So you want better paying jobs?

[Boss]

you idiot we were not even talking about devaluing currency. Do you understand. You're trying to change subject because you lack character to learn!!

You said our trade was fair based on dollars-to-yuan trade but if they've devalued the yuan that formula is no longer fair unless we also devalue the dollar. So you're saying we should devalue the dollar to keep our trade agreement fair with China.... is that correct?

Just tell me if the water gets too deep.

 

[danielpalos]

. Our companies can not compete.

1000% stupid of course. Apple and 1000's of others compete very successfully which is why we have full employment and an average workers here makes $23/ hr while a Chinese worker makes 1.23 /hr.

See why we say slow?

It is why some on the left know we merely need enough socialism to make foreign labor more expensive while their government subsidizes them to be couch potatoes over there instead of having them coming over here to make us look bad with a less developed work ethic.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So you're saying we should devalue the dollar to keep our trade agreement fair with China.... is that correct?
.

100% stupid illiterate liberal. We have greatly devalued our currency with QE and 0% Fed Funds and so have other countries. China's 2% means nothing especially when it is part of a planned move to floating exchange rates.

Econ 100 class one day one. Did you ever think of college??

 

[Boss]

So you're saying we should devalue the dollar to keep our trade agreement fair with China.... is that correct?
.

100% stupid illiterate liberal. We have greatly devalued our currency with QE and 0% Fed Funds and so have other countries. China's 2% means nothing especially when it is part of a planned move to floating exchange rates.

Econ 100 class one day one. Did you ever think of college??

No, wait... we weren't talking about value of currency... we were talking about our trade deal with China specifically. Now... If I buy your widget for 100 yuan today, and tomorrow I make my yuan worth less, you try and spend your 100 yuan and they won't buy as much... Uh-oh! You got screwed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Now... If I buy your widget for 100 yuan today, and tomorrow I make my yuan worth less, you try and spend your 100 yuan and they won't buy as much... Uh-oh! You got screwed.

100% stupid and liberal of course. all currencies fluctuate all the time. You lack the IQ and education to put the Chinese devaluation in context. Why not try Econ 101 if you ever get to college and stop the BS lying? Do you fool yourself??

.

 

[Boss]

. Now... If I buy your widget for 100 yuan today, and tomorrow I make my yuan worth less, you try and spend your 100 yuan and they won't buy as much... Uh-oh! You got screwed.

100% stupid and liberal of course. all currencies fluctuate all the time. You lack the IQ and education to put the Chinese devaluation in context. Why not try Econ 101 if you ever get to college and stop the BS lying? Do you fool yourself??

.

You're the one who doesn't seem to understand trade deals have little to do with economics. When one party can manipulate their currency to advantage themselves in a trade deal, the deal is not fair. It's no different than if you and I are playing poker and I can manipulate the value of MY chips as we play. If you win the pot, my chips aren't worth as much... If I win the pot, they are worth the most. You can see how this game wouldn't work to your favor? Or, maybe you're too dumb to get it?

We have a stupid trade deal with China which allows them to screw us in the ass. Delivered by politicians and diplomats who don't have any clue how to negotiate a good deal for us. Nice guys... great smiles... personable and affable people who others like... but totally clueless when it comes to tough business negotiation.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. When one party can manipulate their currency to advantage themselves in a trade .

I have already explained to the typical stupid and illiterate liberal that all countries, especially the USA with QE 1, 2 ,3 and 0% Fed Funds, manipulates their currency.

 

[Boss]

Foreign Trade - U.S. Trade with China

Here are the stats on our trade with China. You will notice that we begin in 1985 with relatively even and fair trade. Within a decade, we were importing three times as much as we exported to China. By 2005 we had a $202 billion deficit. Last full record (2014) it was $343 billion.

So you want to know what has happened to your jobs and pay.. there is $343 billion of it.

That's YOUR economics lesson for today.

 

[Ernie S.]

I disagree that you need to motivate those at the bottom.

You craft policy that leads to job creation and higher wages, people will take them and move up.

People don't "do" unless motivated.

Fact of Life, bro.

Most people at the bottom are already motivated to have more, it is just difficult for them to do so.

Give them access to more and better jobs, and you will see them move.

They have access already. All they have to do is apply themselves in school and develop a strong work ethic. It's not an employer's job to make employees worthy of a job.

 

[Correll]

. Now... If I buy your widget for 100 yuan today, and tomorrow I make my yuan worth less, you try and spend your 100 yuan and they won't buy as much... Uh-oh! You got screwed.

100% stupid and liberal of course. all currencies fluctuate all the time. You lack the IQ and education to put the Chinese devaluation in context. Why not try Econ 101 if you ever get to college and stop the BS lying? Do you fool yourself??

.

You're the one who doesn't seem to understand trade deals have little to do with economics. When one party can manipulate their currency to advantage themselves in a trade deal, the deal is not fair. It's no different than if you and I are playing poker and I can manipulate the value of MY chips as we play. If you win the pot, my chips aren't worth as much... If I win the pot, they are worth the most. You can see how this game wouldn't work to your favor? Or, maybe you're too dumb to get it?

We have a stupid trade deal with China which allows them to screw us in the ass. Delivered by politicians and diplomats who don't have any clue how to negotiate a good deal for us. Nice guys... great smiles... personable and affable people who others like... but totally clueless when it comes to tough business negotiation.

AND who were more committed to the Ideology of Free Trade then to American interests.

 

[Correll]

I disagree that you need to motivate those at the bottom.

You craft policy that leads to job creation and higher wages, people will take them and move up.

People don't "do" unless motivated.

Fact of Life, bro.

Most people at the bottom are already motivated to have more, it is just difficult for them to do so.

Give them access to more and better jobs, and you will see them move.

They have access already. All they have to do is apply themselves in school and develop a strong work ethic. It's not an employer's job to make employees worthy of a job.

If the pool of good jobs is too small, then many will NOT have access. They might be able to apply, but they will always lose out.

Crafting Trade Policy to increase the pool of good jobs is the job of government.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Now my example is a little exaggerated, we'd never apply a 50% tariff on something... but the point is making imports more expensive so that American companies can compete again. When we change this dynamic, jobs will begin to generate as a result.. more jobs = more demand for labor = higher wages.

Hi Boss,
A long OP as usual . Ok , you'd be surprised but US average tariffs above 50% were the norm , not the exception during the early 1800's in the US.

Regarding inequality, I have a theory: rate of change.

It is normal in capitalism to have some jobs destroyed or moved to the lower end of the spectrum due to a new trading partner or technological advances. Slowly the market caches up as new posts are created and people are able to fulfill those jobs, but once in a while this changes happen too suddenly and the time required to acquire new skills increases.

In some cases it may be as short as five years, but with the current changes due to offshoring , illegal immigration and industrial advances people are not able to do acquire the new set of skills quickly enough.

A similar rise in inequality occured in England during the early 1800's, eventually this situation was corrected somehow, and salaries started going up again.
I am unsure about what exactly started the rise in wages. Did unions play a role in wage rises? Did the reforms of 1832 had a role in wage rises? Is a continued rise in demand a condition ( at that time GB was a net exporter) ? Did education play a role in this?

Getting trained in a new area is not allways an easy task. Personally shifting from computer scientist to physician would be one of the toughest challenges I can think of . For many shifting from bricklayer , cashier or bus driver to engineer might be an equally challenging task. My thoughts on this: it will take a generation to complete this job shifting process: the set of skills are too different for the average human being.

Today's Economic History: Robert Allen: Engels's Pause

 

[CultureCitizen]

Foreign Trade - U.S. Trade with China

Here are the stats on our trade with China. You will notice that we begin in 1985 with relatively even and fair trade. Within a decade, we were importing three times as much as we exported to China. By 2005 we had a $202 billion deficit. Last full record (2014) it was $343 billion.

So you want to know what has happened to your jobs and pay.. there is $343 billion of it.

That's YOUR economics lesson for today.

Ahem . I am surprised of how in Ed's view everyone is a "illiterate liberal".
I do sometimes suspect he is not an actual member but a spambot created by a clever programmer.

 

[CultureCitizen]

The way to do that is to encourage expansion of business... this requires taking several steps... lower taxes on corporations... or eliminate corporate tax altogether. Offer tax incentives for repatriated wealth... we have over $20 trillion in US wealth abroad... not doing us a bit of good. Let's bring it home and put it to work creating new business and new jobs. Finally, our trade deals need to account for the disparity in cost of labor. We can't compete with countries who pay their workers $1 a day and a bowl of rice... unless that's the standard we want to live with ourselves. Our trade policies have to take this into consideration and we have to apply tougher tariffs on import goods so our American companies can again compete domestically.

I think I can agree partly with you on this. So you want to
A) Rise tariffs and
B) Lower corporate taxes.

Fair enough , as long as the increase in tariffs compensates the lower corporate taxes ( I don't expect the corporate taxes to miraculously rise after the rate is reduced ... we've had that discussion before ). I would probably pick the top 5 sectors which are causing the trade imbalance with China.

 

[Boss]

Now my example is a little exaggerated, we'd never apply a 50% tariff on something... but the point is making imports more expensive so that American companies can compete again. When we change this dynamic, jobs will begin to generate as a result.. more jobs = more demand for labor = higher wages.

Hi Boss,
A long OP as usual . Ok , you'd be surprised but US average tariffs above 50% were the norm , not the exception during the early 1800's in the US.

Regarding inequality, I have a theory: rate of change.

It is normal in capitalism to have some jobs destroyed or moved to the lower end of the spectrum due to a new trading partner or technological advances. Slowly the market caches up as new posts are created and people are able to fulfill those jobs, but once in a while this changes happen too suddenly and the time required to acquire new skills increases.

In some cases it may be as short as five years, but with the current changes due to offshoring , illegal immigration and industrial advances people are not able to do acquire the new set of skills quickly enough.

A similar rise in inequality occured in England during the early 1800's, eventually this situation was corrected somehow, and salaries started going up again.
I am unsure about what exactly started the rise in wages. Did unions play a role in wage rises? Did the reforms of 1832 had a role in wage rises? Is a continued rise in demand a condition ( at that time GB was a net exporter) ? Did education play a role in this?

Getting trained in a new area is not allways an easy task. Personally shifting from computer scientist to physician would be one of the toughest challenges I can think of . For many shifting from bricklayer , cashier or bus driver to engineer might be an equally challenging task. My thoughts on this: it will take a generation to complete this job shifting process: the set of skills are too different for the average human being.

Today's Economic History: Robert Allen: Engels's Pause

I appreciate your input but we really can't look back to 1800s England for our understanding of how free market capitalism works, since they were obviously not practicing free market capitalism back then. Our free market, free enterprise capitalist system is uniquely ours. It works brilliantly to provide jobs and wealth acquisition for more people than any system ever devised by man...when it is allowed to work.

The OP point is simple, even though my post is long. To get better paying jobs in a free market system, you have to increase demand for labor. When demand begins to overtake supply, the wages will exponentially increase. So it's a really easy and simple solution but a daunting challenge. More people continue to enter the job pool to compete for fewer and fewer jobs. Millions of illegal aliens are pouring in to supply more labor while companies continue to outsource jobs to Mexico and China. We're going backwards.... we're doing the opposite of what we need to do in order to get to better wages. Because of population growth and technological advances, we are already at a big disadvantage in trying to generate demand for labor.

 

[Correll]

Now my example is a little exaggerated, we'd never apply a 50% tariff on something... but the point is making imports more expensive so that American companies can compete again. When we change this dynamic, jobs will begin to generate as a result.. more jobs = more demand for labor = higher wages.

Hi Boss,
A long OP as usual . Ok , you'd be surprised but US average tariffs above 50% were the norm , not the exception during the early 1800's in the US.

Regarding inequality, I have a theory: rate of change.

It is normal in capitalism to have some jobs destroyed or moved to the lower end of the spectrum due to a new trading partner or technological advances. Slowly the market caches up as new posts are created and people are able to fulfill those jobs, but once in a while this changes happen too suddenly and the time required to acquire new skills increases.

In some cases it may be as short as five years, but with the current changes due to offshoring , illegal immigration and industrial advances people are not able to do acquire the new set of skills quickly enough.

A similar rise in inequality occured in England during the early 1800's, eventually this situation was corrected somehow, and salaries started going up again.
I am unsure about what exactly started the rise in wages. Did unions play a role in wage rises? Did the reforms of 1832 had a role in wage rises? Is a continued rise in demand a condition ( at that time GB was a net exporter) ? Did education play a role in this?

Getting trained in a new area is not allways an easy task. Personally shifting from computer scientist to physician would be one of the toughest challenges I can think of . For many shifting from bricklayer , cashier or bus driver to engineer might be an equally challenging task. My thoughts on this: it will take a generation to complete this job shifting process: the set of skills are too different for the average human being.

Today's Economic History: Robert Allen: Engels's Pause

I appreciate your input but we really can't look back to 1800s England for our understanding of how free market capitalism works, since they were obviously not practicing free market capitalism back then. Our free market, free enterprise capitalist system is uniquely ours. It works brilliantly to provide jobs and wealth acquisition for more people than any system ever devised by man...when it is allowed to work.

The OP point is simple, even though my post is long. To get better paying jobs in a free market system, you have to increase demand for labor. When demand begins to overtake supply, the wages will exponentially increase. So it's a really easy and simple solution but a daunting challenge. More people continue to enter the job pool to compete for fewer and fewer jobs. Millions of illegal aliens are pouring in to supply more labor while companies continue to outsource jobs to Mexico and China. We're going backwards.... we're doing the opposite of what we need to do in order to get to better wages. Because of population growth and technological advances, we are already at a big disadvantage in trying to generate demand for labor.

Except that in your model here, LEGAL immigrants would suppress wages even more than illegal ones, because there are more of them.

 

[danielpalos]

would that matter if US labor could apply for unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis?

 

[Boss]

Except that in your model here, LEGAL immigrants would suppress wages even more than illegal ones, because there are more of them.

Technically speaking, we're all "legal immigrants" unless you're full-blooded Native American, and still... probably an immigrant at some point.

No... My "model" is simply the laws of supply and demand which are the basis for free market capitalism. In order to have better paying jobs, we have to increase demand for labor and decrease supply of labor. Our policies should work toward those means. Instead, the left wants to drag us in the opposite direction as they continue to whine and complain about lack of decent pay.

 

[Correll]

would that matter if US labor could apply for unemployment compensation that clears our poverty guidelines, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis?

Wow. That seems to actually make sense.

So to answer your question.

Yes it would still matter for several reasons.

1. "Clears poverty guidelines" is a low bar that most people have higher expectations.

2. Yes, because the federal budget is not infinite.

 

[Correll]

Except that in your model here, LEGAL immigrants would suppress wages even more than illegal ones, because there are more of them.

Technically speaking, we're all "legal immigrants" unless you're full-blooded Native American, and still... probably an immigrant at some point.

No... My "model" is simply the laws of supply and demand which are the basis for free market capitalism. In order to have better paying jobs, we have to increase demand for labor and decrease supply of labor. Our policies should work toward those means. Instead, the left wants to drag us in the opposite direction as they continue to whine and complain about lack of decent pay.

NOpe. Being descended from legal immigrants multiple generations ago, does not make you an immigrant.

YOu cannot grow demand for labor faster than the whole World can fill it. NO matter how much you manage to increase US economic growth there are more people in the World who are there ready, willing and able to come here to do the work for less.

We must greatly limit immigration, both legal and legal, if we want to see rising wages.