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

[Brain357]

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.

Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine

Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.

harvardmagazine.com

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.

From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies

Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.

www.axios.com

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.

That’s all you got? That makes no sense. Like I said we have had super low unemployment and labor shortages.

You don’t even understand what economists say. We have lots of wealth and low unemployment, you are a fool.

 

[lennypartiv]

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?

Are we going to import retail workers? I don't think so.

 

[Briggs]

I agree medical supplies should all be manufactured in the US. We are used to getting these needs at a lower price because they were made in China. The supplies can't be so much more expensive because the manufacturers are only going to push that cost onto the public and hospitals.

That is not appropriate. There has to be "give and take" when dealing with the employees. I suggest they start at lower wages than what they are accustomed to and as tie goes by, the employees record will increase their wages substantially.

The company has to realize their saaries will not be as lucrative as well, and their salaries will be based on time in the company and positive evaluations.

 

[Correll]

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.

Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine

Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.

harvardmagazine.com

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.

From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies

Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.

www.axios.com

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.

That’s all you got? That makes no sense. Like I said we have had super low unemployment and labor shortages.

You don’t even understand what economists say. We have lots of wealth and low unemployment, you are a fool.

Not low enough to make the employer raise wages.

And until the economists can explain what went wrong with their predictions on Free Trade, they can go fuck themselves.

 

[Mac-7]

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.

We are in economic free fall now thanks to china dominated globalism

 

[Brain357]

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.

Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine

Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.

harvardmagazine.com

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.

From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies

Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.

www.axios.com

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.

That’s all you got? That makes no sense. Like I said we have had super low unemployment and labor shortages.

You don’t even understand what economists say. We have lots of wealth and low unemployment, you are a fool.

Not low enough to make the employer raise wages.

And until the economists can explain what went wrong with their predictions on Free Trade, they can go fuck themselves.

When has it ever been lower? The market is broken.

Nothing went wrong with trade, your blame is obviously misplaced. You don’t even have a real argument for your beliefs.

 

[Brain357]

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.

We are in economic free fall now thanks to china dominated globalism

We are in free fall because of our poor leadership.

 

[Mac-7]

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.

Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine

Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.

harvardmagazine.com

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.

From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies

Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.

www.axios.com

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.

That’s all you got? That makes no sense. Like I said we have had super low unemployment and labor shortages.

You don’t even understand what economists say. We have lots of wealth and low unemployment, you are a fool.

Not low enough to make the employer raise wages.

And until the economists can explain what went wrong with their predictions on Free Trade, they can go fuck themselves.

When has it ever been lower? The market is broken.

Nothing went wrong with trade, your blame is obviously misplaced. You don’t even have a real argument for your beliefs.

We have a shortage of masks and ventilators thanks to globalism

 

[Brain357]

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.

Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine

Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.

harvardmagazine.com

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.

From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies

Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.

www.axios.com

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.

That’s all you got? That makes no sense. Like I said we have had super low unemployment and labor shortages.

You don’t even understand what economists say. We have lots of wealth and low unemployment, you are a fool.

Not low enough to make the employer raise wages.

And until the economists can explain what went wrong with their predictions on Free Trade, they can go fuck themselves.

When has it ever been lower? The market is broken.

Nothing went wrong with trade, your blame is obviously misplaced. You don’t even have a real argument for your beliefs.

We have a shortage of masks and ventilators thanks to globalism

We probably have far more than we would otherwise have. Our shortage is from poor government planning . Shortages happen regularly in isolated economies.

 

[Mac-7]

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.

Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine

Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.

harvardmagazine.com

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.

From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies

Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.

www.axios.com

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.

That’s all you got? That makes no sense. Like I said we have had super low unemployment and labor shortages.

You don’t even understand what economists say. We have lots of wealth and low unemployment, you are a fool.

Not low enough to make the employer raise wages.

And until the economists can explain what went wrong with their predictions on Free Trade, they can go fuck themselves.

When has it ever been lower? The market is broken.

Nothing went wrong with trade, your blame is obviously misplaced. You don’t even have a real argument for your beliefs.

We have a shortage of masks and ventilators thanks to globalism

We probably have far more than we would otherwise have. Our shortage is from poor government planning . Shortages happen regularly in isolated economies.

We are getting zilch from china now because they still have the wuhan virus too

 

[Correll]

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.

Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine

Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.

harvardmagazine.com

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.

From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies

Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.

www.axios.com

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.

That’s all you got? That makes no sense. Like I said we have had super low unemployment and labor shortages.

You don’t even understand what economists say. We have lots of wealth and low unemployment, you are a fool.

Not low enough to make the employer raise wages.

And until the economists can explain what went wrong with their predictions on Free Trade, they can go fuck themselves.

When has it ever been lower? The market is broken.

Nothing went wrong with trade, your blame is obviously misplaced. You don’t even have a real argument for your beliefs.

1. I agree the labor market is broken. THe questions are why and what to do about it.

2. Funny, I point out that their predictions were wrong, and you misunderstand me, and end up addressing something I did not say. Probably an accident. Please try again.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine

Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.

harvardmagazine.com

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.

From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies

Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.

www.axios.com

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.

That’s all you got? That makes no sense. Like I said we have had super low unemployment and labor shortages.

You don’t even understand what economists say. We have lots of wealth and low unemployment, you are a fool.

Not low enough to make the employer raise wages.

And until the economists can explain what went wrong with their predictions on Free Trade, they can go fuck themselves.

When has it ever been lower? The market is broken.

Nothing went wrong with trade, your blame is obviously misplaced. You don’t even have a real argument for your beliefs.

1. I agree the labor market is broken. THe questions are why and what to do about it.

2. Funny, I point out that their predictions were wrong, and you misunderstand me, and end up addressing something I did not say. Probably an accident. Please try again.

Their predictions weren’t wrong. If you believe that first be clear and provide proof of that prediction. Then provide proof they were wrong.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine

Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.

harvardmagazine.com

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.

From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies

Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.

www.axios.com

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.

That’s all you got? That makes no sense. Like I said we have had super low unemployment and labor shortages.

You don’t even understand what economists say. We have lots of wealth and low unemployment, you are a fool.

Not low enough to make the employer raise wages.

And until the economists can explain what went wrong with their predictions on Free Trade, they can go fuck themselves.

When has it ever been lower? The market is broken.

Nothing went wrong with trade, your blame is obviously misplaced. You don’t even have a real argument for your beliefs.

We have a shortage of masks and ventilators thanks to globalism

We probably have far more than we would otherwise have. Our shortage is from poor government planning . Shortages happen regularly in isolated economies.

We are getting zilch from china now because they still have the wuhan virus too

And? Again, we already have far more than we would without trade.

 

[Mac-7]

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.

Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine

Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.

harvardmagazine.com

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.

From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies

Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.

www.axios.com

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.

That’s all you got? That makes no sense. Like I said we have had super low unemployment and labor shortages.

You don’t even understand what economists say. We have lots of wealth and low unemployment, you are a fool.

Not low enough to make the employer raise wages.

And until the economists can explain what went wrong with their predictions on Free Trade, they can go fuck themselves.

When has it ever been lower? The market is broken.

Nothing went wrong with trade, your blame is obviously misplaced. You don’t even have a real argument for your beliefs.

We have a shortage of masks and ventilators thanks to globalism

We probably have far more than we would otherwise have. Our shortage is from poor government planning . Shortages happen regularly in isolated economies.

We are getting zilch from china now because they still have the wuhan virus too

And? Again, we already have far more than we would without trade.

Nonsense

we do not have enough on hand and we are getting nothing from china

 

[Brain357]

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.

Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine

Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.

harvardmagazine.com

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.

From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies

Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.

www.axios.com

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.

That’s all you got? That makes no sense. Like I said we have had super low unemployment and labor shortages.

You don’t even understand what economists say. We have lots of wealth and low unemployment, you are a fool.

Not low enough to make the employer raise wages.

And until the economists can explain what went wrong with their predictions on Free Trade, they can go fuck themselves.

When has it ever been lower? The market is broken.

Nothing went wrong with trade, your blame is obviously misplaced. You don’t even have a real argument for your beliefs.

We have a shortage of masks and ventilators thanks to globalism

We probably have far more than we would otherwise have. Our shortage is from poor government planning . Shortages happen regularly in isolated economies.

We are getting zilch from china now because they still have the wuhan virus too

And? Again, we already have far more than we would without trade.

Nonsense

we do not have enough on hand and we are getting nothing from china

Poor planning on our part. We should have planned for needing more obviously. Do you know how long it takes containers to deliver?

 

[Correll]

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.

Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine

Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.

harvardmagazine.com

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.

From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies

Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.

www.axios.com

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.

That’s all you got? That makes no sense. Like I said we have had super low unemployment and labor shortages.

You don’t even understand what economists say. We have lots of wealth and low unemployment, you are a fool.

Not low enough to make the employer raise wages.

And until the economists can explain what went wrong with their predictions on Free Trade, they can go fuck themselves.

When has it ever been lower? The market is broken.

Nothing went wrong with trade, your blame is obviously misplaced. You don’t even have a real argument for your beliefs.

We have a shortage of masks and ventilators thanks to globalism

We probably have far more than we would otherwise have. Our shortage is from poor government planning . Shortages happen regularly in isolated economies.

We are getting zilch from china now because they still have the wuhan virus too

And of course. What kind of government would allow plants in their territory to make products they need to save the lives of their citizens to be exported in

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.

Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine

Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.

harvardmagazine.com

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.

From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies

Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.

www.axios.com

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.

That’s all you got? That makes no sense. Like I said we have had super low unemployment and labor shortages.

You don’t even understand what economists say. We have lots of wealth and low unemployment, you are a fool.

Not low enough to make the employer raise wages.

And until the economists can explain what went wrong with their predictions on Free Trade, they can go fuck themselves.

When has it ever been lower? The market is broken.

Nothing went wrong with trade, your blame is obviously misplaced. You don’t even have a real argument for your beliefs.

1. I agree the labor market is broken. THe questions are why and what to do about it.

2. Funny, I point out that their predictions were wrong, and you misunderstand me, and end up addressing something I did not say. Probably an accident. Please try again.

Their predictions weren’t wrong. If you believe that first be clear and provide proof of that prediction. Then provide proof they were wrong.

Time and time again, they predicted that Free Trade would lead to increased exports and more jobs. This did not occur.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine

Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.

harvardmagazine.com

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.

From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies

Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.

www.axios.com

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.

That’s all you got? That makes no sense. Like I said we have had super low unemployment and labor shortages.

You don’t even understand what economists say. We have lots of wealth and low unemployment, you are a fool.

Not low enough to make the employer raise wages.

And until the economists can explain what went wrong with their predictions on Free Trade, they can go fuck themselves.

When has it ever been lower? The market is broken.

Nothing went wrong with trade, your blame is obviously misplaced. You don’t even have a real argument for your beliefs.

We have a shortage of masks and ventilators thanks to globalism

We probably have far more than we would otherwise have. Our shortage is from poor government planning . Shortages happen regularly in isolated economies.

We are getting zilch from china now because they still have the wuhan virus too

And of course. What kind of government would allow plants in their territory to make products they need to save the lives of their citizens to be exported in

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.

Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine

Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.

harvardmagazine.com

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.

From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies

Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.

www.axios.com

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.

That’s all you got? That makes no sense. Like I said we have had super low unemployment and labor shortages.

You don’t even understand what economists say. We have lots of wealth and low unemployment, you are a fool.

Not low enough to make the employer raise wages.

And until the economists can explain what went wrong with their predictions on Free Trade, they can go fuck themselves.

When has it ever been lower? The market is broken.

Nothing went wrong with trade, your blame is obviously misplaced. You don’t even have a real argument for your beliefs.

1. I agree the labor market is broken. THe questions are why and what to do about it.

2. Funny, I point out that their predictions were wrong, and you misunderstand me, and end up addressing something I did not say. Probably an accident. Please try again.

Their predictions weren’t wrong. If you believe that first be clear and provide proof of that prediction. Then provide proof they were wrong.

Time and time again, they predicted that Free Trade would lead to increased exports and more jobs. This did not occur.

Provide proof of that claimed prediction.

We have had extremely low unemployment . You seem really confused.

 

[Correll]

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.

Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine

Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.

harvardmagazine.com

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.

From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies

Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.

www.axios.com

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.

That’s all you got? That makes no sense. Like I said we have had super low unemployment and labor shortages.

You don’t even understand what economists say. We have lots of wealth and low unemployment, you are a fool.

Not low enough to make the employer raise wages.

And until the economists can explain what went wrong with their predictions on Free Trade, they can go fuck themselves.

When has it ever been lower? The market is broken.

Nothing went wrong with trade, your blame is obviously misplaced. You don’t even have a real argument for your beliefs.

We have a shortage of masks and ventilators thanks to globalism

We probably have far more than we would otherwise have. Our shortage is from poor government planning . Shortages happen regularly in isolated economies.

We are getting zilch from china now because they still have the wuhan virus too

And of course. What kind of government would allow plants in their territory to make products they need to save the lives of their citizens to be exported in

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.

Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine

Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.

harvardmagazine.com

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.

From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies

Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.

www.axios.com

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.

That’s all you got? That makes no sense. Like I said we have had super low unemployment and labor shortages.

You don’t even understand what economists say. We have lots of wealth and low unemployment, you are a fool.

Not low enough to make the employer raise wages.

And until the economists can explain what went wrong with their predictions on Free Trade, they can go fuck themselves.

When has it ever been lower? The market is broken.

Nothing went wrong with trade, your blame is obviously misplaced. You don’t even have a real argument for your beliefs.

1. I agree the labor market is broken. THe questions are why and what to do about it.

2. Funny, I point out that their predictions were wrong, and you misunderstand me, and end up addressing something I did not say. Probably an accident. Please try again.

Their predictions weren’t wrong. If you believe that first be clear and provide proof of that prediction. Then provide proof they were wrong.

Time and time again, they predicted that Free Trade would lead to increased exports and more jobs. This did not occur.

Provide proof of that claimed prediction.

We have had extremely low unemployment . You seem really confused.

Why? If I post a link of some economists making such predictions, and then a link of it not happening, will that change anything for you, or will you just move on to your next attack, having wasted my time?

 

[Brain357]

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.

Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine

Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.

harvardmagazine.com

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.

From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies

Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.

www.axios.com

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.

That’s all you got? That makes no sense. Like I said we have had super low unemployment and labor shortages.

You don’t even understand what economists say. We have lots of wealth and low unemployment, you are a fool.

Not low enough to make the employer raise wages.

And until the economists can explain what went wrong with their predictions on Free Trade, they can go fuck themselves.

When has it ever been lower? The market is broken.

Nothing went wrong with trade, your blame is obviously misplaced. You don’t even have a real argument for your beliefs.

We have a shortage of masks and ventilators thanks to globalism

We probably have far more than we would otherwise have. Our shortage is from poor government planning . Shortages happen regularly in isolated economies.

We are getting zilch from china now because they still have the wuhan virus too

And of course. What kind of government would allow plants in their territory to make products they need to save the lives of their citizens to be exported in

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.

Wage stagnation: economists look to new explanations | Harvard Magazine

Economists look to new explanations for wage stagnation.

harvardmagazine.com

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.

From dialysis to hospitals, U.S. health care is full of monopolies

Markets are consolidating out in the open and behind the scenes.

www.axios.com

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.

That’s all you got? That makes no sense. Like I said we have had super low unemployment and labor shortages.

You don’t even understand what economists say. We have lots of wealth and low unemployment, you are a fool.

Not low enough to make the employer raise wages.

And until the economists can explain what went wrong with their predictions on Free Trade, they can go fuck themselves.

When has it ever been lower? The market is broken.

Nothing went wrong with trade, your blame is obviously misplaced. You don’t even have a real argument for your beliefs.

1. I agree the labor market is broken. THe questions are why and what to do about it.

2. Funny, I point out that their predictions were wrong, and you misunderstand me, and end up addressing something I did not say. Probably an accident. Please try again.

Their predictions weren’t wrong. If you believe that first be clear and provide proof of that prediction. Then provide proof they were wrong.

Time and time again, they predicted that Free Trade would lead to increased exports and more jobs. This did not occur.

Provide proof of that claimed prediction.

We have had extremely low unemployment . You seem really confused.

Why? If I post a link of some economists making such predictions, and then a link of it not happening, will that change anything for you, or will you just move on to your next attack, having wasted my time?

I don’t think your claims exist or you have them twisted. Either support your claim or abandon it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

We are in economic free fall now thanks to china dominated globalism

We are in free fall because of our poor leadership.

What does leadership have to do with it? Remember it's Trump who instituted travel bans, and the Democrats who criticized it. It was Democrats who passed a bill to eliminate Trump's power to ban travel without their oversight, and that was in early March. When this first started to threaten our country, Trump stopped travel from African countries, and Piglosi said it was due to discrimination.

Just look how Democrats are acting, and you'll get an idea of how much trouble we'd be in today if Hilary did win. Better thank your God that Trump is in charge today.