Trump to tax 35% any business that leave US and tries to sell product/goods back to USA

[smilesammich 10,727]

Toyota is not a US company but they on shored here and produce 70% of all vehicles sold here in the USA. More than any other domestic automaker. Do you find it odd that a foreign company can have great success manufacturing here but a domestic can't .

Toyota has a greater percentage of cars sold here that are made here than any brand sold in America.

but toyota isn't an american company.

seems like they're spread out all over, i don't get why you're using toyota as an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Toyota_manufacturing_facilities

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

US companies need to off shore in order to compete in global markets, yes. US labor is more expensive than most any other labor in the world. Toyota using US labor to compete with other auto companies in the US that also use US labor is not the same as a US company using US labor competing with an Asian company making the same product for half the price using Asian labor.

There is so much more to manufacturing than labor. Most people really don't understand the big picture.

China vs. the U.S.: It's Just as Cheap to Make Goods in the USA

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-25/china-vs-dot-the-u-dot-s-dot-its-just-as-cheap-to-make-goods-in-the-usa

but toyota isn't an american company.

seems like they're spread out all over, i don't get why you're using toyota as an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Toyota_manufacturing_facilities

Oh I can't think of any reason right off the bat

[Teddy B 17,252]

There is so much more to manufacturing than labor. Most people really don't understand the big picture.

China vs. the U.S.: It's Just as Cheap to Make Goods in the USA

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-25/china-vs-dot-the-u-dot-s-dot-its-just-as-cheap-to-make-goods-in-the-usa

Oh I can't think of any reason right off the bat

From your link 3 of the 4 countries with the lowest labor rates are in Asia which was what I used as my example. Mexico is also much lower in manufacturing costs than the US is. I'm still not sure what your point is.

The country with the lowest manufacturing costs, we found, is not China. It’s Indonesia, then India, Mexico, and Thailand. China comes next—with Taiwan’s costs just a tad higher and the U.S.’s a bit more than that, ranking America No. 7 in our study.

Yes China is catching up to the US with labor and manufacturing costs, but there are still many viable low cost alternatives to US based manufacturing.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Political and economic reality strikes!

GOP Leader Breaks With Donald Trump On Suggested 35 Percent Tariff

For all the talk about walls, congress is the wall Trump is going to have to worry about. To think congress is going to support this type of thing ignores everything congress has done, basically going back to the end of the Clinton administration.

[KayDeeCee 4,896]

4%?? Yes, if you use the new definition of unemployment under the Obama administration. The U-6 unemployment rate is still over 9%.

And still higher than it has been since the '30s, minus one time in 1982.

Okay, was just pointing out in agreement that the unemployment rate is far cry from 43%.

There is no new definition for the Obama administration. The unemployment measures were revised back in the 90s.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

None of the measures are without flaws, and it is very difficult to get a completely accurate 'real' unemployment rate. The surveys and indicators are used for economists to crunch numbers and come up with a general idea of where the unemployment rate lies, and we currently have the 6 measures.

U-3 is the official unemployment rate. It is currently 4.6%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

If you want to use U-6, then that is at 9.3%, and is not the lowest since 2007, but is still falling and is the lowest since 2008.

http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

If you think things aren't different under the Obama administration, you should google that.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambro-obama-hides-jobs-failure-by-not-coun/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/02/09/dont-be-fooled-the-obama-unemployment-rate-is-11/#7449f9d73d23

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Okay, was just pointing out in agreement that the unemployment rate is far cry from 43%.

There is no new definition for the Obama administration. The unemployment measures were revised back in the 90s.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf

None of the measures are without flaws, and it is very difficult to get a completely accurate 'real' unemployment rate. The surveys and indicators are used for economists to crunch numbers and come up with a general idea of where the unemployment rate lies, and we currently have the 6 measures.

U-3 is the official unemployment rate. It is currently 4.6%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

If you want to use U-6, then that is at 9.3%, and is not the lowest since 2007, but is still falling and is the lowest since 2008.

http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate

David Stockman, Ronald Regan's budget director explains how the REAL unemployment rate is 43

At the present time, there are 210 million adult Americans between the ages of 16 and 68---to take a plausible measure of the potential work force. That amounts to 420 billion potential labor hours, if we accept the convention that all adults are at least theoretically capable of holding a full-time job (2,000 hours/year) and pulling their share of society's need for production and work effort.

By contrast, during 2014 only 240 billion hours were actually supplied to the US economy, according to the BLS estimates. Technically, therefore, there were 180 billion unemployed labor hours, meaning that the real unemployment rate was 42.9%, not 5.5%

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-warren-buffett-economy-why-its-days-are-numbered-part-4/

[Dakine10 5,452]

David Stockman, Ronald Regan's budget director explains how the REAL unemployment rate is 43

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-warren-buffett-economy-why-its-days-are-numbered-part-4/

The highest alternative unemployment-rate measure we could come up with that had any credibility was 16.4 percent, and even that exaggerated figure is only about one-third of the way to Trump’s 42 percent. We rate his claim Pants on Fire.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-unemployment-rate-may-be-42-perc/

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

The highest alternative unemployment-rate measure we could come up with that had any credibility was 16.4 percent, and even that exaggerated figure is only about one-third of the way to Trump’s 42 percent. We rate his claim Pants on Fire.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-unemployment-rate-may-be-42-perc/

As we have seen established on this site before Snopes and Politifact are tools of the crooked left wing media

[Dakine10 5,452]

As we have seen established on this site before Snopes and Politifact are tools of the crooked left wing media

Aren't you new here? How do you know what was established before?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Perhaps he has been searching the archives, getting to know the usual suspects?

Aren't you new here? How do you know what was established before?

[OriZ 3,157]

Lets make one thing clear, the unemployment rate is not 42% not matter how you measure it. That just makes no sense - are almost half the people you know unemployed?

Even if you use shadow government stats, unemployment is at 22.8%.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

This argument is futile though because historically, unemployment(U3) doesn't last very long beneath 5% before it starts rising again towards at least 7-10%.

http://www.macrotrends.net/1316/us-national-unemployment-rate

Also, historically there has been a recession on avg every 7 years with the range being anywhere from 4 to 9 years in the past century and 2 to 11 years prior to that. We are now going on 8 years. The chance that Trump will get through his term without a recession is basically less than one half of one percent. I didn't decide that; historically informed statistics did.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

If unemployment goes up under Trump, know that it would be in the interest of Making American Great Again. I would suggest unemployment will likely go up bigly, making all previous jobs losses jealous of the tremendous amount and pace of job losses.

Trade is a delicate thing, and even the Republicans not inclined to support Trumps bigly tax penalty for moving jobs overseas surely understand significantly adjusting the corporate tax code to try to do it another way could potentially ignite problems as well. And even if you love Tweetsolini you can't say Trump does delicate.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Lets make one thing clear, the unemployment rate is not 42% not matter how you measure it. That just makes no sense - are almost half the people you know unemployed?

Even if you use shadow government stats, unemployment is at 22.8%.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

This argument is futile though because historically, unemployment(U3) doesn't last very long beneath 5% before it starts rising again towards at least 7-10%.

http://www.macrotrends.net/1316/us-national-unemployment-rate

Also, historically there has been a recession on avg every 7 years with the range being anywhere from 4 to 9 years in the past century and 2 to 11 years prior to that. We are now going on 8 years. The chance that Trump will get through his term without a recession is basically less than one half of one percent. I didn't decide that; historically informed statistics did.

Conventional elitist theories do not apply to Trump. We have learned this as he defied political gravity in run for the White House.

Even Rush Limbaugh loves his Trillion dollar stimulus package. We will beg him to stop winning.

[OriZ 3,157]

Conventional elitist theories do not apply to Trump. We have learned this as he defied political gravity in run for the White House.

Even Rush Limbaugh loves his Trillion dollar stimulus package. We will beg him to stop winning.

Conventional elitist theories? Is that a new name for being historically informed?