The debate "Republicans want you to fight with the 3rd world over scraps and low wage jobs" was started by
January 24, 2017, 1:14 pm.
17 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 11 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
historybuff posted 5 arguments, PoliticsAsUsual posted 9 arguments, ProfessorX posted 9 arguments to the agreers part.
MrShine posted 11 arguments to the disagreers part.
PoliticsAsUsual, historybuff, thereal, ProfessorX, juniorsnow14, jazzyjay, SharpHost, Nemiroff and 9 visitors agree.
MrShine, dalton7532, nellie11iah and 8 visitors disagree.
It's true, this app once held an election. Sure I had to vote for myself, and I ride that ego high while I can, but that's just saying.
You pretendin boi
I don't think professor X cares to understand me. I feel so misunderstood as the (formerly elected) president.
not a clue what ur trying to say.
I judt busted so i feel pretty rn
man does that make u feel good about urself or something? insulting people and not even debating one thing? that sounds more useless than actually debateing.
Ur such a waste of everybody's time. U should just leave like the filthy trash u truly are.
sure man. u can believe that. though what makes u say I'm a guy. I could very well be a girl.haha. no I choose not to fight like a child and just get into a real debate.
Thats all you can do. Like a sad boi u are
and yet ur insults make me laugh.
Wow to me, you sound like a basement hobo who just hopes that god will come in clutch. YOU ARE A PATHETIC PERSON.
I'm guessing ur asking that if I thought for myself then why do I rely on God. idk u didn't really put that sentence together right. reliance doesn't mean I don't question God. I question him all the time. but I obey him because I have faith that he won't lead me astray. well it's been 8 years and He still hasn't.
If u thought for yourself, then u would rely on god now would you?
no for I always have God with me. the real secret is much harder to find.
NO I KNOW UR SECRET! UR ALWAYS ALONE!
oh professor x we know ur secret. u r not really a professor. actually he is none of those. he just thinks for himself instead of assume the media tells truth all the time.
I dislike your comment because u disliked mine. you nasty biggot, hypocrite, savage, racist, feminazi, treehugger, and most importantly trump hater and obama d@*k sucker.
I disliked that comment not because of the wall, not because of my distaste of Obamacare, but because of the Fuqq Muslims and Immigrants comment. Fuqq Islamic terrorism (perhaps not modern day Islam, but much of Sharia Law) and ILLEGAL Immigrants
WE BUILD THAT WALL #BUILDIT I LOVE TRUMP!!! ITS MY WAY OF LIFE!!! F@?K MUSLIMS AND IMMIGRANTS AND OBAMACARE!!!!!
I disagree with the isolationism. We will stay in the global market, and my disagreement with the trade war comes from the fact that China would lose more. They are a mass exporter, they build, they sell, then profit. Since America has not been a mass exporter, the trade structure does not depend on America. However, when we replace Chinese goods with American within our own, the American goods get cheaper, and China loses out on whatever is replaced. Those with the extra products not being bought gets hurt the most, right now it is not America's MO. What cannot be replaced is China's strengths, but those are few and for now some regulations on raw material, due to environmental concerns, are holding the factories at a certain level and keeping them from rising.
I do not deny science, however the environmental concerns can be grossly exaggerated. There is always a bad place to put a pipeline, and certain industrial practices can cause the emissions China does. We are past that archaic process, we left it in the industrial era, in fact most of the damage done throughout all time was done then. Now is different. The artic didn't melt in 2000 or 2013. The removal of some regulations can lower prices and yes, green energy will come, we will accept it, but for now there is plenty of leverage not being used.
Back in 2009, Obama put a tax on Rubber, so China taxed Chickens coming into China. One for one is hardly a war, but all things standing that was more of a win (which is difficult to actually calculate, but China would fear being hit with more tarrifs on escalation. Adding a tarrifs each turn would drop China, and their debt would add up faster than ours.)
But this gets farther from the actual point. Because the jobs wouldn't be scrapwork just to compete with China. I'd amend my previous statement due to outside influences to say that skilled work would more than likely rise, though I still believe that the manual labor would return as well.
China Uncensored (a YouTube channel) placed the question of a trade war as a topic. Not completely fearful of one, they were reluctant to say America would win (though the host did to play up the episode). I am more optimistic, and would suggest they didn't cover everything. But it did provoke questions related.
my only real assumption is that when trump follows through on his threats that the rest of the world doesn't just automatically give him whatever he wants. I would say this is the extremely likely result if trump does what he says he will.
so what exactly is your case? trump wants to put up tariffs to force factories back into America. this is a fact.
when one country puts up tariffs then the country they do this to will retaliate. that is an assumption, but a very logical one.
then we arrive at the conclusion of an isolated America. Trump's statements lead directly to this conclusion.
how do you think you can force companies to do something that is inherently bad for them without triggering a trade war?
Your argument relies on retaliation, and isolationism. I don't believe isolationism means getting jobs back. As for the economy? We practice our arguments to convince the other, so that one day on a difficult decision we go the right way. As your end relies on much more assumptions, and tarrifs. When exporting, there is no real competition for one of a kind Americana. At more points than less, we can sell high without an extra pin explaining why. Of course, only time will tell what happens but as the EU and the rest of European economies fall what is there to say about not wanting to sink? What of cutting away from a dependency that doesn't need to be? It doesn't mean being gone from the rest of the world, we've seen Japan do that.
To move past an assumption, you must have proof. America will stay in the lead, a lead you acknowledge.
if our economy falls everyone's does. look at the great depression. it hurt more than America. it hurt our trade partners. we can't pretend their isn't a world out there.
your argument seems to assume that the rest of the world doesn't retaliate in kind. when you use tariffs as a weapon then everyone else will too. so as the American economy stagnates, isolated in their own roped off corner, the rest of the world will continue to expand and grow. isolationism might grant you some short term benefits, but in the medium to long term all you are doing shooting yourself in the foot.
you might regain some crappy assembly plant jobs, but you tanking your economy and your spot as a world leader to get them. I hope the few hundred jobs are worth it.
Not necessarily. I acknowledge the burden, but our means of production is further along, the cost for us to make something is higher, but the quality of the work allows for a useful export, outside of the rise in competition that will take place. When you buy from Japan, it doesn't matter if it's Hokkaido or Tokyo, but in America it will because these markets will compete for the local buyer.
Wealth is also not a set value, competition drives the growth of wealth. An invention, innovation, or idea can introduce new money into the system. If we do not produce, that is not possible, and if we do not, we will always be reliant on other countries, which makes us slightly vulnerable in trade. But if we move in the proper context, trade is our best asset.
Labor is the only issue that has allowed for outsourcing to occur, and the cycle will continue, a draining cycle that will end either in change or a complete loss of value. That will take time, and is not a significant factor yet. But building factories does not inherit ly mean paying less. Initially, it will mean more jobs. If the cost is too much, people will be laid off, there will be some degree of automation I concede, but with the technologies and work with, there will be new roles to fill. And when money moves in our own economy, it has more value than in a box. The economy is not a closed system, and that is double edged.
Do we opt for an ebbing economy, or do we strengthen? The middle class issue only exists on the idea that things must become expensive. While costs can rise, the marketing reasons discussed are reasons why it can be lowered, and I don't believe it danced around the question. Also, the different means by how payments on vehicles, as provided by the example, can go over time can mitigate the effects by having a steady flow of payment rather than demands from the oversea that need guarantees. A local system can manage payments better, and allow lenience as well as efficiency in collections. Since when has China tried to collect on the USA?
I'm not sure you are addressing the main problem. you buy a car made in Mexico for 25,000. they paid the workers like $2 per day to make it.
you force that factory back into America and now you have to pay like $20 per hour. this makes a $25,000 cost more like 40,000. so less people can afford a car. the manufacturer is now being burned on both sides of this. they have to pay their workers more and sell less cars. when they sell less cars they don't need as many plants and they start laying people off and you are back where you started.
all you protectionism will do is rapidly drive up the cost of goods and push the middle class into the lower class.
Competition doesn't demand that the difference must be closed overall. If factories are built in our own country, we will attempt to populate them. It is impossible to hire someone in China, so American standards must be met. American standards won't change. Our asking price for products can always be higher for other countries, and within the country is where competition for lower selling prices can be met, forcing for efficient, but we'll paid work.The strength from money comes from the circulation of money, so the difference doesn't need to be met.
If not all factories can be filled, so be it. But as it stands now, there is a need for employment, and to create jobs for the already educated but unemployed, and so on. There is no reason they will be paid less, though regulations outside of how workers are treated isn't completely impossible, I'll concede on that. We do have the materials now, the workforce, education, and we're outside of the industrial era, unlike China. Our methods alone already keep our production means strong, the last step is actually producing.
So how will you overcome the differential between production costs?
So me pointing out your assumption on what needs to be done to actually fight over pennies, somehow it didn't occur to you that pennies are far lower than the minimum wage? And that building factories equivalates removing the minimum wage? How does that fight against my point?
Significant trade damage? I've outlined how we can be a rising exporter, being that we have the resources we do not use, and moving away from our reliance on other nations is what factories does. So why stay reliant? Your expectations on a trade war relies on the consistency of less factories, when we will be building more.
Wow, you have again accidentally argued against your own position.
You are right, we do have minimum wage laws. In order to be competitive in production costs, we would need to repeal those. That's why fighting for those jobs is a bad idea. I'm glad you caught that.
With respect to trade, you obviously have no concept of international trade relations. Lots of actions have hurt the US economy. To claim that the economy is immune to international influence is simply absurd.
That assumes a lot. First off, we do have minimum wage laws, but you'd have to argue for that to be repealed. Next, the competition is also on the workers side too, if people don't make enough money in one job they quit. Some vs no doesn't apply because when some isn't enough and some gets taken, both have not enough in the end, expect the small employment takes time as well. If you don't pay, you don't have workers, you can't make it. America is different from India and China in that respect, our workers have plenty to lean on when it comes to guaranteeing payment.
And the trade battle? That assumes America has no exports, raw or otherwise. We know we're bringing jobs back, so manufactured exports will increase, and depending on our choices on raw materials (such as the oil field in Texas) we can self sustain and exert influence. The only real action that has ever hurt America on trade was the oil embargo, and even with that we've persevered.
That also assumes that the trade, as mutual as the separation may become, will have opponents actively moving to finish the US, with no allies to the US. The US still has allies, and unless we go on the assumption they will not be supported that won't work either.
Let's pretend you are running a company. If you can pay people in India or Mexico pennies a day and cut corners on safety standards, or you can pay much higher wages in America and have to adhere to safe work practices, which will make you the most money? Why would you pay Moe for the product? The only way America can compete for these jobs is to allow unlivable wages and working conditions, or to subsidize them. The third option is tariffs, but that results in a trade war, which would destroy America's economy.
Building factories does not bring us down to 3rd world countries and their level.
Throwing money at our education system isn't the solution to fixing issues with education.
I was under the impression that jobs were not required of the people, but that should they need them they are available.
Skilled work is impossible without experience. Plenty of those with education have no means to use it, and are oftentimes out of a job. Peddling more people, with more debt, by throwing money at a system that doesn't work properly right now after 8 years of democrat rule (which oddly enough, didn't change much). What does bolster the economy, is the flow of money. If money isn't moving, the economy isn't strong.
What about creating factories has an inherit 3rd world penny creator? I still fail to see that.
Bringing jobs back, but getting hurt by tarrifs? If our own economy can't handle exchanges within itself, then why are we having money leaving the country and buying foreign? American production and exports can be on the rise, then imports won't be as harmful. Sure, maybe costs from other countries will increase, but then competition within the states rises, lowering costs of products within and increasing quality.
Some systems have to fail and be replaced by something that works. Why are bailouts considered as necessary as they are? And to speak on funding and education, remember no child Left behind? (Somewhat assuming that people here are stateside or follow closely to stateside matters)
eitherway, your trying to bring factories back from the 3rd world?
your fighting with the poor guy on the block over pennies in his jar.
is that seriously where America should be in the world?
public school won't be affordable without the economics of scale. I'm guessing most of the education budget will go into these vouchers, leaving not much for the handful of schools that now have to pay retail for their supplies.
the math doesn't add up. it's a disaster.
what about the Chicago schools? how is their funding? how is their equipment? what is their class size?
What about black communities in Chicago where education is a joke with massive dropout rates. How hard would it be to go to school and succeed in that setting?
At least you acknowledge that disaster. There is always an affordable, public school by definition. Not everyone wants to go to a private school.
so some people will be left out with no education for their children at all?
we already subsidized colleges with grants. and their costs only increased.
we subsidized medicine, and that is another behemoth now.
looks like the private sector hasn't faired to well either. the more money you feed it. the more money needs.
vouchers is just a way to subsidize formal education and will cause a cost spiral all over again.
Its the price of reform. Some people will be hurt, but there is no other way to kill failing schools.
and if non exist at that price?
You find another school
vouchers... what happens when a poor family gives a school a voucher that doesn't cover fully cover their tuition?
But some schools deserve to fall under, and those would be the places hardest hit by vouchers.
education is state. but what is wrong with federal? do you not see the massive benefit the economics of scale would bring? and if you believe our system is failing, well that would be the state run system. shouldn't we give the Fed a try?
school choice sounds awesome, except the fine print. prior this was usually a ploy to funnel money to religious schools, but currently the charter movement began.
I'm fine with charters so long as they are open, transparent, and subject to the public. the real damage comes in the economics of scale. what changes when you switch the word public to charter? a school is a school, if the public schools are failing don't change the name! change the people! for for heavens sake don't split the money in 2. that is not efficient.
Republicans want state education, not federal. We also want school choice.
Mr shine. I love your attention to nuance, but for the sake of debate, can we agree to spin of tangents into new threads when we spot them?
for now I will reply to all and wait for your agreement.
yes dems have a monopoly on education. Republicans are notoriously against public spending, education being no different. and that was during the recession. our economy is growing, it is the blue collar that is suffering. those who have an education stopped complaining a long time ago.
if we rally our people, we can let all those countries we can't pronounce have all the manufacturing they want. and your right. grunt work is not easy. and it is horribly undervalued in our society. they should be payed much better considering the costs. + it's doomsday if we don't. it's nothing to be ashamed off. but is it perfered? both the pay and the conditions? no. you don't choose grunt work. grunt work chooses you.
oh yeah, motivation is great. and tarrifs sound great too, until you get tarriffed as well. and realize that the whole 5% of the world population was not just a statistic.
that iPhone that was made in china, do you think all 600 dollars went to china? the production? no. I'm sure Steve jobs, and the many minds in apple, here in the old US of A, made the Lions share. we did. that phone crossed a 100 borders. and just cause the end product plastic was assembled elsewhere does not mean we lost the trade war. you lost because you didn't invest in your child's education. personally. US is doing fine, just not your town. because of your choice.
I suggest? education for our children, minimum wage band aid for our adults.
it's only good short term, but that's the point.
I forgot to include the assumption on closed wealth. Wealth is an open system, that can introduce wealth by innovation. Silicon valley needs laborers, I find the Hollywood aspect somewhat funny because the labor part again matches, whether it's a propsmaster or a foreman at a factory (unless you meant the delicate, delicate actors), and Wall Street? What happened to the occupy Wall Street thing? The wall street issue of making money off of people? What innovations gained in investing in buckles and dimes for retirement.
Innovation comes from understanding, the book is one half, labor is the other. Actually, there is a third piece, so it's thirds, production and prototypes, don't get that without a factory.
This assumes too many things,
So educated people are getting jobs? Last I'd checked many of our educated cannot find jobs.Also, does the Liberal party really have a monopoly on Education? I find it hard to believe.
Manual labor is nothing to be ashamed of, and isn't an indicator of education level. For more skilled workers, more money, it's not simply a dirt wage.
Moving away from Globalization? How? It isn't isolationism to get your country's people employed and to create your own products.
Grunt work is not easy. Not just that, but also there is a human element to even advanced automated processes, as the human element can fix errors as well.
I should have clarified leadership in the name. sorry about that. I hold that the base is simply being played.
democrats push for education as the solution for our job crisis.
Republicans push for their old factories back.
we are competing for factories with 3rd world nations. is that strength? especially when automation will make labor free soon anyway.
the economy is globalized. whether we want it or not. and like in any economy, some people do the inventing, creating, managing, innovating. the Silicon valleys/HollyWoods/Wall streets of the economy. and some do the grunt work.
in a global economy, the grunt work is flowing to the cheapest labor. that part is easy. don't you think that all the good jobs can do the same if a nation steps up and has the proper workforce.
Trump's plan is to punish companies into bringing back low wage jobs. this hurts the company, it hurts consumers, and it hurts the government's revenue.
basically he wants to fight over crappy jobs instead of investing in good jobs. this might be good news for the handful of people who get these jobs, but it is bad for everyone else.
can u explain because I don't want any of this.