Most Americans oppose offshoring. We need to take action.

[Le_Jacquelope]

@TravisFromOR

Yeah, I’m the one with poor reading comprehension…

The first honest thing you’ve said all day, Beavis.

You certainly weren’t honest when you said you were “done with me”. You just had to come back one more time because I touched another one of your pathetic childish nerves.

[emacknight]

It seems that Le Jac’s solution to unemployment is to create the world’s largest beuracracy.

After reading through that list, I’m pretty confident it’s going to require all 20million unemployed Americans to manage, enforce, and monitor that behemoth he has planned for us. In no time we’ll all be working for the Department of Tariffs in some form or another.

But then, if everyone is employed by the Department of Tariffs, we won’t need the tariffs, causing all those people to laid off, meaning we’ll need more tariffs, uh oh…

ETA Wouldn’t it be a hell of a lot easier to just put a 50% tax on everything and then pay the 20million unemployed to stay home?

[TravisFromOR]

@emacknight

It seems that Le Jac’s solution to unemployment is to create the world’s largest beuracracy.

After reading through that list, I’m pretty confident it’s going to require all 20million unemployed Americans to manage, enforce, and monitor that behemoth he has planned for us. In no time we’ll all be working for the Department of Tariffs in some form or another.

But then, if everyone is employed by the Department of Tariffs, we won’t need the tariffs, causing all those people to laid off, meaning we’ll need more tariffs, uh oh…

ETA Wouldn’t it be a hell of a lot easier to just put a 50% tax on everything and then pay the 20million unemployed to stay home?

Maybe we could offshore the Department of Tariffs? It’d be cheaper!

[emacknight]

@TravisFromOR

Maybe we could offshore the Department of Tariffs? It’d be cheaper!

And toll collection in New Jersey.

[Le_Jacquelope]

@TravisFromOR

Maybe we could offshore the Department of Tariffs? It’d be cheaper!

Oh jeez. Your stupidity level has gone past 9000. Most of what I said could be handled by computers.

PS: exactly when are you going to be “done with me”?

[DragonAsh]

@Le_Jacquelope

The primary goal of tariffs would be to balance out trade deficits more than to enforce percentage targets. <SNIP>

Wait, what? I thought you were holding the flag for the unemployed.

Nowhere do you indicate just how you think your tariffs plan would actually create jobs. (Hint: it won’t.)

Go read up on why rent controls don’t work.

[emacknight]

@DragonAsh

Wait, what? I thought you were holding the flag for the unemployed.

Nowhere do you indicate just how you think your tariffs plan would actually create jobs. (Hint: it won’t.)

Go read up on why rent controls don’t work.

WAIT!

If you are going to read, for the love of Og start with supply and demand, then tariffs, and then rent control.

Seriously, all the time that guy wastes reading the Huffington Post, but can’t be arsed to look up the definition of tariff or unemployment.

[TravisFromOR]

@Le_Jacquelope

Oh jeez. Your stupidity level has gone past 9000. Most of what I said could be handled by computers.

PS: exactly when are you going to be “done with me”?

1. Just because I’m done with you, jackass, doesn’t mean that I’m unable to participate in this thread.

2. You’re completely unfamiliar with sarcasm.

3. The whole “9000” meme is so old it’s not even remotely funny, nor clever anymore.

4. You’re just showing how stupid you actually are, even more.

[glilly]

@Le_Jacquelope

The categories would be determined by the number of jobs at stake and their average pay, and where the industry is on the food chain. Emerging industries get the highest protection.

Thanks for the answers. I think this brings some concrete arguments to the conversation.

I could see each category being tariffed at a rate to keep the category from getting out-of-wack trade deficit-wise. But if some industries can get more protection than others, who decides which industries get more protection than others? What prevents this from being politicized?

What’s the relevance of this question?

I didn’t have a fully thought out purpose for this question. However, I do think regulatory schemes tend to get far more complex than the originators expect or design. Also, I don’t know if you’ve ever seen lists of government classifications of things like job duties, but they tend to always seem overly broad, oddly specific, and antiquated at the same time.

Somehow this question was to shine some light on that.

Stuff that is built here and assembled there should have lower tariffs. It’s a fallacy to believe this can’t be accounted for.

It can – it is for VATs, although it always seemed complicated to me. Does anyone with experience with VATs applied to partial production know of the complexity of implementation?

That 9% is deceptive. It doesn’t count people who have been discouraged from looking for work, or those who are underemployed - essentially those who are qualified to do higher value work but are instead low-paid gardeners for people like Rhythmdvl. That pushes unemployment - real unemployment - close to 20%.

I thought about that when writing it. Some of work being done by underemployed people will still need to be done in a better job market. So maybe we split the difference and say there’s ~15% real unemployment? This question doesn’t matter so much now that I know you’re not against ALL importation.

Not having enough jobs for our labor pool presents more problems than not having enough labor for our job pool. America has done quite well during the times long past when we had employees’ markets. I vastly prefer employees’ markets over employers’ markets.

I think most do, especially in the short term. A little bit of unemployment (can be low enough to be considered “full employment” by economists) does help the economy expanding. It’s difficult for companies to expand if they can’t hire.

Higher than “full employment” used to be considered a direct route to inflation. That didn’t happen in the late 1990’s, but I think economists thought globalization and imports helped keep the high employment from being inflationary. With tariffs, higher than full employment (i.e. <5% unemployment) could be inflationary again.

What can we do about intellectual property theft now, as it is? Their war on intellectual property and copyrights will do them in on its own. Piracy rates of Chinese-made software is off the charts. Bollywood and Nigerian movie makers are utterly plagued. Let them bring it on; we’ll respond in kind and wait them out.

There have been some efforts to prevent copyright theft. I don’t know how effective they’ve been, but they’d likely be less effective under this scheme.

I’d gradually lower tariffs but keep them tied to the conditions of our job market.

Especially if these move by industry, won’t this be a huge incentive for industries to try to influence elections in favor of candidates who are in favor of more protectionism for that industry? That already happens in simple regulatory schemes, like the tax break on ethanol in gasoline or the sugar industry supporting continued tariffs on imported sugar.

This seems a complicated and corruptible method. I don’t know how it could be kept free of that, but people who are in favor of other regulatory schemes always seem to think that with the right idealistic people in place, impartial bureaucrats will make the right decisions. But it doesn’t always work that way.

[emacknight]

@glilly

I think most do, especially in the short term. A little bit of unemployment (can be low enough to be considered “full employment” by economists) does help the economy expanding. It’s difficult for companies to expand if they can’t hire.
Higher than “full employment” used to be considered a direct route to inflation. That didn’t happen in the late 1990’s, but I think economists thought globalization and imports helped keep the high employment from being inflationary. With tariffs, higher than full employment (i.e. <5% unemployment) could be inflationary again.

Herisy!

Nothing is worse than being unemployed, NOTHING!

(I made the same comment a few months ago, now I’m on the ignore list. )

[Le_Jacquelope]

@TravisFromOR

1. Just because I’m done with you, jackass, doesn’t mean that I’m unable to participate in this thread.

Obviously, Beavis, your idea of “done with you” includes continuing to respond to me long after you’ve shot off all your toes.

3. The whole “9000” meme is so old it’s not even remotely funny, nor clever anymore.

Kinda like you, actually.

4. You’re just showing how stupid you actually are, even more.

To whom? You? This pathetic piece of shit board where none of you can show where offshoring has created anything but an explosion of low paying jobs in America, but where all of you think we should continue this failed economic policy? Really?

You keep saying I look stupid to you but you have never ONCE shown where you matter.

In any case, I’m done toying with you. And unlike you I actually know the meaning of that phrase.

[Le_Jacquelope]

@glilly

Thanks for the answers. I think this brings some concrete arguments to the conversation.

I could see each category being tariffed at a rate to keep the category from getting out-of-wack trade deficit-wise. But if some industries can get more protection than others, who decides which industries get more protection than others? What prevents this from being politicized?

Nothing prevents this from being politicized. Absolutely nothing. The whole concept of trade has been politicized long before I was born.

I didn’t have a fully thought out purpose for this question. However, I do think regulatory schemes tend to get far more complex than the originators expect or design. Also, I don’t know if you’ve ever seen lists of government classifications of things like job duties, but they tend to always seem overly broad, oddly specific, and antiquated at the same time.

I’ve glanced at them, and yes they do get antiquated. I’ve had a taste of that in dealing with workers comp insurance. As for complex, I’ve heard of the regulations on a head of lettuce. I am skeptical, however, of any idea that this would become so impossibly complex compared to the trade laws we have now.

It can – it is for VATs, although it always seemed complicated to me. Does anyone with experience with VATs applied to partial production know of the complexity of implementation?

Now that would be interesting.

I thought about that when writing it. Some of work being done by underemployed people will still need to be done in a better job market. So maybe we split the difference and say there’s ~15% real unemployment? This question doesn’t matter so much now that I know you’re not against ALL importation.

I’m not? Why I thought I was issuing a wholesale condemnation here! Or, at least that was one deluded moderator’s argument.

Seriously, though, as a part of the underemployment mess, we now have college grads applying for low-end jobs (think McDonald’s and Wal Mart). This kind of work is what you expect teenagers, college students and (maybe) retirees to do. Youth unemployment was bad during the Bush Boom, but now it is so terrible that you don’t even want to look at the statistics on that. It’s bad because older and overqualified people are competing for these jobs.

In an employee’s market these kids can get those jobs and actually work their way up.

Moreover, when I was working in Tech Industry 1.0, I literally walked around on the streets and talent scouted people on buses and at unemployment offices and fast-tracked them through HR into tech support jobs. A few days training and before they knew it they were on their way to actually owing taxes on their income for the first time in ages. Quite a few that I know worked their way up into software testing, web design, and at least one went onto management and then owning her own business. You try that now. Offshoring took all that away. Those jobs went to India. Right now single moms in India are enjoying this lightning-speed upward mobility, and Americans (brown people and all) aren’t. (That was for the “you hate trading with brown people” crowd on here.)

I think most do, especially in the short term. A little bit of unemployment (can be low enough to be considered “full employment” by economists) does help the economy expanding. It’s difficult for companies to expand if they can’t hire.

They can hire. They offer better wages and working conditions and top candidates will still come. Emacknight’s big problem was he thought that high unemployment is good for employers, and that low unemployment means you can’t get good workers. You can always get good workers - in an employees’ market you just have to compete for them. Apparently some employers can’t hack it. Awwww, poor babies.

Higher than “full employment” used to be considered a direct route to inflation. That didn’t happen in the late 1990’s, but I think economists thought globalization and imports helped keep the high employment from being inflationary. With tariffs, higher than full employment (i.e. <5% unemployment) could be inflationary again.

Economists thought a lot of things that they were wrong about. They also previously thought stagflation couldn’t happen.

Look at what we have right now - pseudo deflation. Oh, sure, by the classic (and outdated) concept of inflation, we’re in a deflationary period. But that’s horrible for workers because their debts are getting bigger and their incomes are shrinking. Meanwhile food and energy prices are up, up and away: this affects the unemployed far more than the rich. Since Bush got in office wage growth hasn’t even kept up with inflation. Sadly, you’ll find no shortage of people on the SDMB who say growth was great in the 2000’s while ignoring the fact that it was fueled by exploding consumer debt.

There have been some efforts to prevent copyright theft. I don’t know how effective they’ve been, but they’d likely be less effective under this scheme.

Imagine Bollywood movies winding up on American servers and India having to block all of America to stop their people from watching it for free. Our studios will take a hit, no sugar-coating that, but like I said, we can afford to wait them out. I don’t know of any American studio or record company that’s been put out of business by piracy.

Also, I won’t sugar-coat the fact that such piracy “wars” would be bad for PR. But the loss of American jobs is worse PR. You don’t say “I close call centers here and open them in Mexico” and expect people to like you.

Furthermore, Ian Fletcher makes a masterfully logical case for why offshoring raises our national debt. This will inevitably bleed us out. We’ll run out of jobs to give China and India… and what will become of them then?

Especially if these move by industry, won’t this be a huge incentive for industries to try to influence elections in favor of candidates who are in favor of more protectionism for that industry? That already happens in simple regulatory schemes, like the tax break on ethanol in gasoline or the sugar industry supporting continued tariffs on imported sugar.

Bah. Plenty of industries already influence politicians not to be protectionist. The US Chamber of Commerce (those same guys who supported the Nazi’s), anyone?

You have to do the same thing then that politicians must do now - resist bad protectionism and enact good protectionism. Of course, around here, it’s all black and white - protectionism is always bad!

This seems a complicated and corruptible method. I don’t know how it could be kept free of that, but people who are in favor of other regulatory schemes always seem to think that with the right idealistic people in place, impartial bureaucrats will make the right decisions. But it doesn’t always work that way.

Capitalism and globalism rely on perfect conditions, too. Capitalism assumes perfectly informed consent and honesty; it has no safeguards to account for human nature, except survival of the fittest.

No system on Earth will survive that relies on that which does not exist - namely, impartial people of any sort. That, sir, requires a machine intelligence…

[emacknight]

@Le Jacquelope

@glilly

I think most do, especially in the short term. A little bit of unemployment (can be low enough to be considered “full employment” by economists) does help the economy expanding. It’s difficult for companies to expand if they can’t hire.

They can hire. They offer better wages and working conditions and top candidates will still come. Emacknight’s big problem was he thought that high unemployment is good for employers, and that low unemployment means you can’t get good workers. You can always get good workers - in an employees’ market you just have to compete for them. Apparently some employers can’t hack it. Awwww, poor babies.

And what, preytell, does it mean to “compete” for employees?

More pay, more benefits, less productivity, etc.

What does all that total up to? Increased cost of labour. Do you want to see the spreadsheet I’m looking at now that shows my labour costs? Where is the magical money coming from to pay all these people?

It certainly won’t come from lower packaging costs, because those will go up when labour costs go up. My food costs won’t go down since we can’t import from Mexico. My energy costs are going up when you tax oil. And that says nothing of the increased taxes to pay for this massive bureaucracy

[Le_Jacquelope]

Emacknight shouldn’t you be out explaining to American workers how they should be happy with losing good paying jobs to offshoring and getting gardening work in return?

Your problem is not so much that your piss poor arguments don’t hold water to my several pages of scrutiny. It’s that your piss poor arguments in favor of offshoring don’t hold up to anyone else’s scrutiny, either.

Americans want their good paying jobs back and we’re rewarding politicians who listen to us.

[kidchameleon]

@Le_Jacquelope

Americans want their good paying jobs back and we’re rewarding politicians who listen to us.

You think a call center job is a good paying job?

[XT]

Still going I see. Sort of like the Energizer Bunny.

[QUOTE=Le Jacquelope]
Emacknight shouldn’t you be out explaining to American workers how they should be happy with losing good paying jobs to offshoring and getting gardening work in return?

[/QUOTE]

Well, you’d need to explain to them that the ‘good paying jobs’ you will be bringing back are going to be low skill low wage high volume jobs, many of which would probably be done by automation if they ever actually came back here, and that for this munificent bounty they will have to pay a lot more in costs for goods and services than they currently do. I wonder how happy the American workers will REALLY be, when the reality starts to hit home.

Your problem is not so much that your piss poor arguments don’t hold water to my several pages of scrutiny.

Perhaps you posted your ‘several pages of scrutiny’ on some other message board? You certainly haven’t posted anything coherent around here.

It’s that your piss poor arguments in favor of offshoring don’t hold up to anyone else’s scrutiny, either.

‘Your piss poor arguments that the world is round aren’t convincing me or anyone else who agrees with me! I’ve spent several pages of close scrutiny that boils down to the fact that when I look out my window I don’t see the Earth being round! It looks perfectly flat to me, Q.E.D. it is flat, as all my close scrutiny has shown!’

Americans want their good paying jobs back and we’re rewarding politicians who listen to us.

American’s want a laundry list of services from the Government, including free health care, well built and maintained infrastructure, good social programs, a strong and kick ass military, a space program that keeps us out in front of everyone else, and any number of other things…and they want all that without having to pay high taxes. And they reward politicians who listen to them.

Which means we get idiot politicians who do stupid shit…stupid shit WE ask them to do. I almost hope you are right, and that the politicians actually are dumb enough to give populist idiots like you what they ask for. Because it will be so devastating to our economy that this stupid anti-trade isolationist fuckery will never rear it’s ugly head again. Sadly, it would be cutting off the countries nose AND draining it’s lifeblood merely to spite it’s face.

-XT

[Le_Jacquelope]

Still up for getting your tails kicked some more, eh?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41781471/ns/business-bloomberg_businessweek/

“A U.S. recovery that is built on low-paying jobs
The economy is not creating opportunities at the high end”

You can thank offshoring for this. If we hadn’t sent all those customer support, manufacturing, tech and research jobs overseas, we would have recovered faster, better, and with higher-paying jobs than GARDENING.

Wages are down permanently, if we stay this course. The cost of living, especially energy prices, are on their way up, permanently, unless your mythical oil fairy can come save us with her magic Disney wand.

Yup, you’re better off hiding here on a message board than taking your case anywhere else.

[Doctor]

From the article you quote:

*** “The bottom line:** Newly created jobs tend to be lower-paying than those they replaced. That will constrain consumer spending and economic growth.”

*So, bringing back low paying jobs from China is going to help how? Your argument does not appear to make sense. Especially, as the same work will cost us more money, meaning the people in these low paying jobs won’t be able to afford buying more, but will probably be below the new poverty line (which will be a higher numbers as cost of living goes up). Is there some sort of magic I am missing here?

[Doctor]

BTW, insulting people isn’t making your case stronger. It is making you look like a jackass.

[XT]

All of that assumes we actually are in a full up recovery, which I’ve seen no indications of. In a real recovery, jobs always lag behind, because businesses don’t start to rehire the folks they laid off until their production and forecast ramps up to the point that they have clear indications they need to do so. Even if the recovery has started, companies are going to be reluctant to rehire a lot of people until they are sure that demand will be steady and rising…otherwise, they could bring a bunch of people back only to cost the company a lot of money and turn around and lay them all off again.

It’s pretty silly to look at things right now and predict how this particularly recovery will play out. Right now the housing issue is still hanging over our collective heads…I have serious doubts that we’ve hit the bottom of that yet, and I’d guess that it’s still headed downward. Until that and some of the residual loan problems are cleared up, I don’t see a full out recovery happening.

[QUOTE=Le Jacquelope]
You can thank offshoring for this. If we hadn’t sent all those customer support, manufacturing, tech and research jobs overseas, we would have recovered faster, better, and with higher-paying jobs than GARDENING.
[/QUOTE]

You are just a one trick pony. Doesn’t matter that it’s the recession that has caused the unemployment, or that it was a housing bubble (a purely DOMESTIC issue) at the root of the problem, to you it’s all about shipping low skill low wage jobs overseas that is issue. At least you are consistent in your delusions man.

Wages are down permanently, if we stay this course. The cost of living, especially energy prices, are on their way up, permanently, unless your mythical oil fairy can come save us with her magic Disney wand.

So, based on the fact that we are in a recession, this means we will always be in a recession, ehe? And oil prices are up because of offshoring too, right? I mean, we’ve no doubt offshored revolution in Libya, and this means that we need the oil fairy to wave her magic Disney wand to do something…

-XT