Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
TRADE THREAD- President Trump signs Phase One of China agreement, China promises to double its purchases in 2020 (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
I think this is very true and that it’s the main reason that the Democratic leadership is extremely reluctant to do anything about immigration despite what progressives want. They know that the unions agree with Trump on this issue.SWC said:
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
Link?
All I see is that there is "no present policy path". Decisions on the future are, at best, "wait and see".
Last edited by a moderator:
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
Is this what most progressives want?
Progressives for Immigration Reform Mission:
Progressives for Immigration Reform exists to protect American workers from unemployment and wage suppression caused by unfair labor and trade practices, including importation of large numbers of foreign workers who are subject to exploitation by foreign and domestic corporations working in the United States. At the same time, it seeks to enhance the working conditions of working people worldwide through enhancing economic, health, social, and environmental conditions in the developing countries worldwide.
Statement of Principles: Protection of American Workers
The organization’s primary focus of concern is the condition of unskilled workers in U.S. society. In an age in which unskilled workers have far too few opportunities opened to them, and in which welfare reform will require thousands more to find jobs, we see no justification to the continued entry of unskilled foreign workers —unless the rationale for their admission otherwise serves a significant interest, as does the admission of nuclear family members and refugees. Reducing exploitation of foreign workers and suppression of the wages of unskilled American workers violates human rights in the name of profits by greedy, self-serving, private interests. Employer sanctions that were enacted in 1986 must be made to work. A requirement to verify social security numbers must be made mandatory immediately. Reliance on foreign workers in low-wage, low-skill occupations, such as hospitality, farm and factory work, provides disincentives for employers to improve pay and working conditions for American workers. This also harms companies that adhere to appropriate labor standards and that pay livable wages. The presence of large numbers of foreign workers in particular localities presents substantial costs for housing, health care, social services, schooling, and basic infrastructure that are borne by the public rather than the employers who benefit unfairly from the inexpensive labor. Enforcement must become a reality. Fines for violations of the employer sanctions system must be increased and used routinely. The same for criminal penalties for repeat offenders. By both deed and national publicity, the message must be made clear to the public that illegal migrants will not work in the United States. More worksite inspectors and border patrol personnel should be hired and deployed and greater enforcement facilities put in place.
There must be no amnesties given for those who have illegally entered the United States to work. These served only to suppress the wages of working Americans and to cause unemployment of the most disadvantaged native-born population.
The admission of foreign workers for temporary work in skilled occupations (e.g., computer programming, technical, and research work) should remain capped at no more than 66,000 workers a year, but limited to no more than three years. Moreover, these skilled workers should be “highly” skilled and not present direct competion to US STEM graduates as they enter the workforce. Moreover, workers on skilled visa programs should not be used to displace US tech workers.
No private or public institution should use temporary admissions as a long-term source of skilled labor. To the degree that such shortages exist, reliance on the expansion of educational and training programs should be the nation’s method of filling such needs.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I don’t think GM based the layoffs on the $1bn in tariffs or on salaries. It’s probably got more to do with the fact that people don’t buy their cars.
There were 7.8 million acres of corn grown in my home state of Minnesota last year. In Colorado their acreage of hemp grown is now up to about 17,000 acres. In other words one or 2 very large farmers could grow enough to satisfy the demand. I wouldn't get too carried away about selling a few farmers some equipment. LOL.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
Sedan sales are down across the board. Camry is down , Accord was down 19%, Altima 28%, GM sedans in the mid 20% range. The plants that make these vehicles will suffer as a result.
We likely had more than 17,000 acres in the county where I am from drown out this past year and that had no effect on crop prices.
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
Whatever helps the sale of new equipment I'm on board for. If we had two farmers in the area that could buy a new combine because they started harvesting hemp then that would be very helpful. That's just one thing that could help, the biggest help would be better prices on corn, soybeans, milk and livestock.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
A goal of any corporation should be to maximize shareholder wealth. I'm sure there are plenty of valid criticisms of GM but I don't agree with your premise. If factories and employees don't fit in the long-term plans to achieve this, they should go.Ilov80s said:
You come up with a commodity where they grow 5 million acres of it then we will see better prices.
Sand
Footballguy
Well beyond the subject of this thread, but IMO, they have some massive holes in their financial system and this is turning the lever a lot more than they'd want. I think they're hurting a lot, but think they can outlast until the next POTUS waves the white flag.The Commish said:
I was wondering if Trump's gut can go toe to toe with his very ,very large brain as far as getting it done? He does have a sizable gut.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
Which one(s) specifically? This is a rabbit hole of comparing apples/oranges, right? Of course it is. Have you ever lived in a communist environment by any chance? I only ask because I realized while living in Laos for a summer, how we understand the world and economics of it don't matter in those areas. It's a completely different mindset.
Have we dropped the narrative that tariffs are in any way helping on the IP front? Hopefully? I noticed you cut that out.
Snorkelson
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
Unfortunately I don't have time to wax eloquent on your other questions - work hell this week.
On this one I've lived here (democracy) and in Ecuador ("democracy"), but no autocratic states. I'm sure it is different there.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Caesar
Footballguy
Just started my MBA a few months ago, and in one of my first classes, we had to pick a CEO to research for leadership. Our group selected Mary Barra, CEO of GM. I read dozens of articles about the bailout and the recalls and how she changed the culture and expectations of a company that was generally apathetic.
I have to say that I gained a huge respect for her as a leader in the way that she has handled things, and I would be proud to have her as CEO. I think she is practical and comes from the "factory" floor, so to speak. She started out inspecting quarter panels in one of the Michigan plants and got her electrical engineering degree. GM sent her to Stanford to complete her MBA and she moved up from there.
GM, in general, is trimming the fat under Barra. They closed down operations in South Africa and sold off their European footprint. I can't remember the exact number, but I believe it saved the company hundreds of millions. Basically, they got rid of the operations that were losing money and decided to focus more on investing in the future. Autonomous vehicles, smart technology, etc are all initiatives that they are pursuing. Her vision is that as we move forward, for them to stay competitive, they have to internally research and develop cars for the future.
The sedan line is a dying line as has been pointed out by many. GM will trim the fat. I saw someone say that many of the workers will be offered transfers, and that is common for a company that wants to re-allocate resources.
I work in a manufacturing plant, and we have between 400-500 workers. Right now, our labor is about 7% of our operations, so it is pretty close to the smallest factor when it comes to keeping a plant open. Materials, utilities, and equipment upkeep are all much greater than the total sum of labor. I feel for those people who are losing their jobs or being forced to relocate, but it was a business decision, and likely had little to do with Trump.
I'm not taking a side here, but just pointing out a point of view from someone in manufacturing who just happened to recently study GM.
I have to say that I gained a huge respect for her as a leader in the way that she has handled things, and I would be proud to have her as CEO. I think she is practical and comes from the "factory" floor, so to speak. She started out inspecting quarter panels in one of the Michigan plants and got her electrical engineering degree. GM sent her to Stanford to complete her MBA and she moved up from there.
GM, in general, is trimming the fat under Barra. They closed down operations in South Africa and sold off their European footprint. I can't remember the exact number, but I believe it saved the company hundreds of millions. Basically, they got rid of the operations that were losing money and decided to focus more on investing in the future. Autonomous vehicles, smart technology, etc are all initiatives that they are pursuing. Her vision is that as we move forward, for them to stay competitive, they have to internally research and develop cars for the future.
The sedan line is a dying line as has been pointed out by many. GM will trim the fat. I saw someone say that many of the workers will be offered transfers, and that is common for a company that wants to re-allocate resources.
I work in a manufacturing plant, and we have between 400-500 workers. Right now, our labor is about 7% of our operations, so it is pretty close to the smallest factor when it comes to keeping a plant open. Materials, utilities, and equipment upkeep are all much greater than the total sum of labor. I feel for those people who are losing their jobs or being forced to relocate, but it was a business decision, and likely had little to do with Trump.
I'm not taking a side here, but just pointing out a point of view from someone in manufacturing who just happened to recently study GM.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
All great points and perspective.
These are jobs that were going to be lost. More will be, too. The question is whether we, as a nation, are looking forward with companies so that we will be the best place for the jobs that we don’t even know will exist yet.
When GM builds the better autonomous vehicle, will the best workforce for them be in Michigan? Or Mexico?
Tax cuts don’t help as much as investing in the future.
Long term - it probably won't matter. Automation will eventually take most manufacturing jobs.
So, I suspect manufacturing will make a come back in the US, but not manufacturing jobs.
This farmer knows there are obvious soil type and a small amount of climate differences but my point was that the acres required in either state to meet demand are minuscule.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
From those commies at Business Insider:
Caesar
Footballguy
While I certainly understand where you are coming from with this, I am not sure that I totally agree. While I do believe the manufacturing jobs will take on a different job description, and there may be less of them, I don't believe they will go away completely, at least not for a long long time.
First, the cost of technology is substantial, and in order for a company to be able to move towards the future of manufacturing, they must be willing to foot a pretty hefty price up front. Many companies will not do this until the ROI is not only increased, but guaranteed.
The automation that we have in my plant, which isn't a lot considering we still have equipment from the 50s and 60s, but just PLC programming and troubleshooting will require human interaction. Mechanical upkeep will require skilled labor and quality assurance will require human decision making. It can't all be done by computers and robots. There is a lot that goes on that will still require humans. People have to run the equipment. It doesn't run itself, and it seems pretty far from being able to self-correct.
Again, I speak from a limited perspective of working in an old plant that is currently updating, but even the new equipment is not without faults (literally).
The workforce may be cut down by 40-50-60% and it will be more skilled labor, but there will still be jobs, IMHO.
I don't know if its in this thread, or a different one - but there is an article I posted about a Chinese warehouse - yes, I know its not manufacturing - but it processes 100,000 orders per day, and has 3 employees - all responsible for IT upkeep on the automation.
The speed at which we will advance from running an automated warehouse cost-effectively, to an automated assembly line will be very quick (imo). The upfront costs will drastically decline over the next 10 years. Companies will jump at the opportunity to lower, and lock-in, one aspect of production costs. No unions, no benefits, no raises, etc.
ETA: I was slightly off - it is 4 employees to process 200,000 orders a day:
JD.com, the logistics major from China, has recently unveiled a warehouse that can handle 200,000 orders a day but employs just four people - with their jobs centered around servicing the robots that run the place. The fulfillment center built at Kunshan, on the outskirts of Shanghai, ushers in a new future to the Chinese e-commerce industry with JD.com confident on providing same-day delivery to even the remotest places across China, provided the order comes in before 11 AM for the day.
The speed at which we will advance from running an automated warehouse cost-effectively, to an automated assembly line will be very quick (imo). The upfront costs will drastically decline over the next 10 years. Companies will jump at the opportunity to lower, and lock-in, one aspect of production costs. No unions, no benefits, no raises, etc.
ETA: I was slightly off - it is 4 employees to process 200,000 orders a day:
JD.com, the logistics major from China, has recently unveiled a warehouse that can handle 200,000 orders a day but employs just four people - with their jobs centered around servicing the robots that run the place. The fulfillment center built at Kunshan, on the outskirts of Shanghai, ushers in a new future to the Chinese e-commerce industry with JD.com confident on providing same-day delivery to even the remotest places across China, provided the order comes in before 11 AM for the day.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
My point in the whole thing is a lot of the things we know in economic terms aren't concepts the average person understands. Like "fair wage" or "supply/demand" (in terms of pricing). It's a completely different perspective to how the economy works so even though we might perceive something from the outside, it's usually not something they bother with or care about. It's a ###### up experience when you're so accustomed to one understanding and it's turned on it's head because it doesn't apply in this other place.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
That’s kind of what I mean. The jobs are going to be in logistics and technology infrastructure, not widget stamping.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Manufacturing never left. We produce more stuff in the US now than ever. We just do it with a lot less people.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
First the commies at Business Insider now this from the left wing libjerks at CNBC
US manufacturers say Trump tariffs will bring higher prices, not more jobs: Survey
US manufacturers say Trump tariffs will bring higher prices, not more jobs: Survey
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 2h2 hours ago
Billions of Dollars are pouring into the coffers of the U.S.A. because of the Tariffs being charged to China, and there is a long way to go. If companies don’t want to pay Tariffs, build in the U.S.A. Otherwise, lets just make our Country richer than ever before!
I wonder if anyone has bothered to tell Trump who actually pays for the tariffs....
Billions of Dollars are pouring into the coffers of the U.S.A. because of the Tariffs being charged to China, and there is a long way to go. If companies don’t want to pay Tariffs, build in the U.S.A. Otherwise, lets just make our Country richer than ever before!
I wonder if anyone has bothered to tell Trump who actually pays for the tariffs....
The Commish
Footballguy
Of course he does. There's no question about that. Problem, of course is, his trade deficit continues to grow. I think it's grown around 15% since he took over. It's crazy town.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Don’t you know who the hell I amHow did you get off my ignore list you waskily wabbit?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
The Z Machine
Footballguy
The tariffs on Chinese goods are driving manufacturing to... Mexico and other places with free trade agreements with the US. In fact, since many sub-components and raw materials are made in China, plants in the US are suffering and current production in the US is also moving to Mexico. Literally the exact opposite of bringing manufacturing back the US.
-fish-
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Maybe Bernie Sanders.-fish- said:
The Commish
Footballguy
Subscribe to Bernie TV and watch some of his clips. You'll see he has a firm grasp of what's going on and has predicted it all at one time or another. He even hit on it during the primaries.
timschochet
Footballguy
He seemed to suggest, during the campaign, that he was in favor of the same type of tariffs that Trump has imposed, though his purpose was a little different. But that was my impresssion.Subscribe to Bernie TV and watch some of his clips. You'll see he has a firm grasp of what's going on and has predicted it all at one time or another. He even hit on it during the primaries.
The Commish
Footballguy
Then you weren't paying close enough attention. I recommend revisiting all his comments again.
NREC34
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
That's all that can be asked. You will see quickly that he thinks the current approach is reckless and focused on the wrong things (if focused on anything at all). Of course that doesn't mean that he opposed to the concept of tariffs. He's not. But he's certainly opposed to these types.
msommer
Footballguy
So, it seems The Donald blinked. No increase in tariffs for 90 days and US and China will go back to talking...
G20: US and China agree to suspend new trade tariffs
The key words are "NOT YET AGREED UPON", thus there is no agreement on this right now and no certainty that there ever will be.
G20: US and China agree to suspend new trade tariffs
IBT "purchase a not yet agreed upon, but very substantial, amount of" is spun like a major victory by the trump supporters here.
The key words are "NOT YET AGREED UPON", thus there is no agreement on this right now and no certainty that there ever will be.
I could see the Chinese making some purchases now....realizing the tariffs might even get worse in 90 days?
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
Is there any chance Trump's doing this because he finally sees he's only hurting American workers while increasing the trade deficit with China 15ish% ? I mean, it's a good decision. There really wasn't any other practical choice.
Similar threads
