Trade does not "cost" jobs; immigration does not "cost" jobs

Shift some yes. But both lead to more jobs and more national wealth. 

Any one who thinks otherwise is absolutely wrong.

Period.

bramzzoinks said:

Shift some yes. But both lead to more jobs and more national wealth. 

Any one who things otherwise is absolutely wrong.

Period.

Of course, if I am one of the people left in the dust by the global economy, I might not care.  That is the lesson of the Brexit vote - wounded people lashing out in anger making poor decisions compounded by political ineptitude in many cases.

If you are not a winner in the economic order, you perceive the changes in that order to be against your interests.  There's a big angry insecure population in America that perceives itself to be on the long term losing side of our economy.  Regardless of whose fault it is, and even if its nobody's fault, unless things get better, the next Trump is going to be worse than this Trump.

It is interesting that there is not more focus on the Dem side on job retraining and adult education to help the displaced workers.  Or am I just missing the discussion?

You lost me somewhere between "Shift some, yes," and "Anyone who thinks otherwise is absolutely wrong."

If you can't write four sentences without contradicting yourself don't hit [Submit].

I *think* he means that the jobs shift to other countries. And that there is an overall net benefit. 

If so, he's right.

No I mean that it shifts the mix of jobs within a county, but improves the country and the number of jobs overall.

jimmurphy said:

I *think* he means that the jobs shift to other countries. And that there is an overall net benefit. 

If so, he's right.

Well that's just stupid. When people say something "costs jobs" it's inferred that the effect is domestic not absolute.

I'm going to go back to not posting.

bramzzoinks said:

No I mean that it shifts the mix of jobs within a county, but improves the country and the number of jobs overall.

Sorry for the misinterpretation, and now I disagree.

Over an over it is being falsely claimed that trade and immigration hurt the economy as a whole. They absolutely do not. Jobs are always being created and ended. It is the flow of the economy. But trade creates more than it destroys. And immigration does not take jobs from those already here. It creates whole ecosystems that expand the economy for all.

bramzzoinks said:

Over an over it is being falsely claimed that trade and immigration hurt the economy as a whole. They absolutely do not. Jobs are always being created and ended. It is the flow of the economy. But trade creates more than it destroys. And immigration does not take jobs from those already here. It creates whole ecosystems that expand the economy for all.

Again, if you are on the losing end of the equation, you most likely aren't going to take comfort in the big picture.

Trade has increased overall wealth, which is good, but that wealth has not been evenly distributed, which is bad.

I don't think trade (and immigration) are bad in themselves. In fact, I'm generally a strong proponent of both. But the trend toward increased trade has also coincided with an increased hostility to wealth redistribution (eg lower taxes at the high end). I think it's on the distribution of the wealth that we should be focusing, not on attacking the economic engines of increasing wealth.

I also think one major failure has been to underestimate how sharp the dislocations from trade can be - eg this NYT summary of recent literature showing economists really missed this. Excerpt:

In a recent study, three economists — David Autor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, David Dorn at the University of Zurich and Gordon Hanson at the University of California, San Diego — raised a profound challenge to all of us brought up to believe that economies quickly recover from trade shocks. In theory, a developed industrial country like the United States adjusts to import competition by moving workers into more advanced industries that can successfully compete in global markets.

They examined the experience of American workers after China erupted onto world markets some two decades ago. The presumed adjustment, they concluded, never happened. Or at least hasn’t happened yet. Wages remain low and unemployment high in the most affected local job markets. Nationally, there is no sign of offsetting job gains elsewhere in the economy. What’s more, they found that sagging wages in local labor markets exposed to Chinese competition reduced earnings by $213 per adult per year.

I think a more integrated global economy is a very good thing, but it has to be paired with a commitment to making sure the gains are integrated into all of society as well. We've been failing at the latter.

Papa John's pizza is terrible.  Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know squat about Pizza.  Period. 

Does chain pizza create or cost jobs? On one hand it likely causes the demise of some local pizza places. But on the other hand it spreads pizza as a food to areas where it was no readily available and thus increases overall consumption of pizza. So while on culinary grounds it clearly is lamentable, on economic grounds it is a positive.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PsqKyv86pEY&feature=youtu.be

Here's another fact:  you don't need these so called "free trade agreements" to have free trade.  In fact, most of these free trade agreements are anything but free trade.  The EU had an awful lot of rules and a rather byzantine beauracracy.  I'm not sure why any of that would be needed to support a free exchange of goods and services. 

terp said:

Here's another fact:  you don't need these so called "free trade agreements" to have free trade.  In fact, most of these free trade agreements are anything but free trade.  The EU had an awful lot of rules and a rather byzantine beauracracy.  I'm not sure why any of that would be needed to support a free exchange of goods and services. 

Isn't the purpose of the agreements to set ground rules, establish order and certainty?  Prevent willy-nilly tariffs and withholding of rare resources.

Non tariff restrictions are the most insidious. But there is no need to for a bureaucracy if  you just eliminate all restrictions on trade. No rules are needed if trade just flows unimpeded. 

But it doesn't flow unimpeded. Utopia this world is not.

Many of the restrictions are there to protect certain interests.  This is not free trade.

Agreed, but they are reality, not theory.

terp said:

Here's another fact:  you don't need these so called "free trade agreements" to have free trade.  In fact, most of these free trade agreements are anything but free trade.  The EU had an awful lot of rules and a rather byzantine beauracracy.  I'm not sure why any of that would be needed to support a free exchange of goods and services. 

Trade between states by definition involves agreements between those states (unless you're talking about smuggling/black market trade, which has it's own very high costs and so is also not "free"). Their agreements might have a lot of rules, or relatively few, but unless and until the world becomes some Marxist/Libertarian post-state utopia (which is never going to happen), international trade is impossible without agreements between states.

No it does not. There is no reason goods or services moving between the borders of countries should have any greater impediment than goods moving across a street. Any impediment is artificially created.

bramzzoinks said:

No it does not. There is no reason goods or services moving between the borders of countries should have any greater impediment than goods moving across a street. Any impediment is artificially created.

Even that simple analogy fails. Are streets natural? No, they're artificially created, and their existence certainly was not free. Are there cars traveling on that street? If so, then you probably can't just carry a box across the street whenever you like; you have to make sure you don't get hit by a car. If the authority that constructed that street was forward thinking, maybe the put in a crosswalk to help you cross the street with your goods. Of course, that involves making rules such as "cars need to stop at crosswalks," and some enforcement mechanism for people and vehicles that don't follow the rules...

So again - we might come up with simple rules, or more complex ones, but we'll still have rules and regulations. I completely agree that in general it's better if we can keep our rules simpler and keep bureaucracy leaner, but this fantasy that economic action is "natural" and states are "artificial" is baloney.

there is nothing natural about baloney

You have to have some rules to prevent fraud. You have to have a Court system or some type of bureaucracy to adjudicate disputes.

terp said:

there is nothing natural about baloney

Looks like author hacked you.

How about addressing the substance of PVW's post?

Saying trade can never hurt is like saying guns can never hurt. Both can either help or hurt, depending on how you use them. Business deals, ideally, create mutual benefits. But they don't always.

Your ideas are half baked and, frankly, incoherent. You appear not to have finished 8th grade.

PVW said:

So again - we might come up with simple rules, or more complex ones, but we'll still have rules and regulations. I completely agree that in general it's better if we can keep our rules simpler and keep bureaucracy leaner, but this fantasy that economic action is "natural" and states are "artificial" is baloney.

May I refer you all to the Maplewoodstock thread?

Tom_Reingold said:

Saying trade can never hurt is like saying guns can never hurt. Both can either help or hurt, depending on how you use them. Business deals, ideally, create mutual benefits. But they don't always.

Your ideas are half baked and, frankly, incoherent. You appear not to have finished 8th grade.

Guns can hurt. Trade never can. The more unfettered the better. 

Your attempt at an analogy is a complete failure. As usual.