(08-27-2018 12:51 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 12:41 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I use to date a girl that worked in the maquiladora in Juarez, she was a looker. Anyway I found out that she was earning from $35 to $40 A WEEK! There's no wonder we have cleaning women coming to EP for $60 to $100 per week with less stress. That's still low for our standards but it's pretty good for them.

Correct and even if they are staying 7,8,9,10 to a home and spiting cost....that is still better than what they left.

When people are willing to work for half or even a third of what it takes an American to live on. It lowers wages for the working class across the board. That savings from lost cost labor is not being passed back to the consumers

Normally, they'll head back to Mexico after working. Their money goes further there and they're like the old Bracero Worker thingy.

(08-27-2018 12:40 PM)miko33 Wrote:  In theory you are correct, and classical economics explains it well regarding comparative advantage. However, what classical economics cannot account for is corruption in the foreign markets and gov'ts that will make economic slaves out of its own people. Foxconn has made the news concerning the deplorable conditions the Chinese workers had to endure making Apple products - gross overtime and severely underpaid. This is not unique to just Foxconn but can be see with other companies with agreements between various local Chinese gov'ts and MNC's.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2...ce-extract

Chinese and Indian firms don't have to work to the same environmental standards as the U.S. firms do. While this gives these companies a gov't induced competitive advantage, their actions are also having a horrible effect on the environment. With the increasing level of connectivity in the world, Chinese pollution ultimately affects us.

https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/who...dUSRTXRKSI

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahleung...d083123490

The bolded part was EXACTLY what I wanted to point out but had to break for lunch. While DC sucks the lifeblood out of most of the country, it's a lightweight when it comes to real corruption.

(08-27-2018 12:48 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Or those items that might cost 15% more, might also last a lot longer.....

I recall a time when a VCR was expected to last years, probably till something different came out. Not something newer in six months.

There's a balance that needs to be met...we are not close to being there today like we were till NAFTA took over.

Cheap just means something is being replaced a lot sooner and in the end the cost will be more.

Yea, because the Americans are always leaders in quality with manufacturing like ... say ... General Motors. Or Kenmore.

(08-27-2018 10:46 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  I thought the market best set the wage and a forced minimum wage would actually do more damage than good? Surely, you're not saying it will raise the standard of living in Mexico?

Correct. Thats bad for Mexico--but good for us as it levels the playing field for the US. You see--Trump is not the president of Mexico. He is the president of the United States. Well, that is, until the Dems figure out a way to allow all Mexican citizens the right to vote in US elections.

(08-27-2018 01:09 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 12:48 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Or those items that might cost 15% more, might also last a lot longer.....

I recall a time when a VCR was expected to last years, probably till something different came out. Not something newer in six months.

There's a balance that needs to be met...we are not close to being there today like we were till NAFTA took over.

Cheap just means something is being replaced a lot sooner and in the end the cost will be more.

Yea, because the Americans are always leaders in quality with manufacturing like ... say ... General Motors. Or Kenmore.

You can bet your ass it lasted a lot longer than the cheap China junk. Hell I still have a Emerson VCR that I bought in 1981 that has 1000s of hours of use. It still works.

Same thing with yesterdays washers and dryers....20 to 25 years and they still worked. Toy wagons, toy's period lasted longer than this junk today.

So like I said...replace them 2 or 3 times and they are no longer cheap

Interested to see how this deal is substantially different from NAFTA if it ever gets implemented. Don't know much about the deal other than those couple of things mentioned.

(08-27-2018 10:22 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The minimum wage part is big.

It would be great if there was some movement on textiles as well.

Good point on the textile industry.

If this deal goes through then good job Mr. President.

The two changes I've seen so far seem like the kind of thing that would help American workers in those specific industries but cost american consumers. However, only looking at those things in isolation doesn't tell you much about a deal that is sure to be fairly comprehensive (and my guess is fairly close to NAFTA in its actual framework).

So, do our neighbors to the north get cut out of this new NAFTA? Bi-lateral implies two.

(08-27-2018 02:27 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  The two changes I've seen so far seem like the kind of thing that would help American workers in those specific industries but cost american consumers. However, only looking at those things in isolation doesn't tell you much about a deal that is sure to be fairly comprehensive (and my guess is fairly close to NAFTA in its actual framework).

I look at it this way, is a car made in Mexico, cheaper than the one made in America? I dont think so, so any increase in wages will be sucked up by someone but the consumer. If not more American made cars will be sold.

Unless there's conclusion between manufactures to increase prices across the board there will not be a huge (if any) price increase. No matter what it cost to produce in Mexico it's not going to hurt the finial cost to us. Not if the products (like cars) are already being made in America.

Now if something not being made here then it might be a price increase. But even then with the Internet and the ability to buy direct no full cost of increase will be passed on to the consumer. The companies that have got by for years on that cheap labor will be eating that cost. Or most of it.

(08-27-2018 02:48 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 02:27 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  The two changes I've seen so far seem like the kind of thing that would help American workers in those specific industries but cost american consumers. However, only looking at those things in isolation doesn't tell you much about a deal that is sure to be fairly comprehensive (and my guess is fairly close to NAFTA in its actual framework).

I look at it this way, is a car made in Mexico, cheaper than the one made in America? I dont think so, so any increase in wages will be sucked up by someone but the consumer. If not more American made cars will be sold.

Unless there's conclusion between manufactures to increase prices across the board there will not be a huge (if any) price increase. No matter what it cost to produce in Mexico it's not going to hurt the finial cost to us. Not if the products (like cars) are already being made in America.

Now if something not being made here then it might be a price increase. But even then with the Internet and the ability to buy direct no full cost of increase will be passed on to the consumer. The companies that have got by for years on that cheap labor will be eating that cost. Or most of it.

Ultimately it's a balancing act. No doubt a cost assembled in Mexico with predominantly made Mexican parts is the same price as one made in the U.S. with predominantly made U.S. parts. If the company can make more profit with a cheaper cost structure, it obviously helps the bottom line and could result in a net preservation of jobs in the U.S. thru reinvestment. On the flip side, if a large percentage of good paying jobs are lost and never come back then it's an anchor on the U.S. economy.

An interesting case study is the medium term effect crossovers will have on the buying patterns of the U.S. consumer. Ford killed all of their cars in favor of making trucks, SUVs and crossovers only (for the U.S. market at least). The Big 3 generally make their most profitable vehicles in the U.S. and have pushed the lower value brands - compacts and subcompacts in particular - to Mexico. If the U.S. consumer buys fewer cars in favor of crossovers, will that translate into more vehicles made in the U.S.? We will see.

(08-27-2018 02:48 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 02:27 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  The two changes I've seen so far seem like the kind of thing that would help American workers in those specific industries but cost american consumers. However, only looking at those things in isolation doesn't tell you much about a deal that is sure to be fairly comprehensive (and my guess is fairly close to NAFTA in its actual framework).

I look at it this way, is a car made in Mexico, cheaper than the one made in America? I dont think so, so any increase in wages will be sucked up by someone but the consumer. If not more American made cars will be sold.

Unless there's conclusion between manufactures to increase prices across the board there will not be a huge (if any) price increase. No matter what it cost to produce in Mexico it's not going to hurt the finial cost to us. Not if the products (like cars) are already being made in America.

Now if something not being made here then it might be a price increase. But even then with the Internet and the ability to buy direct no full cost of increase will be passed on to the consumer. The companies that have got by for years on that cheap labor will be eating that cost. Or most of it.

This seems at odds with economics and the premise for which conservatives have based their economic theory upon. Increased regulation adds cost somewhere. If you are going to add a minimum wage / tariffs where minimum wage is not reached, that cost is going somewhere. We can live in fantasy land where we can add regulations to help specific groups and those regulations have no economic cost, but its frankly amazing to see in one breath conservatives argue that regulation is a burden and in the same breath argue new regulation on trade is only positive.

BTW not commenting one way or another right now on whether this is good policy or not. I'd like to see the entirety of the deal not a cherry picked couple key points before saying the deal is bad/good. However, the idea that there is no economic cost to tariffs/minimum wage requirements is silly. There will be a cost somewhere with these specific regulations, my guess is it will be on consumers. How much of a cost? is the cost worth it? Is the cost offset by other benefits of the deal? These are decisions you will have to make for yourself, but it is amazing to me that Cult of Trump has convinced Republicans to act like Dick Gephard democrats in believing these regulations are all upside no downside.

(08-27-2018 03:04 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 02:48 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 02:27 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  The two changes I've seen so far seem like the kind of thing that would help American workers in those specific industries but cost american consumers. However, only looking at those things in isolation doesn't tell you much about a deal that is sure to be fairly comprehensive (and my guess is fairly close to NAFTA in its actual framework).

I look at it this way, is a car made in Mexico, cheaper than the one made in America? I dont think so, so any increase in wages will be sucked up by someone but the consumer. If not more American made cars will be sold.

Unless there's conclusion between manufactures to increase prices across the board there will not be a huge (if any) price increase. No matter what it cost to produce in Mexico it's not going to hurt the finial cost to us. Not if the products (like cars) are already being made in America.

Now if something not being made here then it might be a price increase. But even then with the Internet and the ability to buy direct no full cost of increase will be passed on to the consumer. The companies that have got by for years on that cheap labor will be eating that cost. Or most of it.

This seems at odds with economics and the premise for which conservatives have based their economic theory upon. Increased regulation adds cost somewhere. If you are going to add a minimum wage / tariffs where minimum wage is not reached, that cost is going somewhere. We can live in fantasy land where we can add regulations to help specific groups and those regulations have no economic cost, but its frankly amazing to see in one breath conservatives argue that regulation is a burden and in the same breath argue new regulation on trade is only positive.

BTW not commenting one way or another right now on whether this is good policy or not. I'd like to see the entirety of the deal not a cherry picked couple key points before saying the deal is bad/good. However, the idea that there is no economic cost to tariffs/minimum wage requirements is silly. There will be a cost somewhere with these specific regulations, my guess is it will be on consumers. How much of a cost? is the cost worth it? Is the cost offset by other benefits of the deal? These are decisions you will have to make for yourself, but it is amazing to me that Cult of Trump has convinced Republicans to act like Dick Gephard democrats in believing these regulations are all upside no downside.

You're correct. Don't you think that Trump looks an awful lot like union style Democrat of the 80s? We're in a mixed up political landscape where the GOP looks more like the party of the middle class while the Dems look like the party of investment banks and lawyers with a huge component of SJW and socialists.

(08-27-2018 03:23 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 03:04 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 02:48 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 02:27 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  The two changes I've seen so far seem like the kind of thing that would help American workers in those specific industries but cost american consumers. However, only looking at those things in isolation doesn't tell you much about a deal that is sure to be fairly comprehensive (and my guess is fairly close to NAFTA in its actual framework).

I look at it this way, is a car made in Mexico, cheaper than the one made in America? I dont think so, so any increase in wages will be sucked up by someone but the consumer. If not more American made cars will be sold.

Unless there's conclusion between manufactures to increase prices across the board there will not be a huge (if any) price increase. No matter what it cost to produce in Mexico it's not going to hurt the finial cost to us. Not if the products (like cars) are already being made in America.

Now if something not being made here then it might be a price increase. But even then with the Internet and the ability to buy direct no full cost of increase will be passed on to the consumer. The companies that have got by for years on that cheap labor will be eating that cost. Or most of it.

This seems at odds with economics and the premise for which conservatives have based their economic theory upon. Increased regulation adds cost somewhere. If you are going to add a minimum wage / tariffs where minimum wage is not reached, that cost is going somewhere. We can live in fantasy land where we can add regulations to help specific groups and those regulations have no economic cost, but its frankly amazing to see in one breath conservatives argue that regulation is a burden and in the same breath argue new regulation on trade is only positive.

BTW not commenting one way or another right now on whether this is good policy or not. I'd like to see the entirety of the deal not a cherry picked couple key points before saying the deal is bad/good. However, the idea that there is no economic cost to tariffs/minimum wage requirements is silly. There will be a cost somewhere with these specific regulations, my guess is it will be on consumers. How much of a cost? is the cost worth it? Is the cost offset by other benefits of the deal? These are decisions you will have to make for yourself, but it is amazing to me that Cult of Trump has convinced Republicans to act like Dick Gephard democrats in believing these regulations are all upside no downside.

You're correct. Don't you think that Trump looks an awful lot like union style Democrat of the 80s? We're in a mixed up political landscape where the GOP looks more like the party of the middle class while the Dems look like the party of investment banks and lawyers with a huge component of SJW and socialists.

It sure does.....

seems like everything has flipped. President Trump looks a lot more like the party that I grew up with than the democrats today. He's a lot closer to being a democrat than any in the last 20 years. Actually the most middle of the line (some issues the right and others what use to be the left) President in my lifetime (58 years)

(08-27-2018 03:32 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 03:23 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 03:04 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 02:48 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 02:27 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  The two changes I've seen so far seem like the kind of thing that would help American workers in those specific industries but cost american consumers. However, only looking at those things in isolation doesn't tell you much about a deal that is sure to be fairly comprehensive (and my guess is fairly close to NAFTA in its actual framework).

I look at it this way, is a car made in Mexico, cheaper than the one made in America? I dont think so, so any increase in wages will be sucked up by someone but the consumer. If not more American made cars will be sold.

Unless there's conclusion between manufactures to increase prices across the board there will not be a huge (if any) price increase. No matter what it cost to produce in Mexico it's not going to hurt the finial cost to us. Not if the products (like cars) are already being made in America.

Now if something not being made here then it might be a price increase. But even then with the Internet and the ability to buy direct no full cost of increase will be passed on to the consumer. The companies that have got by for years on that cheap labor will be eating that cost. Or most of it.

This seems at odds with economics and the premise for which conservatives have based their economic theory upon. Increased regulation adds cost somewhere. If you are going to add a minimum wage / tariffs where minimum wage is not reached, that cost is going somewhere. We can live in fantasy land where we can add regulations to help specific groups and those regulations have no economic cost, but its frankly amazing to see in one breath conservatives argue that regulation is a burden and in the same breath argue new regulation on trade is only positive.

BTW not commenting one way or another right now on whether this is good policy or not. I'd like to see the entirety of the deal not a cherry picked couple key points before saying the deal is bad/good. However, the idea that there is no economic cost to tariffs/minimum wage requirements is silly. There will be a cost somewhere with these specific regulations, my guess is it will be on consumers. How much of a cost? is the cost worth it? Is the cost offset by other benefits of the deal? These are decisions you will have to make for yourself, but it is amazing to me that Cult of Trump has convinced Republicans to act like Dick Gephard democrats in believing these regulations are all upside no downside.

You're correct. Don't you think that Trump looks an awful lot like union style Democrat of the 80s? We're in a mixed up political landscape where the GOP looks more like the party of the middle class while the Dems look like the party of investment banks and lawyers with a huge component of SJW and socialists.

It sure does.....

seems like everything has flipped. President Trump looks a lot more like the party that I grew up with than the democrats today. He's a lot closer to being a democrat than any in the last 20 years. Actually the most middle of the line (some issues the right and others what use to be the left) President in my lifetime (58 years)

IMHO, it's the funniest joke we have today. Strip away the bombastic rhetoric, and his political views range from a union strong democrat (see our trade fights) and a Rockefeller Republican (see his massive spending bill).

I do not like Trump as a person and IMHO he's not much of a free enterprise guy. However, my trust in Classical Liberal Economics is lacking of late given the trade deals with nations of dubious characters who routinely steal our IP, peg their currency to the dollar and refuse to allow the free market to operate in their own country to artificially depress wages - CHINA!

On the issue of Trade I certainly agree. Trump's vocal talking points are where 1980s/early 90s democrats were. I don't find that to be a good thing, but sounds like many republicans suddenly do. As I don't trust trump do much work himself I'm interested to see the entirety of the deal and how it compares. I'm betting its NAFTA with a few small changes he can sell to his voters that he did something big. I don't actually think Trump has much of an ideology other than what he thinks is good for Trump in that moment. Because the major swing states were rust belt states that have industries very sympathetic to protectionist policies, I do think his vocal stance on trade was instrumental to his narrow victories in those key states.

The core of the deal with Mexico overhauls rules for building cars across the continent, aimed at ensuring a greater portion of the vehicles are built in the region, and more locally-produced steel is used. The accord also has new provisions aimed at raising wages and offering new rights to Mexican labor unions. Those measures target longstanding complaints by Nafta critics in the U.S. that American workers have been hurt by having to compete with cheaper labor across the border.

U.S. officials said the deal would also beef up regional content requirements for chemicals, steel intensive products and other industrial materials. They also touted moves to strengthen rules governing supply chains in the textile and apparel industries.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mexico-u-s-...1535372909
______________

It's called winning.

(08-27-2018 10:33 AM)BobL Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 10:22 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The minimum wage part is big.

It would be great if there was some movement on textiles as well.

Agree, the best way to deal with illegal immigration from mexico is to help mexico improve their standard of living, this certainly helps.

(08-27-2018 10:46 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  I thought the market best set the wage and a forced minimum wage would actually do more damage than good? Surely, you're not saying it will raise the standard of living in Mexico?

You and Tom are ridiculous.

It's not a forced min wage since it doesn't apply to people flipping burgers or stocking the bread aisle.... nor does it apply to cars built for the Mexican market only.... just for exports. You can't put a tariff on something not imported.

and Sorry Tom, but 75% is still < 62.5% which you seemed fine with. This deal is better for Mexico and worse for China, which helps address our immigration issues since it's vastly harder to illegally migrate from China.

Seriously, my biggest problem with you guys is that you can't imagine that Trump and his people can do ANYTHING that isn't somehow a disaster.

Tom, please explain to me how 75% from North America is somehow WORSE than 62.5% from North America?
Marc, please explain to me how increasing labor costs in Mexico (or face tariffs) is BAD for the US, US workers and Illegal immigration? Or better, how the US economy and Mexico's are (in your mind) interchangeable in that what is good and works for them might not be good for or work for us?

I believe Trump's main goal in all of these negotiations is not just fair trade, but trade that results in companies taking a serious look at whether it's better to build over there, or over here in the United States.

I'm fine with that. I bet I was once one of the biggest globalists on this forum, but that started changing years ago when I saw the growth of Red China's economy, the fact that many of our best manufacturing jobs ended up over there, and for the first time started learning about the events surrounding WWII, and ultimately how we won it.

We won it with our manufacturing capabilities, not because we could provide poor people with cheap foreign-made trinketts.

So my support for these policies pre-dated Trump by several years.

BTW, Cankles would not be promoting any of these policies. If she were prez, she'd be busy selling the country lock, stock, and barrel to the whomever wrote the biggest checks to the Cankles Foundation.

(08-27-2018 01:21 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  You can bet your ass it lasted a lot longer than the cheap China junk. Hell I still have a Emerson VCR that I bought in 1981 that has 1000s of hours of use. It still works.

Same thing with yesterdays washers and dryers....20 to 25 years and they still worked. Toy wagons, toy's period lasted longer than this junk today.

So like I said...replace them 2 or 3 times and they are no longer cheap

The fact of the matter is a tightly controlled supply chain out of China can be of sufficient quality. I don't see anybody crying over Vizio. Quite the opposite usually.