Topic: Consumers end up paying tariffs
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #121,477
Dumbasses always voting against their own best interests.
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 43 minutes later[^] [v] #1,328,175
Remember when Biden dropped all the Trump tariffs and the economy just boomed?
Oh wait, he kept them all and added some new ones on Chinese EVs 😂
Oh wait, he kept them all and added some new ones on Chinese EVs 😂
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,177
That's the point.
When consumers start paying those tariffs they'll start picking American made to avoid paying the tariff, bringing back jobs to the US.
When consumers start paying those tariffs they'll start picking American made to avoid paying the tariff, bringing back jobs to the US.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,178
@previous (C)
The main reason Harris lost is because the price of goods was too high and your plan is to raise the price of all cheaper foreign goods to the level of their substantially more expensive American counterparts? Good luck buddy!
The main reason Harris lost is because the price of goods was too high and your plan is to raise the price of all cheaper foreign goods to the level of their substantially more expensive American counterparts? Good luck buddy!
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,179
@1,328,175 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
American EVs remain shittier and more expensive than their Chinese counterparts. The tariffs there have not helped but Biden is/was old-school trade protectionist in a dumb way.
American EVs remain shittier and more expensive than their Chinese counterparts. The tariffs there have not helped but Biden is/was old-school trade protectionist in a dumb way.
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 33 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,180
@1,328,178 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Those voters decided it would be better to protect jobs in the country so they actually had some money to spend.
Outsourcing manufacturing to the third world ends up hurting our ability to make things here, and the jobs that don't disappear end up paying the bare minimum. Why doesn't the party of "living wages" ever talk about how this? Probably the same reason they pretend immigration doesn't affect labor and housing costs.
Those voters decided it would be better to protect jobs in the country so they actually had some money to spend.
Outsourcing manufacturing to the third world ends up hurting our ability to make things here, and the jobs that don't disappear end up paying the bare minimum. Why doesn't the party of "living wages" ever talk about how this? Probably the same reason they pretend immigration doesn't affect labor and housing costs.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,181
@previous (C)
Unemployment is very low. Almost everyone who wants a job has one. If you are offering the average voter "we will cut unemployment from 4% to 2.5% in exchange for the average price of a toaster or t-shirt going up 33-100% they will kick you in the balls. This is very simple and that is the best case scenario for your plan.
Unemployment is very low. Almost everyone who wants a job has one. If you are offering the average voter "we will cut unemployment from 4% to 2.5% in exchange for the average price of a toaster or t-shirt going up 33-100% they will kick you in the balls. This is very simple and that is the best case scenario for your plan.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,183
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,184
@1,328,181 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Unemployment figures only measure two things: 1. How many people with unemployment insurance were fired in the last 3 months. 2. How many of those people were able find work within 3 months. It cannot, as defined, measure if everyone who wants to work is able to find work.
Unemployment figures only measure two things: 1. How many people with unemployment insurance were fired in the last 3 months. 2. How many of those people were able find work within 3 months. It cannot, as defined, measure if everyone who wants to work is able to find work.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 17 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,186
@previous (F)Look at any employment figure you want. They are all showing the same thing- employment is historically high. You have a solution in search of a problem.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,187
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,192
@1,328,186 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
The Employment to population ratio is a much more honest figure to look at, yes. It includes people who have stopped searching for work, but it also has problems. That figure measures people who have worked as little as one single hour in the previous week as being employed. It's better than looking purely at "active unemployment insurance benefit recipients", but let's be honest about what those numbers mean.
The Employment to population ratio is a much more honest figure to look at, yes. It includes people who have stopped searching for work, but it also has problems. That figure measures people who have worked as little as one single hour in the previous week as being employed. It's better than looking purely at "active unemployment insurance benefit recipients", but let's be honest about what those numbers mean.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,193
@previous (F)
OK please give me the numbers that illustrate your point then because I am not doing your homework for you anymore.
OK please give me the numbers that illustrate your point then because I am not doing your homework for you anymore.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,194
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,195
@1,328,193 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Surprisingly, believe it or not, there is very little interest in accurately measuring how many Americans are satisfied with their level of employment.
Surprisingly, believe it or not, there is very little interest in accurately measuring how many Americans are satisfied with their level of employment.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 57 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,196
@1,328,194 (E)
No.
@previous (F)
OK so you have an obviously flawed plan that you believe in because of statistics that don't exist. Thanks for the conversation I guess.
No.
@previous (F)
OK so you have an obviously flawed plan that you believe in because of statistics that don't exist. Thanks for the conversation I guess.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,197
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Fine, let's talk about the 1.56 million Americans who have searched for work in the past 1 year, who are available to start working now, want to work now, and are not able to find work.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU05026642
Fine, let's talk about the 1.56 million Americans who have searched for work in the past 1 year, who are available to start working now, want to work now, and are not able to find work.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU05026642
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,198
@previous (F)
There has never in recorded history been 0 of those people, and if you looked at your chart you'd see it's lower today than its basically ever been. The only way to guarantee literally 0 people not having a job when they want one is to have a government job guarantee. Tariffs will not fix that, and any jobs created by tariffs will be offset by the increased cost of the tariff taking money away other jobs that could have been created if that money had been spent to purchase something else.
There has never in recorded history been 0 of those people, and if you looked at your chart you'd see it's lower today than its basically ever been. The only way to guarantee literally 0 people not having a job when they want one is to have a government job guarantee. Tariffs will not fix that, and any jobs created by tariffs will be offset by the increased cost of the tariff taking money away other jobs that could have been created if that money had been spent to purchase something else.
(Edited 38 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,199
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
It is NOT the lowest it has ever been, it was the lowest during Trump's initial term as president, right before the Covid-19 crisis. If I recall correctly, tariffs were in full swing during that period of history
It is NOT the lowest it has ever been, it was the lowest during Trump's initial term as president, right before the Covid-19 crisis. If I recall correctly, tariffs were in full swing during that period of history
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,200
@previous (F)
Lowest number was in March 2023 and I said "basically" because it isn't actually the lowest but it is extremely low by historical standards. Also since this is in millions of people and the population has grown by like 6 million people since 2019 they're comparably low imo.
Lowest number was in March 2023 and I said "basically" because it isn't actually the lowest but it is extremely low by historical standards. Also since this is in millions of people and the population has grown by like 6 million people since 2019 they're comparably low imo.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,201
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Perhaps, but going forward let's use the most honest measure of employment we have available if we want to have an honest discussion. "Unemployment" has always been an incredibly flawed figure in the U.S., not even worth mentioning, unless you're in a Walmart shareholder meeting or something; in that case it's a vitally relevant number and could really screw up your Q3. That's all.
Perhaps, but going forward let's use the most honest measure of employment we have available if we want to have an honest discussion. "Unemployment" has always been an incredibly flawed figure in the U.S., not even worth mentioning, unless you're in a Walmart shareholder meeting or something; in that case it's a vitally relevant number and could really screw up your Q3. That's all.
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,204
@previous (F)
I mean U3 indicated 6 million unemployed and if the figure you want to use is 1.5 million unemployed instead that's fine i guess but makes your point much worse.
I mean U3 indicated 6 million unemployed and if the figure you want to use is 1.5 million unemployed instead that's fine i guess but makes your point much worse.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,205
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
It doesn't harm my point at all, because I'm not looking to produce some impressive number to show off. I'm looking out for which measurements actually measure what is being discussed. Maybe you have some insights you would like to share, but you've already said you prefer not to discuss this and just want to parrot "unemployment low". Let me know if you come around and want to discuss the issue of which figures we should be examining. I do not intend to partake in any partisan grandstanding you may have going on here
It doesn't harm my point at all, because I'm not looking to produce some impressive number to show off. I'm looking out for which measurements actually measure what is being discussed. Maybe you have some insights you would like to share, but you've already said you prefer not to discuss this and just want to parrot "unemployment low". Let me know if you come around and want to discuss the issue of which figures we should be examining. I do not intend to partake in any partisan grandstanding you may have going on here
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 18 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,208
@1,328,204 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Join me brother, I shall be dining on lead-based paint chips after every meal until it starts to make sense
Join me brother, I shall be dining on lead-based paint chips after every meal until it starts to make sense
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 16 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,210
@1,328,205 (F)
How am I parroting "unemployment low" when I said specifically that the number you gave me for unemployment is too low and I'd use the higher one? I think this number is fine but if I got fired from my job tomorrow and I didn't start looking for work until next month because I was burned out I'd still count myself as unemployed and your number wouldn't capture that.
Also sorry this whole time I thought you were anon C and we were doing the tariff argument dance. My bad!
How am I parroting "unemployment low" when I said specifically that the number you gave me for unemployment is too low and I'd use the higher one? I think this number is fine but if I got fired from my job tomorrow and I didn't start looking for work until next month because I was burned out I'd still count myself as unemployed and your number wouldn't capture that.
Also sorry this whole time I thought you were anon C and we were doing the tariff argument dance. My bad!
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,214
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Understandable, Anon C is a turkey.
I never like seeing blanket language about "unemployment numbers" bandied about without diving into which measures are being used and why we would want to examine that particular measure. U-3 isn't particularly useful when we're trying to understand how many people who want to work are not working and the challenges these Americans face. U-4, U-5 and U-6 figures deserve more attention, at least. We can't keep ignoring the millions of americans who want to work and sweep it under rug by only looking at one very narrow measure and using that to claim that anyone who want to work is finding work. It's simply not true.
Understandable, Anon C is a turkey.
I never like seeing blanket language about "unemployment numbers" bandied about without diving into which measures are being used and why we would want to examine that particular measure. U-3 isn't particularly useful when we're trying to understand how many people who want to work are not working and the challenges these Americans face. U-4, U-5 and U-6 figures deserve more attention, at least. We can't keep ignoring the millions of americans who want to work and sweep it under rug by only looking at one very narrow measure and using that to claim that anyone who want to work is finding work. It's simply not true.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 9 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,215
All tariffs will do is raise prices for consumers. Stop claiming that "grocery prices" etc. are why you voted a fascist in and then saying that raising prices is great. Just admit you got duped by a conman.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 58 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,219
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 50 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,222
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,223
@previous (A)
Do you WANT the environment to suffer? Why do you insist on eating out of season food imported from thousands of miles away, instead of eating locally?
Do you WANT the environment to suffer? Why do you insist on eating out of season food imported from thousands of miles away, instead of eating locally?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 17 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,227
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,233
@previous (A)
"Fuck the environment, I want my vegetables cheaply even when it's not the season for them!"
Did you know farmers in the USA mainly grow corn and soybeans, because those are the subsidized crops? American food could be much cheaper if they grew real food. Alas, you would have to actually follow the seasons and eat appropriately for the time of year.
"Fuck the environment, I want my vegetables cheaply even when it's not the season for them!"
Did you know farmers in the USA mainly grow corn and soybeans, because those are the subsidized crops? American food could be much cheaper if they grew real food. Alas, you would have to actually follow the seasons and eat appropriately for the time of year.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 12 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,234
@previous (E)
I already do that, and you are changing the subject. Trump’s policies will raise the prices that you people said were too high. That is what is going to happen: the opposite of what you said you wanted.
I already do that, and you are changing the subject. Trump’s policies will raise the prices that you people said were too high. That is what is going to happen: the opposite of what you said you wanted.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 7 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,254
@1,328,181 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Unemployment is very low. Almost everyone who wants a job has one. If you are offering the average voter "we will cut unemployment from 4% to 2.5% in exchange for the average price of a toaster or t-shirt going up 33-100% they will kick you in the balls. This is very simple and that is the best case scenario for your plan.
It's not employment, it's compensation. Americans don't want a race to the bottom with 3rd world sweatshops.
Higher prices for real living wages is a good tradeoff for the majority of citizens who get more of their income from selling their labor than capital gains.
> Unemployment is very low. Almost everyone who wants a job has one. If you are offering the average voter "we will cut unemployment from 4% to 2.5% in exchange for the average price of a toaster or t-shirt going up 33-100% they will kick you in the balls. This is very simple and that is the best case scenario for your plan.
It's not employment, it's compensation. Americans don't want a race to the bottom with 3rd world sweatshops.
Higher prices for real living wages is a good tradeoff for the majority of citizens who get more of their income from selling their labor than capital gains.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,255
@previous (C)
Follow-up to this with some data.
Real wages in 1979: 408
Real wages in 2024: 403
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881900Q
Why did it go down after 45 years? GDP per capita has quadrupled in that time. Anyone that can fix this won't hear me complain about toasters costing 50% more.
Follow-up to this with some data.
Real wages in 1979: 408
Real wages in 2024: 403
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881900Q
Why did it go down after 45 years? GDP per capita has quadrupled in that time. Anyone that can fix this won't hear me complain about toasters costing 50% more.
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,268
@1,328,234 (A)
Prices would only go up for people like you: people who insist on having strawberries in January. Everyone else will adapt. Farmers will grow food again because it will finally be competitive against the foreign stuff. People won't notice much difference, if they adapt and eat American instead of Global.
Save the environment. Punish food import/exporters!
Prices would only go up for people like you: people who insist on having strawberries in January. Everyone else will adapt. Farmers will grow food again because it will finally be competitive against the foreign stuff. People won't notice much difference, if they adapt and eat American instead of Global.
Save the environment. Punish food import/exporters!
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 4 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,288
@1,328,254 (C)
@1,328,255 (C)
Hourly compensation has gone up but wages haven't. So e.g. you're a 50 year old man earning $75k/year your job is probably paying $1,000/mo in health insurance, maybe $100 more in dental, vision and life insurance, a 5% 401k match that nets you $3750/yr, maybe some stock options or equity, etc. Those all increase your net worth even if you don't earn more dollars per week in your paycheck.
I'm also confused at how tariffs increase real earnings. Wouldn't nominal wage increases would just get eaten up by the increased price of goods caused by the tariffs?
@1,328,255 (C)
Hourly compensation has gone up but wages haven't. So e.g. you're a 50 year old man earning $75k/year your job is probably paying $1,000/mo in health insurance, maybe $100 more in dental, vision and life insurance, a 5% 401k match that nets you $3750/yr, maybe some stock options or equity, etc. Those all increase your net worth even if you don't earn more dollars per week in your paycheck.
I'm also confused at how tariffs increase real earnings. Wouldn't nominal wage increases would just get eaten up by the increased price of goods caused by the tariffs?
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,299
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Hourly compensation has gone up but wages haven't. So e.g. you're a 50 year old man earning $75k/year your job is probably paying $1,000/mo in health insurance, maybe $100 more in dental, vision and life insurance, a 5% 401k match that nets you $3750/yr, maybe some stock options or equity, etc. Those all increase your net worth even if you don't earn more dollars per week in your paycheck.
Do you have data supporting real non-wage compensation increasing over that time?
> I'm also confused at how tariffs increase real earnings. Wouldn't nominal wage increases would just get eaten up by the increased price of goods caused by the tariffs?
Decreasing competition in the labor market increases wages for the working classes. Part of that is paid by the workers themselves, but most spending is happening from the top 10% so they bear most of the burden, and some of the costs are paid by the lost profit and wages that would have gone to China.
> Hourly compensation has gone up but wages haven't. So e.g. you're a 50 year old man earning $75k/year your job is probably paying $1,000/mo in health insurance, maybe $100 more in dental, vision and life insurance, a 5% 401k match that nets you $3750/yr, maybe some stock options or equity, etc. Those all increase your net worth even if you don't earn more dollars per week in your paycheck.
Do you have data supporting real non-wage compensation increasing over that time?
> I'm also confused at how tariffs increase real earnings. Wouldn't nominal wage increases would just get eaten up by the increased price of goods caused by the tariffs?
Decreasing competition in the labor market increases wages for the working classes. Part of that is paid by the workers themselves, but most spending is happening from the top 10% so they bear most of the burden, and some of the costs are paid by the lost profit and wages that would have gone to China.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 29 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,318
@previous (C)Yup it's gone up steadily over time. The best thing you could do to raise wages is to take insurance from being the responsibility of businesses to the responsibility of the government. Would cut down on the cost of hiring and maintaining employees substantially. Of course that wouldn't be "free", taxes would have to increase to cover that cost, probably some mix of payroll and income tax raises, but most workers would get at the very least some nominal wage increase.
I'm still confused about how this leads to higher real wages. Like let's say a washing machine made entirely in America costs $1,000 and a washing machine made entirely in China costs $500. So you slap a 200% tariff on Chinese washing machines. More Americans would buy the American washing machine post-tariff than pre-tariff, because now it's $500 cheaper than the Chinese one instead of being $500 more expensive. But the vast majority of washing machine buying isn't rich people buying 15 washing machines for their 7 mansions. So now consumers in general have spent $500 more on washing machines than they otherwise would have, and consequently have $500 less to spend on other things.
You have increased their expenses by $500 but unless you work in manufacturing washing machines, this tariff doesn't help you earn more. And if there were somehow perfect universal tariffs on everything, how isn't that just robbing Peter to pay Paul? Everyone earns more money but everyone also spends basically the same amount more so it's a wash. (Pun intended).
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,321
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
You're solely looking at goods of unitary demand in that example, the wealthy obviously don't have the same budget as the poor in overall household spending.
The top decile spends many times more than the median income household, and most of that spending is heading out of the country.
I'd rather pay more for a washing machine, and see the job market improve here. For washing machines in isolation, you won't see a difference between the impact on elites and the average person. It's in all the other goods (of non-unitary-demand) that will account for the real change in spending.
You're solely looking at goods of unitary demand in that example, the wealthy obviously don't have the same budget as the poor in overall household spending.
The top decile spends many times more than the median income household, and most of that spending is heading out of the country.
I'd rather pay more for a washing machine, and see the job market improve here. For washing machines in isolation, you won't see a difference between the impact on elites and the average person. It's in all the other goods (of non-unitary-demand) that will account for the real change in spending.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,327
@previous (C)
> The top decile spends many times more than the median income household, and most of that spending is heading out of the country.
Is that true? I'm st the median income earning but I have friends who are in the top decile, and their core expenses all seem like they stay in the country: property and income taxes, mortgages, food, transportation, restaurants, plays/movies, charitable contributions , etc. They may go on vacation outside the US more than the median income, but it doesn't seem to me like their expenses are predominately leaving the country.
I can see how this would lead to nominal wage increases i just can't see how it leads to real wage increases. If there were 100% tariffs on all goods and services, everyone's expenses would increase substantially and I just don't see how a universal increase in the cost of everything (aka inflation) can lead to higher REAL wages. Especially if you assume that these tariffs would be reciprocated by the other countries, meaning that everyone who exports goods would also be earning less money
> The top decile spends many times more than the median income household, and most of that spending is heading out of the country.
Is that true? I'm st the median income earning but I have friends who are in the top decile, and their core expenses all seem like they stay in the country: property and income taxes, mortgages, food, transportation, restaurants, plays/movies, charitable contributions , etc. They may go on vacation outside the US more than the median income, but it doesn't seem to me like their expenses are predominately leaving the country.
I can see how this would lead to nominal wage increases i just can't see how it leads to real wage increases. If there were 100% tariffs on all goods and services, everyone's expenses would increase substantially and I just don't see how a universal increase in the cost of everything (aka inflation) can lead to higher REAL wages. Especially if you assume that these tariffs would be reciprocated by the other countries, meaning that everyone who exports goods would also be earning less money
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,330
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I can see how this would lead to nominal wage increases i just can't see how it leads to real wage increases. If there were 100% tariffs on all goods and services, everyone's expenses would increase substantially and I just don't see how a universal increase in the cost of everything (aka inflation) can lead to higher REAL wages. Especially if you assume that these tariffs would be reciprocated by the other countries, meaning that everyone who exports goods would also be earning less money
The country taken as a whole will probably be a wash, but the economic sentiment of the bottom 90% will improve when the majority of the wealth held by the top 10% starts getting spent locally rather than abroad as imported goods.
It's a zero-sum game in many ways, the gains for the majority of Americans will come at the expense of the wealthiest Americans and foreign interests.
> I can see how this would lead to nominal wage increases i just can't see how it leads to real wage increases. If there were 100% tariffs on all goods and services, everyone's expenses would increase substantially and I just don't see how a universal increase in the cost of everything (aka inflation) can lead to higher REAL wages. Especially if you assume that these tariffs would be reciprocated by the other countries, meaning that everyone who exports goods would also be earning less money
The country taken as a whole will probably be a wash, but the economic sentiment of the bottom 90% will improve when the majority of the wealth held by the top 10% starts getting spent locally rather than abroad as imported goods.
It's a zero-sum game in many ways, the gains for the majority of Americans will come at the expense of the wealthiest Americans and foreign interests.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,334
@1,328,327 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Isn't the idea that the "global tariffs" would be in the 10% to 20% range, with 100% to 400% tariffs targeting only imports from a select group of countries? If you're gainfully employed throughout the year you likely already pay at least 10 to 20 percent in taxes on a large amount of income, but I don't hear you calling for an end to the income tax. What percent of goods that you consume are imports? Would paying 10% more on those goods in the short term hurt you more than paying an income tax every single year?
Isn't the idea that the "global tariffs" would be in the 10% to 20% range, with 100% to 400% tariffs targeting only imports from a select group of countries? If you're gainfully employed throughout the year you likely already pay at least 10 to 20 percent in taxes on a large amount of income, but I don't hear you calling for an end to the income tax. What percent of goods that you consume are imports? Would paying 10% more on those goods in the short term hurt you more than paying an income tax every single year?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous F double-posted this 1 year ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,337
@1,328,327 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
As to how it could lead to higher real wages for american workers, you're going to see one of two things happen: Either the foreign producers lower the prices and eat that cost to maintain status quo or they don't and the demand for those foreign goods begin to decline as domestically produced alternatives become competitive in the market. Why pay 400% more for chinese toaster when American toaster stay same price or German toaster only 20% more? American toaster company doing well now, they scale production and become more efficient. That's where it would all come together, in theory; the demand for labor increases in the U.S. and you should see higher real wages
As to how it could lead to higher real wages for american workers, you're going to see one of two things happen: Either the foreign producers lower the prices and eat that cost to maintain status quo or they don't and the demand for those foreign goods begin to decline as domestically produced alternatives become competitive in the market. Why pay 400% more for chinese toaster when American toaster stay same price or German toaster only 20% more? American toaster company doing well now, they scale production and become more efficient. That's where it would all come together, in theory; the demand for labor increases in the U.S. and you should see higher real wages
(Edited 11 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,366
@1,328,330 (C)
If the whole fruit of this tariff exercise is to make the bottom 90% of the country wealthier while penalizing the top 10%, it's simpler to just raise taxes on the top 10% and cut taxes on the bottom 90% and call it a day.
If the whole fruit of this tariff exercise is to make the bottom 90% of the country wealthier while penalizing the top 10%, it's simpler to just raise taxes on the top 10% and cut taxes on the bottom 90% and call it a day.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,406
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Which activities specifically do you think should be taxed at an higher rate? Explain your simple plan. Remember, unrealized capital gains are not on the table.
Which activities specifically do you think should be taxed at an higher rate? Explain your simple plan. Remember, unrealized capital gains are not on the table.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,424
@1,328,366 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
The President doesn't have that unilateral authority.
Trump can implement these tariffs on day 1.
The President doesn't have that unilateral authority.
Trump can implement these tariffs on day 1.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 1 day later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,682
@1,328,334 (F)
If these are supposed to replace income taxes then they need to raise over $2 trillion. You can do the calculations, plus it's not just tariffs on finished goods, it's tariffs on all imports. So in a very basic example, if a desk from China costs $50 and a desk from the US costs $100, but uses wood from Canada, and you slap a tax on the Chinese desk AND the Canadian lumber, you are going to raise both the prices of the Chinese good AND the American good through tariffs. Which, again, people lost their shit over 1 year of 8% inflation, and if those tariffs went into effect, you'd be looking at minimum at that guaranteed with it taking many years for things to stabilize.
@1,328,337 (F)
The American toaster company would hire more employees, but there are a finite amount of workers and low unemployment relative to the total population. That means we are pulling people from other sectors, things that might be more lucrative like software programming or be more socially beneficial - like nursing, to have people make toasters or t-shirts or whatever that people overseas are willing to do for cheaper. It's just making the U.S. economy less efficient and prosperous to establish some kind of autarky for extremely poorly explained reasons.
@1,328,406 (F)
Raise the top marginal income tax on $250k+ earners that Trump cut in the TCJA, and implement a higher marginal tax rate for people with higher salaries. It is dumb that someone earning $40,000 has a different top tax rate than someone earning $80,000, who has a different top rate than someone earning $200,000 a year, but someone earning $250,000 and $25,000,000 a year are taxed at the same rate. Remove the payroll tax cap for SS. Raise the realized long term capital gains tax, and add brackets above the current max capital gains threshold like I'd do for income taxes. You could also end the stepped up basis for inherited assets (if you wanted to be homeowner friendly you could have a homestead exemption up to $1 million for one house or something).
@previous (C)
Donald Trump is not going to raise tariffs if he thinks they will take money from rich people and give it to poor people lol. He didn't do that during his first term. He is not Robin Hood. He might do it because he's convinced it's smart, good business, whatever, but not because it will be bad for rich people lmao.
If these are supposed to replace income taxes then they need to raise over $2 trillion. You can do the calculations, plus it's not just tariffs on finished goods, it's tariffs on all imports. So in a very basic example, if a desk from China costs $50 and a desk from the US costs $100, but uses wood from Canada, and you slap a tax on the Chinese desk AND the Canadian lumber, you are going to raise both the prices of the Chinese good AND the American good through tariffs. Which, again, people lost their shit over 1 year of 8% inflation, and if those tariffs went into effect, you'd be looking at minimum at that guaranteed with it taking many years for things to stabilize.
@1,328,337 (F)
The American toaster company would hire more employees, but there are a finite amount of workers and low unemployment relative to the total population. That means we are pulling people from other sectors, things that might be more lucrative like software programming or be more socially beneficial - like nursing, to have people make toasters or t-shirts or whatever that people overseas are willing to do for cheaper. It's just making the U.S. economy less efficient and prosperous to establish some kind of autarky for extremely poorly explained reasons.
@1,328,406 (F)
Raise the top marginal income tax on $250k+ earners that Trump cut in the TCJA, and implement a higher marginal tax rate for people with higher salaries. It is dumb that someone earning $40,000 has a different top tax rate than someone earning $80,000, who has a different top rate than someone earning $200,000 a year, but someone earning $250,000 and $25,000,000 a year are taxed at the same rate. Remove the payroll tax cap for SS. Raise the realized long term capital gains tax, and add brackets above the current max capital gains threshold like I'd do for income taxes. You could also end the stepped up basis for inherited assets (if you wanted to be homeowner friendly you could have a homestead exemption up to $1 million for one house or something).
@previous (C)
Donald Trump is not going to raise tariffs if he thinks they will take money from rich people and give it to poor people lol. He didn't do that during his first term. He is not Robin Hood. He might do it because he's convinced it's smart, good business, whatever, but not because it will be bad for rich people lmao.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 35 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,683
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> someone earning $250,000 and $25,000,000 a year are taxed at the same rate.
I'll just quickly address this part for now. The two people in that example are not taxed the same. The person earning $250k has an effective tax rate of 23% and the person earning $25m has an effective tax rate of 36.8%. The tax burden, which is what you want to be looking at, is higher for the higher earner.
> someone earning $250,000 and $25,000,000 a year are taxed at the same rate.
I'll just quickly address this part for now. The two people in that example are not taxed the same. The person earning $250k has an effective tax rate of 23% and the person earning $25m has an effective tax rate of 36.8%. The tax burden, which is what you want to be looking at, is higher for the higher earner.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 24 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,685
@1,328,175 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
> Remember when Biden dropped all the Trump tariffs and the economy just boomed?
>
> Oh wait, he kept them all and added some new ones on Chinese EVs 😂
no he didn't? what fucking planet do you live on?
> Remember when Biden dropped all the Trump tariffs and the economy just boomed?
>
> Oh wait, he kept them all and added some new ones on Chinese EVs 😂
no he didn't? what fucking planet do you live on?
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,687
@1,328,682 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
As far as increased price of inputs sourced from outside the country, that's desirable as well; in many cases. I do not think tapping into our natural resources is a bad thing. We have much higher environmental standards than many of the countries we are sourcing materials from. This is a plus for the environment; and potentially very good for industry! We could even stand to relax many regulations and it would still be better than exporting our pollution to China for example
As far as increased price of inputs sourced from outside the country, that's desirable as well; in many cases. I do not think tapping into our natural resources is a bad thing. We have much higher environmental standards than many of the countries we are sourcing materials from. This is a plus for the environment; and potentially very good for industry! We could even stand to relax many regulations and it would still be better than exporting our pollution to China for example
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous F double-posted this 1 year ago, 14 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,692
@1,328,682 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
regarding newly bolstered industries "pulling from other sectors", we've already established in this very topic that there are multiple millions of people in the U.S. who are available to work right now, and are not currently employed; even for a single hour per week. I think we'll be fine. The labor force is underutilized!
regarding newly bolstered industries "pulling from other sectors", we've already established in this very topic that there are multiple millions of people in the U.S. who are available to work right now, and are not currently employed; even for a single hour per week. I think we'll be fine. The labor force is underutilized!
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 46 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,701
@previous (F)
All those Americans willing to pick fruit 16 hours a day for minimum wage, eh? I bet they just can't wait!
All those Americans willing to pick fruit 16 hours a day for minimum wage, eh? I bet they just can't wait!
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,707
@1,328,683 (F)
My thresholds were off but the top marginal tax rate is the same for people earning $609,350 is the same as someone earning $60,000,000 in income. Yes the effective tax rate is higher because you earn more dollars taxed at that top rate than someone earning less money than you, but that's true at every level. Someone earning at $250,000 pays a higher effective tax rate than someone earning $25,000 and that's fine. I just think arbitrarily cutting it off at $609k makes no sense. It should keep laddering up more and not stop at 37%.
@1,328,687 (F)
That's fine, and there are products where the entire product chain is domestic and they are products for well-off people or people who are willing to pay more for that quality. If you make everything that price level, people are going to be poorer off because the price of everything is going to shoot up and their incomes are not going to increase enough to cover the cost.
@1,328,692 (F)
The U.S. labor force is like 160 million people. There are (extremely generously) maybe 10 million people who could work but are not. You cannot, by adding growing the labor force 6%, scale the production of goods in literally every category of product, input, service, etc. to service 350 million Americans. So you are going to necessarily start yanking people out of laboratories and sending them to be ranchers in Nebraska, or you are going to have severe shortages of goods. And again, there still is no positive case for doing this. All this would do AT BEST is increase nominal wages, which will be eaten by the price increases of literally every single good and service in the country.
The only way you could find enough people to make this work is to raise the retirement age to 80 and yank kids out of school at age 12 to sew t-shirts in South Carolina. Which seems bad.
My thresholds were off but the top marginal tax rate is the same for people earning $609,350 is the same as someone earning $60,000,000 in income. Yes the effective tax rate is higher because you earn more dollars taxed at that top rate than someone earning less money than you, but that's true at every level. Someone earning at $250,000 pays a higher effective tax rate than someone earning $25,000 and that's fine. I just think arbitrarily cutting it off at $609k makes no sense. It should keep laddering up more and not stop at 37%.
@1,328,687 (F)
That's fine, and there are products where the entire product chain is domestic and they are products for well-off people or people who are willing to pay more for that quality. If you make everything that price level, people are going to be poorer off because the price of everything is going to shoot up and their incomes are not going to increase enough to cover the cost.
@1,328,692 (F)
The U.S. labor force is like 160 million people. There are (extremely generously) maybe 10 million people who could work but are not. You cannot, by adding growing the labor force 6%, scale the production of goods in literally every category of product, input, service, etc. to service 350 million Americans. So you are going to necessarily start yanking people out of laboratories and sending them to be ranchers in Nebraska, or you are going to have severe shortages of goods. And again, there still is no positive case for doing this. All this would do AT BEST is increase nominal wages, which will be eaten by the price increases of literally every single good and service in the country.
The only way you could find enough people to make this work is to raise the retirement age to 80 and yank kids out of school at age 12 to sew t-shirts in South Carolina. Which seems bad.
(Edited 48 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,720
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
You said that you'd be pulling people out of labs to be ranchers. But actually you'd more likely be pulling people from lame sales jobs, consultancies, PA, receptionist work to be ranchers.
You said that you'd be pulling people out of labs to be ranchers. But actually you'd more likely be pulling people from lame sales jobs, consultancies, PA, receptionist work to be ranchers.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 18 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,328,817
@1,328,682 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> If these are supposed to replace income taxes
They aren't, when did Trump ever say he'd remove income taxes?
@1,328,685 (H)
Biden set a 100% tariff on Chinese EVs.
@1,328,701 (A)
That's the beauty of it, they wouldn't be willing to do that, so these companies would be forced to raise wages to attract labor.
Why is the party that prides itself on labor rights always saying we can't exploit immigrants for poverty wages anymore? It makes you sound like hypocritical psychopaths.
> If these are supposed to replace income taxes
They aren't, when did Trump ever say he'd remove income taxes?
@1,328,685 (H)
Biden set a 100% tariff on Chinese EVs.
@1,328,701 (A)
That's the beauty of it, they wouldn't be willing to do that, so these companies would be forced to raise wages to attract labor.
Why is the party that prides itself on labor rights always saying we can't exploit immigrants for poverty wages anymore? It makes you sound like hypocritical psychopaths.