2020 US Election (Part One)

[onejayhawk]

Because by all indications it wasn't a very large number of people who flipped from Obama 2012 to Trump 2016. Nowhere near "all the deplorables."

This is true to an extent. Trump did attract a significant number of previous non-voters. That said, a party-to-party shift of 3% would be considered massive because it would cause a 6% swing.

J

 

[Birdjaguar]

The rural areas of the United States are absolutely doomed. The population demos skew old and once those people die off no one is going to replace them as their children and grandchildren have, by and large, already moved away. In the next 15-20 years I fully expect to see mass migration to the cities and suburbs, coming from the rural areas, as small municipalities watch their tax bases vanish seemingly out of no where.

Yes, you are right, most rural towns are in decline. but there are fixes. see below.

...but you are saying that with the increase in chinese tariffs no one would put up a shed and start producing farm gates as that would be generally absurd
you towns dying your an unemployed coal miner that has wielding skills
it would be absurd not to try something

the jobs fairy is Obama saying manufacturing jobs have gone and are not coming back unless you have a magic wand.I think he was right
the magic wand is Trumps tariffs Just like China. EU, South Korea Japan.India trade barriers distorts their free trade it distorts the "so called free market" except it does so for the US benefit making jobs in the US more competitive. All them rural farm gates that were once made locally now can again be made locally to specification by small efficient business unless you tell your daughter to bang a welder you have to hire or train a welder
you need to take into account the size of the pie with a booming economy the pie gets bigger
with 3.1 million people coming off food stamps that's a lot of business that have customers with more money to spend and like you say its a cumulative effect
those business do better invest in expansion employ more staff,more people have more money to spend

The economy of any jurisdiction (town, city, county, region, nation) has two economies, a service sector and an economic base sector. The service sector is where local people spend their money with local merchants or service providers. The more money local people have the larger the service sector can be. Service sector jobs are paid for by local people and companies. Mostly, it grows on its own. The Economic base sector are those jobs that are paid for by people and companies outside of the jurisdiction under discussion. Essentially their work, products or services are exported outside of the jurisdiction. The only way to grow an economy (of any scale) is to grow the economic base jobs faster than the population. You cannot grow a town's economy by building more restaurants unless the customers they attract are from out of town. If you encourage an entrepreneur to create companies and sell products and services to folks in distant places, you have created an economic based job.

Selling products overseas supports growing the US economic base jobs sector. Buying products from overseas supports the economic base jobs sector of other nations. Trade benefits both sides of the equation. Building more cars in the US to sell to US buyers is just service sector action. It does not grow the US economy. It might grow the economy of some smaller jurisdiction. Cars made in Detroit and bought buy people in New York are economic base for Detroit, but not for the US. When small towns lose their economic base sector, their service sector will follow and the town dies. The pig farming industry in Iowa is economic based because the pigs are sold out of state. The only reason that industry has survived is because they now use cheap illegal Mexican labor. Without that labor, their costs would be too high and they would lose their market to a lower cost producer. the farms would close and the Iowa economy would shrink.

Small town America needs to find ways to create economic base sector jobs if they want to survive. They have to find a way to attract money from out of area people and companies. Indian Reservations do it with gaming. Florida does it with Disney World, beaches, etc. Red Tide closes beaches and lots of out of state money goes away.

As soon as Asia took over the textile industry hundreds of small NC towns started to die when their mills closed. Some found other ways to get through. Many did not. If you town is dying, you have to train your people to do work that will be paid for by outsiders. If you lose your job at the factory and go open a Dairy Queen, all you have done is make it harder for all the other eateries in town to survive. You are not saving the town. If you learn to make gates and do so for the locals, you've done nothing unless you reduce sales for gates from companies elsewhere.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A very cogent analysis, and solid explanation for why the pretense that tariffs will save small town America is wrong. Let's look at another product of Australia that I happen to have recent experience with; an external shade that I was well paid to install. Good for me, but as noted just a service economy job. The person who paid me makes that favored USian export product, death...errrrr...military aircraft that is. Anyway, the shade itself was made in Australia, so good for them.

Now, if there gets to be enough trade animosity these shades might come to cost so much that Home Depot won't be able to sell them to people who manufacture death, even though they are very well paid, and I won't be able to make pocket change putting them up. In theory this is supposed to prompt me to head out to podunk somewhere and open my own external shade company. But there is no freakin' way I am going to do that. There is way too much light industrial space available for lease in urban areas. All the machinery I might need will be much more readily available. My access to buyers from Home Depot, et al, will be much easier. My ability to ship product will be way better. So my startup costs will be far more manageable.

And when I have to fold this operation my ability to sell off machinery and walk away from the lease will be way better than if I revitalized some rural property. I'll be able to get much better salvage value from the shutdown.

But...

Wait...

Why am I planning to fail here?

Because the tariff is an artificial influence in the market. When it is removed, which it inevitably will be, the exact same market forces that made Australia the best place for this business will still all be present, and that will be all she wrote. The steel mill might put on some extra workers...temporarily. Someone like me might even open a window shade "factory," temporarily. But no one is going to be prompted to make major capital investments by the capricious intervention of a totally unreliable dingbat.

And no one is so interested in saving small town America that they are going to spite their face by cutting their noses off from the advantages of investing in the city...long term or even temporarily.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Currently, about 82% of the US population lives in an urban area. that is up from 70% in 1960. In 1800 it was 6% in urban areas. The best that rural American can hope for is a leveling off of the increase. There was one of those from 1970 to 1980 when the population stayed at 73% urban. In the last 5 decades (since 1980) urban has increased 10%.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Karl Urban 2020?

 

[innonimatu]

Because the tariff is an artificial influence in the market. When it is removed, which it inevitably will be, the exact same market forces that made Australia the best place for this business will still all be present, and that will be all she wrote.

Every rule of trade is an "artificial influence in the market". There can be no market without those artificial rules. There can be no market without enforcement of contracts to start with. If the government merely refuses to enforce import or export contracts with Australia, guess what that does to the "market forces" that make Australia the best place for that business...

 

[onejayhawk]

Currently, about 82% of the US population lives in an urban area. that is up from 70% in 1960. In 1800 it was 6% in urban areas. The best that rural American can hope for is a leveling off of the increase. There was one of those from 1970 to 1980 when the population stayed at 73% urban. In the last 5 decades (since 1980) urban has increased 10%.

This depends on definitions. How big must a city be to qualify as urban? What about the suburbs and x-urbs? It is true demographics shift but it is very easy to oversimplify.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Every rule of trade is an "artificial influence in the market". There can be no market without those artificial rules. There can be no market without enforcement of contracts to start with. If the government merely refuses to enforce import or export contracts with Australia, guess what that does to the "market forces" that make Australia the best place for that business...

Yes, all influences are artificial. That doesn't change the reality that most such influences have long enough duration that they have to be accounted for, while a tariff installed by a capricious manchild in a fit of pique, with said manchild's own duration of influence being uncertain but very likely short, is not an influence to count on when making a major capital investment.

 

[Hrothbern]

Yes, all influences are artificial. That doesn't change the reality that most such influences have long enough duration that they have to be accounted for, while a tariff installed by a capricious manchild in a fit of pique, with said manchild's own duration of influence being uncertain but very likely short, is not an influence to count on when making a major capital investment.

yes
One of the things a government has to generate is stability with "predictable" longer term changes to enable individual citizens and companies to make choices with less risks. It is a combination of policies and available overview information.
his Trumpiness, coming from instant businesses like real estate, casino's and TV shows has no clue of that governmental responsibility.

 

[Bootstoots]

The rural-urban split is a little too simplistic to explaining Trump's 2016 win. Much of the swing towards Trump occurred in small and mid-sized cities and their suburbs across the Midwest, along with working-class suburbs and exurbs. This was partially offset by a swing towards Clinton in rich suburbs, college towns, and a few relatively prosperous cities, but those don't account for nearly as many voters as are in the rest of the region.

There was also a strong shift (mostly from fairly red to very red) in rural areas, but I believe the majority of Trump's Midwestern gains were in small-medium cities, suburbs thereof, working-class suburbs of large cities, and exurbs.

 

[onejayhawk]

The rural-urban split is a little too simplistic to explaining Trump's 2016 win. Much of the swing towards Trump occurred in small and mid-sized cities and their suburbs across the Midwest, along with working-class suburbs and exurbs. This was partially offset by a swing towards Clinton in rich suburbs, college towns, and a few relatively prosperous cities, but those don't account for nearly as many voters as are in the rest of the region.

There was also a strong shift (mostly from fairly red to very red) in rural areas, but I believe the majority of Trump's Midwestern gains were in small-medium cities, suburbs thereof, working-class suburbs of large cities, and exurbs.

Exactly. Trump won 90% of the counties. Clinton won the 10% with the heaviest population densities. That's not exactly urban vs rural, but the flavor is similar.

 

[onejayhawk]

There's a Politico article out this morning. In this case, the title is the point:

‘He’s Barack Obama, but white’: Beto O’Rourke blows up the 2020 Democratic primary

Is that a good thing?

J

 

[Lexicus]

Is that a good thing?

It's certainly a bad headline.

 

[JollyRoger]

There's a Politico article out this morning. In this case, the title is the point:

‘He’s Barack Obama, but white’: Beto O’Rourke blows up the 2020 Democratic primary

Is that a good thing?

J

I went to Politico and the headline was only the second part of what you quote.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I went to Politico and the headline was only the second part of what you quote.

For those who want a link demonstrating that @onejayhawk is, as usual, lying.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's certainly a bad headline.

It is a bad headline. Unsurprisingly it is an outright lie by @onejayhawk.

 

[rah]

In all fairness it does say that in the article. But making it appear to be part of the headline was misleading.

And he should run … He’s Barack Obama, but white.”

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'd be surprised if @onejayhawk ever read the article. The fake headline is being bombed onto forums all over the internet by right wing talking point distributors. The job description doesn't include reading.

 

[rah]

So it isn't proof that he was lying, just that he is gullible.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So it isn't proof that he was lying, just that he is gullible.

When a falsehood is widely distributed across the internet in what appears to be a coordinated attack on the truth this forum always seems to get it delivered to our shores.