This is why the U.S. middle class collapsed

[initforme]

The wages on jobs coming back should be substantially higher so the employers are complaining about labor costs being way too high. Then the wages are getting close to where they should be.

 

[my2¢]

Many have NOT. There are still nearly 13 million manufacturing jobs in this country.


The status quo, before Trump has been that it is...somehow WRONG, to even discuss the interests of those workers, or their families or their communities.


That's bat shit crazy.

And how many of those 13 million jobs are performing jobs that require no more skill than flipping a burger. Can corporations afford to have assemblers and warehouse persons earning as much as the fewer number of well-paid manufacturing engineers they may employ?

 

[Correll]

And how many of those 13 million jobs are performing jobs that require no more skill than flipping a burger. Can corporations afford to have assemblers and warehouse persons earning as much as the fewer number of well-paid manufacturing engineers they may employ?

What in my post, suggested to you that I want warehouse persons, to make as much as engineers?

 

[my2¢]

What in my post, suggested to you that I want warehouse persons, to make as much as engineers?

It was your call for concern over manufacturing sector jobs which entails a wide range of positions.

All this concern contained in this thread seems little different than the Democrats calling for a $15 minimum wage a few years back.

 

[Correll]

It was your call for concern over manufacturing sector jobs which entails a wide range of positions.

I want those jobs here and I want them making more.

So, connect the dots for me, how that leads you to think that I wanted a guy who stacks boxes, to make the same as the guy that designed the next chip?

OH, wait, you were just shit talking, right? You knew that that was not my position, but my position was so clearly good adn right that you had to make up shit, to avoid admitting that I was right.


Damn. I was slow on the uptake there, Sorry to take your words seriously.


I will try to be more... realistic about you moving forward.

All this concern contained in this thread seems little different than the Democrats calling for a $15 minimum wage a few years back.

Pretty serious ideological differences between regulating a good market to get good economic results, and simply dictating wages.

Indeed, you see it too. That is why you supported the demands for a higher min wage and oppose this, right? Political ideology, the role of government, vs the role of private money.

I mean, if the sitatuion were to suddenly change and the issue was an increase in the min wage, you would support it, and feel no conflict.


So, if it makes sense to you, FOR you, why are you confused that it makes sense to me, FOR me?


Oh, wait, is this just more shit talk you are throwing against a wall to see it if sticks?

 

[task0778]

One of the things missing in this discussion is the blowback when foreign countries retaliate against US exporters by hitting them with their own tariffs. IOW, it ain't all positive news; the steel companies and their workers might get more business but other industries and sectors get hurt by those retaliatory tariffs. It boils down to some people are helped while others are hurt by tariffs.

There are 3 groups of people that get hurt the most from tariffs: the downstream businesses that need steel and/or aluminum to make their products, businesses and workers in sectors hit by the retaliatory tariffs on US products, and US consumers. Those downstream businesses are mostly small businesses that have to raise their prices because their steel/aluminum input materials are now more expensive. That's called inflation folks. And who get hurt the worst? The low-income people that can least afford prices increases for whatever steel/aluminum products they buy.

So, winners and losers, picked by the gov't. Does the trade imbalance improve? Not really, tariffs are a very bad idea that the democrats used to champion and now Trump does. And BTW, the collapse of the middle class was due to a number of economic and political factors, but tariffs or the lack of, was not one of them.

 

[Correll]

One of the things missing in this discussion is the blowback when foreign countries retaliate against US exporters by hitting them with their own tariffs. IOW, it ain't all positive news; the steel companies and their workers might get more business but other industries and sectors get hurt by those retaliatory tariffs. It boils down to some people are helped while others are hurt by tariffs.

There are 3 groups of people that get hurt the most from tariffs: the downstream businesses that need steel and/or aluminum to make their products, businesses and workers in sectors hit by the retaliatory tariffs on US products, and US consumers. Those downstream businesses are mostly small businesses that have to raise their prices because their steel/aluminum input materials are now more expensive. That's called inflation folks. And who get hurt the worst? The low-income people that can least afford prices increases for whatever steel/aluminum products they buy.

So, winners and losers, picked by the gov't. Does the trade imbalance improve? Not really, tariffs are a very bad idea that the democrats used to champion and now Trump does. And BTW, the collapse of the middle class was due to a number of economic and political factors, but tariffs or the lack of, was not one of them.

Thanks for a serious response on the issue.


BUT, what if the trade balance DOES improve? What if jobs do show some positive overall results and wages do rise?

 

[Billiejeens]

One of the things missing in this discussion is the blowback when foreign countries retaliate against US exporters by hitting them with their own tariffs. IOW, it ain't all positive news; the steel companies and their workers might get more business but other industries and sectors get hurt by those retaliatory tariffs. It boils down to some people are helped while others are hurt by tariffs.

There are 3 groups of people that get hurt the most from tariffs: the downstream businesses that need steel and/or aluminum to make their products, businesses and workers in sectors hit by the retaliatory tariffs on US products, and US consumers. Those downstream businesses are mostly small businesses that have to raise their prices because their steel/aluminum input materials are now more expensive. That's called inflation folks. And who get hurt the worst? The low-income people that can least afford prices increases for whatever steel/aluminum products they buy.

So, winners and losers, picked by the gov't. Does the trade imbalance improve? Not really, tariffs are a very bad idea that the democrats used to champion and now Trump does. And BTW, the collapse of the middle class was due to a number of economic and political factors, but tariffs or the lack of, was not one of them.

What we are doing now is The Retaliation.

 

[task0778]

BUT, what if the trade balance DOES improve?

I am unconvinced at this point that the trade imbalance actually matters.

What if jobs do show some positive overall results and wages do rise?

I'd be shocked. To my knowledge, it would be the first time that tariffs would result in positive results and more jobs, and I'm talking about the whole economy rather than just the steel and aluminum companies. Who really pays for those higher wages? Ultimately, it's the consumers, right? The prices go up and so does inflation, right? Maybe not by a lot, although Trump's tariffs this time are higher than they were when he raised tariffs during his 1st term. Most economists I've read say that tariffs are not the cure for a trade imbalance; it might help in the short run but not in the long run as the economy adjusts.

 

[task0778]

What we are doing now is The Retaliation.

True. But somebody is going to pay for it. Guess who?

 

[Correll]

I am unconvinced at this point that the trade imbalance actually matters.





I'd be shocked. To my knowledge, it would be the first time that tariffs would result in positive results and more jobs, and I'm talking about the whole economy rather than just the steel and aluminum companies. Who really pays for those higher wages? Ultimately, it's the consumers, right? The prices go up and so does inflation, right? Maybe not by a lot, although Trump's tariffs this time are higher than they were when he raised tariffs during his 1st term. Most economists I've read say that tariffs are not the cure for a trade imbalance; it might help in the short run but not in the long run as the economy adjusts.

Depends on how much of the final cost is labor. If the cost is almost all based on the EQUIPMENT or the CAPITAL COSTS, then labor could grow quite a bit with little price pressure.

If it works, would you reverse your position and support Trump and his policies?

 

[Billiejeens]

True. But somebody is going to pay for it. Guess who?

The countries without the power that we wield?

 

[task0778]

Depends on how much of the final cost is labor. If the cost is almost all based on the EQUIPMENT or the CAPITAL COSTS, then labor could grow quite a bit with little price pressure.

I'm not seeing the price pressure. Do you suggest that the tariffs would raise the price of imported steel to be higher than that of domestic producers, so they could raise wages? One of the universal laws of economics states that when the price of something goes up, the demand for it goes down. That does not sound like a good economic policy to me, and it's hard to see greater price pressure when demand falls.

If it works, would you reverse your position and support Trump and his policies?

What if it doesn't work, are you going to reverse your position to oppose Trump and his policies?

I kinda think it'll take a couple of years to determine the results of Trump's tariffs. I do not accept projections ahead of the reality, those things are likely skewed to the political leanings or financial benefits to the authors, so I really don't trust them from either side. And there are a number of other Trump policies that I question. I think it's good that he's trying to root out gov't FWA, but WTH are we doing trying to annex Greenland? Whether or not his tariffs are successful does not mean his other policies are good ones.

IMHO, a good policy should be supported no matter whose policies it is.

 

[IM2]

This explains it all. Also some props for Ross Perot who called it in the 1990's and was one of the few. Trump's tariff policies are RIGHT for this country, short term pain for long term gain.

No, THIS is why.

https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2158&context=sulr