Suppose the company can purchase labor needed to produce a $125 gadget for $100 from one source --- overseas, say. It purchases that labor instead domestically for $105. To get the same profit it now sells the gadget for $130.
If I buy that gadget, where did extra $5 go. My extra $5 went to the worker that charged $105 instead of $100. I have subsidized him out of my pocket.
More generally, whenever you institute measures like this, American consumers collectively subsidize the particular sector that has unresohably high labor costs. You might as well send the money to those workers by mail.
That is the democrats' solution, not ours.
Suppose then that company B can produce the same gadget for a selling price of $120 becuas ethey realize that investment in new plant and equipment here in the USA will be profitable are you then going to complain about your longer term saving. Further remember by purchasing that gadget from an overseas source that $5 savings will be more than made up for in increase taxes to pay for teh bgovernment benefits to the laid off worker, costs for extra military weapons to defend against teh expansionist power (China) trhat has increased their dual use manufacturing capacity. I haven't even gone into thelonger term costs of the goivernment giving you a $5 subsuidy becuase you want to bring something into the USA without paying tariffs on it. Please see Article I of the US Constitution for the power of the Congress to levy duties and imposts.
If I buy that gadget, where did extra $5 go.
If you buy that gadget from overseas still then it goes to the Federal government to pay for the functions of the Federal government and it is not otherwise collected from you in income tax. If you buy from teh domestic producer it goes to teh company that made the prodsuct who is free to paty the worker what is freely negotiated
My extra $5 went to the worker that charged $105 instead of $100. I have subsidized him out of my pocket. As explained above this is a false argument. You are the one who is demanding a subsidy from your fellow Americans by claiming teh right to have foreign governments meddling in the American economy in ordr to destroy Americna industry. You do not have the right to pick the pockets of your fellow Americans by evading reasonable duties.
More generally, whenever you institute measures like this, American consumers collectively subsidize the particular sector that has unresohably high labor costs.
Another undicumented assertion which as explained above is merely your personal request for money from teh government.
You might as well send the money to those workers by mail.
By your demands that the gfovernment subsidize you with foreign manufactures by getting rid of the reasonable protective tariffs in place prior to the Wealth transfer regime of the WTO (admittedly per the WTO ministers statement of 1993 GATT did have such provisions prior to 1993), you are making it sio the government not only has to give you your five dollars but another $40 to teh displaced worker. You are also working for the election of Democrats and you are providing for an overall weakening of our national defense.