What happened when factory jobs moved from Warren, Ohio, to Juarez, Mexico

a reply to: seasonal

If they both cost $30k, and one decides to move production to Mexico to undercut the other, while the other stays in the US .. and the one who leaves pays more in tariffs than they save .. then the one staying in America could cost less, while putting Americans to work. So if they save $8k moving to Mexico, and get hit for a $10k tariff, they can't simply pass all $10k off to consumers and remain competitive, and they have no net gain by doing so.

Corporations ship jobs overseas because it is cheaper and makes them more competitive. The only thing that will stop this is if the global workforce is on equal footing. It is impossible for lower and middle wage workers to compete against works in countries like Mexico because our standards of living are so different.

Even the brokest and poorest person in America lives like a king compared to Mexico. It is not mathematically possible to ever have employment parity.

The only way to compete is to make it cost too much to ship goods back to the US market hence tariffs.

The other part of this equation though is that US consumers must demand corporations keep jobs locally. Consumer are a big part of the market forces as well. As long as consumers shop on price, corporations are going to look for ways to lower costs. Many of the people complaining are the first people to start penny pinching and thus are also part of the problem.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I get what you are saying.

You got time for a short(I hope) story? Good.

A plant in Greenville Mich made refrigerators.

Moved to Mexico, the base frig with freezer on top and frig on bottom was 480$ before the move.

Guess what the price was after they brought them back in from Mexico? $480.

The customer isn't seeing the "benefits" to this NAFTA.

a reply to: seasonal

Exactly. Take away the incentive and the job loss will stop. Company A can put out ads saying how they are American and stayed in america while the competition closed shop and moved out. Both products cost the same, and people will flock to American made.

When there is no negative, company A is forced to flee as well, as we saw.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Is there a reason other than chasing profits to leave?

I will look, but I don't know if there are numbers to financially struggling companies that moved to profitable companies that moved to increase profits.

a reply to: seasonal

The ONLY reason I can think of would be corrupt unions forcing companies to leave. No idea though.

a reply to: seasonal

Super thread about supply and demand, seasonal!

I think the greed end of the equation requires that
magic wand to create consumers-- that can afford to
buy the product they used to make after they're
laid off from making the product. Sure loser.

It would of course be nice if everybody in the world
made the same money-- even a dollar a day might be
ok if a nickel bought a loaf of bread.
As it is now, and with the standard of living so unjustly
skewed (maybe not much longer); someday the PTB will
get the idea that if we're all so broke we can't eat they
would be better off to cut and run.

That eater thing is the easiest remedy, but kind of messy.
I've heard most tribes are nine meals away from a revolu-
tion.
Sounds about right-- but when the food flows at only a
little less per hour of wage every year, people somehow
make do. It even happened in the US during the 30's--
and about 7 million people died then from starvation.

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
Warren used to be a really nice city, now it's pretty much a dump. Globalism is really hurting the American worker, which is why Trump is now President. Whether or not he can do anything to fix the problem remains to be seen, though I don't think there's much that can be done against the power of the globalists.

Globalism is not the problem. The problem facing folks like you straight in the face but refuse to acknowledge it is the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few.

There is absolutely no difference between the owners of Delphi and Trump and until you brainwashed people see this the world (US first due to your blindingly obvious insurance salesman president) is screwed.

Hint : Trumps appointees .....DUH!!!!!

a reply to: yorkshirelad

Oh I agree that there is a chance that Trump may blow up in peoples faces.

So far, and keep in mind it's been like 29 days, I am OK with what I have seen.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

When did Unions start to fall out of favor? When did the Owners of the US start to make huge gains in wealth?

a reply to: seasonal

Unions fell out of favor when they became political entities and cared more about themselves than the workers.

It's anecdotal so it's not real evidence, but my friend was fired from his union job for being too productive. They told him to work less, he refused, they got him fired.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Agreed that some unions were did/have become monsters. I think the unions allowed the worker to bargain with the corps.

After all the corps get together and lobby, and do G 20 summits. So what is good for them should be good for the workers.

a reply to: seasonal

Unions were absolutely necessary. Nowadays .. they are just as bad as the monster they were created to fight.

For example, Unions have passed laws preventing workers from joining any union like group (works council) unless they unionize and pay those sweet union dues first.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I can't speak to all of the different crappy things, and they are many, that has happened.

I still think that there is a need to bargain collectively with huge corps. I think since the Unions have gone so has the pay and benefits.

a reply to: seasonal

I agree. Unions just aren't the answer any more, but Union corruption has made it so we literally can not create a new system that works. They made it illegal.

originally posted by: imwilliam
a reply to: jimmyx

.....he and his families own products with the trump name on them, are manufactured overseas. and how many of his "workers" that are on the trump payroll make minimum wage? but, apparently to his voters, he has a magic wand.

I think people in business understand that we sometimes make business decisions that we feel that the business climate/environment compels us to make, decisions that we wouldn't make if not compelled to do so. We supported Trump fully aware that he made similar decisions. Our hope is that he can change the business environment enough that those kinds of decisions aren't necessary or are at least not as compelling. Magical wands never entered our thinking.

I used the phrase "magic wands" to indicate that trump can't make decisions affecting business (to a large degree), without congressional approval. the two main areas of contention are taxes and regulations, both that come with their own unique set of pros and cons, and usually very different from one business to another depending on the business being run......both regulations and taxes have trade-offs when changed, there is no zero-sum-gain as has been realized when you get into the details or "weeds" of the "changes" involved....one example often cited, is the growing gap between the top 1%, and the rest.....the middle class earning power has been stagnant for decades, all the while, income growth for the top 1% has grown enormously. so if you cut "taxes", it has to either be made up by taxing someone else, cutting into governmental expenses, or putting it on the "national credit card".....one other caveat....population growth in the U.S. went from approx. 282 million in the year 2000, to 324 million as of 2016. that's an increase of 42 million people over the last 16 years....www.worldometers.info...
42 million more people, need governmental services, and with 42 million more people, you need businesses to handle that (remember that there are entire countries that have 42 million people or less). the business community obviously grew along with the population increase, so, if anything, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that tax income has to increase, not decrease. and this is across the board for local, state and federal.....I kept this short for space consideration and boorishness, as I could go into much further detail on this. as for regulations?....this is what trump signed.....fortune.com... regulation that was done away with, which prevented coal mining waste from being dumped into streams....
in fact I was pissed off when I learned that it was legal to do this until last December when Obama signed it .....(yeah I know, why didn't democrats do this while they were in power).....this is only one detail of the many "fixes to get the economy going" that has consequences and not the good kind.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I think that the media has also played a role in magnifying the Unions corruption while ignoring the totality of lack of unions and it's repercussions (3rd world slavery).

a reply to: seasonal

IAM tried to unionize Boeing where I live this year. I think it was 75% against. It's not all doom and gloom without them, and the negative press they get is their own doing.

My suggestion for all you Union haters is to Question why Trump still has his SAG/AFTRA card.

www.hollywoodreporter.com...

Without my SAG card and IATSE union affiliation, I would have no retirement, no health care and no recourse if hurt on the job and we get paid well.

Union Proud, Union Strong.

www.sagaftra.org...

www.iatse.net...

a reply to: olaru12

My suggestion for you blind union supporters is to ask whey it's illegal to form a works council without joining the union first.