The Return of Protectionism

[DarrinS]

Why not blame management for accepting the deal?

Ok, they are to blame too. Bottom line is, if your products are shoddy and expensive, you probably won't stay in business for long.

Why should the workers be the ones to give up the promises they fought for?

Well, if their employer can't stay in business, they are just SOL.

And if they choose to fight to the point where they destroy the very company they work for? Well, that's their right, as I see it.

I agree.

[DarrinS]

Those Cooper Tire workers in Georgia were not members of a union.

Fair enough, but the conversation went there.

[ChumpDumper]

Fair enough, but the conversation went there.

Who took it there?

[Winehole23]

Fair enough, but the conversation went there.

You took it there. It was a gross simplification.

[LnGrrrR]

Elitist Liberals and Conservatives?

Say it isnt so

Right, I mean, you could totally take every line worker, construction worker and shop-rat job and replace it with Engineering jobs!

Man! Why didnt someone else think of this?!

You guys are totally onto something, there...

Let me think it through though...

So out of the, oh I dont know, 20 to 30 ing million Americans who do these "menial" jobs, we can sooooo expect there to be an engineering position in some other company just waiting for them, right?

I mean, thats the nd game, correct?

And pray tell, sages of sanctimony, what happens when the market is flooded with supply, but demand is lowered?

Ohhhh, your fancy engineering degree holds no water any longer because, apparently, some genius thought it a great idea to just eliminate the need for "menial" labor and make everyone a professional!

Therefore, for every engineering job, there will be something to the tune of 1000 people vying for it.

Oh yeah, you guys got this cracked. It was tough, but you solved it in two forum pages and a whoooooole lot of ignorance and elitism. How is the view from the Ivory Tower, btw?

Cmon DR... I'm sure it's not just engineers. I think we need more doctors and scientists too.

/snark

Honestly, I don't think Americans getting more educated is a bad thing at all. But I certainly don't think we should just throw up our hands and forgo manufacturing. Hence the reason I like this tariff idea.

[Winehole23]

And wrong.

[MannyIsGod]

Elitist Liberals and Conservatives?

Say it isnt so

Right, I mean, you could totally take every line worker, construction worker and shop-rat job and replace it with Engineering jobs!

Man! Why didnt someone else think of this?!

You guys are totally onto something, there...

Let me think it through though...

So out of the, oh I dont know, 20 to 30 ing million Americans who do these "menial" jobs, we can sooooo expect there to be an engineering position in some other company just waiting for them, right?

I mean, thats the nd game, correct?

And pray tell, sages of sanctimony, what happens when the market is flooded with supply, but demand is lowered?

Ohhhh, your fancy engineering degree holds no water any longer because, apparently, some genius thought it a great idea to just eliminate the need for "menial" labor and make everyone a professional!

Therefore, for every engineering job, there will be something to the tune of 1000 people vying for it.

Oh yeah, you guys got this cracked. It was tough, but you solved it in two forum pages and a whoooooole lot of ignorance and elitism. How is the view from the Ivory Tower, btw?

What are you talking about? There will always be manufacturing jobs as long as the world needs it. No one is advocating the elimination of anything.

What you need to realize is that as the world moves forward and manufacturing becomes more efficient those jobs are eliminated simply as a matter of course. It then becomes necessary for a society to adapt and find ways for those people to become employable of simply flounder.

Is it elitist that we no longer employee anyone using or making a ing cotton gin? No, its progress.

[DarrinS]

Then just don't when other companies overseas don't have to pay huge legacy costs because the government provides health care either.

I didn't and I won't.

You and complain about GM and its so called legacy costs and completely ignore the fact that other companies overseas don't have to pay those legacy costs because the society as a whole upholds the burden. GM wasn't competing with 3rd world countries paying their employees 2 dollars an hour, they were competing with Japan.

I didn't ignore that fact. It was one of my main points. Japan kicked our ass in the auto market because they were innovative and have very high quality products. They would also churn out new models pretty regularly. Their US counterparts wouldn't change a vehicle model for an entire decade! Example: 1995-2005 Chevy Cavalier

[MannyIsGod]

We're not throwing up our hands at manufacturing as a nation. Where do you guys come up with this? Its not like the wizard of oz is sitting behind some curtain in DC pulling a lever that is marked "cut manufacturing".

There are many reasons for this happening and they are reasons you likely can't stop. The rest of the world was not going to stay farmers and pheasants forever simply for America's liking.

At this point you make a choice. You either try to desperately hold onto those jobs or you adapt. Holding onto those jobs doesn't sound like a of an option unless the American worker is willing to start working for a of a lot less.

[MannyIsGod]

I didn't and I won't.




I didn't ignore that fact. It was one of my main points. Japan kicked our ass in the auto market because they were innovative and have very high quality products. They would also churn out new models pretty regularly. Their US counterparts wouldn't change a vehicle model for an entire decade! Example: 1995-2005 Chevy Cavalier

LOL What? You have never brought up that Japan having universal health-care is a boon for their companies and you sure as aren't doing it here.

[coyotes_geek]

How are you going to expend resources in the idea listed in the OP?

Let's say I produce shirts and sell them for $4, and you produce them and sell at $8. In the proposed idea, the tariff would raise Chinese shirts to, say, $6 dollars. The $2 received from the tariff would then go to American companies, in the form of tax cuts, in order to reduce their overhead.

How would American companies, in the example above, have to expend extra resources? The tariff is merely to balance the playing field, it seems, between America which has certain standards, and China which does not.

Entirely possible that I didn't make my point clearly, but I was saying that with the tariffs companies will have reason to not expend resources to become more efficient. In your example I don't do anything and just pocket the free $2. Meanwhile the consumers get screwed because the cheapest shirt they can get just went up in price from $4 to $6.

Without the tariff I either need to figure out how to make shirts for $4, or I need to come up with a better shirt that customers would be willing to pay $8 for. Either way, consumers end up benefitting by having more $4 shirts on the market, or an option of purchasing a better shirt.

Where the debate comes in is whether or not I would go out of business while trying to figure that out. If I support the tariff I'm saying I can't make shirts for $4. So which is it? Can I truly not make them for $4, or am I just saying that because me and my employees dont' want to take paycuts?

As I listed above, it seems our three options are to enact tariffs, remove certain regulations, or convince people to buy American. Which of the three policies do you think we should try, or is there a fourth I'm missing?

Like I was telling WH, it depends on the specific situation. Generally speaking though I prefer seeing companies given the incentive to innovate and be more efficient, with government doing what it can to minimize the number of obstacles in it's way. That's why I'm an ardent opponent to cap and trade. If it comes to pass it's going to be a nightmare for the American manufacturing sector.

One thing we can depend on though, convincing people to buy American doesn't work. The American consumer doesn't have it any easier than the American worker so we're going to buy whatever we perceive to be the best value. If there's two equal products we're going to buy the one that's cheaper and we don't care who made it.

[ChumpDumper]

LOL What? You have never brought up that Japan having universal health-care is a boon for their companies and you sure as aren't doing it here.

They have innovative and high-quality death panels.

[DarrinS]

LOL What? You have never brought up that Japan having universal health-care is a boon for their companies and you sure as aren't doing it here.

I didn't say that -- but I did say that these other companies might not have all the legacy costs that a GM or Ford has.


By the way, I have direct experience in losing a job in manufacturing. I could've sat around and felt sorry for myself, but I decided to put myself through school and look for greener pastures.

[DarkReign]

What are you talking about? There will always be manufacturing jobs as long as the world needs it. No one is advocating the elimination of anything.

What you need to realize is that as the world moves forward and manufacturing becomes more efficient those jobs are eliminated simply as a matter of course. It then becomes necessary for a society to adapt and find ways for those people to become employable of simply flounder.

Is it elitist that we no longer employee anyone using or making a ing cotton gin? No, its progress.

So, car tires equate to a cotton gin?

And what about those 2100 jobs lost to the state of Georgia?

We just...let that happen in the name of someone's definition of progress?

Or are these the same people who feel sorry, or worse, contempt for those who do not hold college degrees?

In a system that doesnt lend itself well to anything nearing education.

Look, you (Manny) can say "We need to better our education system if we're going to compete" (paraphrased). Which is true.

But until that happens (ie ing never), what then? Just....

...

what?

[LnGrrrR]

We're not throwing up our hands at manufacturing as a nation. Where do you guys come up with this? Its not like the wizard of oz is sitting behind some curtain in DC pulling a lever that is marked "cut manufacturing".

There are many reasons for this happening and they are reasons you likely can't stop. The rest of the world was not going to stay farmers and pheasants forever simply for America's liking.

At this point you make a choice. You either try to desperately hold onto those jobs or you adapt. Holding onto those jobs doesn't sound like a of an option unless the American worker is willing to start working for a of a lot less.

Hey, I'm doing my part! It's one of the reasons I joined the military.. for education and to learn a skill.

However, what should we do if American manufacturing can't seem to compete with overseas? Do we use protectionism? Or do we just accept it, and hope Americans will start becoming educated for the 'next' jobs coming down the pipe?

[DarrinS]

We should of course be moving towards an economy that is less reliant on old manufacturing jobs and more cutting edge. The sad fact is that we're not going there because our population is unskilled in the trades that matter for that type of an economy and its not getting better.

Agreed. But don't foret, we're always going to need people that know how to do plumbing, electrical, drywall, masonry, etc. etc.

We're not preparing our children to keep the US at the forefront of innovation, science and technology. The graduates we produce are not in the right fields and are not good enough to move this economy forward and completely away from manufacturing jobs. As much as we'd like to move into the future we're just too ing stupid to do it.

Fortunately, our country tends to attract a lot of smart people from other countries. It's disappointing that we appear to be producing fewer and fewer homegrown scientists, engineers, and doctors.

[Winehole23]

We're not throwing up our hands at manufacturing as a nation. Where do you guys come up with this? Its not like the wizard of oz is sitting behind some curtain in DC pulling a lever that is marked "cut manufacturing".

There are many reasons for this happening and they are reasons you likely can't stop. The rest of the world was not going to stay farmers and pheasants forever simply for America's liking.

At this point you make a choice. You either try to desperately hold onto those jobs or you adapt. Holding onto those jobs doesn't sound like a of an option unless the American worker is willing to start working for a of a lot less.

The transition to industrialism was more or less commonsensical, if also disruptive and painful.

What's the *new* productive base in your opinion Manny, and how do we adapt to it?

[MannyIsGod]

So, car tires equate to a cotton gin?

And what about those 2100 jobs lost to the state of Georgia?

We just...let that happen in the name of someone's definition of progress?

Or are these the same people who feel sorry, or worse, contempt for those who do not hold college degrees?

In a system that doesnt lend itself well to anything nearing education.

Look, you (Manny) can say "We need to better our education system if we're going to compete" (paraphrased). Which is true.

But until that happens (ie ing never), what then? Just....

...

what?

Until it happens we suffer. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. If this country does not have the will to take the steps to move forward then it will suffer.

Does making car tires equate to making a cotton gin? Not totally since car tires are still used a great deal and the cotton gin is gone but the fact of the matter is that progress will happen whether you want it to or not. Trying to hold it back is futile.

I think it sucks for those people in Georgia and I hope they're all able to land on their feet, but the idea that we try to protect every manufacturing job in this country is one that is simply unsustainable when people overseas are making tires for much cheaper.

You and WH both have said we just "let that happen in the name of progress" a couple of times in this thread. Its not that we're letting it happen its that we can't stop it from happening.

[LnGrrrR]

Where the debate comes in is whether or not I would go out of business while trying to figure that out. If I support the tariff I'm saying I can't make shirts for $4. So which is it? Can I truly not make them for $4, or am I just saying that because me and my employees dont' want to take paycuts?

Right, which is where I see this argument going. Heck, unless the shirt gives you a BJ, I can't see any way that American companies could compete with Chinese workers who make an average annual salary of $1500.

Let's say we took my former example, but instead of charging a $2 tariff, we charged a 4$ tariff. By doing so, we'd reserve the prices of the shirts, American being $4 now and Chinese being $8. What would be your objections to this?

Like I was telling WH, it depends on the specific situation. Generally speaking though I prefer seeing companies given the incentive to innovate and be more efficient, with government doing what it can to minimize the number of obstacles in it's way. That's why I'm an ardent opponent to cap and trade. If it comes to pass it's going to be a nightmare for the American manufacturing sector.

I don't enough about cap and trade; looks like it's time for me to do some reading.

One thing we can depend on though, convincing people to buy American doesn't work. The American consumer doesn't have it any easier than the American worker so we're going to buy whatever we perceive to be the best value. If there's two equal products we're going to buy the one that's cheaper and we don't care who made it.

Agreed.

[DarrinS]

So, car tires equate to a cotton gin?

And what about those 2100 jobs lost to the state of Georgia?

Maybe they can go work at the Toyota or Kia plant.

[Winehole23]

Also, what makes you so sure that manufacturingas a productive base is "outmoded", besides the flight of capital to cheaper conditions?

[DarkReign]

Cmon DR... I'm sure it's not just engineers. I think we need more doctors and scientists too.

/snark

Honestly, I don't think Americans getting more educated is a bad thing at all. But I certainly don't think we should just throw up our hands and forgo manufacturing. Hence the reason I like this tariff idea.

Honestly now, think about the raw numbers (which I admittedly do not have)...

The proposal, form those here, seems to be we replace labor intensive jobs with professional jobs.

Sounds great, I agree.

But wholly and totally unrealistic in every sense the word has ever been used.

First and foremost, we arent a European nation with population 40 million. Add a zero.

Second, the education system is broken, has been for nearly a century. This will never change....ever. Like as in, education has as much chance of rearranging itself to be even remotely helpful to the end game you guys propose (ie more professionals) as the Sun has of never burning out.

Third, here is the kicker that nobody likes to talk about...

Not everyone is smart! GASP! The horror!

You mean all men arent created equally? No kid, they arent. Some are smarter, some are stronger, some are both, some are even better than that.

But if you take a population of 400 million, you can bet at least 10% of them are complete simpleton morons. Look around you, you dont have to be a calc major to notice this fact. It isnt lack of education or parenting, its most of the time lack of brain power from birth. Theyre not smart, they'll never be smart and no amount of tutoring/teaching/coddling will ever change this.

To be honest, I think I am being conservative with 10%.

[Winehole23]

If we'd allowed that in the 19th century, America industry wouldn't have gotten off the ground.

[LnGrrrR]

You and WH both have said we just "let that happen in the name of progress" a couple of times in this thread. Its not that we're letting it happen its that we can't stop it from happening.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seemed the point of the OP was that we could at least ease up somewhat on the manufacturers with a tariff. Of course, if we don't innovate, we'll stagnate. But tariffs would be a way to try to at least bleed out slowly.

[MannyIsGod]

The transition to industrialism was more or less commonsensical, if also disruptive and painful.

What's the *new* productive base in your opinion Manny, and how do we adapt to it?

Well one reason it seems more painful in our lifetimes is because the world is "speeding up". Changes that took generations before now happen much faster.

The new production is in ideas. Where the industrial barons at the previous turn of the century made their money in manufacturing and basic industrial production the richest men today are those that were able to capitalize on information in one way or another. They didn't go out and discover an oil field they developed an application or invented a faster microprocessor. This is where we go from now.