[Newfie]

Interesting argument.

So a guy in Ohio makes $80/hr and a guy in China makes $8/hr.

Moving the work from Ohio to China gives the Owner $72/hr.

I suppose the logical extrem of your logic is that all wealth should go to one individual?

[Cog]

You mentioned the word owner Newfie. Is a non-owner of a company entitled to the fruits of the labor of the owner? Or in this case the owner's decision to off-shore labor?

[KaiserJeep]

Cog, the business owner has both Capital and labor in the game. That is a different role from labor alone. Some here would add that Capital is evil.

[Newfie]

You mentioned the word owner Newfie. Is a non-owner of a company entitled to the fruits of the labor of the owner? Or in this case the owner's decision to off-shore labor?

Depends upon a lot of things Cog. Sounds like a 6 beer discussion, each.

It quickly brings up the concept of nationality. Is a USA company who has rcieved tax benefits and other concessions entitled to forget the assistance they received at the largess of the population?

Are you advocating corporations to be viewed as stateless entities free of all taxes? If not to what extent does a company have obligations (financial/moral/Ethical) to its host company? If corporations are granted similar rights as citizens then do they not have similar obligations?

I have some half baked arguments in my head I need to figure out how to voice.

It’s an interesting discussion.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Interesting argument.

So a guy in Ohio makes $80/hr and a guy in China makes $8/hr.

Moving the work from Ohio to China gives the Owner $72/hr.

I suppose the logical extrem of your logic is that all wealth should go to one individual?

So in what world would none of that money be taxed? At a high rate, for a wealthy person? So let's not pretend it would "all go to one individual".

Also, what's your alternative? Close the business and confiscate it? Have the government steal the business and run it? Throw anyone in jail who wants to move a business offshore?

Without practical alternatives, complaining that some risk taking hard working people earn a lot of money isn't very useful.

[Newfie]

LOL, I suppose you were trying to respond to me, but I see you are bring a lot assumptions about what I mean to the conversation. Hard to engage in debate about what you THINK I mean.

I’ve no problem with hard working folks being duly compensated. But all folks should be duly compensated for their work.

A mine owner never made a dime without a miner. Automation is changing that. But the owner didn’t invent the machinery, he just bought it, and then keeps the miner compensation.

But let’s talk Steel. Let’s suppose on some Christmas Day a stealth Chinese squad snuck into a US steel mill (if they can find one) and blew it up, totally destroyed it. The squad was funded and equipped by the Chinese government.

How is that different from causing a plant to close due to price cutting?

Now somewhere down where I used to have a heart and give a crap I thought that part of being a American (whatever nationality) meant that we rooted for our side. Somewhere in the covenant of citizenship was an implied promise that we would act together for the mutual benefit of those within our borders. And folks who ignored that covenant, who worked for foreign interests to the detriment of this nations population were not highly regarded or, in when it came to national security, considered traitors.

[Tanada]

LOL, I suppose you were trying to respond to me, but I see you are bring a lot assumptions about what I mean to the conversation. Hard to engage in debate about what you THINK I mean.

I’ve no problem with hard working folks being duly compensated. But all folks should be duly compensated for their work.

A mine owner never made a dime without a miner. Automation is changing that. But the owner didn’t invent the machinery, he just bought it, and then keeps the miner compensation.

But let’s talk Steel. Let’s suppose on some Christmas Day a stealth Chinese squad snuck into a US steel mill (if they can find one) and blew it up, totally destroyed it. The squad was funded and equipped by the Chinese government.

How is that different from causing a plant to close due to price cutting?

Now somewhere down where I used to have a heart and give a crap I thought that part of being a American (whatever nationality) meant that we rooted for our side. Somewhere in the covenant of citizenship was an implied promise that we would act together for the mutual benefit of those within our borders. And folks who ignored that covenant, who worked for foreign interests to the detriment of this nations population were not highly regarded or, in when it came to national security, considered traitors.

Very good. In reality businesses used to be local or if really large regional. Today if a business is not at least covering half the USA (as an example a chain like Burger King) it is considered 'small' and big businesses range from continental to global in scope. The problem is just like Governments when they get bigger than a regional size their goals change. They go from being good members of the community because they count on the community for the workforce and education of that workforce as well as the bulk of their consumers, to accountants running the show based on maximizing profit at all costs no matter who they have to diddle over and what bribes they have to pay to get those maximized profits.

When the CEO of GM said "What is good for GM is good for America" he wasn't being sarcastic, and even though some of the practices of the company were reprehensible they were still an American company employing Americans and mostly selling to Americans. now GM is much more of a Chinese manufacturer with white collar corporate staff in Detroit that have gutted their American manufacturing capacity in favor of cheap labor with duty free exports back to the USA where consumers pay ever more for vehicles they have ever less community investment in.

[Outcast_Searcher]

When the CEO of GM said "What is good for GM is good for America" he wasn't being sarcastic, and even though some of the practices of the company were reprehensible they were still an American company employing Americans and mostly selling to Americans. now GM is much more of a Chinese manufacturer with white collar corporate staff in Detroit that have gutted their American manufacturing capacity in favor of cheap labor with duty free exports back to the USA where consumers pay ever more for vehicles they have ever less community investment in.

Yes, but isn't the trend toward less labor and cheaper labor in manufacturing more or less universal? Given how much of the auto manufacturing process is robotic, soon it's not like China will have lots of people employed by GM making cars. Within a few decades, there will be factories and robots (at GM and likely all large auto makers) -- working wherever the overall costs are lowest. So things like the tax rates, shipping, etc. may matter most.

Folks won't be "duly compensated for their work" if no one wants/needs to hire them for many jobs because robots and computers can do the work better and cheaper than any human can.

We're clearly on that road for MANY moderate to low skilled jobs, and the trend seems to be accelerating. The same robotic vision problem being solved for self driving cars will solve the problems for MANY parts of manufacturing processes and for basic labor processes (fast food jobs, for one example). This is going to happen -- the only question is "how long will it take?".

Robotic/automated labor will merely be the last step in the labor arbitrage that's been occurring since "outsourcing" jobs became a dirty word.

[Newfie]

The topic is protectionism, Steel in particular. By broadening the scope of discussion so much we start to loose focus on the topic. Not that those discussions are not valid, just that they distract from the point at hand. Perhaps the automation discussion is better in the Superfelous People thread?

I don’t know, there are so many things going on, so many changes, so fast that it is difficult to keep it all sorted out. The old ways of breaking down discussions may not work any more.

I do see a contingent arguing for maximum globalization. Complete equality of pay and living standard across the world. One level playing field. That simply will not fit in with human nature anymore than communism did. Then again I see capitalizing failing as well because it does not take care of the masses sufficiently. Interesting times indeed.

[KaiserJeep]

As we discussed in the thread "Obsolete" , we are headed in the direction of causing the real unemployment rate (presently around 25%) to increase to 75%, within possibly 30 years. At that point, the approximately 25% who remain employed will face an incredible tax burden, more than twice what we have now, meaning that the government will spend more of your income than you will.

Most of these jobs have already been obsoleted and automated. Some exist in marginal businesses which will simply fold. Others have been automated but the capital cycles are such that a couple of decades will pass before the automation is in place.

These things are simply logical extrapolations of current trends. Human labor is going obsolete. Humans themselves are in overshoot and have declining economic value as both workers and consumers. Even in overseas locations where labor is relatively cheap, automation is even cheaper.

By now, some of you should have worked your way through "denial" to the later stages. Above all, you don't want to be dependant upon the "government" to save you. Have income that is independant of the government in your old age. Fail in that, and you will die a miserable death.

Newfie, do not think that you can simply say that a solution exists. This is a predicament, not a problem, as another member defined a couple of days back. Predicaments are intractable and don't really have solutions. You can react to a predicament either disastrously or usefully. An example of a disastrous solution would be economic warfare that slowly escalates over the years. Donald Trump just fired the "shot heard round the world" in that war.

There may not be usefull solutions to the predicament of a sick economy and excess and obsolete people. Perhaps the obsolescence of the Middle Class is as close a definition of TEOTWAWKI as you are likely to find.

[Newfie]

KJ,
Intellectually I’ve pretty much given up on solutions. Solutions, such as they are, will be imposed from without.

My heart lingers in older, gentler notions.

Trying to reconcile the two is difficult, at least a problem, perhaps a predicerment of its own.

[Outcast_Searcher]

The topic is protectionism, Steel in particular. By broadening the scope of discussion so much we start to loose focus on the topic. Not that those discussions are not valid, just that they distract from the point at hand. Perhaps the automation discussion is better in the Superfelous People thread?

You're right. My bad on that.

The problem with strict protectionism is that though it may be well intended, it is counterproductive overall.

I saw an article where a Steel company (US Steel or similar) was saying that with the tariff, they would open a steel plant and provide 500 steel jobs.

On the surface, that sounds great.

But if the resulting deterioration in trade costs, and all the additional costs to people who use steel downstream does $billions of damage to the economy -- WHAT IS THE POINT of creating 500 (or even a few thousand) jobs, if it costs millions or even tens of millions of dollars per job in economic damage?

For any tariff one side decides to levy:

1). It's not a secret.

2). The other side can retaliate in a variety of ways.


I'm not a Trump basher at all. I look at issues one at a time and "grade" him on each issue -- just like I do with any politician, or the folks who elect them. (Much to the dismay of the left wing comments section for NY Times articles, where Trump bashing is constant).

I respect Trump for at least trying to make good on this campaign promise. I just wish when the vast majority of the economic experts point out the problems with his plan, that he'd at least listen carefully, and perhaps try another way.

For example, why is it (as Musk points out) that China charges 10 times the tariff for US car imports vs the US, unless the US agrees to produce the cars in China (and let China basically steal the operating company's car tech, with very little effort -- which China has a very bad reputation for doing to many industries over time)?

IMO, trying to address imbalances like that would be far more productive than slapping tariffs on a couple of metals and causing a significant amount of economic impact to many businesses and customers in many countries.

[mmasters]

The US is the front office for the world, it's in a position to negotiate trade practices.

[KaiserJeep]

It was never and will never be a level playing field, given the expectations of the American Middle Class. They expect a more than living wage, employer-funded medical insurance, retirement benefits, workplace safety, environmental protections, paid vacations, profit sharing, and numerous other expensive-to-provide things.

They are competing against an offshore labor force that is delighted simply to have regular work and enough food to eat and a roof over their heads.

As long as there is a gap in the expectations of the two labor forces, US labor cannot compete. The 25% tariff won't begin to make up the difference.

Nobody in the USA today should be planning to make a living at unskilled labor. If you do not have the temperment and drive to get a college degree, then find an apprenticeship and become a skilled tradesperson. The alternative is starvation going forward.

[Newfie]

You mentioned the word owner Newfie. Is a non-owner of a company entitled to the fruits of the labor of the owner? Or in this case the owner's decision to off-shore labor?

I think I can come up with a better answer than this, but let’s start here while I ruminate.

The owner is a US company operating under US laws. How were those laws determined? How were those laws protected? Had England suppressed the rebellion the laws would have been very different. England lost because common men fought for a new set of laws. Without the common man the company would not exist as it does today. So the owner does owe something to the general populace without whom he would be free to operate.

[KaiserJeep]

Well perhaps. However, the most pertinent reason that England did not suppress the rebellion is that it was very much pre-occupied with another conflict much closer to home, the Napoleanic Wars. Had England not been obsessed with repressing "that upstart Frog" then the American Revolution would have been a very different war with possibly a different outcome.

[Newfie]

KJ,

I get what you are saying. But I was trying to make a different point. To my argument it doesn’t matter who won or lost but WHY they fought.

Those rebels started a fight to protect their trade rights. Without that fight we would not have today’s engironment. But it doesn’t stop there. We are today fighting on foreign shores for American economic interest. We have a very long and inglorious history (we are hardly alone) of sending troops to protect American economic interests.

The point is to answer Cogs question above. Do the American folk have a legitimate stake in an owners profits? Damn right they do.

It is called the UNITED Stares of America. And we were principally united for our mutual protection against foreign aggressors.

[KaiserJeep]

Interesting perspective. You are saying even though you are not a flaming liberal, you believe that our troops and their sacrifices earn this country's government a share of a company's profits because those troops fought to preserve US economic interests?

Is that all of it, or is there more? Because it is a justification for a steeply "progressive" taxation system that I honestly have not given much thought to.

[Newfie]

KJ,

I’m thinking this stuff through as we converse here. I found I had some gut level reactions to the trade protections and I’m trying to “out” my thoughts. Put them to the test.

Let me try to expand it a bit. We have an owner operating here in the US manufacturing some product. That product is spawned and nurtured here in the US. That gestation period takes place in the protection of US borders and is the Benito kart of the benign conditions here. Those conditions include a safe work space, relative freedom from corruption, a (hopefully) law abiding citizenry, a commercial leagal system, Public roads/airports/waterways, etc. none of these things would be possible without the backing and support of the US citizenry. So to some extent the owners profits are a direct result of the effort and taxes invested by the citizenry.

If he is buying a patent process and coaitalizing it then he is buying the work effort of another man. The owner is not doing any work, he is taking good advantage of a circumstance. But the inventor, individual or collective, was raised and educated within the US and is a product of this society. He is himself an investment made by society. The society has invested capital in the education and protection and reading of that inventor if not supported the research.

For the owner to take all these advantages and then say he owe nothing back to his home country is in my mind pretty poor, to not us meaner words.

Still thinking it all through.

[KaiserJeep]

OK, I'm with you in everything you have said on this topic .... so far. But if you go all the way to "it takes a village", I am going to have an instinctive regurgitive reflex. But as long as we are talking about economics, infrastructure, and the other trappings of the US system that are explicitly defined and set forth in the US Constitution, I'm OK.

When you go past the Constitution, and talk about Federal government intrusion into Education, Property Rights, Gun Ownership, etc. I have problems.

Take Infrastructure. The InterState Highway system was a good idea when Eisenhower did it. The AMTRAK system was a good idea as well. Both should be combined into a new Federal Agency that builds a new transport system that might be rail or pavement or both, but which will pretty much end our dependance upon diesel fuel for critical transport from coast to coast. That needs to be done with 100% renewable energy.

Gun Rights is another topic. The only role the Federal Government should be playing is to enforce the 2nd Amendment, and restrain overzealous State gun legislation. If a Senabore or Congress Critter advocates gun control, they should be removed from office for violating the Oath of Office.

Foriegn Policy is an obvious Federal responsibility. But Interstate Commerce is a clause of the Constitution frequently abused.

Immigration and Customs is another abuse. The Federal Government should have 100% of the enforcement and bear all the costs. If a State interferes in this role, they should be slapped down hard.

When it comes to taxation, if the money is earned here in the US, the taxes belong to us. If a US company moves offshore, the Federal Government has no role in protecting US company assets in that other country. The taxes and the defense of assets belong to the country where they are located.

If that means the Middle East becomes a war torn Hellhole, that is what that means. It pretty much is anyway, I'm not convinced anything we can do in Afghanistan is worth our blood and money, for example.

None of these are new thoughts, are they? But a different perspective on existing thoughts.