Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I think Sebby's point is that running the country without significant tariffs, in an era of global transportation and supply chains, encourages manufacturers to put less skilled jobs in other countries where wages are lower. Things that were once made in the United States are now made in other countries. This is obviously true, no? I think your point is that the open trade regime also fosters the development of new jobs here, which are often higher skilled and better paying, and that in the aggregate the country is at least as well enough.
Implicit in your response, too, is the observation that other countries are developing too, and are always catching up. Goods that were once cutting-edge are now commodities that can be made in all sorts of places (cars in Mexico, smartphones in China, nuclear weapons in Iran), and increasing tariffs won't change that. Increasing tariffs will protect less-skilled jobs here, but at the expense of US consumers, who will pay higher prices and have less to choose from, and US manufacturers, whose exports will be hurt when other countries do the same. In other words, what are you going to do?
To which Sebby says, maybe you guys in San Francisco and Minneapolis are living large from the cutting-edge jobs that this trade creates, but here in Pennsylvania the losers that I hang out with don't have the skills to get those jobs, and wouldn't want to leave this hellhole to move to those cities anyway. They are screwed, and so they vote for Trump. You've got to end free trade to make them happy, because I can't think of anything else and besides, it pisses off liberals so it must be good.
Needless to say, you don't find that a compelling line of thought. But it would be nice if you had something better to offer.
|
My offering: tariffs are the wrong tool here, the right tool is increased advocacy for unionization abroad, the development of higher pay structures in other countries, and a general increase in the integration of the world economy. We do this through trade agreements, though I'll be the first to admit we also do other things through trade agreements of which I am less fond.
There are also ways to spread the wealth from the Boston/SF markets into other parts of the country, and we can talk about that, too, but one big problem is it often involves things other parts of the country are resistant to, like investing in infrastructure and education to a greater degree and changing your state spending and taxing pattern to one that looks more like California and Massachusetts.
