I'm sure some of us knew it would come to this.....

And that's the jiff of it! There is no place in the U.S. for well paid workers! There must be a living wage argument to win the hearts and minds(?) of their leftist base!

 

Ya lets see some data/source on that

 

Many, such as;

BUILDING PERMITS

1. Building permits in the United States rose 0.3 percent from a month earlier to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,269 thousand in May 2019.
Building Permits in the United States averaged 1355.35 Thousand from 1960 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 2419 Thousand in December of 1972 and a record low of 513 Thousand in March of 2009

NEW HOME SALES

2. Sales of new single-family houses in the United States dropped 7.8 percent from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 626 thousand in May 2019, while markets had forecast a 1.9 percent increase to 680 thousand. That was the lowest level since December despite lower mortgage rates. New Home Sales in the United States averaged 650.26 Thousand units from 1963 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 1389 Thousand units in July of 2005 and a record low of 270 Thousand units in February of 2011.

HOUSING STARTS

3. Housing starts in the US dropped 0.9 percent from a month earlier to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,269 thousand units in May 2019, compared to market expectations of 1,239 thousand and following an upwardly revised 6.8 percent advance in April. Construction of single-family housing units led the decline. Housing Starts in the United States averaged 1430.39 Thousand units from 1959 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 2494 Thousand units in January of 1972 and a record low of 478 Thousand units in April of 2009.

HOME OWNERSHIP RATE

4. Home Ownership Rate in the United States decreased to 64.20 percent in the first quarter of 2019 from 64.80 percent in the fourth quarter of 2018. Home Ownership Rate in the United States averaged 65.23 percent from 1965 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 69.20 percent in the second quarter of 2004 and a record low of 62.90 percent in the second quarter of 1965.

Source; Trading Economics

 

The Average Price of a Starter Home Across the U.S.

Starter homes might be losing their luster, partly because millennials are approaching homeownership differently from previous generations. However, it's not entirely by choice. The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported that the average price of homes purchased by first-time home buyers was $219,300 in the final quarter of 2018. This is a 9.5 percent increase over the average price from 2016. Such rising prices and larger student loan debt have made it more difficult for young professionals to save enough money for a down payment on their first home.

This means it is more common for millennials to rent or live with their parents longer before buying their first homes. When they do buy, they often skip the starter home and move into something nicer where they plan to spend more time.

There is no fixed definition for what constitutes a starter home, but it is generally considered to be a house with a price on the low-end of the market. Real estate website Trulia.com, for example, defines starter homes as those making up the lower one-third of the market, based on home value.


Affordability
Income levels have not kept pace with rising home prices since 2016, according to NAR's data, making it more difficult for first-time home buyers to qualify for the best interest rates on mortgages. Median income for first-time home buyers in 2016 was $46,190, which exceeded the amount necessary for a prime rate by more than 10 percent, based on a mortgage for a home valued at the median price for first-time buyers.

By the end of 2018, first-time home buyers had increased their median income by nearly 9 percent at $50,305, but higher home prices and higher interest rates meant they fell short of qualifying for prime rates by more than 3 percent.

https://www.thebalance.com/here-s-the-average-cost-of-a-starter-home-in-2018-4172916

-----------------------------------

NOTE: The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported that the average price of homes purchased by first-time home buyers was $219,300 in the final quarter of 2018. This is a 9.5 percent increase over the average price from 2016.

NOTE: Income levels have not kept pace with rising home prices since 2016.

Question: If we were to eliminate tariffs on building materials, and/or hire more Mexican construction workers, would income levels keep pace with rising home prices?

 

Except that ain’t happening.

 

Sorry, but its fact. There are only two exceptions: an optimal tariff where there is no retaliation; the infant industry hypothesis (and protection of firms until dynamic comparative advantage is secured).

We don't have that here. We have the US being protectionist and other countries retaliating. End result? A destruction of economic activity.

 

Do you seriously believe that if the price of eggs was doubled, that inflation would double? Get serious. How about doubling the price of a candy bar?

 

Why are you making up silly questions? That isn't honest comment.

I've referred to the reality. Its been understood since Ricardian comparative advantage. You can show the deadweight loss yourself with a couple of crayons.

To reject modern trade conclusions you have to refer to how the US is indeed adopting optimal tariff analysis or that its protecting its infant industries. Of course both ideas are nonsense. Protectionism will assuredly create a deadweight loss. Losers will outweigh any winners.

 

In other words, construction companies are scumbags who want to hire illegal immigrants so they can pay low wages, instead of hiring legal citizens and legal immigrants.

 

Sure they are. You indicated that there is a ripple effect that results in price increases in one sector of the economy effecting the whole economy. There is, but it is not a one for one ratio. A big change in a small sector will will result in a small effect. It requires a major change in a major sector to have a big effect on the economy. New construction is a relatively small part of the US economy. A wage increase in the building industry will increase in a net gain to their wages after inflation.

 

The bump in interest rates exacerbates the problem, but the chart only reflects the ratio between median home price and median family income.
So basically it says the price of a home has gone up about 20K while income has remained flat.
Tariffs and labor are a part of that problem.

 

No I didn't. I've stated the obvious. Demanding protectionism, for some perceived redistribution from capital to labour, is not rational. The overall effect is a reduction in well being, as captured by deadweight loss.

Any protectionism will radiate out, reflecting the nature of retaliatory action. You ignore what I've told you and make up arguments that I never gave.

 

When has artificially restricting competition ever benefited anyone other than a specific interest group at the expense of everyone else?

 

Only if they can't find another job. Which seems like a weird assumption to make.

 

Trump's tariffs violate our Constitution.

 

Sounds like we are saying the same thing.
People have been priced out. Especially at the low end.

 

As it radiates out, the effect is diminished.

 

The interest group in this instance is the American worker. Foreign workers can go pound sand.

 

No, it is in the interest of a special interest group of workers against consumers

 

Workers are consumers. It is in the interest of workers against capitalists.

 

Nope. It shows that your perceived positive effects are akin to finding a unicorn. Those who favour protectionism, mind you, are a godsend for politicians looking to sell snake oil.

 

Look, you and I know Trump's economy has been dragging several cannon balls, such as; student loan debt.

According to an affordability calculator;

Household income; $70,000
Car payment; $500
Credit card payment; $100

Other debt......a $300/month student loan payment will significantly reduce the maximum mortgage loan amount.

 

Forget about what you might have read and think about it logically.
If you doubled the price on a very small item like a candy bar, it will effect very little else. I will still most likely buy the candy bar. It will not significantly affect my standard of living or affect inflation. It will however greatly benefit the manufacturer of that candy bar.

For a big item or for a wide range of items which is a significant part of my budget, it will cost me considerably and affect my standard of living. In short it will result in general inflation.

There is no sharp break in the effect between that candy bar and that big item or wide range of items. As the effect gets bigger, you get more inflation. For the small items, it helps that industry considerably because they bring in more money, but inflation is not affected. For the big items, it helps them less.

New home construction affects very few people. There might be a general increase in inflation, but not as much as the workers will benefit.

 

I'm really not interested in your candy bar ramble. We know that protectionism, unless we have dynamic comparative advantage issues, is damaging. We know that there can be winners (i.e. redistribution effects) but, given retaliation, we know that the economic inefficiency (created by distorting trade) is magnified by retaliatory measures which further destroy economic activity. There is no such thing as 'good' protectionism here.

 

Except you have not presented a counter argument or showed how I am wrong.