Washing machines/dryers prices up 17% under Trump (thank you, tariffs)

[Billy000]

Pay a little bit more and Buy American....

If you have a job, you can use the money you saved in taxes.

It’s incredible to me the way you dumbasses try so desperately to defend Trump.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

While I'm no fan of tariffs, I think in this new age of trading it will simply take time to weigh the results. I may be wrong but I may be right. I think our economy is strong enough for a minor trade war, but not so much for other countries.

Yes, politics is in play, and it depends on who can suffer the most damage. After all, when was the last time we didn't have a trade deficit? I think Trump just wants everybody to play by the same rules is all. I don't think it's all that much to ask for.

Here's the deal, as I see it.

The key, as you stated is, "minor trade war". As long as it stays minor, then it will remain minor.

Our economy right now is diversified enough to handle it. If you keep things limited to just steel and aluminum, we might be able to survive this, because unlike the 1930s, our entire economy isn't built on manufacturing, primarily in steel and aluminum.

What is going to kill us, is if the rest of the world retaliates with tariffs on all kinds of American goods, and that prompts Trump to equally tariff all kinds of goods, and then you will be seeing some devastating consequences.

The only good side is, most of the world (not all), is pretty on board with the idea that trade wars and protectionism is bad.

Also, I think the Congress is on the verge of passing legislation to prevent Trump from unilaterally imposing protectionism.

So between the two, we might be able to stave off the damage.

I just don't know if tariffs will be a total loss to the US. First of all, it might get some countries back to the table to discuss more equitable trading standards. Secondly, higher priced foreign products gives our US made products a better chance at selling in the stores. The more US goods sold in stores, the better for our economy.

Yes, it could be a push, but what if we end up a little ahead in the end? I really just don't know and to be honest, I don't think anybody does since this has never been tried on such a large scale before. Yes, Bush put tariffs on steel when he was in office, but when the results were tariffs on our exports, he backed down faster than he went in. There was no way to evaluate the final outcome.

First, they have always been at the table. Trade negotiators are always negotiating something.

Tariffs have never made much sense but make even less today. For example, steel producers in the US once supplied practically all the needs of steel fabricators in the US so a tariff on imported steel helped the steel producers and did not effect the fabricators. But today the fabricators buy specialized steel products abroad that are not even made by US producers. So the tariffs helps big steel and hurt most smaller fabricators. This is the sort thing that occurs throughout the economy. You can't put a tariff on a major import without a lot of unintended consequences.

However, IMHO, the worst thing about tariffs is we have the government determining who benefits and who suffers instead of the free market.

Tariff wars can start very rapidly however, they tend to end very slowly because trade negotiation are always very slow because there are so many different political interest involved. The Trade war that Trump has initiated may well continue to escalate and last for years.

Sure, it could do that, but let's give him a chance and see how it works out.

Tariffs are something that can be rescinded in two minutes. If Trump was a professional politician, I may be more weary. But Trump is a businessman. This is a subject he's studied for quite sometime. As a businessman who has traded internationally, I trust his experience.

Again, not crazy about tariffs, but on the other hand, open to new ideas; ideas that few if any have tried.

It's true that a president can certainly abolish tariffs he has applied any time provide he's willing to eat crow.

However, once tariffs are applied on thousands of products across the nation, there are going to be winners and looser that are going to be exerting political pressures on both the president and congress. It is no longer a business decision it is political decision. Abolish these tariffs and you loose support in these states. Cut those tariffs and loose support in another area. Do nothing and lose support someplace else. Since the opposition has applied tariffs also, they face political pressures also in their country meaning they may not be willing suspend tariffs at all or the ones we are most interested in. It get's very complicated and political aspects rule the day. This is why a lot of very wise economist say, don't start trade wars, nobody really wins.

It is not a zero sum game. Often, everybody loses.

BTW I don't know of anything Trump has done in international trade. No, opening a hotel is not international trade. I bet the closest Trump has every got to International trade is course work at the Wharton School of Business over 50 years ago

Correct, I should have said international business. It's still more experience than any other President has had before taking office. Obama was a community organizer for crying out loud.

 

[Flopper]

Here's the deal, as I see it.

The key, as you stated is, "minor trade war". As long as it stays minor, then it will remain minor.

Our economy right now is diversified enough to handle it. If you keep things limited to just steel and aluminum, we might be able to survive this, because unlike the 1930s, our entire economy isn't built on manufacturing, primarily in steel and aluminum.

What is going to kill us, is if the rest of the world retaliates with tariffs on all kinds of American goods, and that prompts Trump to equally tariff all kinds of goods, and then you will be seeing some devastating consequences.

The only good side is, most of the world (not all), is pretty on board with the idea that trade wars and protectionism is bad.

Also, I think the Congress is on the verge of passing legislation to prevent Trump from unilaterally imposing protectionism.

So between the two, we might be able to stave off the damage.

I just don't know if tariffs will be a total loss to the US. First of all, it might get some countries back to the table to discuss more equitable trading standards. Secondly, higher priced foreign products gives our US made products a better chance at selling in the stores. The more US goods sold in stores, the better for our economy.

Yes, it could be a push, but what if we end up a little ahead in the end? I really just don't know and to be honest, I don't think anybody does since this has never been tried on such a large scale before. Yes, Bush put tariffs on steel when he was in office, but when the results were tariffs on our exports, he backed down faster than he went in. There was no way to evaluate the final outcome.

First, they have always been at the table. Trade negotiators are always negotiating something.

Tariffs have never made much sense but make even less today. For example, steel producers in the US once supplied practically all the needs of steel fabricators in the US so a tariff on imported steel helped the steel producers and did not effect the fabricators. But today the fabricators buy specialized steel products abroad that are not even made by US producers. So the tariffs helps big steel and hurt most smaller fabricators. This is the sort thing that occurs throughout the economy. You can't put a tariff on a major import without a lot of unintended consequences.

However, IMHO, the worst thing about tariffs is we have the government determining who benefits and who suffers instead of the free market.

Tariff wars can start very rapidly however, they tend to end very slowly because trade negotiation are always very slow because there are so many different political interest involved. The Trade war that Trump has initiated may well continue to escalate and last for years.

Sure, it could do that, but let's give him a chance and see how it works out.

Tariffs are something that can be rescinded in two minutes. If Trump was a professional politician, I may be more weary. But Trump is a businessman. This is a subject he's studied for quite sometime. As a businessman who has traded internationally, I trust his experience.

Again, not crazy about tariffs, but on the other hand, open to new ideas; ideas that few if any have tried.

It's true that a president can certainly abolish tariffs he has applied any time provide he's willing to eat crow.

However, once tariffs are applied on thousands of products across the nation, there are going to be winners and looser that are going to be exerting political pressures on both the president and congress. It is no longer a business decision it is political decision. Abolish these tariffs and you loose support in these states. Cut those tariffs and loose support in another area. Do nothing and lose support someplace else. Since the opposition has applied tariffs also, they face political pressures also in their country meaning they may not be willing suspend tariffs at all or the ones we are most interested in. It get's very complicated and political aspects rule the day. This is why a lot of very wise economist say, don't start trade wars, nobody really wins.

It is not a zero sum game. Often, everybody loses.

BTW I don't know of anything Trump has done in international trade. No, opening a hotel is not international trade. I bet the closest Trump has every got to International trade is course work at the Wharton School of Business over 50 years ago

Correct, I should have said international business. It's still more experience than any other President has had before taking office. Obama was a community organizer for crying out loud.

He spent 3 years as a community organizer while he was in college.
He also served in the US Senate for 3 years and 7 years in the Illinois Senate.

Politics is the very best experience one can have in the highest political office in the country. The presidency is all about politics, not business, not foreign trade, and not military affairs. Almost all Trump's screw ups have been due to his lack of political experience.

I don't think we have ever had a president with experience in trade negotiations.

 

[Correll]

Saint Ronald's worst policies was to ignore anti-trust restrictions and allow concentrations of industry to oligarchic and monopolistic levels not seen since the Gilded age of trusts, and this process is still going on. We've never had such a concentration of wealth in our history, and it has killed off small and mid-sized businesses and social mobility, and the sources of training for managerial and organizational talent.

What? Social mobility is massive today.

And actually, I would disagree with that claim completely. The lowest classes in this country, live a standard of living much closer to that of the wealthy elite today, than at any time in the past.

By any measure that is true today.

As for killing off mid-sized business, that's true, and it's because the government has more and more regulations and controls over the market than ever before.

And managerial training... that's just flat out false. Millions of companies have training programs and reimbursement programs.

JP Morgan was responsible for Dodd-Frank...to destroy smaller firms.
Just like Microsoft killed off smaller software firms by giving stuff away.

How is that bad? If you can get software for a lower price, how is this bad?

That's like saying GM giving seat belts away for free in their cars, killed off the Tucker which was the first car to have seat belts.

How is the customer getting more products at a lower price, bad? If you are able to make a business model, that provides more products and services to the customer for a lower price, that's not a negative.

And yet, it will cause other companies that can't do that, to go out of business. Because they are not providing more services and products at a lower cost.

As for JP Morgan and Dodd-Frank..... all regulations inherently destroy competition and benefit the larger corporations.

This is inherent to all regulations. it's natural. Like rain causes things to get wet, regulations push out competition.

Even if JP Morgan had nothing to do with it... it would naturally benefit JP Morgan.

Why?

Because inherently the way regulations work, causes two results that both benefit the large corporations.

1. It reduces innovation and the ability to differentiate products and services.

How does a small or mid-size company, convince customers to use them over large companies that are well established and known? By either innovating and company up with a completely different product, or by modifying the product to be different than the large corporations product.

Regulations force companies to keep their products within a defined boundary. That makes the products from large companies, and small companies to be more like each other, and it prevents the smaller companies from innovating a new product.

Well if the small corp product, and large corp product are similar, why would you choose the small company which could be risky, because they could go out of business, over the large trusted company that is well established?

You wouldn't. You would be more likely to use the products from the large corporation, that you know and trust, sense both products are similar.

2. It levies expenses on both companies, which inherently means the larger more wealthy company, will be more easily able to afford those additional costs.

If you pass a regulation that costs half million to meet..... which company is going to be able to afford it? Your small size company that only makes a million a year? Or my mega corp that makes a hundred million a year? Or a billion a year?

Obviously my large corp will be easily able to afford the cost of meeting those regulations. Your tiny corp, is more likely to close, or sell out to me, since the cost of those regulations will eat up most of your revenue.

Business Visa legislation is not based on available labor, it's based on competent labor.
You're going to tell me that only Indians can produce the crap software that has plagued us since 1998?
Every Business Visa not from India was sent packing in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Microsoft's success caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs.
After the 2008, the laid off Business Visas weren't sent back to India.
Stores fired Americans, even those making Minimum Wage, and hired the BVs.
You know what it's like going to MACY's and being helped by someone who doesn't speak English?

Funny how the left-wing supports illegal immigration constantly, but then screams about legal immigration later.

I know dozens of employed American software coders. The idea that somehow Indians have completely replaced Americans, is false. I know 3 companies right now.... right NOW, that have software engineers and none of them are Indian. All are American.

In a few words, get over yourself. If you don't have a job as a software programmer, it's because you suck. Good programmers are in high demand, even if you are American. If you think Microsofts hiring Indians is so bad, then join another company, and put them out of business. Make a better product, if you think you can.

Trust me, many companies are begging to have an alternative to Microsoft. The market is there, if you can actually come up with a solution.

Again, if you don't like the store's employees, then go somewhere else. If you think people are willing to pay a premium to have American workers, then open your own store, hire only Americans, and see how that works for you.

We both know how that will turn out, because we both know if there was a market value to it, then someone wanting to make billions, would have already opened a store with only Americans, or a software company with only Americans. The fact it hasn't happened, because the theory isn't true.

I don't work in software development, but I have a friend that does.


Her idiot upper management hired a bunch of Indians, just because, and put her in charge of managing their work, from here.


She is not a happy person. She is not impressed with their abilities. Upper management did it, because they are morons who don't have an idea beyond, "underpay to increase profits".

 

[Indeependent]

What? Social mobility is massive today.

And actually, I would disagree with that claim completely. The lowest classes in this country, live a standard of living much closer to that of the wealthy elite today, than at any time in the past.

By any measure that is true today.

As for killing off mid-sized business, that's true, and it's because the government has more and more regulations and controls over the market than ever before.

And managerial training... that's just flat out false. Millions of companies have training programs and reimbursement programs.

JP Morgan was responsible for Dodd-Frank...to destroy smaller firms.
Just like Microsoft killed off smaller software firms by giving stuff away.

How is that bad? If you can get software for a lower price, how is this bad?

That's like saying GM giving seat belts away for free in their cars, killed off the Tucker which was the first car to have seat belts.

How is the customer getting more products at a lower price, bad? If you are able to make a business model, that provides more products and services to the customer for a lower price, that's not a negative.

And yet, it will cause other companies that can't do that, to go out of business. Because they are not providing more services and products at a lower cost.

As for JP Morgan and Dodd-Frank..... all regulations inherently destroy competition and benefit the larger corporations.

This is inherent to all regulations. it's natural. Like rain causes things to get wet, regulations push out competition.

Even if JP Morgan had nothing to do with it... it would naturally benefit JP Morgan.

Why?

Because inherently the way regulations work, causes two results that both benefit the large corporations.

1. It reduces innovation and the ability to differentiate products and services.

How does a small or mid-size company, convince customers to use them over large companies that are well established and known? By either innovating and company up with a completely different product, or by modifying the product to be different than the large corporations product.

Regulations force companies to keep their products within a defined boundary. That makes the products from large companies, and small companies to be more like each other, and it prevents the smaller companies from innovating a new product.

Well if the small corp product, and large corp product are similar, why would you choose the small company which could be risky, because they could go out of business, over the large trusted company that is well established?

You wouldn't. You would be more likely to use the products from the large corporation, that you know and trust, sense both products are similar.

2. It levies expenses on both companies, which inherently means the larger more wealthy company, will be more easily able to afford those additional costs.

If you pass a regulation that costs half million to meet..... which company is going to be able to afford it? Your small size company that only makes a million a year? Or my mega corp that makes a hundred million a year? Or a billion a year?

Obviously my large corp will be easily able to afford the cost of meeting those regulations. Your tiny corp, is more likely to close, or sell out to me, since the cost of those regulations will eat up most of your revenue.

Business Visa legislation is not based on available labor, it's based on competent labor.
You're going to tell me that only Indians can produce the crap software that has plagued us since 1998?
Every Business Visa not from India was sent packing in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Microsoft's success caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs.
After the 2008, the laid off Business Visas weren't sent back to India.
Stores fired Americans, even those making Minimum Wage, and hired the BVs.
You know what it's like going to MACY's and being helped by someone who doesn't speak English?

Funny how the left-wing supports illegal immigration constantly, but then screams about legal immigration later.

I know dozens of employed American software coders. The idea that somehow Indians have completely replaced Americans, is false. I know 3 companies right now.... right NOW, that have software engineers and none of them are Indian. All are American.

In a few words, get over yourself. If you don't have a job as a software programmer, it's because you suck. Good programmers are in high demand, even if you are American. If you think Microsofts hiring Indians is so bad, then join another company, and put them out of business. Make a better product, if you think you can.

Trust me, many companies are begging to have an alternative to Microsoft. The market is there, if you can actually come up with a solution.

Again, if you don't like the store's employees, then go somewhere else. If you think people are willing to pay a premium to have American workers, then open your own store, hire only Americans, and see how that works for you.

We both know how that will turn out, because we both know if there was a market value to it, then someone wanting to make billions, would have already opened a store with only Americans, or a software company with only Americans. The fact it hasn't happened, because the theory isn't true.

I don't work in software development, but I have a friend that does.


Her idiot upper management hired a bunch of Indians, just because, and put her in charge of managing their work, from here.


She is not a happy person. She is not impressed with their abilities. Upper management did it, because they are morons who don't have an idea beyond, "underpay to increase profits".

Andy is very intelligent but not very smart.
That is in no way denigrating him.
I get the impression that he is accustomed to taking the crap that's thrown at him.
He might, in fact, be a Libertarian.

 

[debbiedowner]

Fed says businesses are scaling back spending because of Trump's uncertain trade policy

 

[Brain357]

What? Social mobility is massive today.

And actually, I would disagree with that claim completely. The lowest classes in this country, live a standard of living much closer to that of the wealthy elite today, than at any time in the past.

By any measure that is true today.

As for killing off mid-sized business, that's true, and it's because the government has more and more regulations and controls over the market than ever before.

And managerial training... that's just flat out false. Millions of companies have training programs and reimbursement programs.

JP Morgan was responsible for Dodd-Frank...to destroy smaller firms.
Just like Microsoft killed off smaller software firms by giving stuff away.

How is that bad? If you can get software for a lower price, how is this bad?

That's like saying GM giving seat belts away for free in their cars, killed off the Tucker which was the first car to have seat belts.

How is the customer getting more products at a lower price, bad? If you are able to make a business model, that provides more products and services to the customer for a lower price, that's not a negative.

And yet, it will cause other companies that can't do that, to go out of business. Because they are not providing more services and products at a lower cost.

As for JP Morgan and Dodd-Frank..... all regulations inherently destroy competition and benefit the larger corporations.

This is inherent to all regulations. it's natural. Like rain causes things to get wet, regulations push out competition.

Even if JP Morgan had nothing to do with it... it would naturally benefit JP Morgan.

Why?

Because inherently the way regulations work, causes two results that both benefit the large corporations.

1. It reduces innovation and the ability to differentiate products and services.

How does a small or mid-size company, convince customers to use them over large companies that are well established and known? By either innovating and company up with a completely different product, or by modifying the product to be different than the large corporations product.

Regulations force companies to keep their products within a defined boundary. That makes the products from large companies, and small companies to be more like each other, and it prevents the smaller companies from innovating a new product.

Well if the small corp product, and large corp product are similar, why would you choose the small company which could be risky, because they could go out of business, over the large trusted company that is well established?

You wouldn't. You would be more likely to use the products from the large corporation, that you know and trust, sense both products are similar.

2. It levies expenses on both companies, which inherently means the larger more wealthy company, will be more easily able to afford those additional costs.

If you pass a regulation that costs half million to meet..... which company is going to be able to afford it? Your small size company that only makes a million a year? Or my mega corp that makes a hundred million a year? Or a billion a year?

Obviously my large corp will be easily able to afford the cost of meeting those regulations. Your tiny corp, is more likely to close, or sell out to me, since the cost of those regulations will eat up most of your revenue.

Business Visa legislation is not based on available labor, it's based on competent labor.
You're going to tell me that only Indians can produce the crap software that has plagued us since 1998?
Every Business Visa not from India was sent packing in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Microsoft's success caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs.
After the 2008, the laid off Business Visas weren't sent back to India.
Stores fired Americans, even those making Minimum Wage, and hired the BVs.
You know what it's like going to MACY's and being helped by someone who doesn't speak English?

Funny how the left-wing supports illegal immigration constantly, but then screams about legal immigration later.

I know dozens of employed American software coders. The idea that somehow Indians have completely replaced Americans, is false. I know 3 companies right now.... right NOW, that have software engineers and none of them are Indian. All are American.

In a few words, get over yourself. If you don't have a job as a software programmer, it's because you suck. Good programmers are in high demand, even if you are American. If you think Microsofts hiring Indians is so bad, then join another company, and put them out of business. Make a better product, if you think you can.

Trust me, many companies are begging to have an alternative to Microsoft. The market is there, if you can actually come up with a solution.

Again, if you don't like the store's employees, then go somewhere else. If you think people are willing to pay a premium to have American workers, then open your own store, hire only Americans, and see how that works for you.

We both know how that will turn out, because we both know if there was a market value to it, then someone wanting to make billions, would have already opened a store with only Americans, or a software company with only Americans. The fact it hasn't happened, because the theory isn't true.

I don't work in software development, but I have a friend that does.


Her idiot upper management hired a bunch of Indians, just because, and put her in charge of managing their work, from here.


She is not a happy person. She is not impressed with their abilities. Upper management did it, because they are morons who don't have an idea beyond, "underpay to increase profits".

Upper management wants more profit. They have been selling out US workers for a long time...

 

[Correll]

Wanna buy laundry equipment for your home? Good luck paying more than you used to, thanks to Donald J. Trump and his tariffs.
In this thread, we will come up with ideas as to how to lower said prices again:
Opinion | Trump’s tariffs are already backfiring

Today Canadian tariffs on US imports go into effect on a lot more than just washing machines, steel products, aluminum products, and everything from Maple syrup to ball point pens. 25% EU tariffs have gone into effect on bourbon, Harleys, as well as agricultural products like orange and cranberry juice; to steel and aluminium items; to manufactured goods, such as makeup, clothes and boats.

And the insanity continues as governments taxes the most successful producers to protect the least successful and we all end up with poorer quality at a higher price.

Good job, Mr Trump. Keep it up and we will soon be in a recession.

Every pushback from our trading "partners" validates Trump's policy.

Wanna buy laundry equipment for your home? Good luck paying more than you used to, thanks to Donald J. Trump and his tariffs.
In this thread, we will come up with ideas as to how to lower said prices again:
Opinion | Trump’s tariffs are already backfiring

Today Canadian tariffs on US imports go into effect on a lot more than just washing machines, steel products, aluminum products, and everything from Maple syrup to ball point pens. 25% EU tariffs have gone into effect on bourbon, Harleys, as well as agricultural products like orange and cranberry juice; to steel and aluminium items; to manufactured goods, such as makeup, clothes and boats.

And the insanity continues as governments taxes the most successful producers to protect the least successful and we all end up with poorer quality at a higher price.

Good job, Mr Trump. Keep it up and we will soon be in a recession.

Every pushback from our trading "partners" validates Trump's policy.

Trump has a policy?

That was a cowardly dodge of my point. And you know it.


Every pushback from our trading "partners" validates Trump's policy.

How about explaining how a pushback validates Trump policy and I'll comment on it.

The people against Trump's policies are numerous and varied, but there are a few common threads that run though all their anti-Trump arguments.


1. That the jobs and trade balance that Trump wants, are not valuable. Whether simply flatly asserting that "trade deficits" don't matter, or that all the job loss was caused by automation, not trade, or that all the jobs are crap, or jobs "of the past" or that the jobs, if he does get them, will soon be done by robots, it is a fools errand because there is nothing or not much of value to be gained.


2. That the causes of the jobs losses are irreversible, and not a matter of policy. US workers are stupid, or over paid, or unskilled, or something.

3. That Trump is an ill mannered child, dealing with mature, reasonable professionals ie the leaders of other countries.



Every pushback shows that the leaders of the foreign nations consider the jobs and trade balance worth fighting for.


Every push back shows that the leaders of the foreign nations think that the trade balance and jobs CAN be reversed by policy.


Every push back shows that the foreign leaders are just as willing as Trump, to risk a Global Trade war, instead of just being "above it all" and letting Trump's policies pass without comment. They have to sink to his level, if they were not already there.



IF the anti-Trumpers were right, the foreign leaders would not feel threatened by Trump's trade policy and would not take strong and risky action to counter them.


THey would let it pass and fully expect that Trump's policies would fail and that in 3 short years, he will be gone, and everything could go back to normal.




There is one obvious reason that they can't do that of course.


DO you know what it is?




(btw, kudos on being the first to ask for an explanation. I've been posting that for over a week without anyone asking)

 

[Correll]

JP Morgan was responsible for Dodd-Frank...to destroy smaller firms.
Just like Microsoft killed off smaller software firms by giving stuff away.

How is that bad? If you can get software for a lower price, how is this bad?

That's like saying GM giving seat belts away for free in their cars, killed off the Tucker which was the first car to have seat belts.

How is the customer getting more products at a lower price, bad? If you are able to make a business model, that provides more products and services to the customer for a lower price, that's not a negative.

And yet, it will cause other companies that can't do that, to go out of business. Because they are not providing more services and products at a lower cost.

As for JP Morgan and Dodd-Frank..... all regulations inherently destroy competition and benefit the larger corporations.

This is inherent to all regulations. it's natural. Like rain causes things to get wet, regulations push out competition.

Even if JP Morgan had nothing to do with it... it would naturally benefit JP Morgan.

Why?

Because inherently the way regulations work, causes two results that both benefit the large corporations.

1. It reduces innovation and the ability to differentiate products and services.

How does a small or mid-size company, convince customers to use them over large companies that are well established and known? By either innovating and company up with a completely different product, or by modifying the product to be different than the large corporations product.

Regulations force companies to keep their products within a defined boundary. That makes the products from large companies, and small companies to be more like each other, and it prevents the smaller companies from innovating a new product.

Well if the small corp product, and large corp product are similar, why would you choose the small company which could be risky, because they could go out of business, over the large trusted company that is well established?

You wouldn't. You would be more likely to use the products from the large corporation, that you know and trust, sense both products are similar.

2. It levies expenses on both companies, which inherently means the larger more wealthy company, will be more easily able to afford those additional costs.

If you pass a regulation that costs half million to meet..... which company is going to be able to afford it? Your small size company that only makes a million a year? Or my mega corp that makes a hundred million a year? Or a billion a year?

Obviously my large corp will be easily able to afford the cost of meeting those regulations. Your tiny corp, is more likely to close, or sell out to me, since the cost of those regulations will eat up most of your revenue.

Business Visa legislation is not based on available labor, it's based on competent labor.
You're going to tell me that only Indians can produce the crap software that has plagued us since 1998?
Every Business Visa not from India was sent packing in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Microsoft's success caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs.
After the 2008, the laid off Business Visas weren't sent back to India.
Stores fired Americans, even those making Minimum Wage, and hired the BVs.
You know what it's like going to MACY's and being helped by someone who doesn't speak English?

Funny how the left-wing supports illegal immigration constantly, but then screams about legal immigration later.

I know dozens of employed American software coders. The idea that somehow Indians have completely replaced Americans, is false. I know 3 companies right now.... right NOW, that have software engineers and none of them are Indian. All are American.

In a few words, get over yourself. If you don't have a job as a software programmer, it's because you suck. Good programmers are in high demand, even if you are American. If you think Microsofts hiring Indians is so bad, then join another company, and put them out of business. Make a better product, if you think you can.

Trust me, many companies are begging to have an alternative to Microsoft. The market is there, if you can actually come up with a solution.

Again, if you don't like the store's employees, then go somewhere else. If you think people are willing to pay a premium to have American workers, then open your own store, hire only Americans, and see how that works for you.

We both know how that will turn out, because we both know if there was a market value to it, then someone wanting to make billions, would have already opened a store with only Americans, or a software company with only Americans. The fact it hasn't happened, because the theory isn't true.

I don't work in software development, but I have a friend that does.


Her idiot upper management hired a bunch of Indians, just because, and put her in charge of managing their work, from here.


She is not a happy person. She is not impressed with their abilities. Upper management did it, because they are morons who don't have an idea beyond, "underpay to increase profits".

Upper management wants more profit. They have been selling out US workers for a long time...

Time to do something about that.

 

[Brain357]

How is that bad? If you can get software for a lower price, how is this bad?

That's like saying GM giving seat belts away for free in their cars, killed off the Tucker which was the first car to have seat belts.

How is the customer getting more products at a lower price, bad? If you are able to make a business model, that provides more products and services to the customer for a lower price, that's not a negative.

And yet, it will cause other companies that can't do that, to go out of business. Because they are not providing more services and products at a lower cost.

As for JP Morgan and Dodd-Frank..... all regulations inherently destroy competition and benefit the larger corporations.

This is inherent to all regulations. it's natural. Like rain causes things to get wet, regulations push out competition.

Even if JP Morgan had nothing to do with it... it would naturally benefit JP Morgan.

Why?

Because inherently the way regulations work, causes two results that both benefit the large corporations.

1. It reduces innovation and the ability to differentiate products and services.

How does a small or mid-size company, convince customers to use them over large companies that are well established and known? By either innovating and company up with a completely different product, or by modifying the product to be different than the large corporations product.

Regulations force companies to keep their products within a defined boundary. That makes the products from large companies, and small companies to be more like each other, and it prevents the smaller companies from innovating a new product.

Well if the small corp product, and large corp product are similar, why would you choose the small company which could be risky, because they could go out of business, over the large trusted company that is well established?

You wouldn't. You would be more likely to use the products from the large corporation, that you know and trust, sense both products are similar.

2. It levies expenses on both companies, which inherently means the larger more wealthy company, will be more easily able to afford those additional costs.

If you pass a regulation that costs half million to meet..... which company is going to be able to afford it? Your small size company that only makes a million a year? Or my mega corp that makes a hundred million a year? Or a billion a year?

Obviously my large corp will be easily able to afford the cost of meeting those regulations. Your tiny corp, is more likely to close, or sell out to me, since the cost of those regulations will eat up most of your revenue.

Business Visa legislation is not based on available labor, it's based on competent labor.
You're going to tell me that only Indians can produce the crap software that has plagued us since 1998?
Every Business Visa not from India was sent packing in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Microsoft's success caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs.
After the 2008, the laid off Business Visas weren't sent back to India.
Stores fired Americans, even those making Minimum Wage, and hired the BVs.
You know what it's like going to MACY's and being helped by someone who doesn't speak English?

Funny how the left-wing supports illegal immigration constantly, but then screams about legal immigration later.

I know dozens of employed American software coders. The idea that somehow Indians have completely replaced Americans, is false. I know 3 companies right now.... right NOW, that have software engineers and none of them are Indian. All are American.

In a few words, get over yourself. If you don't have a job as a software programmer, it's because you suck. Good programmers are in high demand, even if you are American. If you think Microsofts hiring Indians is so bad, then join another company, and put them out of business. Make a better product, if you think you can.

Trust me, many companies are begging to have an alternative to Microsoft. The market is there, if you can actually come up with a solution.

Again, if you don't like the store's employees, then go somewhere else. If you think people are willing to pay a premium to have American workers, then open your own store, hire only Americans, and see how that works for you.

We both know how that will turn out, because we both know if there was a market value to it, then someone wanting to make billions, would have already opened a store with only Americans, or a software company with only Americans. The fact it hasn't happened, because the theory isn't true.

I don't work in software development, but I have a friend that does.


Her idiot upper management hired a bunch of Indians, just because, and put her in charge of managing their work, from here.


She is not a happy person. She is not impressed with their abilities. Upper management did it, because they are morons who don't have an idea beyond, "underpay to increase profits".

Upper management wants more profit. They have been selling out US workers for a long time...

Time to do something about that.

Fire them?

 

[Correll]

Business Visa legislation is not based on available labor, it's based on competent labor.
You're going to tell me that only Indians can produce the crap software that has plagued us since 1998?
Every Business Visa not from India was sent packing in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Microsoft's success caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs.
After the 2008, the laid off Business Visas weren't sent back to India.
Stores fired Americans, even those making Minimum Wage, and hired the BVs.
You know what it's like going to MACY's and being helped by someone who doesn't speak English?

Funny how the left-wing supports illegal immigration constantly, but then screams about legal immigration later.

I know dozens of employed American software coders. The idea that somehow Indians have completely replaced Americans, is false. I know 3 companies right now.... right NOW, that have software engineers and none of them are Indian. All are American.

In a few words, get over yourself. If you don't have a job as a software programmer, it's because you suck. Good programmers are in high demand, even if you are American. If you think Microsofts hiring Indians is so bad, then join another company, and put them out of business. Make a better product, if you think you can.

Trust me, many companies are begging to have an alternative to Microsoft. The market is there, if you can actually come up with a solution.

Again, if you don't like the store's employees, then go somewhere else. If you think people are willing to pay a premium to have American workers, then open your own store, hire only Americans, and see how that works for you.

We both know how that will turn out, because we both know if there was a market value to it, then someone wanting to make billions, would have already opened a store with only Americans, or a software company with only Americans. The fact it hasn't happened, because the theory isn't true.

I don't work in software development, but I have a friend that does.


Her idiot upper management hired a bunch of Indians, just because, and put her in charge of managing their work, from here.


She is not a happy person. She is not impressed with their abilities. Upper management did it, because they are morons who don't have an idea beyond, "underpay to increase profits".

Upper management wants more profit. They have been selling out US workers for a long time...

Time to do something about that.

Fire them?

If it were an angry uprising of shareholders, that would be the path to take.

 

[Brain357]

Funny how the left-wing supports illegal immigration constantly, but then screams about legal immigration later.

I know dozens of employed American software coders. The idea that somehow Indians have completely replaced Americans, is false. I know 3 companies right now.... right NOW, that have software engineers and none of them are Indian. All are American.

In a few words, get over yourself. If you don't have a job as a software programmer, it's because you suck. Good programmers are in high demand, even if you are American. If you think Microsofts hiring Indians is so bad, then join another company, and put them out of business. Make a better product, if you think you can.

Trust me, many companies are begging to have an alternative to Microsoft. The market is there, if you can actually come up with a solution.

Again, if you don't like the store's employees, then go somewhere else. If you think people are willing to pay a premium to have American workers, then open your own store, hire only Americans, and see how that works for you.

We both know how that will turn out, because we both know if there was a market value to it, then someone wanting to make billions, would have already opened a store with only Americans, or a software company with only Americans. The fact it hasn't happened, because the theory isn't true.

I don't work in software development, but I have a friend that does.


Her idiot upper management hired a bunch of Indians, just because, and put her in charge of managing their work, from here.


She is not a happy person. She is not impressed with their abilities. Upper management did it, because they are morons who don't have an idea beyond, "underpay to increase profits".

Upper management wants more profit. They have been selling out US workers for a long time...

Time to do something about that.

Fire them?

If it were an angry uprising of shareholders, that would be the path to take.

The shareholders want the increased profits too. Many of the upper management are big share holders.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

JP Morgan was responsible for Dodd-Frank...to destroy smaller firms.
Just like Microsoft killed off smaller software firms by giving stuff away.

How is that bad? If you can get software for a lower price, how is this bad?

That's like saying GM giving seat belts away for free in their cars, killed off the Tucker which was the first car to have seat belts.

How is the customer getting more products at a lower price, bad? If you are able to make a business model, that provides more products and services to the customer for a lower price, that's not a negative.

And yet, it will cause other companies that can't do that, to go out of business. Because they are not providing more services and products at a lower cost.

As for JP Morgan and Dodd-Frank..... all regulations inherently destroy competition and benefit the larger corporations.

This is inherent to all regulations. it's natural. Like rain causes things to get wet, regulations push out competition.

Even if JP Morgan had nothing to do with it... it would naturally benefit JP Morgan.

Why?

Because inherently the way regulations work, causes two results that both benefit the large corporations.

1. It reduces innovation and the ability to differentiate products and services.

How does a small or mid-size company, convince customers to use them over large companies that are well established and known? By either innovating and company up with a completely different product, or by modifying the product to be different than the large corporations product.

Regulations force companies to keep their products within a defined boundary. That makes the products from large companies, and small companies to be more like each other, and it prevents the smaller companies from innovating a new product.

Well if the small corp product, and large corp product are similar, why would you choose the small company which could be risky, because they could go out of business, over the large trusted company that is well established?

You wouldn't. You would be more likely to use the products from the large corporation, that you know and trust, sense both products are similar.

2. It levies expenses on both companies, which inherently means the larger more wealthy company, will be more easily able to afford those additional costs.

If you pass a regulation that costs half million to meet..... which company is going to be able to afford it? Your small size company that only makes a million a year? Or my mega corp that makes a hundred million a year? Or a billion a year?

Obviously my large corp will be easily able to afford the cost of meeting those regulations. Your tiny corp, is more likely to close, or sell out to me, since the cost of those regulations will eat up most of your revenue.

Business Visa legislation is not based on available labor, it's based on competent labor.
You're going to tell me that only Indians can produce the crap software that has plagued us since 1998?
Every Business Visa not from India was sent packing in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Microsoft's success caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs.
After the 2008, the laid off Business Visas weren't sent back to India.
Stores fired Americans, even those making Minimum Wage, and hired the BVs.
You know what it's like going to MACY's and being helped by someone who doesn't speak English?

Funny how the left-wing supports illegal immigration constantly, but then screams about legal immigration later.

I know dozens of employed American software coders. The idea that somehow Indians have completely replaced Americans, is false. I know 3 companies right now.... right NOW, that have software engineers and none of them are Indian. All are American.

In a few words, get over yourself. If you don't have a job as a software programmer, it's because you suck. Good programmers are in high demand, even if you are American. If you think Microsofts hiring Indians is so bad, then join another company, and put them out of business. Make a better product, if you think you can.

Trust me, many companies are begging to have an alternative to Microsoft. The market is there, if you can actually come up with a solution.

Again, if you don't like the store's employees, then go somewhere else. If you think people are willing to pay a premium to have American workers, then open your own store, hire only Americans, and see how that works for you.

We both know how that will turn out, because we both know if there was a market value to it, then someone wanting to make billions, would have already opened a store with only Americans, or a software company with only Americans. The fact it hasn't happened, because the theory isn't true.

I don't work in software development, but I have a friend that does.


Her idiot upper management hired a bunch of Indians, just because, and put her in charge of managing their work, from here.


She is not a happy person. She is not impressed with their abilities. Upper management did it, because they are morons who don't have an idea beyond, "underpay to increase profits".

Upper management wants more profit. They have been selling out US workers for a long time...

Isn't that kind of what they go hired to do--save their company money?

 

[Correll]

I don't work in software development, but I have a friend that does.


Her idiot upper management hired a bunch of Indians, just because, and put her in charge of managing their work, from here.


She is not a happy person. She is not impressed with their abilities. Upper management did it, because they are morons who don't have an idea beyond, "underpay to increase profits".

Upper management wants more profit. They have been selling out US workers for a long time...

Time to do something about that.

Fire them?

If it were an angry uprising of shareholders, that would be the path to take.

The shareholders want the increased profits too. Many of the upper management are big share holders.

Reflexively higher the cheapest labor available, because you out of any other ideas, is not actually good management.

 

[Brain357]

Upper management wants more profit. They have been selling out US workers for a long time...

Time to do something about that.

Fire them?

If it were an angry uprising of shareholders, that would be the path to take.

The shareholders want the increased profits too. Many of the upper management are big share holders.

Reflexively higher the cheapest labor available, because you out of any other ideas, is not actually good management.

I'm not saying they are doing a good job.

 

[Brain357]

How is that bad? If you can get software for a lower price, how is this bad?

That's like saying GM giving seat belts away for free in their cars, killed off the Tucker which was the first car to have seat belts.

How is the customer getting more products at a lower price, bad? If you are able to make a business model, that provides more products and services to the customer for a lower price, that's not a negative.

And yet, it will cause other companies that can't do that, to go out of business. Because they are not providing more services and products at a lower cost.

As for JP Morgan and Dodd-Frank..... all regulations inherently destroy competition and benefit the larger corporations.

This is inherent to all regulations. it's natural. Like rain causes things to get wet, regulations push out competition.

Even if JP Morgan had nothing to do with it... it would naturally benefit JP Morgan.

Why?

Because inherently the way regulations work, causes two results that both benefit the large corporations.

1. It reduces innovation and the ability to differentiate products and services.

How does a small or mid-size company, convince customers to use them over large companies that are well established and known? By either innovating and company up with a completely different product, or by modifying the product to be different than the large corporations product.

Regulations force companies to keep their products within a defined boundary. That makes the products from large companies, and small companies to be more like each other, and it prevents the smaller companies from innovating a new product.

Well if the small corp product, and large corp product are similar, why would you choose the small company which could be risky, because they could go out of business, over the large trusted company that is well established?

You wouldn't. You would be more likely to use the products from the large corporation, that you know and trust, sense both products are similar.

2. It levies expenses on both companies, which inherently means the larger more wealthy company, will be more easily able to afford those additional costs.

If you pass a regulation that costs half million to meet..... which company is going to be able to afford it? Your small size company that only makes a million a year? Or my mega corp that makes a hundred million a year? Or a billion a year?

Obviously my large corp will be easily able to afford the cost of meeting those regulations. Your tiny corp, is more likely to close, or sell out to me, since the cost of those regulations will eat up most of your revenue.

Business Visa legislation is not based on available labor, it's based on competent labor.
You're going to tell me that only Indians can produce the crap software that has plagued us since 1998?
Every Business Visa not from India was sent packing in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Microsoft's success caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs.
After the 2008, the laid off Business Visas weren't sent back to India.
Stores fired Americans, even those making Minimum Wage, and hired the BVs.
You know what it's like going to MACY's and being helped by someone who doesn't speak English?

Funny how the left-wing supports illegal immigration constantly, but then screams about legal immigration later.

I know dozens of employed American software coders. The idea that somehow Indians have completely replaced Americans, is false. I know 3 companies right now.... right NOW, that have software engineers and none of them are Indian. All are American.

In a few words, get over yourself. If you don't have a job as a software programmer, it's because you suck. Good programmers are in high demand, even if you are American. If you think Microsofts hiring Indians is so bad, then join another company, and put them out of business. Make a better product, if you think you can.

Trust me, many companies are begging to have an alternative to Microsoft. The market is there, if you can actually come up with a solution.

Again, if you don't like the store's employees, then go somewhere else. If you think people are willing to pay a premium to have American workers, then open your own store, hire only Americans, and see how that works for you.

We both know how that will turn out, because we both know if there was a market value to it, then someone wanting to make billions, would have already opened a store with only Americans, or a software company with only Americans. The fact it hasn't happened, because the theory isn't true.

I don't work in software development, but I have a friend that does.


Her idiot upper management hired a bunch of Indians, just because, and put her in charge of managing their work, from here.


She is not a happy person. She is not impressed with their abilities. Upper management did it, because they are morons who don't have an idea beyond, "underpay to increase profits".

Upper management wants more profit. They have been selling out US workers for a long time...

Isn't that kind of what they go hired to do--save their company money?

It sure hasn't been good for the country. It's very short term. The companies with the best people do well over the long term. Upper management is just worried about themselves and now.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Upper management wants more profit. They have been selling out US workers for a long time...

Time to do something about that.

Fire them?

If it were an angry uprising of shareholders, that would be the path to take.

The shareholders want the increased profits too. Many of the upper management are big share holders.

Reflexively higher the cheapest labor available, because you out of any other ideas, is not actually good management.

I don't know the business model now, but years ago when I worked for a company, they didn't offer many raises. You had to ask your manager to put in a request for you; many times denied.

Before I left the company, I found out what was really going on.

The manager got X amount of money to run the branch. I'm not sure how much, but let's say 500K. So this 500K went to payroll, office supplies, office cleaning, various expenditures.

At the end of the year, whatever was left of the 500K (if there was anything left) went to the manager in way of a bonus. So if she only spent 480K, her bonus was 20K for that year on top of her salary.

The company was slick because they knew managers would be cheap as hell in spending to get as much of that money for themselves as they could. The pay increase requests? It was all bull. The manager could give you a raise anytime she wanted to. She had to weigh the risks of losing your services if you didn't get a raise to the likely hood of keeping you if you didn't get it.

So it's hard to blame managers for not spending if businesses use the same model as years ago; I'm sure some do.

 

[Correll]

Time to do something about that.

Fire them?

If it were an angry uprising of shareholders, that would be the path to take.

The shareholders want the increased profits too. Many of the upper management are big share holders.

Reflexively higher the cheapest labor available, because you out of any other ideas, is not actually good management.

I don't know the business model now, but years ago when I worked for a company, they didn't offer many raises. You had to ask your manager to put in a request for you; many times denied.

Before I left the company, I found out what was really going on.

The manager got X amount of money to run the branch. I'm not sure how much, but let's say 500K. So this 500K went to payroll, office supplies, office cleaning, various expenditures.

At the end of the year, whatever was left of the 500K (if there was anything left) went to the manager in way of a bonus. So if she only spent 480K, her bonus was 20K for that year on top of her salary.

The company was slick because they knew managers would be cheap as hell in spending to get as much of that money for themselves as they could. The pay increase requests? It was all bull. The manager could give you a raise anytime she wanted to. She had to weigh the risks of losing your services if you didn't get a raise to the likely hood of keeping you if you didn't get it.

So it's hard to blame managers for not spending if businesses use the same model as years ago; I'm sure some do.

I agree. It is upper management that makes the stupid rules.

 

[Brain357]

Time to do something about that.

Fire them?

If it were an angry uprising of shareholders, that would be the path to take.

The shareholders want the increased profits too. Many of the upper management are big share holders.

Reflexively higher the cheapest labor available, because you out of any other ideas, is not actually good management.

I don't know the business model now, but years ago when I worked for a company, they didn't offer many raises. You had to ask your manager to put in a request for you; many times denied.

Before I left the company, I found out what was really going on.

The manager got X amount of money to run the branch. I'm not sure how much, but let's say 500K. So this 500K went to payroll, office supplies, office cleaning, various expenditures.

At the end of the year, whatever was left of the 500K (if there was anything left) went to the manager in way of a bonus. So if she only spent 480K, her bonus was 20K for that year on top of her salary.

The company was slick because they knew managers would be cheap as hell in spending to get as much of that money for themselves as they could. The pay increase requests? It was all bull. The manager could give you a raise anytime she wanted to. She had to weigh the risks of losing your services if you didn't get a raise to the likely hood of keeping you if you didn't get it.

So it's hard to blame managers for not spending if businesses use the same model as years ago; I'm sure some do.

Sounds good for the manager, bad for the company.

 

[Correll]

Fire them?

If it were an angry uprising of shareholders, that would be the path to take.

The shareholders want the increased profits too. Many of the upper management are big share holders.

Reflexively higher the cheapest labor available, because you out of any other ideas, is not actually good management.

I don't know the business model now, but years ago when I worked for a company, they didn't offer many raises. You had to ask your manager to put in a request for you; many times denied.

Before I left the company, I found out what was really going on.

The manager got X amount of money to run the branch. I'm not sure how much, but let's say 500K. So this 500K went to payroll, office supplies, office cleaning, various expenditures.

At the end of the year, whatever was left of the 500K (if there was anything left) went to the manager in way of a bonus. So if she only spent 480K, her bonus was 20K for that year on top of her salary.

The company was slick because they knew managers would be cheap as hell in spending to get as much of that money for themselves as they could. The pay increase requests? It was all bull. The manager could give you a raise anytime she wanted to. She had to weigh the risks of losing your services if you didn't get a raise to the likely hood of keeping you if you didn't get it.

So it's hard to blame managers for not spending if businesses use the same model as years ago; I'm sure some do.

Sounds good for the manager, bad for the company.

And the workers, and the customers, and the community and the nation as a whole.