Mr. Trump idea of 10 to 20% general tariffs

[69in2it69]

Originally Posted by TravelingHere

You mean a chart that shows employment levels went down when an idiot decided he could make a global pandemic "go away in the spring"? And after 4 years of the same idiot being out of office employment levels are almost back to where they were at when he was in office? Got anything to add sparky?

[TravelingHere]

Originally Posted by 69in2it69

You mean a chart that shows employment levels went down when an idiot decided he could make a global pandemic "go away in the spring"? And after 4 years of the same idiot being out of office employment levels are almost back to where they were at when he was in office? Got anything to add sparky?

Learn to read. The chart shows a long term trend in the percentage of work age people participating in the work force.

But let me help you, I'll share a bigger picture so maybe it'll help you identify the trend ( a trend is taking two points on opposite ends of a graph and drawing a line through them.. just saying):
Here's the last 35 years. Notice how it reversed under Trump?

4.5% is the difference between now and then. These people are not working and not looking.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...te-since-1990/

The free trade agreements in the pursuit of cost efficiencies coincided with more people dropping out.

[txdot-guy]

[QUOTE=TravelingHere;1063647191]

Originally Posted by 69in2it69

Learn to read. The chart shows a long term trend in the percentage of work age people participating in the work force.

But let me help you, I'll share a bigger picture so maybe it'll help you identify the trend ( a trend is taking two points on opposite ends of a graph and drawing a line through them.. just saying):
Here's the last 35 years. Notice how it reversed under Trump?

4.5% is the difference between now and then. These people are not working and not looking.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...te-since-1990/

The free trade agreements in the pursuit of cost efficiencies coincided with more people dropping out.

The labor force participation rate is still down from its peak in 2000. it plummeted in 2008 due to the mortgage crisis and recession. It finally stabilized under Obama in 2014, no thanks to Paul Ryan. And started to show some gains under Trump. However I don’t really give that much credit to Trump for it. A little bump in 2019 possibly due to tax changes but another plummet due to the pandemic in 2020.

What bothers me is that the graph shows a 4 percent drop from 2008. Where did those workers go? Do workers who retire still get counted in the civilian labor force even if they plan not to work anymore. How much of that drop is accounted for by our aging workforce.


But to get back to the topic at hand, TravelingHere is not wrong because he thinks we need to bring back manufacturing to the United States. However generalized tariffs are a really bad way to do it.

Targeted tariffs, government incentives and deregulation can all have an impact. But it requires a certain amount of picking winners and losers. Those manufacturing companies that are supply chain based and important to the national economy, or businesses that are only marginally profitable overseas, or businesses that employ certain types of workers and can revitalize certain regions in the US could all be up for consideration.

Having to convince CEO’s that it’s more important or better yet more profitable to reshore manufacturing to the US is a really difficult task. The Biden administration has done a lot of work that I think will pay off in the coming decade in chip manufacturing, and green energy related fields. Trump’s tariffs could do a lot of damage to the investment that we’ve already made.

[69in2it69]

[QUOTE=TravelingHere;1063647191]

Originally Posted by 69in2it69

Learn to read. The chart shows a long term trend in the percentage of work age people participating in the work force.

But let me help you, I'll share a bigger picture so maybe it'll help you identify the trend ( a trend is taking two points on opposite ends of a graph and drawing a line through them.. just saying):
Here's the last 35 years. Notice how it reversed under Trump?

4.5% is the difference between now and then. These people are not working and not looking.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...te-since-1990/

The free trade agreements in the pursuit of cost efficiencies coincided with more people dropping out.

Learn to think. The chart shows age 16 and OLDER. There is no accounting for the percentage of the population who are above the age of 16...who also happened to live long enough to retire. So, by your math, with an unemployment rate of under 4%, there are 4.5% not working or looking. Guess what, I hope to be one of the ones over age 16 not working and not looking sooner rather than later. Sorry you will never be able to achieve that part of life we call "retirement". Maybe not buy so many Trump bibles?

[TravelingHere]

Originally Posted by 69in2it69

Learn to think. The chart shows age 16 and OLDER. There is no accounting for the percentage of the population who are above the age of 16...who also happened to live long enough to retire. So, by your math, with an unemployment rate of under 4%, there are 4.5% not working or looking. Guess what, I hope to be one of the ones over age 16 not working and not looking sooner rather than later. Sorry you will never be able to achieve that part of life we call "retirement". Maybe not buy so many Trump bibles?

Understanding the Labor Force Participation Rate

The labor force participation rate is an important metric to use when analyzing employment and unemployment data because it measures the number of people who are actively job-hunting as well as those who are currently employed.

It includes all other people aged 16 or older and compares the proportion of those who are working or seeking work outside the home to those who are neither working nor seeking work outside the home.

It omits institutionalized people, such as individuals in prisons, nursing homes, mental health facilities, and members of the military.

The labor force participation rate is considered to be somewhat more reliable than the unemployment rate because it accounts for people who have given up looking for work. The unemployment numbers do not take into account those who have given up looking for work.

Some economists argue that the labor force participation rate and unemployment data should be considered together to better understand an economy’s real employment status.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p...pationrate.asp


The people who drop out aren't counted in the unemployment rate.
Unemployment data is based on people who work or are looking.
The 4.5 stopped looking.

[69in2it69]

Originally Posted by TravelingHere

Understanding the Labor Force Participation Rate

The labor force participation rate is an important metric to use when analyzing employment and unemployment data because it measures the number of people who are actively job-hunting as well as those who are currently employed.

It includes all other people aged 16 or older and compares the proportion of those who are working or seeking work outside the home to those who are neither working nor seeking work outside the home.

It omits institutionalized people, such as individuals in prisons, nursing homes, mental health facilities, and members of the military.

The labor force participation rate is considered to be somewhat more reliable than the unemployment rate because it accounts for people who have given up looking for work. The unemployment numbers do not take into account those who have given up looking for work.

Some economists argue that the labor force participation rate and unemployment data should be considered together to better understand an economy’s real employment status.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p...pationrate.asp


The people who drop out aren't counted in the unemployment rate.
Unemployment data is based on people who work or are looking.
The 4.5 stopped looking.

Labor force participation rate does not account for retired, those who are born into money and don't have to work, or maybe even some of the lovely ladies here on this site who contribute to the economy but aren't reflected as "working".

[TravelingHere]

Originally Posted by 69in2it69

Labor force participation rate does not account for retired, those who are born into money and don't have to work, or maybe even some of the lovely ladies here on this site who contribute to the economy but aren't reflected as "working".

Correct. It measures what percentage of working age people are actually working.

[farmstud60]

Wow, not an intelligent post in this thread yet.

The bottom line is it will be a wild ride. Deflationary pressure will come from reduced regulations and corporate tax reductions along with reduced energy prices. Can tariffs be inflationary? Yes, but just the threat of tariffs will change behavior

Nobody, absolutely nobody knows how all this will shake out. Long term it will put the US in a stronger economic position. Short term it will be bumpy.

[EdBeaver]

^^^ You didn’t say anything intelligent.

[txdot-guy]

Here’s a secondary effect of generalized tariffs on Mexico and other Southern American countries. If we reshore manufacturing from Mexico and other parts of the South what effect do you think that will have on illegal immigration.?

How much money will we have to spend on the border to keep illegal workers out of the country?

Or will we need to start up a new guest worker program to compensate?

[txdot-guy]

Ever heard of the Chicken Tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

This particular tariff has been in place since 1963 and heavily perverted truck sales in the United States ever since.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

I get why some folks simp out with the 10%-20% tariffs across the board, news-splash, propaganda, ridiculous BS. What I don't get is why those same folk have not considered that tariffs have been a thing for hundreds of years (since 1789 in US), if not thousands of years globally. Recall, that Christopher Columbus was in search of shorter trade routes, back in the day (1492).

Last number I can recollect about US tariffs is that it would equate to a few thousand pages for just the currently in-force, i.e. not counting historical ones that no longer exist. In the modern era, it is unlikely you could even print them all out. As such, they exist in multiple large data bases. This includes in the US, about 160 other countries and the WTO.

So calibrate your compass about the life and times of tariffs in the USA with a short course from a Wharton School graduate explaining tariffs historically, in Philadelphia in 78 seconds

Side Note: Apparently, he was running the barber shop circuit, in the Bronx too.

There are multiple sources for tariff data.
Here are 3 worth knowing:

• Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)
• U.S. Census Bureau, USA Trade® Online
• World Trade Organization, Tariff Data

IMMHO - Tariffs are highly targeted and focused things, individually and have been forever. Flapping gums about a "Generalized 10%-20%" tariff, across the board, lacks in sense and actual reality, but it is the OP topic, so let's try to grasp the topic with a modicum of generalized specificity.

[VitaMan]

Mr. Trump is the one that has been flapping his gums about "general tariffs" and getting rid of the income tax. Is that the Wharton school graduate you are talking about ? (still some questions if he ever took the entrance exam and attended classes).

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Mr. Trump is the one that has been flapping his gums about "general tariffs" and getting rid of the income tax. Is that the Wharton school graduate you are talking about ? (still some questions if he ever took the entrance exam and attended classes).

If you don't do the homework assignment, I can't grade your paper.

[VitaMan]

Does the above post have anything pertinent to the thread topic ?