U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-18-2018, 07:53 AM
 
857 posts, read 370,660 times
Reputation: 542

Advertisements

Is that the economic rule? It was said liberals in the past allowing cheap things coming into the country and stole the jobs, would things more expensive (through Trump tariffs) make things right?

Some say they have to be paid $45/hour to work, because rent has gone up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-18-2018, 08:31 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,837 posts, read 57,851,863 times
Reputation: 29235
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6oo9 View Post
Is that the economic rule?
Nope.
The pertinent economic rule is a) to not create excess people and b) especially not without skills and education.

At the dawn of the industrial age and in the midst of the post WW2 boom the importance
and role of these rules in a functional society were able to be glossed over.
That stopped being possible, to ever larger degree's, from about 1968 on.

As to the idea making things more expensive... that sorta equals to better paying jobs.
But very very few of those qualified for this sort of better paying jobs doesn't already have one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2018, 10:16 AM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, originally from SF Bay Area
28,386 posts, read 50,582,032 times
Reputation: 28616
With all of the manufacturing that has gone to China, factories here have closed up. With the tariffs, prices will have to go up for the consumers, but if they want those goods they will have to pay it. The alternative that would create jobs would be for more manufacturing to return to the U.S., and that doesn't happen overnight. In fact, with the cost of real estate and labor here, plus the lack of skilled people to do the work, it still won't pencil out to a lower cost than importing with the tariffs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2018, 12:19 PM
 
3,536 posts, read 1,988,790 times
Reputation: 6123
Cost inflation ≠ jobs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2018, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
2,980 posts, read 1,012,279 times
Reputation: 3796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140 View Post
...prices will have to go up for the consumers, but if they want those goods they will have to pay it. The alternative that would create jobs would be for more manufacturing to return to the U.S. ...
The alternative alternative is for consumers to realize they have no rational need for most of those goods.

Rejection of fostered consumption is both more immediately productive and within our grasp, unlike the continual whine that only drastic population reduction will fix things. Yes, a balanced population is the long-term solution, but one with a timeline of not less than a century. Focus on the Now will ensure there is a Later for grandiose global solutions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2018, 12:55 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,837 posts, read 57,851,863 times
Reputation: 29235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Yes, a balanced population is the long-term solution, but one with a timeline of not less than a century.
Not less than a century to achieve the goal? That's about right; 2-3 generations at minimum.
But first we'll need a kick off of some sort to start those clocks. We aren't there yet.

Quote:
Focus on the Now will ensure there is a Later for grandiose global solutions.
True enough. But I suspect it will require the same sort of kick off to start these clocks too.

Quote:
...for consumers to realize they have no rational need for most of those goods.
Rejection of fostered consumption is both more immediately productive and within our grasp...
It is more immediate but we need to taper and finesse choices and options more than to cut at this stage. Focus on having
a quality X that will last rather than crap that wears out and a continuing ability to produce and improve that X.


(haven't seen you post in a while... hope all is okay)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2018, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
2,980 posts, read 1,012,279 times
Reputation: 3796
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Focus on having a quality X that will last rather than crap that wears out and a continuing ability to produce and improve that X.
Entirely secondary, for most goods. A $1k iPhone is in no significant way better than a $40 HTC for the vast majority of those who even truly "need" a mobile phone.

That's really the problem with most "consumer advocacy" - it's about getting some imaginary best deal for categories of product that aren't needed in the first place. No one from CR on down ever, ever says "You know what? You don't need any of these, no matter how cheap or well-built."

Quote:
(haven't seen you post in a while... hope all is okay)
Kind of you to notice.

My energy for these things goes in cycles and after a few months of waving the same tattered signs and beating my head against the brick wall of conventional thought, I go on an extended bender or something.

But solutions based on population reduction are so long-term as to be off the table of economic consideration. Yes, the discussion needs to be held. Yes, the goal needs to get some traction. But we have to survive that 100-150 years for it to have any use or meaning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2018, 04:06 PM
 
2,359 posts, read 3,028,189 times
Reputation: 4591
What we have been doing definitely hasn't been working so it is time to try something different. We tried the whole "buy american" campaign for years but still America as a society has gotten cheap. Most Americans go buy cheap china made tools and other products and then complain when the break, are faulty or even worse are dangerous. What do they do?......go buy another cheap product and use it until it breaks. China has been cheating by subsidizing for a long time now and we have known it but not done anything. Well, if they are going to subsidize so they can artificially produce and export goods at crazy low prices, the way to fix it is to throw tariffs on those goods to balance their price back out. It isn't like we are putting tariffs on goods that are being produced in a fair market so the usual economic rules do not apply. I don't know why that is so hard for some people to wrap their heads around.



My thoughts on the tariffs on China made goods is go for it. The few things that I end up having to buy that are now made in China are tools and those sorts of things and they are producing inferior versions of what used to be good tools that were made elsewhere. The metal composition they use is nearly almost inferior crap. I go out of my way to try not to buy anything made in China because of this and I am willing to pay more for a quality product so I am all for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2018, 04:25 PM
 
Location: Ohio
17,998 posts, read 13,238,246 times
Reputation: 13781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
But solutions based on population reduction are so long-term as to be off the table of economic consideration. Yes, the discussion needs to be held. Yes, the goal needs to get some traction. But we have to survive that 100-150 years for it to have any use or meaning.
Population reduction reduces out-put.

Without all those Africans working in sub-Saharan Africa, you wouldn't have any coffee, tea, chocolate, sugar or metals and non-metallic minerals, not to mention various oils.

Population is not an issue, because as emerging- and developing-States enter the 2nd Level Economy, there is a fundamental shift in Society.

Children are no longer needed to work.

The initial transition into the 2nd Level Economy only requires some elementary school education, but to progress beyond that requires an increasingly educated work-force.

Soon, you need people with some high school, instead of a few years of elementary school, and then you need high school graduates, and then you need high school graduates educated at trade and technical schools, and then at universities.

The simple act of education delays both marriage and child-bearing, resulting in a decrease in the birth-rate.

The transition from the 1st Level Economy into the 2nd Level, and through the transition into the 3rd Level Economy results in wages generally doubling about every 10 years.

That, in conjunction with increased availability of consumer goods produced domestically or imported through trade generates Affluence.

As a Society becomes more Affluent, the focus shifts from family, and providing for it, to the individual, and the achievement of personal and professional goals.

The result is an incredibly low birth-rate to even a negative birth-rate.

Most foreign States should reach that point by the end of this Century, and global population will peak, and then flat-line or actually decline, but in no way is population a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140 View Post
With all of the manufacturing that has gone to China, factories here have closed up.
And freed up Labor to be used in other more important endeavors.

Really, producing plastic kitchen utensils is beneath your dignity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6oo9 View Post
Some say they have to be paid $45/hour to work, because rent has gone up.
They can move, just like Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis were smart enough to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2018, 05:36 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
2,980 posts, read 1,012,279 times
Reputation: 3796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Population reduction reduces out-put.
Only in Econ 101 models with microscopic populations.*

Most of the world population does not contribute meaningfully to global GNP.



* Using long-outdated models of productivity and profit. Adjust all that blather to the real world condition of an expanding population and a continuing net reduction of life-supporting jobs, and it becomes nonsense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top