Question for protectionists

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

How can tariffs be raised without them leading to a massive increase in the prices of food and goods?  This seems to be becoming a popular position on this forum, so I'm curious to hear some answers to that.  I am not a fan of current US trade policies by any means, but I don't see what there is to be gained from adopting a completely protectionist stance on trade only to save a few jobs that will eventually be replaced by automation.

[Cashew]

How can tariffs be raised without them leading to a massive increase in the prices of food and goods? 

Except that's is not what protectionists are arguing. Any "massive increase" would would be worth it for the rising wages.

I don't see what there is to be gained from adopting a completely protectionist stance on trade only to save a few jobs that will eventually be replaced by automation.

Irrelevant, the United States is not unique, all countries will go through automation.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I'm not a protectionist, I just understand it's not the worst thing evah.

[Waterfall]

You won't meet too many people like me: I support tariffs and I acknowledge the basic economic certainty that tariffs would reduce my and other Americans' material well-being. My "one weird trick" is that I'm apparently willing to live much more simply than most of my fellow countrymen.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Except that's is not what protectionists are arguing. Any "massive increase" would would be worth it for the rising wages.

It is laughable to think that protectionism would increase the wages of any job outside of manufacturing(aka the vast majority of them).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, automation killing any US gains from protectionism is very relevant.

[Cashew]

Except that's is not what protectionists are arguing. Any "massive increase" would would be worth it for the rising wages.

It is laughable to think that protectionism would increase the wages of any job outside of manufacturing(aka the vast majority of them).

Hey! Don't look at me, im not a committed protectionist if that's the impression I gave. I was just mocking Scott's absurd strawman of the protectionist position. If you must know however, I am generally protectionist when it comes to unskilled labor, to prevent a race to the bottom, while a feverent free trader when it comes to pharmecuticals. For obvious reasons however the ruling class has successfully pushed the opposite mix of posititions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, automation killing any US gains from protectionism is very relevant.

I didn't know you were against minimum wages hikes! But seriously this goes both ways. Even paying unskilled workers of the 3rd world half a penny a day, automation will still replace them anyway!

I'm curious though, what's with these nihilistic arguments all of a sudden?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Hey! Don't look at me, im not a committed protectionist if that's the impression I gave. I was just mocking Scott's absurd strawman of the protectionist position. If you must know however, I am generally protectionist when it comes to unskilled labor, to prevent a race to the bottom, while a feverent free trader when it comes to pharmecuticals. For obvious reasons however the ruling class has successfully pushed the opposite mix of posititions.

How does free trade impact what a business pays its cashiers, etc. other then through the increased amount of money and growth in the economy?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If US manufacturing jobs are "saved" by protectionism, they will go soon anyway. The higher the wage, the quicker it goes. I've always been skeptical of the "exploitation" argument for protectionism. If the factory jobs in these countries going away with no replacement would allow the people working in them a better life, why do they even work in the factories in the first place. They would've quit and done this better alternative already. But they don't. Because there isn't anything else they can do. Taking away their jobs would be leaving them to live even worse then they do now. The low working standards are bad, and need to be improved, but cost of living is lower in these countries. Even with a living wage(for the country the job is in) and decent conditions, it would be cheaper to make things in those places. Automation costs I believe about 7 or 8 dollars per hour for the equivalent of one humans output. When companies have to pay 25$ per hour for a human, automation and the required investment is much more appealing then when the person's labor costs 6$ an hour. The US needs to continue its transition to a service economy, where automation is more difficult(though still not impossible, we will likely have to create a universal basic income eventually to accommodate the shortage/lack of jobs for humans).

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

"Obviously, government-imposed price floors that exist for labor and a litany of goods are horrible!"

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Except that's is not what protectionists are arguing. Any "massive increase" would would be worth it for the rising wages.

It is laughable to think that protectionism would increase the wages of any job outside of manufacturing(aka the vast majority of them).

Hey! Don't look at me, im not a committed protectionist if that's the impression I gave. I was just mocking Scott's absurd strawman of the protectionist position. If you must know however, I am generally protectionist when it comes to unskilled labor, to prevent a race to the bottom, while a feverent free trader when it comes to pharmecuticals. For obvious reasons however the ruling class has successfully pushed the opposite mix of posititions.

Uh, it's not a strawman.  I pointed out the fact that tariffs lead to higher prices on consumer goods.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, automation killing any US gains from protectionism is very relevant.
[/quote]

I didn't know you were against minimum wages hikes! But seriously this goes both ways. Even paying unskilled workers of the 3rd world half a penny a day, automation will still replace them anyway!

I'm curious though, what's with these nihilistic arguments all of a sudden?
[/quote]

Wage floors and safety nets are meant to support workers in a globalized economy, but it's not a matter of choosing between sacrificing them and closing markets.  Tariffs historically don't save jobs long-term and only lead to higher prices on things.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

"Obviously, government-imposed price floors that exist for labor and a litany of goods are horrible!"

I don't think you know me as well as you think you do.

[Cashew]

Uh, it's not a strawman.  I pointed out the fact that tariffs lead to higher prices on consumer goods.

Most protectionists do not deny this fact, rather they believe that the cost is worth it because of other benefits that tariffs cause, despite this you ask

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which either displays

1. your ignorance of the protectionist argument, or
2. you were baiting them into taking an absurd position.

So which is it?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Uh, it's not a strawman.  I pointed out the fact that tariffs lead to higher prices on consumer goods.

Most protectionists do not deny this fact, rather they believe that the cost is worth it because of other benefits that tariffs cause, despite this you ask

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which either displays

1. your ignorance of the protectionist argument, or
2. you were baiting them into taking an absurd position.

So which is it?

I just wanted to understand the protectionists' "remedy" to the ensuing price hikes or what would be put in place to maybe deter them.  No need to act like a prick.

[Cashew]

Uh, it's not a strawman.  I pointed out the fact that tariffs lead to higher prices on consumer goods.

Most protectionists do not deny this fact, rather they believe that the cost is worth it because of other benefits that tariffs cause, despite this you ask

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which either displays

1. your ignorance of the protectionist argument, or
2. you were baiting them into taking an absurd position.

So which is it?

I just wanted to understand the protectionists' "remedy" to the ensuing price hikes or what would be put in place to maybe deter them.  No need to act like a prick.

I have a nasty habit of questioning others motives. I apopologize if you felt this was a personal attack.

[This Has Only Just Begun]

To me it seems that a lot of people view this as "All or Nothing".  Protectionism was a policy for the 19th century and it should stay there.  Free Trade was a policy for the 20th century and it should stay there.  Both are very outdated to address the problems we have with the decline of our manufacturing industries and labor issues.

Answering the problems of Free Trade with Protectionism is as backward thinking and ignorant as addressing the problems of Third Way politics by going back to the New Deal, imo.