[jjoonathan]

Surprised? No. Upset? Yes.

Every time someone dares to suggest that a policy designed to benefit elites will hurt others, a clown car full of economists drives up. They pile out, tripping over each other to explain to us how we just aren't smart enough to understand economics and how actually cutting taxes for the rich (for the Nth time) will create such extraordinary economic growth that everyone's boat will float upwards as a result.

Of course, they are wrong, but next time this topic comes around I guarantee the clown car will be there and in the meantime it behooves us to stockpile ammunition.

See also: shipping all the manufacturing to China.

[throwaway6734]

>shipping all the manufacturing to China.

How is this related? I enjoy not having to pay $2000 for a cellphone and $500 for a pair of sneakers

[jjoonathan]

Yeah, but the American middle class got absolutely wrecked. Cheap sneakers don't make up for a lost job.

Also, the numbers you cite seem pretty dubious. Yes, if you want to do onshore manufacturing today, it's twice as expensive, but propagating that all the way into the cost of the goods assumes 100% of the cost is in manufacturing, that there would be zero economy-of-scale benefit from retaining our manufacturing base, and it assumes no benefit to your income from the increased economic re-circulation. Those... aren't neutral assumptions.

This is a separate matter from the one in TFA but the players and strategies are similar.

[throwaway6734]

The American middle class didn't get wrecked though. People had more capital on hand due to cheaper goods that they were able to spend on other industries and services.

If manufacturing didn't go to China it would've went to Vietnam or another country with cheaper low skilled labor. Long term automation will eat those jobs anyways

[jjoonathan]

Oh? The American middle class didn't get wrecked? I'm sure all the opiate addicts on disability roll will love to hear about all the capital they have on hand due to cheaper goods.

[throwaway6734]

Many actions could have been taken to prevent people from struggling to adapt to a changing economy such as:

* Subsidies for relocation

* Subsidies for retraining

* Subsidies for drug rehabilitation

All of which could have been funded by the greater economic growth generated by trade. If you want Americans to pay more for goods to subsidize the cost of living of groups of Americans, make it a transparent tax. Don't hide the cost in greater coats for goods.

Also where was this concern when these same issues were hitting poor urban regions throughout the 80s and 90s?

[ShroudedNight]

The hypothetical $2000 cellphone doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's entirely conceivable that income difference from the increased purchasing power of domestic labour would more than offset the potentially increased prices.

[NotSammyHagar]

You'd never have to pay $500 for sneakers made in the us, other than fancy designer shoes, prices unrelated to costs. You can already pay 2k for a cell phone.

[wyre]

Prices wont go up that much. Don’t overexagerate.

It’s related because economists and politicians say it’s good for everyone, when in reality it’s only good for the wealthy.

[throwaway6734]

It's good for anyone that buys consumer goods as well.