Vmart wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Trump had the chance to bring jobs back to America when he was a "job creator" making ties abroad, or importing Chinese steel. What he chose were to maximize his profits. Why would any business leader put patriotism over profits during Trump/Pence administration? Would he do this with more regulation? Tariffs? Policy that slows down automation? Is everyone just working for ICE and therefore he's growing the government and the deficit?

Help me out earthmansurfer... show me that your trust of Trump isn't just a reactionary pendulum swing from your distrust of Clinton.

Doc when rules are given all businessmen would outsource. What Trump has been saying the system needs to be changed so big corporations don't have to continually look abroad for labor or altogether leave. The deals made with foreign countries severely one sided. That is why the trade debt is a negative. Trump in his debate said to Hillary you have been doing this for over 25 year why didn't you change the laws.

With Trump you have a guy who has profited handsomely from this and yet he feels they need to be changed. The other Billionaire are all on the side of Hillary because they like the way things are. They know they can buy the Clinton's why would they want to listen to any type of change.

That's not true..We are winning in NAFTA..Mexico is the only country in the world we have a trade surplus with and 40% of the good we get from Mexico are parts for our manufacturing businesses..We went from doing 80 billion a year pre-NAFTA to 580 billion a year today...Trump is using the fact that mostly automation has replaced jobs as a political tool...Fact is, we manufacture more in the country today than in the industrial age...That's a fact..It's being done by machines...

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

You talk about connections when it's more fair to talk about responsibility, especially when you are talking about people's lives. Yes, I hold every Congressperson who voted Yes for the Iraq War resolution responsible for being followers and not leaders, and for abdicating their Constitutional responsibility to the Executive. So she was one of what... 300+ legislators, and wasn't even a leader in the body she was a member of? Saying she should have known the real intelligence because of her "connections" is ridiculous. Bush/Cheney started the drumbeats, and showed Congress some BS that they said was their sheet music, and she tapped her foot to the beat... but I don't think she could read the music by herself to independently verify, to extend the metaphor to its breaking point.

Yes, call her on her judgement, that is fair. But I think your prayers for a Trump/Pence administration reveal you are wearing rose-colored glasses. You may see champagne there, I see sparkling water with food coloring. And he sure can rally the people, like white Christian nationalists. You know my position on what I fear from a Trump/Pence administration from a domestic perspective.

Hoping Trump meaning what he says? Building a wall and making Mexico pay for it? Let's start with that one. How do you think he can "make Mexico pay for it"? His supporters think they mean Mexico's getting a bill in the mail. What does Trump mean? Pay for it with pesos or will it suddenly switch to "paying for it" as a metaphor? Please honestly assess this for me. Why do you have any hope in Trump?

Sure, all those congressmen who voted should be "judged" as well. But they aren't running for president and there aren't books written about (most of) them.
Regarding connections, the Clintons might have more than just about any other politicians. Really, she has the chance to make perhaps some of the hugest changes our country has seen, good or bad, but I just don't see her talking about anything monumental.

Hopefully Trump will listen to his military advisors regarding war/invasions and such. If Trump didn't outright lie in his Gettysburg Address, then I love (most) of what he talked about. If he gets in, the first few months will tell.

The wall - lol - maybe don't pick what I think is his weakest point. This is an area where I am a bit tied. On the one hand having open borders with Mexico (which is what it often amounts to), while we are bombing many parts of the world, is asking for problems. On the other hand, asking Mexico to pay for it is crazy to me, unless he has a good argument for it. The global elite seem hell bent on having open borders and a war on terror - What a great combination - one insures the other when you drop enough bombs. We need secure borders though, so perhaps we direct a little bit of the military budget and build a better fence and enforce the existing border policies? I think a lot of the country (not to mention the border agents) are fed up with (too much) illegal immigration. Something needs to be done.

Haha... You have to start with the wall, it's his smash hit! It's how he rose to the top of the pops! So you are saying you don't agree with his mantra about the wall but you think he will do what he says? You don't agree and you think he can't do what he says? Or you don't agree and you don't think he'll do what he says anyway? What exactly is your position here beside embarrassment, haha

Vmart wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Vmart wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Trump had the chance to bring jobs back to America when he was a "job creator" making ties abroad, or importing Chinese steel. What he chose were to maximize his profits. Why would any business leader put patriotism over profits during Trump/Pence administration? Would he do this with more regulation? Tariffs? Policy that slows down automation? Is everyone just working for ICE and therefore he's growing the government and the deficit?

Help me out earthmansurfer... show me that your trust of Trump isn't just a reactionary pendulum swing from your distrust of Clinton.

Doc when rules are given all businessmen would outsource. What Trump has been saying the system needs to be changed so big corporations don't have to continually look abroad for labor or altogether leave. The deals made with foreign countries severely one sided. That is why the trade debt is a negative. Trump in his debate said to Hillary you have been doing this for over 25 year why didn't you change the laws.

With Trump you have a guy who has profited handsomely from this and yet he feels they need to be changed. The other Billionaire are all on the side of Hillary because they like the way things are. They know they can buy the Clinton's why would they want to listen to any type of change.

That's not true..We are winning in NAFTA..Mexico is the only country in the world we have a trade surplus with and 40% of the good we get from Mexico are parts for our manufacturing businesses..We went from doing 80 billion a year pre-NAFTA to 580 billion a year today...Trump is using the fact that mostly automation has replaced jobs as a political tool...Fact is, we manufacture more in the country today than in the industrial age...That's a fact..It's being done by machines...

Somehow I don't think so. As for automation taking the jobs of people who does that benefit? He working class I think not.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/247649-no-mr-trump-mexico-is-not-killing-us-on-trade

No, Mr. Trump, Mexico is not 'killing us on trade'

Donald Trump manifests profound ignorance of Mexico, our third-largest trading partner. He also insults Mexicans and their leaders who negotiated trade agreements that Trump says he would have negotiated better.

Problems: his insulting tone, his marketing of his own dark fantasies and his grievous choice of words.

Does he know there are 160 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans? Does he know that Mexicans have bought trillions of dollars' worth of goods and services from the United States in recent years? Does he know that millions of Americans go to work every day to work in trade with Mexico?

The real problem with Trump's outburst against Mexicans is that he says all Mexicans are "killing us on trade ... and the country of Mexico is making billions of dollars in doing so." But that, Mr. Trump, is not true.

ADVERTISEMENT
Trump: "I believe that my examples of bad trade deals for the United States was [sic] of even more concern to the Mexican government than my talk of border security."

What examples, Mr. Trump? I don't see any.

Trump: "I have great respect for Mexico and love their people and their peoples' great spirit. The problem is, however, that their leaders are far smarter, more cunning, and better negotiators than ours."

Great respect, really?

Mr. Trump, yes or no, do Mexicans benefit the United States?

Trade: In 1993, before NAFTA took effect (which it did in January 1994), Mexico bought $41 billion in goods and services from the U.S. and sold $39 Billion worth to the United States. Total: $80 billion. In the first year of NAFTA, the $80 billion increased to $99 billion, a 25 percent increase.

Ten years after NAFTA started, total trade between the U.S. and Mexico was $145 billion — an increase of 55 percent. In 2003, almost twenty years after NAFTA began, total trade with Mexico was $506 billion — half a trillion dollars — which is 632 percent more than 1994.

In 2014, by contrast, the United States exported $123 billion in goods to China and imported $466 billion from China. That's a minus $343 billion imbalance in trade. In 2014, the U.S. exported $49 billion of goods to Germany and imported $123 billion for an imbalance of minus $73 billion (lots of Mercedes and BMWs).

Here is something that Mr. Trump apparently does not know: U.S.-Mexico trade is unique in the world; there is a "production sharing" program between Mexico and the United States in which, according to the Wilson Center's Mexico Institute, "A full 40 [percent] of the content of U.S. imports from Mexico is actually produced in the United States. ... This means that forty cents of every dollar spent on imports from Mexico comes back to the United States, a quantity ten times greater that the four cents returning for each dollar paid on Chinese imports."

This production sharing with Mexico is vital for the United States. For example, between 2009 and 2014, according to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. imported a total of $341 billion in cars and car parts from Mexico, of which $136 billion was the 40 percent that Mexico bought from us to install in cars assembled in Mexico, then exported to the U.S. In $341 billion dollars worth of goods imported from China, 4 percent would be $13 billion — compared to 10 times more from Mexico.

"Production sharing" means that the U.S. has an actual positive balance of trade with Mexico, rather than huge deficits as with China, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan etc. For example, in 2014, Mexico sold $290 billion to the U.S. Forty percent of $290 Billion is $116 billion which, when added to the $240 billion in goods and services we sold Mexico, totals at $356 billion, or a positive trade balance of $182 billion. Mr. Trump, do the math.

The Wilson Center also posits that "There are 6 million U.S. jobs that depend on trade with Mexico. Two border states that trade extensively with Mexico, California (692,000 jobs) and Texas (463,000 jobs) have the most…Detroit (alone) exports $10.9 BILLION in cars and car parts to Mexico (part of the total of $20 BILLION worth of cars and auto parts exported to Mexico)."

The United States Chamber of Commerce offers a higher estimate of 14 million American jobs in trade with Mexico.

In short, Trump's 22,000 jobs don't amount to much compared to the 6 million to 14 million Americans who work in trade with Mexico. Mexico-dependent jobs number between 272 and 622 times more than Trump's payroll.

On balance, it can be said that trade with Mexico and Mexicans is far more beneficial to the United States and millions of Americans than not.

Why, then, is anyone taking Trump seriously? We know that Mexico benefits millions upon millions of Americans in jobs and lower prices in goods such as flat-screen TVs, cars, fruits and vegetables. How many Mexican-made cars sold in the U.S. cost as much as cars made in Europe? None!

Trump insists that Mexico is ripping us off by buying $356 billion in goods and services from us last year and more than a trillion dollars' worth since 2010.

Donald Trump insults Mexicans, our best customers. That's good business?

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

You talk about connections when it's more fair to talk about responsibility, especially when you are talking about people's lives. Yes, I hold every Congressperson who voted Yes for the Iraq War resolution responsible for being followers and not leaders, and for abdicating their Constitutional responsibility to the Executive. So she was one of what... 300+ legislators, and wasn't even a leader in the body she was a member of? Saying she should have known the real intelligence because of her "connections" is ridiculous. Bush/Cheney started the drumbeats, and showed Congress some BS that they said was their sheet music, and she tapped her foot to the beat... but I don't think she could read the music by herself to independently verify, to extend the metaphor to its breaking point.

Yes, call her on her judgement, that is fair. But I think your prayers for a Trump/Pence administration reveal you are wearing rose-colored glasses. You may see champagne there, I see sparkling water with food coloring. And he sure can rally the people, like white Christian nationalists. You know my position on what I fear from a Trump/Pence administration from a domestic perspective.

Hoping Trump meaning what he says? Building a wall and making Mexico pay for it? Let's start with that one. How do you think he can "make Mexico pay for it"? His supporters think they mean Mexico's getting a bill in the mail. What does Trump mean? Pay for it with pesos or will it suddenly switch to "paying for it" as a metaphor? Please honestly assess this for me. Why do you have any hope in Trump?

Sure, all those congressmen who voted should be "judged" as well. But they aren't running for president and there aren't books written about (most of) them.
Regarding connections, the Clintons might have more than just about any other politicians. Really, she has the chance to make perhaps some of the hugest changes our country has seen, good or bad, but I just don't see her talking about anything monumental.

Hopefully Trump will listen to his military advisors regarding war/invasions and such. If Trump didn't outright lie in his Gettysburg Address, then I love (most) of what he talked about. If he gets in, the first few months will tell.

The wall - lol - maybe don't pick what I think is his weakest point. This is an area where I am a bit tied. On the one hand having open borders with Mexico (which is what it often amounts to), while we are bombing many parts of the world, is asking for problems. On the other hand, asking Mexico to pay for it is crazy to me, unless he has a good argument for it. The global elite seem hell bent on having open borders and a war on terror - What a great combination - one insures the other when you drop enough bombs. We need secure borders though, so perhaps we direct a little bit of the military budget and build a better fence and enforce the existing border policies? I think a lot of the country (not to mention the border agents) are fed up with (too much) illegal immigration. Something needs to be done.

Haha... You have to start with the wall, it's his smash hit! It's how he rose to the top of the pops! So you are saying you don't agree with his mantra about the wall but you think he will do what he says? You don't agree and you think he can't do what he says? Or you don't agree and you don't think he'll do what he says anyway? What exactly is your position here beside embarrassment, haha

Please, don't make is a "this or that" logical fallacy. You seem to just be looking for holes in my argument here rather than even addressing what I said. Regardless of Hillary or Trump, it probably is getting to the point, that we really need to address illegal immigration.

I think he will try to do what he says. If people support a wall then build it and pay for it, that is a democracy. I am not for dividing countries with walls personally, but if you are bombing all over the world, you better put up a fence, so to speak. But Imagine there's no...

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

You talk about connections when it's more fair to talk about responsibility, especially when you are talking about people's lives. Yes, I hold every Congressperson who voted Yes for the Iraq War resolution responsible for being followers and not leaders, and for abdicating their Constitutional responsibility to the Executive. So she was one of what... 300+ legislators, and wasn't even a leader in the body she was a member of? Saying she should have known the real intelligence because of her "connections" is ridiculous. Bush/Cheney started the drumbeats, and showed Congress some BS that they said was their sheet music, and she tapped her foot to the beat... but I don't think she could read the music by herself to independently verify, to extend the metaphor to its breaking point.

Yes, call her on her judgement, that is fair. But I think your prayers for a Trump/Pence administration reveal you are wearing rose-colored glasses. You may see champagne there, I see sparkling water with food coloring. And he sure can rally the people, like white Christian nationalists. You know my position on what I fear from a Trump/Pence administration from a domestic perspective.

Hoping Trump meaning what he says? Building a wall and making Mexico pay for it? Let's start with that one. How do you think he can "make Mexico pay for it"? His supporters think they mean Mexico's getting a bill in the mail. What does Trump mean? Pay for it with pesos or will it suddenly switch to "paying for it" as a metaphor? Please honestly assess this for me. Why do you have any hope in Trump?

Sure, all those congressmen who voted should be "judged" as well. But they aren't running for president and there aren't books written about (most of) them.
Regarding connections, the Clintons might have more than just about any other politicians. Really, she has the chance to make perhaps some of the hugest changes our country has seen, good or bad, but I just don't see her talking about anything monumental.

Hopefully Trump will listen to his military advisors regarding war/invasions and such. If Trump didn't outright lie in his Gettysburg Address, then I love (most) of what he talked about. If he gets in, the first few months will tell.

The wall - lol - maybe don't pick what I think is his weakest point. This is an area where I am a bit tied. On the one hand having open borders with Mexico (which is what it often amounts to), while we are bombing many parts of the world, is asking for problems. On the other hand, asking Mexico to pay for it is crazy to me, unless he has a good argument for it. The global elite seem hell bent on having open borders and a war on terror - What a great combination - one insures the other when you drop enough bombs. We need secure borders though, so perhaps we direct a little bit of the military budget and build a better fence and enforce the existing border policies? I think a lot of the country (not to mention the border agents) are fed up with (too much) illegal immigration. Something needs to be done.

Haha... You have to start with the wall, it's his smash hit! It's how he rose to the top of the pops! So you are saying you don't agree with his mantra about the wall but you think he will do what he says? You don't agree and you think he can't do what he says? Or you don't agree and you don't think he'll do what he says anyway? What exactly is your position here beside embarrassment, haha

Please, don't make is a "this or that" logical fallacy. You seem to just be looking for holes in my argument here rather than even addressing what I said. Regardless of Hillary or Trump, it probably is getting to the point, that we really need to address illegal immigration.

I think he will try to do what he says. If people support a wall then build it and pay for it, that is a democracy. I am not for dividing countries with walls personally, but if you are bombing all over the world, you better put up a fence, so to speak. But Imagine there's no...

Well you are arguing that Trump is somehow trustworthy and you don't have rose-colored glasses on about this election. I'm arguing that Trump's rhetoric is problematic and unrealistic. It's an argumentative conversation we are having! And logic is important here. What fallacy am I guilty of here? Come on. I don't understand how you "make Mexico pay for it" so my conclusion is he must be pissing on my head and telling me it's raining. I'm just trying to figure out what your conclusion is. You think he will try to build this wall and try to make Mexico pay for it. I just don't understand what this means policy-wise! We send a bill to Mexico City or start a tariff war?

I hear your point on addressing illegal immigration and border security and don't have an argument against that. I'm talking about whether Trump is trustworthy on this position when he's not a "Made in USA" type of businessman. If he can question Clinton's judgement as a politician, and Trump has never been in public office, all I have is his words and his business record. There ARE businesses who make sacrifices to keep manufacturing here even if it costs initial profits. Actually, it's a powerful marketing tool: I have definitely chosen to purchase goods made in the USA over foreign made counterparts even if they were slightly more expensive.

Vmart wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Vmart wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Vmart wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Trump had the chance to bring jobs back to America when he was a "job creator" making ties abroad, or importing Chinese steel. What he chose were to maximize his profits. Why would any business leader put patriotism over profits during Trump/Pence administration? Would he do this with more regulation? Tariffs? Policy that slows down automation? Is everyone just working for ICE and therefore he's growing the government and the deficit?

Help me out earthmansurfer... show me that your trust of Trump isn't just a reactionary pendulum swing from your distrust of Clinton.

Doc when rules are given all businessmen would outsource. What Trump has been saying the system needs to be changed so big corporations don't have to continually look abroad for labor or altogether leave. The deals made with foreign countries severely one sided. That is why the trade debt is a negative. Trump in his debate said to Hillary you have been doing this for over 25 year why didn't you change the laws.

With Trump you have a guy who has profited handsomely from this and yet he feels they need to be changed. The other Billionaire are all on the side of Hillary because they like the way things are. They know they can buy the Clinton's why would they want to listen to any type of change.

That's not true..We are winning in NAFTA..Mexico is the only country in the world we have a trade surplus with and 40% of the good we get from Mexico are parts for our manufacturing businesses..We went from doing 80 billion a year pre-NAFTA to 580 billion a year today...Trump is using the fact that mostly automation has replaced jobs as a political tool...Fact is, we manufacture more in the country today than in the industrial age...That's a fact..It's being done by machines...

Somehow I don't think so. As for automation taking the jobs of people who does that benefit? He working class I think not.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/247649-no-mr-trump-mexico-is-not-killing-us-on-trade

No, Mr. Trump, Mexico is not 'killing us on trade'

Donald Trump manifests profound ignorance of Mexico, our third-largest trading partner. He also insults Mexicans and their leaders who negotiated trade agreements that Trump says he would have negotiated better.

Problems: his insulting tone, his marketing of his own dark fantasies and his grievous choice of words.

Does he know there are 160 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans? Does he know that Mexicans have bought trillions of dollars' worth of goods and services from the United States in recent years? Does he know that millions of Americans go to work every day to work in trade with Mexico?

The real problem with Trump's outburst against Mexicans is that he says all Mexicans are "killing us on trade ... and the country of Mexico is making billions of dollars in doing so." But that, Mr. Trump, is not true.

ADVERTISEMENT
Trump: "I believe that my examples of bad trade deals for the United States was [sic] of even more concern to the Mexican government than my talk of border security."

What examples, Mr. Trump? I don't see any.

Trump: "I have great respect for Mexico and love their people and their peoples' great spirit. The problem is, however, that their leaders are far smarter, more cunning, and better negotiators than ours."

Great respect, really?

Mr. Trump, yes or no, do Mexicans benefit the United States?

Trade: In 1993, before NAFTA took effect (which it did in January 1994), Mexico bought $41 billion in goods and services from the U.S. and sold $39 Billion worth to the United States. Total: $80 billion. In the first year of NAFTA, the $80 billion increased to $99 billion, a 25 percent increase.

Ten years after NAFTA started, total trade between the U.S. and Mexico was $145 billion — an increase of 55 percent. In 2003, almost twenty years after NAFTA began, total trade with Mexico was $506 billion — half a trillion dollars — which is 632 percent more than 1994.

In 2014, by contrast, the United States exported $123 billion in goods to China and imported $466 billion from China. That's a minus $343 billion imbalance in trade. In 2014, the U.S. exported $49 billion of goods to Germany and imported $123 billion for an imbalance of minus $73 billion (lots of Mercedes and BMWs).

Here is something that Mr. Trump apparently does not know: U.S.-Mexico trade is unique in the world; there is a "production sharing" program between Mexico and the United States in which, according to the Wilson Center's Mexico Institute, "A full 40 [percent] of the content of U.S. imports from Mexico is actually produced in the United States. ... This means that forty cents of every dollar spent on imports from Mexico comes back to the United States, a quantity ten times greater that the four cents returning for each dollar paid on Chinese imports."

This production sharing with Mexico is vital for the United States. For example, between 2009 and 2014, according to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. imported a total of $341 billion in cars and car parts from Mexico, of which $136 billion was the 40 percent that Mexico bought from us to install in cars assembled in Mexico, then exported to the U.S. In $341 billion dollars worth of goods imported from China, 4 percent would be $13 billion — compared to 10 times more from Mexico.

"Production sharing" means that the U.S. has an actual positive balance of trade with Mexico, rather than huge deficits as with China, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan etc. For example, in 2014, Mexico sold $290 billion to the U.S. Forty percent of $290 Billion is $116 billion which, when added to the $240 billion in goods and services we sold Mexico, totals at $356 billion, or a positive trade balance of $182 billion. Mr. Trump, do the math.

The Wilson Center also posits that "There are 6 million U.S. jobs that depend on trade with Mexico. Two border states that trade extensively with Mexico, California (692,000 jobs) and Texas (463,000 jobs) have the most…Detroit (alone) exports $10.9 BILLION in cars and car parts to Mexico (part of the total of $20 BILLION worth of cars and auto parts exported to Mexico)."

The United States Chamber of Commerce offers a higher estimate of 14 million American jobs in trade with Mexico.

In short, Trump's 22,000 jobs don't amount to much compared to the 6 million to 14 million Americans who work in trade with Mexico. Mexico-dependent jobs number between 272 and 622 times more than Trump's payroll.

On balance, it can be said that trade with Mexico and Mexicans is far more beneficial to the United States and millions of Americans than not.

Why, then, is anyone taking Trump seriously? We know that Mexico benefits millions upon millions of Americans in jobs and lower prices in goods such as flat-screen TVs, cars, fruits and vegetables. How many Mexican-made cars sold in the U.S. cost as much as cars made in Europe? None!

Trump insists that Mexico is ripping us off by buying $356 billion in goods and services from us last year and more than a trillion dollars' worth since 2010.

Donald Trump insults Mexicans, our best customers. That's good business?

http://clas.berkeley.edu/research/trade-nafta-paradox

You are going to believe a fluff article designed to make Trump look bad or Cal-Berkeley.

You are correct about the trade balance...My point in all this is that those jobs aren't coming back due to automation... We go from 80 billion in trade to 500 billion and still no expansion in the economy in both US and Mexico..So what other dynamic is occurring which isn't reflected in these figures, efficiency..more products are being made cheaply due to automation...Trump can't change that dynamic...The following is from your article from Mexico's point of view on NAFTA..

The United Nations Development Program concluded in a 2007 report that, “Nafta has produced disappointing results in terms of growth and development.” Economists Gerardo Fujii Gambero and Rosario Cervantes Martínez writing in the April 2013 issue of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean Review found that “the gap between exports and GDP [in Mexico] has been widening, which indicates that the export sector is underperforming as a driver of economic growth.” They argued that “the ability of exports to galvanize the economy will be heightened if export activity leads to an expansion of the domestic market.”

Rising Productivity and Declining Wages

While very different economies, the United States and Mexico share similar problems: sharp income inequality, slow growth, high unemployment, and persistent underemployment. These problems are exacerbated by a troubling paradox: rising productivity combined with falling real wages. As a result, much of the economic gain has flowed to the top as workers and communities have faced downward pressure on wages and working conditions. While this productivity/wage disconnect emerged as a key issue during the Nafta debate, it now feeds into a growing concern in many countries throughout the world, including the United States, about the corrosive effects of economic inequality, which President Obama has called the defining issue of our time.

Mexican Productivity and Compensation, 1994-2011

Mexican Productivity and Compensation, 1994-2011 Labor Productivity & Median Real Hourly Compensation for Workers in Manufacturing (1994=100) Sources:Encuesta Industrial Mensual (CMAP). Banco de Información Económica (BIE), Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI).
Labor Productivity & Median Real Hourly Compensation for Workers in Manufacturing (1994=100)
Sources:Encuesta Industrial Mensual (CMAP). Banco de Información Económica (BIE), Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI).

Consider the dimensions of this disconnect in Mexico. Mexican manufacturing productivity rose by almost 80 percent under Nafta between 1994 and 2010, while real hourly compensation — wages and benefits — slid by nearly 20 percent. In fact, this data understates the productivity/wage disconnect. Wages in 1994, the base year, were already 30 percent below their 1980 level despite significant increases in productivity during this period. Although they are producing more, millions of Mexican workers are earning less than they did three decades ago.

Economists often maintain that if wages are low, their level simply reflects low productivity. In the Mexican case, however, low wages exist in spite of strong gains in manufacturing productivity. These low wages reflect a number of factors, from government policy to globalization, but a central issue is the lack of labor rights in the export sector. As a result, it is difficult to form independent unions that can exert pressure to restore a more robust link between productivity and wages. If workers are unable to share in the gains, high-productivity poverty becomes a danger. The damage affects more than Mexican workers. The gap between productivity and wages results in low purchasing power, which depresses consumer demand and slows economic growth.

MaTT4281 wrote:The more I read and listen to those in support of Trump, the more obvious it becomes that this election isn't about policy or stability. This is a sport, and people are pulling for their team to win.

I'm more concerned about the next chapter. Whatever 'team' wins, most of us are going to be living the same results as each other.

I'm worried about what a man who has thrown public tantrum after public tantrum will do when meeting foreign leaders. I'm worried what kind of policies will be passed by a man who has consistently discriminated against those of different race, religion, or sex. I'm worried about what a man who's mantra is "hit them back 5x harder" will do with the nuclear codes after a 3AM raging on Twitter.

Hillary's not my first (or second, or third...), choice, but she's clearly the qualified one out of her and Donald.

"Hillary lies! Where's the transparency?!"
Hillary is a politician, I understand she is not as far from the status quo as people would like. What I don't understand is how you complain about honesty and nominate Donald Trump as the solution. We now know more about Hillary through all these damn emails than we have known about pretty much any candidate before her.

We can talk about her emails if you want - is anyone honestly worried she might try to maintain a private server as president?

We can talk about her rates giving speeches to Goldman Sachs, because that's relevant to governing a nation somehow.

Are we concerned that big businesses will have Hillary's ear? Trump IS big business.

I am beyond frustrated with this campaign. People cling to irrelevancy (Bill cheated on Hillary! How dare she let that happen!) and then use their next breathe to dismiss Trump's piece-of-**** qualities (hey, I've grabbed women by the ***** before too, lay off the Don!)

I have learned more about the people in this country than I have about the candidates, and it's very disappointing.

I'm worried about the future of the country and having forward thinking people in government..People are trying to reach back for the glory of the past and the dominance they enjoyed while not to realizing it's all gone and the world has changed...You can't easily exploit people globally anymore to get ahead..He have to outsmart them with technology..4 of 5 of the most important economy in the world will be in Asia in the next decade..We cant get bog down in the Middle East..Oil prices are lower and automation is now producing Oil in the US more cheaply...Time to pivot and Trump isn't ready for the next chapter...

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/north-american-free-trade-agreement.asp

Thank you Clintons

November 04, 2016 -
ICE Officers Warn Hillary Immigration Plan Will Unleash Gangs, Cartels & Drug Violence Nationwide

The following statement was issued by Chris Crane, President Of The National Immigration And Customs Enforcement (ICE) Council, the official union representing America's ICE officers who are charged with enforcing all immigration laws within the United States:

"ICE officers on the front lines are witnessing a deluge of illegal immigration unlike anything we have seen before. The corporate-funded media won't cover it. Our officers are being ordered to release recent border-crossers with no idea what their intentions are or what they are planning. Gang members, drug cartels and violent smugglers are taking advantage of the situation and threatening American communities. The influx is overwhelming public resources, especially in poor communities -- including Hispanic communities and immigrant communities bearing the economic brunt of the illegal immigration surge. Hillary's pledge for 'open borders' will mean disaster for our country, and turn the present border emergency into a catacylsm. Hillary's plan would unleash violent cartels and brutal transnational gangs into US communities and cause countless preventable deaths.

BRIGGS wrote:But we dont want to listen directly to those who actually work on the front lines of the borders. We dont care what they have to say. We care more that Trump grabbed his crotch in 1997 then illegal drug cartels setting up shop in the US unabated.

BRIGGS wrote:

fishmike wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:But we dont want to listen directly to those who actually work on the front lines of the borders. We dont care what they have to say. We care more that Trump grabbed his crotch in 1997 then illegal drug cartels setting up shop in the US unabated.

Hillary has NEVER pledged open borders. Anything else you want to make up?

Im not making that up--go talk to the US border and customs --they said/wrote it today. Its just the agency that protects our borders--nothing special. Im sure you know much more than them You think that 15,000 US border patrolmen are lying to you?

More people have been deported under Obama then ANY other US president. Ever. Unabated? Seriously.. did you attend Trump university?

Making Amerika great again...eh BriggS?