- 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: Trade Data Shows Trump’s Tariffs Are Working
Posted on 6/10/26 at 4:35 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 6/10/26 at 4:35 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
A 0.4 - 4 secondary addition is the common range.
1.0 would equate to 7% overall, 1° + 2°.
I've never seen an estimate as low as the 0.25 you're citing.
Even for $19 an hour jobs?
0
Posted on 6/10/26 at 4:36 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
A 0.4 - 4 secondary addition is the common range.
1.0 would equate to 7% overall, 1° + 2°.
Call it 7% if you want to.
Does that really move the needle for you?
Posted on 6/10/26 at 4:46 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:12M new jobs?
Call it 7% if you want to.
Does that really move the needle for you?
Posted on 6/10/26 at 4:55 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
12M new jobs?
Well, let's examine your appeal to ridicule.
1. First of all, 100% of Americans would be paying for those 12m jobs in the form of higher prices.
2. Google says that only 7.3 million or so people are currently unemployed and looking for work. So anything over 7 million is irrelevant anyway. Which is why the formula is of no consequence to begin with...those related jobs would never be able to be filled.
3. If all available jobs did get filled, even within just that one industry, we'd be fricked. Zero unemployment causes massive wage inflation as well as paralyzes growth (you can't hire any new employees to grow) and makes it impossible to change jobs (no vacancies anywhere).
So here is me returning the ridicule to you. All of that buildup for a stupid idea.
This post was edited on 6/10/26 at 4:58 pm
Posted on 6/10/26 at 5:10 pm to ManBearSharkReb
quote:
I do construction for a living. Materials prices have shot up after the tariffs. I guarantee you don’t work in the real world.
I have a couple restaurants in a few states. Certain produce has to come from Mexico in the winter. We had to discontinue buying/selling watermelons. The price was $14 a case before liberation day and over $30 since.
Fortunately the season in Florida kicked in last month. We couldn’t raise prices enough on menu items we’ve raised prices multiple times since 2024.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 5:15 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:Google is totally, completely, thoroughly FOS. The labor force nonparticipation group is a huge employment tidal pool. It can ebb and flow with the economy.
Google says that only 7.3 million or so people are currently unemployed
Posted on 6/10/26 at 5:16 pm to Motownsix
Beef prices will come back down. But after the Biden culling catastrophe, we're still a couple of years away. 
This post was edited on 6/10/26 at 5:18 pm
Posted on 6/10/26 at 10:49 pm to wackatimesthree
Holy shot.... come on. This is very sophomoric.
No. This goes back to your old flaw that you totally ignored because you can not defend it.
This is you saying that until the people lost their jobs nobody could afford anything.
Let me guess, no american is paying for any jobs now right.
Again, flawed. You do not know if people would have continued to have more kids....etc. so no, they would not be useless.
LMAO! So you are saying that even if there was zero unemployment that nobody could be hired away from their current job. What??
quote:
1. First of all, 100% of Americans would be paying for those 12m jobs in the form of higher prices.
No. This goes back to your old flaw that you totally ignored because you can not defend it.
This is you saying that until the people lost their jobs nobody could afford anything.
Let me guess, no american is paying for any jobs now right.
quote:
. Google says that only 7.3 million or so people are currently unemployed and looking for work. So anything over 7 million is irrelevant anyway. Which is why the formula is of no consequence to begin with...those related jobs would never be able to be filled.
Again, flawed. You do not know if people would have continued to have more kids....etc. so no, they would not be useless.
quote:
3. If all available jobs did get filled, even within just that one industry, we'd be fricked. Zero unemployment causes massive wage inflation as well as paralyzes growth (you can't hire any new employees to grow) and makes it impossible to change jobs (no vacancies anywhere).
LMAO! So you are saying that even if there was zero unemployment that nobody could be hired away from their current job. What??
Posted on 6/10/26 at 10:51 pm to NC_Tigah
He is not going to grasp that.
Posted on 6/10/26 at 11:03 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
This is you saying that until the people lost their jobs nobody could afford anything.
No, it's not me saying that.
Look, if you're going to keep telling me what I really mean, you don't need me for this conversation. Especially since you can't get what I'm saying eve close to right.
You just keep making up ridiculous stuff and claiming it's what I'm saying.
quote:
Again, flawed. You do not know if people would have continued to have more kids....etc. so no, they would not be useless.
What? That's not even coherent. I genuinely don't even know what you're saying there...and I don't think you do either.
quote:
LMAO! So you are saying that even if there was zero unemployment that nobody could be hired away from their current job. What??
It's getting really boring having to educate you on all of this stuff. That's a basic, universally accepted economic principle. Here's a quote with a citation. Not that it will do any good.
quote:U Mass Global
1. Severe Wage-Price InflationWhen the labor pool is completely empty, businesses cannot find new workers to expand or fill vacant roles.
Why: To hire anyone, companies must continuously "poach" employees from competitors by offering unsustainably higher salaries because there are no potential unemployed workers looking for a job.
The Consequence: This creates a aggressive wage-price spiral. Businesses are forced to aggressively raise the consumer prices of their goods and services just to cover their soaring labor overhead, causing runaway inflation.
2. Collapsing Workplace Productivity
A zero-unemployment market fundamentally breaks traditional hiring filters and workplace efficiency.
Why: Because there are zero available applicants, employers lose the ability to vet for skill or capability. They must hire literally anyone available to keep operations running—a phenomenon historically dubbed the "Mirror Test" (hiring anyone who can breathe and fog a mirror).
The Consequence: Severe skill gaps emerge. High-performing employees become overtasked with fixing mistakes, aggregate economic productivity plummets, and the overall labor market becomes highly inefficient.
3. Total Stagnation of Business Growth & Innovation: An economy with zero unemployment is operating at absolute peak capacity, leaving no room for a business to pivot or scale.
Why: If a new entrepreneur wants to launch an innovative startup, or an existing company wants to build a new factory, they cannot recruit a workforce because every person is already locked into an existing role.
The Consequence: Economic growth completely stalls. Innovation grinds to a halt because labor cannot be reallocated from dying, obsolete industries into highly productive, emerging technology sectors.
4. Complete Loss of Career Mobility (No Frictional Buffer) In a healthy economy, some level of unemployment is voluntary and healthy, known as frictional unemployment.
Why: Frictional unemployment represents the time gap when a worker voluntarily quits a toxic boss, relocates to a new city, or graduates college and searches for a relevant career path.
The Consequence: For unemployment to be exactly zero, this organic fluidity must stop. Workers would either be forced to transition instantly between jobs with zero break, or remain permanently trapped in roles they hate, ruining workforce morale.
When you type things like "LOL" when all I have referred to are basic economic principles that no one disputes, you signal how much you have no business engaging in this discussion.
Now, what are the answers to my questions for you from last post? To refresh your memory, exactly which economic statements of yours do you think Bernie and AOC would disagree with, and who was the only other candidate in 2016 besides Trump to run on tariffs?
Posted on 6/10/26 at 11:06 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Google is totally, completely, thoroughly FOS. The labor force nonparticipation group is a huge employment tidal pool. It can ebb and flow with the economy.
Then what does your source say?
It's pretty universally accepted that we are around the low 4% for unemployment, and have been for a while. 3%-4% is considered full functional employment, specifically to avoid the problems I listed.
Unless you are claiming that that number is really 8% or so, it's still impossible for Americans to fill all these jobs you imagined being re-shored and created. We could maybe take maybe a few hundred thousand to a million re-shored jobs, IF they were attractive enough for people to leave their current jobs for them. Remember, we kept almost all of the high paying manufacturing jobs here. The ones coming back are almost certain to be mediocre to low paying.
Just dismissing the source isn't going to save you on this. You're too far off.
This post was edited on 6/10/26 at 11:17 pm
Posted on 6/10/26 at 11:11 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
He is not going to grasp that.
The gap between how uninformed you are on this topic and how informed you think you are on this topic is epic.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 7:57 am to wackatimesthree
Nah. Its not me. Its you relying on a flawed model.
Yes, you are actually implying those things I mentioned above. When you suggest things like tariffs are a leftist idea, that they are government picking winners and losers, you 100% implying that this nation has always been on the wrong side of things.
You can not in the same breath say tariffs are evil socialist methods without indicating our past as the same. Anything prior to FDR....
You seems to be what my fathers gen called an educated idiot. You purchased hook, line, and sinker that free trade is the only way even though history, OUR HISTORY, says you are wrong.
Yes, you are actually implying those things I mentioned above. When you suggest things like tariffs are a leftist idea, that they are government picking winners and losers, you 100% implying that this nation has always been on the wrong side of things.
You can not in the same breath say tariffs are evil socialist methods without indicating our past as the same. Anything prior to FDR....
You seems to be what my fathers gen called an educated idiot. You purchased hook, line, and sinker that free trade is the only way even though history, OUR HISTORY, says you are wrong.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 8:02 am to Jjdoc
quote:
OUR HISTORY, says you are wrong.
It does no such thing.
The argument you keep resorting to (instead of addressing the actual economic principles here) is that we've always had tariffs (at least up to a certain point), so they have to be good.
Right? I don't want to do to you what you repeatedly keep doing to me, which is making something up out of thin air and then claiming I said it.
So is that correct?
This post was edited on 6/11/26 at 8:04 am
Posted on 6/11/26 at 8:03 am to Jjdoc
quote:
You seems to be what my fathers gen called an educated idiot.
O.k.
You seem to be just a plain old idiot.
So...
Posted on 6/11/26 at 8:11 am to Jjdoc
And while I'm waiting—since you will not answer the questions—here is a summary of Bernie Sanders and AOC's position on free trade and protectionism.
So which of the following to you DISAGREE with?
So which of the following to you DISAGREE with?
quote:
Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) reject traditional "unfettered free trade."
Both progressive (leftist) lawmakers favor a form of protectionism intended to insulate American workers and union jobs from cheap foreign labor.
Both Sanders and AOC have long argued that corporate-friendly, neoliberal free trade agreements are disastrous for the working class.
Bernie Sanders: He famously voted against and organized opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China. He argues that unfettered free trade essentially gave corporations "the freedom to lay off American workers" earning decent wages and move operations to countries with pennies-on-the-dollar labor costs.
He campaigned on protectionist tariffs in the 2016 election primaries.
AOC: She similarly labels agreements like the original NAFTA "a failed policy for many rural and working-class communities."
She has advocated for trade policies that prioritize global environmental standards and international labor rights rather than just corporate profits.
Sanders explicitly noted that "tariffs used selectively are a good idea if they're going to protect American jobs," such as targeted measures for vital domestic manufacturing.
To combat the inflationary side effects of tariffs, AOC co-introduced the No Gratuitous Overcharging Ubiquitous Global Exports (No GOUGE) Act. The bill seeks to prevent large, highly profitable corporations from using new tariffs as a deceptive "pretext" to artificially hike prices on working-class consumers far beyond the actual cost of the import penalty
Posted on 6/11/26 at 8:20 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
To combat the inflationary side effects of tariffs, AOC co-introduced the No Gratuitous Overcharging Ubiquitous Global Exports (No GOUGE) Act. The bill seeks to prevent large, highly profitable corporations from using new tariffs as a deceptive "pretext" to artificially hike prices on working-class consumers far beyond the actual cost of the import penalty
That would have some fans here if the right person suggested it.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 8:29 am to wackatimesthree
quote:There are currently about 7.3 million Americans categorized as unemployed.
Then what does your source say?
About 37% of those are GenZ!
37%!
UER for recent college grads is ~6%!
Those numbers SUCK!
Out of the 101+ million assigned to the NPLF pool, about 55M are retirees who would probably not choose to re-enter the workspace. Another 10M have some sort of disability which might limit entry/re-entry. The remaining 35-40M could enter the market, and 6-7M of those are actively seeking employment now (on top of the 7.3M classified as actually unemployed).
Posted on 6/11/26 at 8:30 am to Flats
quote:
That would have some fans here if the right person suggested it.
Posted on 6/11/26 at 8:34 am to Flats
quote:
That would have some fans here if the right person suggested it.
Absolutely.
They've already accepted the rest of it, why not that? I have zero doubt you're right, and it might be more than you might even think. Populism always resolves left.
One thing I didn't include in that post (because I didn't want to make anyone's head explode...but since we're on the topic) is that AOC has also done a lot of criticizing of Trump's tariffs (they both are protectionists, but due to party loyalty they can't affirm Trump's protectionism) on the basis of how he applies them and changes them all the time.
Did you know that Trump has changed the tariffs more than 50 times?
Her allegation is that he is deliberately doing that to create volatility that investors can capitalize on.
Fortune
Trump is not the same guy he was the first time around. This IRS slush fund that included all those provisions to insulate him and his family from the IRS, for example. That's Biden-level corruption.
I wouldn't put it past him this time around.
Anyway, to confront the populists with the possibility that the tariffs are being used to enable Globalist Elites to profit from insider trading might be too much for them, so I held off.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News