How much is protectionism worth to you?

What option or choice does the average American have in this case?
What I think you are saying because of immigration going down cheap labour is going to come to a halt and when labour goes up so does the price of the goods and services produced by that cheap labour right?
And what you are trying to say how much is the Average america willing to pay because of this?
And what I want to know is what can the average American do about this, except in four years elect this idiot (Trump) out of office.
Or am I as canidmajor always points out I am missing the point?

Protectionism is not and should not be a bad word. Free trade does not necessarily mean unregulated trade, any more than a free market should be a laissez faire market.

Protectionist trade policies of the US, in the form of tariffs and quotas on certain imported goods, and certain subsidies, was in the past beneficial for certain manufacturing sectors, by ensuring fair competition between locally manufactured goods and imported goods. I grew up in the Steel Rust Belt, and was witness to the decline of the heavy manufacturing industries in the Midwest, and the effect it has had, and is still having on the economy of the nation today.

In my admittedly biased view (my father and older brother were union tradesmen, and my grandfathers were both union organizers), I think the collapse of the heavy manufacturing industry (steel, automobiles, industrial machinery, railroad, and others) was either brought about or sped up by the loosening of restraints on the importation of steel from Japan. This was the beginning of a trend to “export jobs”, by manufacturing items or parts overseas rather than here in the US.

It is not only for political reasons that labor unions have traditionally upheld strong protectionist tariffs. Support for locally (US) manufactured goods have historically led to stronger wages and benefits, and high employment.

I think it’s important to expand @SQUEEKY2 ‘s point. The question of my tolerance for price increases assumes that I might have some control over such things. As NAFTA and the TPP clearly indicate, it isn’t the influence of individuals suffering the consequences of trade decisions that steers policies. It is of course those entities destined to reap the profits who drive the discussions around these issues, with a notable contempt for those destined to “take the hits”. The unstated goal and actual consequence of NAFTA was to augment and facilitate corporate hegemony at the direct expense of people who work for a living. The argument that the process drives down the price of this or that widget is indifferent to the likelihood that consumers of such products find themselves unemployed as a consequence. There is a necessary assumption written in stone that this process is irresistible and beyond the control of those shunted toward unemployment. Usually bolstered by rosy promises of new exciting jobs rising from the ashes of wrecked economies, this line of thought fails to explain why it is that an inevitable process requires years of hammering out agreements on division of the spoils.

If I don’t like it what am I going to do, stamp my feet and yell at a cloud?

0. As a American, and a consumer, I feel I have the right to purchase whatever product that is available at whatever price I choose to pay, no matter who, or where that product was made.

@kritiper Thanks for answering the question that I asked!

@Strauss I never said protectionism is a bad word. I asked how much it’s worth to you. How much more in goods and services are you willing to pay so that american labor can get a decent wage?

@SQUEEKY2 You vote for someone who is more neoliberal if you don’t like it. Or not if you do.

What do you mean by “tolerate” ?

@stanleybmanly No, of course not. I mean “pay without getting upset”.

@Rarebear I’m okay paying more for goods and services as long as that rising tide floats all boats. If protectionist measures are effective in providing and securing good jobs, with products and services of competitive quality and a robust healthy economic environment, most of the increased cost will go directly into the economy.

“Pay without getting upset” I don’t really know what sort of price rise would be required to push me over the edge. But the alternate and more pertinent form of this question would be “how low would prices have to be before you would be content with unemployment or happy to survive on the minimum wage?” The issue – prices vs wages- boils down to enough to “get by”. So how close to the line need one be to vote for Trump?

@stanleybmanly Correct, but that’s a more global economic question. I’m wondering about someone’s individual pocketbook. If you are in a job that makes, say, $50,000 a year, and your expenses are $2000 a month (that’s low but I’m pulling these numbers out of my butt), if your expenses go up to $2200 month, knowing that global unemployment is going down is small comfort.

@Strauss My comment above applies to you too.

Personally, I really have no dog in this fight anymore. I can tell you that prices for electronics and certain other manufactured goods on this island are kept artificially high due to duties and VATs, even though this island is not in competition with these foreign manufacturers. We don’t produce these things. We do tourism, boat building, fruit, nuts, spices, commercial transshipping and fishing. And tax living shit out of everything foreign.

And the black market is alive and well.

As to the US: Cheap goods are fine and dandy, but if you have no jobs, how are you going to pay for them?

@Espiritus_Corvus Well, unemployment is pretty low in the US at the moment hovering about 5%.

@Rarebear I’m glad to hear that. Unemployment was hovering close to 12% in Pinellas County, Florida when I left. Good to hear things are getting better.

@Rarebear this is true. But it’s also a very handy tool to distract us all from the main event. Because it pits me and my $2000 against the guy losing his job. It’s them against us, with no mention of the 10s of billions of dollars siphoned off in profits to an “innovative” scant percentage of the overall population.

It’s not, really. They just changed how they define unemployment. And the effective wage has reduced over time.

Hell, in the last ten years rent has tripled, and that’s not being outsourced. Obviously.

I’m personally very thankful for people who choose to buy locally, because it makes it feasible for me to look forward to doing something other than work in a goddamn call center for the rest of my life.

^^Yeah, that was one of the things that used to really bother me. I worked as a nurse at the state health department for a while. I had women coming in that were working full time jobs at fast food places, Walmart, Call centers, as construction laborers, that were getting free state healthcare, utilities subsidies, food stamps, WIC nutrition, and any number of other things available because they were making so little in their full time jobs. Walmart coaches them during initial orientation on how to apply for these things. According to the Coalition for the Homeless in 2011, 38% of the homeless in Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties were working full time jobs.

Your tax money is subsidizing corporate labor. It’s insane. And not right at all.

I make $10/hr working for Amazon, basically getting yelled at all day. It’s extremely emotionally taxing. It’s barely enough to get by on, and my rent hasn’t changed in 4 years. I live in a house that’s literally falling apart and I can’t afford to move because I can’t find comparable rent.

And Amazon gets a subsidy for being gracious enough to hire Americans, if you can believe that.

Yeah but @Seek if they raise your wages then they would have to raise the price on every thing they sell and that would be the end of the freeworld as we know it.

You better put a tilde on it when you say that, pardner.

Edit, misread.