Cluelessness of city people about Americans wanting 'lower end' jobs

Has anyone noticed that everyone who opposes President Trump's trade policies lives in big expensive cities?
Is it because they couldn't imagine Americans wanting to do those jobs?

If that's the case, it may be a case of haughty Marie Antoinette cluelessness.

I think life in a big high-cost-of-living city shapes one's view on the world. Obviously no one would want those lower paying jobs when the cost of living is so high. That's work for immigrants or foreign sweatshop manufacturing workers in other countries.
How ignorant these more privileged or city people are about life in more rural areas. (And by area, most of America is more rural)

There are actually tons of people in lower cost of living rural areas who would love $15 an hour jobs.

If someone was willing to provide free (or just low cost) apartments in places like New York or Southern California, there'd be a rush of millions of white trash workers from states like Mississippi and Montana willing to do these $11 an hour jobs.

 

Good post

 

A person can buy a 2000 square foot 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom, two car garage house on a quarter acre lot in a clean Texas suburb with lower taxes and no HOA fees for less than half what a person could buy a 1000 square foot condo in a 75 year old Harlem brown brick multistory structure with zero parking, no yard, higher taxes and with HOA fees - plus of course their state income taxes Texas doesn't have. They often have to collective buy it to even be possible, can't afford a car nor could park it if they did, with it consuming a huge percentage of their income - while bragging they have a higher income than people in the South - meaning the concept of living costs to wages comparison is just far to complex and over their heads to grasp. In fact, a person could buy that house in Texas likely for less it would cost to by a single parking lot in a parking garage in NYC.

 

You start with a misleading question. Trump Tariffs won't create jobs. They'll destroy economic activity.

There are issues with distribution of wealth in the US, but to suggest that is the result of trade is clear bobbins.

 

Clearly Americans should have to complete with Mexican and Chinese laborers for which certainly the Democratic Party believes the US minimum wage should be reduced to compete with Mexico at $4 a day. This would keep prices for consumers low so according the the Democratic Party this would be GREAT for the economy. Even better if all EPA, OSHA and all other federal regulations were eliminated to match and compete with other countries.

 

No, there's not many people at all in Mississippi wanting to move to New York or California, period.

But those who used to have the bad manufacturing jobs, like slaving over a sewing machine all day wish they had those bad jobs back. Those that have the bad jobs in agriculture and forestry don't want to quit for a damn city job. A whole lot of people just cannot live cooped up indoors.

 

Have I mentioned the clueless country folk who were horrified when I told them I ... gasp ... often jogged through black neighborhoods? They couldn't understand how I hadn't been murdered the first time through.

The point? There are clueless people everywhere.

 

Well heeled city folk who've never lived anywhere but inner urban areas, are almost always clueless. It's very much a sealed bubble. They might drive through, or fly over, the icky places and icky people, but they as as ignorant of same as cave dwellers.

 

What jobs? Trade policies? Are you referring to tariffs? I'm having trouble connecting "trade policies" with jobs in the way you are presenting them. Could you clarify please?

 

It's amusing to note that all the years I've lived in Europe (mostly France), I 've never met a woman who called herself "Marie Antoinette". Or just Antoinette.

I have met a good many French men however sporting the name Louis ... ;^)

 

DUH!!It's is the DEMOCRAT PARTY that fights for higher minimum wages and the Returdlickers that constantly oppose them.

 

good people do oppose minimum wage since its makes hiring those not worth the minimum wage illegal.

 

black neighborhoods tend to be very liberal and very high crime. Remember when Jesse Jackson said he hoped it wasn't black men walking behind him late at night?

 

yes distribution is a problem thanks to liberal crippling welfare programs and the liberal attack on the families schools and churches of America rendering many unfit for high paying work!

 

HISTORY LESSON

Sorry, but that's the new unavoidable Golden Rule (in red above). And what the Market-decides it wants, it gets!

Because we Yanks in the 1980s/90s started buying with a frenzy the "cheap ***** goods", so guess what happened? Manufacturing jobs started to leave the USA . (And are now coming back selectively to state-of-the-art product-lines that are highly automated by robots).

Our own companies at first went to Mexico in order to manufacture cheaper.

But even that was not good enough for some products. We Yanks wanted ABSOLUTELY THE CHEAPEST PRICE! (And as of the early 1990s we were were getting them from China. We are now coming on to 30-years later and an entire new generation is wondering where-in-hell they are going to find a job!)

The China Price* is what we got and what we like for a certain level of low-cost products. (Like the jeans you are wearing!) And if you think Donald Dork is going to do anything about that, then you are dreaming.

Because the China Price is the only price for those basement-level technology goods.

SO, WHAT'S THE INEVITABLE SOLUTION?

Here's what:
*Forget about getting a job out of high-school!
*Go looking for ANY post-secondary education that will allow you some "credentials".
*That DOES NOT MEAN NECESSARILY THE MILITARY! Unless you are absolutely broke, and can't afford another option! (Because had we elected HIllary and not Donald Dork, today you'd be able to get a government subsidized post-secondary education free, gratis and for near-to-nothing!)
*That means a public postsecondary school offering diplomas at the Vocational/Associates/Bachelors/Masters/Doctorate degree level - but at an average cost in the US of about $12K a school year (at a public institution of learning; that is, one subsidized by the state).
*Go into to debt if necessary BUT GET THE ADDITIONAL DEGREE CREDENTIALS, which is the only way out of a job at the Minimum Wage level of remuneration that is highly variable in nature.**

Then, and only then, think of starting a family ...

*The China Price has expanded to a point where other southeast Asia countries are now competing with China because they have even lower manufacturing costs! China, believe it or not, is going UP-MARKET in its manufacturing.
**Whyzzat? Because our market-economy just Loves the Lowest-Price without the slightest thought of what that implies for those providing the good/service. Which is why those jobs left the country in the first place!

 

You're not making sense. The US has high poverty, low social mobility and a weak welfare state. Liberal Demcracies demonstrate lower poverty, higher social mobility and stronger welfare states

 

There message is always the same. THey know their OPINION is going to cause another crash, just like in 2008. These very republicans supported the crash with the same propaganda. We don't need a min. wage, just deregulation so we can create jobs. This was the same thing in 2006, crash 2 years later. They leave the FORUMS once their job is done for the filthy rich who talked them into posting on sites half retarded and uneducated statements...

Glad I was on Forums then so that I know this is just a repeat. The guy that is 30 years old that was playing Mario Carts back in 2007 has not a clue this is a wash, rinse, repeat... He will scream (trump will make america great again, Coal needs helps, hell with the Chinese, Get the Muslims out) not educated enough to know all of that is irrelevant to the economy.

 

Relative to what countries? Those that are whiter and have less diversity than the US?

I do believe India is one such democracy.
And they have more people than all the other wealthy democracies put together.

If you're going to put the emphasis on "liberal", it may be that liberalism doesn't create the wealth but rather the other way around, it's wealth and a higher standard of living that leads to liberalism.

 

Relative to USA from 1950 - 1985. That is when they cut the tax on the rich and started the Income equality demise. The RICH now have a lot more and the working class is close to poverty in what we consider a living standard. We dont need another country to compare too. What we know is inflation ran at close to 5% real inflation from 1996 thru now. With that, if you made 30K a year back then like I did, you should make 90K today. If you dont, some really rich guy got your money due to the republican party leaders taking from you with the help of many democrats and the rich leading the charge.

Just the truth that people are paid to post against here. No other reason to think low wages are good here. Unless it helps you keep your employees in CHECK and more money in your greedy pocket !

 

That's also roughly the same time period the US put a hiatus on immigration, if we assume a delay in effects by about 15 or 20 years.
(i.e. 1930-1975 translates into more income equality from 1950-1985)
So to what do you care to ascribe the correllation to?

 

Compared to any developed country.

Then your belief structure needs improving.

There is a wealth of economic analysis on liberal and social democracies. The difference is essentially the level of poverty which is consistent with capitalist stability.

Is the problem here perhaps how fascism has no economic spine? Must make replies to genuine political economic terms a tad difficult!

 

So your trying to tie good times together with Trumps Anti Immigration policy ? It was the rich at that point that wanted to BRING in the CHEAP labor. I remember it as "we need people willing to pick fruits and veggies cheap, otherwise they will cost 5 times more in the grocery store, Oranges too" Now, those very businesses are owned by huge conglomerates with mega billionaires in charge.
So, it helped the rich, what they were trying to do and hurt the working class by adding millions of people to the work force.

The real correlation is the huge tax cuts given to the rich. SO, you can use them both if you like, along with deregulation and the loss the benefits (unions pounded out of business by the BIG rich Jewish take over corps.) All of it has had a lot to do with the fall of our country, the wars we didn't need. That doesnt help Americans in any way, shape or form...
A "no min. wage policy only drives down all wages" the rich know this and why they push it so hard. At the same time they throw out through guys like PETER SCHIFF and other greedy guys the tangent of : Free market economy with no regulations will work the wages up. That is a JOKE !!! Anyone that falls for that is a sucker.

 

like affluent countries everywhere immigrants do the jobs locals don't want, low pay, dirty, physically difficult, boring...lot's of jobs like that about if it weren't for immigrants they wouldn't get done...

 

Now the basis of your argument just comes down to semantics. If you regard China as a "developed" country, then the US is doing pretty good compared to the majority of people in the world who live in a developed country.

Or did you only want to compare the US to other countries that just happen to be ethnically Western European or Northeast Asian? (A couple of small rich muslim countries as well, but it's all from the oil and their societies are really backwards in a lot of respects, with women's rights and virtual slavery and all that...)

I don't know if you realize it, but the criteria you want to try to use is tantamount to cherry-picking ethnic discrimination. But maybe you don't want to see that.

Sorry, I just have to dispell this nonesense whenever I read something about the US supposedly being "comparatively worse than other developed countries".

Wasn't South Africa a developed country?
Very poor...

 

Zero content. China is an emerging country (and, this won't appeal to the nationalists, it's development will continue to ensure decoupling of the US and the world economy).

South Africa is a developing country. Making a minority rich, via apartheid, isn't a development criteria.

As I said, fascism makes valid economic comment a tad more problematic!