Would you support subsidizing...

[Brain357]

I don’t mean anything. I’m giving you the facts. Unemployment has been super low and we have more than enough wealth. Workers not getting paid is obviously an internal problem. If unemployment was really high you might have a point. Under these circumstances it’s obviously an internal problem.

Globalism causes low wages in America

Then why hasn't it caused low wages?

Do you really think wages in the US are low? Compared to where?

We are paid more in wages in the US, than anywhere in the world. Anywhere. Nordic countries? Significantly more. Europe? Significantly more. Asia? Dramatically more.

The US has been the most globalized economy, of any country, that has ever existed in human history, and we have been a global economy long before the term "Globalization" even existed.

By your logic, we should have the lower wages than China in the 1970s.

Meanwhile, every country that has openly engaged in protectionism, and isolated itself from the global economy.... which countries are those? Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, pre-78 China? Pre-91 India?

Why do you think the richest cities on the planet, are all port cities? Singapore, Hong Kong, Toyko, Abu Dhabi, Daho, Dubai, Barcelona, LA / San Francisco, Chicago, Amsterdam, Toronto, San Diego.

You see a pattern? Obviously some locations are not port cities, like Paris and Madrid. But the vast majority of highly wealthy cities, are all port cities.

Why is that? Because trade and wealth, are directly connected.

Millions of factory workers are having to take low paying service and retail jobs after their factory moved to china

someday our children or grandchildren may be rickshaw drivers pulling fat chinese around from bars to brothels thanks to globalization

Is factory work so much harder it deserves higher pay? Perhaps service jobs should pay more...

Service jobs pay less because less skill is required to do them

Less skill is used than manufacturing? What do you base that on? Many service jobs require a lot of knowledge. Many manufacturing jobs are quite mindless...

 

[Brain357]

So you made a logical contradiction.

You said that new steel plants are opening. This is entirely true.

But then you said, without tariffs China can still undercut our price.

Ok... well, we have not had tariffs on imported Chinese steel in the past 50 years, when all these new domestic steel mills were all opening.

So why hasn't China under cut our price?

The problem with this entire argument, is that it appears to be largely built on myths.

First, off most of the Steel used in the US, is produced domestically. Always has been.

View attachment 313450

Imported steel, has never been more than 30% of the total consumed steel in the US market.

With or without tariffs, steel producers have always been competitive with imports.

Secondly, China isn't even a major supplier of US steel, contrary to Union story telling. And by the way, China never was.

View attachment 313452

Brazil, South Korea, even Japan and Russia, have been larger suppliers of steel than China.

Screaming about China, over steel, is one of the least empirically supported arguments, I have seen on this issue.

The entire thing is rather baffling.

How much steel does china import from America?

thats how much we should allow them to export to us

That's retarded.

That's like suggesting, you can't buy a new car, unless someone buys a new car from you.

That's idiotic.

No

retarded is not knowing the value of balanced trade and the danger of chronic trade deficits with our strategic enemy

We get wealthy by trading with them.

There is no danger of chronic trade deficit.

In fact, during every single recession, the trade deficit declines. You can look that up. And this is logic. When there is a recession, and Americans have less money to spend, logically you can't buy as much from others.

Again, a trade deficit is a sign of wealth. The only real way to eliminate the trade deficit, is to be poor.

You want to wipe out our trade deficit with China and everyone else? Destroy the US economy. When everyone is poor, the trade deficit will disappear.

Again, there is no example in the world where protectionism resulted in growth and prosperity.

If eliminating trade deficits was beneficial at all, then Russia should be in an economic boom, because we basically imposed protectionism on Russia with sanctions.

If international trade was bad for the economy, then we should have punished Russia by opening all trade with them.

There is no example anywhere, where that logic worked.

We already have a chronic trade deficit of $400-$500 billion a year with china

and someday it could be a trillion

Yes they send us more resources than they get back. That hardly seems like a problem for us...

 

[Mac-7]

Old steel plants are closing but modern ones are taking their place

the new plants do produce steel with fewer workers however which explains the continued jobl loss

but no matter how efficient new plants are without tariff protection china can still undercut our price

So you made a logical contradiction.

You said that new steel plants are opening. This is entirely true.

But then you said, without tariffs China can still undercut our price.

Ok... well, we have not had tariffs on imported Chinese steel in the past 50 years, when all these new domestic steel mills were all opening.

So why hasn't China under cut our price?

The problem with this entire argument, is that it appears to be largely built on myths.

First, off most of the Steel used in the US, is produced domestically. Always has been.

View attachment 313450

Imported steel, has never been more than 30% of the total consumed steel in the US market.

With or without tariffs, steel producers have always been competitive with imports.

Secondly, China isn't even a major supplier of US steel, contrary to Union story telling. And by the way, China never was.

View attachment 313452

Brazil, South Korea, even Japan and Russia, have been larger suppliers of steel than China.

Screaming about China, over steel, is one of the least empirically supported arguments, I have seen on this issue.

The entire thing is rather baffling.

Old steel plants are closing but modern ones are taking their place

the new plants do produce steel with fewer workers however which explains the continued jobl loss

but no matter how efficient new plants are without tariff protection china can still undercut our price

So you made a logical contradiction.

You said that new steel plants are opening. This is entirely true.

But then you said, without tariffs China can still undercut our price.

Ok... well, we have not had tariffs on imported Chinese steel in the past 50 years, when all these new domestic steel mills were all opening.

So why hasn't China under cut our price?

The problem with this entire argument, is that it appears to be largely built on myths.

First, off most of the Steel used in the US, is produced domestically. Always has been.

View attachment 313450

Imported steel, has never been more than 30% of the total consumed steel in the US market.

With or without tariffs, steel producers have always been competitive with imports.

Secondly, China isn't even a major supplier of US steel, contrary to Union story telling. And by the way, China never was.

View attachment 313452

Brazil, South Korea, even Japan and Russia, have been larger suppliers of steel than China.

Screaming about China, over steel, is one of the least empirically supported arguments, I have seen on this issue.

The entire thing is rather baffling.

Brazil, South Korea, even Japan and Russia, have been larger suppliers of steel than China.

With the exception of russia none of those countries are strategic enemies of the United States

But china is

this is not strictly economic

Well, there is an argument to be made for that.

I would also suggest that it was specifically because we cut off trade with Japan, that sparked hostilities, and resulted in the US entering into World War 2.

That said, again, China is an exceptionally small trade partner. Contrary to popularly opinion, losing the American market, will cause small waves in the Chinese economy, stoking up hatred for the US, and support for the Chinese government.

But what it will not do, is stop the advancement of the Chinese economy, and growth of the Chinese military capabilities.

So I do understand the context of that argument, but I am skeptical of whatever claimed benefit there will be.

Losing the US market would be a major blow to the chinese economy and the military

America has been a gravy train for china during the past 30 years

but look at it this way

reverse the situation of japan and the US

Imagine japan was 3 times larger than America and had the largest industrial base on the planet

we had a superbly trained military at the beginning of the conflict, but no way to equal the enemy in a war of attrition

not to mention that instead of japan being totally dependent on the US for oil we were totally defendant on them for lifesaving drugs

would we still have won WWII?

I think not

I respect that this is your opinion, and I am not going to try and convince you otherwise.

I do not believe as you do. Losing the US market will cause some harm, that's true. But even though the US is largest single trade partner with China, we are not but about 15% of all their exports and about 9% of their imports.

Years ago I worked for a company, where one single customer was roughly 30% of their business. That customer pulled the plug. Now did this hurt? You bet. We laid off 10% of the staff, and cut hours for the rest.

But in the end, we started taking on some smaller customers, and expanded existing contracts, and in a years time, we were just about where we were before we lost that big customer.

China is a massive international trade economy now. Yes, the loss of the US, will hurt. I'm not denying that.

But the pain will be temporary, and they will find other business to engage in, in the other 7.5 Billion people on the planet, that are not in the US. They will be able to replace the US.

As for the Chinese military, no. Just I don't buy that at all. The military will be able to advance, with or without the US. And I would even wager at the same rate of advancement.
Technologically speaking, as long as there is growth in the tech used in the domestic markets, then that will filter into the military.
And as long as China has trade with any 1st world country, or any country more advanced than itself, then technology in China will continue to advance at a fairly decent pace. The only way you could slow the advancement of the Chinese military, is if you cut China off from the entire rest of the world, including Russia. Well that's impossible.

So I don't see any military value in cutting ties with China economically. I think that's more mythology, than real. Now I freely admit I could be wrong, and you have an opinion that is just as plausible... but I don't see evidence supporting this idea.

As you say there no way to stop china from growing and advancing

but the $500 billion profit they make from trade with America will not be easily replaced through more exports to Uruguay or Malawi

disengaging from china will take time and cause some pain if it happens at all

but if it doesent happen we are in big trouble

 

[Mac-7]

Globalism causes low wages in America

Then why hasn't it caused low wages?

Do you really think wages in the US are low? Compared to where?

We are paid more in wages in the US, than anywhere in the world. Anywhere. Nordic countries? Significantly more. Europe? Significantly more. Asia? Dramatically more.

The US has been the most globalized economy, of any country, that has ever existed in human history, and we have been a global economy long before the term "Globalization" even existed.

By your logic, we should have the lower wages than China in the 1970s.

Meanwhile, every country that has openly engaged in protectionism, and isolated itself from the global economy.... which countries are those? Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, pre-78 China? Pre-91 India?

Why do you think the richest cities on the planet, are all port cities? Singapore, Hong Kong, Toyko, Abu Dhabi, Daho, Dubai, Barcelona, LA / San Francisco, Chicago, Amsterdam, Toronto, San Diego.

You see a pattern? Obviously some locations are not port cities, like Paris and Madrid. But the vast majority of highly wealthy cities, are all port cities.

Why is that? Because trade and wealth, are directly connected.

Millions of factory workers are having to take low paying service and retail jobs after their factory moved to china

someday our children or grandchildren may be rickshaw drivers pulling fat chinese around from bars to brothels thanks to globalization

Is factory work so much harder it deserves higher pay? Perhaps service jobs should pay more...

Service jobs pay less because less skill is required to do them

Less skill is used than manufacturing? What do you base that on? Many service jobs require a lot of knowledge. Many manufacturing jobs are quite mindless...

Many service jobs require a lot of knowledge. Many manufacturing jobs are quite mindless...

True

so some service jobs will pay well while some factory jobs will not

The market can always be relied on to set wages

factories need workers but the job may be dangerous, boring, extremely sweat producing, or require certain skills

some people will not want those jobs and will settle for easier service jobs at less psy

other people will take the jobs that their buddy turns down for the extra pay they receive

it all works out in the end

 

[Brain357]

Then why hasn't it caused low wages?

Do you really think wages in the US are low? Compared to where?

We are paid more in wages in the US, than anywhere in the world. Anywhere. Nordic countries? Significantly more. Europe? Significantly more. Asia? Dramatically more.

The US has been the most globalized economy, of any country, that has ever existed in human history, and we have been a global economy long before the term "Globalization" even existed.

By your logic, we should have the lower wages than China in the 1970s.

Meanwhile, every country that has openly engaged in protectionism, and isolated itself from the global economy.... which countries are those? Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, pre-78 China? Pre-91 India?

Why do you think the richest cities on the planet, are all port cities? Singapore, Hong Kong, Toyko, Abu Dhabi, Daho, Dubai, Barcelona, LA / San Francisco, Chicago, Amsterdam, Toronto, San Diego.

You see a pattern? Obviously some locations are not port cities, like Paris and Madrid. But the vast majority of highly wealthy cities, are all port cities.

Why is that? Because trade and wealth, are directly connected.

Millions of factory workers are having to take low paying service and retail jobs after their factory moved to china

someday our children or grandchildren may be rickshaw drivers pulling fat chinese around from bars to brothels thanks to globalization

Is factory work so much harder it deserves higher pay? Perhaps service jobs should pay more...

Service jobs pay less because less skill is required to do them

Less skill is used than manufacturing? What do you base that on? Many service jobs require a lot of knowledge. Many manufacturing jobs are quite mindless...

Many service jobs require a lot of knowledge. Many manufacturing jobs are quite mindless...

True

so some service jobs will pay well while some factory jobs will not

The market can always be relied on to set wages

factories need workers but the job may be dangerous, boring, extremely sweat producing, or require certain skills

some people will not want those jobs and will settle for easier service jobs at less psy

other people will take the jobs that their buddy turns down for the extra pay they receive

it all works out in the end

Actually the market can’t currently be relied on. Super low unemployment and wages gained almost nothing. The market is broken.

 

[Andylusion]

Millions of factory workers are having to take low paying service and retail jobs after their factory moved to china

someday our children or grandchildren may be rickshaw drivers pulling fat chinese around from bars to brothels thanks to globalization

Is factory work so much harder it deserves higher pay? Perhaps service jobs should pay more...

Service jobs pay less because less skill is required to do them

Less skill is used than manufacturing? What do you base that on? Many service jobs require a lot of knowledge. Many manufacturing jobs are quite mindless...

Many service jobs require a lot of knowledge. Many manufacturing jobs are quite mindless...

True

so some service jobs will pay well while some factory jobs will not

The market can always be relied on to set wages

factories need workers but the job may be dangerous, boring, extremely sweat producing, or require certain skills

some people will not want those jobs and will settle for easier service jobs at less psy

other people will take the jobs that their buddy turns down for the extra pay they receive

it all works out in the end

Actually the market can’t currently be relied on. Super low unemployment and wages gained almost nothing. The market is broken.

Nah, that isn't an argument.

Super low unemployment does not automatically increase wages. It is an indicator, but not anything else.

Remember unemployment is not the same as demand.

If you have an island of 1,000 people, and there are only 998 jobs on the entire island, you'll end up with zero increase in pay, and low unemployment.

In fact, in that situation, you might even see a drop in wages, because the 2 people still looking for work, when there is no more to be found, will likely be willing to work for even lower wages than the existing market.

Again, something earned, is better than nothing earned.

There is zero evidence, other than it isn't behaving as someone expects, that suggests the market is broken.

 

[Andylusion]

So you made a logical contradiction.

You said that new steel plants are opening. This is entirely true.

But then you said, without tariffs China can still undercut our price.

Ok... well, we have not had tariffs on imported Chinese steel in the past 50 years, when all these new domestic steel mills were all opening.

So why hasn't China under cut our price?

The problem with this entire argument, is that it appears to be largely built on myths.

First, off most of the Steel used in the US, is produced domestically. Always has been.

View attachment 313450

Imported steel, has never been more than 30% of the total consumed steel in the US market.

With or without tariffs, steel producers have always been competitive with imports.

Secondly, China isn't even a major supplier of US steel, contrary to Union story telling. And by the way, China never was.

View attachment 313452

Brazil, South Korea, even Japan and Russia, have been larger suppliers of steel than China.

Screaming about China, over steel, is one of the least empirically supported arguments, I have seen on this issue.

The entire thing is rather baffling.

So you made a logical contradiction.

You said that new steel plants are opening. This is entirely true.

But then you said, without tariffs China can still undercut our price.

Ok... well, we have not had tariffs on imported Chinese steel in the past 50 years, when all these new domestic steel mills were all opening.

So why hasn't China under cut our price?

The problem with this entire argument, is that it appears to be largely built on myths.

First, off most of the Steel used in the US, is produced domestically. Always has been.

View attachment 313450

Imported steel, has never been more than 30% of the total consumed steel in the US market.

With or without tariffs, steel producers have always been competitive with imports.

Secondly, China isn't even a major supplier of US steel, contrary to Union story telling. And by the way, China never was.

View attachment 313452

Brazil, South Korea, even Japan and Russia, have been larger suppliers of steel than China.

Screaming about China, over steel, is one of the least empirically supported arguments, I have seen on this issue.

The entire thing is rather baffling.

Brazil, South Korea, even Japan and Russia, have been larger suppliers of steel than China.

With the exception of russia none of those countries are strategic enemies of the United States

But china is

this is not strictly economic

Well, there is an argument to be made for that.

I would also suggest that it was specifically because we cut off trade with Japan, that sparked hostilities, and resulted in the US entering into World War 2.

That said, again, China is an exceptionally small trade partner. Contrary to popularly opinion, losing the American market, will cause small waves in the Chinese economy, stoking up hatred for the US, and support for the Chinese government.

But what it will not do, is stop the advancement of the Chinese economy, and growth of the Chinese military capabilities.

So I do understand the context of that argument, but I am skeptical of whatever claimed benefit there will be.

Losing the US market would be a major blow to the chinese economy and the military

America has been a gravy train for china during the past 30 years

but look at it this way

reverse the situation of japan and the US

Imagine japan was 3 times larger than America and had the largest industrial base on the planet

we had a superbly trained military at the beginning of the conflict, but no way to equal the enemy in a war of attrition

not to mention that instead of japan being totally dependent on the US for oil we were totally defendant on them for lifesaving drugs

would we still have won WWII?

I think not

I respect that this is your opinion, and I am not going to try and convince you otherwise.

I do not believe as you do. Losing the US market will cause some harm, that's true. But even though the US is largest single trade partner with China, we are not but about 15% of all their exports and about 9% of their imports.

Years ago I worked for a company, where one single customer was roughly 30% of their business. That customer pulled the plug. Now did this hurt? You bet. We laid off 10% of the staff, and cut hours for the rest.

But in the end, we started taking on some smaller customers, and expanded existing contracts, and in a years time, we were just about where we were before we lost that big customer.

China is a massive international trade economy now. Yes, the loss of the US, will hurt. I'm not denying that.

But the pain will be temporary, and they will find other business to engage in, in the other 7.5 Billion people on the planet, that are not in the US. They will be able to replace the US.

As for the Chinese military, no. Just I don't buy that at all. The military will be able to advance, with or without the US. And I would even wager at the same rate of advancement.
Technologically speaking, as long as there is growth in the tech used in the domestic markets, then that will filter into the military.
And as long as China has trade with any 1st world country, or any country more advanced than itself, then technology in China will continue to advance at a fairly decent pace. The only way you could slow the advancement of the Chinese military, is if you cut China off from the entire rest of the world, including Russia. Well that's impossible.

So I don't see any military value in cutting ties with China economically. I think that's more mythology, than real. Now I freely admit I could be wrong, and you have an opinion that is just as plausible... but I don't see evidence supporting this idea.

As you say there no way to stop china from growing and advancing

but the $500 billion profit they make from trade with America will not be easily replaced through more exports to Uruguay or Malawi

disengaging from china will take time and cause some pain if it happens at all

but if it doesent happen we are in big trouble

You are asking like China would only engage with Uruguay and Malawi to replace the US.

Yeah, Uruguay and Malawi wouldn't provide enough to replace the US. Agreed.

Uruguay, Malawi, France, Germany, UK, Sweden, Russia, Ukraine, Japan, Taiwan, Turkey, Egypt, India, Saudi Arabia, (insert the rest of the 194 countries containing the other 7.5 Billion people of the world into this list)....

Will more... more than replace the US, and do so with very little effort.

If we are going to be in trouble if it does not happen, then I can promise you we will be in just as much trouble if it does.

 

[Brain357]

Is factory work so much harder it deserves higher pay? Perhaps service jobs should pay more...

Service jobs pay less because less skill is required to do them

Less skill is used than manufacturing? What do you base that on? Many service jobs require a lot of knowledge. Many manufacturing jobs are quite mindless...

Many service jobs require a lot of knowledge. Many manufacturing jobs are quite mindless...

True

so some service jobs will pay well while some factory jobs will not

The market can always be relied on to set wages

factories need workers but the job may be dangerous, boring, extremely sweat producing, or require certain skills

some people will not want those jobs and will settle for easier service jobs at less psy

other people will take the jobs that their buddy turns down for the extra pay they receive

it all works out in the end

Actually the market can’t currently be relied on. Super low unemployment and wages gained almost nothing. The market is broken.

Nah, that isn't an argument.

Super low unemployment does not automatically increase wages. It is an indicator, but not anything else.

Remember unemployment is not the same as demand.

If you have an island of 1,000 people, and there are only 998 jobs on the entire island, you'll end up with zero increase in pay, and low unemployment.

In fact, in that situation, you might even see a drop in wages, because the 2 people still looking for work, when there is no more to be found, will likely be willing to work for even lower wages than the existing market.

Again, something earned, is better than nothing earned.

There is zero evidence, other than it isn't behaving as someone expects, that suggests the market is broken.

We have labor shortages and really low unemployment. The market is not working.

 

[Andylusion]

Service jobs pay less because less skill is required to do them

Less skill is used than manufacturing? What do you base that on? Many service jobs require a lot of knowledge. Many manufacturing jobs are quite mindless...

Many service jobs require a lot of knowledge. Many manufacturing jobs are quite mindless...

True

so some service jobs will pay well while some factory jobs will not

The market can always be relied on to set wages

factories need workers but the job may be dangerous, boring, extremely sweat producing, or require certain skills

some people will not want those jobs and will settle for easier service jobs at less psy

other people will take the jobs that their buddy turns down for the extra pay they receive

it all works out in the end

Actually the market can’t currently be relied on. Super low unemployment and wages gained almost nothing. The market is broken.

Nah, that isn't an argument.

Super low unemployment does not automatically increase wages. It is an indicator, but not anything else.

Remember unemployment is not the same as demand.

If you have an island of 1,000 people, and there are only 998 jobs on the entire island, you'll end up with zero increase in pay, and low unemployment.

In fact, in that situation, you might even see a drop in wages, because the 2 people still looking for work, when there is no more to be found, will likely be willing to work for even lower wages than the existing market.

Again, something earned, is better than nothing earned.

There is zero evidence, other than it isn't behaving as someone expects, that suggests the market is broken.

We have labor shortages and really low unemployment. The market is not working.

Based on what?

 

[Brain357]

Less skill is used than manufacturing? What do you base that on? Many service jobs require a lot of knowledge. Many manufacturing jobs are quite mindless...

Many service jobs require a lot of knowledge. Many manufacturing jobs are quite mindless...

True

so some service jobs will pay well while some factory jobs will not

The market can always be relied on to set wages

factories need workers but the job may be dangerous, boring, extremely sweat producing, or require certain skills

some people will not want those jobs and will settle for easier service jobs at less psy

other people will take the jobs that their buddy turns down for the extra pay they receive

it all works out in the end

Actually the market can’t currently be relied on. Super low unemployment and wages gained almost nothing. The market is broken.

Nah, that isn't an argument.

Super low unemployment does not automatically increase wages. It is an indicator, but not anything else.

Remember unemployment is not the same as demand.

If you have an island of 1,000 people, and there are only 998 jobs on the entire island, you'll end up with zero increase in pay, and low unemployment.

In fact, in that situation, you might even see a drop in wages, because the 2 people still looking for work, when there is no more to be found, will likely be willing to work for even lower wages than the existing market.

Again, something earned, is better than nothing earned.

There is zero evidence, other than it isn't behaving as someone expects, that suggests the market is broken.

We have labor shortages and really low unemployment. The market is not working.

Based on what?

With labor shortages and really low unemployment wages should be increasing. There are more jobs available than workers. The market is not working.

 

[Andylusion]

Many service jobs require a lot of knowledge. Many manufacturing jobs are quite mindless...

True

so some service jobs will pay well while some factory jobs will not

The market can always be relied on to set wages

factories need workers but the job may be dangerous, boring, extremely sweat producing, or require certain skills

some people will not want those jobs and will settle for easier service jobs at less psy

other people will take the jobs that their buddy turns down for the extra pay they receive

it all works out in the end

Actually the market can’t currently be relied on. Super low unemployment and wages gained almost nothing. The market is broken.

Nah, that isn't an argument.

Super low unemployment does not automatically increase wages. It is an indicator, but not anything else.

Remember unemployment is not the same as demand.

If you have an island of 1,000 people, and there are only 998 jobs on the entire island, you'll end up with zero increase in pay, and low unemployment.

In fact, in that situation, you might even see a drop in wages, because the 2 people still looking for work, when there is no more to be found, will likely be willing to work for even lower wages than the existing market.

Again, something earned, is better than nothing earned.

There is zero evidence, other than it isn't behaving as someone expects, that suggests the market is broken.

We have labor shortages and really low unemployment. The market is not working.

Based on what?

With labor shortages and really low unemployment wages should be increasing. There are more jobs available than workers. The market is not working.

I'm asking for clear evidence of a labor shortage, or that wages are not increasing.

I mean, I can only speak from what I've personally seen. My company has dramatically increased wages, in order to attract workers.

I know that I'm seeing in the market, is line-cooks starting at $15/hr, forklift for $16/hr, cleaners for $17/hr. List goes on.

So clearly rate in my area are in fact up.

Now obviously, one of the big problems with saying these vast generalized statements, is that unlike Europe, we have one "unemployment rate" for the entire country, when some areas have high unemployment, and others have low.

So one particularly bad area of the country, like say... LA and SF, where drugs, homeless, poop on the street and so on, is driving out large numbers of people.... yeah they might have a labor shortage, when generally the country does not.

Also, I'm wondering if you are confusing two sub-sets of labor.

There could be a massive shortage of high school labor, like engineers. While there is plenty of low-skill labor.

Plenty of low skill labor would prevent wages generally from rising, while there was a shortage of labor in skilled areas.

But I'm not seeing this. Places are still hiring tons of people, and wages are certainly higher than 5 years ago.

Unless you are expecting faster results, and that's not realistic. The wages do not instantly adjust to labor supply. Of course there is a lag.

Regardless, there is still no evidence that the market isn't working. To be honest, to suggest the market is not working, is just impossible.

Literally, it is not possible for the market to not work, the way you claim it is not working.

If employers need more people... they absolutely must offer more wages, if there are not enough workers at a given rate.

That isn't a debatable point. That's simply how the world must work. It can't work any other way.

Are you suggesting that if my company is short staffed, that magically if "the market is broken" that my employer will somehow continue to function without employees? Well of course not. So how do they continue to function? By getting employees. How do they do that if employees are refusing to work for the existing rate?

Well.. obviously.... the rate must go up. Which by the way, is exactly what my employer did.

So to even attempt to claim that "the market is broken"... is not just incorrect, but it is impossible and ridiculous.

If rates do not go up, then that means the employer is getting enough employees to do the work.
If the number of employees is not enough... then rates must go up.

One assumption, or the other, must be wrong. Either you are wrong that there is a labor shortage, or you are wrong that rates are not going up. But one must be false. The problem isn't the market, the problem is your data is just wrong.

 

[Mac-7]

Millions of factory workers are having to take low paying service and retail jobs after their factory moved to china

someday our children or grandchildren may be rickshaw drivers pulling fat chinese around from bars to brothels thanks to globalization

Is factory work so much harder it deserves higher pay? Perhaps service jobs should pay more...

Service jobs pay less because less skill is required to do them

Less skill is used than manufacturing? What do you base that on? Many service jobs require a lot of knowledge. Many manufacturing jobs are quite mindless...

Many service jobs require a lot of knowledge. Many manufacturing jobs are quite mindless...

True

so some service jobs will pay well while some factory jobs will not

The market can always be relied on to set wages

factories need workers but the job may be dangerous, boring, extremely sweat producing, or require certain skills

some people will not want those jobs and will settle for easier service jobs at less psy

other people will take the jobs that their buddy turns down for the extra pay they receive

it all works out in the end

Actually the market can’t currently be relied on. Super low unemployment and wages gained almost nothing. The market is broken.

Without factories there were no high skill jobs to be filled

or at least not enough

although its been reported that employers cannot find qualified tradesmen for the jobs that are available

too many kids go to college expecting to be big shots when they graduate with crapola degrees in obscure social sciences

and they are carrying debt that is crushing them

these are totally stupid people in spite of their diploma

 

[Mac-7]

Brazil, South Korea, even Japan and Russia, have been larger suppliers of steel than China.

With the exception of russia none of those countries are strategic enemies of the United States

But china is

this is not strictly economic

Well, there is an argument to be made for that.

I would also suggest that it was specifically because we cut off trade with Japan, that sparked hostilities, and resulted in the US entering into World War 2.

That said, again, China is an exceptionally small trade partner. Contrary to popularly opinion, losing the American market, will cause small waves in the Chinese economy, stoking up hatred for the US, and support for the Chinese government.

But what it will not do, is stop the advancement of the Chinese economy, and growth of the Chinese military capabilities.

So I do understand the context of that argument, but I am skeptical of whatever claimed benefit there will be.

Losing the US market would be a major blow to the chinese economy and the military

America has been a gravy train for china during the past 30 years

but look at it this way

reverse the situation of japan and the US

Imagine japan was 3 times larger than America and had the largest industrial base on the planet

we had a superbly trained military at the beginning of the conflict, but no way to equal the enemy in a war of attrition

not to mention that instead of japan being totally dependent on the US for oil we were totally defendant on them for lifesaving drugs

would we still have won WWII?

I think not

I respect that this is your opinion, and I am not going to try and convince you otherwise.

I do not believe as you do. Losing the US market will cause some harm, that's true. But even though the US is largest single trade partner with China, we are not but about 15% of all their exports and about 9% of their imports.

Years ago I worked for a company, where one single customer was roughly 30% of their business. That customer pulled the plug. Now did this hurt? You bet. We laid off 10% of the staff, and cut hours for the rest.

But in the end, we started taking on some smaller customers, and expanded existing contracts, and in a years time, we were just about where we were before we lost that big customer.

China is a massive international trade economy now. Yes, the loss of the US, will hurt. I'm not denying that.

But the pain will be temporary, and they will find other business to engage in, in the other 7.5 Billion people on the planet, that are not in the US. They will be able to replace the US.

As for the Chinese military, no. Just I don't buy that at all. The military will be able to advance, with or without the US. And I would even wager at the same rate of advancement.
Technologically speaking, as long as there is growth in the tech used in the domestic markets, then that will filter into the military.
And as long as China has trade with any 1st world country, or any country more advanced than itself, then technology in China will continue to advance at a fairly decent pace. The only way you could slow the advancement of the Chinese military, is if you cut China off from the entire rest of the world, including Russia. Well that's impossible.

So I don't see any military value in cutting ties with China economically. I think that's more mythology, than real. Now I freely admit I could be wrong, and you have an opinion that is just as plausible... but I don't see evidence supporting this idea.

As you say there no way to stop china from growing and advancing

but the $500 billion profit they make from trade with America will not be easily replaced through more exports to Uruguay or Malawi

disengaging from china will take time and cause some pain if it happens at all

but if it doesent happen we are in big trouble

You are asking like China would only engage with Uruguay and Malawi to replace the US.

Yeah, Uruguay and Malawi wouldn't provide enough to replace the US. Agreed.

Uruguay, Malawi, France, Germany, UK, Sweden, Russia, Ukraine, Japan, Taiwan, Turkey, Egypt, India, Saudi Arabia, (insert the rest of the 194 countries containing the other 7.5 Billion people of the world into this list)....

Will more... more than replace the US, and do so with very little effort.

If we are going to be in trouble if it does not happen, then I can promise you we will be in just as much trouble if it does.

China is already exporting to all the countries you listed

Xi cant just snap his fingers and make them buy more

 

[Andylusion]

Well, there is an argument to be made for that.

I would also suggest that it was specifically because we cut off trade with Japan, that sparked hostilities, and resulted in the US entering into World War 2.

That said, again, China is an exceptionally small trade partner. Contrary to popularly opinion, losing the American market, will cause small waves in the Chinese economy, stoking up hatred for the US, and support for the Chinese government.

But what it will not do, is stop the advancement of the Chinese economy, and growth of the Chinese military capabilities.

So I do understand the context of that argument, but I am skeptical of whatever claimed benefit there will be.

Losing the US market would be a major blow to the chinese economy and the military

America has been a gravy train for china during the past 30 years

but look at it this way

reverse the situation of japan and the US

Imagine japan was 3 times larger than America and had the largest industrial base on the planet

we had a superbly trained military at the beginning of the conflict, but no way to equal the enemy in a war of attrition

not to mention that instead of japan being totally dependent on the US for oil we were totally defendant on them for lifesaving drugs

would we still have won WWII?

I think not

I respect that this is your opinion, and I am not going to try and convince you otherwise.

I do not believe as you do. Losing the US market will cause some harm, that's true. But even though the US is largest single trade partner with China, we are not but about 15% of all their exports and about 9% of their imports.

Years ago I worked for a company, where one single customer was roughly 30% of their business. That customer pulled the plug. Now did this hurt? You bet. We laid off 10% of the staff, and cut hours for the rest.

But in the end, we started taking on some smaller customers, and expanded existing contracts, and in a years time, we were just about where we were before we lost that big customer.

China is a massive international trade economy now. Yes, the loss of the US, will hurt. I'm not denying that.

But the pain will be temporary, and they will find other business to engage in, in the other 7.5 Billion people on the planet, that are not in the US. They will be able to replace the US.

As for the Chinese military, no. Just I don't buy that at all. The military will be able to advance, with or without the US. And I would even wager at the same rate of advancement.
Technologically speaking, as long as there is growth in the tech used in the domestic markets, then that will filter into the military.
And as long as China has trade with any 1st world country, or any country more advanced than itself, then technology in China will continue to advance at a fairly decent pace. The only way you could slow the advancement of the Chinese military, is if you cut China off from the entire rest of the world, including Russia. Well that's impossible.

So I don't see any military value in cutting ties with China economically. I think that's more mythology, than real. Now I freely admit I could be wrong, and you have an opinion that is just as plausible... but I don't see evidence supporting this idea.

As you say there no way to stop china from growing and advancing

but the $500 billion profit they make from trade with America will not be easily replaced through more exports to Uruguay or Malawi

disengaging from china will take time and cause some pain if it happens at all

but if it doesent happen we are in big trouble

You are asking like China would only engage with Uruguay and Malawi to replace the US.

Yeah, Uruguay and Malawi wouldn't provide enough to replace the US. Agreed.

Uruguay, Malawi, France, Germany, UK, Sweden, Russia, Ukraine, Japan, Taiwan, Turkey, Egypt, India, Saudi Arabia, (insert the rest of the 194 countries containing the other 7.5 Billion people of the world into this list)....

Will more... more than replace the US, and do so with very little effort.

If we are going to be in trouble if it does not happen, then I can promise you we will be in just as much trouble if it does.

China is already exporting to all the countries you listed

Xi cant just snap his fingers and make them buy more

Of course. I didn't say it would happen instantly, anymore than my company replaced a customer that was 30% of their business instantly.

But.... like any other supply and demand system, when you lose demand... what happens? The price goes down.

Part of the reason why my company was able to replace that 30% loss, was because with all the now freed up labor, and production room, we started offering our services to customers at a lower price. That lower price of course, resulted in attracting more business.

Similarly, China will with that loss of business with the US, start offering lower prices for business. That will attract more business into China, and the replacement of US as a business partner will happen over time.

It might induce China to sign more free trade agreements with more countries, lowering tariffs, and increasing customers to China.

My point was never that losing the US, would not cause any issues. Only that those issues are not nearly as severe as people here seem to think. Like losing trade with the US would somehow push China back 50 years or something. No, it won't. I doubt it would push China back even 2 full years. Maybe a year at best. They can replace us.

There are 360 Million potential customers in the US, and over 7.5 Billion outside the US. It is ridiculous to think China can't very easily be profitable, and progress technologically, without the US. They most certainly can.

 

[basquebromance]

Direct payments make sense when the economy is beginning to restart. It makes no sense now cause it's just money...What I want is income, just not one check. I want you to get a check every week, not just one week.

Just a blanket cash check to everyone in America... I don't know the logic of that. I could see tying it to unemployment, maybe boosting it for people who are going be laid off for a while

 

[Mac-7]

Losing the US market would be a major blow to the chinese economy and the military

America has been a gravy train for china during the past 30 years

but look at it this way

reverse the situation of japan and the US

Imagine japan was 3 times larger than America and had the largest industrial base on the planet

we had a superbly trained military at the beginning of the conflict, but no way to equal the enemy in a war of attrition

not to mention that instead of japan being totally dependent on the US for oil we were totally defendant on them for lifesaving drugs

would we still have won WWII?

I think not

I respect that this is your opinion, and I am not going to try and convince you otherwise.

I do not believe as you do. Losing the US market will cause some harm, that's true. But even though the US is largest single trade partner with China, we are not but about 15% of all their exports and about 9% of their imports.

Years ago I worked for a company, where one single customer was roughly 30% of their business. That customer pulled the plug. Now did this hurt? You bet. We laid off 10% of the staff, and cut hours for the rest.

But in the end, we started taking on some smaller customers, and expanded existing contracts, and in a years time, we were just about where we were before we lost that big customer.

China is a massive international trade economy now. Yes, the loss of the US, will hurt. I'm not denying that.

But the pain will be temporary, and they will find other business to engage in, in the other 7.5 Billion people on the planet, that are not in the US. They will be able to replace the US.

As for the Chinese military, no. Just I don't buy that at all. The military will be able to advance, with or without the US. And I would even wager at the same rate of advancement.
Technologically speaking, as long as there is growth in the tech used in the domestic markets, then that will filter into the military.
And as long as China has trade with any 1st world country, or any country more advanced than itself, then technology in China will continue to advance at a fairly decent pace. The only way you could slow the advancement of the Chinese military, is if you cut China off from the entire rest of the world, including Russia. Well that's impossible.

So I don't see any military value in cutting ties with China economically. I think that's more mythology, than real. Now I freely admit I could be wrong, and you have an opinion that is just as plausible... but I don't see evidence supporting this idea.

As you say there no way to stop china from growing and advancing

but the $500 billion profit they make from trade with America will not be easily replaced through more exports to Uruguay or Malawi

disengaging from china will take time and cause some pain if it happens at all

but if it doesent happen we are in big trouble

You are asking like China would only engage with Uruguay and Malawi to replace the US.

Yeah, Uruguay and Malawi wouldn't provide enough to replace the US. Agreed.

Uruguay, Malawi, France, Germany, UK, Sweden, Russia, Ukraine, Japan, Taiwan, Turkey, Egypt, India, Saudi Arabia, (insert the rest of the 194 countries containing the other 7.5 Billion people of the world into this list)....

Will more... more than replace the US, and do so with very little effort.

If we are going to be in trouble if it does not happen, then I can promise you we will be in just as much trouble if it does.

China is already exporting to all the countries you listed

Xi cant just snap his fingers and make them buy more

Of course. I didn't say it would happen instantly, anymore than my company replaced a customer that was 30% of their business instantly.

But.... like any other supply and demand system, when you lose demand... what happens? The price goes down.

Part of the reason why my company was able to replace that 30% loss, was because with all the now freed up labor, and production room, we started offering our services to customers at a lower price. That lower price of course, resulted in attracting more business.

Similarly, China will with that loss of business with the US, start offering lower prices for business. That will attract more business into China, and the replacement of US as a business partner will happen over time.

It might induce China to sign more free trade agreements with more countries, lowering tariffs, and increasing customers to China.

My point was never that losing the US, would not cause any issues. Only that those issues are not nearly as severe as people here seem to think. Like losing trade with the US would somehow push China back 50 years or something. No, it won't. I doubt it would push China back even 2 full years. Maybe a year at best. They can replace us.

There are 360 Million potential customers in the US, and over 7.5 Billion outside the US. It is ridiculous to think China can't very easily be profitable, and progress technologically, without the US. They most certainly can.

We have gotten a little off track

my emphasis is on whats good for America

and if that turns out bad for china so much the better

but if America remains strong we dont have to fear china

however US policy toward china for the past 30 years has been undermining our security

 

[Brain357]

Actually the market can’t currently be relied on. Super low unemployment and wages gained almost nothing. The market is broken.

Nah, that isn't an argument.

Super low unemployment does not automatically increase wages. It is an indicator, but not anything else.

Remember unemployment is not the same as demand.

If you have an island of 1,000 people, and there are only 998 jobs on the entire island, you'll end up with zero increase in pay, and low unemployment.

In fact, in that situation, you might even see a drop in wages, because the 2 people still looking for work, when there is no more to be found, will likely be willing to work for even lower wages than the existing market.

Again, something earned, is better than nothing earned.

There is zero evidence, other than it isn't behaving as someone expects, that suggests the market is broken.

We have labor shortages and really low unemployment. The market is not working.

Based on what?

With labor shortages and really low unemployment wages should be increasing. There are more jobs available than workers. The market is not working.

I'm asking for clear evidence of a labor shortage, or that wages are not increasing.

I mean, I can only speak from what I've personally seen. My company has dramatically increased wages, in order to attract workers.

I know that I'm seeing in the market, is line-cooks starting at $15/hr, forklift for $16/hr, cleaners for $17/hr. List goes on.

So clearly rate in my area are in fact up.

Now obviously, one of the big problems with saying these vast generalized statements, is that unlike Europe, we have one "unemployment rate" for the entire country, when some areas have high unemployment, and others have low.

So one particularly bad area of the country, like say... LA and SF, where drugs, homeless, poop on the street and so on, is driving out large numbers of people.... yeah they might have a labor shortage, when generally the country does not.

Also, I'm wondering if you are confusing two sub-sets of labor.

There could be a massive shortage of high school labor, like engineers. While there is plenty of low-skill labor.

Plenty of low skill labor would prevent wages generally from rising, while there was a shortage of labor in skilled areas.

But I'm not seeing this. Places are still hiring tons of people, and wages are certainly higher than 5 years ago.

Unless you are expecting faster results, and that's not realistic. The wages do not instantly adjust to labor supply. Of course there is a lag.

Regardless, there is still no evidence that the market isn't working. To be honest, to suggest the market is not working, is just impossible.

Literally, it is not possible for the market to not work, the way you claim it is not working.

If employers need more people... they absolutely must offer more wages, if there are not enough workers at a given rate.

That isn't a debatable point. That's simply how the world must work. It can't work any other way.

Are you suggesting that if my company is short staffed, that magically if "the market is broken" that my employer will somehow continue to function without employees? Well of course not. So how do they continue to function? By getting employees. How do they do that if employees are refusing to work for the existing rate?

Well.. obviously.... the rate must go up. Which by the way, is exactly what my employer did.

So to even attempt to claim that "the market is broken"... is not just incorrect, but it is impossible and ridiculous.

If rates do not go up, then that means the employer is getting enough employees to do the work.
If the number of employees is not enough... then rates must go up.

One assumption, or the other, must be wrong. Either you are wrong that there is a labor shortage, or you are wrong that rates are not going up. But one must be false. The problem isn't the market, the problem is your data is just wrong.

The stats are all out there. Why are you even in this conversation when you have no clue? Economists are quite baffled by it all as markets aren’t working. Go read up then come back and discuss.


A mysterious lack of wage growth - Marketplace