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

[Indeependent]

Wages are increasing, growth is doing fine. The country hasn't done this good in many years. The labor participation rate? That's a real sticky subject. Many industries (including mine) have tens of thousands of job openings, but aren't getting filled. Some would say that it's because wages are too low. Others say it's for different reasons that a border wall might help:

How the opioid epidemic is exacerbating a U.S. labor-market shortage

Once the unemployment rate gets as low as it is now, many of the unemployed are structurally unemployed. Others can't work for various reasons or they just don't want to work or don't need to work. So when businesses offer higher wages, they will get marginally productive workers which hurts productivity but the higher wages increases consumption and the demand for more goods and services thus pushing inflation up. Zero unemployment is not possible and if were we wouldn't want it.

I don't know about you, but I can't do without an income of some kind. I'm not working for the fun of it. I need a paycheck every two weeks to pay bills.

That being said, one has to ask what do people do for survival when they are technically employable but not working? A working spouse? Yes, that could be the reason for some. Living at home with their parents? More people likely to be doing that. The quickly growing number of millionaires in this country? That could be true too. But not all these people.

Since the problem seems to be growing, something has to have changed over years that's responsible. Today, people can live on government benefits and not have to work. Maybe what we really need in this country is government program reforms; programs that are only available to people that truly need them, and not people that just don't want to work.

I there were lots of good paying jobs more would be working. The problem is we have lots of low paying jobs.

No, that's not the problem. We have plenty of good paying jobs as well, and people are not taking them.

When you look at those jobs carefully, you see why they pay so well. There are few people qualified to do them.

Then I suggest people get qualified.
I live in the suburbs; I am neither wealthy nor poor.
Education is the number one concern growing up, not hanging out at the bar.

 

[Brain357]

Once the unemployment rate gets as low as it is now, many of the unemployed are structurally unemployed. Others can't work for various reasons or they just don't want to work or don't need to work. So when businesses offer higher wages, they will get marginally productive workers which hurts productivity but the higher wages increases consumption and the demand for more goods and services thus pushing inflation up. Zero unemployment is not possible and if were we wouldn't want it.

I don't know about you, but I can't do without an income of some kind. I'm not working for the fun of it. I need a paycheck every two weeks to pay bills.

That being said, one has to ask what do people do for survival when they are technically employable but not working? A working spouse? Yes, that could be the reason for some. Living at home with their parents? More people likely to be doing that. The quickly growing number of millionaires in this country? That could be true too. But not all these people.

Since the problem seems to be growing, something has to have changed over years that's responsible. Today, people can live on government benefits and not have to work. Maybe what we really need in this country is government program reforms; programs that are only available to people that truly need them, and not people that just don't want to work.

I there were lots of good paying jobs more would be working. The problem is we have lots of low paying jobs.

No, that's not the problem. We have plenty of good paying jobs as well, and people are not taking them.

When you look at those jobs carefully, you see why they pay so well. There are few people qualified to do them.

Then I suggest people get qualified.
I live in the suburbs; I am neither wealthy nor poor.
Education is the number one concern growing up, not hanging out at the bar.

Education has become very expensive...

 

[Indeependent]

I don't know about you, but I can't do without an income of some kind. I'm not working for the fun of it. I need a paycheck every two weeks to pay bills.

That being said, one has to ask what do people do for survival when they are technically employable but not working? A working spouse? Yes, that could be the reason for some. Living at home with their parents? More people likely to be doing that. The quickly growing number of millionaires in this country? That could be true too. But not all these people.

Since the problem seems to be growing, something has to have changed over years that's responsible. Today, people can live on government benefits and not have to work. Maybe what we really need in this country is government program reforms; programs that are only available to people that truly need them, and not people that just don't want to work.

I there were lots of good paying jobs more would be working. The problem is we have lots of low paying jobs.

No, that's not the problem. We have plenty of good paying jobs as well, and people are not taking them.

When you look at those jobs carefully, you see why they pay so well. There are few people qualified to do them.

Then I suggest people get qualified.
I live in the suburbs; I am neither wealthy nor poor.
Education is the number one concern growing up, not hanging out at the bar.

Education has become very expensive...

Due to Off-Shoring of White Collar careers, Business Visa and Border issues.
Most colleges want open borders because they're donors want cheap labor.
Colleges will never tell you you're screwed.

 

[Correll]

Sounds good for the manager, bad for the company.

Why? The company gets what they want, the manager gets what he or she wants. If the managers decisions were counterproductive, then that manager has to answer for the results of their actions.

Even ceos don't answer for their actions. As long as the company keep going, nobody cares.

You get paid to do X job. If you do X job, then correct, nobody cares.

And our economy is seeing the effects of that. Slow growth, stagnant wages, low labor force participation....

Wages are increasing, growth is doing fine. The country hasn't done this good in many years. The labor participation rate? That's a real sticky subject. Many industries (including mine) have tens of thousands of job openings, but aren't getting filled. Some would say that it's because wages are too low. Others say it's for different reasons that a border wall might help:

How the opioid epidemic is exacerbating a U.S. labor-market shortage

The point raised in your link is compelling.


BUT.



from your link.



"Tight labor markets, often associated with a peak of economic cycles, in the past have pushed wages higher and lured more people from the sidelines, thus pushing LFP rate higher. But not this time.

Wage increases have been nearly nonexistent. According to the BLS, from May 2017 to May 2018, real average hourly earnings were unchanged, on a seasonally adjusted basis.

“The labor shortage is creating bottlenecks in production. We are not that concerned about wage growth and higher labor costs, as productivity growth will offset that, but we are concerned about disruption to production,” Korzenik said."



Bolding and enlarging added.

 

[Correll]

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...

Increasing profits has been the name of the game every since the first merchant put a sign above his door. However, today, businesses are often owned by faceless investors who are only interested in profits, certainly not whether the Widow Brown has a job to support her 5 kids. In all but the smallest family operated businesses, employee and employer loyalty hardly exists today. The value of an employee is what he or she can do for the company today. What was done yesterday is of little importance.

I think the existence of safety nets such as Medicaid, SNAP, Unemployment Insurance, and Disability benefits allows employers to make pure business decisions on employment, knowing that an employee and his family are not going to starve or go without shelter, or healthcare if they let him go.

1. There are costs associated with such ruthlessness. Have no concern or loyalty to your workers, and they will have none for you.


2. And this thread is about Government policy, that is not just about, or is not supposed to be just about, increasing profits. If we see corporations being shitty citizens, we can change policy to address that.

 

[Andylusion]

I there were lots of good paying jobs more would be working. The problem is we have lots of low paying jobs.

No, that's not the problem. We have plenty of good paying jobs as well, and people are not taking them.

When you look at those jobs carefully, you see why they pay so well. There are few people qualified to do them.

Then I suggest people get qualified.
I live in the suburbs; I am neither wealthy nor poor.
Education is the number one concern growing up, not hanging out at the bar.

Education has become very expensive...

Due to Off-Shoring of White Collar careers, Business Visa and Border issues.
Most colleges want open borders because they're donors want cheap labor.
Colleges will never tell you you're screwed.

How are you screwed?

Give me a specific degree, that you think someone getting will end up 'screwed'? I would like some specific examples. In fact, one example would be nice.

 

[Indeependent]

No, that's not the problem. We have plenty of good paying jobs as well, and people are not taking them.

When you look at those jobs carefully, you see why they pay so well. There are few people qualified to do them.

Then I suggest people get qualified.
I live in the suburbs; I am neither wealthy nor poor.
Education is the number one concern growing up, not hanging out at the bar.

Education has become very expensive...

Due to Off-Shoring of White Collar careers, Business Visa and Border issues.
Most colleges want open borders because they're donors want cheap labor.
Colleges will never tell you you're screwed.

How are you screwed?

Give me a specific degree, that you think someone getting will end up 'screwed'? I would like some specific examples. In fact, one example would be nice.

Read the post.
Colleges, whose policies are dictated by their donors who want cheap labor, are begging Asian countries for students.
The donors don’t want Americans or Europeans or Russians because they want to be paid.
My son just graduated with honors from a very prestigious college and 80% of the students were from India and couldn’t figure their way out of a wet paper bag.
American graduates were not getting good jobs for many years before Trump and will be the first to be shed when the bubble bursts.
Perhaps I see this more overtly in NY and NJ.
I am also aware that many municipalities off-shore their IT, accounting and legal work.
These municipalities retain a small team here to sign off on the work.
This is American Tax Dollars being sent overseas.
Bloomberg, for example, laid off 709 hard science engineers and off-shored and hired Business Visas to replace his American workforce.
Why do you think he’s not very popular.

It seems you live in a bubble.

 

[Flopper]

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...

Increasing profits has been the name of the game every since the first merchant put a sign above his door. However, today, businesses are often owned by faceless investors who are only interested in profits, certainly not whether the Widow Brown has a job to support her 5 kids. In all but the smallest family operated businesses, employee and employer loyalty hardly exists today. The value of an employee is what he or she can do for the company today. What was done yesterday is of little importance.

I think the existence of safety nets such as Medicaid, SNAP, Unemployment Insurance, and Disability benefits allows employers to make pure business decisions on employment, knowing that an employee and his family are not going to starve or go without shelter, or healthcare if they let him go.

If the American consumer would support good jobs, that would make a world of difference.

One of our customers is a very well known national and international company I won't give the name of. But if you heard it, you would know them very well.

All their employees are people that have worked for the company for decades; all lifelong employees. They make good money and have great benefits. They get a lot of fringe benefits like a cafeteria that serves restaurant food, and is subsidized by the company so lunches and snacks are cheap for the workers. They have company outings for their employees and their family.

All their products are quality made right down to the parts they use. But now the company is in a bit of trouble and started to layoff people later last year. Why? The economy is doing great!

It's because the American consumer won't pay for quality products or good paying labor. Whatever is the cheapest in the store is what gets sold.

And there's good reason why the consumer doesn't value quality over price and is not likely to do so in the future.

Why should I buy a hand made door made of the finest woods guaranteed to last 50 years and the best wool carpet which will last a lifetime. Here's a hint. Most homeowners move within 7 years. The fashion cycle in many clothing markets obsoletes clothing in less that 5 years, so that $3,000 hand made suit of the finest materials is not going to sell to the general public. The finest made computer in world is going to be obsolete in 5 to 7 years so why do want anything other than the most functional and cheapest.

There are some areas in which people do look for quality first. I always bought the best tools I can afford because I will keep them for a lifetime and give them to my oldest son. However, for 99% of the goods I purchase, I look at price first and then quality.

There is some truth to what you say, but it's not the driver.

The fact is that we have so many more things we buy today than we did in let's say 1970. In 1970, you had one landline phone, a color television set if you were lucky, a stereo with an 8-track player perhaps.

You expected to keep these items for many years, and maybe if something awful happened, pass them on to your heirs. Most families were one car families, and fast food was a delicacy and not a weekly staple. A movie? Put the family in the car and let's go to the drive-in a couple times a year.

Look at all the things we spend money on today: cell phone plan for the entire family including unlimited data, video games galore; several systems in many cases, pay per view, Netflix, cable or satellite television, satellite radio, computers, computer programs, internet.........

With all this new spending we have today, you have to get other items at a cheaper price. These items are no longer recreational, they are necessities today.

I think the American consumer has decided quite clearly that price is the number one consideration, not quality. And why shouldn't they? We're a throw away society.

A few years ago, I rented a flat in England in a 178 year old house. How many houses in your neighborhood are that old. In that little village, they build homes to last and when a workman made repairs they were expected to last a life time.

The US economy is consumer driven which means buy it today and replace it tomorrow. Nobody is concerned with quality because it's going end up in a land fill in just a few years.

We can't compete with China on their terms. America needs to do what it does best and that's specially manufacturing, high tech services, innovative solutions, and local services.

 

[Correll]

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

Increasing profits has been the name of the game every since the first merchant put a sign above his door. However, today, businesses are often owned by faceless investors who are only interested in profits, certainly not whether the Widow Brown has a job to support her 5 kids. In all but the smallest family operated businesses, employee and employer loyalty hardly exists today. The value of an employee is what he or she can do for the company today. What was done yesterday is of little importance.

I think the existence of safety nets such as Medicaid, SNAP, Unemployment Insurance, and Disability benefits allows employers to make pure business decisions on employment, knowing that an employee and his family are not going to starve or go without shelter, or healthcare if they let him go.

If the American consumer would support good jobs, that would make a world of difference.

One of our customers is a very well known national and international company I won't give the name of. But if you heard it, you would know them very well.

All their employees are people that have worked for the company for decades; all lifelong employees. They make good money and have great benefits. They get a lot of fringe benefits like a cafeteria that serves restaurant food, and is subsidized by the company so lunches and snacks are cheap for the workers. They have company outings for their employees and their family.

All their products are quality made right down to the parts they use. But now the company is in a bit of trouble and started to layoff people later last year. Why? The economy is doing great!

It's because the American consumer won't pay for quality products or good paying labor. Whatever is the cheapest in the store is what gets sold.

And there's good reason why the consumer doesn't value quality over price and is not likely to do so in the future.

Why should I buy a hand made door made of the finest woods guaranteed to last 50 years and the best wool carpet which will last a lifetime. Here's a hint. Most homeowners move within 7 years. The fashion cycle in many clothing markets obsoletes clothing in less that 5 years, so that $3,000 hand made suit of the finest materials is not going to sell to the general public. The finest made computer in world is going to be obsolete in 5 to 7 years so why do want anything other than the most functional and cheapest.

There are some areas in which people do look for quality first. I always bought the best tools I can afford because I will keep them for a lifetime and give them to my oldest son. However, for 99% of the goods I purchase, I look at price first and then quality.

There is some truth to what you say, but it's not the driver.

The fact is that we have so many more things we buy today than we did in let's say 1970. In 1970, you had one landline phone, a color television set if you were lucky, a stereo with an 8-track player perhaps.

You expected to keep these items for many years, and maybe if something awful happened, pass them on to your heirs. Most families were one car families, and fast food was a delicacy and not a weekly staple. A movie? Put the family in the car and let's go to the drive-in a couple times a year.

Look at all the things we spend money on today: cell phone plan for the entire family including unlimited data, video games galore; several systems in many cases, pay per view, Netflix, cable or satellite television, satellite radio, computers, computer programs, internet.........

With all this new spending we have today, you have to get other items at a cheaper price. These items are no longer recreational, they are necessities today.

I think the American consumer has decided quite clearly that price is the number one consideration, not quality. And why shouldn't they? We're a throw away society.

A few years ago, I rented a flat in England in a 178 year old house. How many houses in your neighborhood are that old. In that little village, they build homes to last and when a workman made repairs they were expected to last a life time.

The US economy is consumer driven which means buy it today and replace it tomorrow. Nobody is concerned with quality because it's going end up in a land fill in just a few years.

We can't compete with China on their terms. America needs to do what it does best and that's specially manufacturing, high tech services, innovative solutions, and local services.

SO you just want to give up on vast segments of the economy and all the jobs that go with it?


WHY? What is the gain to our citizens in doing that?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Increasing profits has been the name of the game every since the first merchant put a sign above his door. However, today, businesses are often owned by faceless investors who are only interested in profits, certainly not whether the Widow Brown has a job to support her 5 kids. In all but the smallest family operated businesses, employee and employer loyalty hardly exists today. The value of an employee is what he or she can do for the company today. What was done yesterday is of little importance.

I think the existence of safety nets such as Medicaid, SNAP, Unemployment Insurance, and Disability benefits allows employers to make pure business decisions on employment, knowing that an employee and his family are not going to starve or go without shelter, or healthcare if they let him go.

If the American consumer would support good jobs, that would make a world of difference.

One of our customers is a very well known national and international company I won't give the name of. But if you heard it, you would know them very well.

All their employees are people that have worked for the company for decades; all lifelong employees. They make good money and have great benefits. They get a lot of fringe benefits like a cafeteria that serves restaurant food, and is subsidized by the company so lunches and snacks are cheap for the workers. They have company outings for their employees and their family.

All their products are quality made right down to the parts they use. But now the company is in a bit of trouble and started to layoff people later last year. Why? The economy is doing great!

It's because the American consumer won't pay for quality products or good paying labor. Whatever is the cheapest in the store is what gets sold.

And there's good reason why the consumer doesn't value quality over price and is not likely to do so in the future.

Why should I buy a hand made door made of the finest woods guaranteed to last 50 years and the best wool carpet which will last a lifetime. Here's a hint. Most homeowners move within 7 years. The fashion cycle in many clothing markets obsoletes clothing in less that 5 years, so that $3,000 hand made suit of the finest materials is not going to sell to the general public. The finest made computer in world is going to be obsolete in 5 to 7 years so why do want anything other than the most functional and cheapest.

There are some areas in which people do look for quality first. I always bought the best tools I can afford because I will keep them for a lifetime and give them to my oldest son. However, for 99% of the goods I purchase, I look at price first and then quality.

There is some truth to what you say, but it's not the driver.

The fact is that we have so many more things we buy today than we did in let's say 1970. In 1970, you had one landline phone, a color television set if you were lucky, a stereo with an 8-track player perhaps.

You expected to keep these items for many years, and maybe if something awful happened, pass them on to your heirs. Most families were one car families, and fast food was a delicacy and not a weekly staple. A movie? Put the family in the car and let's go to the drive-in a couple times a year.

Look at all the things we spend money on today: cell phone plan for the entire family including unlimited data, video games galore; several systems in many cases, pay per view, Netflix, cable or satellite television, satellite radio, computers, computer programs, internet.........

With all this new spending we have today, you have to get other items at a cheaper price. These items are no longer recreational, they are necessities today.

I think the American consumer has decided quite clearly that price is the number one consideration, not quality. And why shouldn't they? We're a throw away society.

A few years ago, I rented a flat in England in a 178 year old house. How many houses in your neighborhood are that old. In that little village, they build homes to last and when a workman made repairs they were expected to last a life time.

The US economy is consumer driven which means buy it today and replace it tomorrow. Nobody is concerned with quality because it's going end up in a land fill in just a few years.

We can't compete with China on their terms. America needs to do what it does best and that's specially manufacturing, high tech services, innovative solutions, and local services.

"Make it and they will come" is an old saying that doesn't work in this instance. Manufacturer all you want, but if your prices can't compete, your manufacturing plant will be out of business in no time.

What we need is a total change in attitude in the American consumer. The President should preach it, the Congress critters should preach it, we should have government paid commercials preaching it. It should be the new theme of America.

 

[Correll]

Increasing profits has been the name of the game every since the first merchant put a sign above his door. However, today, businesses are often owned by faceless investors who are only interested in profits, certainly not whether the Widow Brown has a job to support her 5 kids. In all but the smallest family operated businesses, employee and employer loyalty hardly exists today. The value of an employee is what he or she can do for the company today. What was done yesterday is of little importance.

I think the existence of safety nets such as Medicaid, SNAP, Unemployment Insurance, and Disability benefits allows employers to make pure business decisions on employment, knowing that an employee and his family are not going to starve or go without shelter, or healthcare if they let him go.

If the American consumer would support good jobs, that would make a world of difference.

One of our customers is a very well known national and international company I won't give the name of. But if you heard it, you would know them very well.

All their employees are people that have worked for the company for decades; all lifelong employees. They make good money and have great benefits. They get a lot of fringe benefits like a cafeteria that serves restaurant food, and is subsidized by the company so lunches and snacks are cheap for the workers. They have company outings for their employees and their family.

All their products are quality made right down to the parts they use. But now the company is in a bit of trouble and started to layoff people later last year. Why? The economy is doing great!

It's because the American consumer won't pay for quality products or good paying labor. Whatever is the cheapest in the store is what gets sold.

And there's good reason why the consumer doesn't value quality over price and is not likely to do so in the future.

Why should I buy a hand made door made of the finest woods guaranteed to last 50 years and the best wool carpet which will last a lifetime. Here's a hint. Most homeowners move within 7 years. The fashion cycle in many clothing markets obsoletes clothing in less that 5 years, so that $3,000 hand made suit of the finest materials is not going to sell to the general public. The finest made computer in world is going to be obsolete in 5 to 7 years so why do want anything other than the most functional and cheapest.

There are some areas in which people do look for quality first. I always bought the best tools I can afford because I will keep them for a lifetime and give them to my oldest son. However, for 99% of the goods I purchase, I look at price first and then quality.

There is some truth to what you say, but it's not the driver.

The fact is that we have so many more things we buy today than we did in let's say 1970. In 1970, you had one landline phone, a color television set if you were lucky, a stereo with an 8-track player perhaps.

You expected to keep these items for many years, and maybe if something awful happened, pass them on to your heirs. Most families were one car families, and fast food was a delicacy and not a weekly staple. A movie? Put the family in the car and let's go to the drive-in a couple times a year.

Look at all the things we spend money on today: cell phone plan for the entire family including unlimited data, video games galore; several systems in many cases, pay per view, Netflix, cable or satellite television, satellite radio, computers, computer programs, internet.........

With all this new spending we have today, you have to get other items at a cheaper price. These items are no longer recreational, they are necessities today.

I think the American consumer has decided quite clearly that price is the number one consideration, not quality. And why shouldn't they? We're a throw away society.

A few years ago, I rented a flat in England in a 178 year old house. How many houses in your neighborhood are that old. In that little village, they build homes to last and when a workman made repairs they were expected to last a life time.

The US economy is consumer driven which means buy it today and replace it tomorrow. Nobody is concerned with quality because it's going end up in a land fill in just a few years.

We can't compete with China on their terms. America needs to do what it does best and that's specially manufacturing, high tech services, innovative solutions, and local services.

"Make it and they will come" is an old saying that doesn't work in this instance. Manufacturer all you want, but if your prices can't compete, your manufacturing plant will be out of business in no time.

What we need is a total change in attitude in the American consumer. The President should preach it, the Congress critters should preach it, we should have government paid commercials preaching it. It should be the new theme of America.

Or we could just adjust our trade policy to protect American interests.


You know, like it's supposed to. Like EVERY OTHER COUNTRY USES THEIR TRADE POLICY FOR.

 

[Flopper]

Increasing profits has been the name of the game every since the first merchant put a sign above his door. However, today, businesses are often owned by faceless investors who are only interested in profits, certainly not whether the Widow Brown has a job to support her 5 kids. In all but the smallest family operated businesses, employee and employer loyalty hardly exists today. The value of an employee is what he or she can do for the company today. What was done yesterday is of little importance.

I think the existence of safety nets such as Medicaid, SNAP, Unemployment Insurance, and Disability benefits allows employers to make pure business decisions on employment, knowing that an employee and his family are not going to starve or go without shelter, or healthcare if they let him go.

If the American consumer would support good jobs, that would make a world of difference.

One of our customers is a very well known national and international company I won't give the name of. But if you heard it, you would know them very well.

All their employees are people that have worked for the company for decades; all lifelong employees. They make good money and have great benefits. They get a lot of fringe benefits like a cafeteria that serves restaurant food, and is subsidized by the company so lunches and snacks are cheap for the workers. They have company outings for their employees and their family.

All their products are quality made right down to the parts they use. But now the company is in a bit of trouble and started to layoff people later last year. Why? The economy is doing great!

It's because the American consumer won't pay for quality products or good paying labor. Whatever is the cheapest in the store is what gets sold.

And there's good reason why the consumer doesn't value quality over price and is not likely to do so in the future.

Why should I buy a hand made door made of the finest woods guaranteed to last 50 years and the best wool carpet which will last a lifetime. Here's a hint. Most homeowners move within 7 years. The fashion cycle in many clothing markets obsoletes clothing in less that 5 years, so that $3,000 hand made suit of the finest materials is not going to sell to the general public. The finest made computer in world is going to be obsolete in 5 to 7 years so why do want anything other than the most functional and cheapest.

There are some areas in which people do look for quality first. I always bought the best tools I can afford because I will keep them for a lifetime and give them to my oldest son. However, for 99% of the goods I purchase, I look at price first and then quality.

There is some truth to what you say, but it's not the driver.

The fact is that we have so many more things we buy today than we did in let's say 1970. In 1970, you had one landline phone, a color television set if you were lucky, a stereo with an 8-track player perhaps.

You expected to keep these items for many years, and maybe if something awful happened, pass them on to your heirs. Most families were one car families, and fast food was a delicacy and not a weekly staple. A movie? Put the family in the car and let's go to the drive-in a couple times a year.

Look at all the things we spend money on today: cell phone plan for the entire family including unlimited data, video games galore; several systems in many cases, pay per view, Netflix, cable or satellite television, satellite radio, computers, computer programs, internet.........

With all this new spending we have today, you have to get other items at a cheaper price. These items are no longer recreational, they are necessities today.

I think the American consumer has decided quite clearly that price is the number one consideration, not quality. And why shouldn't they? We're a throw away society.

A few years ago, I rented a flat in England in a 178 year old house. How many houses in your neighborhood are that old. In that little village, they build homes to last and when a workman made repairs they were expected to last a life time.

The US economy is consumer driven which means buy it today and replace it tomorrow. Nobody is concerned with quality because it's going end up in a land fill in just a few years.

We can't compete with China on their terms. America needs to do what it does best and that's specially manufacturing, high tech services, innovative solutions, and local services.

SO you just want to give up on vast segments of the economy and all the jobs that go with it?


WHY? What is the gain to our citizens in doing that?

America should produce what it produces best and that is not steel nor aluminum. 1/3 of all steel used in the US and 90% of aluminum is imported despite the fact that there already are tariffs on 80% of the imports. The federal government has been propping up both these industries for years with tariffs, multi-billion loan guarantees and now more tariffs and they still won't be able to compete in the world markets.

In the mid 20th century the steel and aluminum industry employed nearly a million people when our population was about half what it is now. Today steel and aluminium combined employs only about 150,000 workers less than 10% of what Walmart employs.

If tariffs and government handouts are the only way to make steel and aluminium producers competitive, the price is too high. There are far more people working in steel and aluminum fabricating than steel and aluminum plants. Metal fabricating is an industry that the US is competitive both in the US and abroad and relies on imported steel and aluminum because it is much cheaper than US made. The few jobs saved by the Trump tariffs in the steel and aluminum companies is likely to cost more jobs in the metal fabrication industry because they will face paying the Trump tariffs on their raw material and price pressure on their exports because other countries are applying tariffs to their products.

 

[Flopper]

Mexico has jointed Canada in expanding it's 2000 free trade agreement with the EU adding a lot of agricultural products such as Cheese and other dairy products, pork, and grains to the free trade list.

This agreement will make it easier for producers in Mexico and Canada to circumvent Trump tariffs by selling duty free in the EU. I wonder how Trump plans to retaliate as he seems quite willing to continue spreading his trade war.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In the mid 20th century the steel and aluminum industry employed nearly a million people when our population was about half what it is now. Today steel and aluminium combined employs only about 150,000 workers less than 10% of what Walmart employs.

I think two things are part of that. For one, we abandoned steel and went to plastic for many items that used to be made from steel and like products. Everything is plastic today. In fact I have a cheap 9mm gun that's mostly plastic. Cars are plastic, trucks are plastic, gasoline cans are plastic, cigarette lighters are plastic, playground equipment is plastic, everything is plastic.

Secondly, automation is responsible for a lot of those lost jobs as well. A late friend of mine worked in the Cleveland steel mills for over 30 years. Until it came to his job, he never had the slightest interest in computers before. But to move up in the company, he had to learn against his will because the jobs required computer knowledge. And yes, computers are plastic too!

 

[Flopper]

In the mid 20th century the steel and aluminum industry employed nearly a million people when our population was about half what it is now. Today steel and aluminium combined employs only about 150,000 workers less than 10% of what Walmart employs.

I think two things are part of that. For one, we abandoned steel and went to plastic for many items that used to be made from steel and like products. Everything is plastic today. In fact I have a cheap 9mm gun that's mostly plastic. Cars are plastic, trucks are plastic, gasoline cans are plastic, cigarette lighters are plastic, playground equipment is plastic, everything is plastic.

Secondly, automation is responsible for a lot of those lost jobs as well. A late friend of mine worked in the Cleveland steel mills for over 30 years. Until it came to his job, he never had the slightest interest in computers before. But to move up in the company, he had to learn against his will because the jobs required computer knowledge. And yes, computers are plastic too!

I agree, all those things put pressure on steel but it does not explain why US production fell from 72% of world production after WWII to 24% in 1968 to 5% today.

By 1980 the EU was the major producer of steel in the World producing about a third of the world's steel. This was due to the post WWII recover and automating steel production.

US companies began automating plants in the 1980's but they had already lost world leadership. At that time it took 10 US workers to produce a single metric ton of steel vs 6 in the EU. By 2010, it took 1.5 US workers to produce a metric ton. In 1980 China was a minor producer of steel.

By the year 2000, it was clear that US would never regain it's place as the world's largest producer of steel, which was largely due to the huge build up during WWII. Starting in the 1980's the US began increasing tariffs on imported steel and later goverment secured loans to the steel industry.

China's need for steel was growing rapidly. As a result, the Chinese goverment began pumping huge amounts of Capital into building and modernizing steel production. By 2007, China was both the largest producer and consumer of steel in the world and that has continued to this day.

No matter how much protection the US provides for steel producers, China will remain the world's leader in steel and with little impact on US production because:

• The Chinese steel industry has unlimited support from the Chinese goverment.
• China produces the lowest cost steel in the world due to the massive volume they produce and it's low labor rates.
• Lastly, US tariffs on Chinese steel imported to the US is not a significant percentage of Chinese steel production. China produces more steel than the entire rest of the world combined and is consuming about 45% of total world production.

what are the various types of steel - Google Search
List of countries by steel production - Wikipedia
History of the iron and steel industry in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[Flopper]

If the American consumer would support good jobs, that would make a world of difference.

One of our customers is a very well known national and international company I won't give the name of. But if you heard it, you would know them very well.

All their employees are people that have worked for the company for decades; all lifelong employees. They make good money and have great benefits. They get a lot of fringe benefits like a cafeteria that serves restaurant food, and is subsidized by the company so lunches and snacks are cheap for the workers. They have company outings for their employees and their family.

All their products are quality made right down to the parts they use. But now the company is in a bit of trouble and started to layoff people later last year. Why? The economy is doing great!

It's because the American consumer won't pay for quality products or good paying labor. Whatever is the cheapest in the store is what gets sold.

And there's good reason why the consumer doesn't value quality over price and is not likely to do so in the future.

Why should I buy a hand made door made of the finest woods guaranteed to last 50 years and the best wool carpet which will last a lifetime. Here's a hint. Most homeowners move within 7 years. The fashion cycle in many clothing markets obsoletes clothing in less that 5 years, so that $3,000 hand made suit of the finest materials is not going to sell to the general public. The finest made computer in world is going to be obsolete in 5 to 7 years so why do want anything other than the most functional and cheapest.

There are some areas in which people do look for quality first. I always bought the best tools I can afford because I will keep them for a lifetime and give them to my oldest son. However, for 99% of the goods I purchase, I look at price first and then quality.

There is some truth to what you say, but it's not the driver.

The fact is that we have so many more things we buy today than we did in let's say 1970. In 1970, you had one landline phone, a color television set if you were lucky, a stereo with an 8-track player perhaps.

You expected to keep these items for many years, and maybe if something awful happened, pass them on to your heirs. Most families were one car families, and fast food was a delicacy and not a weekly staple. A movie? Put the family in the car and let's go to the drive-in a couple times a year.

Look at all the things we spend money on today: cell phone plan for the entire family including unlimited data, video games galore; several systems in many cases, pay per view, Netflix, cable or satellite television, satellite radio, computers, computer programs, internet.........

With all this new spending we have today, you have to get other items at a cheaper price. These items are no longer recreational, they are necessities today.

I think the American consumer has decided quite clearly that price is the number one consideration, not quality. And why shouldn't they? We're a throw away society.

A few years ago, I rented a flat in England in a 178 year old house. How many houses in your neighborhood are that old. In that little village, they build homes to last and when a workman made repairs they were expected to last a life time.

The US economy is consumer driven which means buy it today and replace it tomorrow. Nobody is concerned with quality because it's going end up in a land fill in just a few years.

We can't compete with China on their terms. America needs to do what it does best and that's specially manufacturing, high tech services, innovative solutions, and local services.

"Make it and they will come" is an old saying that doesn't work in this instance. Manufacturer all you want, but if your prices can't compete, your manufacturing plant will be out of business in no time.

What we need is a total change in attitude in the American consumer. The President should preach it, the Congress critters should preach it, we should have government paid commercials preaching it. It should be the new theme of America.

Or we could just adjust our trade policy to protect American interests.


You know, like it's supposed to. Like EVERY OTHER COUNTRY USES THEIR TRADE POLICY FOR.

If there were just exporters and importers as two separate distinct groups, creating trade policies that protect the US industries might be possible. However, a large percent of our importers are also exporters. In fact most manufacturing in the US does both.

For example metal fabricators import most of their raw materials, steel and aluminum. They also export a significant portion of their products. So when Trump puts tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, it helps the steel companies and hurts metal fabricators.

Since there are now thousands of US imports being taxed by the Trump tariffs and an equal number of exports being taxed by other counties. There is no net benefit. Some industries are helped while others suffer and for those industries that import raw materials and export their products, they suffer from tariffs levied by both the US and other countries.

However, the most disturbing issue with tariffs is politicians in Washington are making decisions as to which US companies are to be helped and which are to be punished. However the ineptness of trade negotiators and the bias of politicians will guarantee that the overall economic results will not be in the best interest of the US.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Too Much Pork, Tariffs Mean Too Few Buyers • farmdoc daily

One more casualty of the Trump trade war


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Correll]

If the American consumer would support good jobs, that would make a world of difference.

One of our customers is a very well known national and international company I won't give the name of. But if you heard it, you would know them very well.

All their employees are people that have worked for the company for decades; all lifelong employees. They make good money and have great benefits. They get a lot of fringe benefits like a cafeteria that serves restaurant food, and is subsidized by the company so lunches and snacks are cheap for the workers. They have company outings for their employees and their family.

All their products are quality made right down to the parts they use. But now the company is in a bit of trouble and started to layoff people later last year. Why? The economy is doing great!

It's because the American consumer won't pay for quality products or good paying labor. Whatever is the cheapest in the store is what gets sold.

And there's good reason why the consumer doesn't value quality over price and is not likely to do so in the future.

Why should I buy a hand made door made of the finest woods guaranteed to last 50 years and the best wool carpet which will last a lifetime. Here's a hint. Most homeowners move within 7 years. The fashion cycle in many clothing markets obsoletes clothing in less that 5 years, so that $3,000 hand made suit of the finest materials is not going to sell to the general public. The finest made computer in world is going to be obsolete in 5 to 7 years so why do want anything other than the most functional and cheapest.

There are some areas in which people do look for quality first. I always bought the best tools I can afford because I will keep them for a lifetime and give them to my oldest son. However, for 99% of the goods I purchase, I look at price first and then quality.

There is some truth to what you say, but it's not the driver.

The fact is that we have so many more things we buy today than we did in let's say 1970. In 1970, you had one landline phone, a color television set if you were lucky, a stereo with an 8-track player perhaps.

You expected to keep these items for many years, and maybe if something awful happened, pass them on to your heirs. Most families were one car families, and fast food was a delicacy and not a weekly staple. A movie? Put the family in the car and let's go to the drive-in a couple times a year.

Look at all the things we spend money on today: cell phone plan for the entire family including unlimited data, video games galore; several systems in many cases, pay per view, Netflix, cable or satellite television, satellite radio, computers, computer programs, internet.........

With all this new spending we have today, you have to get other items at a cheaper price. These items are no longer recreational, they are necessities today.

I think the American consumer has decided quite clearly that price is the number one consideration, not quality. And why shouldn't they? We're a throw away society.

A few years ago, I rented a flat in England in a 178 year old house. How many houses in your neighborhood are that old. In that little village, they build homes to last and when a workman made repairs they were expected to last a life time.

The US economy is consumer driven which means buy it today and replace it tomorrow. Nobody is concerned with quality because it's going end up in a land fill in just a few years.

We can't compete with China on their terms. America needs to do what it does best and that's specially manufacturing, high tech services, innovative solutions, and local services.

SO you just want to give up on vast segments of the economy and all the jobs that go with it?


WHY? What is the gain to our citizens in doing that?

America should produce what it produces best and that is not steel nor aluminum. 1/3 of all steel used in the US and 90% of aluminum is imported despite the fact that there already are tariffs on 80% of the imports. The federal government has been propping up both these industries for years with tariffs, multi-billion loan guarantees and now more tariffs and they still won't be able to compete in the world markets.

In the mid 20th century the steel and aluminum industry employed nearly a million people when our population was about half what it is now. Today steel and aluminium combined employs only about 150,000 workers less than 10% of what Walmart employs.

If tariffs and government handouts are the only way to make steel and aluminium producers competitive, the price is too high. There are far more people working in steel and aluminum fabricating than steel and aluminum plants. Metal fabricating is an industry that the US is competitive both in the US and abroad and relies on imported steel and aluminum because it is much cheaper than US made. The few jobs saved by the Trump tariffs in the steel and aluminum companies is likely to cost more jobs in the metal fabrication industry because they will face paying the Trump tariffs on their raw material and price pressure on their exports because other countries are applying tariffs to their products.

I asked you what the benefit was to American citizens, for giving up in all those jobs.


What you did was restate why you think it is too hard to fight for those jobs.



Again, list the benefit(s) you see.

 

[Correll]

And there's good reason why the consumer doesn't value quality over price and is not likely to do so in the future.

Why should I buy a hand made door made of the finest woods guaranteed to last 50 years and the best wool carpet which will last a lifetime. Here's a hint. Most homeowners move within 7 years. The fashion cycle in many clothing markets obsoletes clothing in less that 5 years, so that $3,000 hand made suit of the finest materials is not going to sell to the general public. The finest made computer in world is going to be obsolete in 5 to 7 years so why do want anything other than the most functional and cheapest.

There are some areas in which people do look for quality first. I always bought the best tools I can afford because I will keep them for a lifetime and give them to my oldest son. However, for 99% of the goods I purchase, I look at price first and then quality.

There is some truth to what you say, but it's not the driver.

The fact is that we have so many more things we buy today than we did in let's say 1970. In 1970, you had one landline phone, a color television set if you were lucky, a stereo with an 8-track player perhaps.

You expected to keep these items for many years, and maybe if something awful happened, pass them on to your heirs. Most families were one car families, and fast food was a delicacy and not a weekly staple. A movie? Put the family in the car and let's go to the drive-in a couple times a year.

Look at all the things we spend money on today: cell phone plan for the entire family including unlimited data, video games galore; several systems in many cases, pay per view, Netflix, cable or satellite television, satellite radio, computers, computer programs, internet.........

With all this new spending we have today, you have to get other items at a cheaper price. These items are no longer recreational, they are necessities today.

I think the American consumer has decided quite clearly that price is the number one consideration, not quality. And why shouldn't they? We're a throw away society.

A few years ago, I rented a flat in England in a 178 year old house. How many houses in your neighborhood are that old. In that little village, they build homes to last and when a workman made repairs they were expected to last a life time.

The US economy is consumer driven which means buy it today and replace it tomorrow. Nobody is concerned with quality because it's going end up in a land fill in just a few years.

We can't compete with China on their terms. America needs to do what it does best and that's specially manufacturing, high tech services, innovative solutions, and local services.

"Make it and they will come" is an old saying that doesn't work in this instance. Manufacturer all you want, but if your prices can't compete, your manufacturing plant will be out of business in no time.

What we need is a total change in attitude in the American consumer. The President should preach it, the Congress critters should preach it, we should have government paid commercials preaching it. It should be the new theme of America.

Or we could just adjust our trade policy to protect American interests.


You know, like it's supposed to. Like EVERY OTHER COUNTRY USES THEIR TRADE POLICY FOR.

If there were just exporters and importers as two separate distinct groups, creating trade policies that protect the US industries might be possible. However, a large percent of our importers are also exporters. In fact most manufacturing in the US does both.

For example metal fabricators import most of their raw materials, steel and aluminum. They also export a significant portion of their products. So when Trump puts tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, it helps the steel companies and hurts metal fabricators.

Since there are now thousands of US imports being taxed by the Trump tariffs and an equal number of exports being taxed by other counties. There is no net benefit. Some industries are helped while others suffer and for those industries that import raw materials and export their products, they suffer from tariffs levied by both the US and other countries.

However, the most disturbing issue with tariffs is politicians in Washington are making decisions as to which US companies are to be helped and which are to be punished. However the ineptness of trade negotiators and the bias of politicians will guarantee that the overall economic results will not be in the best interest of the US.

IMO, the most disturbing issue is that not only have we been ignoring the cost to vast segments of our population of globalization, but that so many people want to continue to ignore that cost.

 

[Flopper]

And there's good reason why the consumer doesn't value quality over price and is not likely to do so in the future.

Why should I buy a hand made door made of the finest woods guaranteed to last 50 years and the best wool carpet which will last a lifetime. Here's a hint. Most homeowners move within 7 years. The fashion cycle in many clothing markets obsoletes clothing in less that 5 years, so that $3,000 hand made suit of the finest materials is not going to sell to the general public. The finest made computer in world is going to be obsolete in 5 to 7 years so why do want anything other than the most functional and cheapest.

There are some areas in which people do look for quality first. I always bought the best tools I can afford because I will keep them for a lifetime and give them to my oldest son. However, for 99% of the goods I purchase, I look at price first and then quality.

There is some truth to what you say, but it's not the driver.

The fact is that we have so many more things we buy today than we did in let's say 1970. In 1970, you had one landline phone, a color television set if you were lucky, a stereo with an 8-track player perhaps.

You expected to keep these items for many years, and maybe if something awful happened, pass them on to your heirs. Most families were one car families, and fast food was a delicacy and not a weekly staple. A movie? Put the family in the car and let's go to the drive-in a couple times a year.

Look at all the things we spend money on today: cell phone plan for the entire family including unlimited data, video games galore; several systems in many cases, pay per view, Netflix, cable or satellite television, satellite radio, computers, computer programs, internet.........

With all this new spending we have today, you have to get other items at a cheaper price. These items are no longer recreational, they are necessities today.

I think the American consumer has decided quite clearly that price is the number one consideration, not quality. And why shouldn't they? We're a throw away society.

A few years ago, I rented a flat in England in a 178 year old house. How many houses in your neighborhood are that old. In that little village, they build homes to last and when a workman made repairs they were expected to last a life time.

The US economy is consumer driven which means buy it today and replace it tomorrow. Nobody is concerned with quality because it's going end up in a land fill in just a few years.

We can't compete with China on their terms. America needs to do what it does best and that's specially manufacturing, high tech services, innovative solutions, and local services.

SO you just want to give up on vast segments of the economy and all the jobs that go with it?


WHY? What is the gain to our citizens in doing that?

America should produce what it produces best and that is not steel nor aluminum. 1/3 of all steel used in the US and 90% of aluminum is imported despite the fact that there already are tariffs on 80% of the imports. The federal government has been propping up both these industries for years with tariffs, multi-billion loan guarantees and now more tariffs and they still won't be able to compete in the world markets.

In the mid 20th century the steel and aluminum industry employed nearly a million people when our population was about half what it is now. Today steel and aluminium combined employs only about 150,000 workers less than 10% of what Walmart employs.

If tariffs and government handouts are the only way to make steel and aluminium producers competitive, the price is too high. There are far more people working in steel and aluminum fabricating than steel and aluminum plants. Metal fabricating is an industry that the US is competitive both in the US and abroad and relies on imported steel and aluminum because it is much cheaper than US made. The few jobs saved by the Trump tariffs in the steel and aluminum companies is likely to cost more jobs in the metal fabrication industry because they will face paying the Trump tariffs on their raw material and price pressure on their exports because other countries are applying tariffs to their products.

I asked you what the benefit was to American citizens, for giving up in all those jobs.


What you did was restate why you think it is too hard to fight for those jobs.



Again, list the benefit(s) you see.

The benefit of allowing the market to determine the eventually fate of the aluminum and steel industry is the US economy will continue to expand and the nation will not be embroiled in a trade war in which there will be no winner.

When the US government protects an industry from foreign completion such as steel and aluminum with tariffs on imports, other countries respond by putting tariffs on US exports. While the US industries that can't compete in world markets are protected, other US industries that can compete suffer as will the economy due to foreign tariffs on US exports.

Tariffs reward industries that can't compete and punish those that can. It's that simple.

For example Trump tariffs on steel imports increase the cost of raw material for US steel fabricators because they either must pay the higher cost of US steel or pay tariffs on imported steel. They are also faced with tariffs from other countries on their products making them less competitive abroad.

Although steel companies in the US are protected by tariffs, does that mean there are real benefits over the long run? Studies have shown the answer is NO. Since the US tariffs on imports make the US market more profitable and import tariffs by foreign countries make foreign markets less profitable, the protected companies concentrate on the US markets where they have less completion. This of course pushes up prices in the US and consumers suffers. Once tariffs are lifted, the protected companies are even less able to compete in foreign market.

The bottom line is consumers and the most successful industries suffer in a tariff war while the least successful industries are rewarded.