Can Trump really bring jobs back?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by moneymaker on September 8, 2016 - 12:46pm

I have my doubts but I haven't heard Hillary say she can. At first I was thinking this was OT but in reality jobs directly influence whether people can buy a house, add onto their current house, or move up. Not sure how many San Diego jobs have been lost to China, but the country as a whole has lost a lot of jobs to exportation of labor. Many people say that these are the sweat shop jobs that suck which may be true, but I know I'm sick and tired of buying crap made outside the USA.

Submitted by Coronita on September 8, 2016 - 1:00pm.

And yet, no one is complaining that they only have to pay $500 for a complete computer system from Walmart, as opposed to $4000-5000, back in 1980's, which was the cost of my first Mac.

Nor is anyone complaining that they can buy a Samsung 4K TV for $1000 tops, as opposed to the first plasmas that were around $3000-4000.

Also, how do you "bring back manufacturing jobs" that were replaced by automation and robotics, which is a significant chunk of the job losses?

Should we discourage people from using eMail and instead insist people send more snail mail, so that we can increase the volume of snail mail so that we can maintain the level of employment in the USPS as we have in the past?

Submitted by no_such_reality on September 8, 2016 - 1:03pm.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/...

Quote:
That’s why, in her first 100 days in office, Hillary will break through Washington gridlock to make the biggest investment in good-paying jobs since World War II, putting us on a path to a stronger future for our children and grandchildren.

Bold is their emphasis, not mine.

The PC is steadily dying. My phone is getting more expensive.

Neither here nor there.

People like their cheap stuff, including 99 cents per pound grapes. They just don't like the collateral costs that they all want to pretend don't exist.

Submitted by Coronita on September 8, 2016 - 1:08pm.

no_such_reality wrote:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/08/01/hillary-clintons-100-day-jobs-plan/

Quote:
That’s why, in her first 100 days in office, Hillary will break through Washington gridlock to make the biggest investment in good-paying jobs since World War II, putting us on a path to a stronger future for our children and grandchildren.

Bold is their emphasis, not mine.

No political candidate is going to "fix" the job loss problem due to being obsolete and outdated skill set. No one can stop progress, and if there is a financial benefit to making something faster, cheaper, it will be done...If not by U.S. companies, by some other company or someone else somewhere else. China's labor cost are already existing those of other nations in the eastern european block and Vietnam, which is why for some time you see factories and corporations setting up shop there now.

If people in this country do not want to accept the fact that those jobs aren't coming back and they have no choice but to retrain and retool on the "next thing", there is no politician that can fix this problem. Anyone who claims they can, is lying and simply underestimates the nature of technological advances.

Just look at your local home depot or ralph's/vons. Instead of hiring 4 cashiers, you now have 4 self checkout stands and 1 person to manage all 4 machines. And personally, I like the self checkout because I can get out of the store a lot quicker than some cashier that wants to make conversation with their customers while checking out.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 8, 2016 - 1:13pm.

Why would you want old jobs back? We should create new jobs.

Also why is imported stuff crap? A useful product is useful no matter where it's made.
I think we have so much more choices now. Good design, good quality at near disposable prices.

I bought a bunch of cheap dishes at Marukai and my friends think they're so fancy. Made in Japan. You can also buy bone china at Ikea. Many fine restaurants or hotels don't even use the same quality.

One reason inflation is low is because China invested so much in manufacturing that there's overcapacity. Good for consumers.

Submitted by Escoguy on September 8, 2016 - 1:17pm.

Tariffs could be calculated based on differential fringe benefits.
I.e. if a plant in china has 5% direct labor costs but 2% fringe as there is less insurance, social security/medicaid, days off etc, but a US factory has the same direct labor cost and another 5% for fringe as a percentage of the final product price, a tariff could be imposed that offsets that difference.

It would remove the incentive for Chinese employers to screw their employees by making the total compensation comparable even if the absolute level is lower.

I.e. you impose your social policies on your trading partners. not sure if WTO rules allow that.

But if so, it would put pressure on Chinese employers to raise benefits.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 8, 2016 - 1:20pm.

no_such_reality wrote:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/08/01/hillary-clintons-100-day-jobs-plan/

Quote:
That’s why, in her first 100 days in office, Hillary will break through Washington gridlock to make the biggest investment in good-paying jobs since World War II, putting us on a path to a stronger future for our children and grandchildren.

Bold is their emphasis, not mine.

The PC is steadily dying. My phone is getting more expensive.

Neither here nor there.

People like their cheap stuff, including 99 cents per pound grapes. They just don't like the collateral costs that they all want to pretend don't exist.

Hillary is proposing investments in infrastructure which will enhance transportation and productivity. Unlike Trump she's not proposing to slap tariffs on China to bring jobs back. Jobs cannot be brought back. Tariffs will just make things more expensive.

Submitted by Coronita on September 8, 2016 - 1:28pm.

Escoguy wrote:
Tariffs could be calculated based on differential fringe benefits.
I.e. if a plant in china has 5% direct labor costs but 2% fringe as there is less insurance, social security/medicaid, days off etc, but a US factory has the same direct labor cost and another 5% for fringe as a percentage of the final product price, a tariff could be imposed that offsets that difference.

It would remove the incentive for Chinese employers to screw their employees by making the total compensation comparable even if the absolute level is lower.

I.e. you impose your social policies on your trading partners. not sure if WTO rules allow that.

But if so, it would put pressure on Chinese employers to raise benefits.

Those rules would only apply if the company that owns the factory is American. Those rules would not apply to companies that reside outside of the U.S. and given that especially in technology, a bulk of the business is not in the U.S., there's not much the U.S government could do short of bringing their grievances to the WTO.

That's why you have a company like Huawei, that does not do a lot a business in the U.S., but pretty much kicking everyone one else's butt in telecom and networking infrastructure, both U.S. and European companies to the point that they ended up putting most of the European and U.S. companies under (with the exception of Cisco Systems). A customer, like a South American telco company is not going to care the details of "how much better it treats its workers" say Cisco Systems, versus say Huawei (for argument say, let's assume that's the case). That south american telco company is only going to care about which system is better an which one is cheaper. (Side note: Huawei has been paying well to poach talent too, also a fair game).

And since most U.S. companies these day derive a significant amount of their business overseas, the rules are often tied to how things are in that country. GM for instance sold more cars in China then they do in the U.S. It's been like this for some time now.

This is actually one of the problems that companies like Qualcomm has to deal with all the time, though to a lesser extent because of it's revenue from it's patent portfolio and licensing. If it were to compete on chip manufacturing itself, it probably wouldn't last very long without bringing out the cutting edge design, especially since most of the connectivity stuff is quickly getting commoditized.

American companies can afford to pay for a lot more for skills that a lot better than what they can get elsewhere, whether that skill brings in new technology or makes significant improvements over everyone else. But if american companies had to compete on cost and cost alone, they would never win if they could only employ u.s. workers, if the workers have like equal productivity as everyone else in the world.

Submitted by no_such_reality on September 8, 2016 - 1:40pm.

The same argument can be made about clean air, clean water and everything else that is an input.

Many countries have lower costs of doing business. From a regulatory environment to labor to actual resource inputs.

Those countries are choosing economic growth over externalized costs.

Kind of like the Hoover Dam, I really doubt we could get it built today. The laws were different then, employment expectations (and employee safety) were different then.

IMHO, the G8 need to do a much better job at pushing the developing world into uplifting it's standard of living.

Submitted by Coronita on September 8, 2016 - 1:57pm.

no_such_reality wrote:
The same argument can be made about clean air, clean water and everything else that is an input.

Many countries have lower costs of doing business. From a regulatory environment to labor to actual resource inputs.

Those countries are choosing economic growth over externalized costs.

Kind of like the Hoover Dam, I really doubt we could get it built today. The laws were different then, employment expectations (and employee safety) were different then.

IMHO, the G8 need to do a much better job at pushing the developing world into uplifting it's standard of living.

You wouldn't need as many people to build hover dam today, because you would have technological advances for which machines did some of the work that labor use to do..

Also, you would have fewer U.S. workers making the components of that dam, because some of those components could be built more efficiently elsewhere since the manufacturing line was already setup elsewhere, when in the U.S. no company invested the time, resources, over decades to create that know-how here (bad analogy, since with damn building, there probably isn't some special factory line that is needed, but for some industries, technology to be specific, you need Fab, and not many companies have the knowhow. How many companies will be able to Fab at 10nm and 7nm in the U.S? Maybe intel, and that's big if. Samsung and TSM, are expected to in 2016....Should all chips made in the U.S. be restricted to being only made in the U.S. and not be able to access 10nm and 7nm that will be first available in Korea and Taiwan respectively? If so, wouldn't this put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage versus your OEM from China that can use 10nm and 7nm at TSM and Samsung?

I suppose you could mandate that we should use fewer machines and more people, but it would take longer and cost more, which would be something that the taxpayer would end up paying for.

A lot of people think that going overseas is simply about being cost. In many cases, that's not true. Especially in technology, some of this stuff is no longer done here and to bring it back will take a unsurmountable amount of time and resources, and may not even yield results from companies doing this for some time elsewhere with the expertise. There is a reason why most chip companies are Fab-less and do the bulk of the Fab work to companies like TSM and Samsung. Because they wouldn't be able to do it better, and they definitely wouldn't be able to get to the market quicker if they did.

Submitted by no_such_reality on September 8, 2016 - 2:06pm.

LOL flu, the challenge for Hoover Dam isn't capabilities (although at this point, capabilities are probably a problem too, particularly in many manufacturing segments), it's all the other stuff from changed expectations, to worker rights, environmental restrictions, etc.

I'd make a joke about the Jungle and Chicago, but I'm not sure the pork operations today in North Carolina with their steady stream of recruited labor from newspaper ads in foreign countries with a wink and nod from governments are any better.

Skills sets are progressive. You can't have an economy that just has top level skills and jobs.

Well, you can, but that only works for a generation.

Sending jobs overseas started out about being cheap. Then it became about skill, because surprise, when you stop doing something, you stop being good at it.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 8, 2016 - 2:17pm.

It's very interesting that Trump has turned the Republican Party anti-trade. Historically, free trade has been associated with the right of center.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...

My bet is that if Hillary is elected, the lame duck Republican congress will pass TPP at the behest of the business community. That will be the last chance to get it passed.

Submitted by Coronita on September 8, 2016 - 2:35pm.

no_such_reality wrote:

Skills sets are progressive. You can't have an economy that just has top level skills and jobs.

Well, you can, but that only works for a generation.

Well, you don't need everyone to have the top skills. You just need enough people in your country to have the top skill to justify having a presence here at all, so the rest of the people who aren't top level skills can be supported locally with local wages.

Building a damn is also slightly different. The work literally has to be done here, unlike building a portable product or service. Different set of rules.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on September 8, 2016 - 2:54pm.

The DUDE was unemployed.

Submitted by no_such_reality on September 8, 2016 - 3:21pm.

flu wrote:
no_such_reality wrote:

Skills sets are progressive. You can't have an economy that just has top level skills and jobs.

Well, you can, but that only works for a generation.

Well, you don't need everyone to have the top skills. You just need enough people in your country to have the top skill to justify having a presence here at all, so the rest of the people who aren't top level skills can be supported locally with local wages.

Building a damn is also slightly different. The work literally has to be done here, unlike building a portable product or service. Different set of rules.

flu you're being very literal.

not sure what local wages are when the global environment is dictating what wages are. Top talent only justifies local presence if there shortage of that talent outside of the area or you're required to have local presence for other reasons.

When today's local top talent retires who will replace them?

hint: the guys off shore that already replaced the mid-level talent.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 8, 2016 - 3:27pm.

Talking about protectionism, you have to be objective and admire the Internet Great Wall of China.

With a world wide network, the great advantage that dominant American internet companies have is that they can reach beyond borders and operate extraterritorially. Despite the American advantage, China was able to create Internet giants.

It's too late to backtrack on free trade deals we worked out. But the lesson is that we do need public policy and industrial policy. Trump is right that people are laughing at our laissez faire gullibility.

Interestingly TPP is a way to foster trade with other countries in the Pacific as a way to contain China. For example, to bring Vietnam closer to the US and less dependent on its big neighbor, China.

Submitted by harvey on September 8, 2016 - 3:27pm.

flu wrote:
Building a damn is also slightly different. The work literally has to be done here, unlike building a portable product or service. Different set of rules.

Even that's not so true any more:

Bridge Comes to San Francisco With a Made-in-China Label
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/busine...

Got any more damn things to say?

Submitted by Coronita on September 8, 2016 - 5:06pm.

no_such_reality wrote:

flu you're being very literal.

Well yes, because depending on the occupation, the current level of technology, it dictates how practical work can be outsourced or offshored,

Quote:

not sure what local wages are when the global environment is dictating what wages are. Top talent only justifies local presence if there shortage of that talent outside of the area or you're required to have local presence for other reasons.

Sure it makes a difference. You don't think a HVAC guy in Mexico charges $400 to change a capacitor do you? Or a BMW mechanic billing out $150/hr in labor? Or a guy that replaces a faucet that takes about 20 minutes, $100 for the labor alone. There are jobs that can be outsource/offshored, and there are ones that cannot. And some of your desk jobs might not currently be offshored because it's current or new, but give enough time, it will be, unless you change and do something else that no one else has started working on yet.

Software is a perfect example...When android first came it, it was the latest thing. And to do really easy stuff, most people could probably do it. But short of a simple "hello world" program, people quickly figured out to do anything slightly more complex, nothing existed. So the top architects and designers worked on the stack, worked at the framework, and created a bunch of libraries, toolkits, shared services, so that the not-so-top-talent could more easily build stuff.

And then, you had not-so-top-talent reusing a lot of the libraries/tools/etc to build even more stuff on top of that for the slightly-more-stupid talent to be able to do useful things....

And eventually, given enough time, and enough people working on the same platform, piling things on top of things, you end up with saturation in which your idiot-"programmer" that barely can do anything with threading can finally write a hello world program without even know what threading is, what Binder is, what RPC does, etc....

And for about 70% of work that is left to be done at this stage is pretty much crap work that is copy-cut-paste from some website that someone already wrote about years ago that already solved the problem...So that some guy in some IT shop overseas could write something that worked reasonably well and that solved 70-80% of the problem at 3/10th the cost...Depending on the type of the company, they might only care about 70-80% of the solution and not be willing to pay for the remaining 20-30% of the solution, especially if the company is not really a tech company and just needs some "programmer".

So yeah, as your american software engineer, you really don't want to working when just about everyone else in the world can do what you claim is your skill at the current moment. Java J2EE engineers are a perfect example. Dime a dozen. Move on, find something else new, become an expert in that thing, before everyone else is, and milk as much money you can while you are the expert before you and every other expert starts making it easier for everyone else.

Quote:

When today's local top talent retires who will replace them?

Well, you'll have a natural death of certain technology. So a lot of people won't be replaced. And you'll have a bunch of young people that learned something new that a bunch of old people refused to learn, and those new things will end up being used by the latest tech companies, while things that the old guys learned ends up becoming something like Fortran and Cobol.

And hopefully if you're one of the old farts that decided to stop learning, you've saved enough F.U. money from when you were milking it when your skills were in demand, that you don't care anymore in your old age. Or you have passive income coming from elsewhere.

Quote:

hint: the guys off shore that already replaced the mid-level talent.

Not really

Submitted by Coronita on September 8, 2016 - 5:23pm.

Speaking of which....
China’s Reviving the American Heartland — One Low Wage at a Time
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...

Submitted by flyer on September 8, 2016 - 9:52pm.

From what we've heard from friends in tech, you'd better have your F. U. funds and/or passive income rolling in at least by the time you're 50, and that also seems to apply to lots of other fields today, as more and more people become more and more dispensable in the workplace as they grow older. I've always believed that was the smart way to go, even if you continue working past 50.

Submitted by ltsddd on September 8, 2016 - 10:13pm.

flyer wrote:
From what we've heard from friends in tech, you'd better have your F. U. funds and/or passive income rolling in at least by the time you're 50, and that also seems to apply to lots of other fields today, as more and more people become more and more dispensable in the workplace as they grow older. I've always believed that was the smart way to go, even if you continue working past 50.

Regardless of the situation, everyone should start working on their go-to-hell fund as soon as they start working. Your goal shouldn't be to be gainfully employed past 50, but to be able to say Fvck it at an age where you still have your health and can still enjoy life.

btw., wrt the topic - sure jobs can always be brought back. Question is, how much more are you willing to pay for those products?

Submitted by flyer on September 9, 2016 - 5:40am.

.

Submitted by flyer on September 9, 2016 - 5:54am.

ltsdd wrote:
flyer wrote:
From what we've heard from friends in tech, you'd better have your F. U. funds and/or passive income rolling in at least by the time you're 50, and that also seems to apply to lots of other fields today, as more and more people become more and more dispensable in the workplace as they grow older. I've always believed that was the smart way to go, even if you continue working past 50.

Regardless of the situation, everyone should start working on their go-to-hell fund as soon as they start working. Your goal shouldn't be to be gainfully employed past 50, but to be able to say Fvck it at an age where you still have your health and can still enjoy life.

Totally agree. Since we were able to create the gth fund very early in our lives, we've pretty much been in a financial position to choose the things we enjoy doing most of our lives--and was actually commenting on the comment below wrt tech employment in my previous post. . .

"And hopefully if you're one of the old farts that decided to stop learning, you've saved enough F.U. money from when you were milking it when your skills were in demand, that you don't care anymore in your old age. Or you have passive income coming from elsewhere."

Submitted by The-Shoveler on September 9, 2016 - 6:44am.

Multiple streams of income (Better than FU money).

FU money can disappear or be inflated away faster than you can accumulate it.

I would advise working on getting multiple streams of income as soon as possible (I would put this as a higher priority than college).

anyway my 2 cents.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on September 9, 2016 - 6:56am.

The-Shoveler wrote:
Multiple streams of income (Better than FU money).

FU money can disappear or be inflated away faster than you can accumulate it.

I would advise working on getting multiple streams of income as soon as possible (I would put this as a higher priority than college).

anyway my 2 cents.

or find a line of work or small business that you can somewhat enjoy and do to an older age? this seems more probable for the majority. also better fir the mind and body, to be engaged?

Submitted by Coronita on September 9, 2016 - 7:32am.

scaredyclassic wrote:
The-Shoveler wrote:
Multiple streams of income (Better than FU money).

FU money can disappear or be inflated away faster than you can accumulate it.

I would advise working on getting multiple streams of income as soon as possible (I would put this as a higher priority than college).

anyway my 2 cents.

or find a line of work or small business that you can somewhat enjoy and do to an older age? this seems more probable for the majority. also better fir the mind and body, to be engaged?

Some professions don't require to to do this. For example, in your case if you're a doctor or a lawyer, you can easily practice all they way until you are 70. First, you can't easily be outsourced (maybe paralegal/clerical work can, but you can't). Second, all the skills and knowledge you learn and know pretty much is still useful 20-30 years from now. Maybe you need to brush up here and there, but for the most part, your skills aren't going to be completely outdated. My kid's pediatrician is turning 70 and he is being forced to retire by his organization. So he is moving to UCSD, so he can continue to practice.

Same could be said about plumbing, electricians, etc,but those things have another issue...they are physically demanding and it may be difficult to continue doing those things when you are 70+.

Technology, unfortunately, changes quickly, so you have to constantly keep up. If you like it, it's great. If you are only in it for the money, you won't last very long because you won't be motivated to keep up.

Running a small business, is not a walk in the park. And it's probably not something you want to start doing when you are 70. While there are some people who probably succeeded having a auto-pilot small business, what I've seen is small business needs active participation from the owners for it to remain profitable, which means "working". Most small business owners I've seen work hard to generate income, which is then used to invest to generate passive income. The only difference is probably the take home income from a small business can be more than take home income from a salaried paycheck, with all the special tax variables you can play with a business versus just a W2/1099 paycheck. So you might be able to reach financial independence quicker...or not...

By the time you are 70, you're money should be on autopilot working for you.

Submitted by Coronita on September 9, 2016 - 7:33am.

Earlier I meant FU money not meaning it's just going to sit there and do nothing. FU money means you have money that is working to provide you sufficient income so you don't need to work for the same income.

It's one of the main reasons I'm not a huge proponent of increasing taxes on capital gains, dividend, and investment income. For those of us that don't have pension (which is long gone), or who don't have a profession which you could practice indefinitely, who took the time to plan financially ahead and try to achieve financial independence, many of us are counting on that passive income to live on so we don't need to work. And those sort of "breaks" are available to anyone else that have put in an effort to save/invest and plan...

The problem though, is a majority of the people in this country don't save/invest/plan, and spend almost everything they earn when they are still a paycheck slave. And some others even if they don't necessarily splurge on their paycheck, don't bother to learn how to invest/earn (typically the doomsayers that think the sky is always falling)., but gripe about how their paycheck/benefits/etc is getting smaller and eaten away by inflation.

Short of having a guaranteed pay from a retirement plan, doing nothing is a sure way to almost guarantee failure when you are old and can't (for whatever reason) work.

Submitted by no_such_reality on September 9, 2016 - 9:33am.

I think the money needs to be on autopilot and able to sustain you by mid-40s.

To be honest you can retrain. But very few businesses outside of desperately new tech are willing to pick up a retooled 40 something at a lower level and pay than previous. SW dev and changing platforms and languages and not retooling the whole plant of the persons skill sets.

Switching platforms like to the phone is still an incremental step with same core principles involved. Crossing core is much more difficult and businesses are much less interested in those attempting it.

Meanwhile back on Rancho California, our Governor signed extended climate change legislation yesterday impacting our cost environment locally.

Submitted by poorgradstudent on September 9, 2016 - 4:03pm.

As much as I love Bill Clinton, the President gets more credit (and blame) for the economy than he (or she) deserves. At the minimum without buy-in from congress it's tough to do anything. On top of that, 90-95% of the economy and jobs is controlled by forces beyond government control.

The biggest area it can be controlled is short term jobs created by infrastructure projects. If Trump does bring those jobs back it would be in very un-Republican, fiscal conservative fashion, as they are very Big Government.

Submitted by flyer on September 9, 2016 - 5:05pm.

As far as the jobs topic goes, I agree that bringing back or creating sustainable new jobs is going to be a challenge for any new president, with many pros and cons, as everyone has mentioned. Only time will tell if any of the campaign promises will be fulfilled by either candidate, but I hope no one is banking on any of them.

I only got into the sustainable income issue on this thread as it relates to the topic of jobs in this county, and how it seems more and more people are becoming more and more dispensable earlier in their careers than ever before, which makes proactive financial planning even more essential.

On that topic, I probably didn't communicate my thoughts correctly before, but I agree that establishing multiple streams of income to support your desired lifestyle as early as possible for the balance of your lifetime (and, hopefully for future generations of your family) is definitely the way to go, and is what we've done.

That doesn't mean you have nothing meaningful to do, it just means you are free to pursue what you consider to be important in your life without financial concerns.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 10, 2016 - 11:22am.

poorgradstudent wrote:
As much as I love Bill Clinton, the President gets more credit (and blame) for the economy than he (or she) deserves. At the minimum without buy-in from congress it's tough to do anything. On top of that, 90-95% of the economy and jobs is controlled by forces beyond government control.

The biggest area it can be controlled is short term jobs created by infrastructure projects. If Trump does bring those jobs back it would be in very un-Republican, fiscal conservative fashion, as they are very Big Government.

Your posts are always well thought out. I would add that Trump is not wanting to create new kinds of jobs. He wants to "bring jobs back" by slapping tariffs on importers. He wants Americans to do such things as sew clothes and manufacture plastic toys again.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.