Stuff I Disagree with Tea Partiers, Libertarians and Liberals On

[Quantum Windbag]

Because I am an ass.

The BLS has decades of data about how free trade creates jobs. If you are part of an industry that is loosing jobs it is not because "jobs" are being shipped overseas, it is because competition and innovation are changing what skills are profitable in one place and your industry is not adapting. My guess is it has been propped up for years by government policy.

Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject

Okay a couple points.

This isn't a question of the industry adapting. The "company" is doing fine. They are activiely outsourcing US jobs and benefiting from the lowered cost.

From what I have seen is the data you posted, jobs in the past decade have been flat. It isn't in the form of a pivot table but I suspect if I were to adjust for construction which was a bubble and government jobs which have increased then jobs would have declined.

Also this isn't free trade. Yes I agree free trade makes sense but this is a wholesale shift of production enabled by communication cost shifts and the digitalzation of products. And in looking at the data I suspect it is not just one industry.

Of course it is not one industry, and the last decade has been rather hard on jobs, but the point is still valid. Free trade generally results in more, higher paying, more skilled jobs, for everyone. Every economist in the world understands this, no matter what there political leanings otherwise. Some politicians like to campaign against free trade, but they always end up voting for it when they understand the facts. Look at Obama, who ran against NAFTA, and is now working to get two different free trade agreements through Congress as part of his latest pivot to jobs.

Free trade is good for the economy, even if it negatively impacts a few people who fail to adapt.

 

[ShackledNation]

Because I am an ass.

The BLS has decades of data about how free trade creates jobs. If you are part of an industry that is loosing jobs it is not because "jobs" are being shipped overseas, it is because competition and innovation are changing what skills are profitable in one place and your industry is not adapting. My guess is it has been propped up for years by government policy.

Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject

Okay a couple points.

This isn't a question of the industry adapting. The "company" is doing fine. They are activiely outsourcing US jobs and benefiting from the lowered cost.

From what I have seen is the data you posted, jobs in the past decade have been flat. It isn't in the form of a pivot table but I suspect if I were to adjust for construction which was a bubble and government jobs which have increased then jobs would have declined.

Also this isn't free trade. Yes I agree free trade makes sense but this is a wholesale shift of production enabled by communication cost shifts and the digitalzation of products. And in looking at the data I suspect it is not just one industry.

Of course it is not one industry, and the last decade has been rather hard on jobs, but the point is still valid. Free trade generally results in more, higher paying, more skilled jobs, for everyone. Every economist in the world understands this, no matter what there political leanings otherwise. Some politicians like to campaign against free trade, but they always end up voting for it when they understand the facts. Look at Obama, who ran against NAFTA, and is now working to get two different free trade agreements through Congress as part of his latest pivot to jobs.

Free trade is good for the economy, even if it negatively impacts a few people who fail to adapt.

Correct, free trade is good for the economy. But NAFTA is not free trade. Managed trade is not free trade.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You know mr.countryclubindependent-- I SENSE you've spent too much time in the service sector.. Competition in the service sector is Par3 with the kiddies compared to the folks like me who are trying to fix shit going bad in China at 3AM in the fucking morning. My background is Silicon Valley. Both the technology side and plenty of exposure on the Venture Capital side. We cannot find GREAT economic advisors in this country right now because they are relying on "book smarts" from the 60's and 70's to diagnose and treat the illness. I don't think there's a financial advisor in the entire OBAMA admin who's actually looked out the window and sensed what has changed since they got their MBA. And a LARGE part of that illness right now is that we woke up not long ago and discovered that

Ha! I am an independent pretty much having the same debate with Quantum.

The only difference is while I agree the left is looking at the 60's and 70's, the right is looking at the 80's under Reagan and neither is worth a damm in the new flat world model we now face.

In fact, the more I think through the implications in this new model the more I think eliminating the Capital Gains tax as proposed by many Republicans would be a disaster and not a help.

Eliminating the capital gains tax is probably a bad idea. That does not mean we should not look at restructuring it, and maybe even eliminating it on long term gains. By long term I mean 50+ years of paying a home mortgage and then selling your house to travel after you retire. I think that would be a boost to the economy, but I am willing to look at arguments that prove me wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay a couple points.

This isn't a question of the industry adapting. The "company" is doing fine. They are activiely outsourcing US jobs and benefiting from the lowered cost.

From what I have seen is the data you posted, jobs in the past decade have been flat. It isn't in the form of a pivot table but I suspect if I were to adjust for construction which was a bubble and government jobs which have increased then jobs would have declined.

Also this isn't free trade. Yes I agree free trade makes sense but this is a wholesale shift of production enabled by communication cost shifts and the digitalzation of products. And in looking at the data I suspect it is not just one industry.

Of course it is not one industry, and the last decade has been rather hard on jobs, but the point is still valid. Free trade generally results in more, higher paying, more skilled jobs, for everyone. Every economist in the world understands this, no matter what there political leanings otherwise. Some politicians like to campaign against free trade, but they always end up voting for it when they understand the facts. Look at Obama, who ran against NAFTA, and is now working to get two different free trade agreements through Congress as part of his latest pivot to jobs.

Free trade is good for the economy, even if it negatively impacts a few people who fail to adapt.

Correct, free trade is good for the economy. But NAFTA is not free trade. Managed trade is not free trade.

Anytime the government is involved it ain't free anything.

 

[flacaltenn]

WindBag:

The BLS has decades of data about how free trade creates jobs. If you are part of an industry that is loosing jobs it is not because "jobs" are being shipped overseas, it is because competition and innovation are changing what skills are profitable in one place and your industry is not adapting. My guess is it has been propped up for years by government policy

I'm not picking on you here but the sentence should read "... it is because competition and primarily "cheap foreign labor" are changing what skills are profitable in America and your industry is DYING. It's not so much that they couldn't adapt somewhat and modernize to compete with cheap overseas labor -- it's just that all the other regulation and taxation and capital access pressures makes this the EASY choice right now. Change the business climate so that updating manufacturing is a viable option and maybe things change.

I assert that we probably shouldn't make plain ole shoes anymore. That sounds vile and harsh, but it's realistic. There are 30 BILLION potential shoe-makers on the planet, we need to suck it up and do the harder stuff..

Maybe we should make CUSTOM shoes or specialty shoes with 21st manufacturing techniques. The deal was (and we were told this for 15 years at least) -- that future American jobs would need to shift to higher skills and better methodologies. Robotics, artificial intelligience, materials science, nanotech, biotech, ect, ect. BUT WindyBag -- It's not doing anyone any good to brag about how we've shifted lots of jobs into the WRONG sectors with the resultant slide in wages, and stability. If we don't improve education and get AMERICAN kids into more science and tech jobs and LESS MBAs --- we are doomed..

Bottom line -- BLS shows job growth alright. But free trade WILL result in a huge loss of HIGHER WAGE jobs (middle class section of workers) and force the economy to OVERCOMPETE in the service and govt sector for positions. Until those sectors spiral down the wages as we currently seeing unfold..

UNLESS -- we consciously are focusing on pumping up the higher skilled job sectors and reanimate manufacturing with new methods.

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that your industry has two choices, learn to compete with the cheap foreign labor, or die.

There are a few simple facts that you miss in your insistence that free trade results in high paying jobs moving out of the country. The fact is that higher paying jobs go where the best workers are, not where the cheapest workers are. If "high paying" jobs like automobile manufacturing are moving out of the country it is not because the workforce in Somalia is less expensive, it is because all of the costs in Detroit are too high. Wages paid is a deciding factor only when everything else is equal, and the playing field is heavily skewed toward foreign countries by excessive regulation and taxation in the United States.

I can guarantee you that if we brought the cost of government down on all levels companies would love to take advantage of the US labor force's reputation for productivity and quality.

Look at that, not once did I say that anyone has to learn new skills, yet I presented a solution to the problem you perceive. Don't get me wrong, people would learn new skills if we reformed government, but it would be because they were trying to compete for higher paying jobs, not so that they could get entry level jobs in an entirely new field.

You're saying it's a combo of "cheap labor" and govt associated costs.. I can't argue against that. But the bottom line is that the Service sector and Govt sector jobs that you are so pleased with will NOT OFFER the high-paying jobs to replace what's been lost. Indeed, with abnormally high competition for service jobs, education, wages, and career opportunities will all spiral down the crapper. Domestically, you have immigrant pressure on the bottom end of the service sector from Mexico and immigrant pressure on the HIGH end of technical and scientific sector in the form of H1B workers. The latter are taking the slots in Universities and the high-paying jobs that "American kids just won't do".

It's not that we are giving up on JUST shoes, and toasters, and toys. We are seeing our semiconductor industry, our medical device industry, and even software development and aerospace take flight. This latter stuff concerns me greatly because once you send those products overseas, pretty soon "he who does the manufacturing does the development". We saw that with Japan. It started out as "we're the braintrust - just make this crap for us" and 10 years later, we had NO domestic consumer electronic production AND the Japanese didn't need our braintrust. .

There is NO CHOICE.. We HAVE to promote entirely new paradigms for manufacturing stuff that DOESN'T hinge on labor costs. And we have to promote our labor force overall to be the best for NEW tasks. And contrary to your assertion that

Don't get me wrong, people would learn new skills if we reformed government, but it would be because they were trying to compete for higher paying jobs, not so that they could get entry level jobs in an entirely new field

.... There WILL be entry level jobs in a 21st century manufacturing scheme. Just like the way agriculture shed the labor intensive routine but replaced jobs with entirely new support industries like biotech, advanced machinery, ag sciences, fertilizers/chemicals, processing/distrib, ect.

What are the chances that our govt is favorable to "allowing this to happen"? Not good if Mr.IndependentLogic thinks all this complaining about govt is just whining. Because his cadre of competition and profit margin ends at the local country club door and the local Yellow Pages. No wonder he's not concerned about regulation, govt meddling with HIS competitors lobbyists, taxes, and political villification. For the service and govt sectors --- it's a completely FLAT PLAYING FIELD.

We cannot afford to be locked out of producing goods and new industries and satisfied with those jobs that you (Windbag) are bragging about. MORE HAS TO HAPPEN. Or we are cooked.. For God's sake man -- put down the BLS numbers and look at where we're heading...

If GOVERNMENT is incapable of leading. Then the Capital flow and all those free traders who are gonna get screwed by the Asians better start recovering a sense of urgency here..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're saying it's a combo of "cheap labor" and govt associated costs.. I can't argue against that. But the bottom line is that the Service sector and Govt sector jobs that you are so pleased with will NOT OFFER the high-paying jobs to replace what's been lost. Indeed, with abnormally high competition for service jobs, education, wages, and career opportunities will all spiral down the crapper. Domestically, you have immigrant pressure on the bottom end of the service sector from Mexico and immigrant pressure on the HIGH end of technical and scientific sector in the form of H1B workers. The latter are taking the slots in Universities and the high-paying jobs that "American kids just won't do".

I am not enamored of government jobs or service jobs, but you should remember that "service industry" includes a substantial portion of the high tech field, doctors, lawyers, and many other jobs that actually have the potential to make a lot of money. Pointing that out does not enamor me of any position, it just points out that service is more than flipping burgers.

By the way, arguing that foreign workers are coming here to take jobs tends to make your argument that jobs are being shipped overseas seem a bit confused. Visas and immigration are a separate issue from what we are discussing anyway, even if they are related. It does show why simple solutions don't work though, there are a lot of factors that affect jobs and the economy.

It's not that we are giving up on JUST shoes, and toasters, and toys. We are seeing our semiconductor industry, our medical device industry, and even software development and aerospace take flight. This latter stuff concerns me greatly because once you send those products overseas, pretty soon "he who does the manufacturing does the development". We saw that with Japan. It started out as "we're the braintrust - just make this crap for us" and 10 years later, we had NO domestic consumer electronic production AND the Japanese didn't need our braintrust. .

We are not giving up on anything. The government is trying to determine what industries will survive into the future by guiding policy based on projections rooted in the past. This results in making some companies that would normally die off lasting way longer than they should, and it results in some that should be growing being forced to close up shop in the hope that they can survive elsewhere. The overall affect this has on our economy is hard to quantify, but my belief is that we would be better off without the government making policy decisions like that.

No, I cannot prove it. I can point to numerous people that agree with me, but they can't prove it either, so I won't bother. I do know that no one can prove the converse either, so I will happily cling to my beliefs until someone is able to prove the truth one way or another.

There is NO CHOICE.. We HAVE to promote entirely new paradigms for manufacturing stuff that DOESN'T hinge on labor costs. And we have to promote our labor force overall to be the best for NEW tasks. And contrary to your assertion that

Don't get me wrong, people would learn new skills if we reformed government, but it would be because they were trying to compete for higher paying jobs, not so that they could get entry level jobs in an entirely new field

.... There WILL be entry level jobs in a 21st century manufacturing scheme. Just like the way agriculture shed the labor intensive routine but replaced jobs with entirely new support industries like biotech, advanced machinery, ag sciences, fertilizers/chemicals, processing/distrib, ect.

Guess what?

I think you and I agree, you just misunderstood what I was saying. The way it works now the government steps in and props up an industry for a few years, even decades, and then trains the workers in that obsolete industry in entry level jobs in some other industry they want to prop up. That, IMO, cause most of the problems you see.

We do need to shift paradigms, and the first place we need to start is in the idea that the government exist to protect any company, industry, or any sector of the economy. The government should step in when people, not businesses, need help. That is why I opposed TARP when it was first proposed, and still do, the government was insisting that the survival of everyone depended on a single element of our economy that actually got into trouble because the government interfered in the first place.

What are the chances that our govt is favorable to "allowing this to happen"? Not good if Mr.IndependentLogic thinks all this complaining about govt is just whining. Because his cadre of competition and profit margin ends at the local country club door and the local Yellow Pages. No wonder he's not concerned about regulation, govt meddling with HIS competitors lobbyists, taxes, and political villification. For the service and govt sectors --- it's a completely FLAT PLAYING FIELD.

We cannot afford to be locked out of producing goods and new industries and satisfied with those jobs that you (Windbag) are bragging about. MORE HAS TO HAPPEN. Or we are cooked.. For God's sake man -- put down the BLS numbers and look at where we're heading...

Again, I am not bragging about any jobs. Most of the stuff I talk about when I actually get down to the nitty gritty in free trade is actually the very same jobs you are talking about. We lost a few steel mills in one place, and Silicon Valley sprang up somewhere else. The process was really bad for the Rust Belt, but it helped California, and the rest of the country, more than it hurt. The overall affect was positive.

If GOVERNMENT is incapable of leading. Then the Capital flow and all those free traders who are gonna get screwed by the Asians better start recovering a sense of urgency here..

This is where you and I get into an argument. The government cannot lead in this because it does not respond to market forces and new ideas fast enough. The government worked for years to prop up manufacturing in the rust belt, and that only made things worse. While the rest of the world was retooling and shifting to robotic assembly lines we clung to the old way of doing things, supported by a government that was willing to impose tariffs on foreign products to help support a failing manufacturing sector.

How did that work out again?

 

[Sactowndog]

Of course it is not one industry, and the last decade has been rather hard on jobs, but the point is still valid. Free trade generally results in more, higher paying, more skilled jobs, for everyone. Every economist in the world understands this, no matter what there political leanings otherwise. Some politicians like to campaign against free trade, but they always end up voting for it when they understand the facts. Look at Obama, who ran against NAFTA, and is now working to get two different free trade agreements through Congress as part of his latest pivot to jobs.

Free trade is good for the economy, even if it negatively impacts a few people who fail to adapt.

Okay I would agree with your point and I agreed when I studied it in college. However, when multinational companies are moving production and IP from one country to another in search of lower costs I am not sure free trade applies.

The concept of Free trade was if your country excels in X and mine in Y then we are both better off focusing on what we do well. But that assumes companies they are located in each of the countries. This constraint was a significant underlying assumption with the development of free trade theories.

What is doesn't assume is multinational companies who can freely move IP and production with limited friction to any location in the globe where they desire. I think this is a game changer which will force a leveling a wages WW unless we take action.

 

[flacaltenn]

Q. WindBag:

Of course you're not gonna get me to defend the misguided "internet superhiway" or "green jobs" initiative. Or politicians attempting to pick winners and losers. But I want them to can the tax subsidies for existing products and take a fraction of that money towards R&D. I also want them to put up or stfu on education. If they can't boost the education minimums from Wash DC -- close up shop at Dept of Ed.

It's the Sheeple of this country that need to get wise. They were warned that we are now "a job donor" to the rest of the world. We are "the rich" when it comes to jobs and the left knows that the "the rich" can afford to shed some of those jobs to "the poor".. It's a taste of their own medicine.

But we were supposed to be "doing the jobs that the rest of the 30Bill in the world can't do" -- not retreating to servicing each other. They need to DEMAND that govt reform to encouraging the incubation of all those new technologies HERE in the US of A. That means no more anti-free-market regimes and no more carcass-picking class wars. We've got shit to do...

 

[ShackledNation]

Do you guys realize that the Foreign countries outsource more jobs to the US than we outsource to them? We have many more high paying jobs from around the world now in the US because of freer trade.

People who criticize free trade fall into the same fallacies of mercantilism that existed centuries ago. Understanding the often forgotten balance of payments should make someone pro-free trade. There is the capital account and the current account. If you have a deficit in one account, you have a surplus in the other of equal value. The US currently has a current account deficit (also called a trade deficit) and a capital account (meaning investment) surplus of equal value.

One form of investment is called "foreign direct investment." A type of foreign direct investment is outsourcing. Outsourcing is simply a type of investment in another country. Because of our trade deficit, we have an investment surplus. Countries therefore invest more in the US than we invest in them. It just so happens outsourcing jobs to the US is a common means of doing so.

We buy goods from foreign countries because they are of better value than US made goods. Those countries then either buy goods back from us, or invest in us. If they buy back from us, it is obvious that there is no net loss. But it should be just as obvious that if they choose to invest in us there is also no net loss. Because we buy foreign goods, we are allowing for foreign countries to invest more money in us, thus creating more jobs at home. But why do they invest dollars in America? Because dollars cannot pay the foreign workers that produce what is exported to Americans. They have to invest the dollars in America or buy goods sold in dollars from Americans. They could hoard the dollars, but this would not be beneficial, especially seeing how the value of the dollar continues to fall. And the very act of saving dollars rather than investing or spending them is because it is expected the dollars will be invested or spent in the future. Ultimately, the dollars spent overseas come back to us.

In short, free trade does not hurt our employment. What it does do is expand production, increase efficiency, provide cheaper products for everyone, raise real wages, and especially allow the poor to afford certain items that they could not afford before.

Free trade is simply voluntary exchange across political borders. The idea that we we all be worse off if people are allowed to trade in ways that will improve the condition of both traders is a dangerously incorrect. We do not want to return to the failed mercantilist policies of the past.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course it is not one industry, and the last decade has been rather hard on jobs, but the point is still valid. Free trade generally results in more, higher paying, more skilled jobs, for everyone. Every economist in the world understands this, no matter what there political leanings otherwise. Some politicians like to campaign against free trade, but they always end up voting for it when they understand the facts. Look at Obama, who ran against NAFTA, and is now working to get two different free trade agreements through Congress as part of his latest pivot to jobs.

Free trade is good for the economy, even if it negatively impacts a few people who fail to adapt.

Okay I would agree with your point and I agreed when I studied it in college. However, when multinational companies are moving production and IP from one country to another in search of lower costs I am not sure free trade applies.

The concept of Free trade was if your country excels in X and mine in Y then we are both better off focusing on what we do well. But that assumes companies they are located in each of the countries. This constraint was a significant underlying assumption with the development of free trade theories.

What is doesn't assume is multinational companies who can freely move IP and production with limited friction to any location in the globe where they desire. I think this is a game changer which will force a leveling a wages WW unless we take action.

Until we see what is going on, or even have proof that some sort of action is necessary, we should not take action. I am sure there are some really smart people looking at what is happening and making contingency plans based on various scenarios. I don't know enough about it to even guess what has to be done, but I do know that going in the direction of protectionism is not going to help.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you guys realize that the Foreign countries outsource more jobs to the US than we outsource to them? We have many more high paying jobs from around the world now in the US because of freer trade.

People who criticize free trade fall into the same fallacies of mercantilism that existed centuries ago. Understanding the often forgotten balance of payments should make someone pro-free trade. There is the capital account and the current account. If you have a deficit in one account, you have a surplus in the other of equal value. The US currently has a current account deficit (also called a trade deficit) and a capital account (meaning investment) surplus of equal value.

One form of investment is called "foreign direct investment." A type of foreign direct investment is outsourcing. Outsourcing is simply a type of investment in another country. Because of our trade deficit, we have an investment surplus. Countries therefore invest more in the US than we invest in them. It just so happens outsourcing jobs to the US is a common means of doing so.

We buy goods from foreign countries because they are of better value than US made goods. Those countries then either buy goods back from us, or invest in us. If they buy back from us, it is obvious that there is no net loss. But it should be just as obvious that if they choose to invest in us there is also no net loss. Because we buy foreign goods, we are allowing for foreign countries to invest more money in us, thus creating more jobs at home. But why do they invest dollars in America? Because dollars cannot pay the foreign workers that produce what is exported to Americans. They have to invest the dollars in America or buy goods sold in dollars from Americans. They could hoard the dollars, but this would not be beneficial, especially seeing how the value of the dollar continues to fall. And the very act of saving dollars rather than investing or spending them is because it is expected the dollars will be invested or spent in the future. Ultimately, the dollars spent overseas come back to us.

In short, free trade does not hurt our employment. What it does do is expand production, increase efficiency, provide cheaper products for everyone, raise real wages, and especially allow the poor to afford certain items that they could not afford before.

Free trade is simply voluntary exchange across political borders. The idea that we we all be worse off if people are allowed to trade in ways that will improve the condition of both traders is a dangerously incorrect. We do not want to return to the failed mercantilist policies of the past.

Even tho we probably share political genetics.. There's a couple problems with your attempt to make me happier with American complacency towards the RIGHT jobs..

1) Yes -- there are foreign auto-makers in the US. Largely because Autos are heavy and bulky and hard to ship. But there are NO -- NONE foreign consumer electronics manufacturers, foreign clothing manufacturers, foreign toy manufacturers that are being "shared" in the JOBS sense. There may be foreign investment in some American companies, but this does not shine up the jobs trade.

2) When countries "invest in America" you make it sound like they are creating jobs to balance the deficit of job trade. Most often -- they take those bucks and buy US treasuries with them. Now I KNOW you're not gonna argue that balances the jobs sheet..

3) It is not their job to assure that the RIGHT KIND of jobs get created here. That's OUR job. It would be imperialistic for them to even care. Ultimately the condition of our workforce is up to US.

4) The other type of "foreign job presence" in the US is not in manufactured goods, but in R&D. Probably the majority of this type of foreign job placement is in hi-tech areas because of ease of employment. We are in danger of losing the attractiveness for this kind of investment because our sons/daughters are not filling those slots. It's not a libertarian thing to let stuff slide just because the govt can't or won't fix it. Again -- it's US attitudes that have to change here. More MBAs and less scientists/engineers is a prescription for the end of a empire.

Leadership is critical at this stage. With Immelt moving GE medical to China we get a glimpse of the fucku attitude that could be justified -- given the mutual abuse between company's like that and the govt. If we don't get the message out -- that it's OUR RESPONSIBILITY to look forward and direct capital to the right places -- you're gonna see years go by without any new attractive IPOs on the stock market that mean more than a twitter..

 

[ShackledNation]

Do you guys realize that the Foreign countries outsource more jobs to the US than we outsource to them? We have many more high paying jobs from around the world now in the US because of freer trade.

People who criticize free trade fall into the same fallacies of mercantilism that existed centuries ago. Understanding the often forgotten balance of payments should make someone pro-free trade. There is the capital account and the current account. If you have a deficit in one account, you have a surplus in the other of equal value. The US currently has a current account deficit (also called a trade deficit) and a capital account (meaning investment) surplus of equal value.

One form of investment is called "foreign direct investment." A type of foreign direct investment is outsourcing. Outsourcing is simply a type of investment in another country. Because of our trade deficit, we have an investment surplus. Countries therefore invest more in the US than we invest in them. It just so happens outsourcing jobs to the US is a common means of doing so.

We buy goods from foreign countries because they are of better value than US made goods. Those countries then either buy goods back from us, or invest in us. If they buy back from us, it is obvious that there is no net loss. But it should be just as obvious that if they choose to invest in us there is also no net loss. Because we buy foreign goods, we are allowing for foreign countries to invest more money in us, thus creating more jobs at home. But why do they invest dollars in America? Because dollars cannot pay the foreign workers that produce what is exported to Americans. They have to invest the dollars in America or buy goods sold in dollars from Americans. They could hoard the dollars, but this would not be beneficial, especially seeing how the value of the dollar continues to fall. And the very act of saving dollars rather than investing or spending them is because it is expected the dollars will be invested or spent in the future. Ultimately, the dollars spent overseas come back to us.

In short, free trade does not hurt our employment. What it does do is expand production, increase efficiency, provide cheaper products for everyone, raise real wages, and especially allow the poor to afford certain items that they could not afford before.

Free trade is simply voluntary exchange across political borders. The idea that we we all be worse off if people are allowed to trade in ways that will improve the condition of both traders is a dangerously incorrect. We do not want to return to the failed mercantilist policies of the past.

Even tho we probably share political genetics.. There's a couple problems with your attempt to make me happier with American complacency towards the RIGHT jobs..

1) Yes -- there are foreign auto-makers in the US. Largely because Autos are heavy and bulky and hard to ship. But there are NO -- NONE foreign consumer electronics manufacturers, foreign clothing manufacturers, foreign toy manufacturers that are being "shared" in the JOBS sense. There may be foreign investment in some American companies, but this does not shine up the jobs trade.

I don't think you understand. There are more jobs created by foreign companies in the US than than US companies create in foreign countries. This is not some theoretical explanation. I am referencing what is actually happening. We are complaining about outsourcing jobs to foreign companies, but they literally outsource more jobs to us.

"Foreign-owned companies in the United States have a work force of more than 5.3 million, or some 3.5 percent of all workers, and are spread across the 50 states in sectors from manufacturing to retail and publishing. If these jobs did not exist, the nation’s unemployment rate would be above 13 percent. "

It is not just auto, there are many different jobs. This is much, much bigger than foreign auto makers.

"[aside from auto] there are also tens of thousands of Americans working for companies like the Tata Group of India, which recently reopened the Pierre Hotel in Manhattan and makes Eight O’Clock Coffee; Haier, the Chinese appliance maker, with a refrigerator plant in South Carolina and an impressive headquarters in a landmark building in Manhattan; and Nestlé, the Swiss food company, which employs hundreds to make Nesquik and Coffee-Mate in Indiana."

"When foreign companies open a factory or buy a business in a region they also stimulate local commerce and create a demand for more homes, shops, schools and restaurants. They contribute money to schools, parks and towns, and lure consultants and technicians who then provide more jobs. This ripple effect explains why governors, mayors and economic development officials are so eager for foreign investors.

Without foreign investment, says Mitch Daniels, the Republican governor of Indiana, “we’d be a Dust Bowl.”"

So yes, foreign companies are literally hiring workers in the United States and providing them with jobs that would otherwise not exist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/business/18excerpt.html?pagewanted=all

We got 5.3 million jobs because of outsourcing in 2009. How many did we lose to outsourcing in that same year? 2 million. On net balance, because of outsourcing, we have +3.3 million jobs.
Number of Jobs Outsourced in the US in 2009 | Number Of | How Many

These jobs are also higher paying than American jobs, due to the high demand for high skilled labor coming from foreign countries. I had book marked an article on the exact percent higher, but I lost it.

So I will provide this one instead:
http://www.channelingreality.com/Competitiveness/Ohio/ITAAO_article_Insourcing_Jobs.pdf

Jobs insourced to the US have been growing at 5.5% per year, whereas job loss to outsourcing is only growing at 1.5% The fact of the matter is that because of outsourcing, the US has millions of jobs it would not have had before, they are higher paying, and because free trade allows competition the goods produced are cheaper and more efficiently produced.

2) When countries "invest in America" you make it sound like they are creating jobs to balance the deficit of job trade. Most often -- they take those bucks and buy US treasuries with them. Now I KNOW you're not gonna argue that balances the jobs sheet..

Well yes, that is exactly what is happening. But you are absolutely correct that a significant portion of investment comes in the form of US bonds. I am not sure if you can say "most" comes in that form, I don't have the hard numbers. Foreign nations also finance our government, preventing it from collapsing. We could not fund medicare, social security, and all these wars without foreign nations buying bonds. I don't think we should have a government doing all of these things, but free trade does not cause our government to do these things.

3) It is not their job to assure that the RIGHT KIND of jobs get created here. That's OUR job. It would be imperialistic for them to even care. Ultimately the condition of our workforce is up to US.

Not sure what you mean by right kind of job. I never said anything like that. In my opinion, there is no such thing as a "right" kind of job. The purpose of employment is production, and the purpose of production is consumption of what is produced. In a free market, people are allowed to consume freely, so what is produced will depend on consumer preference, as will employment. So I guess you could say the "right" kind of job is one that successfully produces goods and services in line with supply and demand and consumer preference. But all individuals decide what they want depending on what they buy. So I am not sure who you think is assuring this "right" job is created.

4) The other type of "foreign job presence" in the US is not in manufactured goods, but in R&D. Probably the majority of this type of foreign job placement is in hi-tech areas because of ease of employment. We are in danger of losing the attractiveness for this kind of investment because our sons/daughters are not filling those slots. It's not a libertarian thing to let stuff slide just because the govt can't or won't fix it. Again -- it's US attitudes that have to change here. More MBAs and less scientists/engineers is a prescription for the end of a empire.

Not sure what you are talking about. The fact of the matter is that currently Americans do not save much at all. Because of this, they highly demand consumer goods, and so employment will tend towards the production of consumer goods. MBAs and scientists can be used to improve upon these products and discover new products to meet future demand, so I am not sure why you are assuming these people will disappear. In fact, according to the BLS, the job growth rate for engineers is supposed to grow just as fast as every other job in the next 10 years--11%.
Engineers

So your notion these jobs are disappearing is simply not accurate. And I don't want the US to be an empire, I wont it to be a constitutional republic as prescribed in our Constitution.

Leadership is critical at this stage. With Immelt moving GE medical to China we get a glimpse of the fucku attitude that could be justified -- given the mutual abuse between company's like that and the govt. If we don't get the message out -- that it's OUR RESPONSIBILITY to look forward and direct capital to the right places -- you're gonna see years go by without any new attractive IPOs on the stock market that mean more than a twitter..

Don't you see? We are directly capital to where we want it to go. That is what a free market does. Free trade is merely the international extension of the free market. I'm not sure what you mean with that statement, to be honest, and what leadership is supposed to do. I would say make trade even freer.

The biggest complaint about free trade is the outsourcing of jobs. But we get more new jobs from outsourcing than we actually outsource ourselves. In fact, we insource over twice as many. Americans getting these jobs spend their salaries on goods and services in America. So the notion free trade is taking away jobs from Americans is simply not true.

 

[Sactowndog]

Eliminating the capital gains tax is probably a bad idea. That does not mean we should not look at restructuring it, and maybe even eliminating it on long term gains. By long term I mean 50+ years of paying a home mortgage and then selling your house to travel after you retire. I think that would be a boost to the economy, but I am willing to look at arguments that prove me wrong.

So you can exclude gains on real estate. But to stretch a point to make a point. Let's look at an investor who has decided to invest 100% of his portfolio offshore. Should you reduce it or eliminate it, the investor plays no tax despite consuming government resources as a resident.

We can achieve many of the same results by eliminating corporate income taxes. Since income taxes would be reduced the arguments against double taxation goes away.

 

[Sactowndog]

Do you guys realize that the Foreign countries outsource more jobs to the US than we outsource to them? We have many more high paying jobs from around the world now in the US because of freer trade.

Do you have data that would show this? I would agree prior to the laying of tranoceanic cables but I think it would be old data at this point.

 

[Sactowndog]

Even tho we probably share political genetics.. There's a couple problems with your attempt to make me happier with American complacency towards the RIGHT jobs..

1) Yes -- there are foreign auto-makers in the US. Largely because Autos are heavy and bulky and hard to ship. But there are NO -- NONE foreign consumer electronics manufacturers, foreign clothing manufacturers, foreign toy manufacturers that are being "shared" in the JOBS sense. There may be foreign investment in some American companies, but this does not shine up the jobs trade...

Again you and I agree but I see the problem as getting even worse because of the digitization of solutions. Things that were done on paper are increasingly digital making it even easier to move overseas.

As society and products become increasingly digital it makes it simple to create and transport. Huge sectors of our society on both the manufacturing and the service side will be affected.

 

[ShackledNation]

Do you guys realize that the Foreign countries outsource more jobs to the US than we outsource to them? We have many more high paying jobs from around the world now in the US because of freer trade.

Do you have data that would show this? I would agree prior to the laying of tranoceanic cables but I think it would be old data at this point.

Yes. See my above post. And this is current data, from 2009. I don't know why you assume there is no demand for American labor. Foreign countries demand American workers because we are more productive. We insource 5.5 million jobs and outsource 2 million. We benefit from outsourcing by very large numbers. Major car companies are the stereotypical example (like Toyota) but Nesle chocolate, a swiss company, is another example of foreign outsourcing to, rather than from, the US.

 

[flacaltenn]

ShackledNation:

First off -- I can believe the 5.3Mill jobs with foreign owned companies. But you also use that figure to balance the job loss in just ONE YEAR (2009). That doesn't fly.. We are not GAINING 5.3Mill foreign sponsored jobs in any one year -- but we are shedding multi-millions (mainly from the manufacturing sector) in each and every year to off-shoring.

Which brings me to the point of the "right job".. I'm not denigrating Service sector jobs or Govt jobs, but we are in a grand new market experiment now where our manufacturing of goods is going towards zero quickly. You do not need science and technology to sustain a "Service economy" as much as you do a balanced economy that produces goods and tools as well. No country in the history of free markets has ever shed as much of their manufacturing and producing engine as we have.

This change in "type" of jobs has several real implications for macro-economics. You can no longer rely on stimulating the economy at the CONSUMPTION level. Because all that will do is increase the number of container ships at the ports. And you can't rely on a tenuous replacement army of MBAs to manage foreign production -- because Asia will eat them alive and spit out the shells when they decide to compete against a lot of US designs. It happened with American consumer electronics and Japan and China will slough us off in the same exact way...

What was SUPPOSED to happen -- according to all free-trade heroes --- was that America was gonna step-up and elevate their workforce into technologies and products that would be viable in spite of cheaper labor and lower govt interference elsewhere. That is CLEARLY not happening. Which is why I won't simply accept raw BLS or libertarian think tank numbers. All jobs are not interchangeable in the economy. Without high-skilled product development and manufacturing, we will miss fundamental changes in consumption and products. We will lose access to raw material supply chains, and any innovation that occurs in this country will be done at a dissadvantage because of loss of domestic manufacturing expertise.

Service Sectors can't GROW in a vacuum. So I'm not impressed at Foreign Hotel investments or Foreign sponsored jobs that CROWD the service sector. GROWTH comes from innovation in the production of goods and technology. I learned that lesson as a consultant for the past 20 years. As a service provider in technology -- I can only sell my hours. And unless I pick up patents or royalties or a product -- my potential is capped by the number of hours in a day.

So PLEASE -- when the free traders are kicking around raw numbers, realize that "old school" thinking about a balanced economy doesn't apply anymore in this country and that we better focus on how we are going to balance the remaining service sector with 21 century innovation in sectors yet to be developed. Take a good look at job "type" and "job worth" to see what I mean by "the right jobs"..

 

[Patrick2]

What was SUPPOSED to happen -- according to all free-trade heroes --- was that America was gonna step-up and elevate their workforce into technologies and products that would be viable in spite of cheaper labor and lower govt interference elsewhere. That is CLEARLY not happening.

WHY it isn't happening is because of extremely well-known reasons, such as the death grip of teachers' unions on K12 education, and the failed government schools.

 

[flacaltenn]

What was SUPPOSED to happen -- according to all free-trade heroes --- was that America was gonna step-up and elevate their workforce into technologies and products that would be viable in spite of cheaper labor and lower govt interference elsewhere. That is CLEARLY not happening.

WHY it isn't happening is because of extremely well-known reasons, such as the death grip of teachers' unions on K12 education, and the failed government schools.

This should be elevated to crisis status.. If anyone talks about jobs without critical intent to break the log-jam in public ed -- they don't "get it"..

1) Get capital back to our shores.
2) Change political handouts (subsidies) to R&D credits.
3) Education standards must GO UP --- not produce minimum equal outcomes.
4) Educate the public what the "job crisis" is REALLY about..
5) Get the govt the hell out of way for start-up operations and small business. Go torture the "big guys".
6) STFU about "green jobs" and stop wasting time and money on Govt picking winners and losers in the market.


Just off the top of my head. Not intended to be a "stump speech"

 

[ShackledNation]

ShackledNation:

First off -- I can believe the 5.3Mill jobs with foreign owned companies. But you also use that figure to balance the job loss in just ONE YEAR (2009). That doesn't fly.. We are not GAINING 5.3Mill foreign sponsored jobs in any one year -- but we are shedding multi-millions (mainly from the manufacturing sector) in each and every year to off-shoring.

No, that was not the job loss of one year, that was the total number of jobs outsourced up until that time. Let me cite this statistic once again.

Jobs insourced to the US have been growing at 5.5% per year, whereas job loss to outsourcing is only growing at 1.5%

Every year, we gain more jobs to insourcing than we lose to outsourcing. The notion that jobs are vanishing overseas and not being replaced is a myth.

Which brings me to the point of the "right job".. I'm not denigrating Service sector jobs or Govt jobs, but we are in a grand new market experiment now where our manufacturing of goods is going towards zero quickly. You do not need science and technology to sustain a "Service economy" as much as you do a balanced economy that produces goods and tools as well. No country in the history of free markets has ever shed as much of their manufacturing and producing engine as we have.

The problem is that you are incorrect we are losing science jobs. As I showed, the number of engineering jobs is increasing at a healthy rate. You have no sources saying that we are losing all these jobs, just assumptions. And I provided evidence to prove them wrong. If you think we should manufacture more, the solution should be to make the cost of doing business less by reducing government interference, not by adding more regulations to foreign businesses so they are less competitive. We need to increase the competitiveness of our businesses, not decrease the competitiveness of everyone else.
The reason US manufacturing is less competitive is because of too much government. Limiting free trade by imposing more government is not the answer. The problem is not the solution.

This change in "type" of jobs has several real implications for macro-economics. You can no longer rely on stimulating the economy at the CONSUMPTION level. Because all that will do is increase the number of container ships at the ports. And you can't rely on a tenuous replacement army of MBAs to manage foreign production -- because Asia will eat them alive and spit out the shells when they decide to compete against a lot of US designs. It happened with American consumer electronics and Japan and China will slough us off in the same exact way...

This is pure fear-induced propaganda. Most rich nations currently have large service sectors. There is nothing wrong with that. And what do you mean stimulating the economy at the consumption level? You cannot consume what has not been produced. American consumer electronics are doing fine. Apple is the most successful and valuable country in the entire nation, to list just one.

What was SUPPOSED to happen -- according to all free-trade heroes --- was that America was gonna step-up and elevate their workforce into technologies and products that would be viable in spite of cheaper labor and lower govt interference elsewhere. That is CLEARLY not happening. Which is why I won't simply accept raw BLS or libertarian think tank numbers. All jobs are not interchangeable in the economy. Without high-skilled product development and manufacturing, we will miss fundamental changes in consumption and products. We will lose access to raw material supply chains, and any innovation that occurs in this country will be done at a dissadvantage because of loss of domestic manufacturing expertise.

I am not giving you think tank numbers, and so far you have offered no numbers. It is ironic that you call it raw libertarian BS when you have offered nothing but your own unsupported opinions. What you say is clearly happening because of free trade simply isn't happening, and if it is it is not actually a bad thing or it is caused by something else.

Service Sectors can't GROW in a vacuum. So I'm not impressed at Foreign Hotel investments or Foreign sponsored jobs that CROWD the service sector. GROWTH comes from innovation in the production of goods and technology. I learned that lesson as a consultant for the past 20 years. As a service provider in technology -- I can only sell my hours. And unless I pick up patents or royalties or a product -- my potential is capped by the number of hours in a day.

There is no vacuum. Yes, growth comes from innovation. And innovation is more likely to happen in free markets than controlled markets. As a service provider you do not sell your hours, you sell your service. The same is true of a factory worker. They are selling their service in creating the product.

So PLEASE -- when the free traders are kicking around raw numbers, realize that "old school" thinking about a balanced economy doesn't apply anymore in this country and that we better focus on how we are going to balance the remaining service sector with 21 century innovation in sectors yet to be developed. Take a good look at job "type" and "job worth" to see what I mean by "the right jobs"..

And you kick around no numbers. There is innovation. Heard of the tablet market? What are you talking about? You seem to be under this myth that there is no innovation in the market. That is simply not true. And most Americans don't want manufacturing jobs. There is no such thing as an objective "right" job. Job worth is subjective to the individual and the employer.

Also, you keep saying there are all these problems. What is your solution?