Nature is unethical now, didn't you get the memo?

Take your time and I appreciate you keeping it intellectual.

It didn't sap our jobs out, you're wrong. Technological advancement sapped out our jobs. American manufacturing is currently producing the most it has ever produced with the fewest employees possible because of tech advancement. I'm not whining about him winning, I'm lamenting his lack of knowledge regarding the economic consensus that free trade is great for all parties involved. It's like he's never heard of comparative advantage or something. I'm a proponent of abolishing the minimum wage entirely. Sure he's a great negotiator, but that's not what I posted about. My post is about his trade protectionist trade policy which is misguided and will hurt Americans.

Get off your high horse. I want trump to succeed but in this meme he is referring to NAFTA which has been amazingly profitable for the United States. And the jobs he's saving are safe only as long as they can't be automated. Meaning they likely won't exist in 15 years. I'm speaking strictly from an economic perspective of trade, and anyone that knows anything about economics or trade knows that NAFTA has been a resounding success. You can't reduce the science of economics to 2 sentence talking points, because it's far more nuanced than that.

Predicting Trump would win is not a political statement. Their belief that Trump would win is not an endorsement.

... They were claiming they were right because they predicted Trump would win, which he did. No one was alienated because people were legitimately when they predicted that Trump would not win.

Dang it, forgot to log in.

The problem is that blue collar work has at least the chance of being automated out of existence to some degree. 40 years from now the working world will be a vastly different place where the most unskilled positions may be considered skilled by today's standards. Allow me to play devils advocate for a moment, I don't actually believe what I'm going to say, but one reason not to push for retention of manufacturing jobs in America is that by helping the x% of people working manufacturing jobs, let's say 10% of the workforce, it artificially inflates prices at the expense of the other 90%. It's effectively a government subsidy for those that aren't qualified to do other things, and hurts a majority of the population, the working poor most specifically. Another reason is that manufacturing jobs are a dying breed, innovation will reduce the number even further than it already has. Once again, just playing devils advocate.

Abstinence is so named because to practice it, you abstain from sex, not abstain from using birth control. If you practice abstinence, and abstain from sex, you will not get pregnant.

Those on MTV didn't actually practice abstinence though...

We impose higher standards willingly, with the full knowledge that other nations don't have to meet our standards. New industry will be created. People thought the industrial revolution would lead to mass unemployment, farmers lost their jobs, factory workers lost their jobs, but look at the state of the job market today, almost 95% of those active in the labor market have jobs. Once other nations become more developed and their standards of living rise, the playing field will be more even, and it's more equitable than punishing them for being less developed. Your pollution point stands, but child labor is absolutely not an issue because the alternative for most children in developing nations are working in agriculture or starving.

Wicking fabric pulls moisture away from the body to the exterior of the shirt where I can evaporate more easily.

You couldn't use the sources cited on each page? How would anyone find out?

That measure up to what? Some arbitrary standard? Before I address the implications of such tariffs: even if the America of the future is a manufacturing power automation will replace the unskilled jobs with knowledge positions. We should be more focused on creating new industry not saving ones that can be more productive elsewhere. There are two challenges to imposing tariffs first being that Congress has sole authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and they likely won't support such tariffs, secondly, it's incompatible under to WTO agreements and the WTO would award those countries the right to impose retaliatory tariffs on US exports in the amount of damages caused by the tariffs. Who does this harm most? The poor, in our country and abroad. Further, a 2009 survey by the AEA found that 83% of PhD economists agree that we should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade entirely.

How's it juvenile? Since the argument falls apart if the BBS & GS aren't in the same locale, we should assume Don meant stores in close proximity, so taxes and wages stay local. Your point about rent stands only if local landowner buys local, and even if they do exclusively, places they shop don't. Produce may be grown local, but think about the entire process: fertilizer, boxes to carry produce, tractors, etc aren't local.If you buy a hammer locally more $ might stay local, but was it locally produced? If it's shipped in, you've essentially only increased hammer prices. If we only buy from each other, prices will be high bc we won't be able to fully exploit the division of labor and specialization coming from trading with a wide group. Widely followed, buy local increases prices and decreases variety, voluntarily making us poorer. That's not to say it doesn't make sense to buy local because the products are better, or as an act of charity. Can you clarify your last sentence, please.

https://fee.org/articles/buying-local-is-as-senseless-as-buying-tall/?utm_medium=push&utm_source=push_notification

It was kinda popular back when it happened!