How many foreign jobs are worth an American job, from your trade policy perspective?

Imagine you are the President and are offered a host of situations similar to the below, with all sorts of numbers and projections for each (pretend you have reliable information), and are told you must create one algorithm for the worth of an American job to solve all of them.

That is to say, if you believe the answer is 10, then you would believe it is just and necessary to enact a trade policy that would most likely lose 100 American jobs to create 1100 foreign jobs (but not 900), and that a trade policy killing 1,000 foreign jobs is justified if it creates jobs for 110 Americans, but not if it saves the jobs of only 90 Americans.

Or, from an alternative perspective, if your number is 10,000, then you would not enact a policy opening a factory putting 50,000 Chinese to work if it were likely that 2 Americans would lose their jobs as a result, but would if it were likely that 2 Americans would gain their jobs. You would also oppose a policy that would lead to a million foreign jobs to save a hundred fifty American lives, but not to save fifty.

And, of course, for 0.1, you would put 1,000 Americans out of work to create 110 foreign jobs but not to save 90.

"Other" is not an appropriate answer here; this is an absurdly strict thought exercise.

So, how many foreign jobs would you say should be worth an American job, when it comes to U.S. trade policy?

Compare: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4944823

Only 'Mericans is humans!


Heil America!

Heil America!

Heil America!

You can bite my asshole.

What's your point?

Was your replacement getting paid less? If so, we were in the same boat.

To "create jobs" in my state.

...i.e. the labor of an American worker is precisely as honorable and valuable as the labor of anyone else on the planet. Solidarity.

A trade policy leading to the opening of 100,000 Mexican auto-manufacturing jobs is a pure break-even if it also leads to the closing of an auto plant employing 100,000 Americans.

There is Us and there is Them.

Nationalism must die

which I think would be a good thing. Nationalism is almost as stupid as religion.

Have you read "The Watchmen" by any chance? If not, check out the movie when it's released.

However, to get more to the point, there is exactly zero chance of nationalism dying. There is a tipping point related to the number of people that can be served under a single government and still represent adequately the interests of those people. The tipping point enlarges with communication advancements, as more people can have their voices heard, however, it is unlikely to ever vastly exceed the rate of population growth.

Mars, Fuck Yeah!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

When you say that said policy would put 50,000 chinese to work and cost 2 Americans their jobs, do you mean that to be an overall, end-game figure? Or do you mean that your policy itself would directly employ 50,000 chinese and kill 2 American jobs, to say nothing of the ripple effect that might have on the rest of the economy?

I would think that would have enormous consequences, frankly. If you're talking about the former example, then absolutely not - the job of POTUS is to protect the interests of U.S. citizens. China can look out for its own, in that regard.

However, the latter example is much, much different. A simple net gain of 49,998 employed persons anywhere would be a good thing for the United States, as it expands our market potential. That's 49,998 more people that can potentially buy American products, and the final, end result would likely mean a net gain in American jobs in the end. If you're asking my answer to that question, well, I'm sure there's a computer/statistician capable of simulating those scenarios which would give you a definitive yes/no answer. Unfortuantely, I don't have that capability.

It's reliable for the purposes of this game.

American jobs come first, unless said policy would also significantly, positively, and permanently impact our interests in a particular location. I'm thinking, for example, in parts of the Muslim world where high poverty/unemployment are by far larger factors in the rates of terrorism related violence than anyone really wants to give it credit. In those instances, you're weighing American lives AND foreign jobs against only American jobs.

I should also state that such scenarios would be very few and far between. If I thought long and hard enough, I could probably list them all.

They're sorta protectionist that way. Creating a bunch of jobs there doesn't necessarily open a market for us.

You'll forgive me if I didn't include every factor in that. Not to mention that it doesn't even have to be China - it could be India, or Botswana.

cost 1,000 US jobs and create 10,000 in China or Kenya or Egypt, do I sign it?

Politically it's a no-brainer, since only Americans vote for the president and I'm likely to anger a good number of them. The Chinese or Kenyans or Egyptians may be extremely grateful, if they are ever aware of my role in the jobs that are created there, but they don't vote in our elections.

Are 10 Egyptian jobs worth 1 American job? Morally of course they are, but in the world of real politic, for an American politician, it's a much tougher call.

I do my level best to buy products and services that support small local businesses first and most especially if they are selling local American made products of only American made and grown materials. A next to impossible task at this point, but I try very hard.

I don't begrudge anyone in any other land a good job and a decent life. I don't think America is superior to anyone else. For me, it's simply a matter putting my allegiance toward my family, my friends, my own community first. I widen my scope from there as I need to.

I realize your OP said don't bother responding unless I'm willing to play the post your way. But there you have it.

country owes it to their people to take care of them first so I guess however many it takes We can't help anyone else if we suck-no

I wonder how people like the OP writer think we're going to be in a position to help third world countries when we become a third world country.

How about you give your job to him/her?

I gotta say, I actually have an iota more appreciation for the Erin Burnetts who rail against so-called protectionism purely in defense of the interests of the business elite. You do it out of some misguided belief that you are promoting tolerance.

BTW, I got laid off. My unemployment and savings will be running out in about 2 months and I'm facing living in my car. I'd like for the country that I've lived in and served in the military for and paid taxes all my life to, to put the interests of her own citizens before the people of Mexico and China. Is that too much to ask?

I'm just asking how many foreign jobs are worth an American job. It's entirely reasonable to pick "10,000+;" in that case you believe that the American government ought concern itself entirely with the American job market, and that foreign governments ought look after their own people as well.

Yes, America should look after Americans and other countries should look after their own citizens. Instead, we have a situation where multi-national corporations look after their quarterly profits and have become the de facto rulers of the world. And we have people like you obliviously carrying water for them.

I don't see how this is making a point of any sort whatsoever. I'm actually shocked that nobody has picked the protectionist option; I don't think that every DUer believes that the President should sign legislation shipping 100,000 American jobs out if it creates 150,000 Chinese jobs.

This idea that you can simply apply an algorithm to this is ridiculous. I cannot think of one situation where the loss of 2 American jobs creates 50000 comparable Chinese jobs. What the HELL kind of business model would that company be following?

If you don't feel like playing, don't play.

for over a year with no unemployment besides your mentality is not at all like our new presidents it's more like * How can we help anyone if we all live in cars or on the street

It isn't up to an American president to make policy to open factories in China - that's why there is a Chinese government. It most certainly is up to an American president to care about maximum employment and maximum living standards here. You may think this is reducible to a mathematical formula, but I do not.

People reducing complex economic processes to mathematical formulas.

If it were up to me I'd rather see 1,000 foreign jobs lost if it would create even 1 job in this country... this outsourcing BS has to end and it has to end now.