My job has been impacted by Trumpas well. Stock prices falling and tariffs have caused them to do layoff of 2500 people. I fucking hate this so much. I work with many international customers and Trump/Musk has been brought up constantly and in my line of work people typically avoid political discussions but it’s kinda nice to hear our allies don’t actually hate Americans and know what the real problem is.
Your telling me the US government can’t just demand other countries pay them money for no reason?
/j
Okay so, continuity error.
In the beginning his hours are being cut almost entirely, and at the end they’re in no danger of being cut?
It’s not good story but this is either a weird grammatical error or this is one those “things that didn’t happen” stories.
Not that I doubt people think that other countries pay for tarrifs because Daddy Trump has been saying that for months and months but …
Man, I wonder how basic reading comprehension played a role in the last election.
Actually the blame on this is his lack of paragraphs .
Thoughts should be separated!
Read again - it was two different people he was talking about. It’s implied that they have different job positions so their hours were impacted differently.
Orrr… ya missed the “another one of our guys” part
That seems to be what happened. Oof.
So bring on the downvotes, but can anyone tell me what the alternative plan was to bring manufacturing back to the states? And wasn’t that always going to make things more expensive?
Granted, this is being done with complete reckless regard, and the effects could’ve been spread out, but what’s the alternative?
People will tell you subsidies and positive reinforcement but honestly that is just more government spending to make a few rich. The answer is, there isn’t an alternative. All options aren’t great.
Manufacturing working conditions are horrible. As a country develops workers rights, unions, safety regulations, etc, it becomes almost impossible to compete on a global scale for manufacturing. Naturally the manufacturers in countries where those things don’t exist do very well.
In certain countries, the labor is just a few steps off of slave labor, which we all know is highly profitable and highly unethical. In other countries their dollar is so weak that net exports are the obvious choice for profitable businesses. Manufacturing thrives in these conditions and attracts a great deal of foreign investment - because hey, if the shipping costs are outweighed by the operational savings - it’s a sound business plan!!
Tariffs upset that equilibrium and guess who pays American tariffs? AMERICAN COMPANIES. The government gets a benefit, US becomes less likely of an export destination for countries to trade with, the dollar gets messed with in funky ways, and there is some amount of global loss of productivity due to this forced shift.
Basically, I view tariffs as a tax on the benefits of cheap overseas labor.
I think you’re right. And I think the unspoken policy off anti-tariff politicians is, ‘We’re never bringing those jobs back.’
can anyone tell me what the alternative plan was to bring manufacturing back to the states?
what’s the alternative?
A better plan would have involved local subsidies and tax rebates for various industries that have the ability to be cheaper than existing outsourced infrastructure if they were to be developed with a large enough economy of scale, to incentivize them to engage in local production.
And for industries in which we wouldn’t experience lower prices even with larger local economies of scale, such as those involved in mining mineral deposits we simply don’t have enough of here in the states, we just… wouldn’t do anything to tariff anybody or provide incentives if it wouldn’t be something we were capable of benefiting from via local production?
And wasn’t that always going to make things more expensive?
These other methods would make things more expensive too, (albeit much less so) but they would directly incentivize local production, and crucially, only cost money when production was actually made locally. Nobody would get a tax rebate or subsidy if nobody was actually starting local production. With tariffs, however, everyone begins paying a higher cost, regardless of if local manufacturing is even happening, let alone if it’s cost effective or possible in the first place.
Tariffs are just an inefficient way of incentivizing local production compared to other options, because they primarily exist to punish other countries and their economies, rather than uplift our own. They can be used to incentivize local production, but if not properly linked with subsidies, rebates, and job programs, they aren’t terribly effective at doing that, and they will almost always lead to higher prices on an ongoing basis.
You’re singing my song. Everything you’re saying is spot on.
I think the eventual solve will be small batch manufacturing capability, progressively complex according to population density. But those means of production will need to be nationalized for planning & control, and it’s simply not possible under capitalism.
But the current power structure is built on “market solutions” by using collective punishment to force capitalists to make concessions without directly regulating them. It’s the whole reason the manipulate interest rates.
I can tell you! It’s just not a quick, easy, single bill that we can pass. It takes a fundamental change in the way Americans think, it’s gonna take at least 2 generations to make this move.
Here’s the plan: we’re gonna promote cooperation. We’re gonna get people to notice the systematic problems in the way they are treated by their authorities. We need to aggressively be better than our enemies, both in practice and knowledge.
Here’s the method: (Essay ahead).
We need to disrupt almost every single system that currently exists. They’re basically all fucked. Start with the ones that get the most people motivated - their basic needs first, entertainment second, their wellbeing third. That feels wrong and it is, we need 2 generations to fix this because we’ve been beat down by this system so bad the priorities aren’t even correct anymore. I’ve been using this tagline recently “People in homes, food in bellies, minds entertained and health maintained.”
You as an individual can and, if you want to have an impact of saving literally the world and not just America, probably should start doing your part for this plan. Give away what you can, but never what you need. And be careful, because you might need that later. Never let that get in the way, though, of giving what you can. Bring your neighbors grocery money when you have a bit of extra cash, and offer to start a food co-op to make sure they never go hungry. It sucks, because I know damn well I wanna go spend that extra 20 bucks to treat myself and you probably do too. But if you go give it away instead, it’ll come back to you. Not immediately, and not always symmetrically. But it will come back to benefit you in some way. We need to shift the focus towards the community instead of the individual. I have plans for the other steps, if you’d like I can go into them. But the food co-ops are the best first step IMO
Why would it take generations to fix an issue that only started a few decades ago? What a load of shit.
A few generations to fix
An issue that only started a
a few decades2 generations agoBecause generations are only 25 years, not the 100 that your generation will survive. These issues started, or at least became severely worse, about 3 generations ago with Reagan.
It took that long because they were attempting the slow boil method. We can course correct immediately.
There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen.
We can but how do you as an individual plan to convince Americans to start the revolution? Personally, I think we need to build them up and show them the systemic issues they’re dealing with in order to convince them.
There are decades where nothing’s happensThere are decades where you don’t pay attention to what’s happening in the background, andthere are weeks where decades happenweeks where those decades of planning come to fruition.I’m not an accelerationist, but if I was then I would say Trump is doing it quite well. If this keeps up, people will be more open than you’d think to revolution.
Bring on the downvotes but the correct answer is don’t. Free trade causes jobs in each country to align with recardiant advantage in those countries. We have the jobs we want now. Unless we are in the middle of a depression we don’t want government to “provide more jobs”. We don’t need more jobs. We want better jobs. The whole reason why manufacturing has slowed down in the US is that the global market for manufacturing doesn’t pay as well per man hour as other opportunities we already have.
Tariffs disrupt existing jobs to bring back old jobs. Old jobs we shouldn’t want as much as the jobs we have now.
Where did you get the idea that tariffs are supposed to increase domestic production in any way?
That’s the openly stated goal of tariffs from both parties.
It’s not that simple and presenting it as such is disingenuous. Your fellow employee asked an important question, why cant we produce our own stuff? Relying on a frienemy to manufacture what your country needs to function is an extreme oversight of national security. Europe is experiencing that lesson as we speak.
Because we don’t have every resource in the world contained within our small slice of a single continent? Not to mention, it isn’t 19-dickety2, so Europe and the rest of the world aren’t brain-draining into the US as much as they once were, thanks to local-stability and our newfound US-instability. And, speaking of which, thanks to the morons grabbing the wheel and directing us into a brick wall, well…that brain-drain we benefitted from since the Nazis…yeah, the opposite is happening now. Turns out smart people don’t want to live under fascism…weird, I know. Why can’t they just hate the same people I hate???
This isn’t even even economics 101, this is just what trade is. You have something I need and I have something you need. If we both have extra and we trade, we both win.
So, how about you produce everything you need without anybody’s help, subsistence living. Drop your phone drop your clothes go out into the woods pick your own food find your own clean water.
Because that is exactly the position Donald Trump has put our whole country in in relation to the rest of the planet.
If you don’t want to get along with society, if you want to do everything on your own more power to you. But don’t make claims that other folks are being disingenuous because you don’t understand what trading is.
Subsistence living
I don’t disagree with your point but I think this argument could have been more compelling. The way you’ve phrase it here almost makes these tariffs sound good to a socialist and we don’t want to accidentally push people to the other side. Basically, your intentions are great but execution could have been just a hair better if you don’t mind a bit of pedantry from someone who has studied debate for a few years:
A lot of us want to be producing everything we need and giving away/trading what we can. That sounds ideal. We need to be certain how how we do it though. Tariffs are a bandaid to a bigger, more systematic issue. We need to build up the infrastructure required to take care of our people, create the systems to ensure our people are taken care, and export every bit of excess. We also need to make sure people don’t say they’re going to do that (Like the orange and the melon did) and then turn around and do the opposite (like the orange and the melon did).
If you’d like, I can give you a some more specific pointers on what to say to be more effective as well (bring solutions along with problems)
The way you’ve phrase it here almost makes these tariffs sound good to a socialist
Hey, democratic socialist here, this does not sound good at all, nor does it sound remotely socialist to me.
That’s because you’re probably smart enough to hear what they’re meaning and not take it at face value. Not everyone is, so we need to pick very careful words. Subsistence living is something that sounds nice to a lot of socialists, so we can’t call our enemies policy subsistence living. We need to call it what it really is, isolationism. They didn’t build the infrastructure required for subsistence living first
I’ve never seen subsistence living as a core belief of any large number of socialists. At least, no larger than the average amount of people in the general population that also find subsistence living to be a good idea.
Most socialists understand that many goods can’t be fully produced by any one individual, and that we get a benefit from working together as a group. Hell, most of Socialist ideology revolves around groups of workers owning the means of production, and a government/society that shares resources between people to keep everyone as reasonably comfortable as possible.
The notion that subsistence living is something that more socialists would support than the average person isn’t exactly something I’ve seen to be true in my personal experience. In fact, I see a lot more of that on the very much anti-socialist right, what with all the homesteading and “rugged independent man” stereotypes you’ll see thrown about over there.
You’re right, subsistence living in an individual level is impossible. There’s a lot of Americans though, and they could do subsistence living if they worked together. Again, you and I aren’t disagreeing. We just need to make sure to use the right words. Even if subsistence living isn’t a commonly held thought, it’s one with a more positive connotation than Isolationism. We should use words with negative connotations to describe negative bills
Simple answers to complex questions is fast, and helps people quickly move into the phase where they’re expending energy on “solutions” rather than debating the issue.
We’re lazy. People are lazy - I know I am.
Something that’s sufficiently removed from our everyday experience is mysterious, and (someone we trust) tells us that it will work? No questions, here we go!
This was explained to people all over the internet. I remember people posting the dailyshow shirt guy interview where they explain to him how tariffs will impact his business. Some people didn’t care as long as it also hurt everybody they don’t like.
So ask yourself we someone who voted for Trump whines about tariffs. Is this person just dumb or a total piece of shit?.
So ask yourself we someone who voted for Trump whines about tariffs. Is this person just dumb or a total piece of shit?.
I say both. They are stupid racist homophobic assholes and deserve any pain they get for their choices. And though we should do everything we can to help those who will be hurt by Trump’s policies, I sincerely hope that every single person who voted for that POS experiences an absolute fuck ton of pain and suffering in the coming months and years.
The most unfortunate thing is that the pain and suffering will not only be limited to the people who supported Trump and his policies. Everyone is going to pay for their poor choices.
yeah, the point of being nice is to create a better world with better people who will be more capable of being nice.
and because it feels good.
but being nice to nazis doesn’t feel nice, and it makes the world a more dangerous place, where being nice is harder and riskier and less pleasant.
laughing at their suffering is pretty great though. pointing and laughing at their suffering maybe makes the world a slightly better place, long term.
I might be wrong here, but tariffs can be very effective tools, but as a slow burn. The way they’re being wielded here is asinine.
If you want to affect behavior, tariffs are a long game. They’re passed by Congress so they aren’t tied to the whims of one man. If you don’t want US chicken or EU trucks, make a law and let decades of implementation change behavior.
If you just want them to hurt, you do them the way we are now. The unpredictability hurts businesses and individuals, inside and outside the US. It makes prices and markets volatile and sows distrust. It hurts the vast majority of people, but benefits people who have the stability and assets to buy low and sell high. Each tariff implementation and retraction is just a mini market manipulation giving people with advance knowledge of what is affected to profit.
They’re a tool for correcting price alterations on the seller side. If China is subsidizing the manufacturing of Fidgets, a matching tarrif on the import of Fidgets protects domestic manufacturing from artificially cheap competition by preventing consumers from seeing those low prices.
The subsidies don’t even need to be hostile. The US subsidizes food to lower domestic costs, ensure a stockpile, and keep farmers happy. The side effect of driving down world grain prices is incidental.
Additionally, they strike me as the stick that pairs best with a carrot to spur domestic production of whatever you’ve put tarrifs on, along the lines of the CHIPS act.
This administration doesn’t believe in carrots, only sticks.
I distinctly remember learning about tariffs in Social Studies. That was back in elementary / middle school. I understood it then and so did my classmates.
i wish people were better at doing their own research
I hate anyone with a passion when they say that they “did their research” as it’s always “I read a Facebook page”
People have no idea what the word research implies, or what goes into actuall real research
Schools should really put much more focus on explaining what science is and what it does
Schools should really put much more focus on explaining what science is and what it does
Hard agree. The US is currently speed running to third world status and its entirely because of education, and i assume its happening elsewhere based on the rise of conmen in leadership. Anyone who thinks for themself who has ever had a conversation with anyone MAGA on why they believe what they believe, will know that it was just because they were told to believe it. They do not have any sort of internal reasoning, they look to someone that fits their world view of what a leader looks like and then they believe every word that they say. It is the same way most people relate to religion, do not think about it, just have faith.
So when you mix together a wildly de-funded and heavily politicized education system that turns out followers who outsource reasoning to authority figures, with modern American solipsistic culture that allows the worst human beings alive to be seen as role models, then it was always just a matter of time before conmen took the reigns of the country. Anyone who is ever trying to argue their point with reasoning and facts will appear on the defense to any conman that is just riffing innacuracies, and the uneducated masses will see the conman as in control, which will then make them trust that person, it doesn’t go any deeper than that.
Humans are fucking stupid.
I have had “researcher” jobs that were not ‘doing science’. I needed either journal access, or scihub/libgen, putting together shit my boss wanted to know.
I long for the time when people said “I read a Facebook page”
Generally my circle watches 12 45-second videos on TikTok which gave them bias from assuming seeing it more places made it more right. They don’t even have to go to the comments to get bamboozled.
It was killing me with the pandemic. ‘‘I’m not sure about mRNA vaccines, I’m doing my own research’’ homie, researching a vaccine means you are running a immunology lab. You’re not researching, you’re listening to a nut trying to sell you an unregulated vitamin in place of real medicine.
I did my own “looking into something and learning about it”, and you know what? I came to the conclusion that a lot of those people are pretty smart and know what they’re doing.
Research can mean something that’s a synonym to what I said in quotes above since it doesn’t specifically mean experimental research, but that still requires looking at a variety of credible sources and knowing how to interpret what they’re saying.
Probably not what you’re going to find on tiktok.
Here in the UK properly researching topics was something we did in multiple classes in secondary/high school. Not just googling shit for an essay but checking our sources as well as source authors and dates.
This was true in the US during the 90s at least. But also some high school graduates can’t read out loud.
By the way, if tariffs are directly sent back to the customer through tax reduction on the tariffed category of products, wouldn’t it be painless for the company/customers (if you forget the retaliation tariffs) while increasing you local insensitive to production? (all things equal if you imagine companies reduce the cost of the products properly etc which is not realistic)
I don’t see how that would help. In the ideal case of a finished product, tariffs artificially raise the effective price for the buyer; they don’t change the math on the cost of production. Usually, they hurt the producing/exporting firm by forcing it to increase the asking price, which reduces sales. It reduces sales because the buying/importing firm has to pay higher prices. If the buying/importing firm gets tax reductions that are directly tied to the tariff, then its out-of-pocket expense hasn’t changed, and it can just keep buying the imported product with no effect on its profits. That means that the producing/exporting firm can still sell exactly the same volume of product at the higher price, covering the tariff cost, with no effect on its profits. Nothing much has changed, except a bunch of extra paperwork and transactions.
There’s only incentive to move production locally if the buying/importing firm can switch to a cheaper, local product, but retain the tax benefits, allowing it to keep more money. But that means the tariff money is no longer being collected, so somebody else is paying the taxes while not getting the benefits. In short, tariffs can only work by causing pain to somebody locally.
That’s 2 if’s. Sure, IF both of those things were true, maybe it would net out, but still be a paperwork and cashflow delay for the company (pay the duty today, get the money back at some point in the future) which sucks liquidity out of the market and generally holds back growth and investment.
But that isn’t particularly relevant since neither of those two things will ever happen. The tax cuts will go to the top earners, and retaliatory tariffs are very much a thing and cannot be ignored.
Ah yeah I see I forgot this part, more bureaucracy and delay might hurt cash flow. Thanks that’s a good thinking.
It’s just a though experiment, in real life it’s not a nice math problem to solve like you said.
Personally if I had to cut someone’s hours, all else being equal, the one who took 50 attempts to figure out tariffs would go before the one who took 2.
Trump & Co do love the uneducated.
I tell people that if they think other countries pay the tariffs they probably believe Mexico is paying for a wall
After brexit, the searches of “What is the European union” skyrocketed in Britain.
Most people are morons who don’t think for themselves.
From what I’ve heard most pro brexit voters thought that leaving ment no non white immigrants allowed, they failed to understand the EU only let European labor in, the people from not white lands gained access from England’s colonial past.
