America’s Middle Class Crisis: The Sobering Facts

[x26]

Originally Posted by Gonad the Barbarian
I'm tempted to edit this into the OP. It's worth the read but I don't want to start another thread as it's much along this same topic.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-k..._b_859585.html
Much more at link.




Everything I said was coming and the Republican dolts in here said would never happen.

Of course they would deny as they personally profit from all of this as evidenced by their own posts.

The enemy is not in Pakistan, they are here, posting right in front of us.

HuffingTon Post as a Source?? Pardon me while I Puke!!!

 

[JSt0rm]

If we spend $30 on jeans instead of say $20, thats all well and good but what about the store clerk?

What store clerk you say? (or insert any other job here)
The guys job that was eliminated because we are now spending $30 on jeans instead of $20 so we now have less money to spend on other things.

Its the seen vs the unseen consequences.

Deep thoughts by matt0611.

what if you went to a store and bought american then. Wow I cant believe I just thought of that.

 

[matt0611]

Deep thoughts by matt0611.

what if you went to a store and bought american then. Wow I cant believe I just thought of that.

What are you talking about?

Its not very deep by the way, its basic economics.

 

[JSt0rm]

What are you talking about?

Its not very deep, its basic economics.

You are a retard.

 

[matt0611]

You are a retard.

I'm retarded? Your reply made no sense all.
Whatever you say...

 

[JSt0rm]

I'm retarded? Your reply made no sense all.
Whatever you say...

You dont want to buy American because you are worried about the clerk at walmarts job? Ignorant fuck.

 

[matt0611]

You dont want to buy American because you are worried about the clerk at walmarts job? Ignorant fuck.

Replace clerk with steel worker, engineer, computer scientist etc It doesn't matter.
Whatever, it was just a fill in the blank thing. Fill it in with whatever you like.
Point is, if people spend more money on certain goods, they have less money to buy other goods since they buy less things overall.

Its the same reason tariffs won't increase our quality of life for the vast majority of people.

 

[JSt0rm]

Replace clerk with steel worker, engineer, computer scientist etc It doesn't matter.
Whatever, it was just a fill in the blank thing. Fill it in with whatever you like.
Point is, if people spend more money on certain goods, they have less money to buy other goods since they buy less things overall.

FUUUUUUUUU stupid fuck. If everything you buy is Chinese?

 

[JSt0rm]

Its the same reason tariffs won't increase our quality of life for the vast majority of people.

They wont? 100% sure? I'm not 100% sure and history has shown that it will. I'm no expert though so I wont speculate.

 

[matt0611]

They wont? 100% sure? I'm not 100% sure and history has shown that it will. I'm no expert though so I wont speculate.

Um, no, of course they wont. Its been tried before.
Trump wants to put a 20% tariff on chinese goods, this is a terrible idea.
It won't work and will lower the quality of life for all americans, especially the poor and middle-class.

Local consumers will have less to spend on other local producers' goods.

Many local producers will have a much harder time exporting their products to the other countries which will likely implement retaliatory tariffis.

The only benefit will be to the local producer which the tariff is designed to protect.

Net loss for local society and a lose/lose proposition for countries involved.

I buy American if its convenient and close in price because I think its worth it for me to sacrifice a little bit for the local community, but most of the time its not really possible or very inconvenient or too expensive.

 

[JSt0rm]

Um, no, of course they wont. Its been tried before.
Trump wants to put a 20% tariff on chinese goods, this is a terrible idea.

Local consumers will have less to spend on other local producers' goods.

Many local producers will have a much harder time exporting their products to the other countries which will likely implement retaliatory tariffis.

The only benefit will be to the local producer which the tariff is designed to protect.

Net loss for local society and a lose/lose proposition for countries involved.

Ok you must be a expert on tariffs.

So back to jeans, You refuse to spend $10 more for jeans because you worry about the clerk at walmart?

 

[Acanthus]

And let's not forget that America's middle class in many cases has itself to blame...

-Buying a McMansion on meager income
-Buying a car (SUV?) for each household member
-Buying luxury cars on meager income
-Paying for more bling?
-Putting stuff over important things like education and health care
-Cable TV/Internet/Data Smartphone plans for all
-Credit card debt
-Zero savings
-Having too many children


Short-sighted planing/budgeting and greed at all levels is to blame here.

Just a heads up--You are spot on on a lot of things... but Americans spend less per capita on vehicles than in the past. Mostly because we keep the cars substantially (~2 years) longer. The main reason for the increase in the number of vehicles in the adding of a 2nd person in the household to the workforce to try to maintain the lifestyle that the "head of household" era gave us in the 50s and 60s.

 

[Acanthus]

Um, no, of course they wont. Its been tried before.
Trump wants to put a 20% tariff on chinese goods, this is a terrible idea.
It won't work and will lower the quality of life for all americans, especially the poor and middle-class.

Local consumers will have less to spend on other local producers' goods.

Many local producers will have a much harder time exporting their products to the other countries which will likely implement retaliatory tariffis.

The only benefit will be to the local producer which the tariff is designed to protect.

Net loss for local society and a lose/lose proposition for countries involved.

I buy American if its convenient and close in price because I think its worth it for me to sacrifice a little bit for the local community, but most of the time its not really possible or very inconvenient or too expensive.

This analysis doesn't make sense.

The increase in price would be a reflection of Americans being employed rather than outsourced labor. This means that the money in the economy is circulating within America and not moving offshore.

Conceptually it like taking water out and putting it back into the same bucket, unlike with when you outsource, you take water out of your bucket and give it to someone else. Eventually you run out of water if you aren't receiving from others as much as you're giving out. (Trade deficit)

 

[matt0611]

Ok you must be a expert on tariffs.

So back to jeans, You refuse to spend $10 more for jeans because you worry about the clerk at walmart?

It was just an example to illustrate an economic concept, wasn't meant to be taken literally lol.

 

[JSt0rm]

It was just an example to illustrate an economic concept, wasn't meant to be taken literally lol.

your concept is shit then.

 

[JSt0rm]

Acanthus, Is this a economic concept?

 

[Acanthus]

Acanthus, Is this a economic concept?

Yeah, protectionism.

 

[Jhhnn]

HuffingTon Post as a Source?? Pardon me while I Puke!!!

Yeh- don't read it, you won't understand it anyway. Besides that it'll probably poison your mind and your precious bodily fluids, if it doesn't just burn your eyes out...

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Um, no, of course they wont. Its been tried before.
Trump wants to put a 20% tariff on chinese goods, this is a terrible idea.
It won't work and will lower the quality of life for all americans, especially the poor and middle-class.

Local consumers will have less to spend on other local producers' goods.

Many local producers will have a much harder time exporting their products to the other countries which will likely implement retaliatory tariffis.

The only benefit will be to the local producer which the tariff is designed to protect.

Net loss for local society and a lose/lose proposition for countries involved.

I buy American if its convenient and close in price because I think its worth it for me to sacrifice a little bit for the local community, but most of the time its not really possible or very inconvenient or too expensive.

Our nation is already running a large trade deficit, so if we stopped all international trade and became self-sufficient, we would end up internalizing a couple hundred billion dollars per year.

It may be true that if Americans had to purchase only American-produced goods and services that the prices would be higher. But that's only looking at the front-end costs. What about the invisible back-end costs? Also what happens if prices increase by 20% but wages increase by 25%? What if the invisible back-end costs--mass unemployment, mass underemployment, increased crime, higher taxes to pay for social welfare benefits, and other social problems decreased as a result of increased American employment and wages?

 

[matt0611]

This analysis doesn't make sense.

The increase in price would be a reflection of Americans being employed rather than outsourced labor. This means that the money in the economy is circulating within America and not moving offshore.

Conceptually it like taking water out and putting it back into the same bucket, unlike with when you outsource, you take water out of your bucket and give it to someone else. Eventually you run out of water if you aren't receiving from others as much as you're giving out. (Trade deficit)

With the trade deficit you also get a capital inflow.
You can't have one without the other.
Those dollars that we use to buy stuff don't just disappear.

The people that are in the sectors that are helped by the protectionism will benefit from it yes, the people that are not in those sectors will suffer.
All the exporters will also be hurt by retaliation.
Protectionism will never out well IMO.

 

[ShawnD1]

With the trade deficit you also get a capital inflow.
You can't have one without the other.
Those dollars that we use to buy stuff don't just disappear.

Actually yeah they kinda do disappear. When you buy shit from China, that money is now China's money. China can now use it to buy things. USA cannot.

 

[matt0611]

Actually yeah they kinda do disappear. When you buy shit from China, that money is now China's money. China can now use it to buy things. USA cannot.

Thats not disappearing though, someone has the dollars that they can use to buy something...

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Our nation is already running a large trade deficit, so if we stopped all international trade and became self-sufficient, we would end up internalizing a couple hundred billion dollars per year.

It may be true that if Americans had to purchase only American-produced goods and services that the prices would be higher. But that's only looking at the front-end costs. What about the invisible back-end costs? Also what happens if prices increase by 20% but wages increase by 25%? What if the invisible back-end costs--mass unemployment, mass underemployment, increased crime, higher taxes to pay for social welfare benefits, and other social problems decreased as a result of increased American employment and wages?

The top 1% won't see that 25% increase though. So such a thing will never be allowed to pass.

 

[ShawnD1]

Thats not disappearing though, someone has the dollars that they can use to buy something...

So what you're saying is that it's acceptable to max out all of my credit cards and have my family run at a huge deficit because someone else having our money is just as good as us having money. Does that sound accurate?

The other people are arguing that a deficit is generally a bad thing. Instead of buying everything, those people think we should start making everything. Make clothes instead of buy clothes. Cook my own meals instead of buying them at Red Lobster. Fix your own car, change your own oil.


I was never any good at economics but my family was a lot more like the second one. Making stuff and trying to avoid deficits when possible worked out fine. All of the families and businesses I have seen that run in never ending deficit/debt have failed. I don't think the US is special in any way, so running the entire country at a constant trade and budget deficit is probably going to have the same fail results.

 

[matt0611]

So what you're saying is that it's acceptable to max out all of my credit cards and have my family run at a huge deficit because someone else having our money is just as good as us having money. Does that sound accurate?

The other people are arguing that a deficit is generally a bad thing. Instead of buying everything, those people think we should start making everything. Make clothes instead of buy clothes. Cook my own meals instead of buying them at Red Lobster. Fix your own car, change your own oil.


I was never any good at economics but my family was a lot more like the second one. Making stuff and trying to avoid deficits when possible worked out fine. All of the families and businesses I have seen that run in never ending deficit/debt have failed. I don't think the US is special in any way, so running the entire country at a constant trade and budget deficit is probably going to have the same fail results.

Firstly, budget deficit is totally different than trade deficit, they hardly belong in the same conversation and I agree that the budget deficit is a huge problem, you probably won't find many people on this board who think its a bigger problem than I do.

On to trade deficits, trade deficit with countries can be ok, China has a run long standing trade deficit with many countries (such as germany) oh noes right?
Not really, having a trade deficit with a country just means you are getting an inflow of capital instead of goods, which is fine as long as the capital is going into something productive, which in our case, a lot of it is not because the government is spending it on wasteful things.

A massive net long term overall trade deficit is a huge problem if the capital is squandered on consumption. Which is what we do. Its not good and needs to stop.

I disagree that protectionism is the answer though IMO.