VOX GM is closing plants and cutting jobs.
Here’s what it means for workers — and for Trump.
It’s not great.
FOX Trump Not Happy with GM after Job Cuts
Let's see... Trump:
Tariffs Hurt the Heartland
Here’s what it means for workers — and for Trump.
It’s not great.
FOX Trump Not Happy with GM after Job Cuts
Let's see... Trump:
- raises the cost of steel and aluminum with big tariffs
- raises the cost of many components with big tariffs
- does not place tariffs on completed products
- destabilizes the US Healthcare system by picking away at ACA
- and he is unhappy that manufacturers are suffering?
Tariffs Hurt the Heartland
50 comments:
Businesses have stakeholders. They are the owners, or stockholders, there is management, and there are employees. When people say policies help or hurt businesses, which class of stakeholders are they talking about? As a candidate, Trump offered to favor the interests of employees, primarily at the expense of stockholders. By forcing businesses to retain employees who were not longer sufficiently productive, Trump was lowering earnings which would put downward pressure on stock prices. Corporate tax cuts would compensate for that for a while, but they are one time measures, and markets are much more about the future than they are about the past. Now that the mid terms are over, and with no new tax cuts on the horizon, and with president weakened politically, corporations feel freer to reallocate their resources, i.e. lay people off to increase earnings.
In this triangle, Democrats stand accused, not unfairly, of not looking out for employees, for working people. That's what created the opening for Trump. We tend to favor the interests of shareholders which helps to explain why markets perform so well under Democratic administrations.
--Hiram
Glad you're finally waking up to this. Democrats have been pointing this out for three and a half years now. (Or, in fact, more than this, because Trump economics -- trade excepted -- are not widely diverged from the GOP as a whole.)
Personally I think Trump is very different from the Traditional GOP member...
Historically the GOP:
- did not worry much about illegal workers
- was against tariffs
- kept the trade partner countries happy
Kind of the opposite of Trump.
Yeah, he's different on trade. He still doesn't care much about illegal workers -- he hasn't followed through on his campaign promises mandating E-Verify, for instance.
But if he stops the illegal workers, smugglers, trafficked people, etc at the border... And if he keeps deporting folks... E Verify is not nearly as important.
I am more worried about our current porous border allowing drugs, traffickers, gang members, terrorists, etc across...
"But if he stops the illegal workers, smugglers, trafficked people, etc at the border... And if he keeps deporting folks..."
Hint: The drop in folks coming across the border didn't happen under Donald Trump.
Pew: U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Total Dips to Lowest Level in a Decade in 2016
Oh, and Trump still has a long ways to go, deportation-wise, to get to peak Obama numbers.
And as we can tell... That is frustrating him greatly...
The national guard, troops, wall, little hope of asylum, and no catch/release should start dissuading folks sooner or later.
And I am not sure if the "Sanctuary Crazy Folks" were fully activated during Obama's terms. :-)
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/11/we-can-stop-the-flow-of-refugees-easily-if-republicans-really-want-to/
MJ We Can Stop the Flow of Refugees Easily if Republicans Really Want To
Kevin is Kevin...
Now how does E Verify help with the smuggling, trafficking, terrorists, gang members, drugs, etc...
I mean "illegal workers" just depress wages and increase illegal unemployment...
It is the other border crossers who kill, die or are forced into near slavery.
And how would E Verify reduce asylum seekers?
Would private citizens have to run our contractors, lawn services, maids, gardeners, etc, etc through E Verify?
Do we throw Mom in jail if she unintentionally hires and illegal service provider?
Kevin is so silly sometimes.
I mean "illegal workers" just depress wages and increase illegal unemployment...
That's why Republicans find ways to ensure that illegal workers enter the country. It helps to explain why Trump backs away from deals that can be done.
--Hiram
Unfortunately the "deals" also usually include mass pardons and maintaining this strange family reunification policy... Instead of focusing on a policy that provides the USA the immigrants we need here.
We have discussed the topic several times this year.
The deals have majority support in Congress. They don't pass because Republican leadership won't let them on the floor. They have substantial Republican support.
Generally, I find the Trump attitude toward deal making frustrating. Every deal he didn't make is the worst deal ever. In every deal, we gave up too much and got to little in return. Every deal is second guessed. And curiously enough, the worst deal ever, Nafta being an example is miraculously improved by some minor exchange of concessions on both sides.
The brutal fact is that the political power of illegal immigrants is substantial and increasing every day. The political position of their opponents is deteriorating quite simply because their opponents are gaining more votes. So people who oppose illegal immigrants have a choice, they can make a deal now when their political position is relatively strong, or they can wait until until their position deteriorates altogether and will be forced to accept the terms dictated by their opponents. So what's the decision?
--Hiram
It will be interesting to see if there is a deal to be had.
"Now how does E Verify help with the smuggling, trafficking, terrorists, gang members, drugs, etc..."
If you eliminate the problem of the "everyday worker" crossing the border, you free up a lot of resources to apply towards those problems.
"And how would E Verify reduce asylum seekers?"
It doesn't. But what it does do is encourage them to follow the process (which, as the link points out, was largely occurring until Trump ended one program) because there won't be any jobs available to them unless they go through it.
"Would private citizens have to run our contractors, lawn services, maids, gardeners, etc, etc through E Verify?"
Sure. Or, alternatively, businesses could be given an E-Verify ID that folks could look up. It doesn't seem like some sort of intractable problem.
"Unfortunately the "deals" also usually include mass pardons and maintaining this strange family reunification policy... "
That's just not true. You know bills have actual content that can be read and verified.
There is certainly a deal to be had. Trump has agreed to them. But a lot of people don't want a deal. They are happy with immigrants being illegal. This makes them a vulnerable population which can be exploited. It's why Republicans, despite their majority, can never get anything done on this issue.
--Hiram
Sean,
I have read most of them over the past year.
The ones the DEMs will vote for have:
- a path to citizenship for past border violators
- continued focus on family re-unification
Hiram,
Maybe. Only time will tell.
A "path to citizenship" is not a pardon. And there's good reason to have family reunification as a center of immigration policy: families provide critical support structures for new immigrants!
If you're not going to fix things like our horrible occupational licensing system, increasing "high-skilled" immigrants may not have the impact expected. As a comparison, there are some Canadian provinces that will approve work permits for foreign doctors (in some specialties) within 10 days of receipt. And they can come in and practice right away, unlike here!
Allowing adult siblings etc to slip in on family reunification is silly.
And you I support simplifying certifications for Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, etc.
Allowing adult siblings etc to slip in on family reunification is silly.
That's a policy issue. The political issue is that as the position of aliens becomes stronger, so will support for things like family reunification. Family reunification may seem silly to you, but it's not silly to someone who wants to bring their grandparents to this country. For them, that's very serious.
--Hiram
Yes immigrants may want to share their good fortune with their extended family members...
That does not mean that it is what is good for American citizens. And American citizens will need to weigh who should be allowed to immigrate here.
If we help Maria, Juan and their kids by allowing them into our American family.
Do we want that good deed to mandate that we help their extended family?
Which would lead to us helping all of those members extended families?
Which would lead to us helping all of those members extended families?
Which would lead to us helping all of those members extended families?
You get the point.
Or do we want to help another unrelated family based on their unique needs and qualifications?
You know, saying something is illegal is not a moral, policy or political judgment. It just reflects a reading and interpretation of a statute. Being illegal is not the same thing as being criminal. And something that's illegal can be easily made legal simply by the passage of the statute. It's often a mistake to try to base policy on one's choice of adjectives. Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean that it's not beneficial nor the right thing to do. America has been benefited hugely and in many ways from immigration, both illegal and legal.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Strange response since I did not mention legality in my last comment.
Just what is good for American citizens...
I am not sure the low skill low knowledge American workers who are unemployed or paid less due to competition from low skill low knowledge legal or illegal workers.
Though I assume American Consumers and Businesses are happy for the cost labor.
I mean who wants to have to pay their gardener, house cleaner, lawn service, roofer, etc the rates requested by legal workers... And then they may have to pay FICA, workman's comp, etc...
That does not mean that it is what is good for American citizens
good for some, less good for others. lots of things are like that.
Do we want that good deed to mandate that we help their extended family?
Some will, some won't. Support for helping the extended family will increase over time.
Bear in mind, people come here to work. and they wouldn't find work if someone wasn't either making a profit, or deriving a benefit from it.
The fact is, whatever the merits, political support for illegal immigrants is going to increase. Time is not on the side of the opponents of illegal immigration.
--Hiram
"Allowing adult siblings etc to slip in on family reunification is silly."
They don't "slip in". They're subject to a lot of bureaucracy. In fact, only about 60,000 siblings come in per year, and the waiting list is over 4 million. That's about a 60-year waiting list.
Hiram,
We have acknowledged that they take jobs from legal citizens and legal immigrants, and depress wages for low level jobs... So what is your rationale for this belief?
"political support for illegal immigrants is going to increase."
Do you think American workers are going to welcome ever more competition for their jobs for some reason?
Sean,
Here is my source. Where is yours? :-)
Yes, a majority of immigration is family-based. Adult siblings are, as I noted, a small portion of it. Sorry, my previous calculation was off -- the wait list for siblings is only about 40 years long.
CIS: Trends in Chain Migration
This VOX source describes the issue well and with a liberal tilt.
No discussion of 40 years.
Great source by the way...
But the idea that only ~144,000 people out of the ~1,015,000 we immigrate are allowed in for employment reasons is shocking.
This means that ~85% of allowed immigrants are needy or family?
"No discussion of 40 years."
Well, if there's ~2.4 million siblings on the waiting list, and we're letting in ~60,000 a year, someone at the back of the line would wait ~40 years.
From your source...
"Further, some categories of chain migration have numerical limits. Because worldwide demand for immigrant visas far exceeds these limits, there are long waiting lists in these categories. As of November 2016, there were 4.3 million people who had been sponsored by a relative in the United States who were on the waiting list for family-based immigrant visas.2 All of these are chain migration applicants. They face waiting periods of 22 months to 23 years, depending on the category and the country of origin. This slows down the process of chain migration."
"We found that over this 35-year period chain migration has always been a major share of total immigration, and averages out to about 60 percent of total immigration. Out of a total of nearly 33 million immigrants admitted between 1981 and 2016, more than 20 million were chain migration immigrants (61 percent)."
Now this is interesting...
"Recommendations
Unlike earlier times in our history, when immigration ebbed and flowed in distinct waves, the last several decades have been a time of constantly increasing immigration. Our immigration system allows this growth both through family chain migration and by expanding the number of initiating immigrants through amnesties, humanitarian admissions, employment visas, and the visa lottery, all of which set off new chains of family migration.
If Congress enacts an amnesty offering permanent residency to 700,000 DACA recipients and there are no other changes to our legal immigration system, that amnesty will result in a surge of potentially double that number of chain migration immigrants. The most effective way to mitigate this surge in chain migration is to eliminate entire categories of immigrant visas and green cards that are now reserved for the extended family members of prior immigrants (siblings and adult sons and daughters), and thus facilitate chain migration. Admissions in these two categories amount to about 85,000 per year, or about 8.5 percent of legal immigration.
In addition, Congress should eliminate the visa lottery, which admits about 50,000 per year. Together, these reforms would reduce immigration by 135,000 per year, or just over 13 percent. Cutting these categories at the same time would reduce the multiplier effect of admitting new immigrants, as fewer family members would qualify to follow.
Limiting the admission of parents would further dampen chain migration. Between 110,000 and 125,000 new immigrants are admitted in the parents category each year — which is nearly equal to the number who come in the extended family."
OK, what's your point? Everyone knows CIS is in favor of reducing immigration.
Sorry... I don't even know who CIS is?
Their ABOUT CIS Page seems pretty rational.
And their motto is interesting... "Low-immigration, Pro-immigrant"
The battle as always seems to be over:
- how many?
- what criteria?
- what controls?
- impact on US workers?
The challenge is that Liberals seem to have the following answers:
- Lots
- Few
- Few
- Immaterial
"impact on US workers?"
It's funny how conservative concern over this evaporates once it begins to impact the cost of strawberries or their lawn care. It's an invasion, but don't make it more expensive or inconvenient to trim my hedges!
Agreed. Trump is one of the most pro-American worker politicians in a long time.
By the way, I know a lot of cost sensitive Liberals who buy low cost products and services from over seas or illegal workers. Even as they are complaining about the plight of American workers and the Unemployed Americans.
It's pretty hard to have an immigration policy, and not include families. It's not something we have ever tried, apparently. It's not as if the country is running out of room.
--Hiram
I think spouses and children make sense...
Not sure why adult siblings and parents get preferential treatment...
Especially if we could bring in more Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, etc.
"Especially if we could bring in more Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, etc."
There's nothing stopping us from doing so.
Does that come back to the LOTS answer? :-)
If we already bring in over 1,000,000 immigrants per year...
How many is too many?
"The battle as always seems to be over:
- how many?
- what criteria?
- what controls?
- impact on US workers?
The challenge is that Liberals seem to have the following answers:
- Lots
- Few
- Few
- Immaterial"
The question being Immigrant Integration.
How fast can we absorb and integrate folks?
Please remember that we are near record highs despite what the Liberals say.
And unfortunately this time we can not just send them out to settle a farm in the Midwest...
If your concern is about integration, bringing in highly skilled folks shouldn't be much of a concern.
Canada takes in 300,000 per year (30% of our total) and they have just over 10% of our population. Heck, they take in more highly-skilled immigrants than we do.
"Concerns" about being able to absorb more highly skilled immigrants are just ignorance and xenophobia.
Canada has an interesting situation. And it seems their citizens may be growing weary of the high rates.
"In 2013–2014, most of the Canadian public, as well as the major political parties, supported either sustaining or increasing the current level of immigration.[3][4] A 2014 sociological study even concluded that "Australia and Canada are the most receptive to immigration among western nations".[5] However, in 2017, the majority of Canadians indicated that they agree that Canada should accept fewer immigrants and refugees.[6]
Canadian immigration policies are still evolving. In 2008, Citizenship and Immigration Canada made significant changes to streamline the steady flow of immigrants, such as changes reducing professional categories for skilled immigration as well as caps for immigrants in various categories.[7] In 2015, Canada introduced the Express Entry system, providing a streamlined application process for many economic immigrants.[8] Additional changes were made in April and May 2017.[1] In November 2017, Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen announced that Canada would admit nearly 1 million permanent residents to Canada over the following three years, rising from 0.7% to 1% of its population by 2020.[9] This increase was motivated by the economic needs of the country facing an aging demographic, with the number of senior citizens expected to double by 2036 alongside a decline in the proportion of working-age adults.[9]"
It is the insolubility of immigration problems that makes it attractive as a wedge issue. Since there really is not permanent and effective solution it can be an effective tool for dividing us. This is one of the things that throughout history has made immigration issue so attractive to demagogues.
--Hiram
"is not permanent and effective solution"
Why not?
Post a Comment