Posted on 03/12/2016 6:33:12 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Are we be better off today with the thousands of U.S. factories that have shut down and millions of American jobs lost and the trillions in accumulated debt that we've run up in the last couple decades of free trade?
And, of course, this is due to many factors including such things as:
Big government
Regulations
High taxes
Unions driving up costs
Cheap labor overseas
Fewer regulations overseas
Lower taxes overseas
Trade deficits
etc.,
And doubly exasperated by poor trade deals?
Or is this all a myth?
Are we better off with cheaper foreign (cheap) goods, fewer U.S. factories, fewer U.S. jobs, higher unemployment and welfare, higher taxes and higher national debt?
Will this spiral out of control until we lose our country?
Is ushering in free trade before (or without) reducing our own costs the equivalent of national suicide?
After being bullied by the WTO and EU. He was threatened with political retaliation that would impact him in key marginal states.
Bush interests tend to trump US interests.
Kudos to the Freeper who pointed out several months ago that U.S. manufacturing employment would have been declining for years even if the U.S. was the only country in the world, and there was no such thing as "foreign trade."
That statement assumes that 100% of the manufactured products sold or consumed in the US would have been produced in the US.
To provide support for that, you also would have to include the number of employees in other nations that produced the manufactured products that were exported to the US. And we know millions of jobs have been lost due to the relocation of factories to cheap labor nations, and also US firms destroyed by imports with the removal of tariffs.
I know a couple of families who ran apparel plants for several decades until imports drove them out of business. And those firms simply shutdown; they did not relocate to a cheap labor nation.
The US population increase alone since the late '60s would require about a 60% increase in output, and that doesn't even include more consumption per capita and all the new products that didn't exist then.
1. Subtract all of the U.S. manufacturing output tied to exports, since they would not exist in that scenario with no foreign trade.
2. Adjust the number of employees in other nations that produced the manufactured products that were exported to the U.S. to account for higher levels of productivity and automation here in the U.S.
And this is just the start. It doesn't even account for changes in demand for various products with different pricing in place under a "U.S. only" manufacturing scenario.
I think it's a safe bet that the employee counts would still be lower. The reason for this is simple. Over time, growth in overall productivity in the U.S. has outpaced growth in population -- often by a wide margin.
That also assumes -- incorrectly -- that the consumption per capita of all these new products would be higher without imports. I don't think that's the case at all.
15,000 X 736 = 11,040,000 jobs to produce goods imported by US.
And, actually, since labor is far cheaper in those nations exporting to the US, the job number would be far higher, maybe double or triple. So many millions of jobs have been exported from the US or simply destroyed by imports. You need to add 15 or 20 million jobs required to produce the manufactured products now sold in the US annually.
Of course, it was the most labor intensive jobs that were exported first.
No, it does not assume what you say it assumes at all. The population increase is a stand alone factor. Then there are other factors such as new products and increased consumption and manufactured products per capita.
Trump’s primary business is real estate, not sewing factories . Apparel requires a lot of specialized knowledge like any other industry. Most brands are subcontracted now and I doubt Trump clothing is of a volume to support dedicated factories.
+++++++
Trump outsourcing-ok
Other companies outsourcing-trump will punish them
Got the hypocrisy from trump & his trumpsters
Nobody has better numbers.
And, yes, I know exactly how all the numbers I cited are calculated. But, maybe you also know what you’re talking about. So, let’s have a pop test:
The other side says the explanation of the falling labor force participation is due to the aging of the population. I presume you are aware that the population is aging, and that people 55 to 64, and 65 and older have lower labor force participation than persons 25 to 54. Do you know what effect the aging of the population has had on labor force participation? And, therefore, whether what the other side says actually explains most of the fall in labor force participation?
I said trade skills have been identified in surveys of personnel managers to be the number 1 labor shortage during the past five years. How about you tell me what has been the number 1 labor shortage during the past years, and give me your source.
I said there’s about a $2 trillion gap between current GDP and potential GDP. What is your estimate of this gap, and how did you arrive at it?
I said people of low to middle income have no real incentive to work because of the taxes they would pay, and the benefits they would lose. Let’s say a person making $10 an hour works 20 hours a week, and currently qualifies for EITC, food stamps, subsidized housing, who qualified for expanded Medicaid and who has one child in college with a Pell Grant. How much does that person improve themselves by working 40 hours a week instead of 20?
I believe you're confusing "outsourcing" with "offshoring."
Of course I understand why individual companies do it, what I don’t understand is why a country would actively encourage it from a policy standpoint.
Sen. Cruz Presents Measure to Strengthen, Improve Legal Immigration
http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=137
He believes the numbers from the Chamber of Commerce, that we are sorely lacking such talent.
Except, he is sorely wrong. That same month, this came out:
America Has More Trained STEM Graduates than STEM Job Openings
http://cis.org/more-us-stem-grads-than-jobs
Your link states these same concerns, based upon inaccurate unemployment numbers against a vague collection of “help wanted” ads. Computer Science employment was being called out as though 5X more ads were listed than people capable of filling them (under “Occupational Changes,” there was this: “Computer and Mathematical Science ads decreased 12,500 to 614,700. The supply/demand rate lies at 0.17, i.e. over 5 advertised openings per unemployed job-seeker.”)
I will gladly take your $2 trillion GDP increase opportunity, “as-is.”
As you are aware, a great number of jobs in manufacturing and “trade skills” have gone overseas. It has put a huge number of people out of work. Many have now gotten other jobs in the service industry, retired early, or found a way to live in the margins (with some surely getting on Disability, fraudulently). None of these “alternatives” show as “available workers” for those jobs.
I would say we need to grow our economy and reduce spending on any welfare to force people into being productive again.
Oh, and by the way, these older workers you describe are often still perfectly capable of working in their trade again, under the right conditions.
No, what you have is an ignorance of many business realities in the 21st century. It's time we had a president and Congress who will begin reversing the trends that have been weakening our economy for decades.
That won’t be trump as he’s softened on so many issues
I used the trade deficit in goods number which is a net figure.
2. Adjust the number of employees in other nations that produced the manufactured products that were exported to the U.S. to account for higher levels of productivity and automation here in the U.S.
Invalid to make such an adjustment. US firms set up state-of-the-art production in foreign nations. Plus, the more labor intensive production jobs were moved to cheap labor nations first.
I think it's a safe bet that the employee counts would still be lower.
A very dangerous bet. Yeah, productivity has increased in the US and the biggest factor is probably that most of the less productive, and more labor intensive, manufacturing was sent to cheap labor nations over the years.
It damned sure won't be globalists like Cruz, or Kasich, or Rubio, or Hillary. They're all in thick with the open borders and pretend free trade cartels. Trump is the only chance to begin turning things around.
Globalist mentality and one world government types running the show.
Trading partners may be less likely to go to war with each other, I suppose.
Trump incorporated has businesses in foreign countries. He’s a globalist too. Plus he donated to hitlery.
Trump will certainly offer change by moving the gop leftward
I see we have many agreements. Your point about STEM is basically correct. It is not as high up in demand as the government says. Here’s what happens to many “problems” once the government gets involved: They overdo it.
For example, a few years ago, some saw that college graduates make more. So, they flooded the market and produce lots of college graduates with useless degrees.
ext they focused on STEM. Turns out this area is not as much in demand as trade skills or as nurses and medical doctors. Also, watering STEM down doesn’t do any body good.
There is the risk that government will do the same think with skilled trades. But, at least people don’t have to go to college for that.
Yeah, he built hotels and golf courses in foreign countries which is good business for the USA. If you're going to do that sort of business in foreign countries, you have to invest and build in foreign countries.
The subject of Trump's campaign contributions has been beaten more than any thousand dead horses and it means nothing in terms of his goals for the presidency.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.