(03-30-2016 11:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-30-2016 10:58 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-30-2016 10:49 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-30-2016 10:47 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I think I'm going to end it on this one where we are in full agreement.

see how easy it is.....

Easy for a non-Assho maybe.

b/c one has to like everyone???

not quite sure what you're implying.....

oksy dokey smokey pokey....

I thought you were the one that people couldn't tell what you were implying? Ironic.

But anyway. Its never easy for me to stop arguing. That's the only implication.

(03-30-2016 11:06 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-30-2016 11:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-30-2016 10:58 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-30-2016 10:49 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-30-2016 10:47 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I think I'm going to end it on this one where we are in full agreement.

see how easy it is.....

Easy for a non-Assho maybe.

b/c one has to like everyone???

not quite sure what you're implying.....

oksy dokey smokey pokey....

I thought you were the one that people couldn't tell what you were implying? Ironic.

But anyway. Its never easy for me to stop arguing. That's the only implication.

there are some that get it, and some that don't.....

you nailed your narcissism realm....

easily not my problem....

next.....do you really think I care about you or what anyone on this board thinks in op-ed....

now, if you want to make a legitimate point relative to what my posit was in agreement with the previous points, I am all for it.....

you back up nothing.....you define line 1b and 4....

kinda shocking how that works, eh?

(03-30-2016 10:47 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-30-2016 10:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-30-2016 10:29 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  You pretty much read my mind here. I think there are a variety of things that can be done to fix it. Owl hit on a lot of them, sadly the politicians have the power to fix it and I honestly don't believe any if them have the political will to do it.
Free trade is great in theory but not so great in practice. We have too many if's, and's, & but's attached to make it work like it was supposed to.

Free trade works fine on a level playing field. But the people who are doing most of the unleveling aren't China and Mexico, but our own senate and house of representatives and president. We're shooting ourselves in the foot for political expedience. I don't know about you, but expanding jobs is a lot more important to me than sending somebody back to Washington for his/her seventh term.

I think I'm going to end it on this one where we are in full agreement.

I'm not sure we ever really disagreed about much of any substance.

(03-30-2016 10:07 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I'm absolutely not bashing Mexico or other low-cost locations. They are just trying to get business. China I do bash somewhat for currency manipulation and other practices, but they are also trying to get economic development. The problem is for the most part not with any of them...but with our leadership.

I also am not bashing the corporations for doing what they do. I bash our leadership for genuflecting to them and doing their bidding in exchange for campaign cash and creating incentive for them to behave the way they do. Whether or not it is good for the US economy.

Of course I agree with you on trade deficits with Europe and your view on taxation being a primary issue there. But that has more to do with Democrats dumb ideas on progressive taxation and the desire to tax anything that moves to fund more and more social spending. I just don't see that as really part of my argument about domestic jobs moving out.

I think our only real difference is that you see the solution as ending free trade agreements, at least with countries that don't have our cost structure, and my point is that because of our tax code, there is no other country that has our cost structure. And because of that tax code, we are going to see a steady stream of jobs going overseas, and/or a steady progression of jobs that are created overseas and never come here--with or without free trade.

And I think you are saying that our trade negotiators are doing a poor job. They're not really. They're getting bad trade deals, but that's because they are negotiating from weakness, with no leverage--not because they are bad negotiators. They're probably doing the best they can under the circumstances.

(03-30-2016 11:17 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  next.....do you really think I care about you or what anyone on this board thinks in op-ed....

Probably only on this question.

I like Owl and he has sold me on a consumption tax. However, you have to be absolutely freaking nutso to think we can compete with 2 dollar an hour jobs with no bene's. That's exactly what jobs from the Big 3 that have moved or planning to move to Mexico pays. We can't and we won't. When we trade with communist countries our middle class will become poor enough that communist policies start to make a little sense.

(03-31-2016 06:53 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I like Owl and he has sold me on a consumption tax. However, you have to be absolutely freaking nutso to think we can compete with 2 dollar an hour jobs with no bene's. That's exactly what jobs from the Big 3 that have moved or planning to move to Mexico pays. We can't and we won't. When we trade with communist countries our middle class will become poor enough that communist policies start to make a little sense.

my last corp 'murica job had me traveling to TJ once a month.....I did it 15 times until I could figure out how to make money differently....

I was forced to make another game changer in my 40s....

taxation and how it's collected should be the number one issue in this game....

hence, trump....

ol' boy knows business.....I don't understand why his tax plan doesn't involve consumption (I'm lobbying behind the scenes with my 'bug')....however, none of the others are any better....and Sanders' is a crippler

at this point, Trump's is the best IMO.....

I know Mexico isn't a communist country but China is. I should have said when we trade with communist and countries with more social services don't be surprised when our middle class starts becoming more dependent on social programs.

There that's my amended statement and in that light don't be surprised by Trump's support in the GOP by the white working class.

(03-31-2016 06:53 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I like Owl and he has sold me on a consumption tax. However, you have to be absolutely freaking nutso to think we can compete with 2 dollar an hour jobs with no bene's. That's exactly what jobs from the Big 3 that have moved or planning to move to Mexico pays. We can't and we won't. When we trade with communist countries our middle class will become poor enough that communist policies start to make a little sense.

No we can't compete with $2 jobs. Neither can Germany. But they do okay because that's not where they try to compete.

Those $2 employees don't have a lot of skills. There are some severe limits to what they can do. I had a client that made a product that sold for $10. Their chief competition was a Chinese manufacturer that sold their product for $3. But my client could remain competitive because of the difference in quality control. That's where we need to go.

We're not going to force China to adopt our wages and regulations. So let them make cheap consumer goods and focus our efforts on upscale stuff where our labor force's productivity can make up for the cost differential. Of course, that requires that our labor force truly be more productive, which imposes some requirements on our education system and infrastructure.

The constant focus on $2 jobs is a diversion away from the real issues. I think it is perpetrated by those who for political reasons don't want to address the real issues.

Europe has a consumption tax and lower corporate tax rates (in many cases substantially lower) than we do. We are a net importer from Europe. Not as big as China, but still plenty big. And the $2 jobs and lack of regulations don't apply to Europe. But the difference in taxes do. If those things that we import from Europe were being made here instead, and if we were making even more of them for export to Europe, then we'd be a lot better off on balance of trade. And we could get there if we had a consumption tax and lower corporate tax rates.

(03-31-2016 06:53 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I like Owl and he has sold me on a consumption tax. However, you have to be absolutely freaking nutso to think we can compete with 2 dollar an hour jobs with no bene's. That's exactly what jobs from the Big 3 that have moved or planning to move to Mexico pays. We can't and we won't. When we trade with communist countries our middle class will become poor enough that communist policies start to make a little sense.

Do we want to compete for the $2 jobs or for the $30 or $40 or $50 jobs?

Comparative advantage says let China and Mexico and the rest of the third world do the $2/hour stuff and let's do the $30 and $40 and $50/hour stuff.

Yes, we have a negative trade balance with China because of all the jobs that have moved there. But we also have a negative trade balance with Europe. Those things we import from Europe are made by jobs that never moved from here to there because they started there and never came here in the first place. And those European jobs, unlike the China jobs, are paying $30 or $40 or $50 an hour.

We're not going to build a middle class economy by repatriating the $2 jobs from China or Mexico or wherever. Those jobs would be minimum wage jobs here, and that won't support a middle class. If that's where you want to focus, go ahead. But I think you're looking in the wrong place.

More importantly, I think you're looking in the place where unscrupulous, if not downright evil, political leaders are deflecting you, because they don't want to address the real issues, in turn because the things we have to do to address those issues don't fit their political mantras. Quit allowing yourself to be deflected so easily.

(03-30-2016 08:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No question we need low-skill jobs for them. But those jobs exist in abundance in a vibrant and growing economy. The high-end people need barbers and wait staff and pizza deliverers and store clerks and a host of other retail and service personnel.
My focus is on bringing back high-paying jobs. The rest will sort itself out fairly well from there.

I'm not so sure about that, a lot of sit-down restaurant chains now have a tablet at your table that you can order drinks and things off of, call for your waitress, pay your bill, etc., and drones are becoming much more sophisticated and prevalent, I personally don't think we are too far off from when you come in, sit down, order off of the tablet that is attached to your table and food and drinks are brought to you by drones. In a retail store, you could walk in, tell a drone what you are looking for, follow it there to pick the item up (or have it brought to you) and swipe your phone or card right there to pay for it. I believe pizza delivery drones are already being looked into.

My overall point is that technology is creating new revolutions all the time and each one builds off of each other so they happen faster and faster, uneducated, unskilled workers, hell even a lot of skilled workers will not be needed for a lot of traditional service type jobs. I don't know what the answers are for keeping people employed in the medium term to long term, but I don't think just fixing trade imbalances and bringing high paying jobs back to the U.S. will do it.

(03-31-2016 01:42 PM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  

(03-30-2016 08:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No question we need low-skill jobs for them. But those jobs exist in abundance in a vibrant and growing economy. The high-end people need barbers and wait staff and pizza deliverers and store clerks and a host of other retail and service personnel.
My focus is on bringing back high-paying jobs. The rest will sort itself out fairly well from there.

I'm not so sure about that, a lot of sit-down restaurant chains now have a tablet at your table that you can order drinks and things off of, call for your waitress, pay your bill, etc., and drones are becoming much more sophisticated and prevalent, I personally don't think we are too far off from when you come in, sit down, order off of the tablet that is attached to your table and food and drinks are brought to you by drones. In a retail store, you could walk in, tell a drone what you are looking for, follow it there to pick the item up (or have it brought to you) and swipe your phone or card right there to pay for it. I believe pizza delivery drones are already being looked into.
My overall point is that technology is creating new revolutions all the time and each one builds off of each other so they happen faster and faster, uneducated, unskilled workers, hell even a lot of skilled workers will not be needed for a lot of traditional service type jobs. I don't know what the answers are for keeping people employed in the medium term to long term, but I don't think just fixing trade imbalances and bringing high paying jobs back to the U.S. will do it.

I don't think that "just" fixing trade imbalances and bringing back high paying jobs will do it, but doing that would be a helluva big step in the right direction. One thing very clearly, the more of those jobs that leave, the harder any solution becomes. It's a difficult problem to solve in any event, but it's easier to solve if we have a producer economy.

Things like drones and kiosks are going to be economic decisions. When kiosks become cheaper, that's the route we will go. Raising the minimum wage brings that date earlier in time. That's one reason why I like the negative income tax/prebate/prefund approach. That gets people over the poverty line with the current minimum wage, which gives us a lot of options that disappear as we move the minimum wage upward.