SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
300,000 jobs lost A report from Moody's Analytics [PDF] says that the trade war with China, which started in early 2018, cost 300,000 jobs through September, based on an economic simulation. While it's hard to know exactly how many jobs losses can be attributed to trade tensions, the Moody's report isn't the only one that suggests the duties are having an effect on US workers. A survey of businesses by staffing firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas found that trade difficulties were cited as the reason for more than 10,000 job cuts in August alone. And an analysis by the Tax Foundation also suggests the trade war will result to job losses in the long-run.
American importers paid an extra $46 billion in tariffs Trump is wrong when he claims that China is paying the tariffs. The cost of the tariff comes directly out of the bank account of an American importer when the good arrives at the port. US companies have paid $46 billion more in tariffs than they would have without Trump's tariffs, according to an analysis of government data by the free-trade coalition called Tariffs Hurt the Heartland...
Tariffs cost US consumers Several studies show that tariffs end up costing US families. JPMorgan Chase said that the tariffs imposed in 2018 cost the average household $600 a year.
A separate report, from researchers at the NY Fed, Princeton, and Columbia University, estimated that those tariffs would cost households even more: $831 annually. Their research also considered the cost of shifting supply chains to avoid paying the tariffs....
Manufacturing takes a beating Trump has often argued that his tariffs are boosting the American manufacturing sector, but the industry is in a slump. In December, a measure of manufacturing activity weakened to its lowest point in more than a decade. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that just 46,000 net manufacturing jobs were added in 2019, an increase of less than 0.5%. While there are likely a lot of factors at play, a recent paper from economists at the Federal Reserve showed that the tariffs are certainly dragging down the sector.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @03:45PM (18 children)
They bitch about 300,000 jobs supposedly lost, but we have the lowest unemployment since EVER. Well, since we started keeping records, which goes back into the 1960s at least.
They purposely mislead on who is paying tariffs. Suppose an item was $400, with the American paying that to the Chinese. We add a tariff of $100, the Chinese ends up getting $320, and the American ends up paying $420. (realistic numbers for this trade war) Does it really matter who happens to hand over the tariff to the US government? Any reasonable person would say that the American has paid $20 and the Chinese has paid $80, even if the American is handing over the full $100. The Chinese was forced to discount the item in order to avoid factories going idle and bankrupt, which is effectively the same as handing over money to the American and/or his government.
If manufacturing jobs increase by 46,000 in the face of advancing automation, the workers are doing mighty well. It's an increase when you'd expect a decrease.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @03:57PM (2 children)
They've hitched their wagon to jerking off the democrat base to make their money, coasting on their reputation of once being a reputable news source under Ted Turner.
When Trump is reelected this November, it will be interesting to see whether their owners will keep up the act, or command a change in tone to conform with popular opinion.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @05:40PM (1 child)
The popular opinion that has more people in favor of removing Trump than keeping him in the impeachment?
The popular opinion that had Trump in second place by overall vote count in the last election?
I'm not saying Trump can't get re-elected. But Fox News only has the advantage that those who want to believe the lies are more rabid about their watching habits, is all. Any other sane measurement shows America pretty close to evenly divided, which is the real problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @05:55PM
Where are you getting the idea those are popular opinions?
Only idiots like you answer polls, you aren't a majority.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @05:37PM (14 children)
And anyone who has half a brain knows current unemployment numbers are bullshit, because they only count number of new claims filed. They don't cover someone who lost their job three years ago and is now off of benefits, would still work if they could find an opportunity but cannot get hired anywhere for whatever reason. Such a person is invisible unless one does studies like this.
And you don't understand jack about tariffs, either. Even if your numbers are nice you are still now paying $20 more for the product than you were. And no, what discounts have to be applied on the seller's end depends on how much in demand the product is. But what you're really clueless about is that the other side in turn has dropped a $100 charge on a different item. Let's say food. So, even by your own logic the American seller has now had to discount their rates by $80 but will raise prices $20.
So who won in the net trade war? Nobody. Because the other side launched proportionate tariffs against the idiot stupid enough to start a trade war.
EXCEPT.... maybe China's more centralized economy means they can say, "Yeah, we'll just get our pork and soybeans elsewhere...." For example... [reuters.com]
EXCEPT.... maybe now the small farmer can't afford to discount his product $80 because he's already behind the 8 ball in hock to the bank for his farmland. He needs that full $80 just to stay even. But the other side isn't buying. So the farmer gets foreclosed on. And he commits suicide. That the phase one deal is signed and now pork is back at a straight $400 doesn't matter - the farmer is still dead.
EXCEPT.... which side can deal with deprivation better? Hint: It ain't the U.S.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday January 16 2020, @05:48PM (7 children)
It's not that simple, though you raise valid points.
The important thing to notice is that manufacturing hasn't been coming back to the US, it's been going to Indonesia, or Viet Nam, or Mexico.
There's a question, however, as to how long this will matter. If the plants become fully automated, or only require a couple of people, labor costs will cease to matter, and jobs provided will evaporate. There will still, of course, be property taxes...
I think Trump is grandstanding, and that he didn't expect to get a substantive win. But he expected to get, say, the coal miners, thinking that he was working on their behalf. And he may have done so.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @06:03PM (6 children)
Why is it considered a good thing to have a boss? People would be better off "unemployed" and growing their own food and building their own habitats, etc.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @06:39PM (1 child)
The "funny" thing about working for a company is, no matter how incompetent the business, its management, and its employees seem to be, they are machines that make money, some of which you get to keep.
If you wanted to start your own business, you would have to surmount that HUGE hump to get to the point where others are willing to reliably pay for your services. If your customers and line of work are "irregular" in any manner, you may even have to defend your business against violence.
If you want to be a "free man on the land", how are you going to make money to buy a plot? If you try to grow stuff, how will you protect your crops against inclement weather, weeds and pests? How will you pay for the taxes your government will levy against you for nominal protection against your neighbors? Will the government let you build your own shack, or will they attach conditions that you need cash money to satisfy?
What happens when you get old and cannot keep up with growing your own food anymore? A job lets you save for old age and whatever else life brings. I wouldn't blame anyone for choosing to stay under a boss.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @07:04PM
The solution to all your problems is: Buy bitcoin now and trade it for fiat later when you need it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @07:43PM (3 children)
My grandparents did that 75 years ago in West Virginia.
It's called subsistence farming, and it leads to a life of poverty. So poor, in fact, that you jump at getting a job at the coal mine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @10:45PM (2 children)
It is only subsistence if you cannot produce enough to sell for profit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17 2020, @04:14AM
Well that would be almost all of us, so...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17 2020, @05:53PM
Since professional small business farmers with all the latest equipment still can't compete with the mega-corporate farms your point is instantly refuted. The capital required to get a modern and profitable small farm running is rather significant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @06:15PM (3 children)
Unemployment numbers count people, not claims. They count people who looked for work in the last couple weeks. If somebody who lost his job three years ago is looking, he counts. If he wasn't looking but then feels better because Trump fixed the economy, he might start looking again, so then he counts again. If the economy looks good enough for people to be less discouraged, the numbers can look worse because of all the people who start looking again.
The $20 is a small price to pay for helping American workers. The full $100 goes into the federal budget, reducing our tax burden or letting the government spend more. (we can even compensate our farmers for any retribution) Americans can compete to supply the item; this is easier with the higher market price.
China mostly can't get soybeans elsewhere. Sure, they will try, but the USA is the large supplier in the northern hemisphere. Trump is also working with Brazil to choke China off from southern hemisphere supplies.
The discounting is not just about demand. It's also about the producer's elasticity. Idle factories are not free. Loans must be paid. Shutting down and then restarting is not free of consequence. The relative amount being paid ($80 vs. $20) shows that the relative elasticity favors the USA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @06:18PM
I meant to reply to HiThere, not myself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17 2020, @12:09AM (1 child)
You are terrible at math. Where does that extra $20 come from? Thin air? Nope. The consumer pays it.
As far as your theory that "China" is discounting things in order to meet market prices:
I recently priced a made in China piece of gear. It was exactly 30% more expensive than before the tariffs. How is that only a 5% increase by your estimate.
See? My anecdotal evidence is just as good as yours.
TLDR, you don't know what you are talking about, and you are yanking figures straight out of your ass.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 17 2020, @02:58AM
European financial firms study the US-China issue. They seem pretty impartial. According to them, for an average item the US consumer pays 19% of the tariff. (which I rounded to 20%)
If I'm yanking figures straight out of my ass, but they come from Europe, my ass must be Europe. Are you saying my ass looks big?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 16 2020, @09:36PM
Look at the "no, and no" comment for why. The original comment with the $400 example was fully correct.
The one unemployment number that ought to be getting "worse" is labor force participation, mainly because boomers are retiring. That isn't clearly a sign of a bad economy. I guess people getting old is bad, but Trump has nothing to do with that. Labor force participation also goes down when people go to school or become full-time mothers, both of which can be wonderful. Every other unemployment number shows that Trump delivers miracles that had been thought impossible.
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday January 17 2020, @03:53AM
A lot of those jobs are basically being servants, something that doesn't pay well. Dog walkers, delivery drivers, lawn mowers, maids and such.
Lots of jobs that don't pay a livable wage is worse then lots of jobs that pay well and is likely unsustainable, especially with how much money the government has to borrow to subsidize those crappy jobs.