frame

Will Trump Increase American Jobs?

Opening Argument

do you think that Trump will increase American jobs?
DebateIsland
  1. ?

    16 votes
    1. Yes
      87.50%
    2. No
      12.50%
«1

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • I believe that he will. He is currently doing many projects that require jobs such as the wall on the souther border of the USA.
  • Yes, he has many projects that may.
  • Yes, Donald Trump is planning on building a wall on the US's southern border. This will require labor/jobs. Tocik17 said yesterday, that illegal immigrants can work on that. I disagree with that statement. I think that American workers should be completing that project due to an increase of american jobs.
  • Yes, Donald Trump is trying to keep companies and jobs inside the United States not outsourcing them to countries such as India, China and more.
  • I am hopeful that net impact to American jobs will be positive, but there are many competing variables:

    positive:
    -developing local manufacturing and other insourcing capabilities.
    -rural insourcing trend
    -trade war extra exports wins

    negative:
    -potential higher cost of goods result in higher consumer prices and lower consumer demand
    -trade wars backlash
    -returned jobs never return, but get automated with robotics and cognitive computing
    -the wall is build with tocik17 idea of illigal immigrants 

    Live Long and Prosper
  • I believe that he will increase American jobs.
  • I believe that he will increase jobs.
  • I think that he will with many new projects and keeping companies in the US.
  • I guess we have a good indication;

    "Private sector employment grew by nearly 300,000 last month, according to payroll giant ADP, in another strong sign for the economy.

    The private sector added 298,000 jobs in February, including 104,000 at small businesses. That total included 51,000 jobs at small businesses with between one and 19 employees, and 53,000 at small businesses with between 20 and 49 employees. Medium-size companies with between 50 and 499 employees added 122,000 jobs in February. Large companies added 72,000 jobs, including 28,000 at businesses with between 500 and 999 employees and 43,000 jobs at businesses with 1,000 employees or more.

    ...

    “It was a blowout number, close to 300K,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, which compiles the monthly national employment with ADP. “That’s three times the rate of monthly job growth necessary to absorb the growth in the working age population. That means any slack that is still remaining in the labor market is rapidly being absorbed. We’re going from a labor market that a few years ago was plagued by unemployment and underemployment, and you can characterize it as being at full employment. If the trend lines continue and we continue to create jobs at this pace, then the economy and the labor market will be very, very tight.”

    He noted that job growth was broad based and there has even been some growth in the mining and energy sector, which had lost jobs in recent years because of the decline in oil prices. “We saw a pretty significant downdraft in that sector for a substantive period, but that now appears to be over,” said Zandi."

    https://www.accountingtoday.com/news/adp-finds-private-sector-added-298-000-jobs-in-february

  • @CYDdharta , this report from WashingtonPost clearly articulates specifics how these jobs were created due to external factors to Trump.  I realize that Trump would want to take credit for this positive development, but that's not substantiated.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/03/10/trump-keeps-claiming-hes-created-u-s-jobs-since-election-day-not-so/?utm_term=.bab92a53d9da
    WhyTrump - a good question
  • @WhyTrump I can't read you article as it's behind a pay-wall.  That said, I doubt we'd be seeing as much improvement if Hillary had won and kept Obama's policies.
  • essentially, the article lists very specific companies and fact-based analysis for each one how many jobs they contributed to this growth and documentaion that they announced these plans prior to 2017.  It argues that it is unfair for Trump to take credit for this job growth. The companies include many large names and is fairly detailed.  
    I think that we can agree that he helped the stock market so far, because it is up since election, but job growth so far is not fair to atteibute to Trump.
    WhyTrump - a good question
  • I dont think it will result in more jobs and I agree with @WhyTrump that Trumo should not seek PR credit for pre-election actions.  Trump's policies will result in higher cost of goods since "made in America" is more expensive than offshoring.  That in turn will lower USA consumer spending power.  Additonally many of the "jobs" Trump is lookimg to bring back will be automated with advances in technology and will not result in more American jobs.

    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • dondon 2 Pts
    Yes, did you have a chance to check out the February job report, he increased jobs drastically.
  • @ale5 I disagree that making goods, especially high tech products, can't be made economically in the US.  Japan and Germany have the world's 3rd and 4th largest economies respectively.  They are both manufacturing juggernauts, and they are far from paying slave wages.  There is no reason to believe US manufacturing couldn't follow suit.  Additionally, we have a strategic interest in being able to manufacture the weapons systems and their replacement parts inside the US.  It is really senseless and shortsighted to have a huge number of the components that our equipment relies on manufactured in China, a potentially hostile country.  Maybe it won't be as many jobs as Willow Run added during WWII, but it can still be a significant number of very well-paying jobs.
  • @CYDdharta , I agree that having capability to manufacter goods cost effectively in the US at scale is a great competitve advantage.  That is why China subsidized their export industry by keeping their exchange rate fixed and artifically lowered costs of their exports.  The fact is however, it takes a large strategic investment and time to get from where we are to the target end state.  Shifting that trade  balance may take over 10 years or more.  We are too dependent economically and politically om many others, so it will literraly take a trade war and maybe trillions of dollars to get there.  
    Not sure if everyone recognizes that level of investment and this timeline will exceed Trump's presendial tenure.

    additionally, we need to recognize that the types of jobs we are looking to insource will be high tech.  There is a drastic shortage of that talent, and we need to rely on immigrants and visa holders.  trump is cracking down on all of that, so we will just have to rely more on a sub-par tech talent locally at higher prices (supply and demand microeconomics).
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • @ale5 Please understand the difference between consumer goods and strategic components.  There is a difference between the goods you can buy at Walmart and the components that make up our military's high tech weapons systems.  We need to have the capability to produce the strategic components of our high tech weapons systems inside the US.  This is a pressing military requirement.  We can't depend on China selling us components if we are involved in hostilities against them.

    I don't agree that we have any shortage of acceptable high tech workers.  I believe this is a ruse that tech firms have used to justify the flow of immigrants that will work very much in-demand jobs for substantially less than US workers. 
  • @CYDdharta , a few points.
    1) I agree that we should develop strategic capabilities for certain very specific core competencies. That will take time and money, and may result in higher prices.  Ultimately that part may result in a few more high skilled jobs domestically, but if prices ate higher then it may get offset by lower product demand and therefore less overall jobs due to lower consumers buying power.
    2) walmart stuff should continue to be outsourced.  Looks like you agree as well.
    3) high skilled tech talent required for next generation of technology definitely has a shortage domestically and predicted to deeoen the gap.  I am not referring to generic computer programmers hired out of school. there is tremendous competition for these type of resources. Thats why many companies open up development and R&D centers all over the world. It's a talent war play, not a cost saving play as a primary motivator.
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • Yes, check out the new February job report.
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • @joecavalry , please see my comments above and link to the Washington Post article.  While February job report was great, it is unfair to give Trump credit for these increases since the actions were announced in 2016 by many companies resukting in that growth. The article provides the specifics for each company.


    For example, in 2013, Foxconn announced it would create 500 jobs at a new high-tech factory in central Pennsylvania. The factory was never built, and the jobs never came. Yet the company recently announced a plan to invest $7 billion and hire up to 50,000 workers — a plan that Trump then touted.

    We took a look at ExxonMobil’s investment program, and a host of other corporate decisions that Trump falsely touts as a fulfillment of his promise to bring jobs back to the United States. We’ll keep a running tally, and update the list as necessary.

    There are numerous examples in the report

    WhyTrump - a good question
  • @ale5 1) Investment in next-generation weapons systems are often the basis for future consumer products that have benefited the economy tremendously.  The internet, cellular communications, inexpensive semi-conductor manufacturing techniques, etc. all have their origins in defense projects.  Commercial markets have adopted and adapted these developments for their own ends.  You must admit this has been a boon to our economy.

    3) I disagree entirely that there is a shortage of talent.  If there is any shortage, it is created by tech firms unwilling to pay what the position is worth.  Consider the following findings;

    "
    • The flow of U.S. students (citizens and permanent residents) into STEM fields has been strong over the past decade, and the number of U.S. graduates with STEM majors appears to be responsive to changes in employment levels and wages.
    • For every two students that U.S. colleges graduate with STEM degrees, only one is hired into a STEM job.
    • In computer and information science and in engineering, U.S. colleges graduate 50 percent more students than are hired into those fields each year; of the computer science graduates not entering the IT workforce, 32 percent say it is because IT jobs are unavailable, and 53 percent say they found better job opportunities outside of IT occupations. These responses suggest that the supply of graduates is substantially larger than the demand for them in industry.

    • The flow of guestworkers has increased over the past decade and continues to rise (the rate of increase dropped briefly with the economic collapse of 2008, but the flow of guestworkers has since continued its rapid upward pace).
    • The annual inflows of guestworkers amount to one-third to one-half the number of all new IT job holders."
    http://www.epi.org/publication/bp359-guestworkers-high-skill-labor-market-analysis/

    The tech shortage is a myth perpetuated by big business to increase the flow of cheap foreign labor.  See also;

    The Myth of America's Tech Talent Shortage
    The Myth of the Tech Talent Shortage

  • That's such a great point by @CYDdharta . I do believe that Trump is increasing American jobs and keeping many jobs in this country.
  • @CYDdharta , agreed on points 1 And 2. Regarding shortage of technology talent, there are two views.
    a) I agree that number of college graduates in STEM is available to enter the workforce and that is an important part of the talent strategy for those who are looking to hire at scale.  More and more large enterprises invest in development centers across the country. Even major Indian outsourcing firms all have a strategy of building out domestically and relying less on Indian talent.  That includes deep campus recruiting.
    your provided articles make sense, and they deal mostly with campus recruitment.
    B) while college-based talent pool is good, many of the specific niche skills require experienced hires.  That goes by laws of supply and demand.  If you cut the supply to limit visa holders, the already high prices go even higher. The extra cost is passed alomg to consumers as companies are often not willing to reduce their profit margins.

    http://www.cio.com/article/3068595/leadership-management/it-talent-gap-an-existential-threat-in-need-of-new-tactics.html



    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • @ale5 and @CYDdharta , you both make very good points.
    - for technology and other strategic capabilities it is important to develop made in America capabilites.  Continued outsourcing to China and India is a a shortaighted approach.  I do agree with ale5 that it. Ay cause spikes in prices due supply and demand, but longer term it will balance out and will result in a better US economy with more higher-paying american jobs.
    - leveraging college grads is important, and there is a large available talent pool
    -there is reality of scarce talent for many specialized skills.  People with these skills will likely benefit due to visa restrictions and limiting foreign competion.  However, that is an opporunity to further leverage STEM grads and retrain workforce to even out the supply.

    overall, I believe Trump will create more high-skilled American jobs, and it maybe a rocky road to get there.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • @ale5 There is a need to attract the "best and brightest" for around the world, but they are granted EB visas. There are probably a little less than 100,000 EB visa-holders in the US.  That doesn't explain the 650,000 H1B visa-holders whose requirements are no more than a bachelor's degree from a diploma mill.  It certainly doesn't explain tech companies clamoring for even more H1B visas.  This argument is way overblown and is being used as an excuse by companies to maximize profits at the expense of American workers.


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch