• 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!

Trump's tariffs have already cost Ford $1B; now it's planning layoffs

ThoughtEx. said:
I don't downplay it, I just don't give a **** about an employer that can't adapt to market changes and stay in business without paying below subsistence wages.

Fact of the matter is, if the Minimum Wage kept up with inflation, it'd be 26 bucks an hour. Value is being sucked out of our money, while prices go up, and wages go down. That is theft of wealth.

If it takes a few hacks to go out of business to fix it. Then so ****ing be it. It's capitalism, not socialism. I'm not propping up your yard business or your restaurant because you made poor business choices and can't afford to pay your employees what they are worth. And they are worth at least the amount it takes for them to survive. At least.

**** employers. I want McDonald's to either go out of business and automate. To much resources are wasted on trivial bull**** like fast food.

So no, I'm not downplaying it. I'm just not interested in convincing people to do the right thing by lying to them and saying the right thing won't ****ing hurt.

Quitting smoking hurts. It sucks. It's painful. But it's also better for you in the long run.

A higher minimum is the same.

And again **** employers. This is capitalism, sink or swim makes no difference to me. If their product is good, they will stay in business. If it is bad, they won't. Simple as that. I'm not standing for being robbed just because some ****s across the country can't run a business without paying sweatshop wages.

And neither should you.
Click to expand...


Not entirely disagreeing, however, it's disingenuous to decry the "disastrous" effects of tariffs, while espousing such ideals.
 
Kushinator said:
The 25% decline in profit margin has everything to do with tariffs!
Click to expand...

Tariffs are passed on to the consumer. They don't effect the profit margin. Unless a company is stupid enough not to pass the tariffs off to the consumer.
 
apdst said:
Tariffs are passed on to the consumer. They don't effect the profit margin. Unless a company is stupid enough not to pass the tariffs off to the consumer.
Click to expand...
Passing on the cost of the tariff to consumers raises prices -- taking money from consumers and making American products less competitive. I guess that makes America great.
 
MTAtech said:
Passing on the cost of the tariff to consumers raises prices -- taking money from consumers and making American products less competitive. I guess that makes America great.
Click to expand...

Right, but it's a lie to claim that tariffs come straight of the profit margin.

...making American products less competitive.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. If Ford has the stronger product, the effect of the price increase will be negligable.

American cars imported to and sold in China are probably the most expensive ones on the market, anyway. If the Chinese don't like the price increase, they should be bitching to the Chicom government about it. Sucks to live in a communist country, I guess.
 
Last edited:
KevinKohler said:
More word finagling. Would it help you if I walked that back? Fine. I misspoke when I said zero impact. I should have said minimal impact.
Click to expand...

Ok then. So what’s your problem with minimal impact? You personally think the impact is devastating?
 
apdst said:
Tariffs are passed on to the consumer. They don't effect the profit margin. Unless a company is stupid enough not to pass the tariffs off to the consumer.
Click to expand...

So it’s not a problem then
 
KevinKohler said:
More word finagling. Would it help you if I walked that back? Fine. I misspoke when I said zero impact. I should have said minimal impact.
Click to expand...

Much better, it is a big difference. It is not word finagling.

Just sayin'.

You took the high road in correcting your speak, why muck it up with your first sentence? (rhetorical)
 
Amelia said:
Too many business are hanging on by their fingertips.

Then Trump decided to step on their fingers.

Doesn't take a whole lot to make people fall when they're already dangling over the edge.
Click to expand...

Then all those tax cuts are not going to rich business owners. But then again businesses are hiring like made with a GDP of 4% and the lowest unemployment rate in decades. Now if all those businesses are hanging on by their fingertips why are they hiring and showing great earnings. Hell look at your 401K and tell the me the economy is not roaring. Maybe you don't have a 401K to look at, in that case you have no clue.
 
KevinKohler said:
You've missed my point. A major liberal talking point is that raising minimum wages won't negatively affect employers. But....tariffs all the sudden are wreaking havoc, despite the 2 things amounting to being the same, from an employers perspective...increased COB.

Curious, don't you think?
Click to expand...
I expect minimum wage increases to impact employers.

I just think they're necessary despite that.
 
apdst said:
Tariffs are passed on to the consumer. They don't effect the profit margin. Unless a company is stupid enough not to pass the tariffs off to the consumer.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance of pricing is on full display. If tariffs are passed onto the consumer, and the consumer will pay a higher price, then the total consumption of said good or service must decline unless unless it doesn't have substitutes.

Health care consumption is a good example of a perfectly inelastic good. Another is in the form of energy. However, even the required consumption of higher priced non-substitutables will spillover onto other industries, as the higher prices paid for gasoline or electricity are internalized by consuming less of something else.
 
Born Free said:
Then all those tax cuts are not going to rich business owners. But then again businesses are hiring like made with a GDP of 4% and the lowest unemployment rate in decades. Now if all those businesses are hanging on by their fingertips why are they hiring and showing great earnings. Hell look at your 401K and tell the me the economy is not roaring. Maybe you don't have a 401K to look at, in that case you have no clue.
Click to expand...
You are conflating annual GDP, which is not near 4%, with the last quarter's GDP of 4.2%. A quarterly number above 4% happened several times under Obama and is not a trend. Under Carter, there was a quarter with a GDP gain of 16%. Remember the Carter boom? Me neither.

fredgraph.png


Economists think that 2018's annual GDP will be below 3% -- very similar to what it has been over the last five years.

The stock market has roared because corporations are buying back their stock, instead of investing the tax-cuts in their businesses. Stocks are very expensive today above historical norms. In any case, most Americans don't benefit from stocks because they don't own any or many. What we do know is that inflation has eaten up most worker's tax-cuts and inflation adjusted wage gains are zero to negative.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Ok then. So what’s your problem with minimal impact? You personally think the impact is devastating?
Click to expand...

Lol, I'm done with you. Your memory is too short. We've discussed this already, hypocracy, remember?
 
MTAtech said:
You are conflating annual GDP, which is not near 4%, with the last quarter's GDP of 4.2%. A quarterly number above 4% happened several times under Obama and is not a trend. Under Carter, there was a quarter with a GDP gain of 16%. Remember the Carter boom? Me neither.

fredgraph.png


Economists think that 2018's annual GDP will be below 3% -- very similar to what it has been over the last five years.

The stock market has roared because corporations are buying back their stock, instead of investing the tax-cuts in their businesses. Stocks are very expensive today above historical norms. In any case, most Americans don't benefit from stocks because they don't own any or many. What we do know is that inflation has eaten up most worker's tax-cuts and inflation adjusted wage gains are zero to negative.
Click to expand...

Economist think, opinion, not fact.

Funny how you never addressed companies are roaring and hiring, look at the unemployment rate. Some companies are buying back some of their stock but not all, but all the companies are expanding their businesses creating jobs. Small businesses are not buying back their stock or LLC and your plain Mom and Pop companies. I guess they don't count in your assumption.

Are you saying most Americans don't have a 401K or some other investment in stocks. Post up some proof on that one. I guess your adding in all the new born babies and children below the age of 18 and all the ones that live off the government and refuse to work.
 
Last edited:
Kushinator said:
Your ignorance of pricing is on full display. If tariffs are passed onto the consumer, and the consumer will pay a higher price, then the total consumption of said good or service must decline unless unless it doesn't have substitutes.

Health care consumption is a good example of a perfectly inelastic good. Another is in the form of energy. However, even the required consumption of higher priced non-substitutables will spillover onto other industries, as the higher prices paid for gasoline or electricity are internalized by consuming less of something else.
Click to expand...

Do I understand you right, Countries that apply tariffs on our exports is a good thing?
 
Born Free said:
Economist think, opinion, not fact.

Funny how you never addressed companies are roaring and hiring, look at the unemployment rate. Some companies are buying back some of their stock but not all, but all the companies are expanding their businesses creating jobs. Small businesses are not buying back their stock or LLC and your plain Mom and Pop companies. I guess they don't count in your assumption.

Are you saying most Americans don't have a 401K or some other investment in stocks. Post up some proof on that one. I guess your adding in all the new born babies and children below the age of 18 and all the ones that live off the government and refuse to work.
Click to expand...

If that is what you believe then backup your statements with numbers. If "companies are roaring and hiring" why were there only 134,000 jobs added in September 2018 compared to 264,000 in September 2016? Why was 2017's job gains only 2,188,000 compared to 2015's 2,712,000 and 2016's 2,344,000? If companies are making so much money, why is the S&P 500's price/earning ratio an expensive 23?

On 401K plans:
According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, only 32% of Americans are saving for retirement in a 401(k)... and [e]ven those who have 401(k)s aren't funding their accounts adequately. The average American's 401(k) balance is $96,288, though that number varies by age group. While savers under 25 have an average of just over $4,000 saved, those aged 65 and older have an average balance of roughly $200,000. But that's not very much in the grand scheme of retirement, especially when you consider the fact that one in four 65-year-olds today will live past age 90.
 
MTAtech said:
If that is what you believe then backup your statements with numbers. If "companies are roaring and hiring" why were there only 134,000 jobs added in September 2018 compared to 264,000 in September 2016? Why was 2017's job gains only 2,188,000 compared to 2015's 2,712,000 and 2016's 2,344,000? If companies are making so much money, why is the S&P 500's price/earning ratio an expensive 23?

On 401K plans:
According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, only 32% of Americans are saving for retirement in a 401(k)... and [e]ven those who have 401(k)s aren't funding their accounts adequately. The average American's 401(k) balance is $96,288, though that number varies by age group. While savers under 25 have an average of just over $4,000 saved, those aged 65 and older have an average balance of roughly $200,000. But that's not very much in the grand scheme of retirement, especially when you consider the fact that one in four 65-year-olds today will live past age 90.
Click to expand...

I did look at the unemployment number, it's the lowest in decades. As for all Americans I assume you're counting babies and anyone under 18. Yeah who saves money when your 24 and younger. Furthing I was not using the 401 as any benchmark except it has gained value. But you go off on a rant about this and that.

And you never addressed that the only reason the stock market rose is because of stock buybacks. Prove it.
 
Born Free said:
Do I understand you right, Countries that apply tariffs on our exports is a good thing?
Click to expand...

How on earth could you take that from my statement?
 
Born Free said:
And you never addressed that the only reason the stock market rose is because of stock buybacks. Prove it.
Click to expand...

It can be shown that q2 2018 share buybacks ($437 billion) have nearly doubled the previous record ($242 billion).

Stock buyback announcements by US companies smashed records in the second quarter, feeding the debate over how boardrooms are spending their windfall from the Republican tax cuts President Donald Trump signed into law in December.

The almost $437bn in buyback plans announced in the three months to June 30 eclipsed the previous quarterly record of $242bn, which was set just three months earlier, according to TrimTabs, an investment research company.

“Corporate America’s actions suggest that most of the benefits of the corporate tax cut will flow to investors in general and top corporate executives in particular,” TrimTabs said. The research company noted that most senior executives have large stock-based compensation packages, which will benefit from using shareholders’ money to reduce the number of shares the company has in issue, boosting the price per share.

TrimTabs drew a contrast to the relatively small distributions of tax benefits to employees, estimating that the sum committed to buybacks last quarter “could fund 6.8m $1,000 bonus cheques to workers every single trading day”.
Click to expand...

source

:lol:
 
Kushinator said:
It can be shown that q2 2018 share buybacks ($437 billion) have nearly doubled the previous record ($242 billion).
Click to expand...

What does that prove?????? Nothing. I ask again, you never addressed that the only reason the stock market rose is because of stock buybacks. Prove it was the only reason stocks gained in value? I await!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
markjs said:
Trump and Ford have been squaring off since well before the 2016 election, when then-presidential candidate originally threatened to impose hefty tariffs on vehicles Ford intended to start importing from a factory in Mexico. The carmaker eventually scrubbed that plan, but rather than return production to the U.S. it decided to move it to China.
Click to expand...


So much winning...for China. I'm pretty sure more Canadians see China as the current economic superpower, Trump is definitely one of the reasons why.
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
You are conflating annual GDP, which is not near 4%, with the last quarter's GDP of 4.2%. A quarterly number above 4% happened several times under Obama and is not a trend. Under Carter, there was a quarter with a GDP gain of 16%. Remember the Carter boom? Me neither.

fredgraph.png


Economists think that 2018's annual GDP will be below 3% -- very similar to what it has been over the last five years.

The stock market has roared because corporations are buying back their stock, instead of investing the tax-cuts in their businesses. Stocks are very expensive today above historical norms. In any case, most Americans don't benefit from stocks because they don't own any or many. What we do know is that inflation has eaten up most worker's tax-cuts and inflation adjusted wage gains are zero to negative.
Click to expand...

Eh, share buybacks don't really have any impact on share prices. They actually cause P/E ratios to decline as the equity value declines in relation to Net Income (or EPS increases in relation to the per share price - same thing).

Stock markets are expensive because interest rates are low. When risk free rates decline, so do earnings yields (which means, arithmetically, that P/E ratios rise).
 
KevinKohler said:
You've missed my point. A major liberal talking point is that raising minimum wages won't negatively affect employers. But....tariffs all the sudden are wreaking havoc, despite the 2 things amounting to being the same, from an employers perspective...increased COB.

Curious, don't you think?
Click to expand...

If they aren't being paid minimum wage then raising said minimum wage shouldn't hurt them at all. In fact, it should help them with more people being able to afford their products.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom