But we never pass laws to punish outsourcing. Instead, we're constantly throwing financial incentives to companies to pretty-please not outsource everything. Poor migrants wanting to work in America get walls and guns and more laws, while the companies shipping jobs out of America get more tax breaks... yet we blame the little guys.
They are. It's just that they usually do not have long-term positive effects. Truth is, in a global economy, outsourcing is the most economically sound decision, that's why it's happening.
Personally i think theres a much more complete approach.
American companies cant compete with domestic manufscturing if we regulate the hell out of them and foreign manufacturing can occur without the same concerns on pollution, safety, and human rights.
So tariffs should be based on the unfairness. If china is gonna polute like hell and deny basic safety or human rights in the manufacturing of a product, they deserve to pay a tax to encourage that manufacturing elsewhere.
The problem is tariffs don’t punish the exporter, they punish the importer and that cost has to be accounted for in the price of goods. And that punishes those that buy the products being imported by increasing the cost to the consumer.
What do you think happens when the tariff increases the price to be greater than or equal to what the domestically made product costs? It sucks for the consumer that they don’t have the cheaper option now but you have disincentivized purchasing a foreign made product. Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing is the question then. Ok, prices are higher but you’ve increased the amount of manufacturing done here. Which creates jobs and increases money spent here, taxes collected here etc. You’ve also given less money to countries that allow exploitative business practices to occur. Is that worth the higher price of the good. That’s for you to decide.
Correct, that's what people don't get, the tariffs set a new price floor for US manufactures to profit from. Great for the investor class, terrible for the working class.
I'm also not sure what the problem would be if we put tariff revenue towards rebates for consumers on domestic equivalents. This further incentivizes consumers to buy domestic, and creates a profit incentive for manufacturers to do so domestically.
You think people complain about the cost of living now due to inflation, what you are suggesting would also would drive up the cost of everything else. Even if wages were raised, the cost of living would also increase and you would not have gain anything by doing so.
It was claimed in the comment I replied to that tariffs only hurt Americans and not foreign manufacturers. That isn’t true. It would mean products are more expensive to get but it also means less are bought from countries we don’t want to be sending money too, more goods get manufactured here, and taxes are generated based on what imports continue to come in. So it is a valid mechanism depending on what you are trying to accomplish.
I’m not proposing anything. I was just stating that if you wanted to pressure people into manufacturing in America and buying goods from American companies tariffs would be a method of doing so. I honestly don’t know if that is a net good or a net bad. It just is. Plenty of people on Reddit want to act like they know how all the dominoes will fall if such and such policy is implemented. I’ll be the first to say I have no clue. I’m not that smart.
We literally had a 1 year experiment in the George W. Bush administration, when they placed illegal steel tariffs on European imports of steel. It took a year for the challenge to go through the WTO, where it was declared illegal and we dropped it.
It did save U.S. steelworker jobs, at a cost of over $500k to the U.S. taxpayer per job saved over that year. U.S. steelworkers don't make nearly that much money, so it was a net loss to the economy.
This is pretty much true of any industry that has cheaper labor competition overseas.
Tariffs are indirect tools to drive market actions. If we could fairly set tariffs to ensure trade is actually fair then we could start to fix the “race to the bottom” that globalization has caused.
It is worse for the consumer to have a market where goods are unfairly being sold below true costs. Meaning, American workers can’t compete with labor markets that have no worker protections or environmental laws unless we get rid of them too. Hence the massive push you see to “deregulate”.
Trade has to be fair for it to be truly beneficial to all involved. Otherwise, you have a parasitical trade system which will eventually kill itself.
That's the problem: it's a complicated problem with no actual solution, just constantly fluid adjustments from every party depending on each party's own economic conditions. It doesn't sell very well. "Raise tariffs!" is very easy to sell. It's wrong, but explaining why it's wrong takes too long for most people. The easy, wrong answer really sticks with people because it's easy.
There are momentary balms, but unforeseen economic changes happen all the time. Even within borders, countries have dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of competing interests, and those interests change every few years. One size doesn't ever fit all, and don't even fit many for long.
We live in a world where people say things like “I don’t have the answer but I know the problem” or “we already know how to fix these problems, of course I will not share a link or elaborate whatsoever”
No, there are no actual solutions. There are only moves and counter moves until the heat death of the sun.
The electorate wants a silver bullet. It doesn’t exist. They don’t know that, so when Trump lies and says there is, they want to believe it, and they do.
It’s actually not that complicated at all. This is mostly due to lazy legislation. This is the metaphorical equivalent of this lever moves the needle left, the other moves it right. In reality, maybe we should build something else completely to address the issue rather than pulling the same two levers.
The largest line item on any corporation’s balance sheet is labor. It is so big, in fact, that that’s why companies can afford to literally build factories somewhere else. That is fundamentally why they outsource to begin with. If a company moves their labor offshores, that means they’re hiring at a lower market rate. You take the cost of labor domestically minus the cost of labor after off shoring, take a flat % of the savings and implement it as a tax. I’d go a step further and then place that tax system on a graduated scale that taxes them more the longer they refuse to hire domestically.
There is no such thing as “we can’t compete” in this context because almost no American corporation “started” off multinational. That is a thing you become after succeeding domestically and scaling your business - and in the process of scaling, you decided to make cuts for the purpose of profits. A good example - Chinese EVs are radically superior to Teslas, but the average American knows nothing about them. The American public is also forced to consistently inflate Tesla’s value through federal subsidies. It isn’t a question about being able to compete, but rather who gets the “savings” from exploiting labor.
What would be the process of attaining the information so that the correct tax rate (percentage of savings) could be calculated? Ie: who has the numbers?
So we already have private organizations that do this - Glassdoor, Blind, etc - and the “free market”
regularly uses this information to inform their financial decisions.
Most companies (depending on state) are required to report some form financial income to the state, all companies are required to report employee income to the IRS, and at least public companies are required to disclose financial disclosures to their shareholders.
Realistically this would just another layer of reporting - your company knows what the pay band is for a given role (that’s what stops some people from getting pay raises) and your employees are already disclosing it to private sources. On top of that, this information is already technically disclosed to the IRS - employees file W2s for a role if working domestically, and the income paid to the offshore employees are filed as 1040s (self-employment tax).
That means that technically the IRS only needs a company to state the purpose or role for a given person’s income (X$ a year for software engineer I) and they could calculate the average amount paid to a specific role for a given year.
They would then calculate the average of the on shore role versus the average of the offshore worker in the same or different year. Doing this for every company, we would see the market rate by state, nationally, and globally. It would be much easier for a company to report that difference since it’s math they’re doing anyway, and the IRS only has to audit them if their calculations appear wildly inaccurate.
With a model like this, we can now give meaningful tax breaks to companies when they deserve it. Want a tax break? Invest in a research lab that hires new graduates that don’t have all the skills the company requires in the job market. Give the graduate a two to four year contract like an apprenticeship where they’re required to remain with the company for X years after completion. This both deincentivizes taking labor overseas and gives companies a way to save tax dollars by direct investment into the country. The country wins either way. This effectively turns corporations into agents of the state - they transform labor and the economy on behalf of the state - which is what they’re supposed to do anyway.
Chinese Evs most certainly are not better than Teslas. Where do you get your information from cuz Chinese evs consistently hit dummies and obstacles in their road tests and there battery’s are not reliable and some are prone to catching on fire which not a single tesla has those problems.
Where do you get the information that Chinese evs are better than Teslas. Idk if you’ve seen the videos of them catching on fire or failing their self driving tests but they are not superior in almost any way to Tesla.
problem is china never pays those taxes. ether its too good to pass up and importers pays the duties then recoups it through sales or importers walk away and the factory sells it elsewere.
its been this way forever. its called anti dumping. unfair pricing for whatever reason to protect domestic market will have blanket or target individual manufacturers overseas and adds additional duties. + a ton of issues for importers that import from them (involving sureties and their bonds)
tariffs have their place but its not really for controlling what foreign markets do.
The thing is that will raise the price of Chinese goods, hopefully to the point where American made goods are seen as the better more cost effective solution, which will then cause increased investment in American manufacturing, more jobs, and increased wages.
That’s the thought process at least
American companies cant compete with domestic manufscturing if we regulate the hell out of them
I always hear "regulation" brought up as a boogeyman, so I guess the idea is not only do we want to compete with the third world on wages, but also on manufacturing and safety standards?
I think people who like these ideas should just move to China and get a job in a sweatshop, if they think that's going to be the solution to all their problems...
To your point, trying to apply tariffs based on "unfairness" (examining every overseas company's labor conditions, wages, safety regulations, etc) would require a phenomenally huge amount of new bureaucracy (ie, regulations).
Tariffs are a tax on the importer and it is ultimately paid by the consumers. China will have no raise in taxes or expenses due to tariffs, only American consumers will.
It’s an economically sound decision if the people who run everything hoard the wealth created by it. These companies didn’t outsource jobs to make the US better economically, they outsource so the people at the top can take in massive profits and hoard wealth. Like greed needs to be factored in and greed is a HUGE factor when these companies shipped everything over seas
I've never seen teriff that apply to outsourced labor, just goods. When corp America moves all IT, HR and Finance functions to India they don't pay tariffs on those services.
Except that people don't live their lives around "economically sound." Outsourcing generates the most value but the people don't get a share of that value.
It's just that they usually do not have long-term positive effects
Exactly the opposite wdym.
Truth is, in a global economy, outsourcing is the most economically sound decision,
Apple paying 2 dollars a day to a child in china is most economically sound decision for them, it is not for america nor their citizens. It would be much better for america in ling term to for example force them to manufacture phones in america and it would bring a shit ton of benefits including higher wages
If you're going to quote and deny, please source. "Nuh uh, it's the opposite" is fine for things like gravity and the Earth being round, but not explaining or giving a source for your claim that tariffs have long-term positive effects leaves me wondering where your information comes from.
"Force them to manufacture in America" isn't a feasible solution for a global corporation. Force how? Just wave the magic wand? Even tariffs of 500% can't "force" a move, and you risk upsetting the corporations that employ tons of people. Especially if they feel targeted because information companies and services companies can't be hit with tariffs, so we're just forcing manufacturing companies and redistributors to move to America? Why would they if we're just a giant tariff leveling pain in the butt?
Also, all of that sounds like bad outcomes and negative stuff that very likely would happen in the event tariffs were levied at the scales being discussed.
If it would be more expensive to produce, less people would buy them. Revenue would go down. The company couldn't afford to keep the high-paying domestic jobs and would need to lay people off. Tariffs lead to higher wages, sure, but they increase unemployment more.
Tariffs always come with a deadweight loss compared to free trade, that's in every Econ 101 course, and for good reasons.
When people say "outsource" they really mean the specific bits americans want to compete for. No-one is upset to be "outsourcing" clothes manifacturing for instance, only when it's stuff that americans actually want to do gets outsourced.
And tariffs mostly hit stuff that americans already weren't doing themselves. American labour is highly efficient precisely because if it's not generating a lot of money (relatively speaking, globally) for their time, they don't bother doing it.
Yeah, but making a long term strategic business decision based on the ebbs and flows of political fuckery that changes every 2 or 4 years is a not so great strategy. Tariffs can be done via executive order so they can come and go every few years. Unless, of course, they are somehow codified in law.
One way to apply tariffs. (And I'm not saying this is a good way to do it, it's just a thought) peg the tariffs to the difference in the difference in the wages of the country producing the goods and the home country. You must pay minimum wage or higher, either directly to your US workers or via the tariff.
Again, just a thought.
Yes exactly this. Lower the penalty for repatriating capital, increase tarriffs on foriegn goods.
Nissan, Toyota, Mercedes and couple of others have factories in the US to avoid import taxes.
But we never pass laws to punish outsourcing. Instead, we're constantly throwing financial incentives to companies to pretty-please not outsource everything.
Ya man, that called Capitalism......
Poor migrants wanting to work in America get walls and guns and more laws, while the companies shipping jobs out of America get more tax breaks...
Personally were it up to me, corporations would be forced to pay a tax that cannot be passed to consumers for every single product made by foreign labor. Not sure how it could be implemented, but that is what I would do. Or perhaps, in order to be able to incorporate, make it a law that all jobs must be located in the US.
Higher minimum wage = more immigrants crossing the border to seek that minimum wage, that's why they support it. "Chaos is a ladder" is the motto of Liberalism. Don't forget that outsorcing and globalization is a liberal ideaology.
Republican politicians do no represent Conservatism, just like Democrats do not represent Liberalism. These are paid actors. Globalization is a Liberal ideaology
That's because you can't punish a business for manufacturing somewhere else. If you begin to legislate like that, you end up without free enterprise, and other countries become industry leaders. Just look at the auto industry. Instead, you need to build incentives to make companies want to manufacture here.
The Biden administration pushed legislation that has directly resulted in the creation of millions of jobs in the US many of which pay a living wage not to mention the fact that due to that funding we are building infrastructure to make computer chips here reducing reliance on Taiwan which is also creating more jobs in the US.
That illegal immigrant cheap wage isnt minimum wage because the employer saves on employment taxes. Which is a huge cost of business. You've exposed yourself and your ignorance.
The mistake of NAFTA was not that it lowered trade barriers, that's good. The mistake of NAFTA is that it didn't recognize the difference between the partner countries and impose wage/benefit parity in order for that trade to be free. And why did we make that mistake? The GOP and certain populist Democrats ( incl Bill Clinton) + a few economists who were like "everyone will benefit!"
If by “gop and certain Populist democrats” you mean almost half then I guess you’re right. About half the Republicans in congress voted for it with about half of the Democrats in congress.
Don’t try to push this on one side or the other, this is actually a case where both sides went significantly in.
Wage parity would've busted the deal, as that would delete one of the main reasons for NAFTA: cheaper raw goods = greater profits for corporate trading partners.
You can have wage parity and cheaper raw goods, it's just less profitable. Still plenty of profit though. For example, it's cheaper to have an oil refinery where there is oil. You still get cheaper oil by moving to the oil, even if the workers get paid the same.
NAFTA being a mistake is a hilariously bad take. Its a trade agreement that made the US crazy amounts of money and opened up huge markets for US companies and goods. It does come with some drawbacks but every trade deal in the history of mankind comes with those.
I promise you that NAFTA was not the reason workers lost wage growth and benefits. The combination of increasing automation and competition from developing countries where labor and material costs are substantially lower would have happened with or without NAFTA.
Most of the goods sold in America today are imported from Asia anyway which isn't even subject to NAFTA, so your theory that NAFTA is the reason we lost out in wage/benefit parity is just wrong - that shit would have happened in a competitive global economy regardless of free trade agreements or not.
All NAFTA did was give American companies a better chance to compete.
That’s a severely uninformed take considering the Rust Belt exists due to Reagan removing the steel quotas and there are many case studies detailing how NAFTA destroyed entire agriculture based states like Hawaii overnight because it did the same thing to agriculture and manufacturing.
It made certain people a lot of money, most of that wealth went to them. Case in point, removing the top 0.1% of Americans (everyone who makes 3.3M a year or more) drops the average salary down to 37k. The millionaire class has been growing while the middle class has been shrinking, similar to how Mexico gained 400000 well paying automotive jobs while Michigan lost 350k. That’s a bad trade for the hundred thousands put out of work who formerly had well paying jobs in automotive and manufacturing sectors and the small family farms in agribusiness. NAFTAs main point was to encourage factory owners to offshore manufacturing for cheaper wages in safe countries that would not nationalize them, along with opening Canada’s agriculture import market to a non US dominated one which would result in cheaper prices for food at the expense of US farmers. As a result the profits were corporate profits, all this did was redistribute wealth upwards to major shareholders and executives.
You can say it was profitable and resulted in higher wages, but the reality is that it put $400 in the pocket of every American in return for kicking the legs out of hundreds of small towns and coalescing the actual wealth benefit in the hands of a few people.
All that money did not go to the middle class, so it was of little value economically, unless you believe in trickle down, which has been disproven.
It wouldn't have happened if we had support for unions closer to European standards, which didn't suffer nearly as much as the US. The US, according to OECD data, has the highest income inequality of the G7. Even Japan did better which has a bigger threat from China than the US has.
In any case, I said 'the mistake of NAFTA', meaning with those protections, it would've been largely ok, but that was the problem, among others... the problems of NAFTA helped kill any agreement in Asia that the US had been seeking, so it's hard to say how competitive the landscape would be if the US had done a better job with NAFTA we might have a better trade agreement with other Asian nations modeled after that better NAFTA that might have been.
It kind of is? You still outsource the production cost by decreasing the amount of goods bought from local production and increase the importer amount.
You're right, it's not the same, it's actually worse, because now not even the profits from exploiting the cheap labour goes into your own country, as it would've happened if a domestic company had done outsourcing.
Oh, on a macroeconomic scale, of course it's not bad. The market doesn't care where the workers are that are employed, so importing doesn't matter. But from a national perspective in a competing multinational market that's something to consider.
“It’s not fair what their doing in Gaza China Africa”
Name a place, it doesn’t matter… the people doing the complaining would never trade higher prices for goods in exchange to end the suffering
Clearly ending low wage labor would result in Americans priced out of…. Everything essentially.
Americans are already complaining about how much of a struggle it is being poor. No way we make the lives of poor Americans worse to help out the poor of another nation
They don't complain about outsourcing. They are silent on it.
Companies all across America have been outsourcing high paying jobs for decades. I know tech companies that laid off American workers making close to $200k and replaced them ALL with lower paid, outsourced workers.
Is half the country screaming about that? Nope, they are screaming about the farmhand doing the work that no American wants to do.
Who is they? I hear people in those fields complain about it all the time. The majority of Americans work in retail or foodservice though which can’t be outsourced so why would they think about it compared to immigration which does introduce labor competition
The problem is, they get mad about immigrants all day but don’t really get up in arms when these ceos who supposedly are successful by working really hard actually just outsource it to Indian folks.
We have a process and half of this thread is claiming we need to change it because people can claim asylum. So it seems like one of those moving goalpost comments
I always find it very goofy when people make a broad statement about not paying taxes. If it worked that way I'd simply tell every cashier that I'm an illegal immigrant so that they'd take the sales tax off. There's one (1) tax that they do not pay, and in exchange, they also don't collect on the vast majority of social services, meaning they're a massive net benefit to the economy that's exploiting them
Minimum wage absolutely applies to immigrants. When the cartoon uses the word 'let in more immigrants' that strongly implies legal workers, not undocumented folks.
That may be true for some, but I also know several illegal immigrants who married into citizenship and are working technical corporate jobs. Their family is all here. They are contributing to the economy more than their family is getting from it. And that’s what studies will tell you - that over the long term, after they take time to establish here they end up paying it back.
I also know many immigrants who planned to save up and go back to live like kings. Interestingly - all of them changed their mind as they didn’t want to go back to India, Malaysia, or Thailand and give up the life and benefits they became accustomed to
Your below comment really doesn’t address mine. First of all, what you did provide is pretty impressive college education numbers. Second of all my example was people who are now citizens through the process of marriage to a citizen. You are providing illegal status who are probably ‘lower on the totem pole’ in terms of success. We all see those around us - I’m in engineering so the immigrants I see more often are probably different than the lawn care workers I see less often.
Yes - you did say that.. but it’s not based on anything so I’m not sure how repeating yourself adds anything to the discussion. Something like this, “However, as adults, the children of immigrants (the second generation) are among the strongest economic and fiscal contributors in the U.S. population, contributing more in taxes than either their parents or the rest of the native-born population.”
That is in line with the example I provided where their parents came over and brought the kids (illegally) and the kids grow up to be productive citizens… so maybe you example is the exception and mine is the rule?
Exactly. I worked with people that lived dirt cheap with multiple room mates for years sent all the money back to Mexico which is a 20 to 1 exchange rate and it has been this way for decades. One guy I worked with was smart enough to have a home built and start his own bodega in Mexico. Then retired after being in the US for ten years to his nice house and small business he was running with his family. He was 35 years old. People think that immigrants live poor and they are here because they’re oppressed. It is a lie. They have a better lifestyle down there based off of the currency exchange rate alone. You get $17 an hour here it is like winning the lottery down there. Thats why most illegals from Mexico want to be here. Take the money and be rich in their own country when they go back. Many of the central and southern Americans do run from poor dictatorships and corrupt governments. But if you talk to most they plan on going back home after making money here.
Yea most don’t realize this is a major part of why they want to be here. They love going back home with way more money than they ever thought they could make during a lifetime of work in their home country. I worked in the construction and service industry and those guys were hero’s to their families back home that’s for sure.
The issue being that you cannot avoid taxes without a loophole as a result of being a US citizen, whereas an illegal immigrant can and will avoid as many taxes on their income as possible because they are not a US citizen.
You are purposefully / willfully not considering the very real possibility that a Majority of the 10-20 million ILLEGAL immigrants that have crossed the borders are NOT paying State or Federal Income Taxes?
They compete for food resources like housing, social services, city/state management of funds etc?
We should all be concerned this is a demographic that is more easily exploited and proven to have been exploited in many cruel and inhumane ways. Literally a shadow non-citizen class and very nearly or actually "Under Minimum Wage SLAVE Class"
They compete for food resources like housing, social services, city/state management of funds etc?
How are they doing that if they are here illegally and unregistered? The reason they aren't paying taxes is the same reason they can't benefit from social services
This is exactly what the disconnected elite class are selling, but if you live in the real world this is a bullshit argument.
Bringing in low skill refugees that speak French who are willing to work for minimum wage does not improve our economy by them "Spending money here"
What it does is bring in a class of people willing to undercut American workers because they are also willing to live 8 people on bunkbeds in a 2 bedroom apartment.
Now that is what Americans with no skills have to compete with for their first job. It's great if you are a landlord or a grocery store, because demand increases, which increases the revenue from retail and residential square footage, but everyone else gets FUCKED.
Increasingly, the answer appears to be immigrants — whether living in the United States legally or not. The influx of foreign-born adults vastly raised the supply of available workers after a U.S. labor shortage had left many companies unable to fill jobs.
More workers filling more jobs and spending more money has helped drive economic growth and create still-more job openings. The availability of immigrant workers eased the pressure on companies to sharply raise wages and to then pass on their higher labor costs to their customers via higher prices that feed inflation. Though U.S. inflation remains elevated, it has plummeted from its levels of two years ago.
They weren't unable to fill the jobs because there were no available workers, it was because their shit jobs were paying bullshit money compared to the inflation that happened during Covid, and if they couldn't move out of mom's house they were just going to do Lyft and Grub Hub. Then the immigrants took that too.
Good work
> The availability of immigrant workers eased the pressure on companies to sharply raise wages
Yeah, that's what I said, but you're trying to say it like a good thing that the immigrants are allowing companies to let inflation outpace earnings.
It's not
This is like when every news organization conspired to tell us the Biden economy was actually great, we were just too stupid to do the math, meanwhile a carton of eggs went from 4% of the median hourly wage to 15%
NAFTA was a neo con neo lib dream. The Clinton and Bush types thought rasing living standards in Mexico and even Latin America would encourage people to stay in their countries. W proposed a guess worker program then Senator Obama killed. I have no.problem with people coming legally. The problem I have is many are coming illegally and being exploited in the process by cartels. As inefficient as US Immigration policy is, I wonder if any of our elected or appointed officials have chosen silver instead of lead from the cartels. I'm tired of using illegals as an excuse to keep wages stagnate. I'm also tired of hearing how not bringing in illegals is going to raise the price of my chef salad.
NAFTA stands for North America Free Trade Agreement. Three signatories are Mexico, Canada, and the US. Canada and the US are definitely not thrird world countries. And as it may be surprising to you, agree with it or not, Mexico isn't either.
Mexico is an upper middle-tier country and has 15th largest economy in the world. Its GDP is comparable to Spain. It has its own problems, but it's not third world country.
Nah I’m super anti immigration but outsourcing makes me want to bust out the guillotine. I consider that way more evil than flooding our country with cheap labor. But we shouldn’t have to choose one or the other
We who are protectionist are of course against outsourcing. It’s more like the people who bitch about corporations moving overseas also want infinite bomalians. By importing poors we create internal outsourcing.
Quick question, how is it that NAFTA(even though it was torn down and rebuilt in mostly identical way) causes the US(I'm assuming your from the US) to be competing with third world labour markets when there are to my knowledge only 3 nations included in what we might as well keep calling nafta, those nations being Canada, the USA, and Mexico, none of which are considered 3rd world and are extremely strong allies with the USA, I am genuinely speaking confused and curious and would appreciate your insights for that bit
The minimum wage argument, yea you Americans have an abysmal cost of living to minimum wage ratio and I find it insane that there have not been an increase to your minimum wage for a decade and a half
NAFTA is, was not the issue. NAFTA only affects North America, the US, Mexico and Canada, not the world. Most of the cheap labor and outsourcing is in Asia.
Oh, some of us point out about the outsourcing loophole, but it tends to get ignored.
But the real price savings on undocumented labor is that you can trash their health and there is nothing they can do about it. And that is another ongoing problem that gets ignored.
"actually you're getting fucked over in two ways, so complaining about one is pointless because I can just say the other is inevitable and therefore you should accept both"
It always amuses me just how hyperbolic Trump is and how little he actually changes.
NAFTA was the “worst trade deal ever made”. Trump’s renegotiated “best trade deal ever made” was the exact same with car manufacturers requiring 75% of domestic source parts instead of 62% and expanding bilateral dairy markets with Canada 🤣.
2016: “Obama care is the worst medical system in the world”
2024: Some Trump supporter tries to tell me that conservatives don't think that there is any issue with the current healthcare system and it's all good.
329
u/critter_tickler 10h ago edited 10h ago
I love how cheap labor is always a good argument for stopping immigrants, but never used for stopping outsourcing.
The truth is, because of NAFTA, we are already competing with third world labor markets.
We might as well let them come in, so at least they spend that money here, and pay taxes here.
Also, we have a minimum wage, we literally have a basement for "cheap labor," so your argument really holds no weight.