‘Cheap manufacturing be damned’: Sentiment builds for moving U.S. companies out of China

I'm 100% for it. Regardless we have to continue exports to maintain our status as world power, otherwise we'd give that status to China. If countries were to become isolated, then yes, no country would complete with the USA, we'd be set.

I think we should also end foreigners owning U.S. real estate. That said millennial's already screwed the pooch on that one. Many figured they were above property ownership. They didn't take into account they'll be paying the Chinese rent in the form of 5Kish by their 60th B-days.
Isolated countries fail economically.


To be fair, there has never been an isolated country on a scale of the US.

AND, as we seen to be destined to be fucked by any trading partner, isolation could be a competitive policy.


THe choice seems to be either be the world's bitch, or take our ball and go home.
How do you mean? The USSR failed miserably. Pretty big country.


Failed because they tried to have a big empire AND we fought them.

Not because they were isolated.
Being isolated is bad for capitalism. Very bad .


Being the world's bitch on trade, hasn't been that great either.

If only there was a third option. But there does not seem to be one.
We have the biggest economy in the world with the most wealth and we’ve had super low unemployment. Seems to be fine.


No, we're not. Our middle class wages have stagnated and our middle class and lower class have lost faith in the future.

People are dying from this shit. To the point that our life expectancy is actually FALLING.


Good macro economic numbers have been hiding generations of pain.


Try to change policy.
That is an internal problem . We have the wealth and jobs. That wouldn’t change if we were isolated.


It is not an internal problem. It is a problem caused by external trade and the inflow of labor.


Time to change policy.
What do you base that on. Again, tons of wealth and jobs. That’s the formula for good wages. If we had too much inflow we’d have high unemployment and certainly wouldn’t have labor shortages. Your claim is baseless. Learn some economics.



Because we have NOT had rising wages for the middle class and working poor.

If it is the formula for "good wages" something went wrong.
Yes something is wrong. Has nothing to do with trade. We have near monopolies, wage collusion, government corruption... internal problems have hurt the market.


How do you know which factors are causing the issue? Cause the reduction of demand, by losing so many manufacturing jobs, while flooding the labor market, seems, like two factors that could have quite an impact.
Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.


MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”

In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.



But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.


Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?


Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.
Aren't many finance jobs for companies that might have a near monopoly in their industry? What type of medical? It certainly exists in food with huge companies like Mcdonalds. Bars? Is that a big employer?



1. Not that I have seen.

2. All types of medical. I've seen a steel worker retrain as radiation therapist.

3. Bars are huge employers. And owning a bar can be quite lucrative. I have seen a retired steel worker become a millionaire opening a bar.
 
I'm 100% for it. Regardless we have to continue exports to maintain our status as world power, otherwise we'd give that status to China. If countries were to become isolated, then yes, no country would complete with the USA, we'd be set.

I think we should also end foreigners owning U.S. real estate. That said millennial's already screwed the pooch on that one. Many figured they were above property ownership. They didn't take into account they'll be paying the Chinese rent in the form of 5Kish by their 60th B-days.
Isolated countries fail economically.


To be fair, there has never been an isolated country on a scale of the US.

AND, as we seen to be destined to be fucked by any trading partner, isolation could be a competitive policy.


THe choice seems to be either be the world's bitch, or take our ball and go home.
How do you mean? The USSR failed miserably. Pretty big country.


Failed because they tried to have a big empire AND we fought them.

Not because they were isolated.
Being isolated is bad for capitalism. Very bad .


Being the world's bitch on trade, hasn't been that great either.

If only there was a third option. But there does not seem to be one.
We have the biggest economy in the world with the most wealth and we’ve had super low unemployment. Seems to be fine.


No, we're not. Our middle class wages have stagnated and our middle class and lower class have lost faith in the future.

People are dying from this shit. To the point that our life expectancy is actually FALLING.


Good macro economic numbers have been hiding generations of pain.


Try to change policy.
That is an internal problem . We have the wealth and jobs. That wouldn’t change if we were isolated.


It is not an internal problem. It is a problem caused by external trade and the inflow of labor.


Time to change policy.
What do you base that on. Again, tons of wealth and jobs. That’s the formula for good wages. If we had too much inflow we’d have high unemployment and certainly wouldn’t have labor shortages. Your claim is baseless. Learn some economics.



Because we have NOT had rising wages for the middle class and working poor.

If it is the formula for "good wages" something went wrong.
Yes something is wrong. Has nothing to do with trade. We have near monopolies, wage collusion, government corruption... internal problems have hurt the market.


How do you know which factors are causing the issue? Cause the reduction of demand, by losing so many manufacturing jobs, while flooding the labor market, seems, like two factors that could have quite an impact.
Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.


MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”

In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.



But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.


Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?


Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.



If the dialysis centers are being especially cheap, just about everyone in it, could transfer to another modality, sometimes without any training.


I'm just not seeing this factor as the answer that you think it is.


Supply and demand are the wide ranging issues, that can effect EVERYTHING at once.
 
I'm 100% for it. Regardless we have to continue exports to maintain our status as world power, otherwise we'd give that status to China. If countries were to become isolated, then yes, no country would complete with the USA, we'd be set.

I think we should also end foreigners owning U.S. real estate. That said millennial's already screwed the pooch on that one. Many figured they were above property ownership. They didn't take into account they'll be paying the Chinese rent in the form of 5Kish by their 60th B-days.
Isolated countries fail economically.


To be fair, there has never been an isolated country on a scale of the US.

AND, as we seen to be destined to be fucked by any trading partner, isolation could be a competitive policy.


THe choice seems to be either be the world's bitch, or take our ball and go home.
How do you mean? The USSR failed miserably. Pretty big country.


Failed because they tried to have a big empire AND we fought them.

Not because they were isolated.
Being isolated is bad for capitalism. Very bad .


Being the world's bitch on trade, hasn't been that great either.

If only there was a third option. But there does not seem to be one.
We have the biggest economy in the world with the most wealth and we’ve had super low unemployment. Seems to be fine.


No, we're not. Our middle class wages have stagnated and our middle class and lower class have lost faith in the future.

People are dying from this shit. To the point that our life expectancy is actually FALLING.


Good macro economic numbers have been hiding generations of pain.


Try to change policy.
That is an internal problem . We have the wealth and jobs. That wouldn’t change if we were isolated.


It is not an internal problem. It is a problem caused by external trade and the inflow of labor.


Time to change policy.
What do you base that on. Again, tons of wealth and jobs. That’s the formula for good wages. If we had too much inflow we’d have high unemployment and certainly wouldn’t have labor shortages. Your claim is baseless. Learn some economics.



Because we have NOT had rising wages for the middle class and working poor.

If it is the formula for "good wages" something went wrong.
Yes something is wrong. Has nothing to do with trade. We have near monopolies, wage collusion, government corruption... internal problems have hurt the market.


How do you know which factors are causing the issue? Cause the reduction of demand, by losing so many manufacturing jobs, while flooding the labor market, seems, like two factors that could have quite an impact.
Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.


MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”

In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.



But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.


Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?


Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.

I would almost agree with this to some extent.

There are some monopolies in health care.

The problem is, this isn't a market monopoly. Market monopolies are near impossible.

Just think about it logically.... if you had a hospital that was charging $10,000 for knee surgery... and it is possible to hire a doctor, and perform the same surgery, for $5,000 and make a profit....

In a free capitalist market... why would none of these profit seeking investors ever take the risk to open a hospital?

Again... just logically... why would they not do this? if you can provide the same quality product and service, at half the cost.... wouldn't you be a multi-billionaire over night by opening a cheaper hospital?

So why would you not do this?

The answer is really simple. Government. The reasons any monopoly exists in health care, is because of government controls, government regulations, and restrictions on the market.

Again, just had this discussion with someone about EpiPen. The active medication was created in the early 1900s, it's been synthesized for 50 years or more, it costs 10 cents for a dose.... and yet they were selling EpiPens for $200 for 4 doses.

Well why hasn't anyone produced an alternative for $10 a dose, and made $10 Billion dollars selling these things?

Answer..... Government. The FDA blocked several alternatives from coming to market, preventing competition, creating a government-mandated monopoly.

That's not the fault of the "the market" or "Capitalists" or "capitalism" as an ideology. That's the fault of socialistic control on the market. Without government intervention, there would never have been a monopoly on the market by Mylon. And even now, without government there would be no Duopoly of Epipen and Adrenaclick.

Without government, there would be a half dozen options, and competition for lower prices for quality products on the market.

Nearly every single time you ever see a monopoly anywhere ever... .it's because of government.
 
I'm 100% for it. Regardless we have to continue exports to maintain our status as world power, otherwise we'd give that status to China. If countries were to become isolated, then yes, no country would complete with the USA, we'd be set.

I think we should also end foreigners owning U.S. real estate. That said millennial's already screwed the pooch on that one. Many figured they were above property ownership. They didn't take into account they'll be paying the Chinese rent in the form of 5Kish by their 60th B-days.
Isolated countries fail economically.


To be fair, there has never been an isolated country on a scale of the US.

AND, as we seen to be destined to be fucked by any trading partner, isolation could be a competitive policy.


THe choice seems to be either be the world's bitch, or take our ball and go home.
How do you mean? The USSR failed miserably. Pretty big country.


Failed because they tried to have a big empire AND we fought them.

Not because they were isolated.
Being isolated is bad for capitalism. Very bad .


Being the world's bitch on trade, hasn't been that great either.

If only there was a third option. But there does not seem to be one.
We have the biggest economy in the world with the most wealth and we’ve had super low unemployment. Seems to be fine.


No, we're not. Our middle class wages have stagnated and our middle class and lower class have lost faith in the future.

People are dying from this shit. To the point that our life expectancy is actually FALLING.


Good macro economic numbers have been hiding generations of pain.


Try to change policy.
That is an internal problem . We have the wealth and jobs. That wouldn’t change if we were isolated.


It is not an internal problem. It is a problem caused by external trade and the inflow of labor.


Time to change policy.
What do you base that on. Again, tons of wealth and jobs. That’s the formula for good wages. If we had too much inflow we’d have high unemployment and certainly wouldn’t have labor shortages. Your claim is baseless. Learn some economics.



Because we have NOT had rising wages for the middle class and working poor.

If it is the formula for "good wages" something went wrong.
Yes something is wrong. Has nothing to do with trade. We have near monopolies, wage collusion, government corruption... internal problems have hurt the market.


How do you know which factors are causing the issue? Cause the reduction of demand, by losing so many manufacturing jobs, while flooding the labor market, seems, like two factors that could have quite an impact.
Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.


MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”

In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.



But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.


Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?


Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.
Aren't many finance jobs for companies that might have a near monopoly in their industry? What type of medical? It certainly exists in food with huge companies like Mcdonalds. Bars? Is that a big employer?

All industry is interconnected.

Everything is interconnected to everything.



Which is irrelevant to the question. That a dialysis center might be "connected" to the local hospital, does not mean that the local hospital will not hire a nurse from the lower paying center, if the center is a bunch of cheap bastards that are under paying her.
 
I'm 100% for it. Regardless we have to continue exports to maintain our status as world power, otherwise we'd give that status to China. If countries were to become isolated, then yes, no country would complete with the USA, we'd be set.

I think we should also end foreigners owning U.S. real estate. That said millennial's already screwed the pooch on that one. Many figured they were above property ownership. They didn't take into account they'll be paying the Chinese rent in the form of 5Kish by their 60th B-days.
Isolated countries fail economically.


To be fair, there has never been an isolated country on a scale of the US.

AND, as we seen to be destined to be fucked by any trading partner, isolation could be a competitive policy.


THe choice seems to be either be the world's bitch, or take our ball and go home.
How do you mean? The USSR failed miserably. Pretty big country.


Failed because they tried to have a big empire AND we fought them.

Not because they were isolated.
Being isolated is bad for capitalism. Very bad .


Being the world's bitch on trade, hasn't been that great either.

If only there was a third option. But there does not seem to be one.
We have the biggest economy in the world with the most wealth and we’ve had super low unemployment. Seems to be fine.


No, we're not. Our middle class wages have stagnated and our middle class and lower class have lost faith in the future.

People are dying from this shit. To the point that our life expectancy is actually FALLING.


Good macro economic numbers have been hiding generations of pain.


Try to change policy.
That is an internal problem . We have the wealth and jobs. That wouldn’t change if we were isolated.


It is not an internal problem. It is a problem caused by external trade and the inflow of labor.


Time to change policy.
What do you base that on. Again, tons of wealth and jobs. That’s the formula for good wages. If we had too much inflow we’d have high unemployment and certainly wouldn’t have labor shortages. Your claim is baseless. Learn some economics.



Because we have NOT had rising wages for the middle class and working poor.

If it is the formula for "good wages" something went wrong.
Yes something is wrong. Has nothing to do with trade. We have near monopolies, wage collusion, government corruption... internal problems have hurt the market.


How do you know which factors are causing the issue? Cause the reduction of demand, by losing so many manufacturing jobs, while flooding the labor market, seems, like two factors that could have quite an impact.
Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.


MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”

In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.



But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.


Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?


Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.



If the dialysis centers are being especially cheap, just about everyone in it, could transfer to another modality, sometimes without any training.


I'm just not seeing this factor as the answer that you think it is.


Supply and demand are the wide ranging issues, that can effect EVERYTHING at once.
I'm amazed you believe it is trade even though all the evidence says it's not, but then you are so resistant to something with so much evidence. Just amazing. Again, the wage market is clearly not healthy. Really low unemployment and labor shortages should increase wages.
 
I'm 100% for it. Regardless we have to continue exports to maintain our status as world power, otherwise we'd give that status to China. If countries were to become isolated, then yes, no country would complete with the USA, we'd be set.

I think we should also end foreigners owning U.S. real estate. That said millennial's already screwed the pooch on that one. Many figured they were above property ownership. They didn't take into account they'll be paying the Chinese rent in the form of 5Kish by their 60th B-days.
Isolated countries fail economically.


To be fair, there has never been an isolated country on a scale of the US.

AND, as we seen to be destined to be fucked by any trading partner, isolation could be a competitive policy.


THe choice seems to be either be the world's bitch, or take our ball and go home.
How do you mean? The USSR failed miserably. Pretty big country.


Failed because they tried to have a big empire AND we fought them.

Not because they were isolated.
Being isolated is bad for capitalism. Very bad .


Being the world's bitch on trade, hasn't been that great either.

If only there was a third option. But there does not seem to be one.
We have the biggest economy in the world with the most wealth and we’ve had super low unemployment. Seems to be fine.


No, we're not. Our middle class wages have stagnated and our middle class and lower class have lost faith in the future.

People are dying from this shit. To the point that our life expectancy is actually FALLING.


Good macro economic numbers have been hiding generations of pain.


Try to change policy.
That is an internal problem . We have the wealth and jobs. That wouldn’t change if we were isolated.


It is not an internal problem. It is a problem caused by external trade and the inflow of labor.


Time to change policy.
What do you base that on. Again, tons of wealth and jobs. That’s the formula for good wages. If we had too much inflow we’d have high unemployment and certainly wouldn’t have labor shortages. Your claim is baseless. Learn some economics.



Because we have NOT had rising wages for the middle class and working poor.

If it is the formula for "good wages" something went wrong.
Yes something is wrong. Has nothing to do with trade. We have near monopolies, wage collusion, government corruption... internal problems have hurt the market.


How do you know which factors are causing the issue? Cause the reduction of demand, by losing so many manufacturing jobs, while flooding the labor market, seems, like two factors that could have quite an impact.
Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.


MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”

In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.



But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.


Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?


Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.
Aren't many finance jobs for companies that might have a near monopoly in their industry? What type of medical? It certainly exists in food with huge companies like Mcdonalds. Bars? Is that a big employer?

All industry is interconnected.

Everything is interconnected to everything.



Which is irrelevant to the question. That a dialysis center might be "connected" to the local hospital, does not mean that the local hospital will not hire a nurse from the lower paying center, if the center is a bunch of cheap bastards that are under paying her.

So just as someone who has been around cheap clinics.....

I don't know the specifics of this center, but if the clinic is getting Medicare or Medicaid patients, then this means they are capped at what they are paid by the government for service.

It may not be that "They are cheap!"... it might be they simply are not capable of paying more money.
 
I'm 100% for it. Regardless we have to continue exports to maintain our status as world power, otherwise we'd give that status to China. If countries were to become isolated, then yes, no country would complete with the USA, we'd be set.

I think we should also end foreigners owning U.S. real estate. That said millennial's already screwed the pooch on that one. Many figured they were above property ownership. They didn't take into account they'll be paying the Chinese rent in the form of 5Kish by their 60th B-days.
Isolated countries fail economically.


To be fair, there has never been an isolated country on a scale of the US.

AND, as we seen to be destined to be fucked by any trading partner, isolation could be a competitive policy.


THe choice seems to be either be the world's bitch, or take our ball and go home.
How do you mean? The USSR failed miserably. Pretty big country.


Failed because they tried to have a big empire AND we fought them.

Not because they were isolated.
Being isolated is bad for capitalism. Very bad .


Being the world's bitch on trade, hasn't been that great either.

If only there was a third option. But there does not seem to be one.
We have the biggest economy in the world with the most wealth and we’ve had super low unemployment. Seems to be fine.


No, we're not. Our middle class wages have stagnated and our middle class and lower class have lost faith in the future.

People are dying from this shit. To the point that our life expectancy is actually FALLING.


Good macro economic numbers have been hiding generations of pain.


Try to change policy.
That is an internal problem . We have the wealth and jobs. That wouldn’t change if we were isolated.


It is not an internal problem. It is a problem caused by external trade and the inflow of labor.


Time to change policy.
What do you base that on. Again, tons of wealth and jobs. That’s the formula for good wages. If we had too much inflow we’d have high unemployment and certainly wouldn’t have labor shortages. Your claim is baseless. Learn some economics.



Because we have NOT had rising wages for the middle class and working poor.

If it is the formula for "good wages" something went wrong.
Yes something is wrong. Has nothing to do with trade. We have near monopolies, wage collusion, government corruption... internal problems have hurt the market.


How do you know which factors are causing the issue? Cause the reduction of demand, by losing so many manufacturing jobs, while flooding the labor market, seems, like two factors that could have quite an impact.
Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.


MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”

In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.



But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.


Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?


Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.

I would almost agree with this to some extent.

There are some monopolies in health care.

The problem is, this isn't a market monopoly. Market monopolies are near impossible.

Just think about it logically.... if you had a hospital that was charging $10,000 for knee surgery... and it is possible to hire a doctor, and perform the same surgery, for $5,000 and make a profit....

In a free capitalist market... why would none of these profit seeking investors ever take the risk to open a hospital?

Again... just logically... why would they not do this? if you can provide the same quality product and service, at half the cost.... wouldn't you be a multi-billionaire over night by opening a cheaper hospital?

So why would you not do this?

The answer is really simple. Government. The reasons any monopoly exists in health care, is because of government controls, government regulations, and restrictions on the market.

Again, just had this discussion with someone about EpiPen. The active medication was created in the early 1900s, it's been synthesized for 50 years or more, it costs 10 cents for a dose.... and yet they were selling EpiPens for $200 for 4 doses.

Well why hasn't anyone produced an alternative for $10 a dose, and made $10 Billion dollars selling these things?

Answer..... Government. The FDA blocked several alternatives from coming to market, preventing competition, creating a government-mandated monopoly.

That's not the fault of the "the market" or "Capitalists" or "capitalism" as an ideology. That's the fault of socialistic control on the market. Without government intervention, there would never have been a monopoly on the market by Mylon. And even now, without government there would be no Duopoly of Epipen and Adrenaclick.

Without government, there would be a half dozen options, and competition for lower prices for quality products on the market.

Nearly every single time you ever see a monopoly anywhere ever... .it's because of government.
I've no doubt many are created with government. The government seems quite corrupt at the moment. It's easy to buy a politician.
 
I'm 100% for it. Regardless we have to continue exports to maintain our status as world power, otherwise we'd give that status to China. If countries were to become isolated, then yes, no country would complete with the USA, we'd be set.

I think we should also end foreigners owning U.S. real estate. That said millennial's already screwed the pooch on that one. Many figured they were above property ownership. They didn't take into account they'll be paying the Chinese rent in the form of 5Kish by their 60th B-days.
Isolated countries fail economically.


To be fair, there has never been an isolated country on a scale of the US.

AND, as we seen to be destined to be fucked by any trading partner, isolation could be a competitive policy.


THe choice seems to be either be the world's bitch, or take our ball and go home.
How do you mean? The USSR failed miserably. Pretty big country.


Failed because they tried to have a big empire AND we fought them.

Not because they were isolated.
Being isolated is bad for capitalism. Very bad .


Being the world's bitch on trade, hasn't been that great either.

If only there was a third option. But there does not seem to be one.
We have the biggest economy in the world with the most wealth and we’ve had super low unemployment. Seems to be fine.


No, we're not. Our middle class wages have stagnated and our middle class and lower class have lost faith in the future.

People are dying from this shit. To the point that our life expectancy is actually FALLING.


Good macro economic numbers have been hiding generations of pain.


Try to change policy.
That is an internal problem . We have the wealth and jobs. That wouldn’t change if we were isolated.


It is not an internal problem. It is a problem caused by external trade and the inflow of labor.


Time to change policy.
What do you base that on. Again, tons of wealth and jobs. That’s the formula for good wages. If we had too much inflow we’d have high unemployment and certainly wouldn’t have labor shortages. Your claim is baseless. Learn some economics.



Because we have NOT had rising wages for the middle class and working poor.

If it is the formula for "good wages" something went wrong.
Yes something is wrong. Has nothing to do with trade. We have near monopolies, wage collusion, government corruption... internal problems have hurt the market.


How do you know which factors are causing the issue? Cause the reduction of demand, by losing so many manufacturing jobs, while flooding the labor market, seems, like two factors that could have quite an impact.
Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.


MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”

In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.



But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.


Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?


Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.



If the dialysis centers are being especially cheap, just about everyone in it, could transfer to another modality, sometimes without any training.


I'm just not seeing this factor as the answer that you think it is.


Supply and demand are the wide ranging issues, that can effect EVERYTHING at once.
I'm amazed you believe it is trade even though all the evidence says it's not, but then you are so resistant to something with so much evidence. Just amazing. Again, the wage market is clearly not healthy. Really low unemployment and labor shortages should increase wages.


Trade and immigration means that American labor is competing almost directly with Third World labor.

I'm amazed you DON'T believe it is trade.
 
I'm 100% for it. Regardless we have to continue exports to maintain our status as world power, otherwise we'd give that status to China. If countries were to become isolated, then yes, no country would complete with the USA, we'd be set.

I think we should also end foreigners owning U.S. real estate. That said millennial's already screwed the pooch on that one. Many figured they were above property ownership. They didn't take into account they'll be paying the Chinese rent in the form of 5Kish by their 60th B-days.
Isolated countries fail economically.


To be fair, there has never been an isolated country on a scale of the US.

AND, as we seen to be destined to be fucked by any trading partner, isolation could be a competitive policy.


THe choice seems to be either be the world's bitch, or take our ball and go home.
How do you mean? The USSR failed miserably. Pretty big country.


Failed because they tried to have a big empire AND we fought them.

Not because they were isolated.
Being isolated is bad for capitalism. Very bad .


Being the world's bitch on trade, hasn't been that great either.

If only there was a third option. But there does not seem to be one.
We have the biggest economy in the world with the most wealth and we’ve had super low unemployment. Seems to be fine.


No, we're not. Our middle class wages have stagnated and our middle class and lower class have lost faith in the future.

People are dying from this shit. To the point that our life expectancy is actually FALLING.


Good macro economic numbers have been hiding generations of pain.


Try to change policy.
That is an internal problem . We have the wealth and jobs. That wouldn’t change if we were isolated.


It is not an internal problem. It is a problem caused by external trade and the inflow of labor.


Time to change policy.
What do you base that on. Again, tons of wealth and jobs. That’s the formula for good wages. If we had too much inflow we’d have high unemployment and certainly wouldn’t have labor shortages. Your claim is baseless. Learn some economics.



Because we have NOT had rising wages for the middle class and working poor.

If it is the formula for "good wages" something went wrong.
Yes something is wrong. Has nothing to do with trade. We have near monopolies, wage collusion, government corruption... internal problems have hurt the market.


How do you know which factors are causing the issue? Cause the reduction of demand, by losing so many manufacturing jobs, while flooding the labor market, seems, like two factors that could have quite an impact.
Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.


MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”

In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.



But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.


Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?


Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.



If the dialysis centers are being especially cheap, just about everyone in it, could transfer to another modality, sometimes without any training.


I'm just not seeing this factor as the answer that you think it is.


Supply and demand are the wide ranging issues, that can effect EVERYTHING at once.
I'm amazed you believe it is trade even though all the evidence says it's not, but then you are so resistant to something with so much evidence. Just amazing. Again, the wage market is clearly not healthy. Really low unemployment and labor shortages should increase wages.


Trade and immigration means that American labor is competing almost directly with Third World labor.

I'm amazed you DON'T believe it is trade.
Look at what the employment rate has been. We have labor shortages. Blaming trade makes no sense. If they are stealing our jobs why do we have so many?
 
I'm 100% for it. Regardless we have to continue exports to maintain our status as world power, otherwise we'd give that status to China. If countries were to become isolated, then yes, no country would complete with the USA, we'd be set.

I think we should also end foreigners owning U.S. real estate. That said millennial's already screwed the pooch on that one. Many figured they were above property ownership. They didn't take into account they'll be paying the Chinese rent in the form of 5Kish by their 60th B-days.
Isolated countries fail economically.


To be fair, there has never been an isolated country on a scale of the US.

AND, as we seen to be destined to be fucked by any trading partner, isolation could be a competitive policy.


THe choice seems to be either be the world's bitch, or take our ball and go home.
How do you mean? The USSR failed miserably. Pretty big country.


Failed because they tried to have a big empire AND we fought them.

Not because they were isolated.
Being isolated is bad for capitalism. Very bad .


Being the world's bitch on trade, hasn't been that great either.

If only there was a third option. But there does not seem to be one.
We have the biggest economy in the world with the most wealth and we’ve had super low unemployment. Seems to be fine.


No, we're not. Our middle class wages have stagnated and our middle class and lower class have lost faith in the future.

People are dying from this shit. To the point that our life expectancy is actually FALLING.


Good macro economic numbers have been hiding generations of pain.


Try to change policy.
That is an internal problem . We have the wealth and jobs. That wouldn’t change if we were isolated.


It is not an internal problem. It is a problem caused by external trade and the inflow of labor.


Time to change policy.
What do you base that on. Again, tons of wealth and jobs. That’s the formula for good wages. If we had too much inflow we’d have high unemployment and certainly wouldn’t have labor shortages. Your claim is baseless. Learn some economics.



Because we have NOT had rising wages for the middle class and working poor.

If it is the formula for "good wages" something went wrong.
Yes something is wrong. Has nothing to do with trade. We have near monopolies, wage collusion, government corruption... internal problems have hurt the market.


How do you know which factors are causing the issue? Cause the reduction of demand, by losing so many manufacturing jobs, while flooding the labor market, seems, like two factors that could have quite an impact.
Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.


MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”

In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.



But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.


Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?


Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.

I would almost agree with this to some extent.

There are some monopolies in health care.

The problem is, this isn't a market monopoly. Market monopolies are near impossible.

Just think about it logically.... if you had a hospital that was charging $10,000 for knee surgery... and it is possible to hire a doctor, and perform the same surgery, for $5,000 and make a profit....

In a free capitalist market... why would none of these profit seeking investors ever take the risk to open a hospital?

Again... just logically... why would they not do this? if you can provide the same quality product and service, at half the cost.... wouldn't you be a multi-billionaire over night by opening a cheaper hospital?

So why would you not do this?

The answer is really simple. Government. The reasons any monopoly exists in health care, is because of government controls, government regulations, and restrictions on the market.

Again, just had this discussion with someone about EpiPen. The active medication was created in the early 1900s, it's been synthesized for 50 years or more, it costs 10 cents for a dose.... and yet they were selling EpiPens for $200 for 4 doses.

Well why hasn't anyone produced an alternative for $10 a dose, and made $10 Billion dollars selling these things?

Answer..... Government. The FDA blocked several alternatives from coming to market, preventing competition, creating a government-mandated monopoly.

That's not the fault of the "the market" or "Capitalists" or "capitalism" as an ideology. That's the fault of socialistic control on the market. Without government intervention, there would never have been a monopoly on the market by Mylon. And even now, without government there would be no Duopoly of Epipen and Adrenaclick.

Without government, there would be a half dozen options, and competition for lower prices for quality products on the market.

Nearly every single time you ever see a monopoly anywhere ever... .it's because of government.
I've no doubt many are created with government. The government seems quite corrupt at the moment. It's easy to buy a politician.

I don't think that most of it, is really corruption.

Further, it's not even the politicians really. It's the agencies that are doing this. Politicians come and go, but the agencies are there, not elected, and last for ages.

The classic example was the FCC and the broadcast TV channels. Back in the 1950s, the FCC set aside 26 white spaces for TV channels. From the 50s to the late 90s, there were only 3 channels. CBS, ABC, and NBC.

The FCC blocked anyone from entering the broadcast TV market for almost 50 years.

This is why Right-wing Conservatives like myself, are completely against the creation of these agencies, that supposedly are for our good. They only serve to harm us. All the regulations and controls, are simply used to harm the public. They never benefit us.

The solution is to not have them. Power the government does not have, can not be used against the public.
 
I'm 100% for it. Regardless we have to continue exports to maintain our status as world power, otherwise we'd give that status to China. If countries were to become isolated, then yes, no country would complete with the USA, we'd be set.

I think we should also end foreigners owning U.S. real estate. That said millennial's already screwed the pooch on that one. Many figured they were above property ownership. They didn't take into account they'll be paying the Chinese rent in the form of 5Kish by their 60th B-days.
Isolated countries fail economically.


To be fair, there has never been an isolated country on a scale of the US.

AND, as we seen to be destined to be fucked by any trading partner, isolation could be a competitive policy.


THe choice seems to be either be the world's bitch, or take our ball and go home.
How do you mean? The USSR failed miserably. Pretty big country.


Failed because they tried to have a big empire AND we fought them.

Not because they were isolated.
Being isolated is bad for capitalism. Very bad .


Being the world's bitch on trade, hasn't been that great either.

If only there was a third option. But there does not seem to be one.
We have the biggest economy in the world with the most wealth and we’ve had super low unemployment. Seems to be fine.


No, we're not. Our middle class wages have stagnated and our middle class and lower class have lost faith in the future.

People are dying from this shit. To the point that our life expectancy is actually FALLING.


Good macro economic numbers have been hiding generations of pain.


Try to change policy.
That is an internal problem . We have the wealth and jobs. That wouldn’t change if we were isolated.


It is not an internal problem. It is a problem caused by external trade and the inflow of labor.


Time to change policy.
What do you base that on. Again, tons of wealth and jobs. That’s the formula for good wages. If we had too much inflow we’d have high unemployment and certainly wouldn’t have labor shortages. Your claim is baseless. Learn some economics.



Because we have NOT had rising wages for the middle class and working poor.

If it is the formula for "good wages" something went wrong.
Yes something is wrong. Has nothing to do with trade. We have near monopolies, wage collusion, government corruption... internal problems have hurt the market.


How do you know which factors are causing the issue? Cause the reduction of demand, by losing so many manufacturing jobs, while flooding the labor market, seems, like two factors that could have quite an impact.
Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.


MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”

In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.



But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.


Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?


Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.
Aren't many finance jobs for companies that might have a near monopoly in their industry? What type of medical? It certainly exists in food with huge companies like Mcdonalds. Bars? Is that a big employer?

All industry is interconnected.

Everything is interconnected to everything.



Which is irrelevant to the question. That a dialysis center might be "connected" to the local hospital, does not mean that the local hospital will not hire a nurse from the lower paying center, if the center is a bunch of cheap bastards that are under paying her.

So just as someone who has been around cheap clinics.....

I don't know the specifics of this center, but if the clinic is getting Medicare or Medicaid patients, then this means they are capped at what they are paid by the government for service.

It may not be that "They are cheap!"... it might be they simply are not capable of paying more money.


So, why don't they lose all medical staff to other services that are not capped?
 
I'm 100% for it. Regardless we have to continue exports to maintain our status as world power, otherwise we'd give that status to China. If countries were to become isolated, then yes, no country would complete with the USA, we'd be set.

I think we should also end foreigners owning U.S. real estate. That said millennial's already screwed the pooch on that one. Many figured they were above property ownership. They didn't take into account they'll be paying the Chinese rent in the form of 5Kish by their 60th B-days.
Isolated countries fail economically.


To be fair, there has never been an isolated country on a scale of the US.

AND, as we seen to be destined to be fucked by any trading partner, isolation could be a competitive policy.


THe choice seems to be either be the world's bitch, or take our ball and go home.
How do you mean? The USSR failed miserably. Pretty big country.


Failed because they tried to have a big empire AND we fought them.

Not because they were isolated.
Being isolated is bad for capitalism. Very bad .


Being the world's bitch on trade, hasn't been that great either.

If only there was a third option. But there does not seem to be one.
We have the biggest economy in the world with the most wealth and we’ve had super low unemployment. Seems to be fine.


No, we're not. Our middle class wages have stagnated and our middle class and lower class have lost faith in the future.

People are dying from this shit. To the point that our life expectancy is actually FALLING.


Good macro economic numbers have been hiding generations of pain.


Try to change policy.
That is an internal problem . We have the wealth and jobs. That wouldn’t change if we were isolated.


It is not an internal problem. It is a problem caused by external trade and the inflow of labor.


Time to change policy.
What do you base that on. Again, tons of wealth and jobs. That’s the formula for good wages. If we had too much inflow we’d have high unemployment and certainly wouldn’t have labor shortages. Your claim is baseless. Learn some economics.



Because we have NOT had rising wages for the middle class and working poor.

If it is the formula for "good wages" something went wrong.
Yes something is wrong. Has nothing to do with trade. We have near monopolies, wage collusion, government corruption... internal problems have hurt the market.


How do you know which factors are causing the issue? Cause the reduction of demand, by losing so many manufacturing jobs, while flooding the labor market, seems, like two factors that could have quite an impact.
Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.


MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”

In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.



But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.


Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?


Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.



If the dialysis centers are being especially cheap, just about everyone in it, could transfer to another modality, sometimes without any training.


I'm just not seeing this factor as the answer that you think it is.


Supply and demand are the wide ranging issues, that can effect EVERYTHING at once.
I'm amazed you believe it is trade even though all the evidence says it's not, but then you are so resistant to something with so much evidence. Just amazing. Again, the wage market is clearly not healthy. Really low unemployment and labor shortages should increase wages.


Trade and immigration means that American labor is competing almost directly with Third World labor.

I'm amazed you DON'T believe it is trade.
Look at what the employment rate has been. We have labor shortages. Blaming trade makes no sense. If they are stealing our jobs why do we have so many?


Not stealing jobs, suppressing wages.
 
and cheap labor from anywhere too

showing that, once again, Trump was correct

we need to make our own stuff and never be reliant on ANY other country for the things we need

that includes oil from the ME as well

Iconusaflagsmiley.gif


LINK

American companies that produce essential goods in China should plan to shift their operations back to the United States or other Western countries, according to a senior Republican lawmaker.

“We're staring into a significant, significant crisis of supply chain,” Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner told the Washington Examiner. “Cheap labor or cheap manufacturing be damned if you are reliant on them for your life and livelihood.”

Gardner’s warning was spurred by the shortage of hospital masks in the United States, a dearth driven by Beijing’s refusal to allow American companies that make the products in China to ship them out of the country amid the coronavirus pandemic. And he’s not alone in that sentiment, raising the possibility that anger over China’s self-interested response to the coronavirus outbreak could produce one of the most dramatic alterations of global economics in decades.

“Because of the coronavirus problem, people are recognizing that any supply chain that has single points of failure is incredibly vulnerable,” the Heritage Foundation’s Dean Cheng, a senior research fellow in the organization’s Asian Studies Center, told the Washington Examiner. “China is going to be very concerned about decoupling, offshoring, [or any] redirection of investments out of China.”
I have an idea. When a company is manufacturing critical medical needs and medicine, the employees agree to a lower wage, but after five months on the job, they would get profit sharing which when the company makes more money, so do they. They can use the sharing right away or save it for a great retirement.
 
I'm 100% for it. Regardless we have to continue exports to maintain our status as world power, otherwise we'd give that status to China. If countries were to become isolated, then yes, no country would complete with the USA, we'd be set.

I think we should also end foreigners owning U.S. real estate. That said millennial's already screwed the pooch on that one. Many figured they were above property ownership. They didn't take into account they'll be paying the Chinese rent in the form of 5Kish by their 60th B-days.
Isolated countries fail economically.


To be fair, there has never been an isolated country on a scale of the US.

AND, as we seen to be destined to be fucked by any trading partner, isolation could be a competitive policy.


THe choice seems to be either be the world's bitch, or take our ball and go home.
How do you mean? The USSR failed miserably. Pretty big country.


Failed because they tried to have a big empire AND we fought them.

Not because they were isolated.
Being isolated is bad for capitalism. Very bad .


Being the world's bitch on trade, hasn't been that great either.

If only there was a third option. But there does not seem to be one.
We have the biggest economy in the world with the most wealth and we’ve had super low unemployment. Seems to be fine.


No, we're not. Our middle class wages have stagnated and our middle class and lower class have lost faith in the future.

People are dying from this shit. To the point that our life expectancy is actually FALLING.


Good macro economic numbers have been hiding generations of pain.


Try to change policy.
That is an internal problem . We have the wealth and jobs. That wouldn’t change if we were isolated.


It is not an internal problem. It is a problem caused by external trade and the inflow of labor.


Time to change policy.
What do you base that on. Again, tons of wealth and jobs. That’s the formula for good wages. If we had too much inflow we’d have high unemployment and certainly wouldn’t have labor shortages. Your claim is baseless. Learn some economics.



Because we have NOT had rising wages for the middle class and working poor.

If it is the formula for "good wages" something went wrong.
Yes something is wrong. Has nothing to do with trade. We have near monopolies, wage collusion, government corruption... internal problems have hurt the market.


How do you know which factors are causing the issue? Cause the reduction of demand, by losing so many manufacturing jobs, while flooding the labor market, seems, like two factors that could have quite an impact.
Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.


MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”

In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.



But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.


Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?


Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.
Aren't many finance jobs for companies that might have a near monopoly in their industry? What type of medical? It certainly exists in food with huge companies like Mcdonalds. Bars? Is that a big employer?

All industry is interconnected.

Everything is interconnected to everything.



Which is irrelevant to the question. That a dialysis center might be "connected" to the local hospital, does not mean that the local hospital will not hire a nurse from the lower paying center, if the center is a bunch of cheap bastards that are under paying her.

So just as someone who has been around cheap clinics.....

I don't know the specifics of this center, but if the clinic is getting Medicare or Medicaid patients, then this means they are capped at what they are paid by the government for service.

It may not be that "They are cheap!"... it might be they simply are not capable of paying more money.


So, why don't they lose all medical staff to other services that are not capped?

So there's a reason, but you are not going to like it.

The reason is simply that the people who work there are generally bad, or they are retired who don't care, or they are students who are using the tuition forgiveness program to get their loans eliminate, and thus are just tolerating it.

People hate hearing that, but it's the reality. You have a few students fresh out of school, that are still learning how to use a needle, that are there because they are putting up with it so they can get their loans forgiven. Then you have some people way over the hill, in their 60s and 70s, who are only doing this to get them out of the house.

And lastly you have people that are just bad. People that got fired from their good paying job, because they were bad, and the hospital found them a liability. So they got a job at Medicare/Medicaid facilities because such clinics are desperate for anyone, since no one wants to work for peanuts. So they hire people that no profit driven hospital would ever hire. As much as left-wingers decry profit motive.... profit motive keeps patients alive and healing, because dead people don't pay bills.

Socialist hospitals have no such worry, since the government pays the bills. A dead patient isn't a negative at all to the finances.

So without a profit motive, socialist clinics doing Medicare and Medicaid patients, have no problem hiring unwanted Nurses and Doctors.
 
I'm 100% for it. Regardless we have to continue exports to maintain our status as world power, otherwise we'd give that status to China. If countries were to become isolated, then yes, no country would complete with the USA, we'd be set.

I think we should also end foreigners owning U.S. real estate. That said millennial's already screwed the pooch on that one. Many figured they were above property ownership. They didn't take into account they'll be paying the Chinese rent in the form of 5Kish by their 60th B-days.
Isolated countries fail economically.


To be fair, there has never been an isolated country on a scale of the US.

AND, as we seen to be destined to be fucked by any trading partner, isolation could be a competitive policy.


THe choice seems to be either be the world's bitch, or take our ball and go home.
How do you mean? The USSR failed miserably. Pretty big country.


Failed because they tried to have a big empire AND we fought them.

Not because they were isolated.
Being isolated is bad for capitalism. Very bad .


Being the world's bitch on trade, hasn't been that great either.

If only there was a third option. But there does not seem to be one.
We have the biggest economy in the world with the most wealth and we’ve had super low unemployment. Seems to be fine.


No, we're not. Our middle class wages have stagnated and our middle class and lower class have lost faith in the future.

People are dying from this shit. To the point that our life expectancy is actually FALLING.


Good macro economic numbers have been hiding generations of pain.


Try to change policy.
That is an internal problem . We have the wealth and jobs. That wouldn’t change if we were isolated.


It is not an internal problem. It is a problem caused by external trade and the inflow of labor.


Time to change policy.
What do you base that on. Again, tons of wealth and jobs. That’s the formula for good wages. If we had too much inflow we’d have high unemployment and certainly wouldn’t have labor shortages. Your claim is baseless. Learn some economics.



Because we have NOT had rising wages for the middle class and working poor.

If it is the formula for "good wages" something went wrong.
Yes something is wrong. Has nothing to do with trade. We have near monopolies, wage collusion, government corruption... internal problems have hurt the market.


How do you know which factors are causing the issue? Cause the reduction of demand, by losing so many manufacturing jobs, while flooding the labor market, seems, like two factors that could have quite an impact.
Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.


MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”

In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.



But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.


Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?


Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.



If the dialysis centers are being especially cheap, just about everyone in it, could transfer to another modality, sometimes without any training.


I'm just not seeing this factor as the answer that you think it is.


Supply and demand are the wide ranging issues, that can effect EVERYTHING at once.
I'm amazed you believe it is trade even though all the evidence says it's not, but then you are so resistant to something with so much evidence. Just amazing. Again, the wage market is clearly not healthy. Really low unemployment and labor shortages should increase wages.


Trade and immigration means that American labor is competing almost directly with Third World labor.

I'm amazed you DON'T believe it is trade.
Look at what the employment rate has been. We have labor shortages. Blaming trade makes no sense. If they are stealing our jobs why do we have so many?


Not stealing jobs, suppressing wages.

I don't think they are even suppressing wages. Seriously, look at wages between the US and virtually anywhere in the world.

We have the highest wages on the planet. We have wages higher than 1st world Europe.

If you think our wages are being suppressed... then compared to where? Where in the world can you get paid more money to do the same job we do here?

Where?

If trade or competition with 3rd world countries is keeping wages down..... then they are doing a really sucky job at keeping wages down.
 
I'm 100% for it. Regardless we have to continue exports to maintain our status as world power, otherwise we'd give that status to China. If countries were to become isolated, then yes, no country would complete with the USA, we'd be set.

I think we should also end foreigners owning U.S. real estate. That said millennial's already screwed the pooch on that one. Many figured they were above property ownership. They didn't take into account they'll be paying the Chinese rent in the form of 5Kish by their 60th B-days.
Isolated countries fail economically.


To be fair, there has never been an isolated country on a scale of the US.

AND, as we seen to be destined to be fucked by any trading partner, isolation could be a competitive policy.


THe choice seems to be either be the world's bitch, or take our ball and go home.
How do you mean? The USSR failed miserably. Pretty big country.


Failed because they tried to have a big empire AND we fought them.

Not because they were isolated.
Being isolated is bad for capitalism. Very bad .


Being the world's bitch on trade, hasn't been that great either.

If only there was a third option. But there does not seem to be one.
We have the biggest economy in the world with the most wealth and we’ve had super low unemployment. Seems to be fine.


No, we're not. Our middle class wages have stagnated and our middle class and lower class have lost faith in the future.

People are dying from this shit. To the point that our life expectancy is actually FALLING.


Good macro economic numbers have been hiding generations of pain.


Try to change policy.
That is an internal problem . We have the wealth and jobs. That wouldn’t change if we were isolated.


It is not an internal problem. It is a problem caused by external trade and the inflow of labor.


Time to change policy.
What do you base that on. Again, tons of wealth and jobs. That’s the formula for good wages. If we had too much inflow we’d have high unemployment and certainly wouldn’t have labor shortages. Your claim is baseless. Learn some economics.



Because we have NOT had rising wages for the middle class and working poor.

If it is the formula for "good wages" something went wrong.
Yes something is wrong. Has nothing to do with trade. We have near monopolies, wage collusion, government corruption... internal problems have hurt the market.


How do you know which factors are causing the issue? Cause the reduction of demand, by losing so many manufacturing jobs, while flooding the labor market, seems, like two factors that could have quite an impact.
Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.


MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”

In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.



But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.


Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?


Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.



If the dialysis centers are being especially cheap, just about everyone in it, could transfer to another modality, sometimes without any training.


I'm just not seeing this factor as the answer that you think it is.


Supply and demand are the wide ranging issues, that can effect EVERYTHING at once.
I'm amazed you believe it is trade even though all the evidence says it's not, but then you are so resistant to something with so much evidence. Just amazing. Again, the wage market is clearly not healthy. Really low unemployment and labor shortages should increase wages.


Trade and immigration means that American labor is competing almost directly with Third World labor.

I'm amazed you DON'T believe it is trade.
Look at what the employment rate has been. We have labor shortages. Blaming trade makes no sense. If they are stealing our jobs why do we have so many?


Not stealing jobs, suppressing wages.
Please explain how that happens in detail. Keep in mind we have really low unemployment and even labor shortages. Share an economist that agrees with you.
 
I'm 100% for it. Regardless we have to continue exports to maintain our status as world power, otherwise we'd give that status to China. If countries were to become isolated, then yes, no country would complete with the USA, we'd be set.

I think we should also end foreigners owning U.S. real estate. That said millennial's already screwed the pooch on that one. Many figured they were above property ownership. They didn't take into account they'll be paying the Chinese rent in the form of 5Kish by their 60th B-days.
Isolated countries fail economically.


To be fair, there has never been an isolated country on a scale of the US.

AND, as we seen to be destined to be fucked by any trading partner, isolation could be a competitive policy.


THe choice seems to be either be the world's bitch, or take our ball and go home.
How do you mean? The USSR failed miserably. Pretty big country.


Failed because they tried to have a big empire AND we fought them.

Not because they were isolated.
Being isolated is bad for capitalism. Very bad .


Being the world's bitch on trade, hasn't been that great either.

If only there was a third option. But there does not seem to be one.
We have the biggest economy in the world with the most wealth and we’ve had super low unemployment. Seems to be fine.


No, we're not. Our middle class wages have stagnated and our middle class and lower class have lost faith in the future.

People are dying from this shit. To the point that our life expectancy is actually FALLING.


Good macro economic numbers have been hiding generations of pain.


Try to change policy.
That is an internal problem . We have the wealth and jobs. That wouldn’t change if we were isolated.


It is not an internal problem. It is a problem caused by external trade and the inflow of labor.


Time to change policy.
What do you base that on. Again, tons of wealth and jobs. That’s the formula for good wages. If we had too much inflow we’d have high unemployment and certainly wouldn’t have labor shortages. Your claim is baseless. Learn some economics.



Because we have NOT had rising wages for the middle class and working poor.

If it is the formula for "good wages" something went wrong.
Yes something is wrong. Has nothing to do with trade. We have near monopolies, wage collusion, government corruption... internal problems have hurt the market.


How do you know which factors are causing the issue? Cause the reduction of demand, by losing so many manufacturing jobs, while flooding the labor market, seems, like two factors that could have quite an impact.
Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.


MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”

In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.



But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.


Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?


Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.
Aren't many finance jobs for companies that might have a near monopoly in their industry? What type of medical? It certainly exists in food with huge companies like Mcdonalds. Bars? Is that a big employer?

All industry is interconnected.

Everything is interconnected to everything.



Which is irrelevant to the question. That a dialysis center might be "connected" to the local hospital, does not mean that the local hospital will not hire a nurse from the lower paying center, if the center is a bunch of cheap bastards that are under paying her.

So just as someone who has been around cheap clinics.....

I don't know the specifics of this center, but if the clinic is getting Medicare or Medicaid patients, then this means they are capped at what they are paid by the government for service.

It may not be that "They are cheap!"... it might be they simply are not capable of paying more money.


So, why don't they lose all medical staff to other services that are not capped?

So there's a reason, but you are not going to like it.

The reason is simply that the people who work there are generally bad, or they are retired who don't care, or they are students who are using the tuition forgiveness program to get their loans eliminate, and thus are just tolerating it.

People hate hearing that, but it's the reality. You have a few students fresh out of school, that are still learning how to use a needle, that are there because they are putting up with it so they can get their loans forgiven. Then you have some people way over the hill, in their 60s and 70s, who are only doing this to get them out of the house.

And lastly you have people that are just bad. People that got fired from their good paying job, because they were bad, and the hospital found them a liability. So they got a job at Medicare/Medicaid facilities because such clinics are desperate for anyone, since no one wants to work for peanuts. So they hire people that no profit driven hospital would ever hire. As much as left-wingers decry profit motive.... profit motive keeps patients alive and healing, because dead people don't pay bills.

Socialist hospitals have no such worry, since the government pays the bills. A dead patient isn't a negative at all to the finances.

So without a profit motive, socialist clinics doing Medicare and Medicaid patients, have no problem hiring unwanted Nurses and Doctors.
I don't believe that all or most employees are bad or don't care. If they were sharing in the profits, I think they would care.
 
I'm 100% for it. Regardless we have to continue exports to maintain our status as world power, otherwise we'd give that status to China. If countries were to become isolated, then yes, no country would complete with the USA, we'd be set.

I think we should also end foreigners owning U.S. real estate. That said millennial's already screwed the pooch on that one. Many figured they were above property ownership. They didn't take into account they'll be paying the Chinese rent in the form of 5Kish by their 60th B-days.
Isolated countries fail economically.


To be fair, there has never been an isolated country on a scale of the US.

AND, as we seen to be destined to be fucked by any trading partner, isolation could be a competitive policy.


THe choice seems to be either be the world's bitch, or take our ball and go home.
How do you mean? The USSR failed miserably. Pretty big country.


Failed because they tried to have a big empire AND we fought them.

Not because they were isolated.
Being isolated is bad for capitalism. Very bad .


Being the world's bitch on trade, hasn't been that great either.

If only there was a third option. But there does not seem to be one.
We have the biggest economy in the world with the most wealth and we’ve had super low unemployment. Seems to be fine.


No, we're not. Our middle class wages have stagnated and our middle class and lower class have lost faith in the future.

People are dying from this shit. To the point that our life expectancy is actually FALLING.


Good macro economic numbers have been hiding generations of pain.


Try to change policy.
That is an internal problem . We have the wealth and jobs. That wouldn’t change if we were isolated.


It is not an internal problem. It is a problem caused by external trade and the inflow of labor.


Time to change policy.
What do you base that on. Again, tons of wealth and jobs. That’s the formula for good wages. If we had too much inflow we’d have high unemployment and certainly wouldn’t have labor shortages. Your claim is baseless. Learn some economics.



Because we have NOT had rising wages for the middle class and working poor.

If it is the formula for "good wages" something went wrong.
Yes something is wrong. Has nothing to do with trade. We have near monopolies, wage collusion, government corruption... internal problems have hurt the market.


How do you know which factors are causing the issue? Cause the reduction of demand, by losing so many manufacturing jobs, while flooding the labor market, seems, like two factors that could have quite an impact.
Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.


MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”

In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.



But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.


Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?


Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.
Aren't many finance jobs for companies that might have a near monopoly in their industry? What type of medical? It certainly exists in food with huge companies like Mcdonalds. Bars? Is that a big employer?

All industry is interconnected.

Everything is interconnected to everything.



Which is irrelevant to the question. That a dialysis center might be "connected" to the local hospital, does not mean that the local hospital will not hire a nurse from the lower paying center, if the center is a bunch of cheap bastards that are under paying her.

So just as someone who has been around cheap clinics.....

I don't know the specifics of this center, but if the clinic is getting Medicare or Medicaid patients, then this means they are capped at what they are paid by the government for service.

It may not be that "They are cheap!"... it might be they simply are not capable of paying more money.


So, why don't they lose all medical staff to other services that are not capped?

So there's a reason, but you are not going to like it.

The reason is simply that the people who work there are generally bad, or they are retired who don't care, or they are students who are using the tuition forgiveness program to get their loans eliminate, and thus are just tolerating it.

People hate hearing that, but it's the reality. You have a few students fresh out of school, that are still learning how to use a needle, that are there because they are putting up with it so they can get their loans forgiven. Then you have some people way over the hill, in their 60s and 70s, who are only doing this to get them out of the house.

And lastly you have people that are just bad. People that got fired from their good paying job, because they were bad, and the hospital found them a liability. So they got a job at Medicare/Medicaid facilities because such clinics are desperate for anyone, since no one wants to work for peanuts. So they hire people that no profit driven hospital would ever hire. As much as left-wingers decry profit motive.... profit motive keeps patients alive and healing, because dead people don't pay bills.

Socialist hospitals have no such worry, since the government pays the bills. A dead patient isn't a negative at all to the finances.

So without a profit motive, socialist clinics doing Medicare and Medicaid patients, have no problem hiring unwanted Nurses and Doctors.


In, a healthier economy with a better labor market, even that would not be enough. THey would HAVE to offer better wages even to keep the dregs.


Have you ever been in a position, where as the employEE, you have the leverage and your employER, needed you more than you needed the job?


I have. It was glorious.


I want to share that joy, with as many of my fellow workers as possible.
 
I'm 100% for it. Regardless we have to continue exports to maintain our status as world power, otherwise we'd give that status to China. If countries were to become isolated, then yes, no country would complete with the USA, we'd be set.

I think we should also end foreigners owning U.S. real estate. That said millennial's already screwed the pooch on that one. Many figured they were above property ownership. They didn't take into account they'll be paying the Chinese rent in the form of 5Kish by their 60th B-days.
Isolated countries fail economically.


To be fair, there has never been an isolated country on a scale of the US.

AND, as we seen to be destined to be fucked by any trading partner, isolation could be a competitive policy.


THe choice seems to be either be the world's bitch, or take our ball and go home.
How do you mean? The USSR failed miserably. Pretty big country.


Failed because they tried to have a big empire AND we fought them.

Not because they were isolated.
Being isolated is bad for capitalism. Very bad .


Being the world's bitch on trade, hasn't been that great either.

If only there was a third option. But there does not seem to be one.
We have the biggest economy in the world with the most wealth and we’ve had super low unemployment. Seems to be fine.


No, we're not. Our middle class wages have stagnated and our middle class and lower class have lost faith in the future.

People are dying from this shit. To the point that our life expectancy is actually FALLING.


Good macro economic numbers have been hiding generations of pain.


Try to change policy.
That is an internal problem . We have the wealth and jobs. That wouldn’t change if we were isolated.


It is not an internal problem. It is a problem caused by external trade and the inflow of labor.


Time to change policy.
What do you base that on. Again, tons of wealth and jobs. That’s the formula for good wages. If we had too much inflow we’d have high unemployment and certainly wouldn’t have labor shortages. Your claim is baseless. Learn some economics.



Because we have NOT had rising wages for the middle class and working poor.

If it is the formula for "good wages" something went wrong.
Yes something is wrong. Has nothing to do with trade. We have near monopolies, wage collusion, government corruption... internal problems have hurt the market.


How do you know which factors are causing the issue? Cause the reduction of demand, by losing so many manufacturing jobs, while flooding the labor market, seems, like two factors that could have quite an impact.
Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.


MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”

In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.



But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.


Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?


Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.



If the dialysis centers are being especially cheap, just about everyone in it, could transfer to another modality, sometimes without any training.


I'm just not seeing this factor as the answer that you think it is.


Supply and demand are the wide ranging issues, that can effect EVERYTHING at once.
I'm amazed you believe it is trade even though all the evidence says it's not, but then you are so resistant to something with so much evidence. Just amazing. Again, the wage market is clearly not healthy. Really low unemployment and labor shortages should increase wages.


Trade and immigration means that American labor is competing almost directly with Third World labor.

I'm amazed you DON'T believe it is trade.
Look at what the employment rate has been. We have labor shortages. Blaming trade makes no sense. If they are stealing our jobs why do we have so many?


Not stealing jobs, suppressing wages.

I don't think they are even suppressing wages. Seriously, look at wages between the US and virtually anywhere in the world.

We have the highest wages on the planet. We have wages higher than 1st world Europe.

If you think our wages are being suppressed... then compared to where? Where in the world can you get paid more money to do the same job we do here?

Where?

If trade or competition with 3rd world countries is keeping wages down..... then they are doing a really sucky job at keeping wages down.


Compared to the way that wages used to rise with productivity. Which has not happened in decades.
 
I'm 100% for it. Regardless we have to continue exports to maintain our status as world power, otherwise we'd give that status to China. If countries were to become isolated, then yes, no country would complete with the USA, we'd be set.

I think we should also end foreigners owning U.S. real estate. That said millennial's already screwed the pooch on that one. Many figured they were above property ownership. They didn't take into account they'll be paying the Chinese rent in the form of 5Kish by their 60th B-days.
Isolated countries fail economically.


To be fair, there has never been an isolated country on a scale of the US.

AND, as we seen to be destined to be fucked by any trading partner, isolation could be a competitive policy.


THe choice seems to be either be the world's bitch, or take our ball and go home.
How do you mean? The USSR failed miserably. Pretty big country.


Failed because they tried to have a big empire AND we fought them.

Not because they were isolated.
Being isolated is bad for capitalism. Very bad .


Being the world's bitch on trade, hasn't been that great either.

If only there was a third option. But there does not seem to be one.
We have the biggest economy in the world with the most wealth and we’ve had super low unemployment. Seems to be fine.


No, we're not. Our middle class wages have stagnated and our middle class and lower class have lost faith in the future.

People are dying from this shit. To the point that our life expectancy is actually FALLING.


Good macro economic numbers have been hiding generations of pain.


Try to change policy.
That is an internal problem . We have the wealth and jobs. That wouldn’t change if we were isolated.


It is not an internal problem. It is a problem caused by external trade and the inflow of labor.


Time to change policy.
What do you base that on. Again, tons of wealth and jobs. That’s the formula for good wages. If we had too much inflow we’d have high unemployment and certainly wouldn’t have labor shortages. Your claim is baseless. Learn some economics.



Because we have NOT had rising wages for the middle class and working poor.

If it is the formula for "good wages" something went wrong.
Yes something is wrong. Has nothing to do with trade. We have near monopolies, wage collusion, government corruption... internal problems have hurt the market.


How do you know which factors are causing the issue? Cause the reduction of demand, by losing so many manufacturing jobs, while flooding the labor market, seems, like two factors that could have quite an impact.
Good question. I would say you want to first start by following the money. The wealth is here, we have plenty of jobs, where is the money going? I think we know the answer to that. So then why are markets so broken? Here is a good article I mostly agree with you should read.


MARKET CONCENTRATION, the economist’s term for how much an industry is dominated by one or a few firms, touches ever more aspects of American life. From the obvious (the Amazons and Walmarts of the retail economy) to the obscure (the beer industry, which may appear diverse, is dominated by two firms), market concentration has increased in three-quarters of U.S. industries during the twenty-first century. This has had wide-ranging effects not only on consumers, but also, economists increasingly believe, on labor. “Fewer firms in a given industry makes it easier for them to have more bargaining power [over employees], and harder for workers to switch to another employer,” says Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and former chair of the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Today’s labor markets increasingly look like a monopsony: a market in which there is only one buyer—the inverse of a monopoly, in which there is only one seller. The more an industry is dominated by a small number of corporations, the more those companies can control the cost of labor. Traditionally, Furman says, economists have relied on a supply-and-demand story about the labor market: “There’s a supply of workers and demand for workers, and the wage is what clears the market, just like the price of wheat is what clears the market for wheat. That explains a lot about wages, but it probably doesn’t explain everything…[T]hat research program went as far as it could.”

In the last three years, Furman explains, economists have looked to monopsony and other factors beyond market competition to explain the stagnation of Americans’ wages during the last few decades. Fewer companies in a given industry make it easier for those companies to coordinate, either indirectly or through overt collusion, to keep wages low. Think of a town with two big-box retail stores: each store knows what the other pays its cashiers, and neither wants to raise wages. Firms can also use noncompete agreements, which ban employees from taking jobs at rival companies, to prevent workers from finding new jobs elsewhere. About 24.5 percent of the American work force has signed a noncompete, according to one Brookings Institution analysis, and this number is not much lower (about 21 percent) for workers earning less than the median salary.



But wages stagnation is across the board, not limited to "given industries".
There are few industries I can think of that don't have some form of this. The use of noncompete agreements is all over.


Why are you limiting the discussion to industries? Nothing prevents labor from moving from industry to service jobs.
What service jobs aren't tied to some industry?


Financial, Medical, Food, Bars, off the top of my head.



If the dialysis centers are being especially cheap, just about everyone in it, could transfer to another modality, sometimes without any training.


I'm just not seeing this factor as the answer that you think it is.


Supply and demand are the wide ranging issues, that can effect EVERYTHING at once.
I'm amazed you believe it is trade even though all the evidence says it's not, but then you are so resistant to something with so much evidence. Just amazing. Again, the wage market is clearly not healthy. Really low unemployment and labor shortages should increase wages.


Trade and immigration means that American labor is competing almost directly with Third World labor.

I'm amazed you DON'T believe it is trade.
Look at what the employment rate has been. We have labor shortages. Blaming trade makes no sense. If they are stealing our jobs why do we have so many?


Not stealing jobs, suppressing wages.
Please explain how that happens in detail. Keep in mind we have really low unemployment and even labor shortages. Share an economist that agrees with you.


Guy has a job he needs filled. He offers it, at the same wage it has been for the last ten years. Some desperate out of work guy from the mill that just closed down, comes by and takes it. So the employer does not have to raise wages to fill the job and get the work done.

Fuck the economists. The economists said that Free Trade would lead to improved competitiveness and then increased exports and jobs. They either lied, or were just incompetent. Either way, they don't get to play Authority any more.
 

Forum List

Back
Top