Can somebody explain to me how Trump is going to bring jobs back to America?

Can somebody explain to me how Trump is going to bring jobs back to America?

Other urls found in this thread:

uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-steel-idUKKCN0Y82ER
northwestfront.org/2016/05/radio-free-northwest-may-19th-2016/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

he can't, he likes to say it because it sounds nice but the reality is that those industrial jobs are gone from America for good

Reduce foreign tariffs on american-made goods and/or increase american tariffs on foreign-made goods.

NAFTA, Nixon's trade deal with China, the EU, the TPP are the source of the outflow of jobs and capital from the west. Successive, kike-subverted administrations dating back to the 1970s are the source of all of these problems.

By building 2 walls Mexico and Canada will pay for it and the money goes to the American builders pretty genius imo

OK, you put tariffs on to allow American workers making American wages to be competitive, but then don't the prices of goods go up?

Don't Americans' wages go up?

>i support $15 minimum wage
>even though i have no idea what that will do to the economy

It seems cost of goods go up for everybody, but wages would only go up for some people.

And does the increase in wages make up for the increase in cost of goods? What is the relationship there? Is there a graph of it?

>Can somebody explain to me how Trump is going to bring jobs back to America?

He can do it by doing things people really don't want. Like raising the cost of their chinkshit.

h-he said he's g-going to do it, so it has to happen, r-right?

OK. It seems to me that that is a short term pain that will lead to long-term gain. So in the long run it's good.

How is that going to go over with Americans? It's basically meaning that we have to tighten up our finances so we can get ourselves out of debt. That's no fun. It's good for us, but hard.

No pain, no gain. How are Americans going to think about that?

It's funny, Colombia's deindustrialization or lack of development in the first place happened exactly because of the same reasons.

I think a lot of the pain should have to be borne by corporations, their profit margins and their reserves

Try to keep up with the conversation, leaf

>It seems cost of goods go up for everybody, but wages would only go up for some people.

Wages go up for everyone. Upward pressure on, for example, factory jobs moved back to the US would create upward pressure on existing jobs in service sectors. There's no need to sling mochas at $8 per hour if the auto plant that just opened is offering $12 with benefits. Econ 101: you increase the supply of jobs, worker supply remains constant, wages go up.

>And does the increase in wages make up for the increase in cost of goods? What is the relationship there?

Let's put it this way, this arrangement existed for four decades of the 20th century and it gets used as the economic benchmark for prosperity.

Yeah, there's a lot of room there to cushion the blow. How do you make the corps take the pain rather than pass it on to consumers?

Well, the Wall would employ more people than Obama has in just one public works project.

Removing 30 million illegal wetbacks from the country would open up those jobs back to actual citizens.

Making it more expensive for corporations to use overseas factories and ship in would drive more industry domestic. There is a reason Ford builds their trucks in Mexico while Toyota builds them in the US.

Take this example. Say is a computer factory that hires people. Now they have jobs and better wages to go along with the higher cost of computers. But I already have a job and my wage stays the same, but the cost of the computer goes up.

That is, only some industries would get the new jobs. Other industries already have jobs. Maybe those other industries would get higher wages eventually, but not immediately. But the cost of the goods would go up immediately. So there's a gap there that will be painful.

By not being bought by them in the first place, like presumably Trump

He is going to get Mexico to pay for it

Why don't you go get a job at the computer factory, if they pay better than your current job?

No, my job pays better than the computer factory, so I'll keep my job. So I won't get a pay increase, but the cost of computers will go up. That's what I mean when I say that only some people will get the higher wages from the new jobs. Some people already have good jobs and don't need to get the new jobs brought back.

I think that eventually, once the bottom of the economy gets boosted up, it will come around to me because there will be more demand for my industry, and then my wage will go up. But that could take a while. Meanwhile, the cost of goods will go up immediately to pay the new workers.

Where US made products are uncompetitive, raising tariffs only increase the cost for US consumers. It forces US manufactures to rely on the home market.

Take steel as an example. China produces lots of low cost steel, so the US under Trump increases import duty.
US steel manufacturers can now compete at home but US made products using steel go up in price. Exports of US made products using steel may fall.

Not everyone can unless demand suddenly rises. If the computers are now more expensive this seems unlikely.

So it seems like the tariffs would have to be selective for only some types of goods. What types of goods would it be OK to raise tariffs on without causing problems like you describe?

Increase tariffs on foreign-made goods from American-originated multinationals companies.

Drastically increase tariffs on all Chinese products that directly compete with American-produced goods.

Moderately increase tariffs on all foreign products that directly compete with American-produced goods.

Use the tariff money to incentivize the hiring of Americans in sectors that are not production related.

Limit the use of H1B visas to prevent corporate abuses in technical occupational sectors. Heavily moderate the use of H2B visas to protect our blue collar workforce and laborers from the Hispanic hordes.

It's not fucking hard, America had high tariffs throughout it's golden age, the concept of free trade is not remotely 'conservative' or trasditional in any way, it's corporatist/globalist bullshit that wasn't a thing until the 1950s, it's the one thing that the corporations and the cultural Marxist socialists can agree on, which is why it is pushed so hard.

I'm curious as to why you think price elasticity only exists for one side of the equation, e.g., why moving computer production to the US would cause an instantaneous increase in prices but the effects of increased wages for the workers take time to affect other areas of the market.

Because the computers are being made now by new workers at higher wages, so those prices on the shelf today go up.

The workers who now make those higher wages have more money to spend, and first they are going to spend it on the things that are top priority for them, and that's where demand will go up first, and wages. Then over time, as their standard of living goes up, they will spend their extra wages on the next priority, and then the next, and the next, only then will they get around to my industry.

So maybe like a florist or something. It's not top priority for people. So they won't immediately start spending more money on flowers. But the florist will immediately have to pay more for a new computer.

If there are large segments of the population that will suddenly be unable to afford a computer, how will computer manufacturers be able to raise and maintain high prices?

For one thing, it's not that they would be able to raise prices. It's that they would have to raise prices to pay the new wages of the American workers. So what could happen is that demand for computers would just go down, lots of people would do without new computers, and not as many American workers would get the new jobs.

But more to my point isn't that people wouldn't be able to afford them. It's just that the price would go up, without a concomitant wage increase, and they wouldn't LIKE it. It wouldn't be a lack of ability to afford. But a lack of happiness to afford. So people will complain, and I don't think that has been made clear yet in the idea of bringing jobs back to America, that there is going to be some pain involved in it.

If computer manufacturers can't sell enough computers at the price point that enables them to pay their workers, why don't they lower their wages?

I was going to keep asking facetious questions until you arrived at the answer I wanted you to, but in retrospect that's a bit rude.

What I'm getting at is that economic equilibrium doesn't suddenly cease to exist the moment Trump decides to MAGA.

The manufacturers, workers in ALL industries, and consumers adjust their behavior in real-time to match market conditions.

This isn't the first time there's been a change to market conditions and it won't be the last. If you'll recall NAFTA didn't exactly usher in an instantaneous period of wild prosperity for the buyers who had the same wages as before but suddenly got lower prices for everything.

>without causing problems
Anything you don't export.
Staying with the example of steel.

You could put tariffs on the import of rebar this will slightly increase the cost of buildings, but at least the buildings aren't having to compete against a world market. Expect any exports of US made rebar to slowly dry up if US manufactures are getting a better price at home.

If you put a tariff on sheet steel then any product made with this material will increase in price. How much the increase is depends on the products. This may hurt exports of those products as well as increasing the cost to consumers at home. So a car would cost a bit more and you'd sell less cars to your neighbours.
If you set the tariff too high US made products that use a lot of sheet steel become too expensive to be worth making at home.
You could extend the tariffs to these goods as well but that isn't very wise.

OK, that really wasn't my argument, that they couldn't sell the computers. I was assuming the would still be able to sell them, but at a higher cost, and the florist is still going to buy the computer, but she's going to complain about the higher cost, and she's going to blame Trump.

Or, rather than blaming Trump after it happens, she'll blame him for this outcome before he gets elected and choose not to vote for him for this reason.

My main point is that bringing jobs back has only been framed as a positive. But I think there will also be negatives for some people. And eventually in the next months that is going to be brought up, and we need to know what to say about it.

What do we say to the florist who will not get an immediate wage increase, but she will get an increase in the cost of a new computer. She'll still buy it because she needs it for her business, but it will cost her more, and she won't like that. So she would prefer for the computers to still be made in China.

How do we convince her that it's OK to pay more for a computer without a concomitant wage in crease, and so its OK to vote for Trump?

I think part of the answer is that these short term pains will eventually be paid back more than in full by the overall benefits to our economy that will come from MAGA, but how do we explain those long term benefits as being worth the short term pains?

American companies want to do business in America, you produce in America, you don't want to, fine, here's a big tariff for you. For foreign companies, you want to do business in America, quid pro quo on market access, if a foreign country slaps tariffs on American goods, they get tariffs on their foreign goods in America. If a foreign country does currency manipulation to gain advantage, tariffs again to kill the manipulation. It's fair trade instead of "free"(to rip off America) trade.

I can't say if he really will, or not. But the logic is:

Why do companies currently export to Mexico and China? Labor costs are cheap, both from no minimum wage, and lack of various benefits/unions. That's one reason. Second being that when you make something outside of the US, and bring it in, the tax is normally non existent to do so. So as minimum wage is increased, and other benefits do too, much liek changing the qualification for overtime, companies will seek other means to keep prices low, and profits high. Sure you could argue billionaires don't need all that money, but ultimately it is their business.

Trumps idea of fixing this problem, at least to my knowledge: Drastically raise the taxes to import good into the US. Second by drastically lowering the taxes for business' in the US. So by doing this it would literally cost as much, if not more to export your business, then import the products into the US, it would simply be cheaper, and be better publicity to stay in the US providing US jobs.

So his logic does make some sense, it could work. We will see. Of course there is the Libertarian one, where there is no tariff on imported items, but business' also wouldn't really have any taxes, and there would be no forced minimum wage and benefits, meaning companies could easily just stay because all they would need is people willing to work for what they feel is fair.

Hard to say what the right answer would be, but I can certainly say it's not the Bernie socialist view, and not the Obama/Clinton raising of minimum wage/benefits that only cause jobs to go overseas. Like it matters if you get $15/hour, if it means 3 of your coworkers get fired or replaced by robots, or hell more likely YOU will be the one without a job.

What should been done though?

The Chinese produce so much that their cut backs are more than the US total output.

uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-steel-idUKKCN0Y82ER

We just put a 522% tariff on chinese steel btw for people who cry about tariffs

Building and maintaining the Great Wall of North America

By creating business incentives through the lowering of tax.

Can you not understand America's frustration, anons?

northwestfront.org/2016/05/radio-free-northwest-may-19th-2016/

Go to 8:00 and listen to Adam Corolla discuss why honest, law-abiding white people are going for Trump.

Definitely worth a listen.

China also subsidizes a lot of their steel along with many other sectors. It is a company who follows all labor/environmental laws against a country who doesn't. The company has no chance in hell

It depends on whether or not Europe and China will commit economic suicide to prevent their own trade policies from being implemented in the states. Given how much debt they hold based on the US petrodollar it seems unlikely they could call Trump's bluff. Europe is particularly unable to do so in the midst of a super expensive refugee crisis and China is a relative unknown given how corrupt and shady the bookkeeping has been for decades.