3 ms·

>shipping all the manufacturing to China. How is this related? I enjoy not having to pay $2000 for a cellphone and $500 for a pair of sneakers

NotSammyHagar 5y ago
You'd never have to pay $500 for sneakers made in the us, other than fancy designer shoes, prices unrelated to costs. You can already pay 2k for a cell phone.
ShroudedNight 5y ago
The hypothetical $2000 cellphone doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's entirely conceivable that income difference from the increased purchasing power of domestic labour would more than offset the potentially increased prices.
jjoonathan 5y ago
Yeah, but the American middle class got absolutely wrecked. Cheap sneakers don't make up for a lost job. Also, the numbers you cite seem pretty dubious. Yes, if you want to do onshore manufacturing today, it's twice as expensive, but propagating that all the way into the cost of the goods assumes 100% of the cost is in manufacturing, that there would be zero economy-of-scale benefit from retaining our manufacturing base, and it assumes no benefit to your income from the increased economic re-circulation. Those... aren't neutral assumptions. This is a separate matter from the one in TFA but the players and strategies are similar.
- throwaway6734 5y ago
  The American middle class didn't get wrecked though. People had more capital on hand due to cheaper goods that they were able to spend on other industries and services. If manufacturing didn't go to China it would've went to Vietnam or another country with cheaper low skilled labor. Long term automation will eat those jobs anyways
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    Oh? The American middle class didn't get wrecked? I'm sure all the opiate addicts on disability roll will love to hear about all the capital they have on hand due to cheaper goods.
    - throwaway6734 5y ago
      Many actions could have been taken to prevent people from struggling to adapt to a changing economy such as: * Subsidies for relocation * Subsidies for retraining * Subsidies for drug rehabilitation All of which could have been funded by the greater economic growth generated by trade. If you want Americans to pay more for goods to subsidize the cost of living of groups of Americans, make it a transparent tax. Don't hide the cost in greater coats for goods. Also where was this concern when these same issues were hitting poor urban regions throughout the 80s and 90s?
wyre 5y ago
Prices wont go up that much. Don’t overexagerate. It’s related because economists and politicians say it’s good for everyone, when in reality it’s only good for the wealthy.
- throwaway6734 5y ago
  It's good for anyone that buys consumer goods as well.

NotSammyHagar 5y ago

You'd never have to pay $500 for sneakers made in the us, other than fancy designer shoes, prices unrelated to costs. You can already pay 2k for a cell phone.

ShroudedNight 5y ago

The hypothetical $2000 cellphone doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's entirely conceivable that income difference from the increased purchasing power of domestic labour would more than offset the potentially increased prices.

jjoonathan 5y ago

Yeah, but the American middle class got absolutely wrecked. Cheap sneakers don't make up for a lost job. Also, the numbers you cite seem pretty dubious. Yes, if you want to do onshore manufacturing today, it's twice as expensive, but propagating that all the way into the cost of the goods assumes 100% of the cost is in manufacturing, that there would be zero economy-of-scale benefit from retaining our manufacturing base, and it assumes no benefit to your income from the increased economic re-circulation. Those... aren't neutral assumptions. This is a separate matter from the one in TFA but the players and strategies are similar.

throwaway6734 5y ago
The American middle class didn't get wrecked though. People had more capital on hand due to cheaper goods that they were able to spend on other industries and services. If manufacturing didn't go to China it would've went to Vietnam or another country with cheaper low skilled labor. Long term automation will eat those jobs anyways
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  Oh? The American middle class didn't get wrecked? I'm sure all the opiate addicts on disability roll will love to hear about all the capital they have on hand due to cheaper goods.
  - throwaway6734 5y ago
    Many actions could have been taken to prevent people from struggling to adapt to a changing economy such as: * Subsidies for relocation * Subsidies for retraining * Subsidies for drug rehabilitation All of which could have been funded by the greater economic growth generated by trade. If you want Americans to pay more for goods to subsidize the cost of living of groups of Americans, make it a transparent tax. Don't hide the cost in greater coats for goods. Also where was this concern when these same issues were hitting poor urban regions throughout the 80s and 90s?

wyre 5y ago

Prices wont go up that much. Don’t overexagerate. It’s related because economists and politicians say it’s good for everyone, when in reality it’s only good for the wealthy.

throwaway6734 5y ago
It's good for anyone that buys consumer goods as well.