So you want better paying jobs?

[Ernie S.]

The Wall Street Journal Sept. 17, 2010

The inflation-adjusted income of the median household—smack in the middle of the populace—fell 4.8% between 2000 and 2009, even worse than the 1970s, when median income rose 1.9% despite high unemployment and inflation. Between 2007 and 2009, incomes fell 4.2%.
Lost Decade for Family Income

The New Yorker SEPTEMBER 16, 2014

On Tuesday morning, the United States Census Bureau released its annual report on income and poverty in the United States...

Median household income was eight per cent lower in 2013 than it was in 2007, when the recession began. And the poverty rate in 2013 was two percentage points higher than it was in 2007.
The Income Chart That Explains American Politics - The New Yorker

View attachment 48948

View attachment 48947
Boss is or expects to be on the right side of the growing income gap. Good for him.

Nevertheless, an economy where the median income adjusted for inflation declines while the rich get richer does not nurture a healthy society. During past eras of growing inequality most people rose somewhat.

You will always have a growing income gap in a free market capitalist economy... it's the natural order. What your charts are not showing you is the enormous number of people who moved up the ladder and left the "middle class". We don't live in a vacuum, people move in and out of different classes all the time in a free society. The reason your masters present such meaningless information is this is how Socialism is promoted in countries where there is no freedom to escape the class you are born into. This comparing gaps between classes works in those systems to create envy and spark revolution.

In OUR system, you are free to escape your class. You can become part of the top 1% if you have the drive and motivation to succeed, people do it all the time. Free market capitalism has created more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. In the past two centuries, Socialism is responsible for more than 100 million deaths, usually by hideous acts of genocide as dictatorships collapse.

The other end of the middle class moves too. The poverty level keeps going up in order to get more and more people dependent on Democrats Government.

 

[Boss]

The Wall Street Journal Sept. 17, 2010

The inflation-adjusted income of the median household—smack in the middle of the populace—fell 4.8% between 2000 and 2009, even worse than the 1970s, when median income rose 1.9% despite high unemployment and inflation. Between 2007 and 2009, incomes fell 4.2%.
Lost Decade for Family Income

The New Yorker SEPTEMBER 16, 2014

On Tuesday morning, the United States Census Bureau released its annual report on income and poverty in the United States...

Median household income was eight per cent lower in 2013 than it was in 2007, when the recession began. And the poverty rate in 2013 was two percentage points higher than it was in 2007.
The Income Chart That Explains American Politics - The New Yorker

View attachment 48948

View attachment 48947
Boss is or expects to be on the right side of the growing income gap. Good for him.

Nevertheless, an economy where the median income adjusted for inflation declines while the rich get richer does not nurture a healthy society. During past eras of growing inequality most people rose somewhat.

You will always have a growing income gap in a free market capitalist economy... it's the natural order. What your charts are not showing you is the enormous number of people who moved up the ladder and left the "middle class". We don't live in a vacuum, people move in and out of different classes all the time in a free society. The reason your masters present such meaningless information is this is how Socialism is promoted in countries where there is no freedom to escape the class you are born into. This comparing gaps between classes works in those systems to create envy and spark revolution.

In OUR system, you are free to escape your class. You can become part of the top 1% if you have the drive and motivation to succeed, people do it all the time. Free market capitalism has created more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. In the past two centuries, Socialism is responsible for more than 100 million deaths, usually by hideous acts of genocide as dictatorships collapse.

The other end of the middle class moves too. The poverty level keeps going up in order to get more and more people dependent on Democrats Government.

But the statistics say this is not true. Yes... sometimes people go from middle class to poor... sometimes they even go from wealthy to poor... overnight. Overall, on average, we have reduced the number of low-income families since 1967, from 22% to 17%... that's not much, but it is a reduction and not an increase. Far more families are moving up than moving down.

 

[Correll]

Lots of things start "with a social contract" a term that could mean almost anything, especially with someone who likes to play word games like yourself.

1929 was a disaster, no doubt about it.

One failure does not negate the vast Good done by the Wealth Creation of the Capitalistic engine of US economy over the last 250 years.

playing "word games" could be indistinguishable from quibbling. words have meaning. a social Contract is a technical document with technical terms.

There is no "vast Good" of wealth creation without the socialism of States and Statism.

And yet the greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

Why do you think that historical reality does not match your ideological expectation?

It isn't ideology; most true AnCaps are third world in development when compared to more nationalized and socialized, republics.

You did not address my point.

The greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

no, it hasn't. it has been the nationalized and socialized economy that has brought us to the level of development we have; there is no true private sector in the US that is not affected by the public sector as that form of Nurture within Nature.

No True Scotsman logical fallacy.

The US economy "private sector" is LESS "Nurtured" than most of the world, and we have been the Greatest Creator of Wealth in the World for generations.

 

[Correll]

Lots of things start "with a social contract" a term that could mean almost anything, especially with someone who likes to play word games like yourself.

1929 was a disaster, no doubt about it.

One failure does not negate the vast Good done by the Wealth Creation of the Capitalistic engine of US economy over the last 250 years.

playing "word games" could be indistinguishable from quibbling. words have meaning. a social Contract is a technical document with technical terms.

There is no "vast Good" of wealth creation without the socialism of States and Statism.

And yet the greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

Why do you think that historical reality does not match your ideological expectation?

It isn't ideology; most true AnCaps are third world in development when compared to more nationalized and socialized, republics.

You did not address my point.

The greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

This is so true and obvious. Look at East Germany/West Germany, Hong Kong/China, Cuba/Florida and 132 other examples. The discovery of political and economic freedom transformed the world in 200 years.

East and West Germany and North and South Korea are the best examples.

Two nations divided between Free and NOt Free and the Free soared while the Not Free stagnated in poverty and oppression.

 

[danielpalos]

playing "word games" could be indistinguishable from quibbling. words have meaning. a social Contract is a technical document with technical terms.

There is no "vast Good" of wealth creation without the socialism of States and Statism.

And yet the greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

Why do you think that historical reality does not match your ideological expectation?

It isn't ideology; most true AnCaps are third world in development when compared to more nationalized and socialized, republics.

You did not address my point.

The greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

This is so true and obvious. Look at East Germany/West Germany, Hong Kong/China, Cuba/Florida and 132 other examples. The discovery of political and economic freedom transformed the world in 200 years.

East and West Germany and North and South Korea are the best examples.

Two nations divided between Free and NOt Free and the Free soared while the Not Free stagnated in poverty and oppression.

in other words; simple "bad management".

 

[Correll]

And yet the greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

Why do you think that historical reality does not match your ideological expectation?

It isn't ideology; most true AnCaps are third world in development when compared to more nationalized and socialized, republics.

You did not address my point.

The greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

This is so true and obvious. Look at East Germany/West Germany, Hong Kong/China, Cuba/Florida and 132 other examples. The discovery of political and economic freedom transformed the world in 200 years.

East and West Germany and North and South Korea are the best examples.

Two nations divided between Free and NOt Free and the Free soared while the Not Free stagnated in poverty and oppression.

in other words; simple "bad management".

A good system has provisions for replacing bad management, (as if that was the only problem)

Communism did not. West Germany and South Korea did/do.

Your desire to make excuses for Communism is noted though...

 

[danielpalos]

It isn't ideology; most true AnCaps are third world in development when compared to more nationalized and socialized, republics.

You did not address my point.

The greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

This is so true and obvious. Look at East Germany/West Germany, Hong Kong/China, Cuba/Florida and 132 other examples. The discovery of political and economic freedom transformed the world in 200 years.

East and West Germany and North and South Korea are the best examples.

Two nations divided between Free and NOt Free and the Free soared while the Not Free stagnated in poverty and oppression.

in other words; simple "bad management".

A good system has provisions for replacing bad management, (as if that was the only problem)

Communism did not. West Germany and South Korea did/do.

Your desire to make excuses for Communism is noted though...

yes; bad management is the Only problem in any command economy. why do you believe it isn't?

 

[Correll]

You did not address my point.

The greatest Wealth Creator has been the Capitalistic Economy of the United States, not the more socialistic States.

This is so true and obvious. Look at East Germany/West Germany, Hong Kong/China, Cuba/Florida and 132 other examples. The discovery of political and economic freedom transformed the world in 200 years.

East and West Germany and North and South Korea are the best examples.

Two nations divided between Free and NOt Free and the Free soared while the Not Free stagnated in poverty and oppression.

in other words; simple "bad management".

A good system has provisions for replacing bad management, (as if that was the only problem)

Communism did not. West Germany and South Korea did/do.

Your desire to make excuses for Communism is noted though...

yes; bad management is the Only problem in any command economy. why do you believe it isn't?

Because decentralizing decision making is very different from centralizing it. for one example of another problem.

You are not only operating from the premise that centralizing is better, but pretending that there is not even a possible dissenting view.

Which is dishonest.

 

[danielpalos]

This is so true and obvious. Look at East Germany/West Germany, Hong Kong/China, Cuba/Florida and 132 other examples. The discovery of political and economic freedom transformed the world in 200 years.

East and West Germany and North and South Korea are the best examples.

Two nations divided between Free and NOt Free and the Free soared while the Not Free stagnated in poverty and oppression.

in other words; simple "bad management".

A good system has provisions for replacing bad management, (as if that was the only problem)

Communism did not. West Germany and South Korea did/do.

Your desire to make excuses for Communism is noted though...

yes; bad management is the Only problem in any command economy. why do you believe it isn't?

Because decentralizing decision making is very different from centralizing it. for one example of another problem.

You are not only operating from the premise that centralizing is better, but pretending that there is not even a possible dissenting view.

Which is dishonest.

I am not sure why you believe centralization is a problem; but for redundancy purposes.

I merely assert that it is simple bad management that prevents command economies from command economizing their way to prosperity.

 

[Correll]

East and West Germany and North and South Korea are the best examples.

Two nations divided between Free and NOt Free and the Free soared while the Not Free stagnated in poverty and oppression.

in other words; simple "bad management".

A good system has provisions for replacing bad management, (as if that was the only problem)

Communism did not. West Germany and South Korea did/do.

Your desire to make excuses for Communism is noted though...

yes; bad management is the Only problem in any command economy. why do you believe it isn't?

Because decentralizing decision making is very different from centralizing it. for one example of another problem.

You are not only operating from the premise that centralizing is better, but pretending that there is not even a possible dissenting view.

Which is dishonest.

I am not sure why you believe centralization is a problem; but for redundancy purposes.

I merely assert that it is simple bad management that prevents command economies from command economizing their way to prosperity.

People who do the work or at least are closer to the work are more likely to understand the issues, and make better decisions, IMO, than some politician or bureaucrat far, far away.

You can assert that it is simply "bad management" but that does not make you case. It is merely your personal unsupported opinion.

AND I have already pointed out that a good system has provisions for replacing bad management. YOu have ignored this point.

It is part of the Freedom aspect of the difference that you care so little about.

The people of West Germany and South Korea were Free to change their leaders when they were "bad management" while in East Germany and NOrth Korea they were NOT FREE to do so.

 

[danielpalos]

in other words; simple "bad management".

A good system has provisions for replacing bad management, (as if that was the only problem)

Communism did not. West Germany and South Korea did/do.

Your desire to make excuses for Communism is noted though...

yes; bad management is the Only problem in any command economy. why do you believe it isn't?

Because decentralizing decision making is very different from centralizing it. for one example of another problem.

You are not only operating from the premise that centralizing is better, but pretending that there is not even a possible dissenting view.

Which is dishonest.

I am not sure why you believe centralization is a problem; but for redundancy purposes.

I merely assert that it is simple bad management that prevents command economies from command economizing their way to prosperity.

People who do the work or at least are closer to the work are more likely to understand the issues, and make better decisions, IMO, than some politician or bureaucrat far, far away.

You can assert that it is simply "bad management" but that does not make you case. It is merely your personal unsupported opinion.

AND I have already pointed out that a good system has provisions for replacing bad management. YOu have ignored this point.

It is part of the Freedom aspect of the difference that you care so little about.

The people of West Germany and South Korea were Free to change their leaders when they were "bad management" while in East Germany and NOrth Korea they were NOT FREE to do so.

Yes; not achieving goals for any organization is simple bad management. There is no PC way to say it.

 

[Correll]

A good system has provisions for replacing bad management, (as if that was the only problem)

Communism did not. West Germany and South Korea did/do.

Your desire to make excuses for Communism is noted though...

yes; bad management is the Only problem in any command economy. why do you believe it isn't?

Because decentralizing decision making is very different from centralizing it. for one example of another problem.

You are not only operating from the premise that centralizing is better, but pretending that there is not even a possible dissenting view.

Which is dishonest.

I am not sure why you believe centralization is a problem; but for redundancy purposes.

I merely assert that it is simple bad management that prevents command economies from command economizing their way to prosperity.

People who do the work or at least are closer to the work are more likely to understand the issues, and make better decisions, IMO, than some politician or bureaucrat far, far away.

You can assert that it is simply "bad management" but that does not make you case. It is merely your personal unsupported opinion.

AND I have already pointed out that a good system has provisions for replacing bad management. YOu have ignored this point.

It is part of the Freedom aspect of the difference that you care so little about.

The people of West Germany and South Korea were Free to change their leaders when they were "bad management" while in East Germany and NOrth Korea they were NOT FREE to do so.

Yes; not achieving goals for any organization is simple bad management. There is no PC way say it.

Or maybe there are fundamental flaws in the underlying principles of the "organization" in question.

It is not credible that you have never been exposed to that idea before.

 

[danielpalos]

yes; bad management is the Only problem in any command economy. why do you believe it isn't?

Because decentralizing decision making is very different from centralizing it. for one example of another problem.

You are not only operating from the premise that centralizing is better, but pretending that there is not even a possible dissenting view.

Which is dishonest.

I am not sure why you believe centralization is a problem; but for redundancy purposes.

I merely assert that it is simple bad management that prevents command economies from command economizing their way to prosperity.

People who do the work or at least are closer to the work are more likely to understand the issues, and make better decisions, IMO, than some politician or bureaucrat far, far away.

You can assert that it is simply "bad management" but that does not make you case. It is merely your personal unsupported opinion.

AND I have already pointed out that a good system has provisions for replacing bad management. YOu have ignored this point.

It is part of the Freedom aspect of the difference that you care so little about.

The people of West Germany and South Korea were Free to change their leaders when they were "bad management" while in East Germany and NOrth Korea they were NOT FREE to do so.

Yes; not achieving goals for any organization is simple bad management. There is no PC way say it.

Or maybe there are fundamental flaws in the underlying principles of the "organization" in question.

It is not credible that you have never been exposed to that idea before.

not sure what you mean; any flaws in organization is simple, bad management.

 

[Ernie S.]

The Wall Street Journal Sept. 17, 2010

The inflation-adjusted income of the median household—smack in the middle of the populace—fell 4.8% between 2000 and 2009, even worse than the 1970s, when median income rose 1.9% despite high unemployment and inflation. Between 2007 and 2009, incomes fell 4.2%.
Lost Decade for Family Income

The New Yorker SEPTEMBER 16, 2014

On Tuesday morning, the United States Census Bureau released its annual report on income and poverty in the United States...

Median household income was eight per cent lower in 2013 than it was in 2007, when the recession began. And the poverty rate in 2013 was two percentage points higher than it was in 2007.
The Income Chart That Explains American Politics - The New Yorker

View attachment 48948

View attachment 48947
Boss is or expects to be on the right side of the growing income gap. Good for him.

Nevertheless, an economy where the median income adjusted for inflation declines while the rich get richer does not nurture a healthy society. During past eras of growing inequality most people rose somewhat.

You will always have a growing income gap in a free market capitalist economy... it's the natural order. What your charts are not showing you is the enormous number of people who moved up the ladder and left the "middle class". We don't live in a vacuum, people move in and out of different classes all the time in a free society. The reason your masters present such meaningless information is this is how Socialism is promoted in countries where there is no freedom to escape the class you are born into. This comparing gaps between classes works in those systems to create envy and spark revolution.

In OUR system, you are free to escape your class. You can become part of the top 1% if you have the drive and motivation to succeed, people do it all the time. Free market capitalism has created more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. In the past two centuries, Socialism is responsible for more than 100 million deaths, usually by hideous acts of genocide as dictatorships collapse.

The other end of the middle class moves too. The poverty level keeps going up in order to get more and more people dependent on Democrats Government.

But the statistics say this is not true. Yes... sometimes people go from middle class to poor... sometimes they even go from wealthy to poor... overnight. Overall, on average, we have reduced the number of low-income families since 1967, from 22% to 17%... that's not much, but it is a reduction and not an increase. Far more families are moving up than moving down.

You are right, but if lower level life style of 1967 had remained the criteria in 2015, that 17% would be more like 10 or 12%
We have people "living in poverty" with 60" TVs iphones, automobiles, central air conditioning.

In today's world, these people receive welfare and are "below the poverty line".

In 1967, these people were poor.

 

[Correll]

Because decentralizing decision making is very different from centralizing it. for one example of another problem.

You are not only operating from the premise that centralizing is better, but pretending that there is not even a possible dissenting view.

Which is dishonest.

I am not sure why you believe centralization is a problem; but for redundancy purposes.

I merely assert that it is simple bad management that prevents command economies from command economizing their way to prosperity.

People who do the work or at least are closer to the work are more likely to understand the issues, and make better decisions, IMO, than some politician or bureaucrat far, far away.

You can assert that it is simply "bad management" but that does not make you case. It is merely your personal unsupported opinion.

AND I have already pointed out that a good system has provisions for replacing bad management. YOu have ignored this point.

It is part of the Freedom aspect of the difference that you care so little about.

The people of West Germany and South Korea were Free to change their leaders when they were "bad management" while in East Germany and NOrth Korea they were NOT FREE to do so.

Yes; not achieving goals for any organization is simple bad management. There is no PC way say it.

Or maybe there are fundamental flaws in the underlying principles of the "organization" in question.

It is not credible that you have never been exposed to that idea before.

not sure what you mean; any flaws in organization is simple, bad management.

One of the basic principles of Communism is Common Ownership of the Means of Production.

This eliminated the Profit motive from the list of possible incentives to work or innovate.

This is a fundamental flaw in the system of Communism that hinders Wealth Creation in Communistic societies regardless of quality of management.

It is not credible that you have never been exposed to this idea before.

What is credible is that you have managed to dismiss this idea every time you have been exposed to it.

This reflects an extremely closed mind.

 

[Boss]

I merely assert that it is simple bad management that prevents command economies from command economizing their way to prosperity.

But you have NO evidence of it in a country our size because an example doesn't exist. What has somehow become termed as "bad management" is very often plain old garden variety corruption. Communist systems become corrupt. Those responsible for seeing the wealth is redistributed, find ways to redistribute it to their pockets or the pockets of their friends and family. Furthermore, nothing can be done about the corruption because the people in charge of that are same people. It is a thoroughly failed system that hasn't ever worked outside a few isolated Scandinavian countries with small localized populations and no illegal immigration.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not sure why you believe centralization is a problem; but for redundancy purposes.

I merely assert that it is simple bad management that prevents command economies from command economizing their way to prosperity.

People who do the work or at least are closer to the work are more likely to understand the issues, and make better decisions, IMO, than some politician or bureaucrat far, far away.

You can assert that it is simply "bad management" but that does not make you case. It is merely your personal unsupported opinion.

AND I have already pointed out that a good system has provisions for replacing bad management. YOu have ignored this point.

It is part of the Freedom aspect of the difference that you care so little about.

The people of West Germany and South Korea were Free to change their leaders when they were "bad management" while in East Germany and NOrth Korea they were NOT FREE to do so.

Yes; not achieving goals for any organization is simple bad management. There is no PC way say it.

Or maybe there are fundamental flaws in the underlying principles of the "organization" in question.

It is not credible that you have never been exposed to that idea before.

not sure what you mean; any flaws in organization is simple, bad management.

One of the basic principles of Communism is Common Ownership of the Means of Production.

This eliminated the Profit motive from the list of possible incentives to work or innovate.

This is a fundamental flaw in the system of Communism that hinders Wealth Creation in Communistic societies regardless of quality of management.

It is not credible that you have never been exposed to this idea before.

What is credible is that you have managed to dismiss this idea every time you have been exposed to it.

This reflects an extremely closed mind.

How would that work in a "commune of Heaven"?

Don't you believe it is why Socialism and Religion, require social morals for free.

What you are declaiming, is any Faith in a god through that form of social, not capital, hard work.

 

[danielpalos]

I merely assert that it is simple bad management that prevents command economies from command economizing their way to prosperity.

But you have NO evidence of it in a country our size because an example doesn't exist. What has somehow become termed as "bad management" is very often plain old garden variety corruption. Communist systems become corrupt. Those responsible for seeing the wealth is redistributed, find ways to redistribute it to their pockets or the pockets of their friends and family. Furthermore, nothing can be done about the corruption because the people in charge of that are same people. It is a thoroughly failed system that hasn't ever worked outside a few isolated Scandinavian countries with small localized populations and no illegal immigration.

not sure what you mean; a nation-State our size can Only exist via the socialism of a mixed-market economy, not True Capitalism.

 

[Boss]

I merely assert that it is simple bad management that prevents command economies from command economizing their way to prosperity.

But you have NO evidence of it in a country our size because an example doesn't exist. What has somehow become termed as "bad management" is very often plain old garden variety corruption. Communist systems become corrupt. Those responsible for seeing the wealth is redistributed, find ways to redistribute it to their pockets or the pockets of their friends and family. Furthermore, nothing can be done about the corruption because the people in charge of that are same people. It is a thoroughly failed system that hasn't ever worked outside a few isolated Scandinavian countries with small localized populations and no illegal immigration.

not sure what you mean; a nation-State our size can Only exist via the socialism of a mixed-market economy, not True Capitalism.

Ahh yes... this is where deceivers try to insinuate some elements of a free market capitalist system are actually "socialist" in nature. (But they're not.) All the examples of "socialism" you can cite in our free market system are examples of cooperatives. This is where free market capitalists agree on mutual benefit and establish things they can all share and live with for the better good.

 

[Toro]

We keep hearing about this "widening gap between rich and poor" which has been the nucleus of an ongoing argument for higher wages, living wages, increasing the minimum wage, more taxation on "the wealthy" or whatever. They come armed with graphs and charts... the statistics to show you the middle class is in decline... the wealthy continue to amass great fortunes while the poor struggle to survive. Our hearts bleed as we're lectured on how we need more government regulations, more agencies and programs, more forced wage hikes and mandates, more restrictions and regulations heaped on big business in order to force them to pay up!

The problem is, we're hearing this from morons who don't understand how free market capitalism works. Oh, not all of them are illiterate morons, some have read books by European socialist propagandists and think they have everything all figured out. They don't seem to understand socialism doesn't work in practice like it works on paper. Every significant sized Socialist nation has failed and most of them have failed hideously. The ideas of people like Marx and Mao are responsible for ten's of millions of deaths. It is clearly a failed ideology by every standard.

Let's first dispatch a few myths and misconceptions. Wealthy people tend to gain wealth faster than poor people because they have a propensity for wealth acquisition... it's how they became wealthy for the most part. So it is perfectly natural in a free market capitalist system for the wealthiest to gain wealth faster than everyone else. It's like having a marathon race where there are runners who are seasoned veteran marathoners, runners who are couch potatoes, and some who run for the fun of it.... Now, in an actual race, who would you expect to lead and eventually win? The couch potato? Of course not... the seasoned vets are constantly going to gain more ground than the couch potatoes... that's perfectly natural and expected. The solution to the problem is not to hobble the veterans so they don't run as fast... the better idea would be to motivate the couch potatoes... train them up... make them better able to compete... turn them into veteran runners.

So this is where the idea of increasing their wages comes... but it's not as simple as merely passing some legislation that corporations MUST pay people $X per hour... that does not work in free market capitalism. What happens is, everything is on a sliding scale, so people make more but things cost more... so very shortly, we are back to square one. So come on Boss... get to the point... how do we increase the rate of pay for the average American in the average job without disrupting free market capitalism or causing inflation?

In order to increase pay you have to increase the demand for labor. In order to do that, you have to create new jobs. Not just new service sector, minimum wage, government or part-time jobs... but real, good paying, legitimate jobs. The way to do that is to encourage expansion of business... this requires taking several steps... lower taxes on corporations... or eliminate corporate tax altogether. Offer tax incentives for repatriated wealth... we have over $20 trillion in US wealth abroad... not doing us a bit of good. Let's bring it home and put it to work creating new business and new jobs. Finally, our trade deals need to account for the disparity in cost of labor. We can't compete with countries who pay their workers $1 a day and a bowl of rice... unless that's the standard we want to live with ourselves. Our trade policies have to take this into consideration and we have to apply tougher tariffs on import goods so our American companies can again compete domestically.

For example, let's use a computer keyboard... If you go to the store today to buy one, you will likely pay around $20 for a standard keyboard which is probably made in Indonesia. Now... An American company, with American workers and paying American taxes, can't buy the materials and assemble said keyboard for $20, much less sell it for that and make a profit. A similar American-made keyboard would be probably $40 or more. So if you have the choice to buy the same keyboard for $20 or $40... which would you likely purchase? Most people aren't going to care about where it's made, money is the deciding factor. However... IF you applied a tariff on Indonesian keyboards of say, $10 each... then the price of the Indonesian keyboard is $30 and the US company has the opportunity to compete... they cut some corners use some competitive ingenuity and manage to whittle their price down to $35... now you have a choice between a cheaply-made Indonesian keyboard for $30 or one that is built to last by Americans for $35. Some will still pick the cheaper keyboard but some will go with the quality.

Now my example is a little exaggerated, we'd never apply a 50% tariff on something... but the point is making imports more expensive so that American companies can compete again. When we change this dynamic, jobs will begin to generate as a result.. more jobs = more demand for labor = higher wages.

Tariffs are socialist. They are taxes designed to protect labor and restrict individual choice by squeezing out foreign competition. That's why labor unions support tariffs pretty much everywhere.

Yet, this is what Donald Trump proposes. And his "conservative" supporters cheer him on.