If we want to bring manufacturing jobs back we are going to have to make it expensive to off shore those jobs. Raising tariffs is a good start but we will also have to undo some things like Nafta. I'm not sure how many people realize it but the Panama Canal is being widened and they are building a huge a port to unload ships in Mexico to bring Chinese goods into the country via Mexico to the US bypassing the Long Beach and LA ports.
Lower wages are only part of the equation the continuous devaluation of the dollar isn't helping anyone either.
I agree with you about NAFTA and the devaluation of the dollar, gmule. I think you may be driving at the quantitative easing measurements as a factor in devaluing the dollar, and I don't disagree with you that such measures must damage the value of our currency, but I would also point out that gold was approx. $350 an ounce in 2000. I believe it was more than double that by the 2008 elections, so we were already losing substantial value in the dollar. One can even argue the qe measures weakened the dollar, but helped maintain the larger economy as a whole. Without the qe measures, what would the strength of the dollar be?
Raising tariffs is a terrible idea, except in those few cases where the goods on which tariffs are imposed are the result of dumping or currency manipulation. Otherwise it becomes a tit for tat situation between the opposing countries.
A much better idea is the legislation that was proposed by President Obama and blocked by the GOP. It would provide tax credits for those companies who bring jobs back into the US from foreign operations and end tax breaks for those companies who outsource manufacturing jobs in foreign territories. This would be more effective and would maintain our status with our trading partners. Unfortunately, the GOP prefer to place politics over the American people and are preventing it from being enacted.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Those who support higher tariffs, do you realize that was one of the major reasons for the Great Depression? Individual nations do some things better than other nations, by putting in tariffs, you encourage the creation of inefficient industries here. Current example? Sugar cane, Brazil can produce sugar much cheaper than America, so southern farmers got tariffs to be put on sugar imports. Sure it saved some American jobs, but now our industry is now using high fructose corn syrup as sugar.
There are some ways America can still compete with cheaper labor overseas and I think it is to build a higher quality product people can trust. Too much of what China and other nations produce is built by cutting corners.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
plaidvillain wrote: I agree with you about NAFTA and the devaluation of the dollar, GMule. I think you may be driving at the quantitative easing measurements as a factor in devaluing the dollar, and I don't disagree with you that such measures must damage the value of our currency, but I would also point out that gold was approx. $350 an ounce in 2000, I believe it was more than double that by the 2008 elections, so we were already losing substantial value in the dollar. One can even argue the qe measures weakened the dollar, but helped maintain the larger economy as a whole. Without the qe measures, what would the strength of the dollar be?
I wasn't specifically referring to the QE measures of the fed more of the overall devaluation in general that has been going on for the last several years. Devaluing the dollar hurts us on global commodities like oil and such but helps on our exports by making our goods cheaper to buy in other countries.
I know it is a viscous cycle that requires balance.
LOL wrote: Actually the point of the Raees pic post graph is to show that you can plot two unrelated lines on a chart, adjust the left and right scales, and "voila" make the slopes match up. I'm convinced. GO UNION! Down with Math education!
Exactly!
That graph is laughable. I could plot the percent of people who smoke (or anything else that is falling) on that same graph and if I can also adjust the right hand scale to my liking the two graphs would match up and I could "prove" that the loss of union jobs helps reduce smoking!
During the time period on that graph, the percentage of workers in unions averages about 20%. And yet the graph "proves" that just 20% of all workers is fully responsible for the entire middle class share of aggregate income?
Humm, just off the top of my head I could think of other big factors that could affect aggregate income like tax policy and the loss of high paying manufacturing jobs over that time period, neither of which is represented on the graph.
When liars figure, figures lie. Can we expect anything less?
pineinthegrass wrote:
LOL wrote: Actually the point of the Raees pic post graph is to show that you can plot two unrelated lines on a chart, adjust the left and right scales, and "voila" make the slopes match up. I'm convinced. GO UNION! Down with Math education!
Exactly!
That graph is laughable. I could plot the percent of people who smoke (or anything else that is falling) on that same graph and if I can also adjust the right hand scale to my liking the two graphs would match up and I could "prove" that the loss of union jobs helps reduce smoking!
During the time period on that graph, the percentage of workers in unions averages about 20%. And yet the graph "proves" that just 20% of all workers is fully responsible for the entire middle class share of aggregate income?
Humm, just off the top of my head I could think of other big factors that could affect aggregate income like tax policy and the loss of high paying manufacturing jobs over that time period, neither of which is represented on the graph.
plaidvillain wrote: Those of you who support this 'right to work' legislation, why do you support it? It's sold as giving an advantage to the state to attract business and jobs, but if surrounding states also have similar legislation, what is the advantage? I think the 'business environment advantage' argument has more holes than swiss cheese and is a bogus argument for this legislation. So what is really the goal? I don't see the advantage to such legislation. Michigan already had legislation allowing employees to work without joining the union, so nobody was forced to join or prohibited from a job for not joining (I know, I know, I know, you ALL have your anecdotal stories about your wife's cousins best friends father in laws buddy in Michigan who was 'intimidated' by some union thug...bs...give me real facts, or if you want to make the 'intimidation' argument, document some real cases because I think your anecdotal evidence is highly exagerated, if true at all, and the only personal stories you've relayed were years ago).
Think this whole thing through. How will desroying the unions improve your life? How will breaking the unions potentially have a negative impact on your life? How about how it will affect the greater populace of the nation? There's no advantage to the middle class for this legislation. None.
Please, just tell me how this legislation benefits the middle class. So far the only reasons provided are completely bogus.
Per the Heritage Foundation, the unemployment rate in right to work states is lower than other states, from 8.4% to 7.7%. One advantage that the GOP is delivering to the American worker, jobs. Obama still has unemployment at 7.7% nationally.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Can't you see what's right in your own words, Fred?..if the neighboring states also have this legislation, then there is no advantage in having it. Then in order to gain advantage with attracting 'job creators' you have to take additional measures; offer tax advantages, etc. So ultimately, passing this legislation does not offer any advantage to the state in attracting businesses long term. Was that really the best reason to support this legislation the Heritage Foundation could come up with? Like I said before, that reasoning is riddled with holes.
You do realize attracting business from other states is not in any way 'job creation', right? That is 'job redistribution'. Put someone out of work in Minnesota to employ someone in Michigan...net zero impact. The states are racing to the bottom, doing everything they can to attract employers, even when it has an overall negative impact on the state, due to this Republican agenda to destroy the middle class.
But attracting businesses from overseas is net job creation. Foreign automakers are not locating themselves in union dominated states like Michigan. They are moving to right to work states in the South to escape the burdensome unions back home.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
