• 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!

The handwriting on the wall

Jobs left because of free trade with low wage, low regulation third world countries

If we had tariffs to equalize labor costs we cpuld still make things here and America would be a better place to live

This is nonsense, jobs leave because companies are priced out of the market by government regulations. Wages are lower in countries c d and e because they are less productive than the United States, wouldn't it seem more plausible to have labor be more productive? The only things tarifs will do is increase the prices of goods coming in, impede the market phenomena and hinder capital inflow which we currently have a SURPLUS of.
 
I keep repeating in this forum (so fixated on jobs, jobs, jobs) that the key to building jobs, jobs, jobs is the challenge of moving our workforce up-market. Which is necessary because un- and semi-skilled jobs cost companies far less in, say, Mexico or the Philippines.

For that to happen, however, we must have a Tertiary Education system that is far less costly. Only one out of every two American kids who graduate with a high-school degree go on to obtain a post-graduate degree. Whyzzat?

Because it is too damn expensive! See this info-graphic here.

Also, consider this poignant interview with the CEO of Carrier Systems (Greg Hayes) by newsman Jim Cramer, excerpt (from here):


Need I say more, or are we all going to lament the fact that jobs, jobs, jobs are not going to happen at the level that they did in the past. We must push both our kids and those already in the workforce "up-market" for them to have a decent job for a decent family-life

The handwriting is on the wall. "Get a postsecondary degree, either vocational or college or university!" Which is the idea that Hillary had - borrowed from Bernie - to offer a post-secondary education subsidized by the government to all families earning less than $100K a year (whilst our average individual income is $54K per year).

Wow, what a Great Idea! And yes, we, the sheeple, just shot down that Great Idea with consummate stoopidity ...

It's because of government subsidies that the prices of college are too high, which then makes students borrow more money which puts them into a mortgage out of college with no house that they must pay off. It is also the subsidies that incentivize kids to get college degrees in fields that the market doesn't search for college degrees. College is completely over blown, Rockefeller was a high school drop out, Carnegie didn't go to college, Jobs was a college drop out... the list goes on and on and on. These men are responsible for initiating more capital into the economy than ever before, have increased the standards of living to levels never dreamt of, and have employed more people than 99% of the world.

The problem is we are diverting capital that could be producing entrepeneurship and advancements in production to colleges for degrees in things like ethnic and women studies. Granted, college degrees are useful for spcertain fields and certain sectors but asking government to divert capital into academia when academia is not calling for it on the market can only make your qualms worse.
 
Jobs left because of free trade with low wage, low regulation third world countries. If we had tariffs to equalize labor costs we cpuld still make things here and America would be a better place to live

Not so. Been there, done that. A long, long time ago. Ever read the history of the US in the 20th century? (Nope!)

If we had tariffs to equalize labor costs we cpuld still make things here and America would be a better place to live[/QUOTE]

You want to start a tariff war? Go for it!

We raise tariffs, they raise tariffs - then we raise them further, and they raise them further. Then we have stagnation of foreign trade and everybody loses. (Btw, we did that once before and it helped bring on WW2 ....)
 
If you do not understand that automation will eventually decimate the entire social structure you are walking through life with a bag on your head.

Oh, come off it. Too much drama in this forum!

Just go back to school and get the qualifications that you need to find a job. You grew up thinking life was easy.

Well, we aint on "Easy Street" any more. As always, the world changes and we are obliged to change with it.

(Oh, dammit, I forgot. The Dork is going to change all that! Please excuse me, I hadn't realized that we just elected a magician ... !)
 
This is nonsense, jobs leave because companies are priced out of the market by government regulations.

You are right about the regulations! But, product-safety regulations are often necessary to save lives. Of course, that's of little concern to you - isn't it? It's all aboud da muney, isn't it?

Wages are lower in countries c d and e because they are less productive than the United States, wouldn't it seem more plausible to have labor be more productive? The only things tarifs will do is increase the prices of goods coming in, impede the market phenomena and hinder capital inflow which we currently have a SURPLUS of.

What's most important, given the type of production, is that they BE less costly. Productivity has little to do with it. Tiny, nimble fingers in China are "productive" because they cost less to slap-together smartphones. But, invent a machine that does (the "slapping together") for a tenth of their hideously low salaries, and the Chinese manufacturers will buy your product! (Btw, Chinese engineers are already working on said automated machinery.)

So, at present, because you have a lower standard-of-living then, ipso facto, you have lower production-costs, labor-costs being a key ingredient. Europe teaches the lesson that at first this helps, but as the standard of living increases (as it did after the total destruction of WW2) as a factor this reverses itself. It makes countries less competitive. The US and EU are prime examples.

In the EU, the French workers are up-in-arms that Polish workers can legally work in France for half their salaries - typically on construction-sites.

My point: There is nothing we can do about the phenomenon of lower labor-production costs than bear with it:
*There is not that much automation in the construction industry. (Except in preparing batch-concrete in a timely manner. Concrete goes hard if you don't use it right away.)
*Where there is automation, American industries are employing the newest technologies. In this manner, they are going to take back a lot of nimble-finger jobs that fled to the Far East. (Let us hope, there is no reason American industry cannot achieve that goal - if we have educated people who know how to develop and run such automated production lines.)
*Thus, as I am ever fond of repeating in this forum, American jobs are going up-market since we are heavily a Services Oriented economy. (Nearly 80% of GDP is accounted for by services-industries of one form or another. See the breakdown here.)
*An economy of Services-industries requires a higher level of skills/competencies (aka "intelligence") than in the past.

And, as I am fond of repeating at present (since it just happened) - we, as a nation, have just stoopidly shot ourselves in the foot by failing to install Hillary as PotUS who would have implemented a program to assure Tertiary Education free-for-all-comers ...
 
If you do not understand that automation will eventually decimate the entire social structure you are walking through life with a bag on your head.

"Eventually" is not now

You and other dreamers walk around as "someday" is already here and it isn't
 

Yup...really. Like I said - and as my first link showed - unless the position you are looking for SPECIFICALLY requires a degree in that field...a college degree is usually a waste of money, imo.
My point was that unless you know EXACTLY what you want AND it requires a degree - university is a lousy and ridiculously expensive way to 'find yourself' or 'kill time'.


Interesting how you apparently ignored my last link:

Countries Compared by Education > Average years of schooling of adults. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

No country has more average formal education than America and yet America has no where near the lowest unemployment rate.
 
Last edited:
This is nonsense, jobs leave because companies are priced out of the market by government regulations.

Wages are lower in countries c d and e because they are less productive than the United States, wouldn't it seem more plausible to have labor be more productive? The only things tarifs will do is increase the prices of goods coming in, impede the market phenomena and hinder capital inflow which we currently have a SURPLUS of.

That too

Why approach the issue as a choice between one absolute or another?

Oppressive regulations are also a motivator
 
Not so. Been there, done that. A long, long time ago. Ever read the history of the US in the 20th century? (Nope!)

If we had tariffs to equalize labor costs we cpuld still make things here and America would be a better place to live

You want to start a tariff war? Go for it!

We raise tariffs, they raise tariffs - then we raise them further, and they raise them further. Then we have stagnation of foreign trade and everybody loses. (Btw, we did that once before and it helped bring on WW2 ....)

The US has trade deficit with every country that we would put tariffs on

They would lose a trade war with America
 
The bundling is necessary to compare apples with apples, I imagine.

There is, of course, no bundling in Europe, since loans are simply not necessary; and the purpose of the info-graphic is to show total comparative educational costs ...

Having tought statistics for a while, I know what bundling is for. That is why I pointed out the oddity.
 
Yup...really. Like I said - and as my first link showed - unless the position you are looking for SPECIFICALLY requires a degree in that field...a college degree is usually a waste of money, imo.
My point was that unless you know EXACTLY what you want AND it requires a degree - university is a lousy and ridiculously expensive way to 'find yourself' or 'kill time'.

"Knowing what you want" has little to do with education just out of high-school. Most haven't the foggiest notion at the outset of a tertiary education. A student can change principal subjects any number of times before finding what s/he likes to do. That is not the point!

The objective is a process of: (1) finding oneself, (2) obtaining the degree, then (3) doing what is necessary to get traction in the job-market. And also repeating the process if necessary and possible.

Countries Compared by Education > Average years of schooling of adults. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

No country has more average formal education than America and yet America has no where near the lowest unemployment rate.

You are chosing the wrong stats. Those that carry the message is this one from the OECD, which shows that, in fact, America is stagnating from insufficient education, which, though not shown, is due to its high cost that dissuades students from pursuing a profession:
Education - Tertiary graduation rates.jpg

And you think that is supposed to mean that an education is not worth the money and effort involved? What planet do you live on?

The above OECD info-graphic means, rather, that the high-cost of education is debillitating our population professionally, and the result will mean economic stagnation. That process has already begun as seen here by the number of people who refuse to understand that they need enhanced skills/competencies to pursue a successful career.

The original attachment* proved just the opposite. The higher the level of degree, the more you earn because of the knowledge you bring to the job! For the lowest on that ladder, higher degrees of proficiency mean effectively reducing their number as they progress up the ladder.

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

*Education - Earnings and Unemployment Rates by Educational Attainment (2015).jpg
 
"Knowing what you want" has little to do with education just out of high-school. Most haven't the foggiest notion at the outset of a tertiary education. A student can change principal subjects any number of times before finding what s/he likes to do. That is not the point!

The objective is a process of: (1) finding oneself, (2) obtaining the degree, then (3) doing what is necessary to get traction in the job-market. And also repeating the process if necessary and possible.
Ask any headhunter. Outside of jobs that specifically require a certain college degree (doctors, nurses, etc.). Having one means little to people hiring for most jobs.

Just Google and you will see for yourself.



You are choosing the wrong stats.

Why do you refuse to deal with the link?

Americans have MORE formal schooling than ANYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD (as of 2000). Yet they have far from the lowest unemployment rate in the world. That is proof that having a degree means diddly unless the job specifically requires one.
 
As opposed to free trade where only Americans lose

Bollocks! We have exactly the same problem, and even worse, in Europe. Which doesn't make you right in insisting that American jobs need "protecting". In fact, when I hire a Pole to redo my bathroom in France, I pay him a lower Polish salary. (Which pisses off mightily the French unions, because it is perfectly legal! The Pole pays his taxes on it since it is declared as income.)

But his money goes to Poland, and his family there perhaps buys a French car. So, it comes back. And that return of money is an example of what makes the world go round.

What in heaven's name makes you think that only America is getting screwed by trade tariffs? Never been abroad beyond the three-mile limit?

Moreover, consider these two examples of trade:
*A trade-tariff on, say, tractors prevent American tractors from being built in Europe and coming back to the US as imports!!! Because the tariff is imposed on those parts that originated in the US, which is often about half the total value of such machinery.
*GE builds its jet engines at a French company here called Snecma. Those engines are for Europe, the same damn models, and are not resold in the US. Because there is no way they can be competitively priced to sell stateside! Snecma can produce the same jet engine with about 90% of the parts made in Europe, and with just 10% (total value) of parts from the US. Because the US has some very good airborne-radar systems.

The GE-example is mutually beneficial to both countries and has endured since 1974 ...
 
Last edited:
Bollocks! We have exactly the same problem, and even worse, in Europe.

Which doesn't make you right in insisting that American jobs need "protecting". In fact, when I hire a Pole to redo my bathroom in France, I pay him a lower Polish salary. (Which pisses off mightily the French unions, because it is perfectly legal! The Pole pays his taxes on it since it is declared as income.)

But that money goes back to Poland, and his family there perhaps buys a French car. And that return of money is an example of what makes the world go round.

What in heaven's name makes you think that only America is getting screwed by trade tariffs? Never been abroad beyond the three-mile limit?

Moreover, consider these two examples of trade:
*A trade-tariff on, say, tractors prevent American tractors from being built in Europe and coming back to the US as imports!!! Because the tariff is imposed on those parts that originated in the US, which is often about half the total value of such machinery.
*GE builds its jet engines at a French company here called Snecma. Those engines are for Europe, the same damn models, and are not resold in the US. Because there is no way they can be competitively priced to sell stateside! Snecma can produce the same jet engine with about 90% of the parts made in Europe, and with just 10% (total value) of parts from the US. Because the US has some very good airborne-radar systems.

The GE-example is mutually beneficial to both countries and has endured since 1974 ...

I am only interested in America

But since you mention Europe I do not foresee a trade war with them because wages, worker conditions and government regulations are comparable to here

I want trade that benefits and maintains American standards of income not trade deals that draw our people down to the poverty of an Untouchable in India or a mexican
 
That too

Why approach the issue as a choice between one absolute or another?

Oppressive regulations are also a motivator

Because the "race to the bottom" the left suggests is wrong. If the countries are less productive there is no reason why companies would move there unless they are forced. It is extremely risky to open up a shop in a new country.

However, the fact that companies have productivity is now beginning to rise in these countries and when that happens globalization will happen even more and then you might see companies applying the race to the bottom approach. However, until this occurs we can only blame the regulations for not only causing companies to leave but also for increasing the productivity in the other countries and giving the companies a reason to outsource.

Again none of this is a reason to fear because we are still running a surplus of capital inflow
 
You are right about the regulations! But, product-safety regulations are often necessary to save lives. Of course, that's of little concern to you - isn't it? It's all aboud da muney, isn't it?



What's most important, given the type of production, is that they BE less costly. Productivity has little to do with it. Tiny, nimble fingers in China are "productive" because they cost less to slap-together smartphones. But, invent a machine that does (the "slapping together") for a tenth of their hideously low salaries, and the Chinese manufacturers will buy your product! (Btw, Chinese engineers are already working on said automated machinery.)

So, at present, because you have a lower standard-of-living then, ipso facto, you have lower production-costs, labor-costs being a key ingredient. Europe teaches the lesson that at first this helps, but as the standard of living increases (as it did after the total destruction of WW2) as a factor this reverses itself. It makes countries less competitive. The US and EU are prime examples.

In the EU, the French workers are up-in-arms that Polish workers can legally work in France for half their salaries - typically on construction-sites.

My point: There is nothing we can do about the phenomenon of lower labor-production costs than bear with it:
*There is not that much automation in the construction industry. (Except in preparing batch-concrete in a timely manner. Concrete goes hard if you don't use it right away.)
*Where there is automation, American industries are employing the newest technologies. In this manner, they are going to take back a lot of nimble-finger jobs that fled to the Far East. (Let us hope, there is no reason American industry cannot achieve that goal - if we have educated people who know how to develop and run such automated production lines.)
*Thus, as I am ever fond of repeating in this forum, American jobs are going up-market since we are heavily a Services Oriented economy. (Nearly 80% of GDP is accounted for by services-industries of one form or another. See the breakdown here.)
*An economy of Services-industries requires a higher level of skills/competencies (aka "intelligence") than in the past.

And, as I am fond of repeating at present (since it just happened) - we, as a nation, have just stoopidly shot ourselves in the foot by failing to install Hillary as PotUS who would have implemented a program to assure Tertiary Education free-for-all-comers ...


Productivity is what raises wages of laborers. Their productivity is what pushes the wage up on the market level. The goal of a company is not to be "less costly" but it's to be as pruductive as possible at the least cost.

People that do not understand the nature of Economic inquiry of course will be mad at the polish immigrants or the Chinese workers, rather they should be mad at government for pricing them out of the market. When Chinese factories introduce more capital into their plant, the machines you discuss, the only thing that will happen is laborers will become more productive. When the Chinese laborers become more productive, guess what? Their wages will rise. When the Chinese laborers who have become more productive and their wages rise, the US plants will not leave because of that. The US plants will say alright we can hire less people and produce more goods...

Service industries aren't rising because people are becoming more intelligent and achieving more skills. Service industries are rising because production industries are being priced out of the market by government.
 
Y
Because the "race to the bottom" the left suggests is wrong. If the countries are less productive there is no reason why companies would move there unless they are forced. It is extremely risky to open up a shop in a new country.

However, the fact that companies have productivity is now beginning to rise in these countries and when that happens globalization will happen even more and then you might see companies applying the race to the bottom approach. However, until this occurs we can only blame the regulations for not only causing companies to leave but also for increasing the productivity in the other countries and giving the companies a reason to outsource.

Again none of this is a reason to fear because we are still running a surplus of capital inflow

For the sale of argument lets say there are about 1 billion people in the wealthy countries and 5 billion in poor countries.

Some of them really poor countries.

Under those conditions free trade and globalization demands a race to the bottom for the workers in the wealthy countries.

Compassionate "do-gooders" on the left and the right believe that its not fair, not right that a few should live so well while so many are so poor.

But free trade does very little to raise the living standard of poor people who are often paid pennies a day to replace the workers on wealthy countries.

It drags the few who have achieved economic success down without doing very much if anything to raise up the poor
 
Last edited:
Productivity is what raises wages of laborers. Their productivity is what pushes the wage up on the market level. The goal of a company is not to be "less costly" but it's to be as pruductive as possible at the least cost.

True enough, but productivity is not the only factor - and not even necessarily the key-factor. It depends. Inflation can boost salaries, and quite simply the fact - as exists in the US some places - higher Minimum Wages that allow (finally) workers a decent standard-of-living.

Service industries aren't rising because people are becoming more intelligent and achieving more skills. Service industries are rising because production industries are being priced out of the market by government.

Services Industries have risen considerably, and will do even more so as lo-cost manufacturing moves offshore.

You seem to forget that the reason jobs are lost is because domestic consumers like the cheaper products produced abroad. So, what remains in the US (in terms of production) is the higher-but-better quality products produced here with less manpower and more automation.

That is one reason the Manufacturing sector has diminished so rapidly, though I would not count Manufacturing in the US as completely "down-and-out". Services increased so quickly as well to fill the gap.

However, for services industries, the level of skills/competencies is rather different from those on the shop-floor. And they are kind we learn in school. Which is why Hillary's defeat was disastrous - because her plan to subsidize Tertiary Education is now dead in the water.

Only one out two American students are earning a Post-secondary Degree; that is, obtaining the skills/competencies necessary for a job in New America.

Which means also that the other half can go take a long walk off a short pier ...
 
Y

For the sale of argument lets say there are about 1 billion people in the wealthy countries and 5 billion in poor countries.

Some of them really poor countries.

Under those conditions free trade and globalization demands a race to the bottom for the workers in the wealthy countries.

Compassionate "do-gooders" on the left and the right believe that its not fair, not right that a few should live so well while so many are so poor.

But free trade does very little to raise the living standard of poor people who are often paid pennies a day to replace the workers on wealthy countries.

It drags the few who have achieved economic success down without doing very much if anything to raise up the poor

If the wealthy people who want to take 'advantage' a la race to the bottom they will invest capital into the countries that have poor labor forces, and when the wealthy invest the capital what occurs is the capital allocation increases the productivity of the country as an aggregate, and therefor raises the real wages of all of labor.

What occurs when we make this seeming analysis of look at say companies in Nicaragua, what we are doing is we are basing the analysis on our current living standards. These countries have never industrialized, and what is going on when companies outsource to these countries is if industrialized the countries, increases the productivity of the workers, increases their real wealth and increases our real wealth as Americans because we can buy goods cheaper.

If we got rid of the regulations squeezing the companies out of the United States people would be even more wealthier than we are now and we would see even more capital investments into places like Nicaragua but the companies would be Nicaraguan companies and it would ease the people of Nicaragua because they will not perceive the companies as colonialism.
 
True enough, but productivity is not the only factor - and not even necessarily the key-factor. It depends. Inflation can boost salaries, and quite simply the fact - as exists in the US some places - higher Minimum Wages that allow (finally) workers a decent standard-of-living.



Services Industries have risen considerably, and will do even more so as lo-cost manufacturing moves offshore.

You seem to forget that the reason jobs are lost is because domestic consumers like the cheaper products produced abroad. So, what remains in the US (in terms of production) is the higher-but-better quality products produced here with less manpower and more automation.

That is one reason the Manufacturing sector has diminished so rapidly, though I would not count Manufacturing in the US as completely "down-and-out". Services increased so quickly as well to fill the gap.

However, for services industries, the level of skills/competencies is rather different from those on the shop-floor. And they are kind we learn in school. Which is why Hillary's defeat was disastrous - because her plan to subsidize Tertiary Education is now dead in the water.

Only one out two American students are earning a Post-secondary Degree; that is, obtaining the skills/competencies necessary for a job in New America.

Which means also that the other half can go take a long walk off a short pier ...

A college degree is not the end all be all degree, it does not reflect intelligence does not reflect skill. Companies look at education and degrees because it's a way to socialize training, when it would be much more productive if the companies trained them themselves. That is far too costly.

Min wage doesn't increase Real wages it only increases nominal wages. The only way to increase real wages is to appreciate the currency in respect to the consumer and producer goods that currency can buy. The way to do this is to deflate the money supply or produce more goods and expand production. When production expands then goods become cheaper.
 
.
If the wealthy people who want to take 'advantage' a la race to the bottom they will invest capital into the countries that have poor labor forces, and when the wealthy invest the capital what occurs is the capital allocation increases the productivity of the country as an aggregate, and therefor raises the real wages of all of labor.

What occurs when we make this seeming analysis of look at say companies in Nicaragua, what we are doing is we are basing the analysis on our current living standards. These countries have never industrialized, and what is going on when companies outsource to these countries is if industrialized the countries, increases the productivity of the workers, increases their real wealth and increases our real wealth as Americans because we can buy goods cheaper.

If we got rid of the regulations squeezing the companies out of the United States people would be even more wealthier than we are now and we would see even more capital investments into places like Nicaragua but the companies would be Nicaraguan companies and it would ease the people of Nicaragua because they will not perceive the companies as colonialism.

Yes goods made in nicaragua are cheaper than if they are made here

But when our citizens have no jobs they will soon be as poor as the nicaraguans who replaced them
 
.


Yes goods made in nicaragua are cheaper than if they are made here

But when our citizens have no jobs they will soon be as poor as the nicaraguans who replaced them

If there is something demanded to be supplied here will be jobs,the only thing that destroys jobs is government regulation.
 
A college degree is not the end all be all degree, it does not reflect intelligence does not reflect skill.

Yeah, so it is a Very Stupid waste of money that all the European economies are attracting their children to Tertiary Education by making it free, gratis an for-nothing. (Along with Health Care, in which the US too refuses to make nationalized.)

Anyone who thinks advancement in educational attainment is "not particularly worthy to an individual" is a first-class crackpot very likely because s/he does not have an advanced degree ...
 
Back
Top Bottom