The Frankish Reich Posted July 16 Author Posted July 16 12 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said: I'd like to see manufacturing jobs brought back Me too. But I honestly don't know how to do that, and I don't think Trump and JD Vance have any idea either. I just saw Billy Joel. (Don't laugh ... he's a guilty pleasure for me. I went to Catholic High School and that "Catholic girls start much too late" song was kind of an anthem. He's in remarkably good voice for a 75 year old who tried his best to destroy his body over the years. Anyway, I digress.) He sang his "Allentown" song. "We're living here in Allentown, and they're closing all the factories down." 1982. I was in high school. 40 some years ago. We all saw the problem back then, and successive administrations have tried to stop it (at first) and then undo it (later). Nothing has really worked. - Reagan thought you should create "enterprise zones" and use the tax code to incentivize businesses to invest in these declining areas. And if that didn't work well enough, maybe we should give people money to help them move to booming regions in the Sunbelt (that part was never enacted). Success was limited at best. - Trump thought (and still thinks) we should use tariffs to make imports more expensive and domestic production cheaper. That has definitely helped big steel and big lumber, but has increased costs for manufacturing/building dependent on those now higher-priced raw materials. So it's kind of shifted the deck chairs on the Titanic. - Biden thinks that the government should be directly involved in industrial policy. The CHIPS Act promises some success in some areas where Intel, etc. got a big chunk of taxpayer money to build assembly plants. But even if that works to some extent, we really can't be doing the same thing for every industry or we'll wind up like the old Soviet Union. In other words, o.k. because chip manufacturing has national security implications (we can't be 100% dependent on vulnerable Taiwan), but not a model for future policy. Your idea of shifting power away from the Unions is economically sound. I appreciate the serious thought. And it probably would lower production costs and incentivize manufacturers to invest in places like Ohio. But those jobs would, of course, be lower paying with poorer benefits, which isn't exactly what the Allentowns of the USA are hoping for. So again, 40+ years and we're still kind of in the same place. Smaller scale manufacturing is doing just fine in the USA, but the big industries are still suffering. I've come around to thinking that nothing will bring those back since other/lower cost producers just have a comparative advantage now that we can't defeat without bankrupting the country and/or the American consumer. 2 2
The Frankish Reich Posted July 16 Author Posted July 16 5 minutes ago, Lost said: Not becoming a welfare state will increase the standard of living for middle and lower class Americans. There's a tough love message there that is important. Reagan decried the "welfare queens," which was primarily aimed at black America. Clinton followed with the welfare reform bill that does seem to have had a small effect on breaking the cycle of poor incentives that perpetuated the underclass. Nobody is really proposing the same thing for white rural/small town middle America, although that is an underlying theme of JD Vance's Hillbilly Elegy - government handouts (huge percentages of people on disability and food stamps, for example) seem to perpetuate a culture that is work-averse. But Trump/Vance are unlikely to address that because, after all, those are the new Republican Party's core voters. Kevin Williamson at National Review did a fantastic (and kind of shocking) series of stories - later turned into a book - about the cycle of poverty in this part of white America. For example, he follows food stamps recipients who every month buy cases of soft drinks with their food stamps (Coke and Mountain Dew are SNAP eligible, thanks to the soft drink lobby) and then turn around and sell those products for cash from the local convenience stores. It happens like clockwork on the day SNAP cards are refilled. What can we do when a culture becomes so dependent on benefits that it saps all desire to work your way out of poverty? I am disappointed that politics means that JD Vance will likely not advance the kind of tough love policies that may be needed. 1
Coffeesforclosers Posted July 16 Posted July 16 Meh. The pick is nothing more than smart politics targeting voters in the upper mid west and rust belt. Practically, JD Vance is just another shill. He rolled over on his previous stance on Trump, just like Vivek did, and he's never stuck his neck out for unions, or collective bargaining. His other job will be to provide a populist smokescreen while Reaganomics continues carving up Main Street USA and exploding the deficit. 2 1 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted July 16 Posted July 16 26 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: For example, he follows food stamps recipients who every month buy cases of soft drinks with their food stamps (Coke and Mountain Dew are SNAP eligible, thanks to the soft drink lobby) and then turn around and sell those products for cash from the local convenience stores. It happens like clockwork on the day SNAP cards are refilled. What can we do when a culture becomes so dependent on benefits that it saps all desire to work your way out of poverty? very true. also, there are towns in Appalachia where 100's of oxycontin pills per resident per month are dispensed. There's a saying in those parts to "not rise above your raising". I think Vance quoted it in his book. That said, there are plenty of very fine people in Appalachia (the majority) and many that are improving or have improved their station through education and/or hard work.
Tiberius Posted July 16 Posted July 16 48 minutes ago, Lost said: Not becoming a welfare state will increase the standard of living for middle and lower class Americans. Hard for people to take pride in working when migrants are coming en mass and living better off of government subsidies than most rural blue collar workers or even retirees on social security while contributing absolutely nothing to society. I myself lived through poverty for all of my childhood and a portion of my adult life. I never wanted handouts from the government but at the same time didn't want to be put at a disadvantage because so many others are. We have a major cultural problem in the U.S. and the world at large today. Everything we perceive to be wrong within our own lives and around us is always someone else's fault and there's very little introspection. I consider this the entitlement generation. The immigrants are working. It's the domestic "workers" with the entitlement mentality 1
The Frankish Reich Posted July 16 Author Posted July 16 4 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: very true. also, there are towns in Appalachia where 100's of oxycontin pills per resident per month are dispensed. There's a saying in those parts to "not rise above your raising". I think Vance quoted it in his book. That said, there are plenty of very fine people in Appalachia (the majority) and many that are improving or have improved their station through education and/or hard work. Good points. We also need to remember that a government that dispenses benefits incentivizes people to stay put, even if there are no decent jobs where they live. Check out Kevin Williamson's article, which predated JD Vance's Hillbilly Elegy. I'm rarely shocked by reporting these days, but this one kind of shocked me: “The draw,” the monthly welfare checks that supplement dependents’ earnings in the black-market Pepsi economy, is poison. It’s a potent enough poison to catch the attention even of such people as those who write for the New York Times. Nicholas Kristof, visiting nearby Jackson, Ky., last year, was shocked by parents who were taking their children out of literacy classes because the possibility of improved academic performance would threaten $700-a-month Social Security disability benefits, which increasingly are paid out for nebulous afflictions such as loosely defined learning disorders. “This is painful for a liberal to admit,” Kristof wrote, “but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency.” https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/12/white-ghetto-kevin-d-williamson/ 1
K D Posted July 16 Posted July 16 7 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Me too. But I honestly don't know how to do that, and I don't think Trump and JD Vance have any idea either. I just saw Billy Joel. (Don't laugh ... he's a guilty pleasure for me. I went to Catholic High School and that "Catholic girls start much too late" song was kind of an anthem. He's in remarkably good voice for a 75 year old who tried his best to destroy his body over the years. Anyway, I digress.) He sang his "Allentown" song. "We're living here in Allentown, and they're closing all the factories down." 1982. I was in high school. 40 some years ago. We all saw the problem back then, and successive administrations have tried to stop it (at first) and then undo it (later). Nothing has really worked. - Reagan thought you should create "enterprise zones" and use the tax code to incentivize businesses to invest in these declining areas. And if that didn't work well enough, maybe we should give people money to help them move to booming regions in the Sunbelt (that part was never enacted). Success was limited at best. - Trump thought (and still thinks) we should use tariffs to make imports more expensive and domestic production cheaper. That has definitely helped big steel and big lumber, but has increased costs for manufacturing/building dependent on those now higher-priced raw materials. So it's kind of shifted the deck chairs on the Titanic. - Biden thinks that the government should be directly involved in industrial policy. The CHIPS Act promises some success in some areas where Intel, etc. got a big chunk of taxpayer money to build assembly plants. But even if that works to some extent, we really can't be doing the same thing for every industry or we'll wind up like the old Soviet Union. In other words, o.k. because chip manufacturing has national security implications (we can't be 100% dependent on vulnerable Taiwan), but not a model for future policy. Your idea of shifting power away from the Unions is economically sound. I appreciate the serious thought. And it probably would lower production costs and incentivize manufacturers to invest in places like Ohio. But those jobs would, of course, be lower paying with poorer benefits, which isn't exactly what the Allentowns of the USA are hoping for. So again, 40+ years and we're still kind of in the same place. Smaller scale manufacturing is doing just fine in the USA, but the big industries are still suffering. I've come around to thinking that nothing will bring those back since other/lower cost producers just have a comparative advantage now that we can't defeat without bankrupting the country and/or the American consumer. Thanks for the well thought out response. Many of us probably grew up in one of those towns. Our family moved to the area to work in the local factory or mine. The factory closes, local businesses shut down, no jobs and no hope, people turn to drugs and alcohol and the cycle gets repeated. Your only chance is to move away. I'm not against unions. My grandpa was a union president. During his time they were fighting for living wages and safer work conditions. He has asbestos in his lungs and many of his friends died young. His father worked in a gypsum mine and he saw the toll it took on his health. But unions have also become greedy. There isn't a union representative in the country who is running on the platform of "we make a good living already let's just all relax and enjoy it." Workers want higher and higher wages. Not because they need it but because they want multiple cars, a boat, all brand new iPhones for their entire family. Everyone posts online about their vacations and how great their life seemingly is and others see that and expect the same. It's rotting people's brains. It's never going to be enough. What's the answer? This is where people's political and personal ideals come into play. We all have our own thoughts. I don't know who is right or who is wrong but I think we all want the same thing. We want to be happy and create a nice life for ourselves and our families. Many people don't get that opportunity and it's an endless struggle. I'll give some of my thoughts- If we just automatically charge huge tariffs on imports then the cost of everything is going to go up. I think we will need a more nuanced approach that limits imports and also gives incentives for home grown products. It will take a long time to build up the production power to then say ok we don't need these imports anymore, tax the hell out of them. Instead of billions of dollars going overseas, I'd like to see more investment here in our country. We are spoiled in that we have a ton of land, great natural resources, and a first world economy. We also have the best military. Nobody is invading us, we don't need to be leading NATO. Focus on what's going on at home for once. And so then how do you fix the people? This is tougher and is really the crux of the matter. We can have the jobs and the resources but if nobody wants to work for an honest pay then it's all for naught. Socially, morally, politically, religiously, we all have our own ideas. Mine as someone who is more "conservative" (yet still independent) is that strong families, love of God, and personal accountability is important. If you are born into a broken home, you are already at a disadvantage so stop normalizing that. If you don't have religion then who cares if you are a piece of crap, there's no consequences. And if you aren't personally accountable then you will just do whatever is easy and doing the right thing is almost never the easy thing. What can Politicians do? -America First -Unity -Focus on education and merit -Stop enabling victim mentality and laziness -Less powerful unions -Stop the rhetoric and hate 2
Coffeesforclosers Posted July 16 Posted July 16 19 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said: -Less powerful unions Yeah no thanks. I'm fine with me and mine not being dependent on stock markets, HR departments, professional investors, or private equity firms for benefits or retirement. 1
TheBrownBear Posted July 16 Posted July 16 (edited) First off, just to declare my political positionality - I'm a registered Dem and have pretty much voted straight Dem in every election since 2000 outside of voting for one Republican for a state controller position, and voting Green a few times. I'm an economic liberal, social libertarian, but very much anti-identity politics/new-Left. With regard to Vance, history will eventually tell the story, but I don't buy him to be a pure "yes man." I think he shrewdly (or cynically) played the Trumpian angle for political access and power, and he can justify it to himself because Trump, at least in rhetoric, has positioned himself as a working class populist politician. I see him, essentially, as a "Blue Dog" Democrat. I grew up in Buffalo in a working class family that slowly rose up the economic ladder in large part because of good union jobs, so if Vance can actually shift Republican policy towards a more pro-union position (or at least not the traditional knee-jerk oppositional stance), I consider that a good thing for your average American in general. Overall, I'm intrigued by the potential realignment of the Republican party, especially if/when they can rid themselves of Trump and deranged sh*t-stirrers like the MTGs and Boeberts. 57 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said: I'm not against unions. My grandpa was a union president. During his time they were fighting for living wages and safer work conditions. He has asbestos in his lungs and many of his friends died young. His father worked in a gypsum mine and he saw the toll it took on his health. But unions have also become greedy. There isn't a union representative in the country who is running on the platform of "we make a good living already let's just all relax and enjoy it." Workers want higher and higher wages. Not because they need it but because they want multiple cars, a boat, all brand new iPhones for their entire family. Everyone posts online about their vacations and how great their life seemingly is and others see that and expect the same. It's rotting people's brains. It's never going to be enough. Holy cow, brother. This couldn't be further from the truth. Your average union worker isn't looking to increase wages so they can jet-set and buy boats and fancy cars. They just want to be able to buy a small home in a safe neighborhood, not sweat every essential payment they make, afford to take care of themselves or loved ones should the worse happen with regards to their health, and maybe, just maybe retire in dignity by the age of 70. Edited July 16 by TheBrownBear 3
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 16 Posted July 16 5 minutes ago, TheBrownBear said: First off, just to declare my political positionality - I'm a registered Dem and have pretty much voted straight Dem in every election since 2000 outside of voting for one Republican for a state controller position, and voting Green a few times. I'm an economic liberal, social libertarian, but very much anti-identity politics/new-Left. With regard to Vance, history will eventually tell the story, but I don't buy him to be a pure "yes man." I think he shrewdly (or cynically) played the Trumpian angle for political access and power, and he can justify it to himself because Trump, at least in rhetoric, has positioned himself as a working class populist politician. I see him, essentially, as a "Blue Dog" Democrat. I grew up in Buffalo in a working class family that slowly rose up the economic ladder in large part because of good union jobs, so if Vance can actually shift Republican policy towards a more pro-union position (or at least not the traditional knee-jerk oppositional stance), I consider that a good thing for your average American in general. Overall, I'm intrigued by the potential realignment of the Republican party, especially if/when they can rid themselves of Trump and deranged sh*t-stirrers like the MTGs and Boeberts. You're the one they are looking for. My brother is a retired teamster, votes R consistently, and believe Trump's vision for the country is better than the Biden/D version. My brother-in-law, UAW, perhaps not as pro-Trump but he sure isn't pro-Biden. My parents were both union workers and I've never had the perspective that 'anti-union' positioning was for me. Nor, on the other hand, that a non-union shop was a panacea for the employee. For me (I worked for a large company that did not have union representation) it's about balance. I view a union as nothing more, or less than a corporation focused on the best outcome for the union as a whole. To the extent it benefits workers, that's great. 1
K D Posted July 16 Posted July 16 5 minutes ago, TheBrownBear said: First off, just to declare my political positionality - I'm a registered Dem and have pretty much voted straight Dem in every election since 2000 outside of voting for one Republican for a state controller position, and voting Green a few times. I'm an economic liberal, social libertarian, but very much anti-identity politics/new-Left. With regard to Vance, history will eventually tell the story, but I don't buy him to be a pure "yes man." I think he shrewdly (or cynically) played the Trumpian angle for political access and power, and he can justify it to himself because Trump, at least in rhetoric, has positioned himself as a working class populist politician. I see him, essentially, as a "Blue Dog" Democrat. I grew up in Buffalo in a working class family that slowly rose up the economic ladder in large part because of good union jobs, so if Vance can actually shift Republican policy towards a more pro-union position (or at least not the traditional knee-jerk oppositional stance), I consider that a good thing for your average American in general. Overall, I'm intrigued by the potential realignment of the Republican party, especially if/when they can rid themselves of Trump and deranged sh*t-stirrers like the MTGs and Boeberts. Holy cow, brother. This couldn't be further from the truth. Your average union worker isn't looking to increase wages so they can jet-set and buy boats and fancy cars. They just want to be able to buy a small home in a safe neighborhood, not sweat every essential payment they make, afford to take care of themselves or loved ones should the worse happen with regards to their healthy, and maybe, just maybe retire in dignity by the age of 70. I'm not in a union so I will surely take your view into perspective. I just know what I see from friends who are and they make way too much money based on their cost of living imho. I have a family member who is talking about retiring in his 40's. Good for him if you can find that kind of work but most can't. Meanwhile, I see closed factories and companies that can't wait to take their jobs overseas. Perhaps all unions aren't created equal? I agree with the ideals my grandpa fought for. We need good living wages, safe conditions, and an opportunity to retire with dignity. We need people who take pride in their work. That should be the backbone of this country. Not people sitting at home smoking and playing video games and making TikToks. 2
TheBrownBear Posted July 16 Posted July 16 2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: You're the one they are looking for. My brother is a retired teamster, votes R consistently, and believe Trump's vision for the country is better than the Biden/D version. My brother-in-law, UAW, perhaps not as pro-Trump but he sure isn't pro-Biden. My parents were both union workers and I've never had the perspective that 'anti-union' positioning was for me. Nor, on the other hand, that a non-union shop was a panacea for the employee. For me (I worked for a large company that did not have union representation) it's about balance. I view a union as nothing more, or less than a corporation focused on the best outcome for the union as a whole. To the extent it benefits workers, that's great. I agree that unions are far from perfect, and like any large organization/bureaucracy are susceptible to corruption and pure incompetence, and the tendency towards preserving itself as opposed to focusing on its stated founding principles. And I do believe, as my retired labor leader Dad often complains, that they lost focus on their overall goal of protecting and expanding workers' rights, in favor of targeting their resources towards getting Democrats elected, regardless of what said Dem actually promised and delivered for workers. I do understand that instinct, however, since Republicans have long been completely oppositional to rights for your working Joe. But in doing so, they also opened their leadership doors to Leftist ideologues to organize and run their political efforts - people who never broke a sweat in their lives and often viewed the people they were meant to represent with disdain.
Tiberius Posted July 16 Posted July 16 Seems Biden did a good job going standing in that UAW picket line while Trump went to a non-union shop. Trump now has to pick Vance now to try and recover his union voters. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 16 Posted July 16 1 minute ago, TheBrownBear said: I agree that unions are far from perfect, and like any large organization/bureaucracy are susceptible to corruption and pure incompetence, and the tendency towards preserving itself as opposed to focusing on its stated founding principles. And I do believe, as my retired labor leader Dad often complains, that they lost focus on their overall goal of protecting and expanding workers' rights, in favor of targeting their resources towards getting Democrats elected, regardless of what said Dem actually promised and delivered for workers. I do understand that instinct, however, since Republicans have long been completely oppositional to rights for your working Joe. But in doing so, they also opened their leadership doors to Leftist ideologues to organize and run their political efforts - people who never broke a sweat in their lives and often viewed the people they were meant to represent with disdain. Fair, balanced and accurate. 1
Tommy Callahan Posted July 16 Posted July 16 Last I checked he is a fan of supply side economics, like trump. And most people The very opposite of the current regimes demand side that's only benefiting the elites and the few corps (that own most of the fortune 500)that get the lions share of the stimulus. Interventionist foreign policy vs passive. "since Republicans have long been completely oppositional to rights for your working Joe. But in doing so, they also opened their leadership doors to Leftist ideologues to organize and run their political efforts" Similar to what's been happening with the parties.
Tiberius Posted July 16 Posted July 16 2 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Last I checked he is a fan of supply side economics, like trump. And most people The very opposite of the current regimes demand side that's only benefiting the elites and the few corps (that own most of the fortune 500)that get the lions share of the stimulus. Interventionist foreign policy vs passive. Demand side? How is Biden increasing demand?
Tommy Callahan Posted July 16 Posted July 16 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Demand side? How is Biden increasing demand? Chips Inflation reduction He ran on giving you all 2 grand, then made it 1400 and gave fortune 500 the real stimmy. You don't even grasp basic economic principles? Demand-side economics and supply-side economics are two contrasting approaches to macroeconomic policy. Demand-side economics focuses on the demand for goods and services as the main driver of economic growth. It advocates for government intervention to stimulate demand through fiscal and monetary policies. Supply-side economics emphasizes the production of goods and services as the main force of economic growth. It supports tax cuts, deregulation, and free markets to increase supply and incentives.
TheBrownBear Posted July 16 Posted July 16 7 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Chips Inflation reduction He ran on giving you all 2 grand, then made it 1400 and gave fortune 500 the real stimmy. You don't even grasp basic economic principles? Demand-side economics and supply-side economics are two contrasting approaches to macroeconomic policy. Demand-side economics focuses on the demand for goods and services as the main driver of economic growth. It advocates for government intervention to stimulate demand through fiscal and monetary policies. Supply-side economics emphasizes the production of goods and services as the main force of economic growth. It supports tax cuts, deregulation, and free markets to increase supply and incentives. This is correct, but I chafe at the idea that they are either/or, or that one is inherently good and the other inherently bad. Sometimes circumstances demand one type of governmental intervention over the other (or even both at the same time). And while Biden is generally more of a demand-side intervention type, the Third Way democrats (Clinton/Gore, Obama) were generally pro-business and minimal regulations (i.e., supply side) guys. I'm not saying you're explicitly doing this here, but just wanted to point out that there is a lot of nuance when it comes to economics that goes over many people's heads.
T master Posted July 16 Posted July 16 18 hours ago, Tiberius said: He wants to cut off immigration and raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/13/opinion/jd-vance-interview.html. It’s a classic formulation: You raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour, and you will sometimes hear libertarians say this is a bad thing. “Well, isn’t McDonald’s just going to replace some of the workers with kiosks?” That’s a good thing, because then the workers who are still there are going to make higher wages; the kiosks will perform a useful function; and that’s the kind of rising tide that actually lifts all boats. What is not good is you replace the McDonald’s worker from Middletown, Ohio, who makes $17 an hour with an immigrant who makes $15 an hour. And that is, I think, the main thrust of elite liberalism, whether people acknowledge it or not. Or the hotels example. If you cannot hire illegal migrants to staff your hotels, then you have to go to one of the seven million prime-age American men who are out of the labor force and find some way to re-engage them. It’s amazing: To this day, I hear from Republican donors, “Oh, I’ll support you because you’re Republican, but you’re not pro-business.” Well, what do you mean I’m not pro-business? I actually really agree with the classic libertarian critique of the regulatory regime. “But we can’t run our business unless we have some of these immigrants coming over, because we can’t find people who are going to do the job.” My response is that there are people who would do those jobs if the incentives were there. First off if you raise the minimum wage to $20 it will cause most everything that requires a human being no matter how menial the task to have to have a increase in pricing that's number 1 . Number 2 if that happens and say a laborer that works for me & me being a mason i have to charge more to the customer because i have to pay out more, not to mention that i have 25 yrs of experience & if a rookie that has 2 yrs is making that much then i'm being under paid now so again my prices are going to go up especially if i have to pay for their health care, work mens comp, & so on . Then you have the fact that the McDonalds worker that you laid off that has little to no skills per say goes into the unemployment system to look for a job and due to the fact that they have little to no skills per say after they run out their unemployment not being able to find work then they go on to welfare because of course they won't go and be a block masons tender that is actual for real physical labor which young people won't do . The majority of the younger generation has been taught that they are American so they are of the Entitlement mind set i can see raising the minimum wage as a total Cluster F !! Oh also stop entitlement mind set & illegal immigration and have parents have their children go mow & rake lawns to make money so they can spend the money they earn to go buy a new ipad and have more appreciation for it instead of just giving everything to them !! To follow that up here's a theory, go back to the gold standard, stop printing money any time you need more, make the gov't live with in a budget like most of us have to instead of giving away trillions of dollars for every body & any body with their hand out, have more checks and balances for those getting entitlements, allow schools to bring back skilled trades programs & then bring the manufacturing jobs back to American soil so those people can have more opportunity and earn their way into a better life . Dammit i think i might be on to something here Tibs don't you ??? 2
Recommended Posts