You were the one who used an example of a guy with an 85 IQ and an 8th grade education, not me.
Of course, but it's a very deliberate policy choice to pit a U.S. worker in a U.S. plant with minimal safety and environmental rules against a plant in China that is allowed to dump waste untreated into the nearest waterway, and to use electricity fired by coal plants that cause the pollution you see in any picture of modern day China. That is our country setting the rules of the game.
Obviously, it's the job of companies to use the rules to their advantage. But there is no inherent requirement that we set the rules so U.S. manufacturing will lose. For 200 years, we had a policy of rigging the rules in favor of our citizens. Seems reasonable to me! Our job as a country isn't to maximize ROI for GE
That horse has left the barn, but at this point I'm for subsidies of U.S. manufacturing, tax breaks, and perhaps more. Not because I think that's how it should be done, but when we "compete" with subsidized production overseas, we either lose or match their subsidies - seems to me. I'd rather work it the other way with the tariffs we thought were normal for 200 years, but there seems little likelihood of that in this environment. Saying the word is almost heresy - brands one a kook.
But what I don't quite understand is we have a global economy that predictably caused decades of income stagnation for the vast majority of U.S. workers, and has GLOBALLY resulted in an incredible concentration of wealth in the hands of a very, very, very few. It's in the data and the causes are clear enough. But you're insulting the predictable losers of that rigged game by calling them "parasites" and then whining when those who were guaranteed to lose and DID, have the temerity to fight for some small measure of their losses to be restored.
