• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Lester Holt and the Problem of Refereeing Donald Trump

justabubba said:
going to have to give Les a free pass on this

while on the clock in a very limited format, conveying to the audience the economic reality of comparative advantage being at work is best left for the pundits after the show

the moderator tried to get tRump to explain how he would rescue the jobs that were stolen from us by mexico and china

either the wharton trained tRump does not know or does not choose to admit that the low labor costs motivated the businesses to relocate much as northern US manufacturing moved south after the advent of air conditioning made it a viable and more profitable option than remaining in a high wage rate locale
Click to expand...

Exactly. If somebody moves to Mexico to get dollar an hour labor while they have to pay ten to twenty times that here - they are not coming back no matter how much you deregulate them. I sure wish Clinton had said that when he refused to answer and face that reality.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
People are tired of moderators inserting their opinion of what is and what is not proven fact.
Click to expand...
No, only those who are bothered by the truth and try to run away from it are bothered by it.

They should have questions that will allow the candidates to express themselves fully to the American people and let the people and pundits decide later what is fact and what is fiction.
Click to expand...
Really? When was the last time you saw any or either side, their dies hard followers and or pundits admit to lies?
 
haymarket said:
Exactly. If somebody moves to Mexico to get dollar an hour labor while they have to pay ten to twenty times that here - they are not coming back no matter how much you deregulate them. I sure wish Clinton had said that when he refused to answer and face that reality.
Click to expand...

According to the Center for Automotive research, the average pay of a Mexican Auto worker is $8/hr.

Ford to build factory in Mexico, moving small-car production from U.S. - LA Times

The biggest issue is the Federal Mandate for fuel economy that only small cars can deliver. When a company must sell small cars so they don't get crushed by missing the mandated CAFE targets, some method to control costs must be applied.

Unless something can be done to approach the 50+ mpg standard differently, automakers will have little choice but to move jobs out of the US to countries where labor costs and other regulatory issues don't add such a high monetary burden.
 
ocean515 said:
According to the Center for Automotive research, the average pay of a Mexican Auto worker is $8/hr.

Ford to build factory in Mexico, moving small-car production from U.S. - LA Times

The biggest issue is the Federal Mandate for fuel economy that only small cars can deliver. When a company must sell small cars so they don't get crushed by missing the mandated CAFE targets, some method to control costs must be applied.

Unless something can be done to approach the 50+ mpg standard differently, automakers will have little choice but to move jobs out of the US to countries where labor costs and other regulatory issues don't add such a high monetary burden.
Click to expand...

a quick search reveals this

One in seven Mexican workers earn the average minimum wage of 65.58 pesos ($5.10) a day or less, national statistics office INEGI says. The average hourly wage in Mexico - home to Carlos Slim, one of the world's richest men - is 31.3 pesos ($2.43).Jun 2, 2014
Click to expand...

Nothing Trump can do is going to erase that wage advantage for Mexico and he damn well knows it which is why he would not give an honest answer to the question.
 
haymarket said:
a quick search reveals this



Nothing Trump can do is going to erase that wage advantage for Mexico and he damn well knows it which is why he would not give an honest answer to the question.
Click to expand...

I thought the issue was automobile assembly plants moving to Mexico. I'm not sure what your post regarding wages has to do with that.

It will be difficult to overcome the wage advantage in third world peasant based economies like Mexico. Addressing the reason they are needed, and how to overcome that need, is a challenge for anyone to describe.

In Hillary's case, the question wouldn't be asked, because as a globalist, she doesn't care much about the impact on workers and families who live in the US.
 
haymarket said:
a quick search reveals this



Nothing Trump can do is going to erase that wage advantage for Mexico and he damn well knows it which is why he would not give an honest answer to the question.
Click to expand...

Not really true. First, there is a cost on top of labor in having a factory across the border or overseas. Second, Trump has talked about changing trade deals or using taxes or tariffs to eliminate the wage differential.
 
Moderate Right said:
Not really true. First, there is a cost on top of labor in having a factory across the border or overseas. Second, Trump has talked about changing trade deals or using taxes or tariffs to eliminate the wage differential.
Click to expand...

So tell me in specifics how one makes up a wage differential of ten times- sometimes much more in skilled trades - between Mexico and factories in the USA.
 
haymarket said:
So tell me in specifics how one makes up a wage differential of ten times- sometimes much more in skilled trades - between Mexico and factories in the USA.
Click to expand...

I already told you, and the difference is not ten times. First, companies having factories across the border are out more than just labor costs. It costs them millions and millions of dollars to relocate, build factories, etc. Of course they hope to recoup that money and more with the cheaper labor. Trump is for changing these free trade deals and impose taxes and tariffs to make the bite hard enough so that companies will not want to move jobs out of the country.
 
Simpleχity;1066346364 said:
Lester Holt and the Problem of Refereeing Donald Trump

Indeed. How does one moderate the habitual liar Trump without ruining the debate ?
Click to expand...

His job isnt to moderate content, but time. All the moderator should be doing is announcing the topic and then giving equal time to the candidates. The person whos turn it isnt, should have their mic turned off.
 
haymarket said:
Exactly. If somebody moves to Mexico to get dollar an hour labor while they have to pay ten to twenty times that here - they are not coming back no matter how much you deregulate them. I sure wish Clinton had said that when he refused to answer and face that reality.
Click to expand...

True, the hypothetical situation you pose clearly indicates a struggle to make a business case where it makes sense to keep businesses (and jobs) here in the US.

Now. To fix this business exodus, doesn't it make sense to alter the situation to make it a compelling business case to keep businesses and jobs here in the US? To better the US economic, business, and individual situations? Rather than ignoring this situation?
 
ocean515 said:
According to the Center for Automotive research, the average pay of a Mexican Auto worker is $8/hr.

Ford to build factory in Mexico, moving small-car production from U.S. - LA Times

The biggest issue is the Federal Mandate for fuel economy that only small cars can deliver. When a company must sell small cars so they don't get crushed by missing the mandated CAFE targets, some method to control costs must be applied.

Unless something can be done to approach the 50+ mpg standard differently, automakers will have little choice but to move jobs out of the US to countries where labor costs and other regulatory issues don't add such a high monetary burden.
Click to expand...

Hmm. It's as if excessive government regulations, ideologically driven ones such as the hiked CAFE demands, are actively pushing US jobs out of the US.
 
haymarket said:
So tell me in specifics how one makes up a wage differential of ten times- sometimes much more in skilled trades - between Mexico and factories in the USA.
Click to expand...

Art of the deal perhaps?
 
Moderate Right said:
I already told you, and the difference is not ten times. First, companies having factories across the border are out more than just labor costs. It costs them millions and millions of dollars to relocate, build factories, etc. Of course they hope to recoup that money and more with the cheaper labor. Trump is for changing these free trade deals and impose taxes and tariffs to make the bite hard enough so that companies will not want to move jobs out of the country.
Click to expand...

I provided you with the average daily wage of many and an hourly wage of $2.43 cents. Lots of skilled and union workers make ten times that in the USA.

Those relocation costs are a one time deal and can be made up quickly when your wages and benefit package are 10% of what you were paying before you moved.

I see no firm proposal from Trump - just his usual vague generalities.

Having said that - I would enthusiastically support a law which laid an import tax on such companies bringing their products back here for sale. I am all for that.
 
eohrnberger said:
True, the hypothetical situation you pose clearly indicates a struggle to make a business case where it makes sense to keep businesses (and jobs) here in the US.

Now. To fix this business exodus, doesn't it make sense to alter the situation to make it a compelling business case to keep businesses and jobs here in the US? To better the US economic, business, and individual situations? Rather than ignoring this situation?
Click to expand...

Before we give away the store to the big corporations and collectively get on our knees in front of them hoping they will only pat us on the head - can you tell me why American businesses in the Fifties and Sixties did not relocate like they do now when they paid a much higher percentage of over all taxes to the government and profit margins were far less?
 
haymarket said:
Before we give away the store to the big corporations and collectively get on our knees in front of them hoping they will only pat us on the head - can you tell me why American businesses in the Fifties and Sixties did not relocate like they do now when they paid a much higher percentage of over all taxes to the government and profit margins were far less?
Click to expand...

No trade deals?
Insufficient transportation infrastructure to ship the goods those longer distances?
Greater transportation costs rendered it as an non-viable business option?
Globalization hadn't taken hold yet?
The companies doing business back then hadn't adopted transnational culture yet?
The business conditions then and now are vastly different?

Could be any number of reasons.
 
haymarket said:
Which involves what specifically?
Click to expand...

Getting more of what you need and want from your bargaining partner, towhit:

  1. Think big
  2. Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself
  3. Maximize your options
  4. Know your market
  5. Use your leverage
  6. Enhance your location
  7. Get the word out
  8. Fight back
  9. Deliver the goods
  10. Contain the costs
  11. Have fun [SUP][9][/SUP]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump:_The_Art_of_the_Deal
Click to expand...

Seems a rather simple outline, but yet you can just see where in some of the previous trade deals the US negotiators skipped some steps here.
 
eohrnberger said:
No trade deals?
Insufficient transportation infrastructure to ship the goods those longer distances?
Greater transportation costs rendered it as an non-viable business option?
Globalization hadn't taken hold yet?
The companies doing business back then hadn't adopted transnational culture yet?
The business conditions then and now are vastly different?

Could be any number of reasons.
Click to expand...

I think you missed one: good old fashioned American patriotism. Once our companies and their leaders prided themselves on their red white and blue blood that flowed through their veins. Now - you have scumbags like Trump making deals with Russia and urging them to do traitorous things with our election and security.
 
haymarket said:
I think you missed one: good old fashioned American patriotism. Once our companies and their leaders prided themselves on their red white and blue blood that flowed through their veins.
Click to expand...

I have a feel that it's a lot thinner than you would like to think. Especially after 60's. During the war years, yeah, but not soon thereafter.

haymarket said:
Now - you have scumbags like Trump making deals with Russia and urging them to do traitorous things with our election and security.
Click to expand...

None of the above has any founding in fact, unless you can produce some.
 
haymarket said:
I provided you with the average daily wage of many and an hourly wage of $2.43 cents. Lots of skilled and union workers make ten times that in the USA.

Those relocation costs are a one time deal and can be made up quickly when your wages and benefit package are 10% of what you were paying before you moved.

I see no firm proposal from Trump - just his usual vague generalities.

Having said that - I would enthusiastically support a law which laid an import tax on such companies bringing their products back here for sale. I am all for that.
Click to expand...

While what you say is true there are many other costs than labor involved in manufacturing outside the country. There are also other benefits to moving offshore. Things such as health care, taxes on the value added, opening large markets overseas etc. It is fun on sites such as this to look at the decision to move or not on a soundbite for one side or the other. The country would be better off if politicians worked on the answers instead of keeping the issue alive for the next election cycle.

For example let's take healthcare. Why do we put the burden on employers, disadvantaging them versus their competitors in the rest of the world. ACA was passed and we still have this problem, why? Could it be because one party does not really want what they proclaim they want? Does the public, most of whom are now covered by their companies really want to be in a Medicare type situation? Are politicians willing to risk it?
 
Moderate Right said:
Not really true. First, there is a cost on top of labor in having a factory across the border or overseas. Second, Trump has talked about changing trade deals or using taxes or tariffs to eliminate the wage differential.
Click to expand...


There.

There is how Trump misleads. You cannot add additional taxes nor tariffs to goods under treaty, which most everything is in North America with NAFTA and the US-Canada Auto Trade Pact. So he's proposing an either or, where by now he knows there is only ONE unilateral option, tear up NAFTA. And we all know no one is going to do that.

If he's suggesting to re-negotiate NAFTA, as Hilary has been saying, go ahead as some years have passed, economies have changed...then, when NAFTA was signed the US represented 80% of Canada's trade. Today it is less than 50%. So, let's talk.
 
eohrnberger said:
I have a feel that it's a lot thinner than you would like to think. Especially after 60's. During the war years, yeah, but not soon thereafter.



None of the above has any founding in fact, unless you can produce some.
Click to expand...

Get back to me when we see his tax returns and we can see the Russian ties in black and white.

As to proof -

Trump urges Russia to hack Clinton's email - POLITICO

Trump urged Russia to hack Clintons emails knowing that there was a security question about what was in them... and such revelations to Russia could have damaged our national security. Inviting Russia to do this was just plain un-American.

Trumps international business ties - of which Russia is part - were examined and the threat about them explained well

How the Trump Organization's Foreign Business Ties Could Upend U.S. National Security

You want proof - there it is.
 
washunut said:
While what you say is true there are many other costs than labor involved in manufacturing outside the country. There are also other benefits to moving offshore. Things such as health care, taxes on the value added, opening large markets overseas etc. It is fun on sites such as this to look at the decision to move or not on a soundbite for one side or the other. The country would be better off if politicians worked on the answers instead of keeping the issue alive for the next election cycle.

For example let's take healthcare. Why do we put the burden on employers, disadvantaging them versus their competitors in the rest of the world. ACA was passed and we still have this problem, why? Could it be because one party does not really want what they proclaim they want? Does the public, most of whom are now covered by their companies really want to be in a Medicare type situation? Are politicians willing to risk it?
Click to expand...

It used to be that one state would whipsaw their employees to take less by comparing them to other states where they were not treated as well. Are you really advocating that we now repeat this mistake by comparing the US to other nations and going for the lowest common denominator in terms of benefits and other financial things?

As to Medicare for all - who knows? Obama had a 60 vote Senate and control of the House and he blew that chance with a watered down bill that had some of its origins in conservative think tanks.
 
Fearandloathing said:
There.

There is how Trump misleads. You cannot add additional taxes nor tariffs to goods under treaty, which most everything is in North America with NAFTA and the US-Canada Auto Trade Pact. So he's proposing an either or, where by now he knows there is only ONE unilateral option, tear up NAFTA. And we all know no one is going to do that.

If he's suggesting to re-negotiate NAFTA, as Hilary has been saying, go ahead as some years have passed, economies have changed...then, when NAFTA was signed the US represented 80% of Canada's trade. Today it is less than 50%. So, let's talk.
Click to expand...

So you are saying the VAT that Mexico and I think canada apply is illegal???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom