labor costs that have dropped to miniscule amounts per man hour are impossible to compete with because they are coupled with zero health and safety codes, maximum hour workday regulations ,environmental regulations, and with MFN they can produce and ship the product back here, but to say that labor is the only factor is a fallacy. And to say that it's an Apples to apples comparison would be a fallacy. If prices for the finished product were set for sale to the people who produced them in the land where they produced them you'd see quite a disparity. MFN status to countries that allow near slave labor under atrocious working conditions in factories that are environmental timebombs is morally unjust, and should be removed. There should be tarrifs attached that protect the American work force. It's not like these same countries honor the MFN treaties with us.


your last line I agree with 100% I think vocational training in high school should be a priority. If a kid leaves school and then goes on to secondary ed. knowing a trade won't be a bad thing. And graduating a class of skilled tradesmen and women who have potential and some confidence in themselves would be a huge plus

Where do you live? Africa? They have McDonalds there too
It costs a dollar for a burger at mcdonalds (and less in many other countries)
Low income people can definitely afford to eat there and do quite frequently.
Walmart has very low prices too.

its a bad troll at this point


Who said that?


Not everyone can afford every good. The implication that they should be able to afford whatever they make is ridiculous.
People who make airplanes can't afford airplanes. etc.

Remember economics in one lesson that I recommended to you?
They have a whole chapter addressing that fallacy.


You think its more moral to legally prevent them from getting jobs they want and to make their lives worse so you can have a marginally higher wage here in america at the expense of everyone else?


Protectionist Tariffs that harm both the American consumers and poor people in foreign countries? No thanks.

Your assertion that low-income and poverty-level people don't shop at mcdonalds or walmart was ridiculously and embarrassingly false, end of story.

By your own admission you could afford to go there, even when well below the poverty level.

"Hey i was really poor once" is not a legitimate excuse to fuck up the economy or to demonize and misrepresent some of the best and most affordable options that poor people have available to them.



"This isnt fair" "thats not fair" 'rich ppl make too much money' combined with a gross ignorance of economics is not a recipe for prosperity or success.

Grossly undervalued compared to what?
I don't see you over there offering them better jobs.
But ok lets say they are "grossly undervalued''. How is banning their best options and shutting down industry and foreign investment+development in their country going to help them?


No, global trade is a boon for consumers and our economy. They can pay less for goods that are produced more efficiently elsewhere.
By your logic we should ban any trade with foreign nations as it just makes us worse off and make everything here.

You are repeating the same economic fallacies that have been thoroughly debunked decades or even centuries ago.
Your "solution" to help poor people is to make stuff they want to buy more expensive, and to misallocate labor and other resources into industries and practices that wouldn't otherwise be economically viable.

Or heres a funny story by Frederic Bastiat(1801-1850):

"You remember how Robinson Crusoe managed to make a plank when he had no saw."
"Yes; he felled a tree, and then, cutting the trunk right and left with his hatchet, he reduced it to the thickness of a board."
"And that cost him much labour?"
"Fifteen whole days' work."
"And what did he live on during that time?"
"He had provisions."
"What happened to the hatchet?"
"It was blunted by the work."

"Yes; but you perhaps do not know this: that at the moment when Robinson was beginning the work he perceived a plank thrown by the tide upon the seashore."

"Happy accident! He of course ran to appropriate it?"

"That was his first impulse; but he stopped short, and began to reason thus with himself:" 'If I get this plank, it will cost me only the trouble of carrying it, and the time needed to descend and remount the cliff.
But if I form a plank with my hatchet, first of all, it will procure me fifteen days' employment; then my hatchet will get blunt, which will furnish me with the additional employment of sharpening it; then I shall consume my stock of provisions, which will be a third source of employment
in replacing them. Now, labour is wealth. It is clear that·I should ruin myself by getting the plank. I must protect my personal labour; and, now that I think of it, I can even increase that labour by throwing back the plank into the sea.' "

Do simple clothes like socks/underwear/t shirts cost More or Less adjusted to inflation now or when manufacturing was done here 50 years ago?

Its WAY cheaper now, many if not all goods that are being produced overseas at far cheaper production cost, making the ticket price less.

If youre arguing that america Should be a more manufacturing based economy simply for its own sake thats fine, but i dont think theres any proof that that structure economy would be more profitable to the average citizen. The problem is there are large numbers of assembly and fabrication workers who have never learned another skill and are behind the curve of technology. Those are the workers that lose their jobs to overseas competition. Which is of course sad, but im not going to crow about losing those jobs, instead ill advocate more post-secondary education so that 10-12$ an hour busting your knuckles assembling parts isnt a job the average citizen wants. Transitioning from manufacturing to service type industries is not an easy but clawing at every lost job and advocating higher prices products doesnt seem the way to make the objectively better industry a reality.

Let the other countries shimmy down mine shafts and break steel out of casts, weve still got the agriculture and technology advantage to do fine without manufacturing.



so your saying that a kid who goes to a US school and gets free state paid lunches has a family that needs more help than a child from a 3rd world country? Wow, that post is beyond unemphatic. I believe it is you who constantly advocates people "step outside" and "drop their white priviledge", well im here to tell you man your neighboor getting his truck repoed is in comparison nothing to a 3rd world country. And yes they get paid shit wages compared to the us because we get paid in the us relative to out cost of living. Why do you think 3rd world countrymen get paid shit? because it only takes shit pay to live there. Do you think companies pay worker less than they need to survive? no. is it shit compared to here? yes. A gallon of milk doesnt cost the same the world over, truly step outside and youll see that a strong global economy only hurts unskilled labor, and im not going too advocate people remaining unskilled just to keep jobs here. Step the workforce up dont hold it back.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 19 2015 08:45am

'LOL PLANTS ALIENS FEELINGS SELLOUT'
yeah thats not a rational economic argument.


1. Federal Reserve
2. Many have dropped significantly in real terms.
3. Would you prefer they go up more instead?
4. there is more than just dem dirty foreigners stealin our jerbs due to low wages. For example, Higher taxes and costly regulations are factors too.


Did I say they make all of their profits from just the dollar menu? or just toilet paper? No thats a strawman.
Walmart and McDonalds do infact make much of their money selling things to low-income people. This is a fact.
Whether they make all of their money off of poor people or not is irrelevant to the fact that they do indeed cater to many poor people.

You are upset and slinging insults instead of accepting the fact that you are very wrong and learning from it.


strawman and appeal to emotion nonsense.

I've in fact identified situations, like tariffs and other corporatist schemes, where whats good for certain 'capitalists' is not good for poorer people.


How very moral of you.

You fail to account for the division of labor and comparative advantage.
There is a way all of us can be better off, and its not by setting up blockades and protectionist schemes for special interests and refusing to trade with other people.


Money is obfuscating reality here. We are trading things to other people that we value more than something else. In this case money for certain goods. Those goods are coming from outside the country and making us better off.
Forcing people to pay more for things means they can afford less good stuff that they want, and are thus worse off.

you're trying to justify your ideas on humanitarian grounds about the benefits it offers those in poor countries when confronted about your lack of compassion and loyalty to your fellow man and country, while preaching economic benefits to justify the same hardships you'd put your fellow man through so that you can save a buck

why not just drop the humanitarian argument and admit that it's all about money?

just say, fuck those people, fuck these people, i'ma do whatever it takes to make an extra buck no matter how many people i have to drive onto the streets

This post was edited by duffman316 on Mar 19 2015 09:13am

Do you think an import tariff helps poor people in America?
No. it hurts them. They have to pay more for goods.

It only helps those on the receiving end of the protectionism: members of a particular industry with political connections. It makes everyone else worse off.



Thats funny, thats what valhalls just said..

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Mar 19 2015 09:18am