- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I'm all for more U.S. jobs, but things will cost more.
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:10 pm to Seldom Seen
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:10 pm to Seldom Seen
quote:
So what, we should sellout America to save a few pennies?
quote:
DONALD TRUMP RAN for office as an unabashed protectionist — it is one of the few political positions on which he never wavered — and hostility to free trade was a central message of his inaugural address.
...
Cheering in the crowd as Trump spoke, reported Reuters, were numerous supporters wearing his signature red “Make America Great Again” baseball cap — many of which were imported from China, Vietnam, and Bangladesh. Made-in-America Trump hats were available for purchase on the official Trump campaign website, where they sold for up to $30 apiece. But as Reuters noted, the imported versions being offered by street vendors in Washington cost only $20 — one-third less.
What distinguished the cheering onlookers rocking a domestic “Make America Great Again” hat from those wearing an imported one? Only one thing: Those who bought the US-manufactured product for $30 ended up with $10 less of purchasing power than those who spent $20 to buy an import. Trump supporters whose caps came from overseas had money left over to spend on other purchases from other vendors.
LINK
Ten dollars here, 20 dollars there, sooner rather than later, it adds up to real money.
If you want to say it's worth raising people's cost of living to try and increase manufacturing jobs (which is a problematic premise for other reasons), you can make that argument. You don't get to argue that our cost of living stays the same. Math denies you that right.
0
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:10 pm to Jack Daniel
Not only inevitable, desired at a higher rate than what we've experienced. Depending on which CPI is used as there are a couple of variations.
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:12 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:I disagree with your solution; however, I respect your consistency between these two related subjects.
Except I would favor an increase in minimum wage. Several caveats however. Exclude part time labor, exclude labor below age 18, and the increase should be to a level that the majority of employers are paying anyway.
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:13 pm to notsince98
quote:
I don't believe this is true. Lower corporate tax rates, lower income tax rates, cheaper health insurance, better interest rates, etc. Could end up possibly giving US citizens even more buying power than we have now.
Theoretically, that offsets some of the increase in cost of living that would otherwise occur if you raise tariffs. The only problem is, the jobs that we have that are based on exports right now get directly hit if China or Mexico decide to raise their tariffs on us in response to us doing that. And all of the tax cuts and deregulation in the world can't overcome barriers to new markets, if the Chinese decide they want to play chicken.
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:17 pm to buckeye_vol
At the end of the day Buckeye, a POTUS needs to get something done, and something done is usually through compromise. The something done obviously needs to have tangible results that impact a majority of Americans. Look, here is where I'm at. I ate some crap sandwiches when Ronald reagan compromised, as I did when Bill Clinton was forced to compromise, but each of these former POTUS did more good than bad. Newt gets a lot of credit for Clinton's economic results. Tip O'Neill was a necessity for Reagan. I'm going to eat several crap sandwiches from Donald Trump, I'm just hoping the compromises and crap sandwiches come someplace where the damage to myself can be mitigated. e.g. minimum wage.
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:18 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:I would just prefer that something to be less government, which is why I support his tax cuts and lowering of regulations.
At the end of the day Buckeye, a POTUS needs to get something done
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:22 pm to buckeye_vol
Yup, and if it took a federal minimum wage of $8.00 to get it done, I'd hold my nose and say do it. With my previously mentioned caveats. But it is such a geographic specific thing, outside of some sort of minimum wage standard, the federal government really has no role. Increase it to a level where it doesn't do too much damage, protect those that hire school kids and part time labor by exempting them, and move on to more important stuff.
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:23 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
To whom besides the government (obviously), a few companies who benefit
In a competition, there will be winners and losers . . . always!
Your argument intimates the US can thrive as an unbalanced consumption society living disproportionately off of foreign products (products thriving behind protectionist regimes).
This post was edited on 1/25/17 at 4:25 pm
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:24 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
I suspect if smaller businesses get tax cuts, more would be returned both as increased wages and benefits to workers, and also to investment.
Unless a company/sector is under wage pressure in attracting/keeping employees, broad increases are highly doubtful.
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:27 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Yes, but the government shouldn't be impacting that.
In a competition, there will be winners and losers . . . always!
quote:Yes it does. And we have thus far because we adapt, while not artistically increasing the cost on that consumer.
Your argument intimates the US can thrive as an unbalanced consumption society living off of foreign products (products thriving behind protectionist regimes).
Besides we've increased manufacturing productivity, output, and efficiency, while jobs have decreased. Why increase these costs for some jobs that are going to be increasingly marginalized by innovation and technology?
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:30 pm to tigerpawl
It's amazing how quickly history is forgotten. Cars manufactured in Detroit in the 70's had become a national embarrassment. Ford stood for "found on road dead" or "fix or repair daily". It took the Japanese to force Detroit to clean up its act and start competing. We were studying in business classes Japanese management techniques. Now, free trade is bad. Get ready to pay more for inferior products.
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:33 pm to tigerpawl
For the wealthy, there will be inflation as they have bigger homes which means they will buy more appliances/electronic/furniture etc. (imports)
For the middle class, the vast majority of their spending is home, healthcare, and education/student loans. They will be effected less.
For the middle class, the vast majority of their spending is home, healthcare, and education/student loans. They will be effected less.
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:36 pm to NCAAFootballGenius
quote:
For the middle class, the vast majority of their spending is home, healthcare, and education/student loans. They will be effected less.
Not if food costs increase, which they likely will with this wall business and cracking down on immigration.
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:38 pm to notsince98
The only thing happening in that list is cheaper corporate taxes. Corporations dont pass the savings onto you.
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:39 pm to teampick
quote:
It's amazing how quickly history is forgotten. Cars manufactured in Detroit in the 70's had become a national embarrassment. Ford stood for "found on road dead" or "fix or repair daily". It took the Japanese to force Detroit to clean up its act and start competing.
This happened in other sectors as well, US manufacturing quality was pretty bad in the 70's & 80's.
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:40 pm to NCAAFootballGenius
Keep dreaming. Inflation will clobber the middle class who have less disposable income.
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:44 pm to tigerpawl
Things are indeed upside down for the capitalist wing of the GOP. Walls, tariffs and isolationist trade policies.
But the OP is correct in that all of that comes at a price. Econ 101. I'm confident we'll re-learn this simple lesson in due time, probably the hard way.
But the OP is correct in that all of that comes at a price. Econ 101. I'm confident we'll re-learn this simple lesson in due time, probably the hard way.
This post was edited on 1/25/17 at 4:47 pm
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:46 pm to The Spleen
Food won't go up a bunch.
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:48 pm to ForeLSU
I know but cars were the obvious ones. American made cars in the 79's and 80's were absolute garbage. The only Americans willing to drive American cars were WWII veterans who served in the Pacific theater and hated the Japanese. Everyone else wanted a Toyota because they were reliable cars.
Posted on 1/25/17 at 4:51 pm to tigerpawl
The rising tide floats all boats. We have to understand that while we may pay more, we will also enhance the greater economy to the tune of trillions which will elevate wages and living standards. Also, good trade deals will keep American companies honest with good, old fashioned competition. Lastly, lower corporate income tax rates will give American companies accounting efficiencies that should make price increases less necessary.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News