Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, May 24, 2019

The latest round of U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports will cost American households $106 billion a year, or $831 for the average family in the U.S., according to economists at the New York Federal Reserve, underscoring the economic toll of the deepening trade dispute.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

There goes your $200 tax cut!

#1 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-05-24 07:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

Praise be to Trump.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2019-05-24 07:53 AM | Reply

Tariffs enacted by EO will accomplish little or nothing, manufacturers will not have enough long term security if the next President can eliminate them on his first day in office. For tariffs to be effective at bring jobs home they need to be passed by Congress and, in reality, the President's authority to enact tariffs is supposed to only be to protect industries important to national security. Trump is going to hurt jobs, consumers, farmers and accomplish little or nothing.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-24 08:15 AM | Reply

Trump is going to hurt jobs, consumers, farmers and accomplish little or nothing.

Well he is funneling money to himself for every round of golf or weekend at Mango -------.

He is also raking it in from foreign governments and lobbyists that are booking entire floors at the Old Post Office hotel he owns in direct violation of the emoluments clause.

Then don't forget all the money he is stealing from his re-election donors.

So those are his accomplishments.

#4 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-05-24 09:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

YAWN.... you guys sound like broken records ( that was a technology used to play music in the old days - eventually a track will be worn out by the needle and would repeat over and over, and over )

Here's an Idea... stop going to Wal-Mart and buying Chinese junk.

Stop supporting Communist China.

#5 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-05-24 11:12 AM | Reply

"Stop supporting Communist China."

Yeah, buy American TVs. Oh wait. There aren't any.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-24 11:29 AM | Reply

--Stop supporting Communist China.

The commie-coddlers on the Left would rather appease China than fight for fair trade.

#7 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-24 11:32 AM | Reply

Another facepalm moment. These are some of the same people who have said the cost of living hasn't gone up much in the last 20 years. The devil is in the details.

#8 | Posted by humtake at 2019-05-24 11:41 AM | Reply

- There goes your $200 tax cut!

It's OK, they still have strict abortion laws and the NRA... oh, wait....

But it's still OK, their Corporate Masters still got a yuuge permanent tax cut and they still have the unique privilege of being mindless proxy voters for the interests of 1 percenters who wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire, so I guess there's that.

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-24 12:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Here's an Idea... stop going to Wal-Mart and buying Chinese junk.
Stop supporting Communist China.

#5 | POSTED BY PEGASUS

Go bust whatever you typed that on, and see if you can replace it without buying Chinese.

We'll wait....

#10 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-05-24 12:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

The same people the orange sloth increased the tax burden on while loudly pretending it was a tax cut.

All I know is I purchased TurboTax at Costco in January and ran the program with partial data and was supposedly getting a $1700 refund. After receiving more data but without entering sny of it, I reopened turbo tax which updated and then announced I owe $7650. That ain't a tax cut. I gave up and went to see an accountant who was too busy dealing with all the changes implemented secretly by Republicans.

The original mfg TurboTax disc was clearly not consistent with the McConnell/Ryan screwjob.

#11 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-05-24 12:41 PM | Reply

Go bust whatever you typed that on, and see if you can replace it without buying Chinese.
We'll wait....

#10 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

You sound really proud of that and pleased with yourself. Is that your vision for the future of America?

Buying everything we need from foreign countries?

You people claim to want to solve climate change and human suffering. yet you cheer overseas smog factories running on slave labor.

Such phony lying hypocrites.

#12 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-24 12:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Why do sheep hate foreign countries? And foreigners, for that matter.

I remember when they used to sing John Lennon songs about peace and no borders... you know, before Trump radicalized them.

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-24 12:53 PM | Reply

Tariffs enacted by EO will accomplish little or nothing, manufacturers will not have enough long term security if the next President can eliminate them on his first day in office.

While politically unpopular, I don't think the next President will touch the tariffs in place until a deal is reached because they are the only way to bring China to reform their trade and tech policies, and two years from now other ASEAN countries will have filled the manufacturing void that China is now facing. Also, they can blame Trump for the tariffs to their hearts content.

Want to avoid tariffs, don't buy China brands like Foxconn, Hisence, or Lenovo, stick to Korean brands like Samsung, LG, Japanese brands like Panasonic, Toshiba or Fujitsu, etc.

There is a little thing called Google that will help you figure out how to avoid China products.

#14 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 12:54 PM | Reply

--they used to sing John Lennon songs about peace and no borders...

Leftists are still singing that stupid song about a borderless world.

Imagine There's No Border
A world without boundaries is a fantasy.

www.city-journal.org

#15 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-24 01:02 PM | Reply

I don't think the next President will touch the tariffs in place until a deal is reached

They likely won't have to. Trump will find something he can call a "win" and rescind all of the tariffs before the 2020 election so he can gloat about what a fantastic deal he got for all of us.

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-24 01:04 PM | Reply

--Samsung, LG, Japanese brands like Panasonic, Toshiba or Fujitsu, etc.

Typing this on a Toshiba laptop. My LG phone is within reach. Got my excellent Toshiba tv monitor for peanuts--American grown.

#17 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-24 01:07 PM | Reply

#17

Exactly, but that destroys the Narrative being pushed by the Retort DRama Club.

#18 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 01:11 PM | Reply

#16

You guys really need to decide which story to stick with: Tariffs bad, should never have been imposed and should be removed or Trump is going to buckle, remove the tariffs just so he could get a cheap win.

You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you want to.

#19 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 01:13 PM | Reply

A world without boundaries is a fantasy.
www.city-journal.org

#15 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

It is a fantasy. Why folks like you act like (by constantly bringing it up, even more so than any Leftist I've ever encountered on the DR) the argument carries merit and thereby requires refutation is beyond me.

#20 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-05-24 01:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- A world without boundaries is a fantasy.

At the moment. But people who used to at least think of it as a noble goal turning into radicalized rwingers like you and Sheepdip have become too pathetic to even have to read.

Pointing that out is only truth-telling.

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-24 01:21 PM | Reply

Typing this on a Toshiba laptop. My LG phone is within reach. Got my excellent Toshiba tv monitor for peanuts--American grown.

#17 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Good job. Here's your 🥇

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-24 01:23 PM | Reply

Tariffs bad, should never have been imposed and should be removed or Trump is going to buckle, remove the tariffs just so he could get a cheap win.

Tariffs can be a stupid idea, and their removal can be used for gloating by an idiot with no shame, all at the same time. You really are a dense MFer.

#23 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-24 01:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--thereby requires refutation is beyond me

Because it's being promoted by the leftwing intelligentsia and progressive plutocrats and spreading to the Democrat Party. Hillary Clinton fantasized about it and so does her retort lap dog who calls it a "noble goal" in #21.

#24 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-24 01:32 PM | Reply

Because it's being promoted by the leftwing intelligentsia and progressive plutocrats and spreading to the Democrat Party. Hillary Clinton fantasized about it and so does her retort lap dog who calls it a "noble goal" in #21.
#24 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

And you think they are taken seriously? Of all the "noble goal" fantasies on the left, I wonder why the "open borders" reverie is the central focus? Not just for you, but for Trump as well.

#25 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-05-24 01:35 PM | Reply

#23

Honest question then:

Were you okay with the status quo with China on trade prior to the sanctions being imposed?

#26 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 01:38 PM | Reply

-leftwing intelligentsia

Says the rwing devolutionia who pretends that "open borders" was ever, ever a Dem policy or that one couldn't count the number of actual open borders advocates on one hand and has told that lie here for the last few years ad nauseum.

It's just a shame how quickly the rwing dementia has progressed in this former "classical liberal buddhist".

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-24 01:39 PM | Reply

#26

Most people weren't. Which isn't to say that your Party's Leader, Dimwit Don's flailing about with tariffs and threats is any way to run a railroad, much less a foreign policy.

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-24 01:41 PM | Reply

Imagine There's No Border
A world without boundaries is a fantasy.
www.city-journal.org

#15 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-05-24 01:02 PM

When is Trump going to ask for a wall high enough to stop Companies from migrating anywhere they want to?

Why do republicans want globalism for corporations but not for people?

Why do republicans think businesses should be able to relocate to wherever they can get the best conditions but think people shouldn't be able to?

#29 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-05-24 01:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Most people weren't. Which isn't to say that your Party's Leader, Dimwit Don's flailing about with tariffs and threats is any way to run a railroad, much less a foreign policy.

#28 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2019-05-24 01:41 PM

Fair enough-what is your alternative then?

#30 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 01:51 PM | Reply

Having someone sans the temperament and intellect of a slow 5 year old in charge.

Perhaps you could talk to your party about that.

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-24 01:53 PM | Reply

"Of all the "noble goal" fantasies on the left, I wonder why the "open borders" reverie is the central focus? Not just for you, but for Trump as well."

When employers are not held accountable for hiring them I have a difficult time really caring about immigration issues. Conservatives whine about it but never demand any real crack down on employers so I think it's just talking point for their base. And the cost of the ridiculous wall....absurd.

#32 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-24 01:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#29

When is Trump going to ask for a wall high enough to stop Companies from migrating anywhere they want to?

That is what the steel tariffs were intended to do, but I am sure you whined about that as well.

Put Hatter down with the "mythical" No Borders coalition.

#33 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 01:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#31

Thanks for the non answer, so you don't know of any other recourse than tariffs then?

Neither do most economists and trade experts.

#34 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 01:54 PM | Reply

- non answer

That you couldn't discern from my comment that a more level and intelligent use of tariffs might be key to the solution.... says more about you than about me.

#35 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-24 01:56 PM | Reply

That you couldn't discern from my comment that a more level and intelligent use of tariffs might be key to the solution

So tariffs are okay if they are more "level and intelligent"...how would you do it?

#36 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 01:58 PM | Reply

#32

Agreed 100%, employers should be fined or even imprisoned for hiring illegal workers.

#37 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 01:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Put Hatter down with the "mythical" No Borders coalition.

#33 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2019-05-24 01:53 PM | REPLY |

I don't want open borders. There are valid reasons to not admit a person into the country. Being poor or Brown are not valid reasons.

Screen out the criminals and disease carriers and welcome the rest. Like we used to before frightened snowflake conservatives screwed up our immigration policy.

The list is not mythical. What is mythical is claiming the people on it want open borders.

#38 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-05-24 01:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Screen out the criminals and disease carriers and welcome the rest. Like we used to before frightened snowflake conservatives screwed up our immigration policy.

So everyone but criminals and the infirm can come in. Sounds like open borders to me.

#39 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 02:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

First I would leave my Party if they ever nominated a sleazy con artist with the temperament and intellect of a slow 5 year old to be President... and then actually defended his nonsensical policies.

Then I would expect what I already described, a more level and intelligent use of tariffs.

Your attempts to pettifog the issue into details of international trade that you want to pretend to even comprehend notwithstanding.

I'm not an expert on that, and neither are you.

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-24 02:02 PM | Reply

Then I would expect what I already described, a more level and intelligent use of tariffs.

You already said that, what does that mean?

I have far more experience with trade issues than most people, I am just curious on what you think is the proper type of tariffs to stop Chinese Mercantilism.

#41 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 02:07 PM | Reply

That is what the steel tariffs were intended to do, but I am sure you whined about that as well.

#33 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2019-05-24 01:53 PM | REPLY |

tarriffs do just the opposite

www.cheatsheet.com

www.heritage.org

#42 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-05-24 02:07 PM | Reply

- I have far more experience with trade issues than most people,

You have far more ego than most people... and still #42 makes you look silly, as do many other posters here much of the time.

#43 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-24 02:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So everyone but criminals and the infirm can come in. Sounds like open borders to me.

#39 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2019-05-24 02:02 PM | REPLY |

That's because you think allowing ANY immigration sounds like open borders

You want to pick and choose who migrates. So do I. We just have different criteria

#44 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-05-24 02:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#42

Notice the words "intended" and "steel". Moreover, posting criticism from the Heritage Foundation, which is heavily pro-trade, is hardly compelling.

#45 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 02:11 PM | Reply

#43

So still no answer, maybe I can help you: "Any tariffs imposed on China by a Democratic President would be "level and intelligent."

Sound about right?

The problem is, that would never happen.

#46 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 02:13 PM | Reply

#44

I think everyone will agree with you on criminals and people carrying infectious diseases. But you want to let in everyone else, which is the definition of Open Borders.

All the the Scandinavian Countries that the Democratic Socialists idolize wouldn't even let you in if you had a job, so they would disagree with you.

#47 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 02:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I am just curious on what you think is the proper type of tariffs to stop Chinese Mercantilism."

Permanent ones, not tariffs created by EO which no manufacturer can depend on long term. Trumps tariffs could go away if he loses the next electionan and as prices rise even his base is going to feel the pain and blame him for it. An opponent could easily sway lots of voters by promising lower prices on consumer goods.

#48 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-24 02:22 PM | Reply

#48

It is true that tariffs enacted by EO can be reversed, but since the politically difficult move of putting them in the first place has already been done, Trump's successor (if the dispute drags on for two years) would have little to lose in keeping them in place until he/she resolves things.

What is missed in this is the fact that manufacturing is already shifting fairly dramatically out of China, the WTO estimates that "new starts" have dropped to nearly zero in China while Vietnam and Thailand manufacturing has risen 7-13% in the last 12 months and that growth, especially in Vietnam, is expected to rise to 20% if the Trade War lasts another 12 months.

#49 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 02:28 PM | Reply

#48 response cont.

Also, Congress will not put permanent tariffs in place when there are other avenues that they could pursue, like enacting legislation to reform the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, reform Anti-Trust laws to eliminate the the so-called "act of state" doctrine, whereby Chinese companies claim an exemption for their pricing behaviors under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, strengthen Treasury Department authority to sanction Chinese companies benefitting from stolen IP or coerced technology transfer and direct the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to bring a WTO case against China to kick them out of the WTO, which was Clinton's biggest mistake of his presidency.

All of these options have been brought before Congress over the past 15 years, and they have done nothing on any of them.

#50 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 02:33 PM | Reply

#43

Anything further you want to add to my #49 and #50 to further expound on your "more level and intelligent use of tariffs", Dorkus?

I'm sure it will be fascinating.

#51 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 02:45 PM | Reply

"It is true that tariffs enacted by EO can be reversed, but since the politically difficult move of putting them in the first place has already been done, Trump's successor (if the dispute drags on for two years) would have little to lose in keeping them in place until he/she resolves things."

I disagreem, higher prices will lose poplarity very quickly and for a tariff to do any good it has to be in place for a long time. If Trump could get his party to support the tariffs and helped him get it through Congress they would be much harder to eliminate when the population is tiring of the pain. They will have an opportunity to rid themselves of them in 2020 and I think it will be an issue in the election. Nominate Joe Biden and I'm quite sure it will be. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren perhaps not so much.

#52 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-24 02:48 PM | Reply

"All of these options have been brought before Congress over the past 15 years, and they have done nothing on any of them."

And they aren't willing to do anything now so nothing can be done until the "free trade" members of Congress are replaced by members who believe in protectionism. That would mean almost every single sitting Republican in congress and a few of the Dems as well. If we want a middle class to survive we better do it soon.

#53 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-24 02:52 PM | Reply

I disagreem, higher prices will lose poplarity very quickly and for a tariff to do any good it has to be in place for a long time.

Which is why I brought up the manufacturing shift to other ASEAN countries: right now the importers are paying the tariffs and trying to pass them off to the consumers, I guarantee you that Wallmart, Costco, Amazon, etc. are right now finding other sources for their goods, much to the delight of Vietnam, India, Indonesia, South Korea, etc.

#54 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 02:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That would mean almost every single sitting Republican in congress and a few of the Dems as well.

Nulli and I have been making this point for a long time: the globalists are fairly evenly split between the parties and you would probably need 80% turnover in both the House and the Senate to change that mindset.

Even eliminating "most favored nation" status for China would help tremendously (by putting automatic tariffs in place again that were removed by Clinton's 2000 US China Trade bill), but there is no way Congress does that any time soon.

#55 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 03:00 PM | Reply

Republicans love the extra expenses.

I mean. Who cares if Americans are spending an extra thousand a year because Trump is a moron? Who cares if Trump and the rich are benefiting from tax cuts? Who cares if America's economy turns to shht? Who cares is Trump is a criminal getting rich off our tax dollars?

Clearly not RoC or any of the other Trump turd polishers.

The isn't a Trump shht RoC wouldn't proudly wear on his forehead.

#56 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-05-24 03:01 PM | Reply

RoC has been polishing Trump Shhts since the remittance tax proposal was gonna pay for the wall.

There isn't a dumb idea from Trump RoC wouldn't bend over for.

#57 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-05-24 03:02 PM | Reply

#56

Clearly I used too many big words in 49,50, 54 and 55 for Clown to comprehend.

At least Danni gets it.

#58 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 03:04 PM | Reply

Don't worry Clown, given Chinese posturing lately the tariffs will probably be in place when Biden/Warren/Bernie etc. becomes POTUS in 2020 and then you and Corky can run around screaming about how "brilliant" those tariffs are under your #Team.

#59 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 03:09 PM | Reply

" I guarantee you that Wallmart, Costco, Amazon, etc. are right now finding other sources for their goods, much to the delight of Vietnam, India, Indonesia, South Korea, etc."

Then couldn't e put tariffs on their goods too?

#60 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-24 03:21 PM | Reply

The truth about China tariffs.

1. American consumers pay for them.
2. American producers don't benefit from them.
3. Chinese retaliation hurts American exporters.
4. China will be hurt.
5. Other low cost producers will benefit.

Short answer is that tariffs make Americans poorer, but slowing China will be better for American power which benefits wealthy Americans. The wealthy should pay the price of tariffs to punish China for its abusive trade practices that are funding its exploitation of other countries.

#61 | Posted by bored at 2019-05-24 03:23 PM | Reply

#60 Yes, but the same rules apply, except that American producers will benefit instead of low cost producers. But American consumers will pay even more. If you don't benefit from cheap imports then tariffs are worth it. The poor and many businesses do benefit though.

#62 | Posted by bored at 2019-05-24 03:26 PM | Reply

#11 | Posted by bayviking

We've used a CPA/Tax Attorney for years. Our tax bill went up too.

When I went to pick up our returns in February and looked at them (business & personal), I said, "Trump tax cut, eh?" From the look on his face, he'd been hearing a lot of those kinds of comments.

#63 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-24 03:28 PM | Reply

#61

Everything you list in 1-6 is pretty much correct, with my caveats being:

1. American consumers pay for them only if they buy Chinese products, as you note in 5. there are other low cost producers that will fill the void and nothing that China makes is irreplaceable for US consumers.

2. Unfortunately, that ship sailed long ago.

3. Which is why tariff collections should be used to support farmers and other low margin producers weather the storm

My other point is that slowing China's Mercantilism will ultimately benefit everyone, since a level playing field will help our other exports, protect our IP and reduce economic tensions.

#64 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 03:29 PM | Reply

The poor wouldn't have to get hurt, if we are making more and paying more in taxes because of it then the poor could receive bigger benefits to help them pay higher prices and businesses could take advantage of tariffs by moving their manufacturing back to the U.S. and not have to worry about tariffs while charging more for their products.....just like we did before all the free trade fools came up with the brilliant plan of exporting jobs.

#65 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-24 03:30 PM | Reply

Then couldn't e put tariffs on their goods too?

We just finished a new trade deal with South Korea, Vietnam is almost done, Japan and Indonesia are in negotiation and India is already making some concessions without even being asked. But the answer is yes, if we need to.

#66 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 03:30 PM | Reply

#65

As I pointed out to Bored, I don't think manufacturing that left is going to come back any time soon, but new products emerge on a daily basis and those need to be protected.

#67 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 03:32 PM | Reply

It's so going to be cool when support for high dollar non-totalitarian nations not run by Meow starts to build. "Supply side" guys where either morans or paid off. There is something called demand, and as the South discovered in the the slavery era, if you make everybody a peasant your plan doesn't work.

#68 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-05-24 03:32 PM | Reply

"Short answer is that tariffs make Americans poorer, but slowing China will be better for American power which benefits wealthy Americans."

If we bring back tariffs to cause manufacturing to rise in the U.S. which will increase demand for labor and wages will rise, unions will grow again and we'll get back to being a manufacturing nation. We have actually been exporting raw materials instead of manufactured goods, that is not the road to The Wealth of Nations." Needs to be the exact opposite.

#69 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-24 03:33 PM | Reply

#69

The problem is that we would need to impose tariffs on the entire world to bring legacy manufacturing back, and that isn't going to happen. If we focus on new manufacturing opportunities and let companies know that if they move those offshore they will be hit with stiff tariffs that will go a lot further towards what you want.

#70 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 03:40 PM | Reply

Danni and Bored, thanks for the conversation, I have some meetings to go to, I will check back later.

#71 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 03:40 PM | Reply

"If we focus on new manufacturing opportunities and let companies know that if they move those offshore they will be hit with stiff tariffs that will go a lot further towards what you want."

How is this any different than capital controls?

It's not. That's why it won't happen.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-24 05:41 PM | Reply

The answer to this and many other problems can be found by looking at our history and see how we handled these problems in the past.

To wit...

1) Uncle Sam is by far the largest customer in the US. Starting at 1776 and ending about the Reagan era... the US government which before could only buy 100% Made in America from companies that employed only Americans. Today, anyone (typically China) can sell goods and services to the Federal Government.

2) Head tax. Tax every non-American employee. This started in the mid 50's and continued till the mid 70's.

Perhaps it's time to go back and see how it was done in the old days...

#73 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-05-24 07:31 PM | Reply

How is this any different than capital controls?

Capital controls limit the inflow and outflow of foreign exchange into a countries capital account.

What I was proposing is to tax imports of products built by American companies offshore in the US. Take Apple, for example. They started here, are incorporated in Delaware, trade on NASDAQ, are headquartered here but build 90% of their products in China. Under this scenario, when they introduce a new iPhone, if they don't build it in the US, they get hit with a 20% foreign origination tax for each phone sold in the US. It's not like they are going to walk away from their second largest market, so it will make sense for them to manufacture the phones for US sale in the US.

Germany does it for autos manufactured outside of Germany that are imported back, why shouldn't we do the same?

#74 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 07:52 PM | Reply

"If we bring back tariffs to cause manufacturing to rise in the U.S. which will increase demand for labor and wages will rise, unions will grow again and we'll get back to being a manufacturing nation. We have actually been exporting raw materials instead of manufactured goods, that is not the road to The Wealth of Nations." Needs to be the exact opposite."

You've never taken an economics course, have you?

#75 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-24 08:06 PM | Reply

"What I was proposing is to tax imports of products built by American companies offshore in the US."

So Apple will move to Cayman Islands?

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-24 08:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#76

Good luck finding a stock exchange there...

#77 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 08:26 PM | Reply

#75

Most people haven't, but I understand where she is coming from. We do need to keep new products from fleeing with some carrot/stick to keep them here.

#78 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 08:28 PM | Reply

"We do need to keep new products from fleeing with some carrot/stick to keep them here."

This is what unions used to have the power to do.
Now they don't.
Right To Work.
You support right to work, right?

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-24 08:37 PM | Reply

They had that power only in your imagination, and yes, I do support right to work.

But don't hijack the thread, if you want to talk about that, start a new thread.

#80 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-24 08:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Unions got us the eight hour day and the five day week.

What has breaking unions got us?

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-24 08:54 PM | Reply

Now and again I defend Trump.
This isn't one of those times.

#82 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-25 01:00 AM | Reply

What has breaking unions got us?

Great thread topic, run with it!

#83 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-25 02:24 AM | Reply

#43
So still no answer, maybe I can help you: "Any tariffs imposed on China by a Democratic President would be "level and intelligent."
Sound about right?
The problem is, that would never happen.

#46 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2019-05-24 02:13 PM

Anyone else not surprised that Dorkus ran away (yet posted for a few hours after this question) and had no response?

Didn't think so.

#84 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-25 02:29 AM | Reply

"So still no answer, maybe I can help you: "Any tariffs imposed on China by a Democratic President would be "level and intelligent."
Sound about right?"

No, that's stupid. As I told you before, tariffs need to be enacted by Congress not by EO. This isn't a partisan argument, it's an economic discussion. We need tariffs, all other industrialized nations use them though most of them call them VAT. We have been stupid to think "free trade" was practiced by the rest of the world, they've been laughing at us for 30 years but our corporate leeches have benefited by outsourcing our jobs to China. Now it is time to tell them we're done with that and our markets are only open to American manufacturers or other nations that treat us fairly in their markets. Sorry China. Sorry Japan. Sorry S. Korea. WE have enabled those nations to become wealthy at the expense of our working class and it has to stop. But, it has to be done by Congress and if the members of Congress won't do it then we need to change the members of Congress to people who will do it. Sorry Republican sold out pieces of crap, it's time your constituents mattered more than your lobbyists.

#85 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-25 06:40 AM | Reply

It's unreasonable to think that a company should be punished for not consigning all aspects of production to the nation it calls home...like saying that a US flagged ship should only be crewed by Americans and sail in American waters.

There's no such thing as a large US company. They are all multi-national, and they interconnected across a global economy. And that's good. David Ricardo first coined the concept of comparative advantage, and that's what a global economy offers.

Globalization has led to a world where there are now more middle class people on earth than not. That would not have happened, had the US and other developed nations decided that by having an absolute advantage, all aspects of production would remain in the home country.

Developing countries are a long way from having the technical expertise to design and distribute new products in a global market. But they do have large work forces that are ready and willing to manufacture goods designed elsewhere, and do so at immense benefit to themselves and others.

#86 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-25 09:32 AM | Reply

"Unions got us the eight hour day and the five day week. What has breaking unions got us?"

I have neither a five day work week, nor an eight hour day.

I don't really know anybody who does.

And I don't think unions are doing all that bad. Every commercial airline pilot I know is a union member. And the American Medical Association is basically a union. It's methods are being copied by other professional unions.

And maybe it's just me, but I would be hesitant to hire an electrician or other tradesman who had not completed a union apprenticeship.

#87 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-25 09:39 AM | Reply

How today's MSM would have covered the Boston Tea Party

i1.wp.com

#88 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-25 09:43 AM | Reply

We dodged a bullet.

Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership Promises Echo Clinton's On NAFTA - www.commondreams.org

"NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality":

Not only did promises made by NAFTA's proponents not materialize, but many results are exactly the opposite.

Such outcomes include a staggering $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs under NAFTA, growing income inequality, displacement of more than one million Mexicancampesino farmers and a doubling of desperate immigration from Mexico, and more than $360 million paid to corporations after "investor-state" tribunal attacks on, and rollbacks of, domestic public interest policies.

The study makes for a blood-boiling read. For instance, we track the specific promisesmade by U.S. corporations like GE, Chrysler and Caterpillar to create specific numbers of American jobs if NAFTA was approved, and reveal government datashowing that instead, they fired U.S. workers and moved operations to Mexico.

#89 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-25 09:53 AM | Reply

The study makes for a blood-boiling read. For instance, we track the specific promisesmade by U.S. corporations like GE, Chrysler and Caterpillar to create specific numbers of American jobs if NAFTA was approved, and reveal government datashowing that instead, they fired U.S. workers and moved operations to Mexico.

#89 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM AT 2019-05-25 09:53 AM | REPLY |

Free trade is a republican thing

Who voted for NAFTA?

House Republicans: 132 Aye 42 Nay 75.8% AYE

House Democrats: 102 Aye 156 Nay 60.4% Nay

Senate Republicans 34 Aye 10 Nay 77.2% Aye

Senate Democrats 27 Aye 28 Nay 50.9% Nay

CAFTA

House Republicans 202 Aye 27 Nay 88.2% Aye

House Democrats 15 aye 187 Nay 92.6% Nay

Senate Republicans 43 Aye 12 Nay 78.2% Aye

Senate Democrats 10 Aye 33 Nay 76.7% Nay

But go ahead and keep pretending it is the democrats who are the globalists

All votes compiled from govtrack.us

#90 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-05-25 10:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I have neither a five day work week, nor an eight hour day.
I don't really know anybody who does."

I know lots of people who do, including me and everyone I know.
Obama tried to correct the abuse of salaried employees required to work far more than 40 hours per week but that was one of the first regulations Trump cancelled. People earning 30K are expected to work 50-60 hours per week. It's simply disgusting.

"Union membership in the U.S. hit record low in 2018"

www.cbsnews.com

Realize, the U.S. had a tiny middle class until unions changed that, now we let Republicans pass laws that destroy unions, guess what. Say goodbye to your middle class.

#91 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-25 11:15 AM | Reply

The amount of money cited is if this goes on for a year. Time will tell ,with the negotiations as to when there is a compromise and China and the USA meet somewhere in the 'middle'.

#92 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-05-25 11:20 AM | Reply

"It's unreasonable to think that a company should be punished for not consigning all aspects of production to the nation it calls home...like saying that a US flagged ship should only be crewed by Americans and sail in American waters. "

Yeah, imagine that. Companies using American ports, having Americans as their primary customer base, actually employing Americans? When a CArnival Cruise Line ship broke down in the Gulf of Mexico, it was the American Coast Guard who went and towed that ship into port. Then guess what? Carnival refused to pay the bill for it claiming that it was the Coast Guard's duty to tow them for free. This is all crap. Of course Cruise Ships sailing out of American ports should be hiring Americans, get your head out of your ass imbecile. Of course Donald Trump should be hiring Americans at Mara Lago and for his golf courses in America. We let hucksters like him convince us of absolute nonsense with the help of Fox News and other propaganda outlets then we let imbeciles like Madbomber try to convince us it makes sense.
Here in S. Florida we probably have more Cruise ships than anywhere else, realize this: Cruise ship passengers fly in from all over the nation and the world, then they are transported directly to the cruise ship, they board, they cruise and then they are transported directly back to the airport for their return home. They spend little or no money here in our economy, the ships employ few if any of our residents, they pay little in taxes because they are all foreign flagged. They benefit the cruise ship owners but almost no one else. S. Florida would not suffer at all if we just ended our willingness to put up with these leeches.

#93 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-25 11:32 AM | Reply

Stop supporting Communist China.

#5 | POSTED BY PEGASUS

Turn off your computer. Turn off your phone. Turn off your tv. Turn off everything. Do not drive. Do not use elevators. Do not buy clothes. Do not buy furniture. Do not buy luggage. Do not buy machinery. Even your food and medicines have Chinese additives.

Go lay nekked in a ditch. That will probably be the only way you can stop supporting communist China.

#94 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-05-25 01:40 PM | Reply

I am salaried and work 8-4:30 M-F and get every other friday off. Once in a while I have to do some after hours work but rarely more than a few hours unless we have a new office opening

#95 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-05-25 02:37 PM | Reply

"I know lots of people who do, including me and everyone I know."

What happens if, after eight hours of work, there is still stuff to do? It just doesn't get done?

"People earning 30K are expected to work 50-60 hours per week. It's simply disgusting."

I don't think they're expected to do anything. They choose to do so in return for an income. The operative word being "choose."

#96 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-25 02:48 PM | Reply

"Realize, the U.S. had a tiny middle class until unions changed that, now we let Republicans pass laws that destroy unions, guess what. Say goodbye to your middle class."

It really didn't have anything to do with unions...it had to do with the fact that the US was the only industrialized country left after WWII. There was no competition, which gave both labor and industry enormous pricing power. The globalization of the economy resulted in increased competition, allowing consumers around the world to benefit from cheaper products. Even Americans benefitted. Households goods that used to cost hundreds or thousands of inflation adjusted dollars can now be purchased for a fraction of that. I don't know that I want to go back to an economy where TVs start in the thousands, and a blender costs $300.

#97 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-25 02:56 PM | Reply

"David Ricardo first coined the concept of comparative advantage, and that's what a global economy offers."

Offers to whom?

#98 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-25 03:25 PM | Reply

"allowing consumers around the world to benefit from cheaper products."

But inly by allowing capitalists from around the world to benefit from cheaper labor.

It's a race to the bottom.

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-25 03:26 PM | Reply

But go ahead and keep pretending it is the democrats who are the globalists
#90 | POSTED BY HATTER5183

You can't expect Sherp to respond when you provide facts. It destroys his narrative.

Sherp, Nulli, his Mattress, RoC, Jeff... all disappear as soon as any facts are provided.

Trumpublicans are deplorables, one and all.

#100 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-05-25 03:30 PM | Reply

It really didn't have anything to do with unions...it had to do with the fact that the US was the only industrialized country left after WWII.

You love this fake narrative.

But what prevented the employers from pocketing profits? Unions.

What created a wealthier America, creating our middle class? Unions, and the new deal.

What protected employees? Unions.

What created weekends, child labor laws, and 40 hour weeks? Unions.

WW2 simply created a vessel for employment.

It didn't make America an economic force.

#101 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-05-25 03:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So Apple will move to Cayman Islands?

#76 | Posted by snoofy

They can share the teeny office space Dick Cheney moved 63 of Halliburton's subsidiaries to to avoid paying U.S. taxes when he was CEO.

#102 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-25 03:41 PM | Reply

#101 | Posted by ClownShack

Touche!!

My dad worked in a factory. We were hardly well to do. Had what we needed and just a little of what we wanted (bikes, music lessons, a vacation every other year to a cottage on a lake, etc) Like millions of other families, the union ensured he could earn just enough to support a family.

#103 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-25 04:11 PM | Reply

Sherp, Nulli, his Mattress, RoC, Jeff... all disappear as soon as any facts are provided.

That's funny, considering once a in depth discussion about anything occurs you fling some ad hominum and run to the next DRama thread along with Dorkus.

#104 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-25 11:47 PM | Reply

But go ahead and keep pretending it is the democrats who are the globalists
All votes compiled from govtrack.us

#90 | POSTED BY HATTER5183

Poor misunderstood Bill Clinton, Democrat. Champion of NAFTA.
Defends it to this day. Even Corky has explained it away numerous times as being the greatest thing since PB and J on Wonder Bread.

BJ Clinton predicted millions of new jobs. But Ross Perot warned us about "that giant sucking sound" of jobs going to Mexico and overseas.

Did Repugs vote for it? Of course! They love cheap overseas labor. DUH!.

But Blue Stain Clinton was supposed to be a Union Man, bringing blue collar jobs. for working families. Cigar Fingerer Clinton ---- their throats. You're a stooge and a tool.

---------------------

You can't expect Sherp to respond when you provide facts. It destroys his narrative.
Sherp, ... all disappear as soon as any facts are provided.

#100 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

You know what I post is true. Party Democrats are corrupt gold diggers. Lick that Cankle wart all you want.

#105 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-26 12:08 AM | Reply

What happens if, after eight hours of work, there is still stuff to do? It just doesn't get done?

I shut it down. It's not my problem there's more work to do. It's the company's problem. They've cut and cut. I put in a solid 8 hours a day, and that's all they get. Period. If they want more for the week, then I comp it. There's no loyalty from them, so there's no loyalty from me. There's only a transactional relationship between me and any employer. Period.

No pay, no play.

#106 | Posted by YAV at 2019-05-26 12:35 AM | Reply

If the company only hires 40 people for a job that takes 1700 hours a week then 100 hours will not be done. We prioritize, do the most important stuff first and leave at the end of the day with a clean conscience. We have approved and budgeted projects theough 2020. If upper management wants something outside of that list done then the lowest priority projects on the list are dropped.

#107 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-05-26 02:29 AM | Reply

#106

God damn it, Yav.

That is so true of our current corporate culture in this country.

I wish it wasn't so, but it is.

Sad!

#108 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-26 02:45 AM | Reply

We hire a lot of contract coders. In their statement of work it spells out what they will deliver and how much they will be paid for it. If there is some functionality you want to add to an application even as simple as error handling and you didn't put it in the SOW it wont be done unless you pay more and write a new SOW

#109 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-05-26 08:01 AM | Reply

"Offers to whom?"

To everyone.

#110 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-26 08:58 AM | Reply

"But inly by allowing capitalists from around the world to benefit from cheaper labor. It's a race to the bottom."

If that's the case, explain how incomes have risen steadily, despite the decline in union membership. Median households incomes in the US are now at an all time high.

"But what prevented the employers from pocketing profits? Unions."

Negative.

After WWII, the US was the only country capable of heavy industry. So if you wanted a refrigerator or a bulldozer, you were going to buy it from a US firm. This allowed labor enormous pricing power, because whatever wages they demanded would simply be passed on to the consumer, who had no other options. As the European and Asian economies rebuilt, they introduced competition into the global markets. At the same time, technology began reducing the need for low skilled equipment operators, which made that labor market itself more competitive.

"What created a wealthier America, creating our middle class? Unions, and the new deal."

War. War did that.

#111 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-26 09:06 AM | Reply

If that's the case, explain how incomes have risen steadily, despite the decline in union membership. Median households incomes in the US are now at an all time high.

#111 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2019-05-26 09:06 AM | REPLY |

The key word being household

Household income has risen because one worker households are no longer the norm. now both parents work and often there is an adult child living in the basement but pulling in another income to add to the household total

INDIVIDUAL incomes have stagnated. The median INDIVIDUAL income is only $31,099

#112 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-05-26 09:38 AM | Reply

"INDIVIDUAL incomes have stagnated. The median INDIVIDUAL income is only $31,099"

And median individual income (in 2019$) for 1955 was ~$21.4K

#113 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-26 02:12 PM | Reply

And median individual income (in 2019$) for 1955 was ~$21.4K
#113 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Show your math.

Also. What was the price of a house (in 2019$) for 1955? How much was gas? A glass of milk?

How much were the rich making compared to the median individual?

Let's have a real discussion. Not some bullshht you hope covers your bullshht.

#114 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-05-26 02:23 PM | Reply

"What was the price of a house (in 2019$) for 1955?"

Well in 1955 dollars, my folks paid $17,000 for a house for themselves and four kids.

#115 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-05-26 03:03 PM | Reply

"Show your math."

"www.russellsage.org"

The data is indexed in 2012$, so take the 2012$ value for 1955 and apply adjustment for inflation to get 2019$.

"Also. What was the price of a house (in 2019$) for 1955? How much was gas? A glass of milk?"

The price per square footage of a house has remained largely unchanged...between $100 and $120 per square foot. Milk was $8.77 a gallon. Gas was $2.77 a gallon. A new TV (21 inch) was $3,200. A new toaster (2-slice) was $200. An AM/FM radio would have set you back $600.

#116 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-26 03:48 PM | Reply

And median individual income (in 2019$) for 1955 was ~$21.4K

Posted by madbomber

WRONG!

$17,000 house in 1955 dollars? $160,000 in 2019 dollars
www.dollartimes.com

The median income in 1955 was $5000. That's $47,000 in 2019 dollars.

You can calculate using the inflation calculator of your choice, but they're all about the same figures regardless of which one you use.

INFLATION CALCULATORS (Google Search):
www.google.com

People earned higher median incomes and houses were a less expense than today.

#117 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-26 04:26 PM | Reply

"The median income in 1955 was $5000. That's $47,000 in 2019 dollars."

The median HOUSEHOLD income was $5,000 in 1955, or $47,500 in $2019. Household median income currently sits at ~$61K in 2019$.

Hatter was trying to make the argument that this was because median individual incomes were higher then than they are now, to which I responded with the data on median individual income in 1955 vs 2019, indexed in 2019$. The median INDIVIDUAL income in 1955 was $21,400 (2019$) while current median individual income is slightly greater than $31,000.

#118 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-26 04:46 PM | Reply

In 1955, America was paying down the national debt run up during the Depression and WWII.

In 1955, everyone - individuals from the top down, corporations - paid their fair share of taxes. Sure, the top marginal rates were higher, but the wealthy could avoid that by reinvesting in America ... building factories, paying a decent wage, and so on. One man could earn enough to support a family of 4 or more, buy a new car, take a vacation.

Little by little, Republicans chipped away. Waging war with unions - who only guaranteed workers earned a living wage - and so went pensions in place of 401k's. That is, for those lucky enough to work for a company who offered one and would contribute to it. Today, companies regularly tell their workers the company's contribution won't be as high or nothing at all.

Upper management take care of themselves with wage hikes while at the same time laying off workers, downsizing, adding more work to less employees, and the like. Wages for average Americans have not kept up while the income of a small percentage of Americans has risen much, much faster and at a higher percentage.

Wealth has shifted to a small percentage of Americans who don't shoulder the same responsibility to our country they did in 1955. They've moved companies offshore to avoid taxes, used tax breaks - as recent as last years' - for bonuses and short term stock gains rather than, or even than, giving employees the same level of wage increases they've given themselves.

Things are upside down. Wonder why we're running deficits? Because that small percentage cares about no one and nothing but themselves.

#119 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-26 04:46 PM | Reply

"People earned higher median incomes and houses were a less expense than today."

None of that is true. I've already shown you the data on median individual and median household incomes. The overall prices of houses has increased, but not due to anything other than an increase in size. An average house in 1955 would have been about 1100 square feet. Today, the average is 2470 square feet. But the price per square foot hasn't really changed, all other things being equal.

#120 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-26 04:49 PM | Reply

#118 | Posted by madbomber

I understand your point. But median is that - the average income.

Let's say all income in America is a pie. The majority of Americans got bigger slices of that pie then, while today a smaller percentage eat more of the same pie.

The median income may be higher, but that's because that small percentage of Americans have reaped all the benefits and their wages have gone up while the vast majority of Americans simply haven't seen it in their bank accounts.

This inflation adjusted chart of median income goes from 1965-2019. You can clearly see whose wages have risen the most and why so the overwhelming majority of Americans feel left behind:

Numbers don't lie. If you don't like that chart, find another. They all tell the same story

#121 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-26 04:55 PM | Reply

In 1955, everyone - individuals from the top down, corporations - paid their fair share of taxes. Sure, the top marginal rates were higher, but the wealthy could avoid that by reinvesting in America.

The wealthy could also deduct a lot more before the tax reforms in the 1980s. For instance, you could deduct travel expenses for your family if you took them with you on a work trip. Even at the highest tax rates, the highest effective rate never exceeded 50%. I think the highest was something like 45%. I could look it up and provide a link.

Furthermore, union jobs weren't the norm. In 1955, a union job started off at $2 an hour, or just under $20 in 2019$. A worker who had been with the company a few years could reasonably expect to get $5 an hour, which would equate to more than $90k per year in 2019. In fact it was pretty common for college graduates to seek union jobs because they paid so much more than professional employment. Probably not unlike oil jobs today.

#122 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-26 05:02 PM | Reply

MAD

Here's another chart showing income distribution from 1970-today from Pew Research. Tells the same story of how income equality grew and grew over time. The top 10% saw wages grow far faster than the rest of Americans.

Median income may be higher, but it hasn't benefited everyone equally. Gross domestic product has continued to rise, but it hasn't benefited everyone to the same extent. As a result, it's much harder for the vast majority of Americans to buy a house, for instance, than it was 30, 40, or 60 years ago. That's what the actual numbers say.

www.pewsocialtrends.org

#123 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-26 05:11 PM | Reply

"I understand your point. But median is that - the average income."

No. Median and mean (average) are very different. You find average wage by taking total earnings and dividing by the number of workers. Median income represents the center of the bell curve, where there are an equal number of people making more and less than that amount. Averages aren't very useful. if you have one person making 1,000,000 per year and nine making 10,000 per year, the average is going to be $109k. It's going to provide a skewed picture. Using median income provides a much better measure.

"You can clearly see whose wages have risen the most and why so the overwhelming majority of Americans feel left behind."

Got it, but all this chart is showing is that all incomes have gone up...some have just gone up more than others. Which from an economic perspective is a predictable outcome. A free society is going to allocate resources in a manner than is going to benefit the individuals within it. If you're an unskilled laborer, you're operating in a very competitive market, because people are fully qualified unskilled workers. If I'm a surgeon, I'm going to be able to demand whatever I want, because I have a skillset that is very rare and in very high demand. And if I have to mow my own lawn or shovel the driveway myself, I'll do it if the cost of having someone else do it exceeds the value of my time.

#124 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-26 05:11 PM | Reply

Wow, you're really parsing there.

It's very clear where the money has gone. Wages for average Americans haven't kept up with the folks really raking it in.

Those people park money. They don't put it back into the economy at nearly the scale everyone else does, nor have most companies increased wages to a point they were in 1955 when one wage earner could buy a house, support a family of 4 or more, take a vacation, buy a new car, or all the other things that were so much easier in 1955 for the average American.

#125 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-26 05:28 PM | Reply

You can argue if you want to, but numbers don't lie. That's the way it is.

#126 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-26 05:29 PM | Reply

"It's very clear where the money has gone."

Yeah. To the people who earned it. Look at the timeframe between 1990 and 2000, where incomes trended upwards at an unusually high level. Those were the days when tech was really starting to go crazy. And the closer you were to the leading edge of that movement, the more you were going to make. At the same time, there's not reaon to expect that someone who was not involved in those developments would benefit from them, other than tangentially. If you're working in the window factory, should you really expect to make more because some entrepreneur somewhere made a killing in a tech IPO?

"You can argue if you want to, but numbers don't lie. That's the way it is."

They don't lie. The data you provided...data widely available...show that incomes have remained steady or increased. At the same time, the majority of living costs have declined.

#127 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-26 06:56 PM | Reply

If you, like BOAZ, were career military, then you're one of the lucky and small percentage of Americans who still had pensions once Reagan was done. If so, you wouldn't have a clue about what most American families have had to struggle through to afford a decent life for their kids.

Factories have largely moved overseas. Entry level jobs start at $8 and hour. Unless your parents were loaded and could pay for your four years of college (a decent one will end up costing $150-200k, minimum), you're paying a mortgage worth of student debt a month. So, even if you got that diploma, and depending on the economy, you may still be stuck barely scraping by for years.

There are only so many management positions, only so many law firms, only so many decent paying jobs where a college diploma will earn you a good living. Entry level? Maybe a little more than what a Big Three auto worker used to bring home. Which was enough for one man to support a family of four or more and pay for braces, a boat, a vacation here and there. Heard about all the auto plants closing? Yep, there go those living wage jobs too...

#128 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-26 07:50 PM | Reply

"If so, you wouldn't have a clue about what most American families have had to struggle through to afford a decent life for their kids."

Out of the group of adults and parents I'm most frequently in contact with outside of work, I'm the only military member. And honestly, I make quite a bit less than them even as an O-5.

"Unless your parents were loaded and could pay for your four years of college (a decent one will end up costing $150-200k, minimum), you're paying a mortgage worth of student debt a month."

I got an ROTC scholarship. But tuition at the school I went to (UNC Charlotte) was $3522 per semester. It's not MIT, but I got me and many others across the finish line.

"There are only so many management positions, only so many law firms, only so many decent paying jobs where a college diploma will earn you a good living."

Part of the reason that college grads do earn so much more is because there is higher demand relative to supply. Up until the 1970s, a college degree statistically was only going to get you a 5-10% premium when compared with high school graduates. Now the average income for a college grad is almost twice that of a high school grad. It's not because employers want to pay college grads more...they have to if they want to attract those workers.

#129 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-26 08:13 PM | Reply

MAD

If you've been in 10 years or more, you're earning a nice income. Perhaps you don't realize how fortunate you are. Most working people with college degrees (who went to good colleges and universities) don't make what you do or more unless they're in certain fields like IT. Heck, people with 10 years and 20 years on a job oftentimes don't earn that kind of smack .. and with health benefits paid for 100%. Some of the 40 and 50 year old men we've rented to who work in management at large corporations don't make $80k+ a year.

My point about the number of management (xxxx) positions that pay well was intended to focus highlight the fact that there are many jobs under them that don't, even for college grads.

There are currently over 12,000,000 kids 15-18 in the U.S. Roughly 2/3rds of high school graduates (84% of seniors) will at least enter college. Sure, in this economy, jobs are plentiful, but the good times never last for long, but by the time they get out that may not be the case. Recessions hit everyone that isn't military or upper management or in a vital position.

There are only so many entry level jobs for college graduates. And as our economy continues moving towards a 'service economy,' the need for them will lessen, even in good times.

IT being done in India by Indians, not Americans. Financial firms bringing in H-1B workers by the tens of thousands so they can pay a lesser rate. AI and other technologies will automate even things that current college graduates currently do.

In the end, though, 4 years of college is unaffordable without student debt for kids without well to do parents, and it's getting more and more expensive every year. Shouldn't we do something to lessen the load for America's kids so they can enter jobs like primary and secondary education. Jobs many are reluctant to take because they simply can't afford loan payments AND rent and food and car notes and ...

#130 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-26 08:37 PM | Reply

And shame employers into paying a living wage to everyone ...

#131 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-26 08:40 PM | Reply

Stock options and bonuses and raises among upper management far outstrip the crumbs they throw to their lessers ..

#132 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-05-26 08:41 PM | Reply

"And shame employers into paying a living wage to everyone ..."

Employers aren't the ones to blame. They're just responding to the needs of consumers. If consumers demanded that workers earn a living wage, employers would soon follow suit. As it stands, consumers want to preserve their own purchasing power to the maximum extent possible.

#133 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-27 08:19 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Stock options and bonuses and raises among upper management far outstrip the crumbs they throw to their lessers .."

Most of that is restricted stock, which means it can't be transferred unless certain performance benchmarks have been met. If you look at the income of the CEOs of most major firms, their base incomes are not very high given the level of responsibility they have. You would likely make more (even far more) by playing for the New England Patriots or another NFL team. The bulk of the income is offered in restricted stock, which only becomes valuable if the firm achieves the goals set by the BoD on behalf of the shareholders.

I'm not a labor historian, so I'm stating this from memory, but my understanding is that one of the big union wins in the mines of New Mexico and Colorado was the receipt of an income not tied to company performance. Previous to this, miners would be allocated a share of the profits collected, much like commercial fisherman are today. When the haul was good or demand was high, they would make more. Lower hauls and lower prices meant lower incomes. Imagine being a King Crab fisherman spending several months working 24 hours a day in the arctic, only to come back in and find that the market price for King Crab had tanked. By demanding a stead income regardless of company performance, the miners were able to ensure that they got a paycheck regardless of how the markets were doing.

There are still jobs like that. A lot of sales only pay out if you make a sale, which may not happen that often. But if you stick with it and build up a clientele, you can make a lot of money. Same with financial planners. But the risk involved turns off many prospective workers.

#134 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-05-27 08:42 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort