Study: U.S. risks losing 2.2M jobs in China trade dispute

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
63,704
51,994
CA
#1
Feb. 8 (UPI) -- Nearly a million American jobs are at risk in the U.S.-China trade dispute, and a million more could follow, new research said Friday. The study by the Trade Partnership Consultancy says the tariff battle could cost the United States one million jobs -- with the figure ultimately rising to two million if President Donald Trump follows through on a threat of a 25 percent tax on all Chinese imports.


The Trade Partnership Consultancy report was commissioned by the pro-free trade group Tariffs Hurt the Heartland. The research said about $250 billion worth of U.S. imports from China are subject to tariffs of either 10 percent or 25 percent. Unless negotiators reach a deal, goods in the higher tariff range will increase on March 2. Retaliatory tariffs from China, the European Union, Canada and Mexico are weakening the price and number of U.S. products sold to other countries. The tariffs also cause U.S. manufacturers to pay more for imported components, the group said.


The imposition of tariffs by the United States and U.S. imports of steel, aluminum, motor vehicles and parts ... is a net loss for the U.S. economy and U.S. workers," the report states. "An examination of all the ways in which tariffs, accompanied by retaliation from U.S. trading partners, affects purchasing and hiring decisions demonstrates that, on balance, U.S. farmers, manufacturers, services providers and their workers experience greater losses than gains."

The research included four scenarios and their possible outcomes. The "base scenario," which calculates tariffs in place since Nov. 1 and additional 25 percent penalties predicts a net U.S. job loss of 934,700.

Study: U.S. risks losing 2.2M jobs in China trade dispute


How in the world is his stupid trade views "Making America Great Again"? Especially when tariff's are just another way of saying "tax".
 
Jan 2017
156
47
online
#4
So again, no actual comment on the actual topic?

Why is this so hard for so many people here?

Explain to me how losing 2.2 million jobs and imposing tariffs are going to "Make America Great Again"?

I will be waiting for your astute economic "analysis".
The title said there was a "risk" of losing 2.2M jobs, not a certainty. Have you ever gambled? The bigger the risk, the greater the reward. No need to get all bent up over a truthful on-topic statement.
 
Apr 2012
76,133
5,711
#5
So again, no actual comment on the actual topic?

Why is this so hard for so many people here?

Explain to me how losing 2.2 million jobs and imposing tariffs are going to "Make America Great Again"?

I will be waiting for your astute economic "analysis".
Sounds like a bunch of Trump haters making assumptions and stating opinions
 
Likes: Trumpet

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
63,704
51,994
CA
#6
The title said there was a "risk" of losing 2.2M jobs, not a certainty. Have you ever gambled? The bigger the risk, the greater the reward. No need to get all bent up over a truthful on-topic statement.
Again where is the "reward" is losing even losing a million jobs?

Seems like you can't answer that question.
 
Jan 2017
156
47
online
#7
Again where is the "reward" is losing even losing a million jobs?

Seems like you can't answer that question.
You didn't ask that question.
The reward would be a reduction/reversal of the massive trade deficit. The risk might be some jobs. BFD. Cortez wants to pay people who are "unwilling" to work.
 
Sep 2014
4,537
1,342
South FL
#9
How in the world is his stupid trade views "Making America Great Again"? Especially when tariff's are just another way of saying "tax".
Well who should pay for the US military presence in Asia? Of course that is South Korea and Japan, directly and whatever direct deployments there are and includes treaty committments to bring the whole $700bn kill machine to bear if somebody crosses a DMZ, or South China Sea, or some other ridiculous geographic border that I don't give a rat's ass about (while 200,000 people waltz over our own southern border, I might add). And those deployments are generally there to counter the larger geopolitical threat imposed by China, primarily, and in Asia, Russia, secondarily.

Well, who should pay for that? I would suggest the people who trade with South Korea, the people who trade with Japan, China, etc.

THEY SHOULD BE THE ONES PAYING FOR IT.

Now, that's not going to help those people. Not one iota, but I'm here to tell you it shouldn't because we need to pay for Team America: World Police one way or the other and the way they are CURRENTLY doing it is FUCKING ME.

The taxes levies to pay for the military, whether they are income taxes or tariffs, are inconvenient.

I choose tariffs for that particular expenditure, alternative I'd just as soon pull out and honestly I'd rather do that

#americafirst

-----------------------------

Of course I do support free trade but there is still the concept of imposing rational basis taxation on whatever trade there is whether it is an intrastate trade, interstate trade, or international trade. You pay a sales tax, you pay for the Florida Highway Patrol or roads to be paved in Palm Beach County or Orange County. You pay an income tax, you do some things at the federal level, but you shouldn't be imposing income tax on people deriving their income from intra/interstate trade to protect South Korea. That's insane, you tax the people buying Kias and Samsungs (I own a Kia and a Samsung phone).

You can read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and if you read Adam Smith you should be generally impressed by his support for free trade.

Yet Adam Smith supported the Navigation Acts which of course taxed trade and otherwise restricted it to pay for the Royal Navy.

The cost for Team America: World Police sucks, but that's just too bad, it needs to be paid for and tariffs are a proportionate tax narrowly tailored to the government's interest in protecting America's foreign interests.
 
Last edited:

Similar Discussions