Why doesn't the author go get some facts instead of the usual guessing? 
Posted on 12/20/2016 6:43:47 AM PST by txhurl
A few days ago, DJT, in his farewell tour, was remarking about learning that 70K businesses had been off-shored, and said he thought it was a typo, 7,000, ok maybe, but 70,000?
Tariffs are terrible, except when they're not, and have been long been necessary to protect infant industries until the rest of Caesar's laws in Caesar's world toughens them up to fly solo.
Well, I submit that the industries offshored over the last 20 years ARE infant industries when we re-start them using tariffs.
Most of the employees of closed factories are still here and could presumably start up production relatively quickly, given the venture and manangement incubation support. Once the 35% tariffs are in place, that's more or less price protection - as anti-capitalist as tariffs, but for a temporary period, until manufacturing is restored - the old employees who made widget X have the market price plus, say 25% markup to stay competitive with the off-shored company.
What will the companies who have off-shored do upon seeing their former employees hatching a replica of their assembly lines? Ship their factories back from China or Mexico the next day? Semi-unlikely. More likely, they'd try to strangle or buy out the new, tariff-protected outfit.
Otherwise, they'd have to lower their current pricing for Widget X by 35% to stay competitive.
So does the re-animated Widget X company go through all the birthing processess: IPOs, supply-chain building, etc. with the new tariff protection? Times 70K? Of course, the scope and scale of the restarts would be smaller, but wouldn't that create quite the jobs boom in itself?
I anticipate most of the re-starts would bloom in Right-to-work states, which are happily, coincidentally Red.
How do y'all see the tariff-enaction process unfolding?
Tariff ping
ping
You need the lower taxes and regulation to make it work, otherwise they’d just go out of business. It is very expensive to do things here.
Why doesn't the author go get some facts instead of the usual guessing?
One of the major global specialized plastic manufacturers is closing down a plant not far from where I live. They aren't moving anything overseas, but they're consolidating five or six plants around the country into one giant facility they just build down in Louisiana or Texas.
Oh, the lower taxes and stripped-away regulations are assumed... he’s made that *quite* clear.
And he said something VERY interesting the other day: Sessions will be looking into Senators who took bribes ‘or something else’ to accelerate offshoring, and said he ‘wouldn’t want to be those guys’ once Jeff sets upon them as AG.
That’s what DJT said, it that a typo? when he gave the figure.
Realistically, we can hope maybe only 20 million manufacturing jobs get re-shored, but there’s your instant restored middle class when it happens.
Tariffs worked well for 180 years. The truth is we never should have lowered them. During times of full employment, we should have made exceptions for specific low wage non-critical industries.
Across the board tariff elimination like we did when we compete against countries like China that have 300 billion under-employed ultra low wage citizens, is suicide.
Once the tariffs are back in we should never eliminate them again. At most we should talk about tying the tariff level to the % of working age in the work force. And again only for specific industries that we are willing to lose.
Tariffs worked well for 180 years. The truth is we never should have lowered them. During times of full employment, we should have made exceptions for specific low wage non-critical industries.
Across the board tariff elimination like we did when we compete against countries like China that have 300 billion under-employed ultra low wage citizens, is suicide.
Once the tariffs are back in we should never eliminate them again. At most we should talk about tying the tariff level to the % of working age in the work force. And again only for specific industries that we are willing to lose.
The Mobile rally where the 70K figure was mentioned:
“...farewell tour, ...”
It was —not— a farewell tour, but a thank you tour.
At most we should talk about tying the tariff level to the % of working age in the work force. And again only for specific industries that we are willing to lose.
DeVos, I wonder if she’s tasked with the Manhattan-level project of bringing trade and vocational schools up for training. Lots of new learning opportunites, especially in automation. Trade schools where you learn half the day, and work the other half until somebody hires you.
“....And he said something VERY interesting the other day: Sessions will be looking into Senators who took bribes ‘or something else’ to accelerate offshoring, and said he ‘wouldn’t want to be those guys’ once Jeff sets upon them as AG. ...”
Good point! I think AG Sessions would be a pit bull on those saps...
I’m on pins and needles waiting to see who it is, but I suspect their initials are McLettuce and Linda.
There will probably be some disappointing targets, but oh, well.
Tariffs are just another tax to pay. The problem is not a lack of taxes, the problem is too much business tax, with way too much regulations.
Jobs did not move overseas because of a lack of tariffs.
“And he said something VERY interesting the other day: Sessions will be looking into Senators who took bribes ‘or something else’ to accelerate offshoring, and said he ‘wouldn’t want to be those guys’ once Jeff sets upon them as AG.”
People are worried Obama will create a shadow government. We already have one and it is much more effective than Obama’s speeches. Speeches only work for democrats. The lobbyists turn conservative politicians into RINOs
problem is too much business tax, with way too much regulations. Amen.
Consider the weight of the following factors in jobs moving off shore:
1. Lack of educated, competent workers, eg Tool&Die/Machine Shops.
2. Income and other taxes that tax domestic production but do not tax imports.
3. Complex tax code that requires an army of tax lawyers and tax accountants.
4. Labor regulations, Environment regulations. Local building and zoning regulations.
5. Dodd-Frank, just the latest is a long series of financial regulations, complex accounting regulations.
6. Americans who don’t want to do dirty jobs where you sweat.
7. High wages here, low wages elsewhere.
8. The quid pro quo of global US companies selling overseas only if they employ overseas also.
9. Being near the supply chain and support chain.
Eg. Tool & Die/Machine shops could not find competent workers in the rust belt and moved to Asia for that reason. Factories dependent on those Tool & Die shops followed the move to Asia and did not lead it.
The way to measure this is to compare jobs that left the Rust Belt for Red Southern states vs Rust Belt jobs that went overseas an Red Southern state jobs that went overseas.
Hypothesis to prove:
No single factor was more than 40% of a deciding factor in any employer of more than 10 people leaving the US.
Among all employers, the leading factor varied from industry to industry and even from employer to employer within the same industry.
Hypothesis 2:
Until we produce more High School grads who can do math and think logically as traditionally learned in Geometry, jobs will always be a struggle.
Hypothesis 3:
Cutting taxes and regulations is the simplest and surest way to increase jobs and economic growth. Economic growth will reduce welfare naturally. Cutting the bottom end of taxes would reduce welfare BIGLY. And of course, cut welfare to corporatist rent seekers. All of this will reduce the parasitic percentage of the economy and iteratively improve jobs in the USA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.