Buy American?

I do not accept your premise that an Iphone MUST cost $1200 if made in the USA.
Whatever that higher dollar amount is, whether it's $50 more, $100 more, or a $1000 more, that additional cost comes at the expense of some other opportunity. The higher the opportunity costs, the slower the economic growth (or the greater the decline).

The outsourcing of more American jobs is not going to help matters.
So the plan to stop that is what... A bigger more coercive government? And all to tackle a "problem" that accounts for about 2% of total US job loss? The overwhelming majority of US jobs that are lost are due to technological advancements.

The point is outsourcing hurts millions of Americans who no longer have access to good paying jobs.
If you really want to have an impact in trying to "save US jobs", you'd be much better off pushing for the US to abandon technological advancements. Outsourcing is responsible for just 2% of job loss. Other, less publicized, causes account for the remaining 98%. What the public discussion on outsourcing is desperately missing is a rational perspective.
 
Werbung:
Whatever that higher dollar amount is, whether it's $50 more, $100 more, or a $1000 more, that additional cost comes at the expense of some other opportunity. The higher the opportunity costs, the slower the economic growth (or the greater the decline).


So the plan to stop that is what... A bigger more coercive government? And all to tackle a "problem" that accounts for about 2% of total US job loss? The overwhelming majority of US jobs that are lost are due to technological advancements.


If you really want to have an impact in trying to "save US jobs", you'd be much better off pushing for the US to abandon technological advancements. Outsourcing is responsible for just 2% of job loss. Other, less publicized, causes account for the remaining 98%. What the public discussion on outsourcing is desperately missing is a rational perspective.

Why make anything in America if you can obtain cheaper labor, less regulations, and lower taxation elsewhere? Your free market analysis would tell you to move ALL jobs out of the country. That will help Americans buy everything cheaper right? Only Americans will have no money to buy anything. Taken to its extreme, outsourcing kills the American economy resulting in third world conditions.

And don't think that the Chinese and enemies within our own nation don't know this. Many on the Left, our president included, see economics as a zero sum game. They believe Americans have it too good and have STOLEN wealth from poor nations, to become rich. We know this thinking is cockeyed, like most things the left believes, but it is real and the left is in power. The left loves destroying American jobs, while expanding jobs in third world nations.

Secondly, you indicate you work in food service. If Americans can't find jobs here, they won't be patronizing your restaurant resulting in you losing your job. The snow ball affect.

The problem all comes back to the actions of our government. They are responsible for making American business less competitive. We do not need more government as you claim I am asserting, we need LESS government. Unfortunately we are getting MORE government which will only make American business even more noncompetitive. Obamacare is a prefect example.

Your free market analysis assumes free market capitalism exists. You know it does not. We live under a criminal corrupt Kleptocracy.

Can you provide proof that outsourcing has only cost America 2% of it's jobs?
 
If you really want to have an impact in trying to "save US jobs", you'd be much better off pushing for the US to abandon technological advancements. Outsourcing is responsible for just 2% of job loss. Other, less publicized, causes account for the remaining 98%. What the public discussion on outsourcing is desperately missing is a rational perspective.
Additionally, since one cannot hold back the inevitable flood of change the BEST thing we can do is be ready to adapt to change. That means rather than trying to save the jobs of the typewriter manufacturing workers that they are prepared to move into other industries when theirs tank.
 
You've all seen the bumper stickers:

Save US jobs, BUY AMERICAN!

At first glance such slogans have appeal, it's patriotic to support US products and it helps the US economy... Or does it?

Let's apply some "honesty in advertising" to that slogan:

Lower your standard of living, BUY AMERICAN!

How do you feel about that slogan now? Suddenly it's not so appealing.

Here's just one example from my real life situation: I buy plain white T-Shirts for both of my part time jobs and, because I'm in foodservice, they don't last long, so I buy a couple dozen every year. I usually buy them from a bin in Walgreens where they are 4 for $10 and they come from a myriad of countries like Jordan, Philippines, China, etc. If I were to spend that $10 on a T-shirt made in the USA, like this plain white T-Shirt from American Apparel, I'd get less than half of ONE shirt - MSRP $22

Because I have access to cheap foreign goods, my standard of living is higher than it would otherwise be. To purchase 4 US made shirts would cost me $88 vs. the $10 it costs me to buy the foreign made shirts, that's a savings of $78.

But is my purchase helping the US economy? Yes!

What people often do not consider when complaining about cheap foreign goods is the opportunity costs of purchasing the more expensive American goods. The substantial savings from my choosing to purchase cheaper shirts leaves me with money to spend on other goods and services, raising my overall standard of living.

But am I supporting US jobs? Yes!

As I said, I purchase these shirts from the Walgreens right down the street, right here in the US, my purchase helps support that company and it's employees. The "extra" money I save can also be spent in other stores or restaurants, money that I wouldn't be able to spend if I purchase American made shirts.

Conclusion:

Buying higher cost American goods rather than their cheaper foreign counterparts actually puts a drag on the economy and lowers your standard of living. Free Markets are good for everyone.

I agree 100%. A few years back on this forum I had a discussion about trade imbalances (which sort of fits into this topic) and I thought it might be good to point to that tread if anyone might be interested in further information on it.

The tread it here:
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/obamas-trip-to-india.11942/page-2

The debate picks up on page 2.
 
Your free market analysis would tell you to move ALL jobs out of the country.
Strawman? Cmon Gip! This is essentially a dispute about Free Markets vs. Mixed Markets vs. Controlled Markets. When there is 0% government regulation of trade, a Free Market exists. At the other end is 100% government regulation on trade (absolute protectionism allowing zero foreign trade). Every % between is a Mixed Market. Being a Capitalist, I support Free Trade and Free Markets - 0% government intervention into the economy.

Taken to its extreme, outsourcing kills the American economy resulting in third world conditions.
I would like to point out that "taken to it's extreme", having Americans buy ONLY American made goods would equally result in plunging our nation into third world status. Outsourcing is such a minor contributor to job loss that fears of it wrecking the economy are tantamount to conspiracy theory level hysteria. For example:

Hong Kong has one of the best economies in the world and they rely on imports for almost everything, even their "exports" are goods that are imported then resold as exports. So claims about how outsourcing can destroy a country are, at least in that one example, demonstrably false.

Hong Kong relies on mainland China for much of it's production, because of cheap labor, then imports the goods and resells them as exports. America could do the same with Mexico and both our countries would be better off as a result. Trade is mutually beneficial, the more we have and the free-er it is, the better of everyone is.

If Americans can't find jobs here, they won't be patronizing your restaurant resulting in you losing your job.
That's just silly... I could just as easily state that if every American were forced to purchase higher cost American made goods that they would have no money left over to eat out and thereby negatively impact my secondary and tertiary employment. (BTW, I'm a banquet server, I mainly do weddings and other large events)

We do not need more government as you claim I am asserting, we need LESS government.
I was pointing out that the "expert" you cited was calling for more government. He specifically blamed "deregulation", free markets, and free trade - none of which actually exist - for all our nations ills. More government is his solution; more regulation and a complete abandonment of free markets and free trade, both of which he considers "myths".
Your free market analysis assumes free market capitalism exists.
Whether or not they currently exist doesn't change the fact that Free Markets, Free Trade and Capitalism WORK.
We live under a criminal corrupt Kleptocracy.
I'm fighting against our current system in hopes of replacing it with Capitalism, Free Trade, and Free Markets. The fact that I'm in an extreme minority does not change my resolve or diminish my spirit.
Can you provide proof that outsourcing has only cost America 2% of it's jobs?
It was at the link in that same paragraph but here's another one:
According to research data, more than 400,000 U.S. jobs had moved abroad and the total is estimated to hit 3.3 million by 2015. That’s just above 200,000 jobs lost every year to global outsourcing, a trivial problem in the context of the normal churn of the U.S. economy, where about 7 million jobs were gained and lost in each of the previous four quarters.​
Now lets consider this with a rational perspective based on the numbers available. There are just over 200,000 jobs lost every year to outsourcing, divide that number by 4 (using quarters), we lose roughly 50,000 jobs per quarter to outsourcing. And, in the "normal churn" of the US economy, we see about 7 million jobs come and go per quarter.

Using the quarterly statistics, outsourcing is responsible for a whopping 0.714% of jobs lost in a given quarter. So outsourcing is responsible for less than 1% of job losses yet, to hear the hysteria surrounding the subject, you'd think it was responsible for the other 99.286% of job losses.

And one last tidbit...

A forthcoming paper in the American Economic Review looked at 57 American industries from 2000 to 2007. The study found that even though some people lost jobs due to outsourcing, the greater efficiencies the industries realized allowed them to hire even more people in the United States than were laid off.​
 
Strawman? Cmon Gip! This is essentially a dispute about Free Markets vs. Mixed Markets vs. Controlled Markets. When there is 0% government regulation of trade, a Free Market exists. At the other end is 100% government regulation on trade (absolute protectionism allowing zero foreign trade). Every % between is a Mixed Market. Being a Capitalist, I support Free Trade and Free Markets - 0% government intervention into the economy.


I would like to point out that "taken to it's extreme", having Americans buy ONLY American made goods would equally result in plunging our nation into third world status. Outsourcing is such a minor contributor to job loss that fears of it wrecking the economy are tantamount to conspiracy theory level hysteria. For example:

Hong Kong has one of the best economies in the world and they rely on imports for almost everything, even their "exports" are goods that are imported then resold as exports. So claims about how outsourcing can destroy a country are, at least in that one example, demonstrably false.

Hong Kong relies on mainland China for much of it's production, because of cheap labor, then imports the goods and resells them as exports. America could do the same with Mexico and both our countries would be better off as a result. Trade is mutually beneficial, the more we have and the free-er it is, the better of everyone is.


That's just silly... I could just as easily state that if every American were forced to purchase higher cost American made goods that they would have no money left over to eat out and thereby negatively impact my secondary and tertiary employment. (BTW, I'm a banquet server, I mainly do weddings and other large events)


I was pointing out that the "expert" you cited was calling for more government. He specifically blamed "deregulation", free markets, and free trade - none of which actually exist - for all our nations ills. More government is his solution; more regulation and a complete abandonment of free markets and free trade, both of which he considers "myths".

Whether or not they currently exist doesn't change the fact that Free Markets, Free Trade and Capitalism WORK.

I'm fighting against our current system in hopes of replacing it with Capitalism, Free Trade, and Free Markets. The fact that I'm in an extreme minority does not change my resolve or diminish my spirit.

It was at the link in that same paragraph but here's another one:
According to research data, more than 400,000 U.S. jobs had moved abroad and the total is estimated to hit 3.3 million by 2015. That’s just above 200,000 jobs lost every year to global outsourcing, a trivial problem in the context of the normal churn of the U.S. economy, where about 7 million jobs were gained and lost in each of the previous four quarters.​
Now lets consider this with a rational perspective based on the numbers available. There are just over 200,000 jobs lost every year to outsourcing, divide that number by 4 (using quarters), we lose roughly 50,000 jobs per quarter to outsourcing. And, in the "normal churn" of the US economy, we see about 7 million jobs come and go per quarter.

Using the quarterly statistics, outsourcing is responsible for a whopping 0.714% of jobs lost in a given quarter. So outsourcing is responsible for less than 1% of job losses yet, to hear the hysteria surrounding the subject, you'd think it was responsible for the other 99.286% of job losses.

And one last tidbit...

A forthcoming paper in the American Economic Review looked at 57 American industries from 2000 to 2007. The study found that even though some people lost jobs due to outsourcing, the greater efficiencies the industries realized allowed them to hire even more people in the United States than were laid off.​

Do not misunderstand me. I believe in free market capitalism as much as you do. The problem is it does not exist today. Today we have a Kleptocracy. The Kleptocracy distorts the entire economy. Free market principles you cite work in a free market economy, but may not in a Kleptocracy. We are debating a concept that does not exist in reality.

However, if the stats you cite are correct, outsourcing is not a big deal anyway.
 
We are debating a concept that does not exist in reality.
Actually, I was pointing out the fallacy behind the "Buy American" campaign. Now I don't want to be misunderstood, if someone wants to "Buy American", great, go for it, just don't try to force the rest of America to "Buy American" through government policy, that would be immoral and the protectionist policies would harm the very people they are supposed to help - Americans.
 
I agree 100%. A few years back on this forum I had a discussion about trade imbalances (which sort of fits into this topic) and I thought it might be good to point to that tread if anyone might be interested in further information on it.

The tread it here:
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/obamas-trip-to-india.11942/page-2

The debate picks up on page 2.
I read through the thread and it reminded of a "discussion" I had with a forum member who was pushing for Import Certificates to eliminate our trade deficit. Don't remember the thread title but I do remember having about 7 pages of me making logically valid points and him just regurgitating the same nonsense without ever addressing the points that I made or the mountain of facts that I presented which contradicted his claims.

Bottom line: Trade deficits are meaningless.
 
Werbung:
Another way to look at it...
Is the decline of American manufacturing jobs a bad thing?
The Future: Back to the Past

by Don Boudreaux on November 26, 2012

Lately, I’ve encountered with unusual frequency claims that the 1950s were a glorious economic time for America’s middle-class – a time so glorious, what with strong labor unions and high (above 90%!) marginal income-tax rates and all, that we middle-class Americans of today should look back with longing and envy on those marvelous years of six decades ago.

So on Saturday I bought on eBay this Fall/Winter 1956 Sears catalog. I spent an extra $8-and-change to have it shipped to me overnight – a service that I could not have purchased in 1956. My catalog arrived on my doorstep today. I’m eager to explore it and to report my findings with some thoroughness.

But to give you a taste now, below is a sample of what I plan to do.

Having on hand information on the nominal average hourly earnings of nonsupervisory nonfarm private production workers in the U.S. in 2012 - that figure being $19.79 (as of October 2012) - I searched for the same earnings figure for 1956. Thus far I’ve had no luck finding that number. (Please feel free, I bleg of you, to help me find this figure, if you so desire.) So, for 1956 I instead use average hourly manufacturing earnings of production workers, as reported in Table 1 here. That figure is $1.89.

This nominal wage figure for 1956 isn’t exactly comparable to the nominal wage figure that I use for 2012, but it’s close enough, at least for this first-pass analysis. If the claim of many “Progressives” is true that manufacturing is the most princely sort of work that middle-class Americans can do, then presumably this figure of $1.89 is higher than the hourly earnings of all private, nonfarm nonsupervisory workers in 1956. Anyway….

So let’s ask: how long did a typical American worker have to toil in 1956 to buy a particular sort of good compared to how long a similarly typical American worker today must toil to buy that same (or similar) sort of good? Here are four familiar items: refrigerator-freezers; kitchen ranges; televisions; and automatic washers.

Refrigerator-freezers

Sears’s lowest-priced no-frost refrigerator-freezer in 1956 had 9.6 cubic feet, in total, of space. It sold for $219.95 (in 1956-dollar prices). (You can find a lovely black-and-white photograph of this mid-’50s fridge on page 1036 of the 1956 Sears catalog.) Home Depot today sells a 10 cubic-foot no-frost refrigerator-freezer for $298.00 (in 2012-dollar prices). (You can find it in color on line here.)

Therefore, the typical American worker in 1956 had to work a total of 219.95/1.89 hours to buy that 9.6 cubic-foot fridge – or a total of 116 hours. (I round to the nearest whole number.) Today, to buy a similar no-frost refrigerator-freezer, the typical American worker must work a total of 298.00/19.79 hours – or 15 hours. That is, to buy basic household refrigeration and freezing, today’s worker must spend only 13 percent of the time that his counterpart in 1956 had to spend.

Kitchen ranges

Sears’s lowest-priced 30″ four-burner electric range, with bottom oven, was priced, in 1956, at $129.95. (You can find this range on page 1049 of the 1956 Sears catalog.) Home Depot sells a 30″ four-burner electric range, with bottom oven, today for $348.00.

The typical American manufacturing worker in 1956, therefore, had to work 129.95/1.89 – or 69 hours – to buy an ordinary kitchen range. His or her counterpart today must work 348.00/19.79 – or 18 – hours to buy the same sized ordinary range.

Television sets

Sears’s lowest-priced television in 1956 was a black-and-white (of course) 17″ model. (You can find it on page 1018 of the 1956 catalog.) That t.v. set was priced at $114.95. Sears today sells no 17″ t.v. sets. The closest set I could find at Sears was this 19″ color (of course) model, which is priced at $194.00.

The typical American manufacturing worker in 1956, therefore, had to work 114.95/1.89 – or 61 hours – to buy this tiny black-and-white (with no remote!) television set. His or her counterpart today must work 194.00/19.79 – or 10 – hours to buy a slightly larger, high-def, color (with remote!) television set.

Automatic Washing Machines

Sears’s lowest-priced automatic washer – it could handle loads up to a maximum of 8 lbs. – sold in 1956 for $149.95. (You can find it on page 1029 of Sears’s 1956 catalog.) Today, Sears’s lowest-priced washer sells for $299.99. (It’s got 3.4 cubic feet of wash-bin space; I can’t find a maximum “pound-load” for it. Presumably, this 2012 washer isn’t significantly smaller than – and might well be significantly larger than – the low-priced 1956 model.)

The typical American manufacturing worker in 1956, therefore, had to work 149.95/1.89 – or 79 hours – to buy an ‘inexpensive’ new washing machine. His or her counterpart today must work 299.99/19.79 – or 15 – hours to buy an inexpensive new washing machine.

(Bonus point: Because the lowest marginal personal-income-tax rate imposed by Uncle Sam in the 1950s was significantly higher than it is today, hourly middle-class earnings today go even farther, for individual earners, than they did six decades ago.)

In the above I don’t adjust for quality – yet it is certainly true what they say: “They don’t make ‘em like they used to.” They make ‘em better. So the real-price reductions for these above four items are even larger than indicated above.

In follow-up posts I’ll go into more detail, using my lovely Fall/Winter 1956 Sears catalog, to gain further insight to how middle-class Americans’ economic fortunes today compare to what those fortunes were in 1956. I am well-aware that no such ‘catalog’ analysis covers all fronts or can possibly tell a complete picture. Yet I also firmly believe that such analysis does convey very useful information.
 
Back
Top