Guarantee all Americans an income

I am not sure why anyone believes that any legislation to impose tariffs would ever make it through congress, the senate, or the president. The same people that pushed for NAFTA, TPP, and any other free-trade agreements have already laid the groundwork so that should the populace finally wake up, it will be far too late to do anything. In other words, the people that own our elected officials will continue to own whoever gets elected in the future. Should the American populace decide that this whole globalization thing is bad and elect representatives who say they will do something, these lobbyists will either shut down the legislation before it becomes law, or just pick up their toys and leave the country. Companies are doing it now, and it's only about some 20% tax difference on corporate profits. Do you really think that any company would stand for being told where they have to manufacture for very long before they decide to go somewhere else?

Jon said:

no I was simply saying that discounting a potential solution based on pure black/white ideology is a bad idea and used what I see coming to illustrate why

Click to expand...

On that point, we are in agreement. I do not like to reject policy options out of hand.
That said, I do not see how a guaranteed income would work in the US. I believe "money for nothing" has a corrosive effect on human nature. If you can get stuff for free, why bother working? And living off money you know was taken from your neighbors has to eat at the recipient's conscience, or worse, the recipient has no conscience at all.
Plus, we have overspent to the tune of $16 trillion, so the US cannot afford it anyway, even if it was a good policy.

Let me address your point on mechanization. When I lived in Egypt, I learned that they have lots of Egyptians. Lots. The Cairo metro system was built by a French company on the same system used in the Paris metro. In France, with a dwindling population, they have machines dispense metro tickets. In Cairo, a human does it. The technology is there to mechanize the process, but the supply of labor drops the price of labor so far that it is cheaper (and socially more stabilizing) to have a person do it. I think as the mechanization/computerization process you write about continues, the same dynamic will occur here (just not to that extreme, maybe).
So, how do we keep labor relatively scarce in the US? By being a LOT more stringent as to whom we allow into the US. A LOT more stringent. We need to ask prospective immigrants what they bring to the table, how their admission will make the US a better place. If they don't bring any skills we need, then sorry, not interested. Try someplace else.

chanson78 said:

I am not sure why anyone believes that any legislation to impose tariffs would ever make it through congress, the senate, or the president. The same people that pushed for NAFTA, TPP, and any other free-trade agreements have already laid the groundwork so that should the populace finally wake up, it will be far too late to do anything. In other words, the people that own our elected officials will continue to own whoever gets elected in the future. Should the American populace decide that this whole globalization thing is bad and elect representatives who say they will do something, these lobbyists will either shut down the legislation before it becomes law, or just pick up their toys and leave the country. Companies are doing it now, and it's only about some 20% tax difference on corporate profits. Do you really think that any company would stand for being told where they have to manufacture for very long before they decide to go somewhere else?

Click to expand...

Not advocating increasing tariffs, but the US does have one really desirable thing: 300 million consumers. If the US were to change direction of free trade, companies that "picked up and moved elsewhere" would be placing a tariff barrier between their products and 300 million consumers.
And that ain't nothing.
Companies pick and move now because they can find cheaper labor overseas and there will be no tariff barrier between their new overseas plant and those 300 million consumers.

Tide1986 said:

Ironically I just saw this movie for the first time less than a week ago. I agree with you on what society would likely be like with extreme globalization, free trade, and open borders; but I think the writers of the movie might say their intended message is quite different.

Click to expand...

I believe you are correct. The filmakers were probably not trying to make that point, but that is what I got from the film.

Tide1986 said:

Ironically I just saw this movie for the first time less than a week ago. I agree with you on what society would likely be like with extreme globalization, free trade, and open borders; but I think the writers of the movie might say their intended message is quite different.

Click to expand...

No, I think the writers' intent was pretty clear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film)

The film itself offers deliberate social commentary which explores political and sociological themes such as immigration, overpopulation, health care, worker exploitation, the justice system, and social class issues.[6]

Click to expand...

Tidewater said:

Not advocating increasing tariffs, but the US does have one really desirable thing: 300 million consumers. If the US were to change direction of free trade, companies that "picked up and moved elsewhere" would be placing a tariff barrier between their products and 300 million consumers.
And that ain't nothing.
Companies pick and move now because they can find cheaper labor overseas and there will be no tariff barrier between their new overseas plant and those 300 million consumers.

Click to expand...

Bingo.Access to our market is what everyone still wants and needs. Sure companies see a potential huge market in China and other places, but access and capitalizing on the potential still remains problematic.

As for the automation arguments, as someone who does some work in the field, the Egyptian transit system is a good example. There are plenty of companies/systems moving back and forth. Automation still requires maintenance, security, and is dependent on system live cycle costs. I have made some of the same arguments Jon is making (especially when discussing minimum wages). When it is necessary to make the profit desired, companies will automate where they can, and implementing some of these social programs can have the effect of inducing that behavior. However IMO there is a critical mass where too much of it results in no customers (no jobs = no money = no customers) for the products. I think we may be getting into a time period where those theoretical limits are tested more then ever before.

Displaced Bama Fan said:

No, I think the writers' intent was pretty clear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film)

Click to expand...

I don't think the writers intended to convey that globalization, free trade, and open borders have negative implications. That was the scope of my reply to Tidewater.