It sucked if your livelihood was dependent upon being a farmhand, but it's hard to argue that cheaper, more abundant food was a bad thing for America.

If Trump goes ahead and strips away many regulations - which I fully support - we could see a surge in job creation, and that would include some manufacturing jobs. But most jobs will be created in the services economy.

The ironic thing is that if Trump's deregulation leads to an acceleration in the economy, it will likely mean a surge in inflation, interest rates, and the dollar, making American manufacturing even more uncompetitive. Wages were already beginning to accelerate. Trump's policies will likely fuel that.

All well said, but that does leave us with a problem- where do we employ all these people who don't have college degrees or technical skills?

That's a very good question.

 

[Toro]

The peso is not driven solely by ability to export to America, surely.

...

I have posted the WTO airbus ruling in threads with you before. IMO, that example shows that highly skilled highly paid manufacturing jobs have been/are being stolen from us by cheating trading partners.

Yes, the peso is driven by more than just trade policy. However, it is driven in part by trade policy. It can get much cheaper.

As for the WTO, the US has also been a major violator of the agreement in the past. It has also been a major violator of NAFTA.

Speaking of Boeing, here is a great article about how dependent Boeing is on international markets. Read it to understand how important international markets are for Boeing.

Why Trumponomics Fails | RealClearPolitics

What is certain is that tariffs impose costs on American businesses, which makes them less competitive with international competitors.

 

[Correll]

The peso is not driven solely by ability to export to America, surely.

...

I have posted the WTO airbus ruling in threads with you before. IMO, that example shows that highly skilled highly paid manufacturing jobs have been/are being stolen from us by cheating trading partners.

Yes, the peso is driven by more than just trade policy. However, it is driven in part by trade policy. It can get much cheaper.

As for the WTO, the US has also been a major violator of the agreement in the past. It has also been a major violator of NAFTA.

Speaking of Boeing, here is a great article about how dependent Boeing is on international markets. Read it to understand how important international markets are for Boeing.

Why Trumponomics Fails | RealClearPolitics

What is certain is that tariffs impose costs on American businesses, which makes them less competitive with international competitors.

1. So maybe the peso will fall so much that the tariffs will be ineffective. Or maybe it won't and the tariff will be effective and jobs will be saved/come back. If we give up on those jobs, we will CERTAINLY keep losing them.

2. I reject the idea that American workers can't compete. The illegal support for Airbus goes back to the time when AMERICAN workers were building those planes, and the Europeans could not fairly competel.

2b Sure, Boeing has responded the way Corporate America has to unfair competition from abroad. Can't beat them, join them. But how does that benefit America or Americans if they move all the good manufacturing jobs to other nations?

Time to change the environment.



3. I note that you are good at predicting defeat for America. What would you suggest as a way to advance American interests with regard to trade and jobs?

 

[JoeB131]

[
1. As I said, we have a large immigrant pool, and that has not given us a manufacturing sector like GErmany's. And your racism is noted, you racist asshole.

2. link that we don't invest enough.

3. Your racism has been long established, but thanks for the reminder that you are a racist asshole.

Germany has a manufacturing base because they have sensible, not conservative policies.

You see, we had all the things you want when FDR, HST, JFK and LBJ were in charge.

It was Republicans that gave us free trade and union busting...

But you keep hatin' on the darkies, Cleetus.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

His ignorant base is cheering him. Not a mention of automation.

You are so against automation Im starting to think that you lost your job to the automatic toilet scrubber. I feel for you, all that education on proper bowl care down the drain. (pun, get it? down the drain?)
You should really check your postings, you are seriously making yourself out to be an uneducated loser.
Have you praised President Trump yet today?

Don't be stupid. No one here has been more pro education than me. Clearly you haven't checked my postings. Read #88. Unless you don't have any skill at comprehension. Then, nevermind.

Not to point out the obvious but, I did not make any reference to your being pro or con when it comes to education.
You could be for education because you see how a lack of an education has affected your life is such a negative way. We just dont know.
In this case, I dont think Im the one that should be questioned as far as comprehension skills are concerned.