>posted this question in Trumpgen before
>threads burn too fast so no real discussion only scattered replies
So wanna ask you guys a question. I am a huge Trump fan, but i dont agree with him one one thing. My studies of economics at uni taught me that comapnies outsource, so they can use the cheap labour in developing countries. If courporations like NIKE would pay their labourers the money that a worker in the developed world gets, they could never keep the prices at that level they are now. They would rise extraorbitant. So when trump suggests that he will bring all this labour back to the US, 2 scenarios can happen: 1.) The workers get the wages they are getting now, NIKE etc. goes out of business because nobody will buy sneakers for 150 when they can get adidas (who still produce in sweatshops bc germoney) for 39.99 bucks. 2.) Trump would have to pay slave wages like they do in China to US workers so they can compete, wich is even worse. I am convinced what I said is economically totally true. Please discuss this with me..
Outsourcing
Other urls found in this thread:
reuters.com
twitter.com
selfbump
>nobody will buy Nikes for $150
HAHAHAH STFU retard. Niggers pay $150 for Jordans already.
Also, import tarrifs etc etc etc... you're just an EU "economics" damaged moron.
GTFO and don't post about your "knowledge" of trade and economy until you graduate and actually get experience that's not based 100% on kike theory from a european cuck-factory (aka "uni")
thats because of their branding
>muh special edition and shit
niggers fall for that
NIKE doesnt have these kind of branding, they cant just raise their prize in never been hights while concurents like adidas with the same quality and branding suddenly cost much less
>no replies
is dicussing muh 60 percent really more interesting for you fags?
Their pricing is COMPLETELY ARBITRARY.
Do you know what the entire overhead is for their shoes?
They are manufactured in Cambodia by LITERAL SLAVES. They do it, because WE ALLOW THEM TO GET AWAY WITH IT.
Materials, labor, packaging, factory facilities overhead... comes down to LESS THAN $3 US PER PAIR.
You realize the US is damn near 85% of their market for sales?
You think if Trump were to charge them a Tariff that made up for the difference and then some between what they save in Cambodia in order to bolster our economey they wouldn't simply PAY IT?
You REALLY THINK that they'd just say
>well fuck it then! I'm not giving up that difference!
and instead LOSE 85% of their sales?!?!?!
they'd be DONE FOR.
The ONLY people who stand to lose on a deal like that... are the SHAREHOLDERS (the ones on the board who hold the vast majority of their stocks)
THAT is why everyone is gunning for Trump.
They don't want it to happen because it will fuck over the super rich and funnel it back to the US middle class.
I bet you've never even read any of his policies and are a 1st year student who just read half of a "Global econ" book.
also... I think most people won't reply to you because it's clear you're just repeating the basic philosophy of globalist "economists" and free trade shills.
It's been argued to death... search the catalog and go out into the real world to get some experience instead of just being a fucking parrot (useful idiot)
that's all for me
You literally didn't refute even one of his points
The problem with that is, that companies do work to increase their value of shares so the shareholders can profit. Welcome to capitalism my friend. The problem is, if the US would slap such big importtaxes on all goods from other coutries, companies would just raise their prize to adapt to the US market. The last thing a company will say is fuck it, its ok if we lose some money. Shit doesnt work that way. Now when everything will cost huge fuckings sums, people wont be able to affort shit anymore. So the jews will start deflating the currency that the goyim can still buy shit. But in ultimate this cant go well in the long run.
If a company were forced to pay foreign labor at the same levels at domestic labor, production would switch to automation.
yes it would. But Trump says he wants to bring MANUFACTURING jobs back. Wich means he wants workers to work with their hands and manufacture shit. You can not really do that in the US anymore. Even a nigger in detroit you cant pay 1 buck an hour to make a concurenceworthy product.
There's nothing magical about manufacturing or manufacturing jobs. US Manufacturing output reached it's highest point ever before the recession, took a dip, and has almost returned to that peak if not surpassing it.
As an econ student you should already be familiar with Engle's Law, and it applies here as well.
>checked
Engels law is about the income-elasticity of the curve being less then one for food in families. How the fuck did you just apply it to manufacturing jobs?
It's fake. China cheats and dumps its own products to destroy competition in the hopes of raising prices later. If the economists were telling the truth then China wouldn't do that.
That just means big companies will get fucked while small and middle sized ones will flourish.
The ONLY thing that would fuck this up would be a high taxation on internal products like we do on brazil, but hey surprise surprise, trump in not an idiot, he won't do that.
So yeah shareholders will get fucked, who cares, they deserve it.
As income rises, the proportion of income a family spends on food goes down. The purchase of other goods goes up. Over time, as incomes continue to rise the share of both food and other goods goes down and the share of income spent on services begins to rise. People keep complaining about manufacturing dying out, but it's not true. Services are just going up faster giving the illusion that manufacturing is in decline. Same principal as Engle's Law, just carried to the next step.
The only factories are brought back is if they're entirely automated.
Nike is doing just that right now in Germany
reuters.com
Nobody is getting a cushy factory job anytime soon.
>brand name sneakers
>cheap
pick one and only one. m8, on my side of the pond a pair of nikes costs $120-$200 at least.
so you mean that the secondary labour sector isnt becoming smaller, only the tertiary gets larger? Growth does not come from nowhere. Its like physics, (labour)force isnt lost or gained, its transformed.
Thats what i mean. So how will Trump keep on his promise to get manufacturing back in the US? I hate to agree with the nigger, but on that Obongo is right. Some jobs just are not coming back
point is they would only get even more expensive
Yep, the service sector is seeing the largest growth, but consider what service sector comprises: Law, medicine, sports, entertainment, architectural and engineering design, education, accounting, banking, finance, etc etc.
As for this point, there is always population growth, of course so total labor input can, and will increase in over time, but the share of labor devoted to each sector will, of course transform. This is completely natural in a growing economy, but that growth comes from increased productivity. Since it takes less and less labor to reach a market clearing level of output, labor will move from manufacturing to service. is right in the sense that automated jobs are gone, but there are still some jobs that could return if the reason for that firm leaving was due to punitive regulations and taxes from government.
He is talking about Manufacturing jobs, there is no possible way to keep low level/high volume jobs like shoe making here.
Simply S&D analysis rarely works out because S&D is way more complicated than a simple equilibrium.
First off, Demand is dependent on Supply and Supplies, and so it is an recursive equation, not a deterministic one. (Look up Stochastic Modeling and Markov Chains)
Secondly, Price is based on a proxy that is not isomorphic to value, and not independent: If you have the money, you can move the Supply, or delay the Demand, so from a Game Theory point of view, the one with the money wins.
Lastly, we live in a real world where the narrative doesn't always reflect the reality. There are many counter intuitive examples where cheaper labor costs more. Intel has never gone overseas because they know that the production innovation and knowledge is more valuable than the product itself, so they have never manufactured abroad. Germany proves everyday that outsourcing is not always a good long term strategy.
So, I know you are learning economic, but learn real economics, not the propaganda the capitalists use to appease the masses.
Outsourcing does not equal profit every time, or even most times, if you are running your business right.
i totally agree with you, but my point remains. Companies like Intel work based on the know how of their workers and from developing new advanced technology rather than manufacturing it. As says, the power is in the service sector. But manufacturing as Trump promises it, CANT be brought back to the US.
I'm going to quibble with you on one point which is that demand is dependent on supply, which it isn't, but you have to define terms here. Are you talking about a demand schedule or the quantity demanded because those are two different things. The quantity demanded is dependent on supply in that you would only be considering the equilibrium along the demand schedule. The fact that the demand schedule sits at that particular point is independent of supply.
So my only quibble with your statement is to separate quantity demanded along a given schedule with shifts in demand.
Hello failed australia.
Personally I think trump is an idiot; but that aside there are some interesting points in here.
Let us consider a company that is just swapping manufacturing to china. Let's say it's a shoe company that currently sells shoes at $80 a pop and has a reasonable market share, with each shoe costing $20 of labour to produce, $10 in materials and $10 in transportation costs, we have a good 50% profit margin here. But we now want to move manufacturing to china; materials are now $2 and labour is now $4 while let's say that transportation rises to $20.
So how much should we sell these new shoes at? Well keeping the same profit margin you could sell them at $52, but if it provided no net benefit then why did you ever bother moving? So no, you want to pick a number between $52 and $80, the price of the shoe has gone down and your profit margin has gone up.
A few years later you can then happily increase prices back to their $80 tag, blame the economy and rake in even more cash.
Alternatively let's consider the case of a chinese company importing. In particular the Australian shoe industry. We saw shoe prices fall by 50% back in the 70's, pricing out australian made shoes and pumping the market with imports. After the australian industries had all died shoe prices have since risen back to and beyond the expected value of if we had just kept our own industry. A pair of chinese made nikes now costs the same as a pair of italian made florshiems.
So in the short term, yes it appears cheaper, in the long term corporate greed ensures that any advantage from the lower prices will only line the pockets of the company.
Ok, but as you said correctly, when your market was flooded with cheaper shit in the 70s your shoecompanies died out. As will NIKE if their prisez rise to unknown heights and all other unamerican companies will be cheaper. Tarifftax for US market? Ok. But NIKE is also exporting to all over the world, wich is a huge amount of their profit margin. So Nike will be flushed off from te market, together with all the other american companies and THEN they will rise the prises again. Nothing gained. Manufacturing increase =0