Who is going to win this election in November?

[STR]

Got any links about this sort of thing? I'm genuinely curious--the labor cost advantage of developing economies (like China's) is an article of faith in these discussions, so if it's actually completely wrong I'd like to know (with evidence, that is)!

I'll see what I can dig up when I get home. Also, reread my post. I added a concluding paragraph in an edit.

But it shouldn't be so shocking. I'm sure you've read many articles about China's rising wealth. The corollary of prosperity is rising wages, which is higher costs for manufacturers.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Those additions help! And yeah, I knew their advantage had eroded somewhat, but I didn't know it had basically disappeared--in fact, I don't think most people in the US know that.

But, as you say, it's very expensive to relocate a factory, and it doesn't make much sense to do it now if you're going to a place that costs pretty much the same (or more).

 

[Tallguy]

I'll see what I can dig up when I get home. Also, reread my post. I added a concluding paragraph in an edit.

But it shouldn't be so shocking. I'm sure you've read many articles about China's rising wealth. The corollary of prosperity is rising wages, which is higher costs for manufacturers.

This is terrific. (Actual discussion.) The only manufacturing relocation that affected me personally was when Hoover relocated to Mexico. How do those wages stack up now?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

If Trump is a Nazi / Hitler, what do we do about it?

How is Trump different from George W Bush or Mitt Romney?

Someone just tweeted Mrs. Obama is an ape with heels. Which is horrible. But the outrage is no different than when anyone said anything unfavorable (but reasonable) about her before. If everything is racist then eventually nothing is.

George W. Bush and Mitt Romney, for all their faults and my myriad disagreements with their policies, were dedicated public servants who had the best interests of the country at heart, though Bush's definition of those best interests was warped at best. I've yet to see any evidence that Trump has the best interests of anyone else but himself at heart, first and foremost.

Bush killed over 100,000 Iraqis among others, so I'm loathe to compliment him on his attitude toward Muslims, but he never vilified Muslims the way Trump has. After 9/11 he called for calm and asked people not to harm Muslim-Americans and others. Romney has repeatedly called out Trump for his racist and sexist behavior throughout the campaign. Though they faced accusations of racism themselves like all Presidents do (Including Obama), it was nothing like the reaction Trump has gotten, and justifiably so.

You gave an example of overt racism against the First Lady above and then some BS copout about how crying wolf has made it impossible or meaningless to sort what's really racism from what's alleged oversensitivity. I don't buy it. Your example is clear-cut racism and it should be called out and criticized and I see nothing difficult about it, nor do I feel constrained by not wanting to seem like it's crying wolf. It's not.

BTW, for those panicking about healthcare Trump says he wants to keep coverage for pre-existing conditions. I think the wrong people are panicking.

Yes, he says that now, in an attempt to come off as reasonable and knowledgeable to Lesley Stahl's leading question, but that's no guarantee of what he's going to say tomorrow or the next day, when he can have a totally different response. That's the problem with Trump. He has few actual convictions and policy directives and comes up with things on the fly in an attempt to sound like he has all the answers (while actually just responding to the interviewer's lead). He contradicts himself on policy within the same sentence sometimes, and in a different interview meant for an anti-Obamacare audience he'll say the complete opposite.

That's why it's no comfort when he says he'd be okay with building a border fence (which we already have) in some sections instead of the massive boondoggle that is the wall. The man ditched the premiere policy proposal of his campaign from the start in a half second of prodding during a softball interview. I don't want to see the wall get built (or Obamacare get repealed) because it's a massive waste of time and money and sends the wrong message, but at the same time Trump's total unpredictability is not a desirable trait in a President. You don't want the leader of the world's most powerful military and economy to "keep you is suspense" and be full of surprises and contradictions. If I want shitty twist endings I'll watch an M. Night Shyamalan movie, not C-SPAN. He needs to stop being PT Barnum and start being Presidential, but I don't think he has that in him.

 

[STR]

This is terrific. (Actual discussion.) The only manufacturing relocation that affected me personally was when Hoover relocated to Mexico. How do those wages stack up now?

I'm not as familiar with Mexico. If I were to guess, they'd be even more expensive than China per labor hour, but transportation costs are much less. Which seems to be why companies that outsource to Mexico tend to be white label or durable goods (appliances and automobiles). Its a lot more expensive to ship a car across the Pacific than it is to truck it over the border.

Also, it's a lot easier to find people who speak English and Spanish, as opposed to Mandarin-English. That can be really important, especially if you're developing a new product and need to work out the kinks.

But, honestly, we export almost as much to Mexico as we import. The only reason why there's a trade imbalance is because Americans spend more and save less than just about any other country. We send the dollars out as we import, those dollars come back as foreign investments.

But the money always comes back here, simply because America remains almost the only place on earth where you can use American dollars. If you want to stop all those awful, terrible, no good importers, and eliminate the trade imbalance, just buy less crap and save more money. This power resides in us, not the government. The government could run a surplus, and still be only 20% of GDP.

Not that I have a problem with trade imbalances or deficit spending. I personally don't care about either.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

We already have too much saving, though. It's a big part of what's stifling our economic growth. In the past, it was consumer saving, but obviously right now there's not much of that. Instead, now it's overinvestment: people are stuffing their money into stocks, bonds, and real estate, and just holding. Companies are holding rather than spending (read: hiring).

Not that this diminishes the rest of your point, though. I agree that efforts to bluntly reverse our trade imbalance would be a nightmare.

 

[Nyotarules]

Jobs lost to overseas market will only be worth returning back to the West when Western employees demand the same standard of living as their counterparts in India, China etc...So who wants to earn $5 per hour?..hands up now.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

You might want to reread the last several posts--labor costs apparently aren't the slam dunk issue they once were.

 

[STR]

We already have too much saving, though. It's a big part of what's stifling our economic growth. In the past, it was consumer saving, but obviously right now there's not much of that. Instead, now it's overinvestment: people are stuffing their money into stocks, bonds, and real estate, and just holding. Companies are holding rather than spending (read: hiring).

Not that this diminishes the rest of your point, though. I agree that efforts to bluntly reverse our trade imbalance would be a nightmare.

And the trade balance has shrunk from $810B before the recession to ~730B now. I *never* said it was a good idea. I just said "if you care about trade imbalances, do this".

 

[STR]

Jobs lost to overseas market will only be worth returning back to the West when Western employees demand the same standard of living as their counterparts in India, China etc...So who wants to earn $5 per hour?..hands up now.

The world doesn't actually operate that way. You don't need to be paid the same as a Chinese laborer. You just have to be better equipped, better trained, and make fewer mistakes. In other words, you don't have to be paid half as much if you can make twice as much stuff.

As someone who, daily, deals with raw labor data. I can assure you not every American worker meets that standard. Shockingly, the same people who can't manage to complete high school can't manage to stay ahead of the hungry young men in Guangzhou. For whatever reason (personal laziness or social imbalance) there's a large group of Americans that can't hack it in the modern world.

Some of those people are angry that they don't get to coast anymore. Well, there are no more birthrights. You do not "deserve" a factory (or any other job) just for being born. You have to earn it every day, and part of that is staying ahead of the curve. Every industry is becoming the tech industry. Unending change and unending education is the game now.

 

[Tallguy]

George W. Bush and Mitt Romney, for all their faults and my myriad disagreements with their policies, were dedicated public servants who had the best interests of the country at heart, though Bush's definition of those best interests was warped at best. I've yet to see any evidence that Trump has the best interests of anyone else but himself at heart, first and foremost.

Bush killed over 100,000 Iraqis among others, so I'm loathe to compliment him on his attitude toward Muslims, but he never vilified Muslims the way Trump has. After 9/11 he called for calm and asked people not to harm Muslim-Americans and others. Romney has repeatedly called out Trump for his racist and sexist behavior throughout the campaign. Though they faced accusations of racism themselves like all Presidents do (Including Obama), it was nothing like the reaction Trump has gotten, and justifiably so.

I would like to see how many times GWB was called a "dedicated public servants who had the best interests of the country at heart" from 2001 to 2009 (or even up to now). For crying out loud George Bush was DARTH VADER and Dick Cheney was THE EMPEROR. "This is how liberty dies..."

You gave an example of overt racism against the First Lady above and then some BS copout about how crying wolf has made it impossible or meaningless to sort what's really racism from what's alleged oversensitivity. I don't buy it. Your example is clear-cut racism and it should be called out and criticized and I see nothing difficult about it, nor do I feel constrained by not wanting to seem like it's crying wolf. It's not.

It's not crying wolf. This IS the wolf. "Binders full of women" was crying wolf. "Anybody disagreeing with President Obama is doing it because of race" was crying wolf.

Yes, he says that now, in an attempt to come off as reasonable and knowledgeable to Lesley Stahl's leading question, but that's no guarantee of what he's going to say tomorrow or the next day, when he can have a totally different response. That's the problem with Trump. He has few actual convictions and policy directives and comes up with things on the fly in an attempt to sound like he has all the answers (while actually just responding to the interviewer's lead). He contradicts himself on policy within the same sentence sometimes, and in a different interview meant for an anti-Obamacare audience he'll say the complete opposite.

In the past year (never mind when he wasn't running for President) Mr. Trump has always been ardently for single payer health care.

That's why it's no comfort when he says he'd be okay with building a border fence (which we already have) in some sections instead of the massive boondoggle that is the wall. The man ditched the premiere policy proposal of his campaign from the start in a half second of prodding during a softball interview. I don't want to see the wall get built (or Obamacare get repealed) because it's a massive waste of time and money and sends the wrong message, but at the same time Trump's total unpredictability is not a desirable trait in a President. You don't want the leader of the world's most powerful military and economy to "keep you is suspense" and be full of surprises and contradictions. If I want shitty twist endings I'll watch an M. Night Shyamalan movie, not C-SPAN. He needs to stop being PT Barnum and start being Presidential, but I don't think he has that in him.

I don't think he has it in him either. I don't think he's ready to deal with actual reality. (Hey look, you're going to need to convince Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan of a few things, Mr. Trump.) It was a line that worked because enough people said "We want a secure border" and the response from their government (on both sides) was "You're an idiot."

OTOH, logistics aside, what is the wrong message about a wall? I don't care if we do it with carrier pigeons and soap bubbles or strongly worded letters or laser guided piranhas: If you're not legally allowed to enter our country you can't. It's not just an argument about HOW we do it. The argument has been if we should do it at all,

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I would like to see how many times GWB was called a "dedicated public servants who had the best interests of the country at heart" from 2001 to 2009 (or even up to now). For crying out loud George Bush was DARTH VADER and Dick Cheney was THE EMPEROR. "This is how liberty dies..."

Yes, well, I guess you can blame Trump for lowering standards. He has that effect.

It's not crying wolf. This IS the wolf. "Binders full of women" was crying wolf. "Anybody disagreeing with President Obama is doing it because of race" was crying wolf.

"Binders full of women" was a tone-deaf turn of phrase that people milked for humor at Romney's expense. Let's not overblow its importance here.

Also, the racist opposition to Obama was pretty obvious--many such opponents were quite blatant about it. (I hasten to add: about as blatant as many Trump supporters are about their own racism.)

In the past year (never mind when he wasn't running for President) Mr. Trump has always been ardently for single payer health care.

Given how often he backtracks, changes his mind, or outright lies on everything else, why on Earth should anyone believe that?

I don't think he has it in him either. I don't think he's ready to deal with actual reality. (Hey look, you're going to need to convince Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan of a few things, Mr. Trump.) It was a line that worked because enough people said "We want a secure border" and the response from their government (on both sides) was "You're an idiot."

The people who voted for Trump don't give a shit about "secure borders," they just want to make someone else pay for their own insecurities and failures.

OTOH, logistics aside, what is the wrong message about a wall? I don't care if we do it with carrier pigeons and soap bubbles or strongly worded letters or laser guided piranhas: If you're not legally allowed to enter our country you can't. It's not just an argument about HOW we do it. The argument has been if we should do it at all,

Meanwhile, some of us live in the real world where it's impossible to have a totally secure border unless you're willing to give carte blanche for border guards (and even private citizens) to just up and shoot people for trying to cross.

To point to an example: the border checkpoint in Berlin during Cold War was one of the most heavily militarized and well-defended on Earth. People were shot for trying to get across it unlawfully. It also wasn't a very long border. And even with a "shoot first" policy and the relatively small border length that needed to be secured... people still got across.

So how well do you think a similar policy is going to work for a border that's almost 2000 miles long?

 

[Tallguy]

Also, the racist opposition to Obama was pretty obvious--many such opponents were quite blatant about it. (I hasten to add: about as blatant as many Trump supporters are about their own racism.)

Was there anyone who opposed President Obama on principle?

Given how often he backtracks, changes his mind, or outright lies on everything else, why on Earth should anyone believe that?

I hope you're right. But if he moves to continue the ACA (or vetoes legislation overturning it) will you support him?

The people who voted for Trump don't give a shit about "secure borders," they just want to make someone else pay for their own insecurities and failures.

Well, if the people who voted FOR Trump don't and the people who voted AGAINST Trump don't, then who does? Other than me. (Who didn't vote for either of them.)

Meanwhile, some of us live in the real world where it's impossible to have a totally secure border unless you're willing to give carte blanche for border guards (and even private citizens) to just up and shoot people for trying to cross.

To point to an example: the border checkpoint in Berlin during Cold War was one of the most heavily militarized and well-defended on Earth. People were shot for trying to get across it unlawfully. It also wasn't a very long border. And even with a "shoot first" policy and the relatively small border length that needed to be secured... people still got across.

So how well do you think a similar policy is going to work for a border that's almost 2000 miles long?

East Germany was shooting people trying to get OUT. Perhaps a distinction without a difference.

No, you can't have a totally secure border. So the question is, is it secure enough? And if not, can it be made more secure? If a wall is stupid then what's an alternative?

If we did enable private citizens to shoot anyone crossing our borders (probably not a great idea) how often would it happen? If it would happen a lot, wouldn't that indicate that there is a problem?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Was there anyone who opposed President Obama on principle?

I'm sure there were.

I hope you're right. But if he moves to continue the ACA (or vetoes legislation overturning it) will you support him?

I would support his position on that single issue.

Well, if the people who voted FOR Trump don't and the people who voted AGAINST Trump don't, then who does? Other than me. (Who didn't vote for either of them.)

Given that Obama has waged the biggest border crackdown in history and that this is likely to continue under Trump, where does this idea come from that the US is suffering from massively insecure borders? That's the question you have to ask yourself.

East Germany was shooting people trying to get OUT. Perhaps a distinction without a difference.

Yeah, that doesn't make much difference.

No, you can't have a totally secure border. So the question is, is it secure enough? And if not, can it be made more secure? If a wall is stupid then what's an alternative?

Under Obama, it is as secure as it has ever been.

If we did enable private citizens to shoot anyone crossing our borders (probably not a great idea) how often would it happen? If it would happen a lot, wouldn't that indicate that there is a problem?

It would certainly indicate that Americans like shooting people. But we already knew that.

 

[BillJ]

I always find it humorous that people are worried about folks sneaking into land that we stole in the first place.

 

[STR]

If we did enable private citizens to shoot anyone crossing our borders (probably not a great idea) how often would it happen? If it would happen a lot, wouldn't that indicate that there is a problem?

With Americans being both shameless and entrepreneurial, I'd expect a Texan or 3 to immediately start arranging tour group / hunting trips for the "most dangerous game". How often would they succeed? No idea, but rest assured that enough people would pay up for the mere opportunity to kill a person and get away with it.

 

[TommyR01D]

The real question is... When and how will Trump redress the Oval Office?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

It was a line that worked because enough people said "We want a secure border" and the response from their government (on both sides) was "You're an idiot."

OTOH, logistics aside, what is the wrong message about a wall? I don't care if we do it with carrier pigeons and soap bubbles or strongly worded letters or laser guided piranhas: If you're not legally allowed to enter our country you can't. It's not just an argument about HOW we do it. The argument has been if we should do it at all,

Robert answered your other points, so I'll just deal with this.

This is the whole cognitive dissonance thing at work again. People want to believe a narrative that the Leftie president is soft on immigration and has allowed open borders, but the fact of the matter is that Obama has deported more people than any other President in US history, and more people than all of the Presidents of the 20th century combined. And he's done so with a focus on priority one deportees with criminal records rather than families (and no, that does not mean illegal immigrants are more prone to committing crime than US citizens, unlike what Trump would have us believe). If you're some hardass anti-illegal immigration person, than you should be delighted by Obama, who has always been decidedly middle of the road politically despite being depicted by Republicans as slightly to the right of Che Guevara.

Furthermore, net immigration from Mexico was zero (or a loss) for most of Obama's administration for a number of reasons, so people thinking there's some massive invading horde of immigrants pouring over the borders ready to steal all your jobs are equally delusional.

So, we already have a border that is secure and well-maintained, an immigration service which is deporting more people than ever before, more undocumented immigrants are leaving than coming in, and the "Mexico's sending us their rapists, drug dealers, and criminals" line is a racist myth. Yet to hear Trump talk we're one step away from needing el Glotónes to fight off a Mexican Red Dawn.

We're not repelling the Picts or Mongol invaders, we're not defending France with fixed defenses in a mechanized and mobile age, and we're not preventing East Berliners from leaving a totalitarian state. Mexican immigrants are just looking to better their lives and take care of their families. They're not stealing jobs that the average American is seeking, they're not committing crimes left and right since that would lead to you getting... wait for it... deported, and they're not secretly helping ISIS invade America, or else Obama, the founder of ISIS, would stop deporting them. It's not World War Sí and we don't need a logistically impractical, fiscally wasteful, bigoted in conception, and easily circumvented wall to defend ourselves from an invasion that's not happening.

 

[Galactic Alignment]

It will be. Not directly and in your face but it will be there amongst other things. That side of politics now is emboldened so more of this stuff will come out.

That's exactly my worry. And it will inevitably spread over here too.

 

[Nyotarules]

Perhaps Canada needs to consider building a wall.....