$10.10. A killer for the rich.

[protectionist]

.....In China, South Korea, and other foreign countries.

I don't see too many workers in those countries being very upwardly mobile. If you're referring to the owners, many of them are moving back to the US, for various reasons.

Link

Reshoring manufacturing: Coming home | The Economist

Most firms are considering bringing production back from China - Sep. 24, 2013

The Reshoring Trend is Good for U.S. Engineers and America

The End of Chinese Manufacturing and Rebirth of U.S. Industry - Forbes

More Manufacturers Moving Operations Back to U.S. - Real Time Economics - WSJ

11 American Companies That Brought Jobs Back Home

Multinational manufacturers: Moving back to America | The Economist

Companies move operations back to US | UTSanDiego.com

 

[Redfish]

Raising the MW is a benefit to most businesses, and the greater the increase, the greater the increase in SALES$$$. When I owned a business, I practically begged my state legislators to raise the minimum wage, because my biggest (actually ONLY) problem I had was the low wages my potential customers were receiving. They couldn't afford to buy my services. Know why ? Because somebody out there was paying them MW. THAT'S WHY.

what product were you trying to sell to part time teenage workers? are you a drug dealer?

if your target was the 1% making minimum wage then you had a pretty shitty business plan.

Walmart and Western Beef seem to be doing pretty well with that target audience.

so you really think that Walmart makes most of its money from people making minimum wage? really?

and I am sure that filet mignon is an everyday meal for minimum wage earners---the 1% of the population.

When I was in business my target customers were people who had money to spend, no wonder yours failed if you targeted the poorest of the poor.

 

[mudwhistle]

Union wages is a different item that MW raises. Union wages hikes only affect a small particular group of workers, and the increased disposable income created can vary from NONE to a great amount. However, it is only in very small communities that have a large number of workers in that particular union that would be helped by the DI increase from that union wage hike. In other towns where there's nobody in that union (UMW for instance), the union wage hike ct=reates no increase in DI at all.

A MW hike however is extensive, and DI increases (and the associated increased SALES$$$) can be expected all over the country, regardless of the type of industries any city or town has.

A MW hike only does one thing, raise the price of everything else. This causes a domino effect to take place.

Ever wonder why Democrats pushed through a MW increase and an extension of unemployment benefits?

Because they knew that monkeying with wages would cause businesses to close and would cause cutbacks. The first thing any company that wants to stay in business does is cut back on manpower. 30% of their overhead is wages and benefits. This is the easiest thing to cut back on when you're tightening your belt.

When it comes to the consumer, very few of them will see any wage increase, but what they will see is the cost of goods and services going up across the board. The lowest paid employees are in the food services industry.

Dude! I'm done playing with you. I've already refuted your idiotic scare talk claims of price increases, 2 times ? 3 ? I've lost count now.

So now you get the challenge questions. Let's see how effectively you DODGE them

1. If you thought that sellers could raise their prices anytime they want, so as to increase income, then why wouldn't they do that BEFORE a MW hike ?

2. If it were possible to increase income by raising prices, then why isn't every product on the shelf selling for a MILLION $$$$$$$$$$$$ ???

3. Is there a certain point at which raising prices would cause sales to drop (to the point where profit would be LESS) ?

4. What do you think determines a price of a product ? Somebody's lucky number ? Somebody's favorite football player's jersey number ?

5. Would different prices have different effects on sales ?

6. Would someone be just as apt to buy a T-shirt for $11, as they would be for $10 ?

7. Have you ever studied business economics ? Even a little bit ?

You haven't refuted anything.

I've studied economics. The first thing you learn is supply and demand. If you have a product that is low in supply the demand goes up, thus the cost you can get for that product goes up. If you artificially raise the cost of that product demand goes down.

Raising the costs of producing any product will raise the cost of the product to the consumer. If you pay people who work in your chewing gum factory X dollars/hr you can afford to keep your prices down. If the government decides to raise what you have to pay them to 40% more/hr you're going to play hell trying to sell your product when somebody else can pay them at a fraction of what you are legally bound to pay. This is why jobs left America. In order for producers of these products to remain competitive with the world market they had to match price of other producers outside of the U.S.

Introducing a higher MW, extending unemployment, raising excise taxes on businesses, jacking up the cost of group health care plans all contributes to higher expenses. This administration is doing everything they can to destroy businesses and the middle-class. Wages are stagnant but the cost of living has sky-rocketed under Obama.

 

[protectionist]

the realities of business are of no interest to liberals, raising the MW just feeeeeeeeeeeeels like the right thing to do. Liberals do not think, they emote.

Raising the MW is a benefit to most businesses, and the greater the increase, the greater the increase in SALES$$$. When I owned a business, I practically begged my state legislators to raise the minimum wage, because my biggest (actually ONLY) problem I had was the low wages my potential customers were receiving. They couldn't afford to buy my services. Know why ? Because somebody out there was paying them MW. THAT'S WHY.

what product were you trying to sell to part time teenage workers? are you a drug dealer?

if your target was the 1% making minimum wage then you had a pretty shitty business plan.

Only YOU are talking about selling to part time teenage workers. Not paying attention ? I already shattered that myth in post # 323.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/CEPR_Fast_Food_Ages.jpg

My target was middle to upper class. Problem was too many working poor (because of the low MW that you like so much)
And the point isn't what the MW is. It is what the MW should be, and all the wages below that (below $20 hour)

PS - it is lots of other business owners' problem too (whether they know it or not)

 

[protectionist]

what product were you trying to sell to part time teenage workers? are you a drug dealer?

if your target was the 1% making minimum wage then you had a pretty shitty business plan.

Walmart and Western Beef seem to be doing pretty well with that target audience.

so you really think that Walmart makes most of its money from people making minimum wage? really?

and I am sure that filet mignon is an everyday meal for minimum wage earners---the 1% of the population.

When I was in business my target customers were people who had money to spend, no wonder yours failed if you targeted the poorest of the poor.

If your target was people who had money to spend (just like mine was), then the lower the MW is, the less people there were to buy your stuff. If the MW were $20/hour right now, wouldn't you have more customers than it being $7.25 ?

Of course you would. So you're losing customers, SALES$$$, and money.

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't see too many workers in those countries being very upwardly mobile. If you're referring to the owners, many of them are moving back to the US, for various reasons.

Link

Reshoring manufacturing: Coming home | The Economist

Most firms are considering bringing production back from China - Sep. 24, 2013

The Reshoring Trend is Good for U.S. Engineers and America

The End of Chinese Manufacturing and Rebirth of U.S. Industry - Forbes

More Manufacturers Moving Operations Back to U.S. - Real Time Economics - WSJ

11 American Companies That Brought Jobs Back Home

Multinational manufacturers: Moving back to America | The Economist

Companies move operations back to US | UTSanDiego.com

Doesn't look all that good.

One says less than 100 companies have moved some of their operations back. Another link said they were considering it, not actually doing it. It depends on what Obama does next. 50,000 jobs restored in 3 years is a drop in the bucket. Obama cost that many when he refused to allow the Keystone Pipeline to go through.

I don't see any massive return to the U.S. movement in any of your links. If Obama keeps ******* with the economy even more will leave. General Electric just closed all of their light-bulb plants in the U.S. last year. Most major manufactures have moved away. Obamacare will assure this will continue.

 

[protectionist]

A MW hike only does one thing, raise the price of everything else. This causes a domino effect to take place.

Ever wonder why Democrats pushed through a MW increase and an extension of unemployment benefits?

Because they knew that monkeying with wages would cause businesses to close and would cause cutbacks. The first thing any company that wants to stay in business does is cut back on manpower. 30% of their overhead is wages and benefits. This is the easiest thing to cut back on when you're tightening your belt.

When it comes to the consumer, very few of them will see any wage increase, but what they will see is the cost of goods and services going up across the board. The lowest paid employees are in the food services industry.

Dude! I'm done playing with you. I've already refuted your idiotic scare talk claims of price increases, 2 times ? 3 ? I've lost count now.

So now you get the challenge questions. Let's see how effectively you DODGE them

1. If you thought that sellers could raise their prices anytime they want, so as to increase income, then why wouldn't they do that BEFORE a MW hike ?

2. If it were possible to increase income by raising prices, then why isn't every product on the shelf selling for a MILLION $$$$$$$$$$$$ ???

3. Is there a certain point at which raising prices would cause sales to drop (to the point where profit would be LESS) ?

4. What do you think determines a price of a product ? Somebody's lucky number ? Somebody's favorite football player's jersey number ?

5. Would different prices have different effects on sales ?

6. Would someone be just as apt to buy a T-shirt for $11, as they would be for $10 ?

7. Have you ever studied business economics ? Even a little bit ?

You haven't refuted anything.

I've studied economics. The first thing you learn is supply and demand. If you have a product that is low in supply the demand goes up, thus the cost you can get for that product goes up. If you artificially raise the cost of that product demand goes down.

Raising the costs of producing any product will raise the cost of the product to the consumer. If you pay people who work in your chewing gum factory X dollars/hr you can afford to keep your prices down. If the government decides to raise what you have to pay them to 40% more/hr you're going to play hell trying to sell your product when somebody else can pay them at a fraction of what you are legally bound to pay. This is why jobs left America. In order for producers of these products to remain competitive with the world market they had to match price of other producers outside of the U.S.

Introducing a higher MW, extending unemployment, raising excise taxes on businesses, jacking up the cost of group health care plans all contributes to higher expenses. This administration is doing everything they can to destroy businesses and the middle-class. Wages are stagnant but the cost of living has sky-rocketed under Obama.

You are 100% CLUELESS on business economics. Now stop BSing and talking unrelated stuff, and stop DODGING, and answer the questions (or give whatever feeble excuse for an answer you can conjure up, since you've never studied this subject for one minute) In fact, the best education you ever got on it, is from ME, right now. (if you're reading the posts)

ANSWER MY QUESTIONS - you gutless coward!

 

[protectionist]

Link

Reshoring manufacturing: Coming home | The Economist

Most firms are considering bringing production back from China - Sep. 24, 2013

The Reshoring Trend is Good for U.S. Engineers and America

The End of Chinese Manufacturing and Rebirth of U.S. Industry - Forbes

More Manufacturers Moving Operations Back to U.S. - Real Time Economics - WSJ

11 American Companies That Brought Jobs Back Home

Multinational manufacturers: Moving back to America | The Economist

Companies move operations back to US | UTSanDiego.com

Doesn't look all that good.

One says less than 100 companies have moved some of their operations back. Another link said they were considering it, not actually doing it. It depends on what Obama does next. 50,000 jobs restored in 3 years is a drop in the bucket. Obama cost that many when he refused to allow the Keystone Pipeline to go through.

I don't see any massive return to the U.S. movement in any of your links. If Obama keeps ******* with the economy even more will leave. General Electric just closed all of their light-bulb plants in the U.S. last year. Most major manufactures have moved away. Obamacare will assure this will continue.

YOU DON"T SEE because you didn't read all the links. Instead you cherry picked out what you thought could diminish the subject of reshoring which is well-known that it IS A MASSIVE RETURN TO THE US and growing. Denial will get you nowhere.

Now stop lying, you gutless coward, and ANSWER MY QUESTIONS.

 

[realinvestment]

FALSE! Exactly the opposite is true, as I just explained in the previous post (# 292)

One of your statements in post 292 was <<<The paradoxical thing about about it is though, that almost all business will GAIN from a minimum wage raise (not lose),>>> it seemed you believe a general improvement in the economy from a minimum wage increase (an issue in which there is no consensus among economists) will apply to almost all businesses.

That of course is just preposterous, there would be winners an losers not all winners as you seem to believe.

The losers being the businesses impacted by higher wage costs, often unable to raise their prices...eg a small retail specialty shop still having to compete against the Internet...or a cleaning services company with long term contracts.

This post is what is "preposterous". First, NO I do not "seem to believe"that there would be "all winners". You said that, I didn't.

Quite the contrary, THIS is what I said (in Post # 292) >> "The paradoxical thing about about it is though, that almost all business will GAIN from a minimum wage raise.."

As for your illustrious economists, I might present a better reference. Try the very impressive US GDP growths of the late 70s when the MW was increased every year, as well as the similar impressive ones during the mid 90s, when the MW was also increased. Proof in the pudding is always better than a few well paid "economists" (or is it mouthpieces ?)

Sure, some (relatively few) companies might have lesser gains and some possibly even experience losses (typically the oil companies, gas stations, and supermarkets I mentioned). I would hope some hardship clause could be written in the law for these companies if a loss could be deemed significant.

And as I noted in Post # 284, when a MW hike from $4/hour to $6/hour (a whopping 50% increase), was proposed in Florida in the early 90s by then state Sen. Jack Gordon, it was not opposed by 99% of Florida businesses. Only ones that opposed it were supermarkets. Can you guess why only THEM ?

Now that you've acknowledged that some businesses might be hurt, possibly needing a hardship clause, we can get on to the other part of the issue...needing a higher minimum wage for the working poor who would be permanently taken advantage of without the support of a minimum wage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

FALSE! Exactly the opposite was the result. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to point that out. Raising the minimum wage boosts the economy by putting more money into the hands of lower-income .....

Chinese, South Koreans.....

1. You forgot one thing. In order for businesses to close up and move to China or South Korea, there are enormous COSTS involved. Want to close down a machine shop or a production line with 100 machines in it (weighing tons) and ship it all to the Far East ? Or maybe you think you can just sell them all. and then buy new ones when you get to China, huh ? Hey buddy, I'll give you $20 for that lathe. Fact is, for the overwhelming number of production companies, moving to another country simply isnt ECONOMICAL, or anything close to it.

2. I read your link. You get E for effort (that's halfway between a D and an F). Oh nice try. Right. Find a college professor of economics who's written a few books and act like that makes his view unrefutable. Well, I'm a former college professor of economics who has written books on economics (and other subjects) too, so your Walter E. Block doesn't impress me one iota. If I had a dollar bill for every college professor whose ideas are a laughingstock (like this guy), I could buy a new Cadillac with it. Want to talk about the professor who calls Osama bin Laden a "freedom fighter" ?

Sorry Wally, but your long yak in LewRockwell.com doesn't fly, no matter how many big words you throw into it. In fact, I've already refuted it right here in this thread, with the example of my ex-wife's boutique. And my example was pure "praexeological" (one of Wally's big words) See Post # 263

What the ****? Why would they move all the equipment, which is obsolete, when they can build a brand new facility using modern equipment?

 

[mudwhistle]

Dude! I'm done playing with you. I've already refuted your idiotic scare talk claims of price increases, 2 times ? 3 ? I've lost count now.

So now you get the challenge questions. Let's see how effectively you DODGE them

1. If you thought that sellers could raise their prices anytime they want, so as to increase income, then why wouldn't they do that BEFORE a MW hike ?

2. If it were possible to increase income by raising prices, then why isn't every product on the shelf selling for a MILLION $$$$$$$$$$$$ ???

3. Is there a certain point at which raising prices would cause sales to drop (to the point where profit would be LESS) ?

4. What do you think determines a price of a product ? Somebody's lucky number ? Somebody's favorite football player's jersey number ?

5. Would different prices have different effects on sales ?

6. Would someone be just as apt to buy a T-shirt for $11, as they would be for $10 ?

7. Have you ever studied business economics ? Even a little bit ?

You haven't refuted anything.

I've studied economics. The first thing you learn is supply and demand. If you have a product that is low in supply the demand goes up, thus the cost you can get for that product goes up. If you artificially raise the cost of that product demand goes down.

Raising the costs of producing any product will raise the cost of the product to the consumer. If you pay people who work in your chewing gum factory X dollars/hr you can afford to keep your prices down. If the government decides to raise what you have to pay them to 40% more/hr you're going to play hell trying to sell your product when somebody else can pay them at a fraction of what you are legally bound to pay. This is why jobs left America. In order for producers of these products to remain competitive with the world market they had to match price of other producers outside of the U.S.

Introducing a higher MW, extending unemployment, raising excise taxes on businesses, jacking up the cost of group health care plans all contributes to higher expenses. This administration is doing everything they can to destroy businesses and the middle-class. Wages are stagnant but the cost of living has sky-rocketed under Obama.

You are 100% CLUELESS on business economics. Now stop BSing and talking unrelated stuff, and stop DODGING, and answer the questions (or give whatever feeble excuse for an answer you can conjure up, since you've never studied this subject for one minute) In fact, the best education you ever got on it, is from ME, right now. (if you're reading the posts)

ANSWER MY QUESTIONS - you gutless coward!

Oh, you're getting your butt whipped so you start throwing around insults.

The only lessons somebody like you can give is how not to act.

 

[Contumacious]

Minimum wage has been one of the factors in upward mobility.......

.....In China, South Korea, and other foreign countries.

I don't see too many workers in those countries being very upwardly mobile. If you're referring to the owners, many of them are moving back to the US, for various reasons.

Dream on.

Jobs at Big U.S. Firms Move Overseas


"U.S. multinationals, like General Electric, Caterpillar, Microsoft and Wal-Mart, employ one-fifth of all American workers. In the 2000s, these sorts of giant companies shrank their U.S. workforces by 2.9 million, while upping their overseas employment rosters by 2.4 million. In 2009, the most recent year the BEA has analyzed, these big companies had 21.1 workers in the U.S. and 10.3 million outside the country, including growing numbers of skilled employees."

.

 

[protectionist]

One of your statements in post 292 was <<<The paradoxical thing about about it is though, that almost all business will GAIN from a minimum wage raise (not lose),>>> it seemed you believe a general improvement in the economy from a minimum wage increase (an issue in which there is no consensus among economists) will apply to almost all businesses.

That of course is just preposterous, there would be winners an losers not all winners as you seem to believe.

The losers being the businesses impacted by higher wage costs, often unable to raise their prices...eg a small retail specialty shop still having to compete against the Internet...or a cleaning services company with long term contracts.

This post is what is "preposterous". First, NO I do not "seem to believe"that there would be "all winners". You said that, I didn't.

Quite the contrary, THIS is what I said (in Post # 292) >> "The paradoxical thing about about it is though, that almost all business will GAIN from a minimum wage raise.."

As for your illustrious economists, I might present a better reference. Try the very impressive US GDP growths of the late 70s when the MW was increased every year, as well as the similar impressive ones during the mid 90s, when the MW was also increased. Proof in the pudding is always better than a few well paid "economists" (or is it mouthpieces ?)

Sure, some (relatively few) companies might have lesser gains and some possibly even experience losses (typically the oil companies, gas stations, and supermarkets I mentioned). I would hope some hardship clause could be written in the law for these companies if a loss could be deemed significant.

And as I noted in Post # 284, when a MW hike from $4/hour to $6/hour (a whopping 50% increase), was proposed in Florida in the early 90s by then state Sen. Jack Gordon, it was not opposed by 99% of Florida businesses. Only ones that opposed it were supermarkets. Can you guess why only THEM ?

Now that you've acknowledged that some businesses might be hurt, possibly needing a hardship clause, we can get on to the other part of the issue...needing a higher minimum wage for the working poor who would be permanently taken advantage of without the support of a minimum wage.

I, et al, have already gotten on to it, in dozens of posts throughout the thread.

 

[protectionist]

Chinese, South Koreans.....

1. You forgot one thing. In order for businesses to close up and move to China or South Korea, there are enormous COSTS involved. Want to close down a machine shop or a production line with 100 machines in it (weighing tons) and ship it all to the Far East ? Or maybe you think you can just sell them all. and then buy new ones when you get to China, huh ? Hey buddy, I'll give you $20 for that lathe. Fact is, for the overwhelming number of production companies, moving to another country simply isnt ECONOMICAL, or anything close to it.

2. I read your link. You get E for effort (that's halfway between a D and an F). Oh nice try. Right. Find a college professor of economics who's written a few books and act like that makes his view unrefutable. Well, I'm a former college professor of economics who has written books on economics (and other subjects) too, so your Walter E. Block doesn't impress me one iota. If I had a dollar bill for every college professor whose ideas are a laughingstock (like this guy), I could buy a new Cadillac with it. Want to talk about the professor who calls Osama bin Laden a "freedom fighter" ?

Sorry Wally, but your long yak in LewRockwell.com doesn't fly, no matter how many big words you throw into it. In fact, I've already refuted it right here in this thread, with the example of my ex-wife's boutique. And my example was pure "praexeological" (one of Wally's big words) See Post # 263

What the ****? Why would they move all the equipment, which is obsolete, when they can build a brand new facility using modern equipment?

Seems like a lot of peoplearound here don't read the posts that they quote.

"..maybe you think you can just sell them all. and then buy new ones when you get to China, huh ? Hey buddy, I'll give you $20 for that lathe. Fact is, for the overwhelming number of production companies, moving to another country simply isnt ECONOMICAL, or anything close to it."

 

[protectionist]

You haven't refuted anything.

I've studied economics. The first thing you learn is supply and demand. If you have a product that is low in supply the demand goes up, thus the cost you can get for that product goes up. If you artificially raise the cost of that product demand goes down.

Raising the costs of producing any product will raise the cost of the product to the consumer. If you pay people who work in your chewing gum factory X dollars/hr you can afford to keep your prices down. If the government decides to raise what you have to pay them to 40% more/hr you're going to play hell trying to sell your product when somebody else can pay them at a fraction of what you are legally bound to pay. This is why jobs left America. In order for producers of these products to remain competitive with the world market they had to match price of other producers outside of the U.S.

Introducing a higher MW, extending unemployment, raising excise taxes on businesses, jacking up the cost of group health care plans all contributes to higher expenses. This administration is doing everything they can to destroy businesses and the middle-class. Wages are stagnant but the cost of living has sky-rocketed under Obama.

You are 100% CLUELESS on business economics. Now stop BSing and talking unrelated stuff, and stop DODGING, and answer the questions (or give whatever feeble excuse for an answer you can conjure up, since you've never studied this subject for one minute) In fact, the best education you ever got on it, is from ME, right now. (if you're reading the posts)

ANSWER MY QUESTIONS - you gutless coward!

Oh, you're getting your butt whipped so you start throwing around insults.

The only lessons somebody like you can give is how not to act.

So your solution to already having your butt whipped to a pulp, is to pretend that you're doing that to someone else. HA HA HA>

EARTH TO MUD: when you've cut and ran from multiple questions that the other poster has asked you (and still have yet to address a single one), that's not the time to pretend you've won a debate. THAT is how not to act. Fact is, I trounced you, and everybody here knows it. Want to prove that wrong ? Answer the questions (which you know you can't)

 

[protectionist]

.....In China, South Korea, and other foreign countries.

I don't see too many workers in those countries being very upwardly mobile. If you're referring to the owners, many of them are moving back to the US, for various reasons.

Dream on.

Jobs at Big U.S. Firms Move Overseas


"U.S. multinationals, like General Electric, Caterpillar, Microsoft and Wal-Mart, employ one-fifth of all American workers. In the 2000s, these sorts of giant companies shrank their U.S. workforces by 2.9 million, while upping their overseas employment rosters by 2.4 million. In 2009, the most recent year the BEA has analyzed, these big companies had 21.1 workers in the U.S. and 10.3 million outside the country, including growing numbers of skilled employees."

Another example of not reading the thread. This mindless, outdated link from 3 years ago, was refuted 8 times, in Post # 341, with up-to-date links, including one from the same source you gave (Forbes) only mine is more recent. I'd say nice try, but it wasn't even that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. You forgot one thing. In order for businesses to close up and move to China or South Korea, there are enormous COSTS involved. Want to close down a machine shop or a production line with 100 machines in it (weighing tons) and ship it all to the Far East ? Or maybe you think you can just sell them all. and then buy new ones when you get to China, huh ? Hey buddy, I'll give you $20 for that lathe. Fact is, for the overwhelming number of production companies, moving to another country simply isnt ECONOMICAL, or anything close to it.

2. I read your link. You get E for effort (that's halfway between a D and an F). Oh nice try. Right. Find a college professor of economics who's written a few books and act like that makes his view unrefutable. Well, I'm a former college professor of economics who has written books on economics (and other subjects) too, so your Walter E. Block doesn't impress me one iota. If I had a dollar bill for every college professor whose ideas are a laughingstock (like this guy), I could buy a new Cadillac with it. Want to talk about the professor who calls Osama bin Laden a "freedom fighter" ?

Sorry Wally, but your long yak in LewRockwell.com doesn't fly, no matter how many big words you throw into it. In fact, I've already refuted it right here in this thread, with the example of my ex-wife's boutique. And my example was pure "praexeological" (one of Wally's big words) See Post # 263

What the ****? Why would they move all the equipment, which is obsolete, when they can build a brand new facility using modern equipment?

Seems like a lot of peoplearound here don't read the posts that they quote.

"..maybe you think you can just sell them all. and then buy new ones when you get to China, huh ? Hey buddy, I'll give you $20 for that lathe. Fact is, for the overwhelming number of production companies, moving to another country simply isnt ECONOMICAL, or anything close to it."

Maybe some people don't live in the real world.

If they can't sell it, and it cost to much to move it, they leave it behind.

 

[protectionist]

What the ****? Why would they move all the equipment, which is obsolete, when they can build a brand new facility using modern equipment?

Seems like a lot of peoplearound here don't read the posts that they quote.

"..maybe you think you can just sell them all. and then buy new ones when you get to China, huh ? Hey buddy, I'll give you $20 for that lathe. Fact is, for the overwhelming number of production companies, moving to another country simply isnt ECONOMICAL, or anything close to it."

Maybe some people don't live in the real world.

If they can't sell it, and it cost to much to move it, they leave it behind.

Since 2012, the question has become whether to move BACK to the US, and for many the answer is yes. Welcome home, business men and women. And now that products are getting made in the US again, maybe we'll be able to have them for more than about a year or two. God, that stuff they make over there is junk.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Seems like a lot of peoplearound here don't read the posts that they quote.

"..maybe you think you can just sell them all. and then buy new ones when you get to China, huh ? Hey buddy, I'll give you $20 for that lathe. Fact is, for the overwhelming number of production companies, moving to another country simply isnt ECONOMICAL, or anything close to it."

Maybe some people don't live in the real world.

If they can't sell it, and it cost to much to move it, they leave it behind.

Since 2012, the question has become whether to move BACK to the US, and for many the answer is yes. Welcome home, business men and women. And now that products are getting made in the US again, maybe we'll be able to have them for more than about a year or two. God, that stuff they make over there is junk.

Could tha be because they can use advanced technology, aka robots, to replace low wage scut workers? Which, again, means not having to move massive pieces of expensive equipment just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how the real world works.

 

[protectionist]

Maybe some people don't live in the real world.

If they can't sell it, and it cost to much to move it, they leave it behind.

Since 2012, the question has become whether to move BACK to the US, and for many the answer is yes. Welcome home, business men and women. And now that products are getting made in the US again, maybe we'll be able to have them for more than about a year or two. God, that stuff they make over there is junk.

Could tha be because they can use advanced technology, aka robots, to replace low wage scut workers? Which, again, means not having to move massive pieces of expensive equipment just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how the real world works.

A few things you just said don't make sense.

1. You're still here in this thread after having your ass handed to you (the others appear to be "smart enough" to have disappeared)

2. If what they make is junk (we all know it is, including the company leaders), then the technology they use maybe isn't so "advanced" after all.

3. I've said all along they didn't have to move massive pieces of expensive equipment, but part of "equipment" is their raw stock (steel, gold, nickel, copper, etc), which is heavy and expensive. So there's no way out for them if they choose to move to Asia. Either they lose in shipping costs, or they lose as I described earlier in Post # 354. But maybe you weren't "smart enough" to pick up on that ?

Hint: "I'll give you $20..."
Hint 2: They'd have to take losses on the sales of the raw stock too.