California wage hikes cost the state 18,000 jobs

If I must...

Higher wages arbitrarily dictated from on high, artificially inflate prices, and do not reflect any increase in value, only decrease in the value of your dollar.

Tariffs--certainly not in our recent state--are NOT a zero sum game. An increase in tariff rates on Chinese goods for instance, may result in an increase in the price of chicom crap, but that is a discretionary expense. The increase in their costs makes it less appealing to American consumer dollars, and therefore less likely to be spent on such crap. But not all crap.

What's more, Trump's increases in tariffs are not arbitrary nor unilateral, but intended to level a playing field that has long disadvantaged us, and benefitted our trading partners, which has served as incentive to import, rather than produce--which in turn, has resulted in decrease in jobs involved in production/manufacturing here, while increasing job opportunities every where else.

By turning the tables on our trading partners, we are reversing the incentive to produce/manufacture here rather than elsewhere, which results in a natural organic, value and demand driven increase in wages (and jobs) fueled by our trading partners' consumer dollars, rather than vice versa.

Increase in prices and wages is a good thing, as long as the volume of money in circulation--following the influx of foreign money-- and the vocity of money, are also strong, and follow demand and actual value.

Your communist ideology still leads you to believe the ridiculous fairy tale, that almighty god government can just wish value into being, by dictatorial fiat/declaration.

 

You are making some assumptions that just don't exist in real life. For example. You assume there is a equal cost and quality American made item that consumers can replace the Chinese "crap" they are buying and instead buy American made crap. What happens when there isn't an American made piece of crap at the same cost of the Chinese crap?

The other assumption you make is American producers won't raise prices because the government has forced higher prices on their competition. If a Chinese producers sells something for $100 and the government puts a 15% tariff on it, it will now sell for $115. If the American produced product is $105, it can now raise prices to $110 and now be $5 cheaper than the Chinese counterpart.

Of course, even if the American producer doesn't raise prices, the consumer is still hurt. They no longer have an $100 Chinese option, and will have to at least shell out $105 for the now cheaper, American product.

Tariffs are inflationary taxes. And we've already seen inflation start to tick up in June. And unlike minimum wage hikes, Americans are spending more without getting more to put in their pockets to help offset the rising costs.

 

An example of an item made in China with possibly no American equivalent are drones. China dominates the drone market with about 90% of all drones made in China. And it's highly unlikely that there is a drone out there without a single, Chinese parts. So, if you're in the market for a drone, prices either already gone up or will be going up depending on how well wholesalers/retailers stocked up supply before the tariffs hit. And as consumers, how do we benefit again/

 

....then we should start making drones.

That won't happen if we continue to support China’s drone manufacturers, while continuing to perpetuate a disadvantaged terrain for domestic production of same.

Make chicom drones less appealing to US consumers via tariff, and you bump the price, along with profit margin, up for domestic production...

...which will likely do what, to domestic production of drones?

 

A tariff is a higher price dictated “from on high”. The entire purpose of a tariff is to make to foreign competition more expensive, and thus less appealing relative to a hypothetical domestic equivalent.

The purpose of BOTH is purportedly to support higher wages for domestic jobs, tariffs are just a roundabout way of doing it. Both policies any non-hack economist will tell you introduce economic inefficiency, as both policies represent the hand of government intervening in the market pricing for goods. I’m sure you would agree a $100 minimum wage would be quite negative and disruptive to the economy. Are you under the impression 100% tariffs would be somehow stimulative? Why not go to 1000% tariffs then? The same logic applies to both policies, as govt ramps up rates things get economically worse.

I think in technical terms even $1.00 minimum wage and 1% tariff rate both technically introduce economic efficiency, it’s just that we have long decided as a society we want some degree of govt involvement. Some minimum wage, and some protection from foreign dumping/illegal trade practices. The fact you have to pretend tariffs have some vast fundamental difference isn’t much more than a coping mechanism, I guess some must find coping to explain away their own hypocrisy.

 

Can an American producer create a competing product and compete with the Chinese on price and quality right out of the gate? Can an American producer do so without needing to source Chinese made parts?

Honestly, I have no idea if this is possible. But many markets have large barriers to entry, and even with the tariff price hikes, it could be difficult for a domestic producer to enter the drone market now, compete with the Chinese, and be profitable. Especially considering the global market for drones and economies of scale.

 

I thought command economies were for communists

 

What is a "living wage"? Minimum wage is for those starting out, as in high school students, college students, those learning a trade, etc. It is not for a father in a family of 4 who is supporting the family. It is for people starting out as well as for some part time retirees who dont want to waste away doing nothing.

Why should a business be forced to pay high wages?

 

A living wage isn’t a high wage; it’s enough for the employees to pay their bills without having to work another job. The question is why should a CEO get paid $14.9 million, while the median worker pay is $54,857? Those are averages. Paying your employees well actually makes more sense than paying the least amount required by law. It’s easier to attract and retain talent, increases productivity, and improves the company’s reputation.

 

California’s job growth averages about 50,000 new jobs per month over the last 5 years …. Seems to be doing just fine. All those red “taker” states should thank California for their massive welfare, medicaid, and unemployment handouts.

 

At least in some food services, most of the job losses are places shedding their delivery drivers as they outsource to Uber Eats and those type services. There's an argument that is not necessarily a good development, but in most cases, the driver is still doing the same work but is just an "independent contractor" now.