CDZ The price of some stuff if it were made in the USA

[usmbguest5318]

Regarding manufacturing, Trump has prattled on and on like a "broken record." Bring it back to the USA he says, and he proclaims that doing so would be better for Americans. For all his carrying on about it, Trump has yet to present so much as one set of empirical figures showing the calculus of how much better it'd be and what makes that claim be so.

Well what would that calculus need to credibly show to be convincing? At a high level (where relevant, assume currency and inflation adjusted figures):

• If one is the manufacturer:
  1. That the net income earned from producing and selling in the U.S. will be higher than the net income earned from producing abroad and selling in the U.S.
  2. Manufacturers that cannot distribute production across the globe:
  1. That the net income earned from producing in the U.S. and selling abroad will be higher than the net income from producing abroad and selling in the U.S. and abroad.
• If one is a consumer of manufactured goods:
  1. That the price of US-made goods one will have to buy is less than or equal to what one paid for them when they were made abroad.
  2. That the price of "complementary" US-made goods won't increase the cost of "primary" goods. (E.g., cost of US-steel and steel processing doesn't increase the cost of a skillet or car or whatever; the cost of the can/bottle doesn't make a soft drink cost more)
  3. That one's financial position (net equity as increased by annual net income, after eliminating non-purchase-related effects) will be greater when one buys a given "bundle" of goods comprised of a larger share of US-made goods than when one purchased the same "bundle" of goods having in it a smaller share of US-made items.
  4. That existing US manufacturers of goods they make in the US won't increase their prices in response to increases in the relative price of competing goods that previously were imported "now," being US-made, cost more.

• If one is a government:

1. Federal:
   • GDP will increase more than it otherwise would have.
   • Tax + tariff revenue increases or stays the same after adjusting for tax code changes that may apply concurrently with manufacturing legislation and tariff impositions.
   • Tariffs result in companies returning production to the US.
2. State and Local:

• GSP and/or GLP will increase more than it otherwise would have.
  
• Tax revenue increases or stays the same after adjusting for tax code changes that may apply concurrently with manufacturing legislation and tariff impositions.

I think the above pretty well summarizes what key stakeholders need to know. It's certainly what I'd want to know. Where are Trump's credibly developed figures that identify those things? Show me the figures, the raw data, and the methodology used to obtain the results. That's what I want. I know damn well that economists, accountants and finance people at the GAO, CBO, and a few other gov't agencies have performed that analysis. I haven't seen/heard Trump refer to any of it. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that he's right, but I'm not going to accept that Trump's right merely because he says he's right.

With the high level considerations identified, let's look at something that we can look at: the prices of goods we buy.

• 2016 -- iPhone
  
  
  
  
  
  
  • 100% Made in the USA from 100% USA-sourced materials -- Not possible
    Alex King, director of the Critical Materials Institute headquartered at the Department of Energy’s Ames Laboratory says that it's not possible because the iPhone uses 75 of the elements on the periodic table and not all of them are even available in the U.S. For instance, the aluminum uses needs bauxite and there is no appreciable bauxite mine in the U.S.
    
    
    
    
    An iPhone contains most of the elements in the periodic table, including ones not mined in the United States.
    
    The elements known as rare earths (which aren’t that rare but are tough to mine) would need to come primarily from China, which produces 85 percent of the world’s supply. Neodymium is needed for its magnets, like the one in the motor that makes the phone vibrate and the ones in the microphones and speakers. Lanthanum, another rare earth, goes into the camera lens. Hafnium, a metal that is not a rare earth and is rarer than most of them, is essential for the iPhone’s transistors.
    
    In other words, “no tech product from mine to assembly can ever be made in one country,” says David Abraham, author of The Elements of Power, a new book about rare earth metals. The iPhone is a symbol of American ingenuity, but it’s also a testament to the inescapable realities of the global economy.
• Jeans
  • Levi's "Made and Crafted" -- Currently $178+ (MSRP)
  • Levi's not made in the USA -- Currently $59.50+ (MSRP)
• Sneakers
  Shoes such as those made by Nike and other footwear companies are among the things for which the TPP would have removed the current tariff. The Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America on say in 2014 U.S. footwear companies paid $2.7 billion in duties, "more than $450 million from TPP partner countries."
  
  I don't know about you. I don't wear sneakers except when -- not before, not after, only during -- I'm playing a sport or exercising. The overwhelming majority of people I see going about the business of "living," however, seem to wear sneakers. Most kids pretty much live in sneakers. Make of that what you will....
  
  
  • New Balance -- American Made -- Currently $128+
  • New Balance -- Imported -- Footwear starts at $19 and Sneakers start at $49
• Solar Panels
  Just to illustrate another TPP-related cost, I chose solar panels. The TPP would have lowered tariffs on foreign made climate technologies. A 330-watt mono panel from Canadian Solar — which manufactures most of its panels in China and Vietnam — costs 69 cents per watt. SolarWorld, one of the biggest domestic solar panel makers, sells a similar 300-watt mono panel for 85 cents per watt. Considering the typical home uses 7,000 watts of solar power, that difference translates into a price difference of $1,120. (Call one of their sellers yourself to get your own quote.)
  • Canadian Solar -- made abroad -- $0.69/watt (300 watt panel)
  • SolarWorld -- Made in USA -- $0.85/watt (300 watt panel)
  • Suniva -- Made in USA -- $1.00/watt (330 watt panel)
• 2014 - T-shirt -- generic example
  
  

When thinking about the cost to produce things in different countries, thus the resulting retail price of them, people often mention China. The cost of manufacturing in China is increasing to the point that it's nearly on par (last I heard it's about $6.50/hr) with the lowest cost U.S. factory worker wages, which basically is textile workers. Accordingly, Chinese firms are now building factories in the U.S.

• Fuyao tax plan approved for Moraine plant | Dayton, OH News
  
• Keer Group to invest $218 million, create 501 jobs in Lancaster County | South Carolina Department of Commerce
  
• Cirrus Aircraft Expands Grand Forks Facility in Preparation for Vision Jet Production
  
• Nexteer Automotive – A Leader in Intuitive Motion Control | Nexteer Automotive Announces a Nearly $70 Million Investment and 325 New Jobs at its Saginaw Operations

If Trump gets his way and lowers the minimum wage, I suppose more will follow. If they do, don't expect wages to increase. People will get jobs, but they'll be low wage jobs. Maybe that's what people want, but I wouldn't have thought so seeing as those exist now too; it's just that they are service jobs rather than manufacturing jobs.

On the upside, the U.S. is benefitting as other nations see losses in the global competitiveness race.

​

Now, if you made the effort to click the links for the above charts and read the content there, what you may picked up on is that the natural ebb and flow of the economic cycle began to once again in 2014 head toward favoring the U.S. Whereas at the start of U.S. manufacturing's wane, the U.S. was seeming losing out to low-cost economies. That led to the "us and them" economic worldview; however, that existentiality is already coming to pass just as did the U.S. heyday in traditional labor-focused manufacturing. According to Boston Consulting:

Years of steady change in wages, productivity, energy costs, currency values, and other factors are quietly but dramatically redrawing the map of global manufacturing cost competitiveness. The new map increasingly resembles a quilt-work pattern of low-cost economies, high-cost economies, and many that fall in between, spanning all regions.

In some cases, the shifts in relative costs are startling. Who would have thought a decade ago that Brazil would now be one of the highest-cost countries for manufacturing—or that Mexico could be cheaper than China? While London remains one of the priciest places in the world to live and visit, the UK has become the lowest-cost manufacturer in Western Europe. Costs in Russia and much of Eastern Europe have risen to near parity with the U.S.​

Now I know a lot of folks will think that's great. In some ways it is. I have to wonder, however, just how good it'll be. If I'm correct, an American manufacturing resurgence will usher in a truly two-class society in the U.S: millions of low wage manufacturing workers and slightly fewer millions of high wage service sector workers. I think that the class-based schism we saw this past election cycle will get worse, not better, if the U.S. recovers its low-wage manufacturing sector.




Just me sharing:

I've been to Foxconn factory and to Huawei's factory in the neighboring town -- coming off the highway, turn right and everything is Huawei, right and it's all Foxconn...The road signs don't even mention the actual town names...We called them "Foxconia" and "Huaweiville." Each town is 95%+ occupied by the employees of the respective companies. The companies even own the businesses -- restaurants, bars, clothing stores, apartment complexes, etc. -- from which their employees buy "everything." Of course, one can shop and do "whatever" in either town, but for workers at either firm, there's no compelling reason to do so. "Foxconia" has about 400K residents.

You can see Huawei's campus in the video here. The bit where you see the koi pond is in the "executive meeting compound" on the campus. It is totally separate from the rest of what you'll see in the video. The building at the rear is the exec conference center. The little brown building on the right is the executive dining room (the food is outstanding) and senior VP offices. EVPs and C-Level employee owners (Ren, Madame Sun, and the family members) have bungalows as offices, and, no, they don't live there. The bungalows are nestled under the trees you see on either side of the dining room.​

 

[Toronado3800]

My goodness. I feel bad for having to reply quickly to your dissertation. Thanks for taking the time to write out your thoughts so completely.

There is a 2nd level advantage to "Made In the USA" products.

To use your I-Phone math.

If a Chinese made I-Phone cost $749 then some portion of that $749 goes from our economy to China and their nuclear submarine program when I buy one.

A U.S. I-Phone at $849 cost me more initially but then (overly simply) my neighbor who sells I-Phones has $100 more to spend on mattresses my company makes and China has $0 more to spend on their military.

To balance that international trade though DOES help the military situation IMO. There is a Marshall Plan like effect to trading with the less developed and even your almost direct enemies like China.

 

[usmbguest5318]

My goodness. I feel bad for having to reply quickly to your dissertation. Thanks for taking the time to write out your thoughts so completely.

There is a 2nd level advantage to "Made In the USA" products.

To use your I-Phone math.

If a Chinese made I-Phone cost $749 then some portion of that $749 goes from our economy to China and their nuclear submarine program when I buy one.

A U.S. I-Phone at $849 cost me more initially but then (overly simply) my neighbor who sells I-Phones has $100 more to spend on mattresses my company makes and China has $0 more to spend on their military.

To balance that international trade though DOES help the military situation IMO. There is a Marshall Plan like effect to trading with the less developed and even your almost direct enemies like China.

Thanks for taking the time to write out your thoughts so completely.

You're welcome. Thank you for recognizing the effort.

 

[usmbguest5318]

OP Correction:
Turn left for Foxconn; right for Huawei.

Sorry

 

[grbb]

I think Trump will do the right thing and won't be too bad. I actually like free trade. But I also like efficient businessmen as President.

I do have a big concern with this trade restrictions.

Under market mechanism people have incentive to pick more productive jobs. If a programmer is more in demand than blue collar workers, it's natural, and expected, to have a programmer getting paid 10-20 times blue collar workers. A businessman that can hire a programmer to create robots that will replace 100 blue collar workers will be profited paying that 1 programmer than paying 100 blue collar workers.

When the market govern everything, people have incentive to be productive. This can happens when people pick more productive occupation. That is assuming that supply is "elastic" and people can switch job easily.

If supply is not elastic, this can happens more painfully through something people can't easily change. Programmers will earn more money and are more likely to breed children than blue collar workers. Blue collar workers will starve to death and die. In anyway, the market sort of "take care of it".

If your government decide which jobs are protected from competition with immigrant and which jobs are protected by anti immigration laws, then it's no longer market mechanism. It's politicians pretty much deciding who makes money.

There will be more money in politics, politicians will get bribed, and at the end the people are worse off.

And this is why I love libertarianism.

That being said, Trump can't do much to bring many jobs back to US. If price differences is too high, most businesses will simply use robots to replace workers. Some jobs, like programming, can be done all the way in India, there is no way Trump can change that.

 

[Toronado3800]

I think Trump will do the right thing and won't be too bad. I actually like free trade. But I also like efficient businessmen as President.

I do have a big concern with this trade restrictions.

Under market mechanism people have incentive to pick more productive jobs. If a programmer is more in demand than blue collar workers, it's natural, and expected, to have a programmer getting paid 10-20 times blue collar workers. A businessman that can hire a programmer to create robots that will replace 100 blue collar workers will be profited paying that 1 programmer than paying 100 blue collar workers.

When the market govern everything, people have incentive to be productive. This can happens when people pick more productive occupation. That is assuming that supply is "elastic" and people can switch job easily.

If supply is not elastic, this can happens more painfully through something people can't easily change. Programmers will earn more money and are more likely to breed children than blue collar workers. Blue collar workers will starve to death and die. In anyway, the market sort of "take care of it".

If your government decide which jobs are protected from competition with immigrant and which jobs are protected by anti immigration laws, then it's no longer market mechanism. It's politicians pretty much deciding who makes money.

There will be more money in politics, politicians will get bribed, and at the end the people are worse off.

And this is why I love libertarianism.

That being said, Trump can't do much to bring many jobs back to US. If price differences is too high, most businesses will simply use robots to replace workers. Some jobs, like programming, can be done all the way in India, there is no way Trump can change that.

IMO Humans are different in reference to your comment about programmers and more children.

As programmers earn more I say they are LESS likely to have more children.

Who has more kids now? A programmer or some unemployed bum in the trailer park or ghetto?

 

[grbb]

I think Trump will do the right thing and won't be too bad. I actually like free trade. But I also like efficient businessmen as President.

I do have a big concern with this trade restrictions.

Under market mechanism people have incentive to pick more productive jobs. If a programmer is more in demand than blue collar workers, it's natural, and expected, to have a programmer getting paid 10-20 times blue collar workers. A businessman that can hire a programmer to create robots that will replace 100 blue collar workers will be profited paying that 1 programmer than paying 100 blue collar workers.

When the market govern everything, people have incentive to be productive. This can happens when people pick more productive occupation. That is assuming that supply is "elastic" and people can switch job easily.

If supply is not elastic, this can happens more painfully through something people can't easily change. Programmers will earn more money and are more likely to breed children than blue collar workers. Blue collar workers will starve to death and die. In anyway, the market sort of "take care of it".

If your government decide which jobs are protected from competition with immigrant and which jobs are protected by anti immigration laws, then it's no longer market mechanism. It's politicians pretty much deciding who makes money.

There will be more money in politics, politicians will get bribed, and at the end the people are worse off.

And this is why I love libertarianism.

That being said, Trump can't do much to bring many jobs back to US. If price differences is too high, most businesses will simply use robots to replace workers. Some jobs, like programming, can be done all the way in India, there is no way Trump can change that.

IMO Humans are different in reference to your comment about programmers and more children.

As programmers earn more I say they are LESS likely to have more children.

Who has more kids now? A programmer or some unemployed bum in the trailer park or ghetto?

And this is PRECISELY the problem in western civilization. Western civilization and only western or westernised civilization have this problem where people make LESS children when they are richer.

If you look at ancient china or ancient arabs or ancient indias. The richest, usually the emperor, have the most number of children. The poorest are often castrated or killed.

The book get rich bang babes pretty much question this absurdity.

And no, it's not market mechanism. Government artificially reduce cost of having children for poor males with welfare and increase cost of having children for richer males. It's up to you really.

But if you do not want immigrants, you really should learn to have kids yourself you know. And make sure the best and brightest among you are the ones popping those kids. Not some racist low life that need jobs created for them.

 

[usmbguest5318]

this is PRECISELY the problem in western civilization. Western civilization and only western or westernised civilization have this problem where people make LESS children when they are richer.

Isn't that what one would expect of a culture predicated on "I" rather than "we?"

 

[Tehon]

Now I know a lot of folks will think that's great. In some ways it is. I have to wonder, however, just how good it'll be. If I'm correct, an American manufacturing resurgence will usher in a truly two-class society in the U.S: millions of low wage manufacturing workers and slightly fewer millions of high wage service sector workers. I think that the class-based schism we saw this past election cycle will get worse, not better, if the U.S. recovers its low-wage manufacturing sector.

A republican's wet dream in effect. US workers paid a pittance and without representation. Reagan's dream fulfilled.

 

[Slashsnake]

If it means paying $50-$100 more for an iPhone so jobs can be here, then sure, sign me on board to support this proposal, and no, I don't mean Steve Jobs, I meant actual working jobs that employ people.

The phone is already overpriced as is and it's manufactured in China.

 

[frigidweirdo]

My goodness. I feel bad for having to reply quickly to your dissertation. Thanks for taking the time to write out your thoughts so completely.

There is a 2nd level advantage to "Made In the USA" products.

To use your I-Phone math.

If a Chinese made I-Phone cost $749 then some portion of that $749 goes from our economy to China and their nuclear submarine program when I buy one.

A U.S. I-Phone at $849 cost me more initially but then (overly simply) my neighbor who sells I-Phones has $100 more to spend on mattresses my company makes and China has $0 more to spend on their military.

To balance that international trade though DOES help the military situation IMO. There is a Marshall Plan like effect to trading with the less developed and even your almost direct enemies like China.

Not necessarily. Because things cost more, people buy LESS, therefore people don't have more money to spend, or some do, but others don't because there are then less jobs.

 

[Slashsnake]

My goodness. I feel bad for having to reply quickly to your dissertation. Thanks for taking the time to write out your thoughts so completely.

There is a 2nd level advantage to "Made In the USA" products.

To use your I-Phone math.

If a Chinese made I-Phone cost $749 then some portion of that $749 goes from our economy to China and their nuclear submarine program when I buy one.

A U.S. I-Phone at $849 cost me more initially but then (overly simply) my neighbor who sells I-Phones has $100 more to spend on mattresses my company makes and China has $0 more to spend on their military.

To balance that international trade though DOES help the military situation IMO. There is a Marshall Plan like effect to trading with the less developed and even your almost direct enemies like China.

Not necessarily. Because things cost more, people buy LESS, therefore people don't have more money to spend, or some do, but others don't because there are then less jobs.

Good, perhaps people will start living within their means if they realize they can't afford a phone that costs $850.00. Specifically with a cell phone, many are on 0% interest installment plans, so it wouldn't effect people that much anyways. On a typical 24 month AT&T next plan, the price of the phone would go up $4.16 a month (if the phone were $100 more expensive).

 

[frigidweirdo]

My goodness. I feel bad for having to reply quickly to your dissertation. Thanks for taking the time to write out your thoughts so completely.

There is a 2nd level advantage to "Made In the USA" products.

To use your I-Phone math.

If a Chinese made I-Phone cost $749 then some portion of that $749 goes from our economy to China and their nuclear submarine program when I buy one.

A U.S. I-Phone at $849 cost me more initially but then (overly simply) my neighbor who sells I-Phones has $100 more to spend on mattresses my company makes and China has $0 more to spend on their military.

To balance that international trade though DOES help the military situation IMO. There is a Marshall Plan like effect to trading with the less developed and even your almost direct enemies like China.

Not necessarily. Because things cost more, people buy LESS, therefore people don't have more money to spend, or some do, but others don't because there are then less jobs.

Good, perhaps people will start living within their means if they realize they can't afford a phone that costs $850.00. Specifically with a cell phone, many are on 0% interest installment plans, so it wouldn't effect people that much anyways. On a typical 24 month AT&T next plan, the price of the phone would go up $4.16 a month (if the phone were $100 more expensive).

That's not the point. The point is that if people are able to buy products that are cheaper, they'll spend more. The more the spend, the more money people make. Sure, some of this money goes to poor people in poor countries, but there are sales people, there are traders, there are transport people, there are all manner of people who make money from goods that are made abroad.

The whole point is that someone thinks the US will be better off if goods are made in the US, not necessarily so.

 

[Slashsnake]

My goodness. I feel bad for having to reply quickly to your dissertation. Thanks for taking the time to write out your thoughts so completely.

There is a 2nd level advantage to "Made In the USA" products.

To use your I-Phone math.

If a Chinese made I-Phone cost $749 then some portion of that $749 goes from our economy to China and their nuclear submarine program when I buy one.

A U.S. I-Phone at $849 cost me more initially but then (overly simply) my neighbor who sells I-Phones has $100 more to spend on mattresses my company makes and China has $0 more to spend on their military.

To balance that international trade though DOES help the military situation IMO. There is a Marshall Plan like effect to trading with the less developed and even your almost direct enemies like China.

Not necessarily. Because things cost more, people buy LESS, therefore people don't have more money to spend, or some do, but others don't because there are then less jobs.

Good, perhaps people will start living within their means if they realize they can't afford a phone that costs $850.00. Specifically with a cell phone, many are on 0% interest installment plans, so it wouldn't effect people that much anyways. On a typical 24 month AT&T next plan, the price of the phone would go up $4.16 a month (if the phone were $100 more expensive).

That's not the point. The point is that if people are able to buy products that are cheaper, they'll spend more. The more the spend, the more money people make. Sure, some of this money goes to poor people in poor countries, but there are sales people, there are traders, there are transport people, there are all manner of people who make money from goods that are made abroad.

The whole point is that someone thinks the US will be better off if goods are made in the US, not necessarily so.

You have to look at your idea from another perspective.

When you buy items like an iPhone, many (I should really say almost all) people don't have $850 to put down, so they either charge it to a credit card (create debt) or buy it through an installment plan (so it's affordable). It doesn't matter if the iPhone is $650 or $1,550, it's still going to sell like hotcakes as long as you can either put it on a credit card or buy it through a carrier and pay it through monthly installments where the price is only displayed in the fine print of your agreement, which most people don't read anyway.

It doesn't matter if expensive items are imported from China at a lower cost or made in America at a slightly higher cost, people are still going to pay for the items if they want them. American's are good at living beyond their means.

 

[frigidweirdo]

My goodness. I feel bad for having to reply quickly to your dissertation. Thanks for taking the time to write out your thoughts so completely.

There is a 2nd level advantage to "Made In the USA" products.

To use your I-Phone math.

If a Chinese made I-Phone cost $749 then some portion of that $749 goes from our economy to China and their nuclear submarine program when I buy one.

A U.S. I-Phone at $849 cost me more initially but then (overly simply) my neighbor who sells I-Phones has $100 more to spend on mattresses my company makes and China has $0 more to spend on their military.

To balance that international trade though DOES help the military situation IMO. There is a Marshall Plan like effect to trading with the less developed and even your almost direct enemies like China.

Not necessarily. Because things cost more, people buy LESS, therefore people don't have more money to spend, or some do, but others don't because there are then less jobs.

Good, perhaps people will start living within their means if they realize they can't afford a phone that costs $850.00. Specifically with a cell phone, many are on 0% interest installment plans, so it wouldn't effect people that much anyways. On a typical 24 month AT&T next plan, the price of the phone would go up $4.16 a month (if the phone were $100 more expensive).

That's not the point. The point is that if people are able to buy products that are cheaper, they'll spend more. The more the spend, the more money people make. Sure, some of this money goes to poor people in poor countries, but there are sales people, there are traders, there are transport people, there are all manner of people who make money from goods that are made abroad.

The whole point is that someone thinks the US will be better off if goods are made in the US, not necessarily so.

You have to look at your idea from another perspective.

When you buy items like an iPhone, many (I should really say almost all) people don't have $850 to put down, so they either charge it to a credit card (create debt) or buy it through an installment plan (so it's affordable). It doesn't matter if the iPhone is $650 or $1,550, it's still going to sell like hotcakes as long as you can either put it on a credit card or buy it through a carrier and pay it through monthly installments where the price is only displayed in the fine print of your agreement, which most people don't read anyway.

It doesn't matter if expensive items are imported from China at a lower cost or made in America at a slightly higher cost, people are still going to pay for the items if they want them. American's are good at living beyond their means.

And is this a good thing? The more people pay to get things beyond their means, the more banks make them bankrupt and more problems ensue. Do all people go and buy Ferraris though? No, they don't. They'll buy a car within what they perceive as their means. If they think they can't afford the iPhone 26PlusExtraFuckingSnazy then they'll just buy a lower version. Yes, some people live way beyond their means, many people live as far beyond their means as they think they can get away with. The latter is different. The latter implies they understand what they're doing. I live massively within my means, but I'll only buy things for a price I think I should pay.

I'll pay $800 for a 2 week holiday, but I won't pay $800 for for a new phone (when my bloody screen got broken on a rainy day on my holiday).

 

[Slashsnake]

My goodness. I feel bad for having to reply quickly to your dissertation. Thanks for taking the time to write out your thoughts so completely.

There is a 2nd level advantage to "Made In the USA" products.

To use your I-Phone math.

If a Chinese made I-Phone cost $749 then some portion of that $749 goes from our economy to China and their nuclear submarine program when I buy one.

A U.S. I-Phone at $849 cost me more initially but then (overly simply) my neighbor who sells I-Phones has $100 more to spend on mattresses my company makes and China has $0 more to spend on their military.

To balance that international trade though DOES help the military situation IMO. There is a Marshall Plan like effect to trading with the less developed and even your almost direct enemies like China.

Not necessarily. Because things cost more, people buy LESS, therefore people don't have more money to spend, or some do, but others don't because there are then less jobs.

Good, perhaps people will start living within their means if they realize they can't afford a phone that costs $850.00. Specifically with a cell phone, many are on 0% interest installment plans, so it wouldn't effect people that much anyways. On a typical 24 month AT&T next plan, the price of the phone would go up $4.16 a month (if the phone were $100 more expensive).

That's not the point. The point is that if people are able to buy products that are cheaper, they'll spend more. The more the spend, the more money people make. Sure, some of this money goes to poor people in poor countries, but there are sales people, there are traders, there are transport people, there are all manner of people who make money from goods that are made abroad.

The whole point is that someone thinks the US will be better off if goods are made in the US, not necessarily so.

You have to look at your idea from another perspective.

When you buy items like an iPhone, many (I should really say almost all) people don't have $850 to put down, so they either charge it to a credit card (create debt) or buy it through an installment plan (so it's affordable). It doesn't matter if the iPhone is $650 or $1,550, it's still going to sell like hotcakes as long as you can either put it on a credit card or buy it through a carrier and pay it through monthly installments where the price is only displayed in the fine print of your agreement, which most people don't read anyway.

It doesn't matter if expensive items are imported from China at a lower cost or made in America at a slightly higher cost, people are still going to pay for the items if they want them. American's are good at living beyond their means.

And is this a good thing? The more people pay to get things beyond their means, the more banks make them bankrupt and more problems ensue. Do all people go and buy Ferraris though? No, they don't. They'll buy a car within what they perceive as their means. If they think they can't afford the iPhone 26PlusExtraFuckingSnazy then they'll just buy a lower version. Yes, some people live way beyond their means, many people live as far beyond their means as they think they can get away with. The latter is different. The latter implies they understand what they're doing. I live massively within my means, but I'll only buy things for a price I think I should pay.

I'll pay $800 for a 2 week holiday, but I won't pay $800 for for a new phone (when my bloody screen got broken on a rainy day on my holiday).

People being in debt shouldn't be other people's problem. Charge your phone to your credit card and pay it off within 2-3 months if you need to finance it. Those with decent credit are only paying 10-15% interest on a card, so roughly $10-$20 in interest over that period if you include the 25 day grace period which isn't a big deal. If you can't afford to pay off an $850 purchase within a 2-3 month period, don't charge it and live within your means.

A little knowledge for you... Most people buy a car that's not within their means, even if it's a Kia or a Toyota. In fact, a vehicle purchase is a huge waste of money if you're financing $28,000 over a 6 year period + interest. You can get a certified used (with an extended warranty) Volkswagen with 30,000 miles on it for $13,000 through USAA or at other places. The fact that a person wants to pay more than double that for something that will have 5 miles on it and will depreciate in value the moment you drive it off the lot means they're probably living beyond their means.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not necessarily. Because things cost more, people buy LESS, therefore people don't have more money to spend, or some do, but others don't because there are then less jobs.

Good, perhaps people will start living within their means if they realize they can't afford a phone that costs $850.00. Specifically with a cell phone, many are on 0% interest installment plans, so it wouldn't effect people that much anyways. On a typical 24 month AT&T next plan, the price of the phone would go up $4.16 a month (if the phone were $100 more expensive).

That's not the point. The point is that if people are able to buy products that are cheaper, they'll spend more. The more the spend, the more money people make. Sure, some of this money goes to poor people in poor countries, but there are sales people, there are traders, there are transport people, there are all manner of people who make money from goods that are made abroad.

The whole point is that someone thinks the US will be better off if goods are made in the US, not necessarily so.

You have to look at your idea from another perspective.

When you buy items like an iPhone, many (I should really say almost all) people don't have $850 to put down, so they either charge it to a credit card (create debt) or buy it through an installment plan (so it's affordable). It doesn't matter if the iPhone is $650 or $1,550, it's still going to sell like hotcakes as long as you can either put it on a credit card or buy it through a carrier and pay it through monthly installments where the price is only displayed in the fine print of your agreement, which most people don't read anyway.

It doesn't matter if expensive items are imported from China at a lower cost or made in America at a slightly higher cost, people are still going to pay for the items if they want them. American's are good at living beyond their means.

And is this a good thing? The more people pay to get things beyond their means, the more banks make them bankrupt and more problems ensue. Do all people go and buy Ferraris though? No, they don't. They'll buy a car within what they perceive as their means. If they think they can't afford the iPhone 26PlusExtraFuckingSnazy then they'll just buy a lower version. Yes, some people live way beyond their means, many people live as far beyond their means as they think they can get away with. The latter is different. The latter implies they understand what they're doing. I live massively within my means, but I'll only buy things for a price I think I should pay.

I'll pay $800 for a 2 week holiday, but I won't pay $800 for for a new phone (when my bloody screen got broken on a rainy day on my holiday).

People being in debt shouldn't be other people's problem. Charge your phone to your credit card and pay it off within 2-3 months if you need to finance it. Those with decent credit are only paying 10-15% interest on a card, so roughly $10-$20 in interest over that period if you include the 25 day grace period which isn't a big deal. If you can't afford to pay off an $850 purchase within a 2-3 month period, don't charge it and live within your means.

A little knowledge for you... Most people buy a car that's not within their means, even if it's a Kia or a Toyota. In fact, a vehicle purchase is a huge waste of money if you're financing $28,000 over a 6 year period + interest. You can get a certified used (with an extended warranty) Volkswagen with 30,000 miles on it for $13,000 through USAA or at other places. The fact that a person wants to pay more than double that for something that will have 5 miles on it and will depreciate in value the moment you drive it off the lot means they're probably living beyond their means.

People are free to make the choices they are allowed to make. The banks allow them to make costly decisions they can't afford. The govt allows banks to do this. This is part of the issue.

However on this topic the point is, and still is, that making stuff at home isn't always the best option for the people of the country.

 

[Slashsnake]

I've torn apart your arguments regarding jobs creation and manufacturing everything in the USA vs. overseas.

Agreed, people are free to make the choices they make. There's an issue with banks charging interest on their investment, which is a borrower is using via their credit card? Disagree. A borrower is free to save for that $850 iPhone, or they could just pay a little bit of interest over time and get it at that moment at the store with a piece of plastic.

If you lent money through Lending Club, you'd expect an 8%+ return on your investment for risking a total loss too. Sounds like to me you're trying to disrupt the free market, just saying.

 

[usmbguest5318]

and no, I don't mean Steve Jobs

??? What? Why would anyone think you did?

The Pancreatic Cancer That Killed Steve Jobs | TIME.com​

 

[Tehon]

My goodness. I feel bad for having to reply quickly to your dissertation. Thanks for taking the time to write out your thoughts so completely.

There is a 2nd level advantage to "Made In the USA" products.

To use your I-Phone math.

If a Chinese made I-Phone cost $749 then some portion of that $749 goes from our economy to China and their nuclear submarine program when I buy one.

A U.S. I-Phone at $849 cost me more initially but then (overly simply) my neighbor who sells I-Phones has $100 more to spend on mattresses my company makes and China has $0 more to spend on their military.

To balance that international trade though DOES help the military situation IMO. There is a Marshall Plan like effect to trading with the less developed and even your almost direct enemies like China.

Not necessarily. Because things cost more, people buy LESS, therefore people don't have more money to spend, or some do, but others don't because there are then less jobs.

We don't need to buy inexpensive goods that are produced in low wage countries. We can produce goods here and pay people a livable wage. Sure things will cost more and profits will be less but the benefit will be that we have a more fully functioning and more stable society as a result. The economy is a tool that should be used to benefit the society as a whole. At the present it is dysfunctional.