Almost half of Americans work in low paid jobs

[Andylusion]

Who is bringing the illegals here?

Business owners that are will to pay them when they get here

Do you have clear direct evidence that business owners are intentionally bringing illegals into the country, in direct violation of the law? I honestly can't even imagine that many business owners would pay thousands on thousands of dollars, and risk losing everything they have, to get a few minimum wage workers picking fruit or something.

Read what I wrote...they are bringing them here BY paying them when they get here. If nobody would hire them they would not come. They are every bit as responsible as the coyote that leads them through the dessert

Not sure if I agree with that.

Unless you are making the case that a business owner is knowingly, intentionally contacting people in Mexico, and saying openly if they come, he'll pay them illegally....... then I don't see that as being the same thing.

If someone shows up.... and asks for a job.... and I have nothing more to do with it, than determining if I wish to hire someone.....

Then that to me is not the same. It's not the job of a business owner to filter out people who should not be in the country to begin with. It's not the business owners job to control the border. It's not the business owners job to enforce immigration laws.

It is the Federal Governments job to protect the nations borders, by controlling who enters the country. It's a fundamental duty of the government, to do that.

As for requiring that business is responsible for enforcing immigration controls, this is another area, where if you flipped it around on yourself, you would never accept such logic.

Few years back, had a guy knock on my door, and ask if I wanted my back deck painted. Am I now responsible for doing a background check and determine if he is legal to work?

Say a guy asks if you if he can wash your car, or mow your lawn, or black top your drive way, or shingle your roof. Do you pay money to do a full background and I-9 lookup to determine his legal status?

Should you be tossed into jail, or fined thousands of dollars, if the guy you hired to do any of those things, turned out to be illegal?

You would never tolerate such unfair punishment against yourself. And of course not. Why would you be required to do these things?

Well what is the difference between you directly hiring a guy to mow your lawn twice a month for cash, and you hiring a lawn service that hires a guy to mow your lawn?

The only difference is, you can track with paperwork, the business owner. But otherwise they are identical actions.

So should we toss you in jail for hiring someone, who turned out to be illegal? I don't think so.

Maybe the authorities that are in charge of enforcing the law, should be the authorities who enforce the law. That's my view.

Unless you can absolutely prove that a business owner is intentionally aiding and encouraging violation of the law. Then I'm with you.

Every American should do their part. What part of United don't you understand ? Can't operate as undermining forces that destroy the nations security for self serving interest or profits above the long term security of the nation, and the general welfare of it's citizen's.

So, you do an ID, background, and I-9 check on every person you ever pay to do anything? I don't believe it.

 

[Mac-7]

Shows how hollow the Trump economy is

Almost half of Americans work in low-wage jobs

America's unemployment rate is at a half-century low, but it also has a job-quality problem that affects nearly half the population, with a study finding 44% of U.S. workers are employed in low-wage jobs that pay median annual wages of $18,000.

Contrary to popular opinion, these workers aren't teenagers or young adults just starting their careers,

Well, we could turn to Communism or strict Socialism, then everybody's poor, except the political inner-circle.
Most jobs fall into the category of "service industry employment." Such jobs as retail sales, custodial work, factory line labor, landscaping, et cetera, fall into this category. Somebody has to fill in those spots and if they were to be paid high wages for their labor, YOU the consumer, would scream that you couldn't afford their services or products, as the companies would have to raise the cost of the products significantly to continue making a profit, after all, that's why people start their own companies, to make profit and provide more for their families.
As for your figure of $18,000 as a mean annual wage. I don't know where you get your figures from, but for Americans, the average annual mean income between the ages of 25-34 is really about $41,000+. Of course, this depends on the area one is from. The Department of Labor statistics also doesn't support your claim of $18,000, unless you are specifying some specific employment.
Migrant pickers make lousy incomes, however, if you had to pay every migrant picker a $15.00 per hour wage for his/her labor, you couldn't afford to eat.

That is a misassumption

Farm labor represents only a tiny portion of the price of food in the grocery store

$8-$15 an hour would add a little but not as much as you think if we limit the same food imports from mexico where they also pay low wages

False. You changed the context in the middle of the debate. The prior poster referred to Migrant pickers, while you referred to "portion of the price of food". There are many foods, like wheat for example, that are not picked by hand by migrants.

Foods which are more automated, like potatoes for example, you as the consumer opening a bag of potato chips, might be the very first human hand to have ever touched that potato. They are pulled from the ground, sorted, shipped, skinned, cut, fried, seasoned, baked, packed and sealed, without a single human hand touching them.

In that specific situation, your claim would be correct, that the value would not directly increase in relation to the wages.

However, there are numerous other things that are picked by hand, in labor intensive farming. Apples, peppers, asparagus, grapes, cherries, and so on. Increasing the labor rates for these things, would easily increase the cost of them by a ton.

Limiting imports of food, is a horrifically bad idea.

Right now the US is a net exporter of food. The amount of food we import, is a tiny fraction of the amount we export. Starting a trade war with food, will hurt the US more than anyone else.

Even had picked food generallydoes not go directly from field to table

There are warehouses, wholesalers and retailers in the food chain, plus, transportation, insurance, and other business expenses

Right, and if we are talking about the effects of minimum wage overall, it would effect every single employee, at every step in the process. The guy driving the forklift getting pallets off the truck, is going to get paid more if the minimum wage goes up.

I thought we were talking about what it would cost to replace illegal alien fruit pickers who make very low wages with American citizens who will not work that cheap

It may be that Americans will not do those jobs at any price thanks to welfare making too many low income people allergic to hard physical labor

If so we can have a guest workers program where MEN and only men are allowed in the US to work on farms

 

[Andylusion]

You sound so uninformed about America I doubt if you even are an American

Any argument at all? Or just the usual idiocy? So who's bringing these illegals here LOL? Do you have a Social Security card that cannot be faked in your imaginary America? What the hell are you babbling about LOL?

Who is bringing the illegals here?

Business owners that are will to pay them when they get here

The key words are “when they get here”

Business owners do not control the border that illegal aliens pass through

They just give them the reason to come...take away that reason would be a great start

I doubt it.

I know illegals that run a business repairing cars. You are not going to top that.

I know another group that has a car wash.

Another shingles roofs.

All cash, all illegals.

There are numerous ways illegals can come and make money, without having to file an I-9.

The solution is control the border, and enforce immigration law.

 

[Mac-7]

We have millions of low education workers who are not suitable for high tech manufacturing

But they still need jobs

And we need to keep more of the $350-500 billion going to china in America

If automation is the future I want it in America rather than in china

I want the robots designed and manufactured here as well as put to work here

Well we do. As stated, manufacturing has not disappeared. In fact, it was a record year 2018, in manufacturing. If we rounded up the entire manufacturing sector of the US into a separate country, it was have a GDP of $1.9 Trillion, or be 8th largest economy in the world.

Nevertheless, the solution to more manufacturing in the US, is more trade, not less trade.

A trade war will not making more products be manufactured in the US, but rather fewer.

General Motors, makes more money outside the US, than inside the US. Apple makes more money outside the US. In fact, even McDonald's makes more money outside the US. Yes I realize McDonald's isn't in manufacturing, but the point is.....

Nearly all international companies make more money outside the US. Nearly all.

The US might be the single largest market, but if you consider outside the US as being a combined market, then the US is not the largest market.

The largest market, is the other 7 Billion + people on the planet.

If you force any company to choose between having a manufacturing plant in the US, that only serves the US market, or a manufacturing plant that is outside the US the serves the 7 Billion+ people in the world market.....

Which would you choose? Well I can tell you where anyone with any intelligence would choose... they would choose to build for the international market.

We need to stop making out like the US is this indispensable market. In the 50s, it most certainly was. 60s and 70s, not quite as much. But now after Capitalism has brought billions of people above poverty around the world, we are simply not the one and only market in the world, that everyone must be a part of.

If you force companies into a "our market or the worlds market", it will soon be the worlds market, and not ours.

General Motors, makes more money outside the US, than inside the US. Apple makes more money outside the US. In fact, even McDonald's makes more money outside the US. Yes I realize McDonald's isn't in manufacturing, but the point is.....

General Motors, makes more money outside the US, than inside the US. Apple makes more money outside the US. In fact, even McDonald's makes more money outside the US. Yes I realize McDonald's isn't in manufacturing, but the point is.....

do GM and other global companies still ant the benefits and protection afforded by the US flag?

i bet they do as they cozy up to our biggest enemy

why should Americans care how much money GM makes in china since it is not benefiting them?

But now after Capitalism has brought billions of people above poverty around the world,

That is not a compelling argument for me

we sacrificed some of our wealth through the Marshall Plan and allowed the euros and japanese to grow at our expense

But the Cold War is over and we cannot lift the whole world out of poverty on the backs of Americans

why should Americans care how much money GM makes in china since it is not benefiting them?

You missed my point. My point isn't that you should, or should not care about profits made outside the US.

Now I could make that case..... I own stock in companies that make more money outside the US. I think all people should own stock in companies, and if they have a 401K or a pension, or a annuity, then all people have a retirement at all, should support companies making money outside the US, because it benefits them.

Plus.... now with lower capital gains taxes, many of those companies, have started bringing those profits back to the US, to invest in the US.
US companies bring home $665 billion in overseas cash last year, falling short of Trump pledge

So earning money outside the US, is directly benefiting the US. By the way, other countries have much lower taxes on profits brought home. We're one of the few stupid countries that doesn't have that as a policy.

However, as I said, that was not my point. My point was.... if you make it through tariff and protectionist policy, a system where companies can either make products for the US, or the entire world.... they are going to make it for the entire world, not the US.

The world will win, and the US will lose. Have trade barriers is going to a create an "The USA or Everyone else" system... and in that system, everyone else wins.

Say I am a large company, and I have $40 Billion dollars to build a manufacturing plant, that will produce a product, and create 500 jobs.

I can either make that manufacturing plant in Mexico, or I can make it in Tennessee. I don't have $80 Billion to build two plants. I can either make it in the US, or I can make it outside the US in Mexico.

One or the other.

Where do I build the plant?

Well if I build it in the US, because of trade barriers, I can only sell to the US market.
If I build it in Mexico, I can sell it world wide, to the 8 Billion people on the planet.

Where do I build the plant? In Mexico of course. I make a ton more money selling to the world market, than I do selling to just the US market.

The US loses.... and the world wins.

So doing this "us or them" trade war game, is going to be a loser for the US. And it always has by the way. Trade barriers, and protectionism have always destroyed the people engaging in it.

Jamaica, East Berlin, Venezuela, Cuba, protectionism has never been a benefit to the countries that engage in it.

Again, as I said before on this forum.... if protectionism, and limiting trade was a net benefit, then why are we putting trade sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine? By the logic of protectionism, we are forcing Russia to be wealthy, by restricting trade on them.

Why would we 'punish' people with restrictions on trade..... and then restrict our own trade to somehow benefit us? These are mutually exclusive ideas. It can't be both.

So that is my real point. It wasn't that you should just "care" for caring sake, how much money companies make outside the US. My point was that if you make it an ultimatum, that companies either deal with the US or the rest of the world, they'll deal with the rest of the world. There is more money to be made in the rest of the world. We'll lose... the world will win.

But the Cold War is over and we cannot lift the whole world out of poverty on the backs of Americans

But we're not lifting the world out of poverty, on our backs. Trade is inherently mutually beneficial. Every company I've worked for, was making tons of sales outside the US. You put in trade barriers, and all those companies would close. All of them would. All of our material was being sourced from around world. Even those material that was sourced locally, was getting supplied around the world.

It was mutually beneficial for us to buy from various providers, and then we were able to make our product. You cut of our suppliers, and the cost of production spikes above the amount our customers are willing to pay..... we're all laid off, and unemployed.

How is this on our backs? If not for trade, we wouldn't have a job.

US companies bring home $665 billion in overseas cash last year, falling short of Trump pledge

That sounds impressive but dont expect that much every year since much of it was a one-time response to the trump tax cuts

If it has not been clear before let me say now that I’m not against international trade

Between non enemies such as the US, europe, japan, south korea, canada and others with comparable economies and costs of doing business trade is a good thing

But with raptor states like china where business exists to serve the political aggression of the dictatorship free trade is an illusion

Many Americans do not see the threat from china and see that country as a harmless panda bear

Which it is not

So I want less one-way trade with china, less wealth transfer, and no technology transfer

I do not yet see a connection between the two issues. One issue is trade. The other is the potential for Geo-political conflict with China.

While I don't see them as entirely mutually exclusive, I also don't see them as intertwined either.

China is going to grow whether we engage in trade with them, or not. Any country that moves to adopt more Capitalist economic policies, will grow.

Cutting off trade with China will not stop the economy from growing, now stop others from engaging with China.

One thing it might do, is make the Chinese more anti-American.

One of the things that has irritated me about Cuba, is that no matter how badly the Socialist government has decimated the Cuban economy, no matter how impoverished and hopeless the people are, the government simply blamed everything on the "American Embargo".

So no matter what happened, it wasn't their governments fault... it was the Americans fault. A line we hear from mindless left-wingers here in the US constantly.

So I am not in favor of cutting off trade in the name of hindering their government, because all it will do is strengthen their government, by allowing them to use the US as a scapegoat for everything that happens.

And the reality is, Cuba wouldn't be poor, if they engaged in Capitalism. The Embargo is just an excuse for failure, not an actual cause of it.

China is going to grow no matter what. The question is, are we going to give them excuses to blame the US for everything that happens in their country?

As for businesses exist to serve the government... I do not see that China is much different than anywhere else. I don't see that a noodle company in China, exists to serve the government. I do see that government sometimes coerces companies to operate in a favorable manor, but then we have that here in the US too.

I think free-trade is still the best way to go, even with China. The last thing I want to do, is give the Chinese people an excuse to blame the US, for their garbage governments bad policies.

China is using trade as part of a geo political war against the western democracies and non communist nations all over the world

We have never had free trade with china because individual companies cannot compete with a communist dictatorship

 

[beagle9]

Believe me, the payment is more than two thirds. I'm on Medicare, and have never paid the other third. Link please, proving it is only two thirds? Never heard of such a thing.

No one ever said that individuals couldn't buy into their own private plan. I know quite a few countries that have universal care with the ability to purchase a private plan.

No, they won't bill you either. They just take the loss. I worked in medical for ten years. My father is on Medicare, and he tells me what's going on with his bills. He does have secondary insurance that covers what Medicare doesn't, but a lot of older folks are not in that financial position to get that private policy.

Doctors limit new Medicare patients - USATODAY.com

You are both right and wrong.

Medicare reimbursement rates, that is Medicare approved amounts (which for part B is 80% from Medicare and 20% from the patient) is determined based on the relative, average costs of providing a service to a Medicare patient, and then adjusted to account for other provider expenses, including malpractice insurance and office-based practice costs.

Contrary to claims of a lot of people, Medicare rates are not determined by what insurance companies pay. It's actually the opposite in most cases because most insurance reimbursements today is paid to contracted providers. The medicare reimbursement rate provides a basis for negotiating contracts which makes Medicare and Insurance reimbursement rates pretty close in most places.

Getting back to the question at hand, for many years many healthcare providers would bill patients for the difference between Medicare rates and their fee . If a doctor accepted Medicare as full payment, they were "Accepting Medicare Assignment". At one time, about 25% of doctors would not accept Medicare Assignment and would bill the patient the difference. Today, due to the fact there is little difference between insurance reimbursement rates and Medicare and the number of Medicare patients, about 95% of doctors today accept Medicare Assignment. Thus patients rarely see any bill if they pay their 20% coinsurance at time service or have insurance supplement.

That's actually kind of the law. But my point is, they have to raise their rates on everybody, so it's a primary factor in private insurance premiums going up. But this is why when you see health facilities close down, they are usually in lower income areas where most of the patients are government patients and there are little to no private pay patients. There is nobody to make up the loss on.

When I got into the business back in 1979, Medicare was a gold mine for my company. It was like they were flushed with money. All you had to do is send them a bill, and they paid it no questions asked. As the funds started to show signs of weakness, that's when they started lowering their reimbursement rates. So what did we do? We raised the price of renting our hospital equipment, and again, you can't just raise it on one group of payers, you have to raise it on everybody.

Medicare is not self- supportive either. They are subsidized with money from the general fund, and of course, always trying to use as little as possible.

The whole entire problem in it all, is that we have an irresponsible government that got involved with the attempted social engineering of society. The bad part is, is that it was using our tax dollars without our permission, to then throw those free dollars into the communities that inturn used it to create more and more dependents that ultimately needed more and more funds to sustain the level of births that were coming out of those communities.

Ok so what was that all about ? Trying to grow a servitude population in thought of, otherwise that it would then continue to breed cheap labor for factories, farms, and etc ????

Ok then along comes the Clinton's and their gang of merry bandits, who supported NAFTA, and the shipping of American's jobs all over the world. Then we basically had huge amounts of excess labor that had no where to go. Next our own citizen's had to either become huge government dependents, drug dealers, users, cheap labor or ended up in jail....... Meanwhile China, Mexico etc were becoming either super powers or filthy rich off of us. The results today, and the facts don't lie.

Trump comes in and attempts to restore our national strength, pride, and worth, while the enemies within fight him tooth and nail.

Wake up America

Shows how hollow the Trump economy is

Almost half of Americans work in low-wage jobs

America's unemployment rate is at a half-century low, but it also has a job-quality problem that affects nearly half the population, with a study finding 44% of U.S. workers are employed in low-wage jobs that pay median annual wages of $18,000.

Contrary to popular opinion, these workers aren't teenagers or young adults just starting their careers,

Well, we could turn to Communism or strict Socialism, then everybody's poor, except the political inner-circle.
Most jobs fall into the category of "service industry employment." Such jobs as retail sales, custodial work, factory line labor, landscaping, et cetera, fall into this category. Somebody has to fill in those spots and if they were to be paid high wages for their labor, YOU the consumer, would scream that you couldn't afford their services or products, as the companies would have to raise the cost of the products significantly to continue making a profit, after all, that's why people start their own companies, to make profit and provide more for their families.
As for your figure of $18,000 as a mean annual wage. I don't know where you get your figures from, but for Americans, the average annual mean income between the ages of 25-34 is really about $41,000+. Of course, this depends on the area one is from. The Department of Labor statistics also doesn't support your claim of $18,000, unless you are specifying some specific employment.
Migrant pickers make lousy incomes, however, if you had to pay every migrant picker a $15.00 per hour wage for his/her labor, you couldn't afford to eat.

That is a misassumption

Farm labor represents only a tiny portion of the price of food in the grocery store

$8-$15 an hour would add a little but not as much as you think if we limit the same food imports from mexico where they also pay low wages

False. You changed the context in the middle of the debate. The prior poster referred to Migrant pickers, while you referred to "portion of the price of food". There are many foods, like wheat for example, that are not picked by hand by migrants.

Foods which are more automated, like potatoes for example, you as the consumer opening a bag of potato chips, might be the very first human hand to have ever touched that potato. They are pulled from the ground, sorted, shipped, skinned, cut, fried, seasoned, baked, packed and sealed, without a single human hand touching them.

In that specific situation, your claim would be correct, that the value would not directly increase in relation to the wages.

However, there are numerous other things that are picked by hand, in labor intensive farming. Apples, peppers, asparagus, grapes, cherries, and so on. Increasing the labor rates for these things, would easily increase the cost of them by a ton.

Limiting imports of food, is a horrifically bad idea.

Right now the US is a net exporter of food. The amount of food we import, is a tiny fraction of the amount we export. Starting a trade war with food, will hurt the US more than anyone else.

So it's about exports and profits in some sectors, but at what cost to the entire nation ?? Yes in certain sectors we have great growth and expansion, where as in other sectors we have stalemate and huge losses.

So who or what can create a balance in it all, and restore our faith in this nation again ?

Isn't this what Trump has been doing, attempting to bring back prosperity to the nation, and to stop allowing the nation to be taken advantage of ??? What's wrong with protectionism to some degree, otherwise if it restores balance and strength in America again ?? Many of our industries could turn within (provided the nation limits foriegn competition against them), and they would profit the same or even better if it didn't have foriegn competitors driving their prices into the tank, and in many cases taking them completely out of the picture.

I don't believe in trying to create mythology of some magic damage to the entire nation.

Faith in the nation come from doing what is right, rolling with punches, and overcoming obstacles.

As long as people land in the US, knowing nothing of our culture, barely speak our language, and have the ability to become successful..... then no American should ever question their faith in this country.

The immigrant who became a drone firm boss

This Mexican, not only came here with little to nothing, but he also didn't have his work permit yet. He setup an international drone manufacturing company.

If that dude can come here and succeed.... then no American, from Alaska to Florida, from Mississippi to California, has any excuse for not having faith in this country.

Get off your butt..... and do something with your life.
Stop whining about trade, and whining about jobs, and whining about NAFTA and all this other BS crap.... and do something. Put your butt in gear, and go make something of yourself.

My roommate came here from Bangladesh, and worked odd jobs, and low paying jobs for years. Last year, he landed a job with a months vacation, $120K a year income, and they paid to have him move to Chicago from Ohio.

Chamath Palihapitiya came here from Sri Lanka, and his unemployed father lived on welfare for sometime before landing a job.
This guy is now a venture capitalist.

13 successful tech leaders who struggled as immigrants before making it in America

Over and over and over..... people come from around the world, and succeed here. And born bred Americans, that can each speak words without people going "I'm sorry, what?", can't succeed because of NAFTA and trade and all this crap?
Then..... HOW THE HECK ARE THEY DOING IT??!?

This argument right here, really irritates me. I know a guy from Somalia, that came here, got a CDL, started driving truck. Saved up all his cash, to buy a truck of his own. Saved up his cash from that, and bought a second truck, and paid someone to drive it. He now has a fleet of 6 trucks.

How is this so utterly impossible for Americans to succeed, and yet all these immigrants who apparently don't know they can't succeed yet.... come here and succeed?

If there is someone unemployed... the problem is in their mirror. The problem isn't trade, it's not immigration, it's not who is president (yet), and so on.... Mirror. There's your problem.

If you only knew my status, you would be embarrassed to write such bullcrap to me, much less insinuate bullcrap like you just did. Quit selling your country down the river, and quit justifying all the bullcrap you keep justifying when American's no better.

 

[Mac-7]

Any argument at all? Or just the usual idiocy? So who's bringing these illegals here LOL? Do you have a Social Security card that cannot be faked in your imaginary America? What the hell are you babbling about LOL?

Who is bringing the illegals here?

Business owners that are will to pay them when they get here

Do you have clear direct evidence that business owners are intentionally bringing illegals into the country, in direct violation of the law? I honestly can't even imagine that many business owners would pay thousands on thousands of dollars, and risk losing everything they have, to get a few minimum wage workers picking fruit or something.

Read what I wrote...they are bringing them here BY paying them when they get here. If nobody would hire them they would not come. They are every bit as responsible as the coyote that leads them through the dessert

Not sure if I agree with that.

Unless you are making the case that a business owner is knowingly, intentionally contacting people in Mexico, and saying openly if they come, he'll pay them illegally....... then I don't see that as being the same thing.

If someone shows up.... and asks for a job.... and I have nothing more to do with it, than determining if I wish to hire someone.....

Then that to me is not the same. It's not the job of a business owner to filter out people who should not be in the country to begin with. It's not the business owners job to control the border. It's not the business owners job to enforce immigration laws.

It is the Federal Governments job to protect the nations borders, by controlling who enters the country. It's a fundamental duty of the government, to do that.

As for requiring that business is responsible for enforcing immigration controls, this is another area, where if you flipped it around on yourself, you would never accept such logic.

Few years back, had a guy knock on my door, and ask if I wanted my back deck painted. Am I now responsible for doing a background check and determine if he is legal to work?

Say a guy asks if you if he can wash your car, or mow your lawn, or black top your drive way, or shingle your roof. Do you pay money to do a full background and I-9 lookup to determine his legal status?

Should you be tossed into jail, or fined thousands of dollars, if the guy you hired to do any of those things, turned out to be illegal?

You would never tolerate such unfair punishment against yourself. And of course not. Why would you be required to do these things?

Well what is the difference between you directly hiring a guy to mow your lawn twice a month for cash, and you hiring a lawn service that hires a guy to mow your lawn?

The only difference is, you can track with paperwork, the business owner. But otherwise they are identical actions.

So should we toss you in jail for hiring someone, who turned out to be illegal? I don't think so.

Maybe the authorities that are in charge of enforcing the law, should be the authorities who enforce the law. That's my view.

Unless you can absolutely prove that a business owner is intentionally aiding and encouraging violation of the law. Then I'm with you.

Maybe congress should not get paid till it solves the illegal alien problem

 

[Andylusion]

Well we do. As stated, manufacturing has not disappeared. In fact, it was a record year 2018, in manufacturing. If we rounded up the entire manufacturing sector of the US into a separate country, it was have a GDP of $1.9 Trillion, or be 8th largest economy in the world.

Nevertheless, the solution to more manufacturing in the US, is more trade, not less trade.

A trade war will not making more products be manufactured in the US, but rather fewer.

General Motors, makes more money outside the US, than inside the US. Apple makes more money outside the US. In fact, even McDonald's makes more money outside the US. Yes I realize McDonald's isn't in manufacturing, but the point is.....

Nearly all international companies make more money outside the US. Nearly all.

The US might be the single largest market, but if you consider outside the US as being a combined market, then the US is not the largest market.

The largest market, is the other 7 Billion + people on the planet.

If you force any company to choose between having a manufacturing plant in the US, that only serves the US market, or a manufacturing plant that is outside the US the serves the 7 Billion+ people in the world market.....

Which would you choose? Well I can tell you where anyone with any intelligence would choose... they would choose to build for the international market.

We need to stop making out like the US is this indispensable market. In the 50s, it most certainly was. 60s and 70s, not quite as much. But now after Capitalism has brought billions of people above poverty around the world, we are simply not the one and only market in the world, that everyone must be a part of.

If you force companies into a "our market or the worlds market", it will soon be the worlds market, and not ours.

General Motors, makes more money outside the US, than inside the US. Apple makes more money outside the US. In fact, even McDonald's makes more money outside the US. Yes I realize McDonald's isn't in manufacturing, but the point is.....

General Motors, makes more money outside the US, than inside the US. Apple makes more money outside the US. In fact, even McDonald's makes more money outside the US. Yes I realize McDonald's isn't in manufacturing, but the point is.....

do GM and other global companies still ant the benefits and protection afforded by the US flag?

i bet they do as they cozy up to our biggest enemy

why should Americans care how much money GM makes in china since it is not benefiting them?

But now after Capitalism has brought billions of people above poverty around the world,

That is not a compelling argument for me

we sacrificed some of our wealth through the Marshall Plan and allowed the euros and japanese to grow at our expense

But the Cold War is over and we cannot lift the whole world out of poverty on the backs of Americans

why should Americans care how much money GM makes in china since it is not benefiting them?

You missed my point. My point isn't that you should, or should not care about profits made outside the US.

Now I could make that case..... I own stock in companies that make more money outside the US. I think all people should own stock in companies, and if they have a 401K or a pension, or a annuity, then all people have a retirement at all, should support companies making money outside the US, because it benefits them.

Plus.... now with lower capital gains taxes, many of those companies, have started bringing those profits back to the US, to invest in the US.
US companies bring home $665 billion in overseas cash last year, falling short of Trump pledge

So earning money outside the US, is directly benefiting the US. By the way, other countries have much lower taxes on profits brought home. We're one of the few stupid countries that doesn't have that as a policy.

However, as I said, that was not my point. My point was.... if you make it through tariff and protectionist policy, a system where companies can either make products for the US, or the entire world.... they are going to make it for the entire world, not the US.

The world will win, and the US will lose. Have trade barriers is going to a create an "The USA or Everyone else" system... and in that system, everyone else wins.

Say I am a large company, and I have $40 Billion dollars to build a manufacturing plant, that will produce a product, and create 500 jobs.

I can either make that manufacturing plant in Mexico, or I can make it in Tennessee. I don't have $80 Billion to build two plants. I can either make it in the US, or I can make it outside the US in Mexico.

One or the other.

Where do I build the plant?

Well if I build it in the US, because of trade barriers, I can only sell to the US market.
If I build it in Mexico, I can sell it world wide, to the 8 Billion people on the planet.

Where do I build the plant? In Mexico of course. I make a ton more money selling to the world market, than I do selling to just the US market.

The US loses.... and the world wins.

So doing this "us or them" trade war game, is going to be a loser for the US. And it always has by the way. Trade barriers, and protectionism have always destroyed the people engaging in it.

Jamaica, East Berlin, Venezuela, Cuba, protectionism has never been a benefit to the countries that engage in it.

Again, as I said before on this forum.... if protectionism, and limiting trade was a net benefit, then why are we putting trade sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine? By the logic of protectionism, we are forcing Russia to be wealthy, by restricting trade on them.

Why would we 'punish' people with restrictions on trade..... and then restrict our own trade to somehow benefit us? These are mutually exclusive ideas. It can't be both.

So that is my real point. It wasn't that you should just "care" for caring sake, how much money companies make outside the US. My point was that if you make it an ultimatum, that companies either deal with the US or the rest of the world, they'll deal with the rest of the world. There is more money to be made in the rest of the world. We'll lose... the world will win.

But the Cold War is over and we cannot lift the whole world out of poverty on the backs of Americans

But we're not lifting the world out of poverty, on our backs. Trade is inherently mutually beneficial. Every company I've worked for, was making tons of sales outside the US. You put in trade barriers, and all those companies would close. All of them would. All of our material was being sourced from around world. Even those material that was sourced locally, was getting supplied around the world.

It was mutually beneficial for us to buy from various providers, and then we were able to make our product. You cut of our suppliers, and the cost of production spikes above the amount our customers are willing to pay..... we're all laid off, and unemployed.

How is this on our backs? If not for trade, we wouldn't have a job.

US companies bring home $665 billion in overseas cash last year, falling short of Trump pledge

That sounds impressive but dont expect that much every year since much of it was a one-time response to the trump tax cuts

If it has not been clear before let me say now that I’m not against international trade

Between non enemies such as the US, europe, japan, south korea, canada and others with comparable economies and costs of doing business trade is a good thing

But with raptor states like china where business exists to serve the political aggression of the dictatorship free trade is an illusion

Many Americans do not see the threat from china and see that country as a harmless panda bear

Which it is not

So I want less one-way trade with china, less wealth transfer, and no technology transfer

I do not yet see a connection between the two issues. One issue is trade. The other is the potential for Geo-political conflict with China.

While I don't see them as entirely mutually exclusive, I also don't see them as intertwined either.

China is going to grow whether we engage in trade with them, or not. Any country that moves to adopt more Capitalist economic policies, will grow.

Cutting off trade with China will not stop the economy from growing, now stop others from engaging with China.

One thing it might do, is make the Chinese more anti-American.

One of the things that has irritated me about Cuba, is that no matter how badly the Socialist government has decimated the Cuban economy, no matter how impoverished and hopeless the people are, the government simply blamed everything on the "American Embargo".

So no matter what happened, it wasn't their governments fault... it was the Americans fault. A line we hear from mindless left-wingers here in the US constantly.

So I am not in favor of cutting off trade in the name of hindering their government, because all it will do is strengthen their government, by allowing them to use the US as a scapegoat for everything that happens.

And the reality is, Cuba wouldn't be poor, if they engaged in Capitalism. The Embargo is just an excuse for failure, not an actual cause of it.

China is going to grow no matter what. The question is, are we going to give them excuses to blame the US for everything that happens in their country?

As for businesses exist to serve the government... I do not see that China is much different than anywhere else. I don't see that a noodle company in China, exists to serve the government. I do see that government sometimes coerces companies to operate in a favorable manor, but then we have that here in the US too.

I think free-trade is still the best way to go, even with China. The last thing I want to do, is give the Chinese people an excuse to blame the US, for their garbage governments bad policies.

China is using trade as part of a geo political war against the western democracies and non communist nations all over the world

We have never had free trade with china because individual companies cannot compete with a communist dictatorship

That makes no sense.

The way you 'wage war' with Trade, is by denying trade.

Again, the way we waged war with trade against Russia, is by imposing sanctions against Russia.... denying them trade.

You cannot 'wage a war' with trade. Trade is inherently mutually beneficial.

If it did not benefit us to have trade, we wouldn't engage in trade. The reason we trade, is because we benefit.

Again, if it was possible to wage war using trade, we don't we trade with Cuba to destroy the communist government? North Korea? Iran? Venezuela?

Lack of trade is a weapon. Trade can't be weaponized, except through clever mythology.

And as far as lack of a 'free trade'......

If China is subsidizing steel, that benefits us, and harms China.

Think about it.... China is taxes their own citizens, to pay money, so that we can buy steel at a discount.

This is effectively like you wanting to buy a car from me, and me saying I'm going to take money from my wife and daughter, so that I can sell you this $20,000 car, for $18,000... and this is going to harm you, to get a car cheaper, on the money of my wife and daughter.

The concept is insane. If the Chinese want to take their own people's money, so we can have wealth cheaper..... I say let them.

 

[Mac-7]

Business owners that are will to pay them when they get here

Do you have clear direct evidence that business owners are intentionally bringing illegals into the country, in direct violation of the law? I honestly can't even imagine that many business owners would pay thousands on thousands of dollars, and risk losing everything they have, to get a few minimum wage workers picking fruit or something.

Read what I wrote...they are bringing them here BY paying them when they get here. If nobody would hire them they would not come. They are every bit as responsible as the coyote that leads them through the dessert

Not sure if I agree with that.

Unless you are making the case that a business owner is knowingly, intentionally contacting people in Mexico, and saying openly if they come, he'll pay them illegally....... then I don't see that as being the same thing.

If someone shows up.... and asks for a job.... and I have nothing more to do with it, than determining if I wish to hire someone.....

Then that to me is not the same. It's not the job of a business owner to filter out people who should not be in the country to begin with. It's not the business owners job to control the border. It's not the business owners job to enforce immigration laws.

It is the Federal Governments job to protect the nations borders, by controlling who enters the country. It's a fundamental duty of the government, to do that.

As for requiring that business is responsible for enforcing immigration controls, this is another area, where if you flipped it around on yourself, you would never accept such logic.

Few years back, had a guy knock on my door, and ask if I wanted my back deck painted. Am I now responsible for doing a background check and determine if he is legal to work?

Say a guy asks if you if he can wash your car, or mow your lawn, or black top your drive way, or shingle your roof. Do you pay money to do a full background and I-9 lookup to determine his legal status?

Should you be tossed into jail, or fined thousands of dollars, if the guy you hired to do any of those things, turned out to be illegal?

You would never tolerate such unfair punishment against yourself. And of course not. Why would you be required to do these things?

Well what is the difference between you directly hiring a guy to mow your lawn twice a month for cash, and you hiring a lawn service that hires a guy to mow your lawn?

The only difference is, you can track with paperwork, the business owner. But otherwise they are identical actions.

So should we toss you in jail for hiring someone, who turned out to be illegal? I don't think so.

Maybe the authorities that are in charge of enforcing the law, should be the authorities who enforce the law. That's my view.

Unless you can absolutely prove that a business owner is intentionally aiding and encouraging violation of the law. Then I'm with you.

Every American should do their part. What part of United don't you understand ? Can't operate as undermining forces that destroy the nations security for self serving interest or profits above the long term security of the nation, and the general welfare of it's citizen's.

So, you do an ID, background, and I-9 check on every person you ever pay to do anything? I don't believe it.

I think democrats in power would selectively enforce which businesses they choose to punish

And would still refuse to deport the illegal alien workers and their family when they are caught

 

[Mac-7]

Any argument at all? Or just the usual idiocy? So who's bringing these illegals here LOL? Do you have a Social Security card that cannot be faked in your imaginary America? What the hell are you babbling about LOL?

Who is bringing the illegals here?

Business owners that are will to pay them when they get here

The key words are “when they get here”

Business owners do not control the border that illegal aliens pass through

They just give them the reason to come...take away that reason would be a great start

I doubt it.

I know illegals that run a business repairing cars. You are not going to top that.

I know another group that has a car wash.

Another shingles roofs.

All cash, all illegals.

There are numerous ways illegals can come and make money, without having to file an I-9.

The solution is control the border, and enforce immigration law.

What I often see is a hispanic US citizen and illegal alien workers

 

[Andylusion]

No, they won't bill you either. They just take the loss. I worked in medical for ten years. My father is on Medicare, and he tells me what's going on with his bills. He does have secondary insurance that covers what Medicare doesn't, but a lot of older folks are not in that financial position to get that private policy.

Doctors limit new Medicare patients - USATODAY.com

You are both right and wrong.

Medicare reimbursement rates, that is Medicare approved amounts (which for part B is 80% from Medicare and 20% from the patient) is determined based on the relative, average costs of providing a service to a Medicare patient, and then adjusted to account for other provider expenses, including malpractice insurance and office-based practice costs.

Contrary to claims of a lot of people, Medicare rates are not determined by what insurance companies pay. It's actually the opposite in most cases because most insurance reimbursements today is paid to contracted providers. The medicare reimbursement rate provides a basis for negotiating contracts which makes Medicare and Insurance reimbursement rates pretty close in most places.

Getting back to the question at hand, for many years many healthcare providers would bill patients for the difference between Medicare rates and their fee . If a doctor accepted Medicare as full payment, they were "Accepting Medicare Assignment". At one time, about 25% of doctors would not accept Medicare Assignment and would bill the patient the difference. Today, due to the fact there is little difference between insurance reimbursement rates and Medicare and the number of Medicare patients, about 95% of doctors today accept Medicare Assignment. Thus patients rarely see any bill if they pay their 20% coinsurance at time service or have insurance supplement.

That's actually kind of the law. But my point is, they have to raise their rates on everybody, so it's a primary factor in private insurance premiums going up. But this is why when you see health facilities close down, they are usually in lower income areas where most of the patients are government patients and there are little to no private pay patients. There is nobody to make up the loss on.

When I got into the business back in 1979, Medicare was a gold mine for my company. It was like they were flushed with money. All you had to do is send them a bill, and they paid it no questions asked. As the funds started to show signs of weakness, that's when they started lowering their reimbursement rates. So what did we do? We raised the price of renting our hospital equipment, and again, you can't just raise it on one group of payers, you have to raise it on everybody.

Medicare is not self- supportive either. They are subsidized with money from the general fund, and of course, always trying to use as little as possible.

The whole entire problem in it all, is that we have an irresponsible government that got involved with the attempted social engineering of society. The bad part is, is that it was using our tax dollars without our permission, to then throw those free dollars into the communities that inturn used it to create more and more dependents that ultimately needed more and more funds to sustain the level of births that were coming out of those communities.

Ok so what was that all about ? Trying to grow a servitude population in thought of, otherwise that it would then continue to breed cheap labor for factories, farms, and etc ????

Ok then along comes the Clinton's and their gang of merry bandits, who supported NAFTA, and the shipping of American's jobs all over the world. Then we basically had huge amounts of excess labor that had no where to go. Next our own citizen's had to either become huge government dependents, drug dealers, users, cheap labor or ended up in jail....... Meanwhile China, Mexico etc were becoming either super powers or filthy rich off of us. The results today, and the facts don't lie.

Trump comes in and attempts to restore our national strength, pride, and worth, while the enemies within fight him tooth and nail.

Wake up America

Well, we could turn to Communism or strict Socialism, then everybody's poor, except the political inner-circle.
Most jobs fall into the category of "service industry employment." Such jobs as retail sales, custodial work, factory line labor, landscaping, et cetera, fall into this category. Somebody has to fill in those spots and if they were to be paid high wages for their labor, YOU the consumer, would scream that you couldn't afford their services or products, as the companies would have to raise the cost of the products significantly to continue making a profit, after all, that's why people start their own companies, to make profit and provide more for their families.
As for your figure of $18,000 as a mean annual wage. I don't know where you get your figures from, but for Americans, the average annual mean income between the ages of 25-34 is really about $41,000+. Of course, this depends on the area one is from. The Department of Labor statistics also doesn't support your claim of $18,000, unless you are specifying some specific employment.
Migrant pickers make lousy incomes, however, if you had to pay every migrant picker a $15.00 per hour wage for his/her labor, you couldn't afford to eat.

That is a misassumption

Farm labor represents only a tiny portion of the price of food in the grocery store

$8-$15 an hour would add a little but not as much as you think if we limit the same food imports from mexico where they also pay low wages

False. You changed the context in the middle of the debate. The prior poster referred to Migrant pickers, while you referred to "portion of the price of food". There are many foods, like wheat for example, that are not picked by hand by migrants.

Foods which are more automated, like potatoes for example, you as the consumer opening a bag of potato chips, might be the very first human hand to have ever touched that potato. They are pulled from the ground, sorted, shipped, skinned, cut, fried, seasoned, baked, packed and sealed, without a single human hand touching them.

In that specific situation, your claim would be correct, that the value would not directly increase in relation to the wages.

However, there are numerous other things that are picked by hand, in labor intensive farming. Apples, peppers, asparagus, grapes, cherries, and so on. Increasing the labor rates for these things, would easily increase the cost of them by a ton.

Limiting imports of food, is a horrifically bad idea.

Right now the US is a net exporter of food. The amount of food we import, is a tiny fraction of the amount we export. Starting a trade war with food, will hurt the US more than anyone else.

So it's about exports and profits in some sectors, but at what cost to the entire nation ?? Yes in certain sectors we have great growth and expansion, where as in other sectors we have stalemate and huge losses.

So who or what can create a balance in it all, and restore our faith in this nation again ?

Isn't this what Trump has been doing, attempting to bring back prosperity to the nation, and to stop allowing the nation to be taken advantage of ??? What's wrong with protectionism to some degree, otherwise if it restores balance and strength in America again ?? Many of our industries could turn within (provided the nation limits foriegn competition against them), and they would profit the same or even better if it didn't have foriegn competitors driving their prices into the tank, and in many cases taking them completely out of the picture.

I don't believe in trying to create mythology of some magic damage to the entire nation.

Faith in the nation come from doing what is right, rolling with punches, and overcoming obstacles.

As long as people land in the US, knowing nothing of our culture, barely speak our language, and have the ability to become successful..... then no American should ever question their faith in this country.

The immigrant who became a drone firm boss

This Mexican, not only came here with little to nothing, but he also didn't have his work permit yet. He setup an international drone manufacturing company.

If that dude can come here and succeed.... then no American, from Alaska to Florida, from Mississippi to California, has any excuse for not having faith in this country.

Get off your butt..... and do something with your life.
Stop whining about trade, and whining about jobs, and whining about NAFTA and all this other BS crap.... and do something. Put your butt in gear, and go make something of yourself.

My roommate came here from Bangladesh, and worked odd jobs, and low paying jobs for years. Last year, he landed a job with a months vacation, $120K a year income, and they paid to have him move to Chicago from Ohio.

Chamath Palihapitiya came here from Sri Lanka, and his unemployed father lived on welfare for sometime before landing a job.
This guy is now a venture capitalist.

13 successful tech leaders who struggled as immigrants before making it in America

Over and over and over..... people come from around the world, and succeed here. And born bred Americans, that can each speak words without people going "I'm sorry, what?", can't succeed because of NAFTA and trade and all this crap?
Then..... HOW THE HECK ARE THEY DOING IT??!?

This argument right here, really irritates me. I know a guy from Somalia, that came here, got a CDL, started driving truck. Saved up all his cash, to buy a truck of his own. Saved up his cash from that, and bought a second truck, and paid someone to drive it. He now has a fleet of 6 trucks.

How is this so utterly impossible for Americans to succeed, and yet all these immigrants who apparently don't know they can't succeed yet.... come here and succeed?

If there is someone unemployed... the problem is in their mirror. The problem isn't trade, it's not immigration, it's not who is president (yet), and so on.... Mirror. There's your problem.

If you only knew my status, you would be embarrassed to write such bullcrap to me, much less insinuate bullcrap like you just did. Quit selling your country down the river, and quit justifying all the bullcrap you keep justifying when American's no better.

Well, I'm referring more generally.


But regardless of your specific status.... if I can look around and see dozens of examples of people who come here from other countries and succeed..... I simply do not buy the idea that Americans can't.

I'm sorry.... it just isn't true. Phil Robertson, was a drunk working at a bar. He started whittling duck callers, and now is a wealthy business owner.

Was it easy? Of course not. He was driving around in his pickup, trying to sell these things to stores, and they would laugh at his face, and walk him to the door.

But he kept at it, until he became a success.

That's the reality.

The solution to our problems is people getting up off the ground, and working towards success. Not somehow trying to prevent others from being successful, in hopes it will make you more successful.

 

[Andylusion]

Who is bringing the illegals here?

Business owners that are will to pay them when they get here

The key words are “when they get here”

Business owners do not control the border that illegal aliens pass through

They just give them the reason to come...take away that reason would be a great start

I doubt it.

I know illegals that run a business repairing cars. You are not going to top that.

I know another group that has a car wash.

Another shingles roofs.

All cash, all illegals.

There are numerous ways illegals can come and make money, without having to file an I-9.

The solution is control the border, and enforce immigration law.

What I often see is a hispanic US citizen and illegal alien workers

That is another popular method. But I know some that are entirely illegally run businesses. There's a group of Somalis in down town Columbus, behind a fenced lot, that are all illegals.

 

[Mac-7]

General Motors, makes more money outside the US, than inside the US. Apple makes more money outside the US. In fact, even McDonald's makes more money outside the US. Yes I realize McDonald's isn't in manufacturing, but the point is.....

General Motors, makes more money outside the US, than inside the US. Apple makes more money outside the US. In fact, even McDonald's makes more money outside the US. Yes I realize McDonald's isn't in manufacturing, but the point is.....

do GM and other global companies still ant the benefits and protection afforded by the US flag?

i bet they do as they cozy up to our biggest enemy

why should Americans care how much money GM makes in china since it is not benefiting them?

But now after Capitalism has brought billions of people above poverty around the world,

That is not a compelling argument for me

we sacrificed some of our wealth through the Marshall Plan and allowed the euros and japanese to grow at our expense

But the Cold War is over and we cannot lift the whole world out of poverty on the backs of Americans

why should Americans care how much money GM makes in china since it is not benefiting them?

You missed my point. My point isn't that you should, or should not care about profits made outside the US.

Now I could make that case..... I own stock in companies that make more money outside the US. I think all people should own stock in companies, and if they have a 401K or a pension, or a annuity, then all people have a retirement at all, should support companies making money outside the US, because it benefits them.

Plus.... now with lower capital gains taxes, many of those companies, have started bringing those profits back to the US, to invest in the US.
US companies bring home $665 billion in overseas cash last year, falling short of Trump pledge

So earning money outside the US, is directly benefiting the US. By the way, other countries have much lower taxes on profits brought home. We're one of the few stupid countries that doesn't have that as a policy.

However, as I said, that was not my point. My point was.... if you make it through tariff and protectionist policy, a system where companies can either make products for the US, or the entire world.... they are going to make it for the entire world, not the US.

The world will win, and the US will lose. Have trade barriers is going to a create an "The USA or Everyone else" system... and in that system, everyone else wins.

Say I am a large company, and I have $40 Billion dollars to build a manufacturing plant, that will produce a product, and create 500 jobs.

I can either make that manufacturing plant in Mexico, or I can make it in Tennessee. I don't have $80 Billion to build two plants. I can either make it in the US, or I can make it outside the US in Mexico.

One or the other.

Where do I build the plant?

Well if I build it in the US, because of trade barriers, I can only sell to the US market.
If I build it in Mexico, I can sell it world wide, to the 8 Billion people on the planet.

Where do I build the plant? In Mexico of course. I make a ton more money selling to the world market, than I do selling to just the US market.

The US loses.... and the world wins.

So doing this "us or them" trade war game, is going to be a loser for the US. And it always has by the way. Trade barriers, and protectionism have always destroyed the people engaging in it.

Jamaica, East Berlin, Venezuela, Cuba, protectionism has never been a benefit to the countries that engage in it.

Again, as I said before on this forum.... if protectionism, and limiting trade was a net benefit, then why are we putting trade sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine? By the logic of protectionism, we are forcing Russia to be wealthy, by restricting trade on them.

Why would we 'punish' people with restrictions on trade..... and then restrict our own trade to somehow benefit us? These are mutually exclusive ideas. It can't be both.

So that is my real point. It wasn't that you should just "care" for caring sake, how much money companies make outside the US. My point was that if you make it an ultimatum, that companies either deal with the US or the rest of the world, they'll deal with the rest of the world. There is more money to be made in the rest of the world. We'll lose... the world will win.

But the Cold War is over and we cannot lift the whole world out of poverty on the backs of Americans

But we're not lifting the world out of poverty, on our backs. Trade is inherently mutually beneficial. Every company I've worked for, was making tons of sales outside the US. You put in trade barriers, and all those companies would close. All of them would. All of our material was being sourced from around world. Even those material that was sourced locally, was getting supplied around the world.

It was mutually beneficial for us to buy from various providers, and then we were able to make our product. You cut of our suppliers, and the cost of production spikes above the amount our customers are willing to pay..... we're all laid off, and unemployed.

How is this on our backs? If not for trade, we wouldn't have a job.

US companies bring home $665 billion in overseas cash last year, falling short of Trump pledge

That sounds impressive but dont expect that much every year since much of it was a one-time response to the trump tax cuts

If it has not been clear before let me say now that I’m not against international trade

Between non enemies such as the US, europe, japan, south korea, canada and others with comparable economies and costs of doing business trade is a good thing

But with raptor states like china where business exists to serve the political aggression of the dictatorship free trade is an illusion

Many Americans do not see the threat from china and see that country as a harmless panda bear

Which it is not

So I want less one-way trade with china, less wealth transfer, and no technology transfer

I do not yet see a connection between the two issues. One issue is trade. The other is the potential for Geo-political conflict with China.

While I don't see them as entirely mutually exclusive, I also don't see them as intertwined either.

China is going to grow whether we engage in trade with them, or not. Any country that moves to adopt more Capitalist economic policies, will grow.

Cutting off trade with China will not stop the economy from growing, now stop others from engaging with China.

One thing it might do, is make the Chinese more anti-American.

One of the things that has irritated me about Cuba, is that no matter how badly the Socialist government has decimated the Cuban economy, no matter how impoverished and hopeless the people are, the government simply blamed everything on the "American Embargo".

So no matter what happened, it wasn't their governments fault... it was the Americans fault. A line we hear from mindless left-wingers here in the US constantly.

So I am not in favor of cutting off trade in the name of hindering their government, because all it will do is strengthen their government, by allowing them to use the US as a scapegoat for everything that happens.

And the reality is, Cuba wouldn't be poor, if they engaged in Capitalism. The Embargo is just an excuse for failure, not an actual cause of it.

China is going to grow no matter what. The question is, are we going to give them excuses to blame the US for everything that happens in their country?

As for businesses exist to serve the government... I do not see that China is much different than anywhere else. I don't see that a noodle company in China, exists to serve the government. I do see that government sometimes coerces companies to operate in a favorable manor, but then we have that here in the US too.

I think free-trade is still the best way to go, even with China. The last thing I want to do, is give the Chinese people an excuse to blame the US, for their garbage governments bad policies.

China is using trade as part of a geo political war against the western democracies and non communist nations all over the world

We have never had free trade with china because individual companies cannot compete with a communist dictatorship

That makes no sense.

The way you 'wage war' with Trade, is by denying trade.

Again, the way we waged war with trade against Russia, is by imposing sanctions against Russia.... denying them trade.

You cannot 'wage a war' with trade. Trade is inherently mutually beneficial.

If it did not benefit us to have trade, we wouldn't engage in trade. The reason we trade, is because we benefit.

Again, if it was possible to wage war using trade, we don't we trade with Cuba to destroy the communist government? North Korea? Iran? Venezuela?

Lack of trade is a weapon. Trade can't be weaponized, except through clever mythology.

And as far as lack of a 'free trade'......

If China is subsidizing steel, that benefits us, and harms China.

Think about it.... China is taxes their own citizens, to pay money, so that we can buy steel at a discount.

This is effectively like you wanting to buy a car from me, and me saying I'm going to take money from my wife and daughter, so that I can sell you this $20,000 car, for $18,000... and this is going to harm you, to get a car cheaper, on the money of my wife and daughter.

The concept is insane. If the Chinese want to take their own people's money, so we can have wealth cheaper..... I say let them.

Mercantilism is a practice that has existed since the start of the Industrisl Revolution

Nations will target products produced on foreign countries and flood the market with lower priced items till the domestic manufacturer goes out of business

Even if they do so at a loss

Because of that tariffs were invented to protect domestic producers

 

[Andylusion]

Well, we could turn to Communism or strict Socialism, then everybody's poor, except the political inner-circle.
Most jobs fall into the category of "service industry employment." Such jobs as retail sales, custodial work, factory line labor, landscaping, et cetera, fall into this category. Somebody has to fill in those spots and if they were to be paid high wages for their labor, YOU the consumer, would scream that you couldn't afford their services or products, as the companies would have to raise the cost of the products significantly to continue making a profit, after all, that's why people start their own companies, to make profit and provide more for their families.
As for your figure of $18,000 as a mean annual wage. I don't know where you get your figures from, but for Americans, the average annual mean income between the ages of 25-34 is really about $41,000+. Of course, this depends on the area one is from. The Department of Labor statistics also doesn't support your claim of $18,000, unless you are specifying some specific employment.
Migrant pickers make lousy incomes, however, if you had to pay every migrant picker a $15.00 per hour wage for his/her labor, you couldn't afford to eat.

That is a misassumption

Farm labor represents only a tiny portion of the price of food in the grocery store

$8-$15 an hour would add a little but not as much as you think if we limit the same food imports from mexico where they also pay low wages

False. You changed the context in the middle of the debate. The prior poster referred to Migrant pickers, while you referred to "portion of the price of food". There are many foods, like wheat for example, that are not picked by hand by migrants.

Foods which are more automated, like potatoes for example, you as the consumer opening a bag of potato chips, might be the very first human hand to have ever touched that potato. They are pulled from the ground, sorted, shipped, skinned, cut, fried, seasoned, baked, packed and sealed, without a single human hand touching them.

In that specific situation, your claim would be correct, that the value would not directly increase in relation to the wages.

However, there are numerous other things that are picked by hand, in labor intensive farming. Apples, peppers, asparagus, grapes, cherries, and so on. Increasing the labor rates for these things, would easily increase the cost of them by a ton.

Limiting imports of food, is a horrifically bad idea.

Right now the US is a net exporter of food. The amount of food we import, is a tiny fraction of the amount we export. Starting a trade war with food, will hurt the US more than anyone else.

Even had picked food generallydoes not go directly from field to table

There are warehouses, wholesalers and retailers in the food chain, plus, transportation, insurance, and other business expenses

Right, and if we are talking about the effects of minimum wage overall, it would effect every single employee, at every step in the process. The guy driving the forklift getting pallets off the truck, is going to get paid more if the minimum wage goes up.

I thought we were talking about what it would cost to replace illegal alien fruit pickers who make very low wages with American citizens who will not work that cheap

It may be that Americans will not do those jobs at any price thanks to welfare making too many low income people allergic to hard physical labor

If so we can have a guest workers program where MEN and only men are allowed in the US to work on farms

Then in that case, it would drastically increase prices. No matter how crappy the job, there is an American willing to do that job at some price point. The question is how high is that price point?

And eventually if the price is high enough, it will end up automated.

But in labor intensive production, if you replace those immigrants with Americans, the price will go up drastically.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ok, but jobs and work is what American's need most, and not just stocks that benefit a class of people that make up a small number of the overall numbers that are needed to make this nation strong be it through in and through out again.

I don't think we need anymore jobs. We have more than enough as it is. Novembers jobs report certainly added to it.

I agree we don't need more jobs but we do need better jobs with better pay, and better benefits. We have far too many American workers who have to rely on government help to support their families. The problem of course, is that American workers are no longer the most skilled workers in the world and thus it is hard to justify higher pay without higher productivity.

There are good jobs around, but the real problem are the drugs we have in this country. Better jobs usually have drug screening as a condition of employment, and lower paying jobs don't. So people opt to work for less money so they can continue smoking pot.

I had tenants like that a few years ago. It was a young couple. Good kids, paid rent albeit late which I didn't care about. But they both worked fast food jobs because they loved their pot and couldn't give it up for anything. When my employer looks for new employees, the same thing. People are interested in the job, but can't pass a drug test. It's the same story at just about any company. I talk to people from many different industries.

To add insult to injury, states are legalizing pot, but just because it's legal doesn't mean companies don't do drug testing.

Where Pot is legal, most companies drop their zero tolerance and just disregard Pot use. However, they draw the line with hard drugs such cocaine, heroin, and crystal meth. With 34 states allowing medical use, which just requires a form filled out by a doctor and 10 allowing unrestricted use by adults, Pot is fast becoming accepted on the same level as alcohol.

Most people can control the use of Pot, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, etc so it does not interfere with their work. However, some people have addictive personalities and they are very likely to become addicted. Hard drugs are in a different category all together. Continuous use almost guarantees addiction for most people.

I know plenty of people addicted to pot, although it doesn't fit the classic definition of addiction. But when you sacrifice getting a job over pot, and not quit to get that better paying job, I call that addiction.

Businesses drug test to get lower workman's compensation rates. In my line of work, it's a government mandate. So I don't see why businesses in pot states would not do the same. And I sure as hell know that government doesn't accept a driver on the road unless they are randomly drug tested regardless which state they are driving in.

 

[Mac-7]

Business owners that are will to pay them when they get here

The key words are “when they get here”

Business owners do not control the border that illegal aliens pass through

They just give them the reason to come...take away that reason would be a great start

I doubt it.

I know illegals that run a business repairing cars. You are not going to top that.

I know another group that has a car wash.

Another shingles roofs.

All cash, all illegals.

There are numerous ways illegals can come and make money, without having to file an I-9.

The solution is control the border, and enforce immigration law.

What I often see is a hispanic US citizen and illegal alien workers

That is another popular method. But I know some that are entirely illegally run businesses. There's a group of Somalis in down town Columbus, behind a fenced lot, that are all illegals.

Yes, there are many ways to avoid the law

What we may need is to put a bounty on illegal alien workers

Pay for information leading to the arrest of workplace cheaters

 

[Mac-7]

That is a misassumption

Farm labor represents only a tiny portion of the price of food in the grocery store

$8-$15 an hour would add a little but not as much as you think if we limit the same food imports from mexico where they also pay low wages

False. You changed the context in the middle of the debate. The prior poster referred to Migrant pickers, while you referred to "portion of the price of food". There are many foods, like wheat for example, that are not picked by hand by migrants.

Foods which are more automated, like potatoes for example, you as the consumer opening a bag of potato chips, might be the very first human hand to have ever touched that potato. They are pulled from the ground, sorted, shipped, skinned, cut, fried, seasoned, baked, packed and sealed, without a single human hand touching them.

In that specific situation, your claim would be correct, that the value would not directly increase in relation to the wages.

However, there are numerous other things that are picked by hand, in labor intensive farming. Apples, peppers, asparagus, grapes, cherries, and so on. Increasing the labor rates for these things, would easily increase the cost of them by a ton.

Limiting imports of food, is a horrifically bad idea.

Right now the US is a net exporter of food. The amount of food we import, is a tiny fraction of the amount we export. Starting a trade war with food, will hurt the US more than anyone else.

Even had picked food generallydoes not go directly from field to table

There are warehouses, wholesalers and retailers in the food chain, plus, transportation, insurance, and other business expenses

Right, and if we are talking about the effects of minimum wage overall, it would effect every single employee, at every step in the process. The guy driving the forklift getting pallets off the truck, is going to get paid more if the minimum wage goes up.

I thought we were talking about what it would cost to replace illegal alien fruit pickers who make very low wages with American citizens who will not work that cheap

It may be that Americans will not do those jobs at any price thanks to welfare making too many low income people allergic to hard physical labor

If so we can have a guest workers program where MEN and only men are allowed in the US to work on farms

Then in that case, it would drastically increase prices. No matter how crappy the job, there is an American willing to do that job at some price point. The question is how high is that price point?

And eventually if the price is high enough, it will end up automated.

But in labor intensive production, if you replace those immigrants with Americans, the price will go up drastically.

I dont mind paying more for labor in a free market if the workers are Americans

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You sound so uninformed about America I doubt if you even are an American

Any argument at all? Or just the usual idiocy? So who's bringing these illegals here LOL? Do you have a Social Security card that cannot be faked in your imaginary America? What the hell are you babbling about LOL?

Who is bringing the illegals here?

Business owners that are will to pay them when they get here

Do you have clear direct evidence that business owners are intentionally bringing illegals into the country, in direct violation of the law? I honestly can't even imagine that many business owners would pay thousands on thousands of dollars, and risk losing everything they have, to get a few minimum wage workers picking fruit or something.

Read what I wrote...they are bringing them here BY paying them when they get here. If nobody would hire them they would not come. They are every bit as responsible as the coyote that leads them through the dessert

That's just one reason some come. Not everybody is coming here to work. Dropping anchor babies would probably fall in the same category.

It's estimated by some we have over 20 million illegals in this country. I find it hard to believe nearly all 20 million are working illegally in the US.

 

[Mac-7]

Any argument at all? Or just the usual idiocy? So who's bringing these illegals here LOL? Do you have a Social Security card that cannot be faked in your imaginary America? What the hell are you babbling about LOL?

Who is bringing the illegals here?

Business owners that are will to pay them when they get here

Do you have clear direct evidence that business owners are intentionally bringing illegals into the country, in direct violation of the law? I honestly can't even imagine that many business owners would pay thousands on thousands of dollars, and risk losing everything they have, to get a few minimum wage workers picking fruit or something.

Read what I wrote...they are bringing them here BY paying them when they get here. If nobody would hire them they would not come. They are every bit as responsible as the coyote that leads them through the dessert

That's just one reason some come. Not everybody is coming here to work. Dropping anchor babies would probably fall in the same category.

It's estimated by some we have over 20 million illegals in this country. I find it hard to believe nearly all 20 million are working illegally in the US.

Dont forget the gang bangers who come here to rob, rape and kill

 

[Andylusion]

why should Americans care how much money GM makes in china since it is not benefiting them?

You missed my point. My point isn't that you should, or should not care about profits made outside the US.

Now I could make that case..... I own stock in companies that make more money outside the US. I think all people should own stock in companies, and if they have a 401K or a pension, or a annuity, then all people have a retirement at all, should support companies making money outside the US, because it benefits them.

Plus.... now with lower capital gains taxes, many of those companies, have started bringing those profits back to the US, to invest in the US.
US companies bring home $665 billion in overseas cash last year, falling short of Trump pledge

So earning money outside the US, is directly benefiting the US. By the way, other countries have much lower taxes on profits brought home. We're one of the few stupid countries that doesn't have that as a policy.

However, as I said, that was not my point. My point was.... if you make it through tariff and protectionist policy, a system where companies can either make products for the US, or the entire world.... they are going to make it for the entire world, not the US.

The world will win, and the US will lose. Have trade barriers is going to a create an "The USA or Everyone else" system... and in that system, everyone else wins.

Say I am a large company, and I have $40 Billion dollars to build a manufacturing plant, that will produce a product, and create 500 jobs.

I can either make that manufacturing plant in Mexico, or I can make it in Tennessee. I don't have $80 Billion to build two plants. I can either make it in the US, or I can make it outside the US in Mexico.

One or the other.

Where do I build the plant?

Well if I build it in the US, because of trade barriers, I can only sell to the US market.
If I build it in Mexico, I can sell it world wide, to the 8 Billion people on the planet.

Where do I build the plant? In Mexico of course. I make a ton more money selling to the world market, than I do selling to just the US market.

The US loses.... and the world wins.

So doing this "us or them" trade war game, is going to be a loser for the US. And it always has by the way. Trade barriers, and protectionism have always destroyed the people engaging in it.

Jamaica, East Berlin, Venezuela, Cuba, protectionism has never been a benefit to the countries that engage in it.

Again, as I said before on this forum.... if protectionism, and limiting trade was a net benefit, then why are we putting trade sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine? By the logic of protectionism, we are forcing Russia to be wealthy, by restricting trade on them.

Why would we 'punish' people with restrictions on trade..... and then restrict our own trade to somehow benefit us? These are mutually exclusive ideas. It can't be both.

So that is my real point. It wasn't that you should just "care" for caring sake, how much money companies make outside the US. My point was that if you make it an ultimatum, that companies either deal with the US or the rest of the world, they'll deal with the rest of the world. There is more money to be made in the rest of the world. We'll lose... the world will win.

But the Cold War is over and we cannot lift the whole world out of poverty on the backs of Americans

But we're not lifting the world out of poverty, on our backs. Trade is inherently mutually beneficial. Every company I've worked for, was making tons of sales outside the US. You put in trade barriers, and all those companies would close. All of them would. All of our material was being sourced from around world. Even those material that was sourced locally, was getting supplied around the world.

It was mutually beneficial for us to buy from various providers, and then we were able to make our product. You cut of our suppliers, and the cost of production spikes above the amount our customers are willing to pay..... we're all laid off, and unemployed.

How is this on our backs? If not for trade, we wouldn't have a job.

US companies bring home $665 billion in overseas cash last year, falling short of Trump pledge

That sounds impressive but dont expect that much every year since much of it was a one-time response to the trump tax cuts

If it has not been clear before let me say now that I’m not against international trade

Between non enemies such as the US, europe, japan, south korea, canada and others with comparable economies and costs of doing business trade is a good thing

But with raptor states like china where business exists to serve the political aggression of the dictatorship free trade is an illusion

Many Americans do not see the threat from china and see that country as a harmless panda bear

Which it is not

So I want less one-way trade with china, less wealth transfer, and no technology transfer

I do not yet see a connection between the two issues. One issue is trade. The other is the potential for Geo-political conflict with China.

While I don't see them as entirely mutually exclusive, I also don't see them as intertwined either.

China is going to grow whether we engage in trade with them, or not. Any country that moves to adopt more Capitalist economic policies, will grow.

Cutting off trade with China will not stop the economy from growing, now stop others from engaging with China.

One thing it might do, is make the Chinese more anti-American.

One of the things that has irritated me about Cuba, is that no matter how badly the Socialist government has decimated the Cuban economy, no matter how impoverished and hopeless the people are, the government simply blamed everything on the "American Embargo".

So no matter what happened, it wasn't their governments fault... it was the Americans fault. A line we hear from mindless left-wingers here in the US constantly.

So I am not in favor of cutting off trade in the name of hindering their government, because all it will do is strengthen their government, by allowing them to use the US as a scapegoat for everything that happens.

And the reality is, Cuba wouldn't be poor, if they engaged in Capitalism. The Embargo is just an excuse for failure, not an actual cause of it.

China is going to grow no matter what. The question is, are we going to give them excuses to blame the US for everything that happens in their country?

As for businesses exist to serve the government... I do not see that China is much different than anywhere else. I don't see that a noodle company in China, exists to serve the government. I do see that government sometimes coerces companies to operate in a favorable manor, but then we have that here in the US too.

I think free-trade is still the best way to go, even with China. The last thing I want to do, is give the Chinese people an excuse to blame the US, for their garbage governments bad policies.

China is using trade as part of a geo political war against the western democracies and non communist nations all over the world

We have never had free trade with china because individual companies cannot compete with a communist dictatorship

That makes no sense.

The way you 'wage war' with Trade, is by denying trade.

Again, the way we waged war with trade against Russia, is by imposing sanctions against Russia.... denying them trade.

You cannot 'wage a war' with trade. Trade is inherently mutually beneficial.

If it did not benefit us to have trade, we wouldn't engage in trade. The reason we trade, is because we benefit.

Again, if it was possible to wage war using trade, we don't we trade with Cuba to destroy the communist government? North Korea? Iran? Venezuela?

Lack of trade is a weapon. Trade can't be weaponized, except through clever mythology.

And as far as lack of a 'free trade'......

If China is subsidizing steel, that benefits us, and harms China.

Think about it.... China is taxes their own citizens, to pay money, so that we can buy steel at a discount.

This is effectively like you wanting to buy a car from me, and me saying I'm going to take money from my wife and daughter, so that I can sell you this $20,000 car, for $18,000... and this is going to harm you, to get a car cheaper, on the money of my wife and daughter.

The concept is insane. If the Chinese want to take their own people's money, so we can have wealth cheaper..... I say let them.

Mercantilism is a practice that has existed since the start of the Industrisl Revolution

Nations will target products produced on foreign countries and flood the market with lower priced items till the domestic manufacturer goes out of business

Even if they do so at a loss

Because of that tariffs were invented to protect domestic producers

Mercantilism does not exist anymore.

Originally Mercantilism worked because after selling goods to another country, say England, they would take those pound notes, and convert them into Gold, which was the default backing of currency.

Running that system, England would have their gold reserves depleted, and France would have their reserves filled. This actually happened during the years between world war 1 and 2.

However, that system doesn't work now that we have fiat money. China can't do anything with the US dollars it collects, except spend them in the US.

So that really isn't a concern.

As far as shutting down local business with predatory pricing....

Again... if you want to sell stuff to me at a loss.... I think that's great.

Further, remember that all those things we get, that they are selling at a loss... build our economy. The only way you can see it is as a loss to our economy, is if you look exclusively at steel mills only. But what you are ignoring is all the companies that are growing and employing more people, and producing more goods, because steel is cheap.

However, it isn't even true though.

We get more steel from Russia than we do China.

So how can we blame china for job loss in the US? We can't logically. It's simply that we hear things, and want someone to blame, and China is a good target for some reason. The reality is, we benefit just as much from China, as they do from us.

 

[Andylusion]

False. You changed the context in the middle of the debate. The prior poster referred to Migrant pickers, while you referred to "portion of the price of food". There are many foods, like wheat for example, that are not picked by hand by migrants.

Foods which are more automated, like potatoes for example, you as the consumer opening a bag of potato chips, might be the very first human hand to have ever touched that potato. They are pulled from the ground, sorted, shipped, skinned, cut, fried, seasoned, baked, packed and sealed, without a single human hand touching them.

In that specific situation, your claim would be correct, that the value would not directly increase in relation to the wages.

However, there are numerous other things that are picked by hand, in labor intensive farming. Apples, peppers, asparagus, grapes, cherries, and so on. Increasing the labor rates for these things, would easily increase the cost of them by a ton.

Limiting imports of food, is a horrifically bad idea.

Right now the US is a net exporter of food. The amount of food we import, is a tiny fraction of the amount we export. Starting a trade war with food, will hurt the US more than anyone else.

Even had picked food generallydoes not go directly from field to table

There are warehouses, wholesalers and retailers in the food chain, plus, transportation, insurance, and other business expenses

Right, and if we are talking about the effects of minimum wage overall, it would effect every single employee, at every step in the process. The guy driving the forklift getting pallets off the truck, is going to get paid more if the minimum wage goes up.

I thought we were talking about what it would cost to replace illegal alien fruit pickers who make very low wages with American citizens who will not work that cheap

It may be that Americans will not do those jobs at any price thanks to welfare making too many low income people allergic to hard physical labor

If so we can have a guest workers program where MEN and only men are allowed in the US to work on farms

Then in that case, it would drastically increase prices. No matter how crappy the job, there is an American willing to do that job at some price point. The question is how high is that price point?

And eventually if the price is high enough, it will end up automated.

But in labor intensive production, if you replace those immigrants with Americans, the price will go up drastically.

I dont mind paying more for labor in a free market if the workers are Americans

But you do mind paying more. Everyone does. Are you really trying to say that you would buy the exact same amount of any given good or service, if the price was doubled? Of course not. That's not even logically possible, as the amount of money you have doesn't magically double with the price of the goods.

I don't go to Chipotle anymore, because now that is $7 for a cheap burrito, it's not worth it.

Increasing price always has a negative effect on people purchasing. It's a bit ridiculous to claim otherwise.