I agree with Nikki Haley

[modestobulldog]

On 9/20/2023 at 7:37 AM, renoskier said:

"sold out" implies that there was a conscious decisions and actions...

what decisions and actions did both parties engage in to bring about the downfall of the "American worker"?

NAFTA for one. 

https://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/#:~:text=NAFTA affected U.S. workers in,as production moved to Mexico.

[grandjean87]

On 9/20/2023 at 7:37 AM, toonkee said:

This is probably what she's referring to. Tim Scott did a bit on this as well.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-relief-bill-gives-86-billion-bailout-to-failing-union-pension-plans.html

That's been a point of contention from some, but I don't think it got a lot of traction in politic use given all the other relief and monetary expansion.

Haley specifically mentions Biden, the large wage raise demands (40%), that taxpayers would love the counteroffer (20% wage increase), and says "this is going to cause things to go up."  

I don't know where this lies on the political IQ scale. It probably doesn't matter directly.  

[grandjean87]

On 9/20/2023 at 8:46 AM, modestobulldog said:

NAFTA for one. 

https://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/#:~:text=NAFTA affected U.S. workers in,as production moved to Mexico.

That's appears an older union-funded take although I only scanned it.  NAFTA has long been a boogeyman on jobs, but it's really way, way more complicated.

Two things.  One, trade agreements tend to codify what largely exists in the economic situation.  The "rules" do matter and have effects, but it's impossible to sort everything out.  Technological innovation, competition from elsewhere (China), etc. had way more to do with most specific area job losses post-NAFTA (or it's new version USMCA).

Next, trade deals that change rules (ongoing process always) tend to impact concentrated areas negatively (think textiles) and impact the macro economy more diffusely.  The former is more concrete especially politically or for groups representing a negatively impacted  part of the economy.

This is a reasonably in-depth yet understandable take from 2020 w/nuances pointed out including the (relatively) minor macro changes of the USMCA (linked below).  Economists and policy wonks have been arguing the costs/benefits/dynamics for 3+ decades.  Ironically, with the focus on China rivalry and long supply chain disruptions, North American trade and economic integration is now seen more positively in these post-pandemic times. 

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/naftas-economic-impact

[happycamper]

On 9/20/2023 at 11:09 AM, grandjean87 said:

That's appears an older union-funded take although I only scanned it.  NAFTA has long been a boogeyman on jobs, but it's really way, way more complicated.

Two things.  One, trade agreements tend to codify what largely exists in the economic situation.  The "rules" do matter and have effects, but it's impossible to sort everything out.  Technological innovation, competition from elsewhere (China), etc. had way more to do with most specific area job losses from NAFTA (or it's new version USMCA).

Next, trade deals that change rules (ongoing process always) tend to impact concentrated areas negatively (think textiles) and impact the macro economy more diffusely.  The former is more concrete especially politically or for groups representing a negatively impacted  part of the economy.

This is a reasonably in-depth yet understandable take from 2020 w/nuances pointed out including the (relatively) minor macro changes of the USMCA (linked below).  Economists and policy wonks have been arguing the costs/benefits/dynamics for 3+ decades.  Ironically, with the focus on China rivalry and long supply chain disruptions, North American trade and economic integration is now seen more positively in these post-pandemic times. 

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/naftas-economic-impact

Furthermore, given modesto's posts on here, he's anti immigration. It's essentially impossible to be both anti immigration and anti NAFTA. 

[grandjean87]

On 9/20/2023 at 9:20 AM, happycamper said:

Furthermore, given modesto's posts on here, he's anti immigration. It's essentially impossible to be both anti immigration and anti NAFTA. 

NAFTA, now USMCA, has factored in labor movement and immigration in multiple ways and differently at various times.  NAFTA did appear, with new capital movement/access rules, to play a role in the mid-'90s peso crisis which led to a fair amount of immigration then.  

On balance, the development and modernization of Mexico has altered immigration flows to/from the USA.  It's happened faster than I thought some years ago.  With Mexico now at below long-term population birth rates, barring a major crisis, it doesn't look like Mexico is going to be at the crux of immigration going forward. 

[SalinasSpartan]

On 9/20/2023 at 7:07 AM, modestobulldog said:

Who is anti-union? His frequent tone to conservatives, GOP, etc.  Truth is, both parties have sold out the American worker.

Yea, both parties have sold out the American worker. But

The Democrats, IMO, have put working class interests fully on the back burner  in favor of the college educated suburban middle class. But unions are still an important part of their electoral coalition, so for practical and self serving reasons they can’t fully abandon the working class. But when the rubber hits the road, the suburban middle class interests will always win out over working class interests for the Dems.
 

The Republicans, on the other hand, are rabidly anti-worker. 

 

I can acknowledge that the Dems are bad on working class issues while the GOP is a steaming pile of dogshit on working class issues. 

 

[madmartigan]

On 9/20/2023 at 9:09 AM, grandjean87 said:

That's appears an older union-funded take although I only scanned it.  NAFTA has long been a boogeyman on jobs, but it's really way, way more complicated.

Two things.  One, trade agreements tend to codify what largely exists in the economic situation.  The "rules" do matter and have effects, but it's impossible to sort everything out.  Technological innovation, competition from elsewhere (China), etc. had way more to do with most specific area job losses from NAFTA (or it's new version USMCA).

Next, trade deals that change rules (ongoing process always) tend to impact concentrated areas negatively (think textiles) and impact the macro economy more diffusely.  The former is more concrete especially politically or for groups representing a negatively impacted  part of the economy.

This is a reasonably in-depth yet understandable take from 2020 w/nuances pointed out including the (relatively) minor macro changes of the USMCA (linked below).  Economists and policy wonks have been arguing the costs/benefits/dynamics for 3+ decades.  Ironically, with the focus on China rivalry and long supply chain disruptions, North American trade and economic integration is now seen more positively in these post-pandemic times. 

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/naftas-economic-impact

Really really good post and article. We are shifting rapidly to an era where we will be a mostly North American centered economy. Mexico will manufacture a lot because they still have differentiated labor pools that help drive costs to manufacture down relative to the cost to make it in the US. 

[modestobulldog]

On 9/20/2023 at 8:20 AM, happycamper said:

Furthermore, given modesto's posts on here, he's anti immigration. It's essentially impossible to be both anti immigration and anti NAFTA. 

I am not anti-immigration, but anti illegal immigration.  “Impossible”, pfft.  All-or-nothing is bullshit.  I see it more as a pendulum, more recently favoring corporations and in general, I am ok if things swing more in favor of employees.  

[East Coast Aztec]

On 9/20/2023 at 7:46 AM, modestobulldog said:

NAFTA for one. 

https://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/#:~:text=NAFTA affected U.S. workers in,as production moved to Mexico.

2017 Tax Act, and the 08 and 20 PPP bailouts will also enter this chat.  

Citizens United will steamroll in shortly

[happycamper]

On 9/20/2023 at 12:05 PM, modestobulldog said:

I am not anti-immigration, but anti illegal immigration.  “Impossible”, pfft.  All-or-nothing is bullshit.  I see it more as a pendulum, more recently favoring corporations and in general, I am ok if things swing more in favor of employees.  

Either you support the trade deal that turned the single largest illegal immigrant nation into a net zero immigrant nation, or you don't. This is the real world, sometimes if you want something to happen, you have to accept that your ideological purity can't survive the actual mechanism to cause it. 

[soupslam1]

On 9/19/2023 at 4:22 PM, SalinasSpartan said:

You’re neither for nor against unions. Neat! I’m pro-Union. 

Jimmy Hoffa would be proud of you. 

[SalinasSpartan]

On 9/20/2023 at 10:02 AM, soupslam1 said:

Jimmy Hoffa would be proud of you. 

Cool!

[UNLV2001]

As to the downfall of the American worker........let's look at some basics

1) Increasing profits as the expense of workers, suppliers, etc is pure CAPITALISM at it's purest form = The goal is to enrich the owners/shareholders, workers are an unfortunate necessary evil in most cases ---- Look not farther than the "Gilded Age" in the US where vast wealth was created on the backs of labor....... the Morgan, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Etc fortunes were all created this way.

2) In more modern times let's look at the rise of WalMart & their pushing vendors & suppliers to produce cheaper, lower cost products by moving manufacturing over seas & out of "labor union" America.....the push of major retailers from the 1950's into the 1970's & 80's killed off the mom & pop stores......Walmart was expert at this move / strategy ( see FRONTLINE PBS Documentary) 

3) Corporate greed increased the separation of pay gap of top management & workers https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2021/ CEO pay has skyrocketed 1,460% since 1978
CEOs were paid 399 times as much as a typical worker in 2021

Just three obvious things that come to mind........Reagan accelerated the process from 1981/89 with tax cuts, tax rate cuts from where they were in the 1950-70's era.........the rich became wealthier while everyone else got a crumb.......trump did the same thing, more tax cuts for the top earners

This has been a 75 year process from the 1950's until to day.........some democrats were complicit (Clinton & NAFTA) joining with republicans

[Nevada Convert]

On 9/20/2023 at 9:13 AM, happycamper said:

Either you support the trade deal that turned the single largest illegal immigrant nation into a net zero immigrant nation, or you don't. This is the real world, sometimes if you want something to happen, you have to accept that your ideological purity can't survive the actual mechanism to cause it. 

I don’t know why anyone would want to waste their time debating immigration with you if you have such QAnon-level crazy takes such as you believing that the border is militarized.

 

[grandjean87]

On 9/20/2023 at 5:54 PM, UNLV2001 said:

As to the downfall of the American worker........let's look at some basics

1) Increasing profits as the expense of workers, suppliers, etc is pure CAPITALISM at it's purest form = The goal is to enrich the owners/shareholders, workers are an unfortunate necessary evil in most cases ---- Look not farther than the "Gilded Age" in the US where vast wealth was created on the backs of labor....... the Morgan, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Etc fortunes were all created this way.

2) In more modern times let's look at the rise of WalMart & their pushing vendors & suppliers to produce cheaper, lower cost products by moving manufacturing over seas & out of "labor union" America.....the push of major retailers from the 1950's into the 1970's & 80's killed off the mom & pop stores......Walmart was expert at this move / strategy ( see FRONTLINE PBS Documentary) 

3) Corporate greed increased the separation of pay gap of top management & workers https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2021/ CEO pay has skyrocketed 1,460% since 1978
CEOs were paid 399 times as much as a typical worker in 2021

Just three obvious things that come to mind........Reagan accelerated the process from 1981/89 with tax cuts, tax rate cuts from where they were in the 1950-70's era.........the rich became wealthier while everyone else got a crumb.......trump did the same thing, more tax cuts for the top earners

This has been a 75 year process from the 1950's until to day.........some democrats were complicit (Clinton & NAFTA) joining with republicans

Buy stocks. Well, carefully. 

[madmartigan]

On 9/21/2023 at 8:34 AM, grandjean87 said:

Buy stocks. Well, carefully. 

I'm curious why everyone is so down on NAFTA. It ain't perfect, but it has created efficient trade between three countries that SHOULD be trading with no barriers and enjoying each others efficiencies. I'd much rather trade with two neighboring democracies than a communist dictatorship committing genocide that's an ocean away that is actively trying to undermine our interests worldwide. 

[grandjean87]

On 9/21/2023 at 9:45 AM, madmartigan said:

I'm curious why everyone is so down on NAFTA. It ain't perfect, but it has created efficient trade between three countries that SHOULD be trading with no barriers and enjoying each others efficiencies. I'd much rather trade with two neighboring democracies than a communist dictatorship committing genocide that's an ocean away that is actively trying to undermine our interests worldwide. 

It's always had a populist, critical angle from Ross Perot to Trump.  Repeating, but the concentrated negative effects of trade deals are far easier to identify.  They can be capitalized upon politically much easier than the diffuse benefits of enhanced trade. 

There are also the post hoc fallacies at work.  "This" trade deal happened then sometime later "these" jobs were lost therefore "this" caused "that".   Think about how most people process political issues and who got the most votes by far in our two states in '20. 

The following quote is from a Minnesota economist in 2015, Ed Lotterman, who wrote a news column for many years (now retired or passed?) describing economic concepts in common language.  It's about NAFTA and other U.S. hemispheric trade agreements: 

"We didn’t reduce import barriers much because they already were low on our part and had been for decades. Most of the adjustment took place on the other sides. Moreover, there were few, if any, legal barriers to these other countries making the changes they did on a unilateral basis, even if no new deals had been reached."

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/article40860903.html

 

 

 

[UNLV2001]

On 9/21/2023 at 7:34 AM, grandjean87 said:

Buy stocks. Well, carefully. 

Even the stock market has evolved over the last 40 years.........the Internet changed the dynamics & then came the on-line discount brokerages which really changed the game.

Used to be you bought stock thru a brokerage & paid a fee / commission based on the cost of the buy.......so stock holders had to hold the stock long enough to cover the fees for buying & selling (unless wanting to sell at a loss)........so people held stocks for longer periods of time

With the internet & now these brokerages that had tiny $4.99 fees or most now charge no fee, you can buy a stock at $10,00 & if it goes up to $10.05, you can sell ............easy & convenient..............it's brought more people to investing but it's also changed the market dynamics where now there's fad stocks, stocks driven by REVIT message boards 

Now the stock market is more like a dice table in Vegas........it's got little to do with actual company values & results and certainly isn't reflective of  the overall economy 

[HR_Poke]

On 9/20/2023 at 12:13 PM, happycamper said:

Either you support the trade deal that turned the single largest illegal immigrant nation into a net zero immigrant nation, or you don't. This is the real world, sometimes if you want something to happen, you have to accept that your ideological purity can't survive the actual mechanism to cause it. 

[grandjean87]

On 9/21/2023 at 12:31 PM, UNLV2001 said:

Even the stock market has evolved over the last 40 years.........the Internet changed the dynamics & then came the on-line discount brokerages which really changed the game.

Used to be you bought stock thru a brokerage & paid a fee / commission based on the cost of the buy.......so stock holders had to hold the stock long enough to cover the fees for buying & selling (unless wanting to sell at a loss)........so people held stocks for longer periods of time

With the internet & now these brokerages that had tiny $4.99 fees or most now charge no fee, you can buy a stock at $10,00 & if it goes up to $10.05, you can sell ............easy & convenient..............it's brought more people to investing but it's also changed the market dynamics where now there's fad stocks, stocks driven by REVIT message boards 

Now the stock market is more like a dice table in Vegas........it's got little to do with actual company values & results and certainly isn't reflective of  the overall economy 

There are a few meme stocks, but most equities fall in a normal, if sometimes wide, range of values.  A utility stock paying a 3.5% divvy, w/a PE in the teens and modest growth projections is one example. KO is still one of Warren's larger holdings now in the low 20s PE and a 3+% divvy.  Buffett's largest stake is AAPL trading in the high 20x, but with greater growth potential.  Then you have the really high multiple stocks like NVDA w/even greater growth potential or some steel maker trading in the single digits w/slowing earnings.   Of course, there are spec stocks especially in certain sectors like biotech.  Then you have the macro back drop that could make the market go bear for the next half decade or so.  It's not at all like a dice table, but risk is part of the process.