min wage increase is bad, but tariffs are good?

[Timmy]

some (but not all to their credit ) Trump fans in here are all excited over the tariff moves by trump .

Many of those same posters flip out over any minwage increase because it adds to the costs of goods/services.

Can you justify being for tariffs and against min wage ?

 

[mikegriffith1]

some (but not all to their credit ) Trump fans in here are all excited over the tariff moves by trump .

Many of those same posters flip out over any minwage increase because it adds to the costs of goods/services.

Can you justify being for tariffs and against min wage ?

It's a false choice and a false premise. The main problem with the minimum wage is that it imposes the double-whammy of job losses and increased labor costs. Even Warren Buffet has argued that a better way to help the working poor is through the Earned Income Tax Credit, and I agree with him. Using the EITC spreads the cost of higher income for the poor much more broadly so that its impact on labor costs is greatly reduced.

Protective tariffs give you a net job growth for a minimal cost or no cost, as we've seen over and over again in economic history.

One of the good things Obama did was to impose stiff tariffs on Chinese tires, which had the effect of revitalizing the U.S. tire industry.

 

[basquebromance]

Senile John McCain: "Trump’s decision to impose steep tariffs on steel and aluminum imports will not protect America. Reminiscent of failed protectionist trade policies of the past, this decision will harm the American economy, hurt American workers, and damage relations" with allies

 

[BuckToothMoron]

some (but not all to their credit ) Trump fans in here are all excited over the tariff moves by trump .

Many of those same posters flip out over any minwage increase because it adds to the costs of goods/services.

Can you justify being for tariffs and against min wage ?

I am against minimum wage, and frankly I am concerned about the tariff saber rattling Trump is doing. It will cause upheaval for sure. Most companies have learned to work in the present non-tariff environment. It could be good, it could be a disaster, but there are so many factors and moving parts that it seems impossible to predict the ultimate effects, which by the way, will take multiple years to unfold. It’s like global climate change in many respects when it comes to predicting.

 

[Timmy]

some (but not all to their credit ) Trump fans in here are all excited over the tariff moves by trump .

Many of those same posters flip out over any minwage increase because it adds to the costs of goods/services.

Can you justify being for tariffs and against min wage ?

It's a false choice and a false premise. The main problem with the minimum wage is that it imposes the double-whammy of job losses and increased labor costs. Even Warren Buffet has argued that a better way to help the working poor is through the Earned Income Tax Credit, and I agree with him. Using the EITC spreads the cost of higher income for the poor much more broadly so that its impact on labor costs is greatly reduced.

Protective tariffs give you a net job growth for a minimal cost or no cost, as we've seen over and over again in economic history.

One of the good things Obama did was to impose stiff tariffs on Chinese tires, which had the effect of revitalizing the U.S. tire industry.

Tariffs give you job growth, if u narrow your foucs on that particular industry. What about the economy as a whole?

Min wage may cause some job loss , but those jobs are always in a surplus . Plus there’s a positive effect of less reliance on gov services for the poor who now make more money . Saving taxpayer expense .

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I think Trumps just using the threat of Tariffs to negotiate better trade deals.

 

[TheOldSchool]

some (but not all to their credit ) Trump fans in here are all excited over the tariff moves by trump .

Many of those same posters flip out over any minwage increase because it adds to the costs of goods/services.

Can you justify being for tariffs and against min wage ?

They’re both bad

 

[TheOldSchool]

some (but not all to their credit ) Trump fans in here are all excited over the tariff moves by trump .

Many of those same posters flip out over any minwage increase because it adds to the costs of goods/services.

Can you justify being for tariffs and against min wage ?

It's a false choice and a false premise. The main problem with the minimum wage is that it imposes the double-whammy of job losses and increased labor costs. Even Warren Buffet has argued that a better way to help the working poor is through the Earned Income Tax Credit, and I agree with him. Using the EITC spreads the cost of higher income for the poor much more broadly so that its impact on labor costs is greatly reduced.

Protective tariffs give you a net job growth for a minimal cost or no cost, as we've seen over and over again in economic history.

One of the good things Obama did was to impose stiff tariffs on Chinese tires, which had the effect of revitalizing the U.S. tire industry.

Tariffs create jobs at no cost? Damn you must gave read every economics book. Why don’t we put like, 80% tariffs on everything?

 

[shockedcanadian]

Senile John McCain: "Trump’s decision to impose steep tariffs on steel and aluminum imports will not protect America. Reminiscent of failed protectionist trade policies of the past, this decision will harm the American economy, hurt American workers, and damage relations" with allies

If Trump has suggested "we are applying these tariffs and we are going to war against *country X*", McCain would have applauded Trump for his leadership across the board.

 

[Muhammed]

some (but not all to their credit ) Trump fans in here are all excited over the tariff moves by trump .

Many of those same posters flip out over any minwage increase because it adds to the costs of goods/services.

Can you justify being for tariffs and against min wage ?

I agree with Trump that we need a higher minimum wage and higher tariffs.

 

[usmbguest5318]

some (but not all to their credit ) Trump fans in here are all excited over the tariff moves by trump .

Many of those same posters flip out over any minwage increase because it adds to the costs of goods/services.

Can you justify being for tariffs and against min wage ?

It's a false choice and a false premise. The main problem with the minimum wage is that it imposes the double-whammy of job losses and increased labor costs. Even Warren Buffet has argued that a better way to help the working poor is through the Earned Income Tax Credit, and I agree with him. Using the EITC spreads the cost of higher income for the poor much more broadly so that its impact on labor costs is greatly reduced.

Protective tariffs give you a net job growth for a minimal cost or no cost, as we've seen over and over again in economic history.

One of the good things Obama did was to impose stiff tariffs on Chinese tires, which had the effect of revitalizing the U.S. tire industry.

The main problem with the minimum wage is that it imposes the double-whammy of job losses and increased labor costs.

??? Tariffs have exactly those impacts, most especially in an economy that's at or near full capacity. Full capacity as goes labor is precisely where the U.S., which is right at structural unemployment level, currently finds itself. We know this from inferences made by economic theory (science use of "theory") and from distant and recent empirical evidence: The Tariff of Abominations (1828), Smoot-Hawley and the Bush II Tariffs of 2002 (detailed in the paper linked just below).

• The Unintended Consequences of U.S. Steel Import Tariffs: A Quantification of the Impact During 2002
  • 200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices during 2002. These lost jobs represent approximately $4 billion in lost wages from February to November 2002.
  • One out of four (50,000) of these job losses occurred in the metal manufacturing, machinery and equipment and transportation equipment and parts sectors.
  • Job losses escalated steadily over 2002, peaking in November (at 202,000 jobs), and slightly declining to 197,000 jobs in December.
  • More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself (187,500 Americans were employed by U.S. steel producers in December 2002).
  • Every U.S. state experienced employment losses from higher steel costs, with the highest losses occurring in:
    • California (19,392 jobs lost),
    • Texas (15,826 jobs lost),
    • Ohio (10,553 jobs lost),
    • Michigan (9,829 jobs lost),
    • Illinois (9,621 jobs lost),
    • Pennsylvania (8,400 jobs lost),
    • New York (8,901 jobs lost) and
    • Florida (8,370 jobs lost).
    • Sixteen states lost at least 4,500 steel consuming jobs each over the course of 2002 from higher steel prices.

The impact of tariffs is immensely well understood, and it doesn't take much but actually bothering to comprehend them at a very basic level to understand that the economic contraction that results from tariffs outstrip the narrow gains tariffs provide. What laymen think about them may be a matter of politics, but what economists have learned from studying them is not.

(It's important to note that the chart immediately above shows unit elasticity for the price elasticity of demand; however, raw steel is not a product having unit elasticity. It is a product that is predominantly inelastic as goes the price elasticity of demand.)​

And the deleterious impacts of tariffs can been seen throughout an economy; they aren't just limited to the industry of the tariff itself, most especially when the tariff is on raw materials rather than on specific finished goods.

Impact of the Bush Steel Tariff on the value of the U.S. dollar (2002 - 2005)

Additional references on the impact of tariffs (a mix of ECON101 and distillate content):

• https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/tariffs/
  
• Tariffs and Quotas: Effects on Imported Goods and Domestic Prices - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
  
• The Basics Of Tariffs And Trade Barriers
  
• https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/24571/trade/impact-of-us-tariffs/
  
• Steel and Aluminum Jobs Don't Add Up to Much
  
• George W. Bush tried steel tariffs. It didn't work

 

[Moonglow]

some (but not all to their credit ) Trump fans in here are all excited over the tariff moves by trump .

Many of those same posters flip out over any minwage increase because it adds to the costs of goods/services.

Can you justify being for tariffs and against min wage ?

It's a false choice and a false premise. The main problem with the minimum wage is that it imposes the double-whammy of job losses and increased labor costs. Even Warren Buffet has argued that a better way to help the working poor is through the Earned Income Tax Credit, and I agree with him. Using the EITC spreads the cost of higher income for the poor much more broadly so that its impact on labor costs is greatly reduced.

Protective tariffs give you a net job growth for a minimal cost or no cost, as we've seen over and over again in economic history.

One of the good things Obama did was to impose stiff tariffs on Chinese tires, which had the effect of revitalizing the U.S. tire industry.

The EITC works by taking on debt which increases the transfer of the funds but yeah give me a 10k EITC fund and I'll be happy, for at least a day..

 

[dblack]

some (but not all to their credit ) Trump fans in here are all excited over the tariff moves by trump .

Many of those same posters flip out over any minwage increase because it adds to the costs of goods/services.

Can you justify being for tariffs and against min wage ?

So-called conservatives supporting Trump are sellouts and hypocrites. No way around it.

 

[Moonglow]

some (but not all to their credit ) Trump fans in here are all excited over the tariff moves by trump .

Many of those same posters flip out over any minwage increase because it adds to the costs of goods/services.

Can you justify being for tariffs and against min wage ?

So-called conservatives supporting Trump are sellouts and hypocrites. No way around it.

They are doing the bit about it's okay what the corporatist do to us it's better for 'Merika...

 

[yiostheoy]

some (but not all to their credit ) Trump fans in here are all excited over the tariff moves by trump .

Many of those same posters flip out over any minwage increase because it adds to the costs of goods/services.

Can you justify being for tariffs and against min wage ?

Sometimes you are very smart Timmy and this is one of those times.

I feel that increasing the min wage and imposing tariffs are BOTH good.

Yes they both increase costs.

But they also both increase employment income for those who get employed.

For the record however, when you talk about guns and gun law you are extremely naïve.

 

[yiostheoy]

some (but not all to their credit ) Trump fans in here are all excited over the tariff moves by trump .

Many of those same posters flip out over any minwage increase because it adds to the costs of goods/services.

Can you justify being for tariffs and against min wage ?

It's a false choice and a false premise. The main problem with the minimum wage is that it imposes the double-whammy of job losses and increased labor costs. Even Warren Buffet has argued that a better way to help the working poor is through the Earned Income Tax Credit, and I agree with him. Using the EITC spreads the cost of higher income for the poor much more broadly so that its impact on labor costs is greatly reduced.

Protective tariffs give you a net job growth for a minimal cost or no cost, as we've seen over and over again in economic history.

One of the good things Obama did was to impose stiff tariffs on Chinese tires, which had the effect of revitalizing the U.S. tire industry.

The main problem with the minimum wage is that it imposes the double-whammy of job losses and increased labor costs.

??? Tariffs have exactly those impacts, most especially in an economy that's at or near full capacity. Full capacity as goes labor is precisely where the U.S., which is right at structural unemployment level, currently finds itself. We know this from inferences made by economic theory (science use of "theory") and from recent empirical evidence: The Tariff of Abominations (1828), Smoot-Hawley and the Bush II Tariffs of 2002 (detailed in the paper linked just below).

• The Unintended Consequences of U.S. Steel Import Tariffs: A Quantification of the Impact During 2002
  • 200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices during 2002. These lost jobs represent approximately $4 billion in lost wages from February to November 2002.
  • One out of four (50,000) of these job losses occurred in the metal manufacturing, machinery and equipment and transportation equipment and parts sectors.
  • Job losses escalated steadily over 2002, peaking in November (at 202,000 jobs), and slightly declining to 197,000 jobs in December.
  • More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself (187,500 Americans were employed by U.S. steel producers in December 2002).
  • Every U.S. state experienced employment losses from higher steel costs, with the highest losses occurring in:
    • California (19,392 jobs lost),
    • Texas (15,826 jobs lost),
    • Ohio (10,553 jobs lost),
    • Michigan (9,829 jobs lost),
    • Illinois (9,621 jobs lost),
    • Pennsylvania (8,400 jobs lost),
    • New York (8,901 jobs lost) and
    • Florida (8,370 jobs lost).
    • Sixteen states lost at least 4,500 steel consuming jobs each over the course of 2002 from higher steel prices.

The impact of tariffs is immensely well understood, and it doesn't take much but actually bothering to comprehend them at a very basic level to understand that the economic contraction that results from tariffs outstrip the narrow gains tariffs provide. What laymen think about them may be a matter of politics, but what economists have learned from studying them is not.

​

And the deleterious impacts of tariffs can been seen throughout an economy; they aren't just limited to the industry of the tariff itself, most especially when the tariff is on raw materials rather than on specific finished goods.

Impact of the Bush Steel Tariff on the value of the U.S. dollar (2002 - 2005)

Additional references on the impact of tariffs (a mix of ECON101 and distillate content):

• https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/tariffs/
  
• Tariffs and Quotas: Effects on Imported Goods and Domestic Prices - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
  
• The Basics Of Tariffs And Trade Barriers
  
• https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/24571/trade/impact-of-us-tariffs/
  
• Steel and Aluminum Jobs Don't Add Up to Much
  
• George W. Bush tried steel tariffs. It didn't work

You have a good point, Xelor -- ergo right now we don't need the additional jobs.

However that is not exactly true. We need BETTER jobs -- jobs from manufacturing. Steel and aluminum besides being strategic (i.e. if there is a big war we need our own steel and our own aluminum production stateside) are good union jobs.

So Trump is trying to take burger flippers from McD's and move them into steel and aluminum refineries, not to mention the strategic considerations.

I support Trump in this effort.

Fokk Europe.

Fokk Asia.

 

[yiostheoy]

Senile John McCain: "Trump’s decision to impose steep tariffs on steel and aluminum imports will not protect America. Reminiscent of failed protectionist trade policies of the past, this decision will harm the American economy, hurt American workers, and damage relations" with allies

If Trump has suggested "we are applying these tariffs and we are going to war against *country X*", McCain would have applauded Trump for his leadership across the board.

McCain is brain dead.

So is Hatch.

These two geriatric morons belong in a retirement home.

 

[yiostheoy]

some (but not all to their credit ) Trump fans in here are all excited over the tariff moves by trump .

Many of those same posters flip out over any minwage increase because it adds to the costs of goods/services.

Can you justify being for tariffs and against min wage ?

I am against minimum wage, and frankly I am concerned about the tariff saber rattling Trump is doing. It will cause upheaval for sure. Most companies have learned to work in the present non-tariff environment. It could be good, it could be a disaster, but there are so many factors and moving parts that it seems impossible to predict the ultimate effects, which by the way, will take multiple years to unfold. It’s like global climate change in many respects when it comes to predicting.

BuckToothMoron you sound like a college professor BuckToothMoron and not like a buck toothed moron BuckToothMoron !!!

 

[usmbguest5318]

some (but not all to their credit ) Trump fans in here are all excited over the tariff moves by trump .

Many of those same posters flip out over any minwage increase because it adds to the costs of goods/services.

Can you justify being for tariffs and against min wage ?

It's a false choice and a false premise. The main problem with the minimum wage is that it imposes the double-whammy of job losses and increased labor costs. Even Warren Buffet has argued that a better way to help the working poor is through the Earned Income Tax Credit, and I agree with him. Using the EITC spreads the cost of higher income for the poor much more broadly so that its impact on labor costs is greatly reduced.

Protective tariffs give you a net job growth for a minimal cost or no cost, as we've seen over and over again in economic history.

One of the good things Obama did was to impose stiff tariffs on Chinese tires, which had the effect of revitalizing the U.S. tire industry.

The main problem with the minimum wage is that it imposes the double-whammy of job losses and increased labor costs.

??? Tariffs have exactly those impacts, most especially in an economy that's at or near full capacity. Full capacity as goes labor is precisely where the U.S., which is right at structural unemployment level, currently finds itself. We know this from inferences made by economic theory (science use of "theory") and from recent empirical evidence: The Tariff of Abominations (1828), Smoot-Hawley and the Bush II Tariffs of 2002 (detailed in the paper linked just below).

• The Unintended Consequences of U.S. Steel Import Tariffs: A Quantification of the Impact During 2002
  • 200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices during 2002. These lost jobs represent approximately $4 billion in lost wages from February to November 2002.
  • One out of four (50,000) of these job losses occurred in the metal manufacturing, machinery and equipment and transportation equipment and parts sectors.
  • Job losses escalated steadily over 2002, peaking in November (at 202,000 jobs), and slightly declining to 197,000 jobs in December.
  • More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself (187,500 Americans were employed by U.S. steel producers in December 2002).
  • Every U.S. state experienced employment losses from higher steel costs, with the highest losses occurring in:
    • California (19,392 jobs lost),
    • Texas (15,826 jobs lost),
    • Ohio (10,553 jobs lost),
    • Michigan (9,829 jobs lost),
    • Illinois (9,621 jobs lost),
    • Pennsylvania (8,400 jobs lost),
    • New York (8,901 jobs lost) and
    • Florida (8,370 jobs lost).
    • Sixteen states lost at least 4,500 steel consuming jobs each over the course of 2002 from higher steel prices.

The impact of tariffs is immensely well understood, and it doesn't take much but actually bothering to comprehend them at a very basic level to understand that the economic contraction that results from tariffs outstrip the narrow gains tariffs provide. What laymen think about them may be a matter of politics, but what economists have learned from studying them is not.

​

And the deleterious impacts of tariffs can been seen throughout an economy; they aren't just limited to the industry of the tariff itself, most especially when the tariff is on raw materials rather than on specific finished goods.

Impact of the Bush Steel Tariff on the value of the U.S. dollar (2002 - 2005)

Additional references on the impact of tariffs (a mix of ECON101 and distillate content):

• https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/tariffs/
  
• Tariffs and Quotas: Effects on Imported Goods and Domestic Prices - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
  
• The Basics Of Tariffs And Trade Barriers
  
• https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/24571/trade/impact-of-us-tariffs/
  
• Steel and Aluminum Jobs Don't Add Up to Much
  
• George W. Bush tried steel tariffs. It didn't work

You have a good point, Xelor -- ergo right now we don't need the additional jobs.

However that is not exactly true. We need BETTER jobs -- jobs from manufacturing. Steel and aluminum besides being strategic (i.e. if there is a big war we need our own steel and our own aluminum production stateside) are good union jobs.

So Trump is trying to take burger flippers from McD's and move them into steel and aluminum refineries, not to mention the strategic considerations.

I support Trump in this effort.

Fokk Europe.

Fokk Asia.

Whatever...I'm not going to debate/discuss normative economic opinions with you or anyone else here...most especially not with someone whose remarks make clear to me they either don't actually understand all or have willfully chosen to ignore key points I made in that post.

 

[yiostheoy]

some (but not all to their credit ) Trump fans in here are all excited over the tariff moves by trump .

Many of those same posters flip out over any minwage increase because it adds to the costs of goods/services.

Can you justify being for tariffs and against min wage ?

It's a false choice and a false premise. The main problem with the minimum wage is that it imposes the double-whammy of job losses and increased labor costs. Even Warren Buffet has argued that a better way to help the working poor is through the Earned Income Tax Credit, and I agree with him. Using the EITC spreads the cost of higher income for the poor much more broadly so that its impact on labor costs is greatly reduced.

Protective tariffs give you a net job growth for a minimal cost or no cost, as we've seen over and over again in economic history.

One of the good things Obama did was to impose stiff tariffs on Chinese tires, which had the effect of revitalizing the U.S. tire industry.

The main problem with the minimum wage is that it imposes the double-whammy of job losses and increased labor costs.

??? Tariffs have exactly those impacts, most especially in an economy that's at or near full capacity. Full capacity as goes labor is precisely where the U.S., which is right at structural unemployment level, currently finds itself. We know this from inferences made by economic theory (science use of "theory") and from recent empirical evidence: The Tariff of Abominations (1828), Smoot-Hawley and the Bush II Tariffs of 2002 (detailed in the paper linked just below).

• The Unintended Consequences of U.S. Steel Import Tariffs: A Quantification of the Impact During 2002
  • 200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices during 2002. These lost jobs represent approximately $4 billion in lost wages from February to November 2002.
  • One out of four (50,000) of these job losses occurred in the metal manufacturing, machinery and equipment and transportation equipment and parts sectors.
  • Job losses escalated steadily over 2002, peaking in November (at 202,000 jobs), and slightly declining to 197,000 jobs in December.
  • More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself (187,500 Americans were employed by U.S. steel producers in December 2002).
  • Every U.S. state experienced employment losses from higher steel costs, with the highest losses occurring in:
    • California (19,392 jobs lost),
    • Texas (15,826 jobs lost),
    • Ohio (10,553 jobs lost),
    • Michigan (9,829 jobs lost),
    • Illinois (9,621 jobs lost),
    • Pennsylvania (8,400 jobs lost),
    • New York (8,901 jobs lost) and
    • Florida (8,370 jobs lost).
    • Sixteen states lost at least 4,500 steel consuming jobs each over the course of 2002 from higher steel prices.

The impact of tariffs is immensely well understood, and it doesn't take much but actually bothering to comprehend them at a very basic level to understand that the economic contraction that results from tariffs outstrip the narrow gains tariffs provide. What laymen think about them may be a matter of politics, but what economists have learned from studying them is not.

​

And the deleterious impacts of tariffs can been seen throughout an economy; they aren't just limited to the industry of the tariff itself, most especially when the tariff is on raw materials rather than on specific finished goods.

Impact of the Bush Steel Tariff on the value of the U.S. dollar (2002 - 2005)

Additional references on the impact of tariffs (a mix of ECON101 and distillate content):

• https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/tariffs/
  
• Tariffs and Quotas: Effects on Imported Goods and Domestic Prices - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
  
• The Basics Of Tariffs And Trade Barriers
  
• https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/24571/trade/impact-of-us-tariffs/
  
• Steel and Aluminum Jobs Don't Add Up to Much
  
• George W. Bush tried steel tariffs. It didn't work

You have a good point, Xelor -- ergo right now we don't need the additional jobs.

However that is not exactly true. We need BETTER jobs -- jobs from manufacturing. Steel and aluminum besides being strategic (i.e. if there is a big war we need our own steel and our own aluminum production stateside) are good union jobs.

So Trump is trying to take burger flippers from McD's and move them into steel and aluminum refineries, not to mention the strategic considerations.

I support Trump in this effort.

Fokk Europe.

Fokk Asia.

Whatever...I'm not going to debate/discuss normative economic opinions with you or anyone else here...most especially not with someone whose remarks make clear to me they either don't actually understand all or have willfully chosen to ignore key points I made in that post.

Your key points are good. They are also valid.

Your main personal character flaws however are that (1) you love to argue and (2) you love to advocate therefore (3) you never provide BOTH sides of the WHOLE STORY you only provide one side or the other.

I think it would be fun to play chess or backgammon against you.

But arguing against you is a tedious debate for me.

You are very bright and extremely well educated. Same as any typical college professor or economist or lawyer.

God bless you and keep you Xelor .