World trade moves on, without the US

[ataraxia]

What, exactly, does that (bolded above) mean?

It could look like what many future looking countries are doing all over the world.

www.eib.org/attachments/efs/investing_in_europes_future_the_role_of_education_and_skills_en.pdf
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/agencies/etf_en
https://asia.fnst.org/content/5-reasons-governments-should-invest-more-vocational-training-asia

There was some effort to move in this direction here as well. I know conservatives have a visceral reaction was anything having to do with Hillary Clinton‘s campaign. But, look at these without pre-judging.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/workforce-and-skills/

Sometimes, ...no, often, the free market alone cannot do any long-term strategic planning or positioning .

 

[MrShangles]

The US, in its mistrust of globalism, and in its new pursuit of isolationist policies, decided to pull out of the TPP and other international trade deals. President Trump promised that this would help American business and workers.

So now, the rest of the world is moving on without the US.



So discuss whether you think this really will help US workers and manufacturers in the long run to make America great again.

All Trumps other trade deals are working out, so America first or no deal. And are you saying other countries don’t already make deals without us, like the one Germany had with Russia, the secret gas pipeline! Some folks are just to far gone, don’t you agree?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ttwtt78640]

It could look like what many future looking countries are doing all over the world.

www.eib.org/attachments/efs/investing_in_europes_future_the_role_of_education_and_skills_en.pdf
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/agencies/etf_en

There was some effort to move in this direction here as well. I know conservatives have a visceral reaction was anything having to do with Hillary Clinton‘s campaign. But, look at these without pre-judging.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/workforce-and-skills/

Sometimes, ...no, often, the free market alone cannot do any long-term strategic planning or positioning .

The idea that (state or federal) government can (and does) know the needed skills for (current and future) private employment better than the employers themselves fails to explain why these "needed improvements in education/training" have not already been made. It seems that the opposite has been happening leaving those that graduate from US public K-12 schools and colleges unable to find jobs.

Other than the typical liberal mantra of "we need ever more government and we will get it all right for sure this time", this plan lacks any detail convincing me that it is better than offering tax credits (or 100% deductions) to employers which invest in training/education for their current workforce. Such ideas include, but are not limited to, tuition reimbursement programs, having employer paid instructors train their workers in company provided classrooms or for offering on the job training programs.

In some areas, specifically medical doctors, the problem does seem to lie with private industry who artificially limit the number of medical school graduates to help keep their wages rising to ridiculous levels. If such collusion is found to exist (and is well documented) then the government can (and should) intervene by offering scholarships for very specific vocational specialties.

What we have now (and many wish to expand) is "free" college or offering extremely high risk (unsecured) loans for college in whatever goofy subjects "grab the hearts of" students with no idea of what real employers need resulting in a glut of folks with degrees in such low demand specialties as French Literature, Tree Frog Breeding, Sports Communication or Underwater Basket Weaving. We then express shock when these "college educated" folks end up waiting tables, stocking shelves in Walmart, washing cars or asking "does you wants fries wiff dat?" and crying about their lack of "good job" prospects or massive (and growing) student loan debt.

 

[ataraxia]

Other than the typical liberal mantra of "we need ever more government and we will get it all right for sure this time", this plan lacks any detail convincing me that it is better than offering tax credits (or 100% deductions) to employers which invest in training/education for their current workforce. Such ideas include, but are not limited to, tuition reimbursement programs, having employer paid instructors train their workers in company provided classrooms or for offering on the job training programs.

That sounds like a great idea, something I would be totally behind. But in practice, I am pretty sure I would get shot down by conservatives as being government intervention. But maybe if it was just you and me running the country, this would be a great point of compromise!

In some areas, specifically medical doctors, the problem does seem to lie with private industry who artificially limit the number of medical school graduates to help keep their wages rising to ridiculous levels.

Doctors’ wages, adjusted for inflation, have been going down since the 1980s. The rise in medical costs is coming from ever increasing technology, like pharmaceuticals, imaging, etc... I am not sure doctors’ wages are a big issue.

What we have now (and many wish to expand) is "free" college or offering extremely high risk (unsecured) loans for college in whatever goofy subjects "grab the hearts of" students with no idea of what real employers need resulting in a glut of folks with degrees in such low demand specialties as French Literature, Tree Frog Breeding, Sports Communication or Underwater Basket Weaving. We then express shock when these "college educated" folks end up waiting tables, stocking shelves in Walmart, washing cars or asking "does you wants fries wiff dat?" and crying about their lack of "good job" prospects or massive (and growing) student loan debt.

College graduates don’t have any significant problem finding jobs these days. Even the French lit majors. The election of Donald Trump in 2016 was not about college graduates being unhappy or insecure about job prospects. It was about blue-collar America feeling left behind in this era of globalization.

 

[Mycroft]

Those who fail to plan, plan to fail.

The only planning you or I can do is plan how to cast our next ballot or plan on which community to destroy to express our displeasure.

 

[ataraxia]

The only planning you or I can do is plan how to cast our next ballot or plan on which community to destroy to express our displeasure.

No idea what this means.

 

[ataraxia]

One other question: how do you pay increasingly obsolete or dangerous industries like coal to re-train their workers? Is it OK to offer subsidies for people and these industries, including management, to start investing in things like solar or wind? Or with that also be government intervention and therefore not OK? Subsidies are only OK for retraining in the same industry?

 

[ttwtt78640]

That sounds like a great idea, something I would be totally behind. But in practice, I am pretty sure I would get shot down by conservatives as being government intervention. But maybe if it was just you and me running the country, this would be a great point of compromise!



Doctors’ wages, adjusted for inflation, have been going down since the 1980s. The rise in medical costs is coming from ever increasing technology, like pharmaceuticals, imaging, etc... I am not sure doctors’ wages are a big issue.



College graduates don’t have any significant problem finding jobs these days. Even the French lit majors. The election of Donald Trump in 2016 was not about college graduates being unhappy or insecure about job prospects. It was about blue-collar America feeling left behind in this era of globalization.

I suggest that you do some research on the US doctor shortage and the unemployment/underemployment of college graduates (based on degree field) as well as the growing student loan debt situation (remember that everyone going to college does not end up with a degree or with a job in their chosen "specialty" field).

The following link is a bit dated but shows the clear difference in unemployment and underemployment rates based on a college graduate's specific degree field.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_unemployment

This link is more up to date but less specific about degree field:

https://theweek.com/articles/773304/congrats-college-degree-hope-werent-expecting-fulltime-job

 

[ataraxia]

I suggest that you do some research on the US doctor shortage and the unemployment/underemployment of college graduates (based on degree field) as well as the growing student loan debt situation (remember that everyone going to college does not end up with a degree or with a job in their chosen "specialty" field).

The following link is a bit dated but shows the clear difference in unemployment and underemployment rates based on a college graduate's specific degree field.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_unemployment

Yes, it’s true that some majors do better in terms of employment than others. But regardless, the election of Donald Trump was not about the plight of college graduates. It was primarily about the plight of blue-collar America. I think we may be getting distracted by bringing up this issue of college graduates and confusing it with the message that middle America was sending in 2016. The issue of college graduates is a whole separate issue.

 

[ataraxia]

College graduates are not the ones worried about immigrants taking away their jobs. This is not about college graduates.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, it’s true that some majors do better in terms of employment than others. But regardless, the election of Donald Trump was not about the plight of college graduates. It was primarily about the plight of blue-collar America. I think we may be getting distracted by bringing up this issue of college graduates and confusing it with the message that middle America was sending in 2016. The issue of college graduates is a whole separate issue.

The point is that "blue collar America" is not going away or going to be educated (and thus magically transformed) into "white collar America". The US is also not behind European "free college" nations in churning out college graduates - it is actually ahead. The idea that if only we grew our federal government enough then all would be well is nonsense - it is already larger than it dare ask taxpayers to fund directly and growing every year.

Trump, while using his often confusing and fragmented TrumpSpeak, pointed out a simple truth - US "living wage" jobs are being reduced and/or replaced by the outsourcing of production facilities and the importing of foreign national (legal or not) workers.

 

[jnug]

The point is that "blue collar America" is not going away or going to be educated (and thus magically transformed) into "white collar America". The US is also not behind European "free college" nations in churning out college graduates - it is actually ahead. The idea that if only we grew our federal government enough then all would be well is nonsense - it is already larger than it dare ask taxpayers to fund directly and growing every year.

Trump, while using his often confusing and fragmented TrumpSpeak, pointed out a simple truth - US "living wage" jobs are being reduced and/or replaced by the outsourcing of production facilities and the importing of foreign national (legal or not) workers.

Unfortunately trying to bring back jobs that will mostly be eliminated by automation in less than one generation is not a solution nor even close to a solution to that particular problem. Heck its not even a good bandaid.

 

[ataraxia]

The point is that "blue collar America" is not going away or going to be educated (and thus magically transformed) into "white collar America". The US is also not behind European "free college" nations in churning out college graduates - it is actually ahead. The idea that if only we grew our federal government enough then all would be well is nonsense - it is already larger than it dare ask taxpayers to fund directly and growing every year.

Trump, while using his often confusing and fragmented TrumpSpeak, pointed out a simple truth - US "living wage" jobs are being reduced and/or replaced by the outsourcing of production facilities and the importing of foreign national (legal or not) workers.

But remember, The issue here is whether open trade helps economies grow in the long term, even if it comes at the price of short-term pain for unskilled labor. Or whether the US, in the long term will fall behind other nations if it continues to cling to obsolete or dangerous technology and the name of trying to protect the short term interests of its blue-collar class.

We are not talking about transforming blue-collar America into white collar America. But we could be talking about something like retraining coal miners to become solar panel manufacturers or installers.

 

[jnug]

But remember, The issue here is whether open trade helps economies grow in the long term, even if it comes at the price of short-term pain for unskilled labor.

And we are not talking about transforming blue-collar America into white collar America. But we could be talking about something like retraining coal miners to become solar panel manufacturers or installers.

That is much closer to it. We should have been converting our skilled labor force to a 21st century skilled labor force. Should have been doing it for the last 30 years. But continuing not to do it will only set back more and more generations of Americans.

Nobody but nobody considers operating an air wrench as skilled labor any longer and nobody is going to pay skilled labor pay in this country for what is no longer skilled labor. Its a pipe dream. The air wrench operators of the future won't even be human for God sake!

 

[ttwtt78640]

But remember, The issue here is whether open trade helps economies grow in the long term, even if it comes at the price of short-term pain for unskilled labor. Or whether the US, in the long term will fall behind other nations if it continues to cling to obsolete or dangerous technology and the name of trying to protect the short term interests of its blue-collar class.

We are not talking about transforming blue-collar America into white collar America. But we could be talking about something like retraining coal miners to become solar panel manufacturers or installers.

OK, let's take a look at that (bolded above) idea. You are immediately confronted with lack of training facilities in the area - is it best to relocate schools to that area or to move those desiring and able to be retrained in the area to existing schools? You are then confronted with lack of solar panel manufacturing facilities in the area - is it best to move solar panel factories to that area or to move those few specially trained in the area to the existing factories?

A 2008 Department of Labor study that looked at retraining programs involving 160,000 laid-off workers in 12 states concluded, “It appears possible that ultimate gains from participation are small or nonexistent.” A more recent study from the Hamilton Project found that to be successful, retraining programs must be highly targeted at the workers most likely to benefit. In general, that means younger workers with some postsecondary education who are motivated to follow through, and who are able and willing to relocate to places with more job opportunities. Many of the unemployed coal miners of Appalachia do not fit those criteria.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602151/can-we-really-retrain-coal-wotrkers-for-jobs-in-solar/

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

All Trumps other trade deals are working out, so America first or no deal.

It is a tautology to say "All deals work out." - because they do. Sometimes they work out for the better and sometimes they work out for the worse.

And are you saying other countries don’t already make deals without us, like the one Germany had with Russia, ...

As far as I can see no one is saying anything even remotely resembling that.

...the secret gas pipeline!

Someone can build a gas pipeline in SECRET?

Oh come on now! Don't you think that one or two people might notice a big ditch that is several hundred miles long being dug?

Some folks are just to far gone, don’t you agree?

I do have to agree with you on that one.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The idea that (state or federal) government can (and does) know the needed skills for (current and future) private employment better than the employers themselves fails to explain why these "needed improvements in education/training" have not already been made. It seems that the opposite has been happening leaving those that graduate from US public K-12 schools and colleges unable to find jobs.

Other than the typical liberal mantra of "we need ever more government and we will get it all right for sure this time", this plan lacks any detail convincing me that it is better than offering tax credits (or 100% deductions) to employers which invest in training/education for their current workforce. Such ideas include, but are not limited to, tuition reimbursement programs, having employer paid instructors train their workers in company provided classrooms or for offering on the job training programs.

In some areas, specifically medical doctors, the problem does seem to lie with private industry who artificially limit the number of medical school graduates to help keep their wages rising to ridiculous levels. If such collusion is found to exist (and is well documented) then the government can (and should) intervene by offering scholarships for very specific vocational specialties.

What we have now (and many wish to expand) is "free" college or offering extremely high risk (unsecured) loans for college in whatever goofy subjects "grab the hearts of" students with no idea of what real employers need resulting in a glut of folks with degrees in such low demand specialties as French Literature, Tree Frog Breeding, Sports Communication or Underwater Basket Weaving. We then express shock when these "college educated" folks end up waiting tables, stocking shelves in Walmart, washing cars or asking "does you wants fries wiff dat?" and crying about their lack of "good job" prospects or massive (and growing) student loan debt.

Many of your points are valid, but I would like to point out that the START UP COST for a new medical school is in the neighbourhood of $150,000,000 (and that's before a dime of tuition is collected. The operating costs for a medical school are in the $25,000,000 a year range. If the medical school has 250 students, that means that the students would have to pay $100,000 tuition per year - just to break even on operating costs. That would increase to around $200,000 per year once replacement, upgrading, depreciation, and interest costs are factored in.

Since the average medical student in the United States of America pays around $50,000 per year (which includes living expenses as well as required texts) to attend medical school, lets say that the average medical student would have to pay an additional $150,000 per year (at least) in tuition in order to pay for the new medical school - unless, of course, you want to provide a "Socialist" medical school where people who don't have the opportunity to attend it pay for those who do.

PS - Veterinarian schools cost even more and so do dental schools.

 

[rjay]

The US, in its mistrust of globalism, and in its new pursuit of isolationist policies, decided to pull out of the TPP and other international trade deals. President Trump promised that this would help American business and workers.

So now, the rest of the world is moving on without the US.



So discuss whether you think this really will help US workers and manufacturers in the long run to make America great again.

These International Trade agreements are almost always done with the consumer in mind. When NAFTA was first negotiated, that was the mindset.
They are not made to help workers or create jobs. The fact is after one of these deals is put in place, certain industries will see an increase in demand and thus an increase in their workforce, while others will see the exact opposite happen.

The reason the deals are made with consumers in mind is primarily math. Consumers represent a greater number of voters than Workers.

If you want to make trade deals that benefit workers over consumers, you can do that.
It will mean certain products and services will cost more after a deal is put in place, but workers in affected industries will have higher paying and more secure jobs.

When you complain about NAFTA because of job losses, you miss the point of what the agreement was about.

If you negotiated an international treaty focused on employment over consumers, then you would be wrong to complain that this deal means you are paying more for commodity X.

 

[Grokmaster]

But countries like China play the long game. They have 50-year visions of where they want to be, along with detailed long term strategic plans for how to get there. Do you think it hurts the US to not have any sort of coherent, long term vision towards which they are working? After World War II, of course, it did. This was a vision of global cooperation, trade, and peace among the free world, which was more or less pursued by every administration. Is it OK to just keep lurching now like a blind mole from administration to administration, with one administration completely destroying what the other has done?

So you oppose us confronting unfair trade practices, while touting what you hope is another unfair trade deal.


Anti-American much? At least our POTUS is fighting FOR US, not AGAINST US.

 

[Idiometer]

Being tariffed out of countries with combined populations several times the size of the population here in the US is certainly going to hurt US corporations going forward. It’s not a matter of hurting right now, but it’s a matter of stagnation and lack of growth for American corporations in the future, as the rest of the world moves on and grows. This sort of isolationism, as in all cases of isolationism, inevitably leads to stagnation.

If you don’t think this time isolationism will lead to stagnation, what is different?

The best we can hope for given the current state of trade deals is that soon, Trump will be voted out, and we can hope that our former trade ALLIES will be magnanimous about our brief descent into idiocy.

 

[Idiometer]

Two comments:

1. Trump's position, overall, is that multinational agreements limit an individual country's ability to adjust conditions that turn out to not benefit that country.

For example, NAFTA allowed Mexico and Canada to buy auto parts from other countries and allowed them to install those parts in autos that were then sold to US consumers...with no tariffs. This cut out US auto makers and US auto parts makers and also allowed those other countries to skirt US tariffs that would apply if US auto and auto parts makers were to buy from those countries. Over the course of almost 25 years, this resulted in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of US jobs lost.

There was no easy way to change those conditions because of the multinational nature of NAFTA. That's why Trump took NAFTA out of the picture.​

This same type of problem will exist in any other multinational trade agreement.

2. Whatever agreements other countries engage in, the fact remains that the US is the largest economy in the world.

View attachment 67246953

The US, by not being bound by those multinational agreements, is free to negotiate the best trade deals (for the US) and has the economic clout to get good deals.

I happen to agree with Trump that staying away from multinational trade agreements is a good thing. But this doesn't mean we are isolationists. We are eager to make deals...that benefit the US...with anyone.

At $2.7 trillion, California still makes that list. Interesting.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

I just pointed out the lack of them. Without tariffs the lower cost (subsidized or not) producers will win the 'competition' almost every time. A US worker makes much more than a Chinese or Mexican worker - to pretend that makes US based companies able to compete is a fantasy (add US environmental restrictions and the odds drop even further).

As a self-employed handyman I must compete with those willing to live two or three to a small room - the only that way I can 'win' (cost compete) is to lower my standard (and therefore cost) of living to match that of the "low-ball" competition.

I can stay in business only because I have an established customer base which know that the quality of my (higher cost) work is better than my lower cost (price?) competiton. If not for my established customers and their referrals I would waste far too much of my time placing bids against those using illegal immigrant labor and most often never get the job.

So we shouldn't benefit the consumer, as the core principles of capitalism dictates, but the producers so that you can continue to overcharge your friends and keep yourself from changing careers and having to train at a new job. Because unlike what you stated, it's the opposite. Producers are who benefits, because it shuts the market off from new blood, competition and keeps it in the hands of those who will charge what they need to satisfy the standard of living they have in their heads. Like you just described what you are doing.

We should intervene in the economy so people like you can "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".

Or in other words, we need to get you a booster seat to sit on so you feel like a big boy sitting at the adult table. And while you're sitting on the booster seat, you're claiming it's via your own merit.

What all you "please fix the economy so I have the advantage for no reason at all" people fail to understand, capitalism only works if people like you are allowed to fail when a better deal comes along. And whether it's cheap chinese labor, or mexican, forcing the markets to favor you over the better deal is what leads to the chronic unemployment. As in long term. As in a handyman who draws unemployment for years while doing side jobs, and calling it a business.

It's your fault, and only your fault that you did not anticipate and switch fields. As you could have switched to a field that poor uneducated immigrants can't do, like computer programming.

If someone else can do it cheaper, and can still grow, and we can't, it's time to change to something they can't do.

Not force everyone to pay more so you can continue to exist in mediocrity.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So we shouldn't benefit the consumer, as the core principles of capitalism dictates, but the producers so that you can continue to overcharge your friends and keep yourself from changing careers and having to train at a new job. Because unlike what you stated, it's the opposite. Producers are who benefits, because it shuts the market off from new blood, competition and keeps it in the hands of those who will charge what they need to satisfy the standard of living they have in their heads. Like you just described what you are doing.

We should intervene in the economy so people like you can "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".

Or in other words, we need to get you a booster seat to sit on so you feel like a big boy sitting at the adult table. And while you're sitting on the booster seat, you're claiming it's via your own merit.

What all you "please fix the economy so I have the advantage for no reason at all" people fail to understand, capitalism only works if people like you are allowed to fail when a better deal comes along. And whether it's cheap chinese labor, or mexican, forcing the markets to favor you over the better deal is what leads to the chronic unemployment. As in long term. As in a handyman who draws unemployment for years while doing side jobs, and calling it a business.

It's your fault, and only your fault that you did not anticipate and switch fields. As you could have switched to a field that poor uneducated immigrants can't do, like computer programming.

If someone else can do it cheaper, and can still grow, and we can't, it's time to change to something they can't do.

Not force everyone to pay more so you can continue to exist in mediocrity.

Are you asserting that letting third world labor (legal or not) enter the US is a "better deal" for consumers? If so then the more the better - right? I suppose so long as you entertain the fantasy that all US workers will (should or must?) "switch fields" and get better jobs (which nobody else in the world will do cheaper?) then I should simply accept that fairy tail.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

Are you asserting that letting third world labor (legal or not) enter the US is a "better deal" for consumers? If so then the more the better - right? I suppose so long as you entertain the fantasy that all US workers will (should or must?) "switch fields" and get better jobs (which nobody else in the world will do cheaper?) then I should simply accept that fairy tail.

It's simple economics.

If China can make 3,000 shoes at a lower price, and can't make air planes. We stop making shoes, start making airplanes, and buy shoes from them. We come out ahead, because shoes are cheap, and planes are expensive.

I can spend about 6 months explaining this one principle. But it boils down to, the USA has a labor shortage in high tech manufacturing, because dumbasses think they should be done with school after high school and that the government should prop up the low tech industry that pays them 20 bucks an hour to basically pull a ****ing lever.

The whole point of globalization is to offshore the stuff the grunt work, educate our population, and have the entire USA as the upper class of the planet doing the work lesser nations can't. That's capitalism. That's the goal.

It only works if the people actually get the education, and find the many many jobs available to those people who didn't sit down in basic math and say, "this is to hard".

So I have no pity for you, and people like you, who are on the verge of being pushed out of their industries. I'm a capitalist, your cry me a river problems are your own.

And when I say capitalist, I mean actual capitalist, who uses capital to make money. Not someone with a ****ed up view of supply and demand where supply dictates demand. Which is the flavor of socialism you are pissing down our backs and calling rain.

**** that.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's simple economics.

If China can make 3,000 shoes at a lower price, and can't make air planes. We stop making shoes, start making airplanes, and buy shoes from them. We come out ahead, because shoes are cheap, and planes are expensive.

I can spend about 6 months explaining this one principle. But it boils down to, the USA has a labor shortage in high tech manufacturing, because dumbasses think they should be done with school after high school and that the government should prop up the low tech industry that pays them 20 bucks an hour to basically pull a ****ing lever.

The whole point of globalization is to offshore the stuff the grunt work, educate our population, and have the entire USA as the upper class of the planet doing the work lesser nations can't. That's capitalism. That's the goal.

It only works if the people actually get the education, and find the many many jobs available to those people who didn't sit down in basic math and say, "this is to hard".

So I have no pity for you, and people like you, who are on the verge of being pushed out of their industries. I'm a capitalist, your cry me a river problems are your own.

And when I say capitalist, I mean actual capitalist, who uses capital to make money. Not someone with a ****ed up view of supply and demand where supply dictates demand. Which is the flavor of socialism you are pissing down our backs and calling rain.

**** that.

Yep, **** those who wish to work in the construction trades to support themselves and their dependents - they should get some (serious?) capital and have others do the grunt work.