| ▲ | yalogin 4 days ago |
| What slowing wage growth? For the poorest the wages have essentially not increased for a long time right? It hasn’t even kept up with inflation. The recent bill actually makes it much worse. |
|
| ▲ | roywiggins 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| As far as I can tell, over the last few years at least, that's mostly not true: wages outpaced inflation, and it outpaced inflation more for lower-income workers than higher. > In stark contrast to prior decades, low-wage workers experienced dramatically fast real wage growth between 2019 and 2023 https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2023/ ("real wages" are wages adjusted for inflation) |
| |
| ▲ | Gareth321 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The problem with comparing wages by cohort and average inflation is that inflation doesn't affect each cohort evenly. By and large, necessities continue to outpace top line inflation, and they have done so for decades. These include food, healthcare, housing, daycare, and education. Lower income people spend more of their income as a proportion on necessities, so they are impacted more than average by inflation. In order to tell if these lower income people have indeed received wage increases in line with inflation, we would need a model which uses a lower income basket of goods and services. If I had to put on my tinfoil hat, I presume we don't do this because it would illustrate how badly the poorest are affected by inflation, and validate the frustrations they feel and which are clearly reflected in economic sentiment surveys. | | |
| ▲ | roywiggins 3 days ago | parent [-] | | One thing is that 10th percentile wages did barely keep up with inflation from 1979-2019 (0.1% growth annualized), it's only since then that it showed an increase (3.1% annualized). So it seems to me that any effects along those lines strong enough to exactly negate the apparent real wage growth in recent years must have either 1) been basically constant, so effective wages in this group actually declined 3.1% every year on average for forty years, making 2019 10th-percentile workers reduced to 28.4% of their forbears' wages, or 2) the inflation numbers were about representative for the 10th percentile worker from 1979-2019 and then suddenly and abruptly weren't, or 3) some combination of the two. (or of course 4), the effect is real, nonzero, but not big enough to wipe out 3.1% apparent wage growth) |
| |
| ▲ | silisili 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm obviously not an expert, but assumed the same thing. I watched a fast food joint near me go from 9/hr to 21/hr in just a few years. Maybe that was just pandemic pricing, I don't know. But getting >2x salary in such short order is outpacing pretty much everyone else, percentage wise. | | |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand 3 days ago | parent [-] | | This probably means that those wages were being suppressed hard for years and they finally weren't able to hire people at that wage anymore | | |
| ▲ | silisili 3 days ago | parent [-] | | You're probably right, but it ultimately leads to wage compression which is for most of the middle class a disaster. You don't have to look far to see everyday people complaining about the price of a burger or movie ticket. IMHO, it doesn't "lift all boats", it pulls down the middle and upper middle classes. Yeah, the lower wage jobs made more money, but they didn't gain much if anything in affordability, since all of the necessities are produced by people also demanding more money. | | |
| ▲ | tossandthrow 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | All arguments against lower class people getting higher wages are IMHO wildly inappropriate. "you need lower wages to avoid wage compression", "you need lower wage so we can have more employed people"... If wage compression occurs, then companies have to deal with Theo senior employees seeking elsewhere - or pay them fairly. | | |
| ▲ | silisili 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Today, I'd agree. It felt like a dirty thing to even write. Historically, the lower wage jobs were for kids or bored folk, who'd eventually move onto something better and higher wages. Recently, the economy isn't great and people take what they can find. There's absolutely no shame in that. I know people in tech who were making low to mid 6 figures now doing retail. The jobs just aren't there, and I constantly fear I'll be in the same boat soon. But that inevitably does lead to wage compression, which to be clear isn't the fault of the lower wage earners. | | |
| ▲ | FirmwareBurner 3 days ago | parent [-] | | >I know people in tech who were making low to mid 6 figures now doing retail. But in other threads, people on HN said they don't even get out of bed for a 140k remote job. What gives? |
| |
| ▲ | ryanjshaw 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > All arguments against lower class people getting higher wages are IMHO wildly inappropriate. This kind of emotional reasoning is wildly inappropriate IMHO. The commenter is not making an argument against lifting lower class wages. They’re making an observation of how economic theory may apply to this scenario. > pay them fairly Define “fairly”? | | |
| ▲ | tossandthrow 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Define “fairly”? In this context of wage compression it is fairly easy as it is just ensuring that they are paid comparatively more than the more junior employees that apparently are getting the same or close to the same salary. | |
| ▲ | wat10000 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | They said it’s bad for one group and neutral for another. How is that not an argument against it? | | |
| ▲ | ryanjshaw 3 days ago | parent [-] | | If I make the observation that some vaccines can have anaphylaxis as a side effect, am I making an argument against vaccinations? Obviously not. In that case, you’d take precautions at vaccination sites: have EpiPens available, make people wait 15min after taking the shot before leaving. In this case, I’m sure you can apply yourself and think of ways we can counter the effects of wage compression now that we’ve unemotionally identified the fact that it occurs. | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The analogous argument would be that vaccines cause anaphylaxis and don’t prevent disease. If you made those statements then that’s clearly an argument against using them. | |
| ▲ | tossandthrow 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | To stay in your vaccine narrative: if I say that you expose other people to a health risk for not getting vaccinated - then yes this is an argument for getting vaccinated. The observation is not that vaccines have (side)-effects, but how these effects affect other people. And that is what loads the argument. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | potato3732842 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >IMHO, it doesn't "lift all boats", it pulls down the middle and upper middle classes. It's hard to feel particularly bad for the them when the CurrentShitshow(TM) has largely been a result of the top-ish of the middle being comfortable enough that they're happy to peddle (sometimes at the behest of the most wealthy, sometimes organically) all sorts of bad ideas both economic and social that have kneecapped our economies and torn our societies apart. Like it wasn't the Uber Drivers who thought it would be a good idea to sell out the industrial portions of our economy and make race baiting a cornerstone of national politics. I feel much greater sympathy for the cohort that currently works $15-25hr jobs and could have perhaps moved to $30-40 roles over time, bought a house and raised some kids in general economic stability if not for fairly self imposed costs and instability. | |
| ▲ | wat10000 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | | | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Somehow Europe can pay fast food workers above poverty, including 5 week paid vacation, healthcare and many other benefits without the middle class not being able to afford a burger. America's obsession with forcing people that work full time to live in squalor is insane. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dns_snek 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If these reports say that things are better for low income people, why do people living that reality overwhelmingly disagree? Any statistics derived from inflation figures are doomed to be wrong when the inflation data was wrong to begin with. I'm not in the US, but our inflation data was just as wrong as I've heard the US data was. Official numbers were 10% but literally everything went up at least 20%. Everyone I spoke to had their cost of living increase by significantly more than the official inflation figures. And when "real wage growth" over 4 years is deemed to be just 13%, it's essentially guaranteed that real wage growth was in fact negative when you consider the disparity between real and official inflation figures. Statistics such as food insecurity rate, personal savings rate, and credit card delinquency rate would certainly support that. | | |
| ▲ | vineyardmike 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > why do people living that reality overwhelmingly disagree Because a hard life feels harder when prices rise. If you're at the bottom of the wage statistics, even a large increase in salary (eg. 20%) will still leave you struggling day to day, before inflation in your costs. > Official numbers were 10% but literally everything went up at least 20% Inflation numbers consider a wide variety of things. It's probably at least partially the reality that the necessities are rising faster than discretionary purchases. As an example, iPhones are "cheaper" today accounting for inflation since Apple hasn't raised prices much, especially on the high end. Obviously the poorest X% of people aren't buying new iPhones, so they don't get those savings. Anecdotally, my grocery bill for packaged goods has risen dramatically, while my produce costs are flat. I'm a vegetarian so IDK about meat costs. My utilities have risen, my housing costs have risen, and my subscription prices have risen. Meanwhile, most of my other non-travel spending (eg. home goods like towels, electronics, etc) is pretty flat for years. | | |
| ▲ | iinnPP 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Ingredients household here. My grocery bill doubled in 7 years without any packages of anything. Largest increase has been on every fresh food item grown in our many greenhouses. Such as lettuce (increased 200% from ~1 to ~3 for iceberg lettuce) and tomatoes. I keep a decent memory of pricing at multiple stores and can agree with part of your comment, packaged food got it worse. Edit: Ontario Canada |
| |
| ▲ | sim7c00 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | the reports are written by people who are not in the same wage category. that is why they don't reflect the lived experiences of these people. facts and experiences are two very different things. Despite wages going up, poor people can still experience hardship and the feeling of always missing out / having less. it's a matter of contrast, not numbers. And that contrast, that's formed by lived experiences, not some report numbers or percentages thrown around here n there. Policies should aim to elevate lived experiences of people, not change some numbers here and there to make the facts more confortable morally -_-. | |
| ▲ | ModernMech 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > If these reports say that things are better for low income people, why do people living that reality overwhelmingly disagree? I'll give an example. In 2019, a 1bd apartment near me cost $800 per month. The McDonalds paid $7.50 per hour. Today the same 1bd costs $2000 per month, and the McDonalds pays $15 per hour. So both can be true. Wages have gone up 100% for the low income worker, which is good news. But it's not enough to offset the cost of living increases, so they are actually worse off than they were before their wages went up. | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >I'm not in the US, but our inflation data was just as wrong as I've heard the US data was. Official numbers were 10% but literally everything went up at least 20%. Everyone I spoke to had their cost of living increase by significantly more than the official inflation figures. All the math that underpins the usual idiots screeching about "muh compounding gains/interest" applies to the divergence between real inflation and official inflation as well. You can hide a lot of divergence between the real value of the currency and the official value by "simply" having the official number be low by a couple percent over time. |
| |
| ▲ | DanielHB 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I imagine how cost of living/inflation is calculated became a lot more complex in the past few years which skews the comparison. Especially because of cost of buying homes and cost of renting and greater disparity between rural and urban in the context of increasingly higher urban populations. Also, predatory debt trapping, in part due to social media exposure and student loans, is way bigger thing now. | |
| ▲ | Mountain_Skies 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Activists love to use the Federal Minimum Wage, which has not increased in a long time (16 years), as their basis for that claim, ignoring how few workers are actually paid the Federal Minimum Wage. It's become a worthless metric for anything other than misleading arguments. In addition to state and local governments setting their own minimums, the decline in young people and competition for workers in that sector from food delivery companies, has put wage pressure on fast food companies. Most wouldn't be able to open their doors if they tried to pay the Federal Minimum Wage. Had it been pegged to inflation, it would be $10.90/hour, which is less than what fast food workers are paid almost anywhere. | |
| ▲ | smolder 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's a study that underestimates growth in cost of living, i.e. gouging by rent seekers and businesses, and ignores changes in status, i.e. people leaving the job market or moving down to something worse. It's not surprising that the lowest income earners got a substantial boost in that period, since life is getting substantially more expensive. Importantly, I don't think their "real wage" inflation adjusted values are fair. People being told inflation was one amount when their actual CoL was vastly outpacing that was part of what fueled the anger that got Trump elected again, not that he has helped (or will help) anything since '23 where that analysis ends. Anecdotally, many people I know would be in dire straits if they didn't own appreciating real property, because their cost of living adjustments at work aren't coming close to matching inflation. Others I know are actually in dire straits. Some are doing fine and getting the benefit of profitable work. Overall things have been awful economically post-COVID, and there are a lot of causal factors, from the policy decisions of the last decade, to the surprises of COVID, natural disasters and geopolitics, to the AI investment bubble and the changing zeitgeist. (Oh and let's not forget simple demographics, birth rate, etc...) |
|
|
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > For the poorest the wages have essentially not increased for a long time right? No. Nominal wages grew from ‘21 to ‘23, hitting all-time highs in ‘24 [1]. > It hasn’t even kept up with inflation It did [2]. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXU900000LB0102M [2] https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2023/ |
| |
| ▲ | meetingthrower 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Good data! Looking at the objective figure on the chart is sobering tho - $4k in income!(I think it may go up after taxes given tax credits?) |
|
|
| ▲ | stretchwithme 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Maybe dramatically increasing the supply of something lowers its price. |
| |
| ▲ | hdgvhicv 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Lots of contrarians or simply wealthy people think increasing supply of housing does not cause this. |
|
|
| ▲ | bandrami 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That hasn't been true for a decade but nobody updated their mental models |
|
| ▲ | bennyHHW 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | roywiggins 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Median real wages are up since the 80s by quite a bit: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q | |
| ▲ | agent_turtle 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Decades of worsening conditions for the commoner is Ron Wyden's idea of a booming economy. Democrats are useful idiots. I can't anymore, folks. Republicans passed the largest tax cuts for billionaires, increased the deficit by trillions, and kicked millions of people of medicaid. Meanwhile, Trump is out there creating the most regressive tax system via tariffs we've ever seen which affect the poorest the most. Yet Democrats are the useful idiots. Incredible. | | |
| ▲ | bennyHHW 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [flagged] | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Trump is out there creating the most regressive tax system via tariffs Tariffs incentivize domestic production. See the case of chicken tax and pickup trucks. While we do pay for tariffs now, later down the road we should not as more things would be made domestically. If you don’t do tariffs, there is no way to force producers to onshore. | | |
| ▲ | toast0 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The chicken tax encourages creative workarounds more than domestic production. Importing all the parts and putting them together in the US is production work, so fine. Importing chassis cab and putting a bed on in the US is silly, importing with seats discarded in the US is wasteful (Ford got dinged, but I don't think others did?) Who's making small cargo vans domestically? Nobody. So they're all 25% more expensive, so you might as well buy a big cargo van when a small one would do. Honestly, governments buy enough light trucks, that 'buy american' requirements would likely keep at least one company making them here. | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Chicken tax was introduced earlier than all the “relaxation” of what is considered “American”. The definition of “made in USA” became more flexible for products to be considered domestic while de facto being made somewhere else, hurting domestic manufacturing. So, it’s not that the tax doesn’t work, the issue is all the things around it that made it less effective. | | |
| ▲ | toast0 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Chicken tax was enacted in 1964; Ford and Chevy were tariff engineering in 1972, importing trucks without beds and putting beds on in the US. Finding loopholes and driving trucks through them is what's considered American. It's not a relaxation. At the end of the day, the chicken tax reduces our options in the vehicle market as it was designed to do, and it's one thing if we want to exclude WV vans and trucks when we have plenty of nice options at home, but now that we don't have nice options at home, it would be nice to be able to import them without a punative tariff. |
|
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Tariffs incentivize domestic production Stable, long term tariffs. We’re seeing historic falls in manufacturing employment for a reason. | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Stable, long term tariffs. Well, you have to start somewhere. > We’re seeing historic falls in manufacturing employment for a reason. In your opinion, what is this reason? | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > you have to start somewhere There has been no start. You don’t build a factory because the President announced a tariff that he is also negotiating a trade deal around. > what is this reason? I’m remodelling my deck. I had orders into a steel mill in Utah. Tariffs mean their steel inputs are pricer than competitors in Vietnam. So I switched the order. And I paid with a cheque—if I paid cash I could skip taxes altogether. That wasn’t a thing six months ago. Meanwhile, software and services aren’t tariffed. Just goods. Guess whose cost of capital has sunk. | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > There has been no start. You don’t build a factory because the President announced a tariff that he is also negotiating a trade deal around. You absolutely do once the math of tariffs makes your manufacturing abroad not competitive with onshored one. Will it apply for all categories of products? Probably not. However, it will definitely apply for many. I am not sure I understood your reply about the reasons. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > absolutely do once the math of tariffs makes your manufacturing abroad not competitive with onshored one If someone bet on e.g. our Japan tariffs three months ago, they lost money. (Nobody did. The types that take Trump at his word on tariffs aren’t making economically significant decisions.) | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I do not know why anyone would bet that the executive order defined tariffs would stay. It was and still clear as a day that Trump uses them to force people to the negotiation table. Obviously, negotiated deal may look different. Regardless, tariffs as an instrument have their merit with Trump or without Trump. Strategically, US has to bring manufacturing (and as much of a supply chains) back, there is no way around it. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > do not know why anyone would bet that the executive order defined tariffs would stay If nobody bets on the tariffs staying then manufacturing doesn’t come back. The restoring of manufacturing is the bet. > US has to bring manufacturing (and as much of a supply chains) back Sure. These tariffs don’t do that. | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Sure. These tariffs don’t do that. How do you know? Are you from the future? | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Are you from the future? …we are currently in the future of the previous tariffs. Also, come on, you’re yourself arguing these tariffs aren’t worth betting on. What do you think investing in a factory is? | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > …we are currently in the future of the previous tariffs. Which ones? > Also, come on, you’re yourself arguing these tariffs aren’t worth betting on. What do you think investing in a factory is? I can’t bet on negotiation tactic, only on the outcomes and formal agreements. As soon as those would be finalized we would know. Now we do not know how the trade policy would look like. I would assume that investment banker knows the difference. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Which ones? Liberation Day. > can’t bet on negotiation tactic, only on the outcomes and formal agreements How about money actually invested [1][2]. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/C307RX1Q020SBEA [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/C307RX1Q020SBEA | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Liberation Day. From four months ago? | | |
| ▲ | sjsdaiuasgdia 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I can't tell which of these you meant - "From four months ago? That's way too short a time for any tariff impacts to show up." vs "From four months ago? That's ancient history, it doesn't matter." If it's the first, the link the other person provided shows a dip in manufacturing facility investment over the last 2 quarters. Maybe there will come a future point of stability where investors can feel confident, maybe not. Trump seems willing to use tariffs as a weapon for any disagreement with other countries, not just trade imbalances. There's little guarantee any trade agreement will be honored by the administration. If it's the second, well, that's the problem. The tariff landscape has been in constant flux over the last several months [0,1,2]. You don't build a factory overnight. You want to understand what your supply chains and costs look like and have some confidence in what they'll look like by the time the factory is ready to start producing. There remains little guarantee that the landscape won't continue to change, and Trump's weaponizing of tariffs is part of that. [0] https://e3.365dm.com/25/04/1600x900/skynews-trump-tariffs_68... [1] https://news.ucr.edu/sites/default/files/styles/scale_825/pu... [2] https://www.crugroup.com/globalassets/campaigns/commodity-ma... | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > From four months ago? That is when that was. Also the ones from six months ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 9rx 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Strategically, US has to bring manufacturing (and as much of a supply chains) back, there is no way around it. Strategically, it needed to keep manufacturing. It is too late now. Its labor and capital is already fully deployed towards innovation. Innovation that is now realizing that it is being stifled without a local manufacturing base, granted, but at this point pulling labor and capital away from innovation in order to build a manufacturing base again will only stifle it further as the rest of the world, which is quickly closing the innovation gap, keeps moving forward. The US cannot afford to see that happen. So, in order to save face, what the tariffs will end up doing is open the doors for foreign capital and labor to flood into the US instead. While that will put factories in eye's view, it does not "bring back manufacturing" or resolve the strategic need. It merely lets what was strategically trying to be defended against inside the house, which is an even worse position. | |
| ▲ | gambiting 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >>Regardless, tariffs as an instrument have their merit with Trump or without Trump. Strategically, US has to bring manufacturing (and as much of a supply chains) back, there is no way around it. Well no. Not really. Not for everything anyway. Some things like electronics - sure, but it's a matter of national security not economy - it doesn't have to make financial sense, it just has to exist so that the country can have that ability no matter what happens. As a simple(and really oversimplified) example - let's say that tariffs force clothes manufacturers to bring tshirt making back to the States. The $5 T-Shirt now costs $30 due to tarrifs. So ok, someone makes a factory in US because now it makes sense, employs american workers, pays them good wage - ok, now they make t-shirts cost $20 because they are made domestically. Cool - that's great, but now the rest of the world still buys $5 tshirts, while Americans buy $20 ones that can't even be exported anywhere because why would anyone buy them if they have cheaper alternatives. All you've done is you increased the cost of your products to the american consumers. Some can argue - ok, that doesn't matter, what matters is that manufacturing is now back in the states and american people have employment. And sure, there is merit to that argument - but it reminds me of how my own country used to work under communist rule, people would go "comrade party leader, people have no jobs", "ok, we'll build a factory here so you can have jobs". Can the factory make anything that is actually worth making? Doesn't matter, what matters is that people got jobs and "manufacturing is happening here" - for an economy based on capitalist principles, that sounds like a disaster for US. But hey, what do I know. Just an external observer. | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Well no. Not really. Not for everything anyway. So, you and I are in agreement that for some things it makes sense, right? Both strategically, and economically. | | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | For some things, it might make sense. Across the board tarrifs like this current administration is doing them is just idiocy. | |
| ▲ | sethammons 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nearly every economist agrees with targeted and strategic tariffs. Nearly every economist disagrees with blanket tariffs. They think this for reasons. Historic ones. Logical ones. Modeled ones. Do some basic research. Talk to an AI. This is not advanced material. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Long term stable tariffs yes. But you can't pretend like trumps tariffs were not done in the worst way possible? | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Trump uses wild % amounts as a negotiation tactic. Is it the best way to do it? I don’t know. You can’t argue though that it does force the other side to come quickly to negotiation table to talk about the deal. So, if the goal is to get the deal now, then it’s effective. If the goal is something else, then it’s not a good tactic. I do not have enough information to definitely say whether it’s good or bad. Most of the things in life are neither because they have good side effects, and bad side effects to them. So, I think looking for a “good only” solution is a loosing strategy. | | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm confused. Is the goal the get manufacturing back in the US, or to make new trade deals? I've heard both things. Oh, and something about fentanyl coming in from Canada? Alright I'm not sure how tariffs would stop that. | |
| ▲ | agent_turtle 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I do not have enough information to definitely say whether it’s good or bad. Usually when I don't have enough information on an issue, I take it upon myself to learn more about it before stating an opinion. > Most of the things in life are neither because they have good side effects, and bad side effects to them. You don't have to be a doctor to understand that the downside of cancer probably outweighs the upside of not having to save for retirement. Economic instability is the cancer in this metaphor, and the cause of it is Trump changing his mind on tariff rates every other day. Economists, like doctors, are trained on how to treat this illness, and all of them are saying "stop doing that". Trump can either listen to the experts or continue on his path, destroying the American economy in the process. | |
| ▲ | fireflash38 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You say we need tariffs to bring manufacturing back. Then you turn around and say the tariffs aren't the point, it's the deal. You even said it was silly to bet on announced tariffs elsewhere. If the tariffs are necessary to bring manufacturing back full stop, then you don't need to "make a deal". If it's just a tool to make a deal, then they're not necessary! You just keep moving those goalposts. | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Negotiate what? You realize they can just set it right? If it was a long term strategy they would just set a fixed % and leave it at that, otherwise companies cannot make any plans. |
|
| |
| ▲ | wat10000 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | When tariffs are imposed by the other side, they’re called “sanctions” and are considered one step short of declaring war. If they’re so great then they wouldn’t be used as punishment. Economists pretty much universally agree that tariffs are bad for both sides. It can make sense to use them to preserve strategic industries even if it’s less efficient economically. For example, tariffs on food could make sense to ensure an enemy can’t starve you with a blockade. But as a blanket policy it’s just bad. | |
| ▲ | dgb23 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Only sector targeted tariffs paired with long term investment and commitment do that. | |
| ▲ | watwut 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That particular outcome is possible when you make tariffs in a smart and predictable way. Trumps tariffs are unpredictable and also make local producers pay more for raw material they need. | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > That particular outcome is possible when you make tariffs in a smart and predictable way. You would have to prove that claim. There is more than one way to achieve a specific goal. > Trumps tariffs are unpredictable and also make local producers pay more for raw material they need. It’s one of the consequences. There are other ones. Is your only objective is to ensure that local manufacturers pay the least amount possible for their raw materials? This is very simplistic view of things. | | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This isn't rocket science. If you want somebody to spend a lot of money and time setting up production in the US, tariffs have to be stable and predictable. If that doesn't make sense to you, I didn't know what to say. | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | And they are after the deals are signed, no? | | |
| ▲ | notahacker 3 days ago | parent [-] | | A lot of deals got ripped up on "Liberation Day", including some Trump was extremely proud of when he announced them in his last term. He's changed his mind several times in six months already, dropping deadlines and tariffs when the market gets itchy feet, imposing higher tariffs due to disputes with governments completely unrelated to trade. He loves to make grand gestures to distract from domestic issues, and his administration showed so little basic competency they actually publicly announced tariffs on uninhabited territories full of penguins. Why would anybody assume stability? To echo a comment made in a parallel thread, decisions made to invest in US manufacturing don't get made by people dumb enough to take Trump at his word. And even if he wasn't tariffs are unlikely to persist at those levels under the next President, regardless of who that is, and that's the sort of timeline you pay back your investment in US manufacturing over... |
|
| |
| ▲ | watwut 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You are the one who is making the claim that goes both against what historical data show and against what economists say. So, yeah, predictability matter. Institution do not want to invest based on something that goes up and down randomly. > Is your only objective is to ensure that local manufacturers pay the least amount possible for their raw materials? This is very simplistic view of things. Well, yeah, them paying more is rather massive obstacle. You know what is simplistic view of things? Belief that Trump will make economy better, because you like his fraudster personality and would like to be like him. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | WalterBright 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Republicans passed the largest tax cuts for billionaires There were no tax cuts for billionaires in the BBB. (Not increasing the tax is not a "cut".) | | |
| ▲ | kyralis 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It absolutely is when the status quo would have increased taxes. That may not be a cut of current taxes, but in the longer timeframe it is absolutely a tax cut. | | |
| ▲ | WalterBright 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Framing it as not increasing taxes being a cut is misleading. It's just as disingenuous as scaling back a proposed budget increase and calling it a "cut". The FTC wouldn't let businesses get away with such language, why should the government get a pass? | | |
| ▲ | tired-turtle 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If a bill due at the end of the month is forgiven on the 25th, were expenses cut? What if the debt is forgiven on the 2nd of the next month? I’d wager most people would consider those scenario cuts. However, in your framework, the verbiage is different despite a shared outcome. | | |
| ▲ | WalterBright 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Bills are not due in advance. The analogy is inapt. The taxes were cut 8 years ago. There aren't further "cuts". Billionare tax rates have been the same for the last 8 years, and will continue at the same rate at least into next year. | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Weren’t those cuts set to expire? | | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes. They were temporary cuts so that they could claim they didn't raise the deficit. Now they are claiming that everybody knew they were going to be permanent. So they either raised the deficit in that cut, or the current one. It's the same party, claiming they didn't raise the deficit either time. And Americans put up with this shit. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | kyralis 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No. The total tax bill over the next five years was X, given the current laws. Then a bill was passed that reduced that total tax bill over the next five years. This is a tax cut. It's a little absurd to try to claim otherwise. | | |
| ▲ | WalterBright 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Failing to increase taxes is not a tax cut. | | |
| ▲ | kyralis 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is the same as saying that a tax cut with an expiration date should be treated as if it were permanent. Are you not aware that these things are different? That there is a difference between an adjustment to a proposed budget and a budget that has been enshrined in law? What's the magical time horizon that changes this? If I change the taxes due for 2026, is that a tax cut? How about 2027? Where's the line between a change in law that is or is not a tax cut with this philosophy? If you want consistency, a change in law that adjusts the tax burden downward from what the burden would be without the change in law is a tax cut. Therefore, a change in the law that makes previously temporary reduced tax levels into permanent reduced tax levels is a tax cut. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | They made a temporary cut permanent. Come on, you already know this. And you know why. | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | renewiltord 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Great example in how humans do this thing called “hallucination” where they just make up facts. I wouldn’t trust them to write code. |
