When will former factory workers pick themselves up by their bootstraps?

[Sky High]

Read his article on it. "How Persuaders See the World". You can roughly sum it with certain words literally triggering people in certain way. :^)

Pass. I'd rather stick to discussing things related to the thread topic.

[zenkai]

Those jobs were going away back in the 80s. Its time to get over it. Even China is automating/off shoring the factory jobs.

When will these people pick themselves up by their bootstraps and make their communities better, get off welfare, and start their own businesses. Thats the American way after all!

The government has pretty much killed the small business dream.

[Bathory]

Um... no. This country had a thriving manufacturing base and middle class. Until deregulation, attacking the unions, and the cultural decision was made that CEOs and stockholders should be the only ones benefiting from profit and not the foot soldier workers. So the bosses cut wages sent the jobs overseas and we are where we are.

Greed is the answer, it isn't any other answer.

Thank you. I'm so tired of this "lazy" horseshit excuse.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The government has pretty much killed the small business dream.

People have yet to quantify this ever in any meaningful way, given that small businesse are given all kinds of exemptions from many laws and regulations. "In what way is the government killing small business?" is what I ask, and is generally met with non answering, or lots of herping and derping around throwing guesses out and making it sound like they know what they're talking about.

Meanwhile, every time Wal-Mart plops down a store, small businesses within a large area around it, a many mile radius, just board up and close. That and welfare check recipients go up in said same area.

[Deleted]

Pass. I'd rather stick to discussing things related to the thread topic.

Aren't you being astute and keen. Triggered?

[Guran]

I could be working, if there were jobs here where I lived. I could be getting an education, if not for the current form of the higher education system. At what point are you going to be willing to admit that a singular individual cannot be held responsible for their own actions and choices when the actions of others invariably affect my own actions and outcomes?

Are you truly this daft, or are you just coming off this way because you worked 45 hours this week?

If only there were politicians who wanted to make education accesible to ALL people rather than just those with deep enough pockets, right? (As mostly an outsider, I'm talking about the now famous Bernie, in case you missed it)

And if there are no jobs or education possibilities available to you, you know what you could do? Go somewhere else to find them.
Because that is LITERALLY what millions of migrants are trying to do right now, leaving virtually everything they know for a better future.
Yet the average Trump supporter seems to think that these people don't deserve jobs over them, because they were there(US) first.

And shifting blame of the consequences of your actions/choices towards others because they have an impact on you is a cop-out. First of all, its logic is based around absolute freedom, which in any society is only possible for a singular person. (as it will invariably affect the freedom of others in any disagreement, conflict or strife) Secondly, if you know you will be affected by others, you can chose to work around these new factors. Making a decision purely based on the vacuum of your own personal state without accounting for society is your bad decision and you ARE responsible for that.

It's not the worker's fault globalization took away their jobs. As a nation we should've done something to help them out, retraining or who knows what?

We got Trump because these unhappy, dispossessed people voted for him.

But isn't this the exact opposite of what those people need?
Trump wants to rewind the clock on those jobs, even though they are no longer economically viable (or so the decline in jobs would indicate)
Isn't a Dem Socialist like Bernie, who's program is to provide free/cheap education (and health care) what they need so they can move on to a new, better job?

Are you trying to argue that they arent taking jobs or lowering demand for jobs?

If you're better than them at the job for the same price, there would be no issue.
Again, being there first is not a valid economic argument, it's entitlement. If that immigrant is the better choice then why should a good business man NOT hire them over you?
Why would you want to end up paying more for products simply because they are being produced by your neighbour over someone willing to work for a lesser pay, or because the government puts in tariffs to try and bully companies into hiring/producing locally? Because let's be honest, itwon't be the management fatcats that are gonna feel that cost increase in their wallets, it'll be the end user, namely YOU!

[primalmatter]

If only there were politicians who wanted to make education accesible to ALL people rather than just those with deep enough pockets, right? (As mostly an outsider, I'm talking about the now famous Bernie, in case you missed it)

And if there are no jobs or education possibilities available to you, you know what you could do? Go somewhere else to find them.
Because that is LITERALLY what millions of migrants are trying to do right now, leaving virtually everything they know for a better future.
Yet the average Trump supporter seems to think that these people don't deserve jobs over them, because they were there(US) first.

And shifting blame of the consequences of your actions/choices towards others because they have an impact on you is a cop-out. First of all, its logic is based around absolute freedom, which in any society is only possible for a singular person. (as it will invariably affect the freedom of others in any disagreement, conflict or strife) Secondly, if you know you will be affected by others, you can chose to work around these new factors. Making a decision purely based on the vacuum of your own personal state without accounting for society is your bad decision and you ARE responsible for that.


But isn't this the exact opposite of what those people need?
Trump wants to rewind the clock on those jobs, even though they are no longer economically viable (or so the decline in jobs would indicate)
Isn't a Dem Socialist like Bernie, who's program is to provide free/cheap education (and health care) what they need so they can move on to a new, better job?




If you're better than them at the job for the same price, there would be no issue.
Again, being there first is not a valid economic argument, it's entitlement. If that immigrant is the better choice then why should a good business man NOT hire them over you?
Why would you want to end up paying more for products simply because they are being produced by your neighbour over someone willing to work for a lesser pay, or because the government puts in tariffs to try and bully companies into hiring/producing locally? Because let's be honest, itwon't be the management fatcats that are gonna feel that cost increase in their wallets, it'll be the end user, namely YOU!

There is a lot wrong with your conclusion and I am on a tablet so I can't really go super indepth. Pretty much everything you said is wrong though.

Cost doesn't go back to the consumer on anything but luxury products. The seller will put them at the price the market can bare only in the case of sustained abundance does the retail cost go down. You are actively supporting a system of slavery. One were endless replacements come in and work at wages that are not even legal to start with. They are not paying taxes nor contributing to the economy beyond what they earn for their masters.

If you want to do the whole survival of the fittest thing as a sustainable thing for a capitalist society you need to remove any and all safety needs and accept that crime and starvation will soar.

[Guran]

There is a lot wrong with your conclusion and I am on a tablet so I can't really go super indepth. Pretty much everything you said is wrong though.

Cost doesn't go back to the consumer on anything but luxury products. The seller will put them at the price the market can bare only in the case of sustained abundance does the retail cost go down. You are actively supporting a system of slavery. One were endless replacements come in and work at wages that are not even legal to start with. They are not paying taxes nor contributing to the economy beyond what they earn for their masters.

If you want to do the whole survival of the fittest thing as a sustainable thing for a capitalist society you need to remove any and all safety needs and accept that crime and starvation will soar.

The issue with the price is that, for example, right now a box of Mexican apples might cost 100$ while an American one would cost 115$. Imposing a tarrif would up the price of the Mexican to 120$ so people would start buying the American one, but that's still 15$ extra you're paying as consumer, because the cheapest option is blocked by the government. Then again, maybe Canadian apples are 110$ so you'll not only end up with 10$ extra, but no jobs gained in the US as a result. Sellers will often not sell at all if it is a loss, so the market price tends to go up if the current/cheapest version is removed as a possibility.

You're also putting words into my mouth as at no point do I condone slavery or suggest that those migrant workers are not or should not be paying taxes. What you're talking about is abuse of workers without legal documentation and quite often including human trafficking as well (apparently from a mythical place of an endless supply of willing laborers wanting to get into the US). I'm completely against any and all such practices. Yet that does not mean I'm opposed to legal migrants willing to do a minimum wage job (including taxes) to build themselves a better life than they could have in their country of origin, especially not when a native citizen is not willing to do so because they have to move/educate themselves, just like the migrant would. (and as an extra need to learn english as well)

The main arguments I see from those blue collar workers having lost their jobs is:
a) An immigrant took their job (usually because they get paid less)
b) The company moved the job to another nation with cheaper labor (usually because they can go below the US minimum wage there or because they can not find enough people in the US willing to work for less in these jobs)
If you're gonna close your borders to prevent (a), an increase in (b) will happen. If you're also threatening sanctions if they do (b), the companies are usually left 2 choices: Either stay and increase prices to compensate the higher wages or leave anyway and compensate tarrifs.
Remember that certain industries also have large export values. If other nations start to counter with their own tarrifs, it might actually be more beneficial for those companies to move to a less protectionist nation and simply sell less on the US market than see their global sales diminish.

I'm gonna agree with Hubcap here; the government, as the leading body of the nation, should have done something to help these people. In Europe, this includes fair wages, relatively cheap education, (registration fees are usually under 1k per year with the rest being subsidized by the government, boarding costs are about 4-5k per year for a decent room, with student loans being ~2-5% interest and having a 5y freeze after graduation where I live) extra tax benefits and paid leave for education while working on top of schooling for the unemployed, especially for jobs with a shortage. And while these things all cost tax money, virtually all studies I've read on them indicate that there would be a larger economic loss if these systems were cut as well as increasing the gap between the rich and the poor, even though it doesn't always directly seem to work that way.
This is what Trump is selling right now, the simplistic view of taxes=bad, while the more complicated reality is that tax cuts generally benefit the rich more than the poor.

[primalmatter]

The issue with the price is that, for example, right now a box of Mexican apples might cost 100$ while an American one would cost 115$. Imposing a tarrif would up the price of the Mexican to 120$ so people would start buying the American one, but that's still 15$ extra you're paying as consumer, because the cheapest option is blocked by the government. Then again, maybe Canadian apples are 110$ so you'll not only end up with 10$ extra, but no jobs gained in the US as a result. Sellers will often not sell at all if it is a loss, so the market price tends to go up if the current/cheapest version is removed as a possibility.

You're also putting words into my mouth as at no point do I condone slavery or suggest that those migrant workers are not or should not be paying taxes. What you're talking about is abuse of workers without legal documentation and quite often including human trafficking as well (apparently from a mythical place of an endless supply of willing laborers wanting to get into the US). I'm completely against any and all such practices. Yet that does not mean I'm opposed to legal migrants willing to do a minimum wage job (including taxes) to build themselves a better life than they could have in their country of origin, especially not when a native citizen is not willing to do so because they have to move/educate themselves, just like the migrant would. (and as an extra need to learn english as well)

The main arguments I see from those blue collar workers having lost their jobs is:
a) An immigrant took their job (usually because they get paid less)
b) The company moved the job to another nation with cheaper labor (usually because they can go below the US minimum wage there or because they can not find enough people in the US willing to work for less in these jobs)
If you're gonna close your borders to prevent (a), an increase in (b) will happen. If you're also threatening sanctions if they do (b), the companies are usually left 2 choices: Either stay and increase prices to compensate the higher wages or leave anyway and compensate tarrifs.
Remember that certain industries also have large export values. If other nations start to counter with their own tarrifs, it might actually be more beneficial for those companies to move to a less protectionist nation and simply sell less on the US market than see their global sales diminish.

I'm gonna agree with Hubcap here; the government, as the leading body of the nation, should have done something to help these people. In Europe, this includes fair wages, relatively cheap education, (registration fees are usually under 1k per year with the rest being subsidized by the government, boarding costs are about 4-5k per year for a decent room, with student loans being ~2-5% interest and having a 5y freeze after graduation where I live) extra tax benefits and paid leave for education while working on top of schooling for the unemployed, especially for jobs with a shortage. And while these things all cost tax money, virtually all studies I've read on them indicate that there would be a larger economic loss if these systems were cut as well as increasing the gap between the rich and the poor, even though it doesn't always directly seem to work that way.
This is what Trump is selling right now, the simplistic view of taxes=bad, while the more complicated reality is that tax cuts generally benefit the rich more than the poor.

It is two ways of dealing with the problem. Tarrifs and anti immigration is the quickest and most direct way. I do not share your beliefs I believe all imigrants must have a skill that is hard to find in the market to be accepted as a citizen if we gain another minimum wage worker all we have managed to do is increase our own poverty and depress the spending power of our own citizens.

I am actually for taxes in most cases. Does every dollar in taxes go to something I support? No of course not but enough of it does that I do understand them as a benefit.

[pfbe]

If you're gonna close your borders to prevent (a), an increase in (b) will happen. If you're also threatening sanctions if they do (b), the companies are usually left 2 choices: Either stay and increase prices to compensate the higher wages or leave anyway and compensate tarrifs.
Remember that certain industries also have large export values. If other nations start to counter with their own tarrifs, it might actually be more beneficial for those companies to move to a less protectionist nation and simply sell less on the US market than see their global sales diminish.

There is more to the functioning of industry than labor costs. For example, China has a far more lax view of intellectual property, trademarks or patents. While in the US the cost of doing business includes a myriad of expenses related to the legal protection of your business and brand, as well as quality assurance, customer protection, worker protection, etc, in China and other nations there are far fewer such concerns for businesses, far less of a legal and tax burden on doing business (even after you account for all the corruption).

Likewise, the cumulative effects of the geographical shift in industrial production of the past couple decades manifest themselves in other ways, such as more streamlined supply chains, more competition in the construction of industrial facilities (and other related areas) which make the creation of new businesses cheaper, power is cheaper because of coal plants, etc.

It's a LOT of things which make it attractive to take production and jobs abroad, it isn't just a matter of wages or labor related issues. Or, in other words, it isn't just that Americans aren't willing to earn less and live poorer lives for the sake of competing with other nations, it's that Americans aren't also willing to deregulate industry, or willing to saturate their land and water with pollution, or willing to overlook legal constructs like IP, etc. Basically, Americans aren't willing to give up what separates them from a third world nation, and that has its costs. Now, if only people would be honest about it, we could do without the fear-mongering from the right and the "they're all a bunch of hitlers" from the left.

[Guran]

Basically, Americans aren't willing to give up what separates them from a third world nation, and that has its costs. Now, if only people would be honest about it, we could do without the fear-mongering from the right and the "they're all a bunch of hitlers" from the left.

I'm gonna be really short around the bend here and say that the main thing USers(*) aren't willing to give up is their view of freedom. (being the unlimited version vs the European "your freedom ends where the other's begins" kind) My entire life, the US has, in terms of EU stand points, been either right or very right, never left. Their entire government seems to (currently) work towards removing any and all restrictions on personal development, regardless of the growth of the nation as a whole. Now, this may be a bit hypocratic for a nation built on migrants, but i wasn't around 250 years ago, so I can't really tell what the thought behind the US constitution (which, by the way, is the most vague legal document written in the history of mankind ever) was. But regardless of the democratic choice of the people, which I do try to respect, I'm mostly concerned with the end result biting them, and every one else in the world, in the proverbial behind and help those that wish to avoid it.
And while Trump has some major differences with Hitler, they were both populists, and from my grandfather's stories, I've learned more than I wanted to about the dangers of populist 'democratic electives' abusing their gained power. 'Luckily' Trump's goal is not to start WW3, but to fill his own pockets. (atleast it is from my PoV) But that just means that he's going to suck the economy dry for the enrichment of the entitled few and as the US is still a major global power, that affects us all on this tiny little dustspeck, if you want it or not.



(*) No offense, but especially now, for a more protectionist, individual-first type of nation, USers sounds so much more correct than the term 'Americans'.

[Delana]

The sad thing is republicans are more pro-trade than democrats until Trump came along TPP had the support of the majority of republicans in congress.

If you haven't been paying attention. This cycle involved a major realignment with the RNC adopting a platform that benefits the people that actually vote for the RNC (middle class, middle American, white people).

[Draco-Onis]

If you haven't been paying attention. This cycle involved a major realignment with the RNC adopting a platform that benefits the people that actually vote for the RNC (middle class, middle American, white people).

Trump had his platform and the RNC kept theirs, you can look it up the same talking points are still up. The senators that ran on the same platform they always ran and basically had a love / hate relationship with Trump. Now that Trump is elected aside from a few fringe issue he has reversed course on a lot of things to adopt the GOP's platform not the other way around.

[Elegiac]

If you haven't been paying attention. This cycle involved a major realignment with the RNC adopting a platform that benefits the people that actually vote for the RNC (middle class, middle American, white people).

No, it didn't. The Republican party has exactly the same policies they did before the election, the difference is they hitched their wagon to the horse of a screaming carrot demon whose policy is based entirely on talking points who has not one iota of the competence necessary to carry them out in an effective manner.

[pfbe]

a nation built on migrants

This comes up a lot, the idea that the US should be this way or that way because it was built on migration. "because we're a nation of migrants, we should be welcoming and accommodating of immigrants" or something along those lines.

you see, because the US was so heavily built on migration, migrant communities have always faced hardship upon arriving, and for a period of time thereafter - until they're subsumed by the existing culture. It didn't start now, it didn't start when you or I were born, or when fox news started broadcasting, or when 9/11 happened - it was always this way. The jews, the italians, the irish, the chinese, etc. They all went through the usual process of:

• starting out feeling out of place and disconnected from the host society
• bunching up in certain areas with other migrants for protection (against poverty, isolation, insecurity, etc.)
• suffering the backlash that comes with their "rejection" of integration
• then slowly integrating until tensions fade into history, usually over the course of multiple generations

Could we do better? Could we not welcome all people with open arms and bend over backwards to make them feel at home? Well, sure we could, but we never did before, and that's my point. It's hardly appropriate to paint things the way they are now as some deviation from the norm, as some unfortunate forgetfulness on the part of modern America of how it once was a shining beacon of migrant accommodation and integration. It never was.

[Deleted]

Trump have made millions of jobs with all the salt mining going on. You are WELCOME.

[Zan15]

The government has pretty much killed the small business dream.

yup with lax rules and enforcement of competition, they have handed full control of most markets to corporations.
small business has no chance


as Sam Kinison once said with one word changed "MOVE TO WHERE THE FUCKING JOBS ARE" word replaced...food/jobs.

going to sit there and hope coal comes back, hope manufacturing comes back....pathetic