Economics Thread
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
Tapate50
Well-known member
Last time I was out there in Feb people were talking about Vegas not being the same.
Vegas isn’t helping itself. They don’t comp much and it’s become a really expensive place even if you do gamble a ton. Their old model got kicked to the curb of sucking in the masses with cheap rooms just to get them to the tables. It’s really expensive, and the comps just aren’t there to offset it
Im starting to see some promo emails come through for 30% or dining credits that weren’t there last time.
Vegas isn’t helping itself. They don’t comp much and it’s become a really expensive place even if you do gamble a ton. Their old model got kicked to the curb of sucking in the masses with cheap rooms just to get them to the tables. It’s really expensive, and the comps just aren’t there to offset it
Im starting to see some promo emails come through for 30% or dining credits that weren’t there last time.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-counting-jobs-is-really-really-hard/
^ Good article on why counting jobs is harder than it sounds. The BLS has its biases, but they’re not rooted in partisan politics.
^ Good article on why counting jobs is harder than it sounds. The BLS has its biases, but they’re not rooted in partisan politics.
acesfull86
Well-known member
sturg33
I
I mean they really dont need more than 1 doll
acesfull86
Well-known member
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Let’s try this the nsacpi way.
Me:
My theory is that free trade agreements have driven the decline of one income households because they gutted the US manufacturing industry, gave rise to a service based economy, and lowered wages for middle class and below workers.
Well known right winger ChatGPT:
Your theory is widely held and supported by significant evidence, especially among economists and sociologists who study the long-term impacts of trade liberalization. Let’s break it down and assess its validity, nuance, and supporting data.
Theory Summary:
Free trade agreements (especially NAFTA and China’s WTO accession) led to:
1.
Free Trade & Manufacturing Decline
2.
Wage Pressure on Middle-Class Workers
Real median household income (adjusted for inflation):
3. Impact on Single-Earner Households
Counterpoints / Nuance
Summary of Evidence-Based Verdict:
Your theory is strongly supported:
Me:
My theory is that free trade agreements have driven the decline of one income households because they gutted the US manufacturing industry, gave rise to a service based economy, and lowered wages for middle class and below workers.
Well known right winger ChatGPT:
Your theory is widely held and supported by significant evidence, especially among economists and sociologists who study the long-term impacts of trade liberalization. Let’s break it down and assess its validity, nuance, and supporting data.
Theory Summary:
Free trade agreements (especially NAFTA and China’s WTO accession) led to:
- Manufacturing job losses
- Wage stagnation or decline for middle/lower-income workers
- Rise in dual-income necessity due to weaker single-earner household viability
1. Free Trade & Manufacturing Decline
- NAFTA (1994) and China’s WTO entry (2001) led to offshoring of U.S. manufacturing jobs.
- Between 2000 and 2010, the U.S. lost about 5 million manufacturing jobs, many of which never returned.
- A key 2016 study by Autor, Dorn, and Hanson (“The China Shock”) showed that increased imports from China caused:
- Higher unemployment
- Lower labor force participation
- Depressed wages in heavily affected regions
Manufacturing employment as a share of total employment:
- Early 1990s (pre-NAFTA): ~16%
- 2020s: ~8%
2. Wage Pressure on Middle-Class Workers
- With the erosion of unionized, higher-wage manufacturing jobs, many workers were forced into lower-paying service-sector jobs.
- Real wage growth stagnated for non-college-educated men, particularly in areas hit hard by trade shocks.
- The middle class shrank over this period, with wealth increasingly concentrating at the top.
Real median household income (adjusted for inflation):- Has grown very slowly since the late 1980s, with gains disproportionately going to dual-earner households and the top 10%.
3. Impact on Single-Earner Households- In the 1950s–1970s, one income (typically the male) could support a middle-class family.
- As real wages stagnated, many families were economically pressured into becoming dual-income:
- To cover rising costs (healthcare, education, housing)
- To maintain a similar standard of living to prior generations
- Single-earner viability declined as:
- Male labor force wages weakened
- Childcare costs rose
- Employer benefits eroded (pensions, insurance, etc.)
Counterpoints / Nuance- Free trade did lower prices for consumer goods, benefiting consumers in aggregate.
- Job losses were concentrated, not universal—some export-oriented sectors benefited.
- Other factors also drove household changes:
- Women’s workforce participation rising for cultural/political reasons
- Technology and automation eliminating routine jobs
- Deunionization, tax policy shifts, and corporate consolidation
Summary of Evidence-Based Verdict:Your theory is strongly supported:
- Free trade agreements like NAFTA and China’s WTO entry accelerated deindustrialization, weakened wage growth, and undermined the single-income household model for much of the working class.
- This was a policy choice with winners (consumers, corporations, higher-educated workers) and losers (manufacturing workers, rural/midwestern regions, blue-collar households).
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
That’s weird right? I wonder how we as a nation could have so badly misjudged what free trade would to our workforce?
Me:
When did the US begin prioritizing free trade?
MAGA Trumper ChatGPT:
After WWII, U.S. policy shifted toward promoting free trade as a way to:
Major Milestones in U.S. Free Trade Policy
Me:
When did the US begin prioritizing free trade?
MAGA Trumper ChatGPT:
After WWII, U.S. policy shifted toward promoting free trade as a way to:
- Rebuild war-torn economies,
- Prevent future conflicts,
- Counter communism.
- 1947 – GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade): The U.S. was a founding member. GATT aimed to reduce trade barriers and laid the groundwork for modern free trade.
- 1960s–70s: U.S. led multiple rounds of GATT negotiations to lower tariffs globally.
- 1980s–1990s: The U.S. fully embraced free-market ideology, promoting trade liberalization worldwide.
Major Milestones in U.S. Free Trade Policy- 1985 – Israel Free Trade Agreement: First U.S. free trade agreement.
- 1994 – NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement): A major shift toward regional free trade, involving the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.
- 1995 – WTO formed: The U.S. helped found the World Trade Organization, replacing GATT.
- 2000s: More FTAs signed with countries like Chile, Singapore, South Korea, etc.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Me:
So the switch to free trade wasn’t planned to benefit the US economically, it was done for international political reasons.
Right wing grifter ChatGPT:
Your theory is strongly supported: the U.S. turn toward free trade was driven more by geopolitical strategy than by domestic economic planning aimed at benefitting the average American worker. After WWII, the U.S. promoted free trade to rebuild allies, contain communism, and prevent another global conflict. It used economic integration as a diplomatic tool, assuming the U.S. economy was strong enough to absorb any disruptions.
Free trade was used to secure influence and stability. For example, NAFTA (1994) was intended to stabilize Mexico and tie its economy more closely to North America. Similarly, China’s entry into the WTO (2001) was supported in hopes it would encourage political liberalization and bind China to a rules-based global order. These were strategic gambles. Policymakers believed the economic benefits would be widely shared and that the geopolitical goals justified the risks. They assumed that the U.S. would maintain industrial strength and middle-class prosperity, and they underestimated the concentrated harms.
The result: manufacturing jobs declined rapidly, especially after China joined the WTO. Real wages stagnated for much of the labor force. Single-income households became increasingly unviable, and dual-income households became the norm out of necessity. Meanwhile, consumer prices fell and corporate profits rose, disproportionately benefiting capital owners and the professional class. In other words, free trade produced winners (multinationals, high-income professionals, and consumers of cheap goods) and losers (industrial workers, rural communities, and lower-middle-class families).
So, was free trade a massive failure for the U.S.? That depends on whose experience you prioritize. From the perspective of middle- and working-class Americans, especially in manufacturing and post-industrial regions, it largely was. It contributed to job loss, wage stagnation, family stress, social dislocation, and political instability. For multinational corporations, high earners, and U.S. geopolitical influence, it was more of a success. It lowered consumer prices, boosted global market access, and expanded U.S. soft power—at least temporarily.
If the intended outcome was broadly shared prosperity and a strong, stable middle class, then free trade underperformed or outright failed. If the goal was geopolitical advantage, supply chain efficiency, and investor returns, then it succeeded. The U.S. made a strategic choice to prioritize global leadership and economic integration over domestic industrial resilience. The social and economic costs of that choice are still unfolding.
So the switch to free trade wasn’t planned to benefit the US economically, it was done for international political reasons.
Right wing grifter ChatGPT:
Your theory is strongly supported: the U.S. turn toward free trade was driven more by geopolitical strategy than by domestic economic planning aimed at benefitting the average American worker. After WWII, the U.S. promoted free trade to rebuild allies, contain communism, and prevent another global conflict. It used economic integration as a diplomatic tool, assuming the U.S. economy was strong enough to absorb any disruptions.
Free trade was used to secure influence and stability. For example, NAFTA (1994) was intended to stabilize Mexico and tie its economy more closely to North America. Similarly, China’s entry into the WTO (2001) was supported in hopes it would encourage political liberalization and bind China to a rules-based global order. These were strategic gambles. Policymakers believed the economic benefits would be widely shared and that the geopolitical goals justified the risks. They assumed that the U.S. would maintain industrial strength and middle-class prosperity, and they underestimated the concentrated harms.
The result: manufacturing jobs declined rapidly, especially after China joined the WTO. Real wages stagnated for much of the labor force. Single-income households became increasingly unviable, and dual-income households became the norm out of necessity. Meanwhile, consumer prices fell and corporate profits rose, disproportionately benefiting capital owners and the professional class. In other words, free trade produced winners (multinationals, high-income professionals, and consumers of cheap goods) and losers (industrial workers, rural communities, and lower-middle-class families).
So, was free trade a massive failure for the U.S.? That depends on whose experience you prioritize. From the perspective of middle- and working-class Americans, especially in manufacturing and post-industrial regions, it largely was. It contributed to job loss, wage stagnation, family stress, social dislocation, and political instability. For multinational corporations, high earners, and U.S. geopolitical influence, it was more of a success. It lowered consumer prices, boosted global market access, and expanded U.S. soft power—at least temporarily.
If the intended outcome was broadly shared prosperity and a strong, stable middle class, then free trade underperformed or outright failed. If the goal was geopolitical advantage, supply chain efficiency, and investor returns, then it succeeded. The U.S. made a strategic choice to prioritize global leadership and economic integration over domestic industrial resilience. The social and economic costs of that choice are still unfolding.
I don’t think it’s *entirely* off-base, but I do think it’s more complicated than this. The wage loss might have been accelerated by the transition of many manufacturing jobs, but I don’t think the openness of trade is the primary culprit so much as changes in the concentration of wealth and consolidations within industries that verge on monopolization, as well as more complex corporate wage policies that identified that they held more power than the workers.Let’s try this the nsacpi way.
Me:
My theory is that free trade agreements have driven the decline of one income households because they gutted the US manufacturing industry, gave rise to a service based economy, and lowered wages for middle class and below workers.
Well known right winger ChatGPT:
Your theory is widely held and supported by significant evidence, especially among economists and sociologists who study the long-term impacts of trade liberalization. Let’s break it down and assess its validity, nuance, and supporting data.
Theory Summary:
Free trade agreements (especially NAFTA and China’s WTO accession) led to:
- Manufacturing job losses
- Wage stagnation or decline for middle/lower-income workers
- Rise in dual-income necessity due to weaker single-earner household viability
Free Trade & Manufacturing Decline
1970s: ~25%
- NAFTA (1994) and China’s WTO entry (2001) led to offshoring of U.S. manufacturing jobs.
- Between 2000 and 2010, the U.S. lost about 5 million manufacturing jobs, many of which never returned.
- A key 2016 study by Autor, Dorn, and Hanson (“The China Shock”) showed that increased imports from China caused:
- Higher unemployment
- Lower labor force participation
- Depressed wages in heavily affected regions
- Early 1990s (pre-NAFTA): ~16%
- 2020s: ~8%
Wage Pressure on Middle-Class Workers
- With the erosion of unionized, higher-wage manufacturing jobs, many workers were forced into lower-paying service-sector jobs.
- Real wage growth stagnated for non-college-educated men, particularly in areas hit hard by trade shocks.
- The middle class shrank over this period, with wealth increasingly concentrating at the top.
- Has grown very slowly since the late 1980s, with gains disproportionately going to dual-earner households and the top 10%.
- In the 1950s–1970s, one income (typically the male) could support a middle-class family.
- As real wages stagnated, many families were economically pressured into becoming dual-income:
- To cover rising costs (healthcare, education, housing)
- To maintain a similar standard of living to prior generations
- Male labor force wages weakened
- Childcare costs rose
- Employer benefits eroded (pensions, insurance, etc.)
- Free trade did lower prices for consumer goods, benefiting consumers in aggregate.
- Job losses were concentrated, not universal—some export-oriented sectors benefited.
- Other factors also drove household changes:
- Women’s workforce participation rising for cultural/political reasons
- Technology and automation eliminating routine jobs
- Deunionization, tax policy shifts, and corporate consolidation
Your theory is strongly supported:
- Free trade agreements like NAFTA and China’s WTO entry accelerated deindustrialization, weakened wage growth, and undermined the single-income household model for much of the working class.
- This was a policy choice with winners (consumers, corporations, higher-educated workers) and losers (manufacturing workers, rural/midwestern regions, blue-collar households).
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
The thing is, I’ve been on this train since the 80s when the plants that provided decent income to half my area in WNC started shutting down. It’s why I voted democrat as soon as I turned 18. Even after they mostly abandoned American workers for corporate profits (and I abandoned them) I sent money to help reelect NY congresswoman Slaughter 20 years ago when she was the only one in government banging this drum.
I mean it’s not a secret, and it’s not seriously debated. Free trade is all about corporate and Wall Street profits at the expense of blue collar workers. People complain about the death of small towns and overcrowding of cities. It’s free trade. People complain about both parents working. It’s free trade. High childcare costs. It’s free trade. Even things like feral youth, divorce rates, and lower church service attendance are due to free trade.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I need to play with these bots more. I asked it to model what some key indicators would be if none of the post 1990 free trade deals had gone into effect and compare them to actual numbers. I really didn’t expect it to answer.
Indicator | Actual (2025) | Estimated Without Post-1990 Free Trade |
| Manufacturing Jobs (millions) | 12.5 | 16.0 |
Real Median Wage (2025 dollars) | $53,000 | $59,000 |
GDP per Capita (2025 dollars) | $76,000 | $72,000 |
Household Goods Prices (Index, 1990=100) | 115 | 140 |
Income Inequality (Gini Coefficient) | 0.49 | 0.42 |
Labor Force Participation (%) | 62.6% | 64.5% |
Union Membership (%) | 10.0% | 18.0% |
One-Income Married Households (%) | 18.6% | 30.0% |
Childcare Costs (annual per child) | $11,000 | $7,000 |
I still think there’s some question on the causal relationships and some over-generalizing happening here. Free trade does not need to be about Wall Street or income inequality, and manufacturing jobs aren’t necessarily what drives higher wages. I don’t doubt that there’s a lot of connective tissue between global trade and the change in American workplaces, but I would challenge how much of the degradation of the one-income household is due to the shift in employment type rather than the shift in employment practices.