People Who Voted for Trump

 A recent news story--post-election analysis--said that many young Black and Latino men voted for Trump because they see him as improving jobs and other financial/economic matters.

As  to those Latino folks: After January 20 they are likely to see their friends, relatives, neighbors and co-workers being deported. Plus, no one  has said a word about the cost to the US--us taxpayers--for flying these immigrants back to their countries of origin. (Not even touching on the fact that today, the news showed Trump's about-to-be "immigration czar" replying to a question about families being separated by these deportations; his reply was, to paraphrase a bit, no, we won't need to separate families, just deport (US-born) children along with their parents.

And--to another group of voters who voted for Trump because they are unhappy with the rising prices the country has been experiencing: Again, wait until after January 20. Trump has pledged to raise tariffs on imported goods. Those voters who have been buying cheap Chinese goods at Walmart are going to see those items hugely increase in their prices to US consumers after Trump's tariffs are added.

If Trump makes good on his promise (threat) to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico, U. S. car manufacturers are going to be unhappy, and car buyers are going to see car prices go up. This is because car makers are making engines and transmissions in Canada and Mexico, for the sake of--can you guess?--cheaper labor. This was facilitated--maybe encouraged--by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed by Bill Clinton in 1989 (and replaced and superseded by another agreement, of which I do not know the terms) during Trump's first term.

Update, Jan. 31, 2025

Today ABC Television News said that Trump's increased tariffs on goods imported from Canada, Mexico, and China will be put into effect tomorrow, and quoted experts saying that US consumers can expect numerous prices to go up as a result.

Trump said there may be some "disruptions," and that he believes the American people will understand. Well, I don't think they will. I think many people will say, "We elected him to lower prices, and now he's doing the exact opposite."

I think that people--if they do in fact expect a candidate to keep his campaign promises once in office--don't examine issues in enough depth as to say to themselves, "Well, if he does such-and-such, will x happen--or y?"

I think that, rather than looking into the issues at depth, people allow themselves to be swayed by sound bytes and catchy slogans--maybe slogans that will fit on the front of a cap--and are quick to believe that we need a change because nearly everything the previous administration did was wrong or bad.

So...when you're buying food and you're shocked by what's happened to the price of avocadoes, be sure to say a silent Thank You to Mr. Trump. 

Update, Feb. 7

As you may know by now, the threatened tariffs are off--for now.

I'm pretty sure Trump got pressure from many quarters. The Wall Street Journal --not exactly a liberal or leftist publication--called them "the dumbest trade war in history."

Trump is made to look much better by the fact that he got agreements--concessions?--from both Canada and Mexico. Were the tariffs merely a threat and a bluff to secure these concessions? Unless there's someone around who knows the answer and is willing to publicly disclose, we, the public, can't know.

 

 

How the US Government Could Save Money--and Save You on Your Taxes

Conservatives don't want to pay taxes that fund social-welfare programs. I know this because I have heard at least a few individuals say that to me, face-to-face.

They say that money is taken from them in the form of taxes and given to people who don't want to work. (At heart this idea is racist: They are really talking about African-Americans and the sentiment relies on the old racist canard that African-Americans don't want to work--never mind pointing out to them that huge numbers of job applicants have turned out, with lines going around the block, when there has been a widely announced hiring event in their communities, as shown in photos and video clips.

I will tell you, them, whomever—where tax dollars are really going to waste.

For one thing, the United States sends billions of dollars to the government of Afghanistan; and in turn, in the course of just one year, a billion dollars of Afghan aid was "lost to corruption." For another thing, Afghan President Karzai is an opportunist who has given power—and immunity from prosecution—to men who in another time and place would be counted as war criminals.

Much as I might support the aspirations of women in Afghanistan to have those rights which Taliban rule in Afghanistan would deny them, I see a relic of the cold war here: The United States got involved in Afghanistan after the country was wrecked and ruined by civil wars, fighting between war lords and factions that followed the withdrawal of the Soviets. (To remember our history: In Vietnam, the French lost and pulled out and America thought it could do better, but could not and lost also. Similarly, the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan and apparently the US felt it could do better, and the final results of that may not be in but it does not look optimistic.)

So, I have to suspect that US efforts in Afghanistan have been a waste of your and my tax dollars. And here is another one: Businesses like Walmart, and fast-food companies like McDonald's who pay their workers inadequate wages.

These companies are allowed to pay their workers a minimum wage which has not gone up, in real dollars (or even in nominal dollars) for decades.

A Walmart worker who is single earns a wage which puts her at about the poverty level. If a Walmart, or McDonald's, worker earns minimum wage but supports a family of four on his or her income, that worker's income is supplemented by aid from the government which costs us an average of about $1700 for that family. So, what Walmart or McDonald's does not pay the worker, you and I pay.

Walmart is making huge profits. Basically every American taxpayer, by having to add to the insufficient income that the Walmart or McDonald's worker receives from her employer, is paying his taxes ultimately into the pockets of the owners of Walmart and McDonald's. It would save us, the middle-class Americans who pay taxes, money if those companies were compelled to pay a living wage.

Copyright © 2013.

Should You "Buy American"?

The television network ABC has been carrying on a year-long "Made in America" campaign, to point out to its viewers what products are made in America, with the idea that, if consumers are aware of what brand names are of American manufacture, they will (hopefully) prefer to buy those products.

In Seattle, a local organization tried to get a buy-American advertising campaign onto the sides of public buses; but the Seattle transit authority declined the ads, saying that they were espousing a politically and economically controversial position.

There was considerable outcry over this, and the transit authority reversed its position. In this instance I think I agree with the "buy American" organization and not the transit authority: I don't see anything particularly controversial about the advertising or its aims.

Nowadays, practically everything one buys in the US seems to be made in China; and to some degree—probably a considerable degree—that represents manufacturing jobs lost to American workers. And we currently have a rate of unemployment in the US that is unacceptably high.

Entire industries in the US have been pretty much destroyed—for example clothing manufacturing (as of quite a while ago) and more recently, shoe manufacturing.

Who is to blame? I want to look at several parties and maybe assign some blame to each.

First, China does not play fair. They keep the exchange rate for their currency relative to the dollar very low. Thus Chinese-made merchandise can be sold ridiculously cheaply—even after the wholesalers and retailers involved add on shipping and import duties to the items' cost. (It might surprise you that the shipping and duty really don't come to that much.) So American producers simply can't compete.

Second, look at merchandisers like Walmart. It's in the nature of capitalism that a retailer which can sell something more cheaply than its competitors has a competitive advantage. Chances are, the customer does not look to see where the item was made (which of course is what the campaigns are all about) but simply goes with the low price. And the cheaper item these days, is usually Chinese made.

So now, third, the consumer: A lot of consumers not only like to save money, they need to save money. This is the situation of some families, particularly lower income families with several children: if they can get their purchases more cheaply, that may mean that they can buy shoes or winter jackets for all of their children, instead of for only one or two. Even if they don't pay attention to where those items are made, and maybe don't care, I think they deserve some sympathy.

I think yet another party should get some of the blame. I'm pretty sure that a $60 or more Tommy Hilfiger or Polo Ralph Lauren shirt, which is made in a third-world country, does not have to be made in that third-world country to be profitable for Hilfiger or Polo--or for the retailer. When the item is on sale and its price is reduced to half, I promise you the store is still making a profit.

Now one exception to all this is cars. I had a neighbor who, when I was extolling the reliability of the Honda I owned at the time, said, "I think that if you're American, you should buy an American car." Well, nowadays, in this age of the global economy, it's not so simple. Did you realize that the price stickers on cars in the showroom are required to show the percentage of "domestic [parts] content"? I saw a Ford Taurus where the domestic content was only 65%. It's not too uncommon for an "American" car to have its major parts, like transmissions, made in Canada or Mexico or an Asian country.

And look at the cars with Japanese brands which are assembled in US plants. Assembly in the US means US workers have employment when you buy that vehicle. And the domestic content might actually be higher than that Ford Taurus: a lot of parts like windshields, headlights, batteries, tires, and power-window controllers probably come from domestic suppliers, and major components may be made at the assembly plant.

The same ABC network did a little study in which they tried to determine which car purchases would produce the most jobs for American workers; and they found that buying a Toyota Camry would actually produce more jobs than a certain car with an "American" nameplate.

So, if you want to "buy American" when you are car shopping, don't pay the main attention to the name: you can look at where the vehicle was assembled—that's on the sticker, too—or, more importantly, look at that "domestic content" number.

Update, July 4, 2012.
Here is an article on this subject from AOL Autos:
http://autos.aol.com/gallery/the-most-american-cars/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl7|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D175630

Update, June 8, 2013
An interesting little sidebar in the July, 2013 issue of Car and Driver:

Globalization means that even domestic automakers are importers, bringing Buicks from South Korea, Fords from Turkey, and all manner of Chrysler models from both north and south of the border. In fact, only one volume brand is solely American-made: Jeep. All Jeep vehicles are assembled in either Detroit; Toledo, Ohio; or Belvidere, Illinois.

Two comments on this: First, it is to be hoped that this news about Jeep does not impel lots of people to go buy Jeeps because recent news has it that Jeep has a serious design defect which makes the gas tank likely to explode in rear-end collisions, and the NHTSB has been pressuring Chrysler to recall Jeeps to fix the problem
Second, as I have often said, the people who are trying to "buy American" and go buy Fords, Chevrolets, and Buicks are misguided.

Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein