2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Billy86

Cheap tat you don't need like (off the very top of my head)...

- Clothes
- Toothpaste
- Wallets
- Most of your kitchen
- Phones
- Computers

...and of course, that's just China.

An iPad is obviously a non-essential item, but for example while one costs apparently $500-$1,000 to buy now, if it were made entirely in the US it would cost around $14,970.

JPNelsforearm

No one is suggesting abandoning free trade entirely, what has to be weighed up is nation interest. Is the short term pursuit of profit alone at the expense of degrading the state and national insititutions that enabled the mental and technical know how to create said company in the first place, desirable for a states long term survival? No it isnt, ask why the US doesnt manufacture defence technology overseas or why they keep that area tied to the national interest and skilled jobs in the US, because its a long term plan, its viable long term thinking. Short term profit at the expense of everything else is detrimental to the nation state.

Billy86

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think that free trade is beneficial for most people. However, some people will lose out, namely those employed in manufacturing. It'd be a better idea to develop strategies for these people such as training programmes as opposed to abandoning free trade entirely.

And especially with how increasingly automated manufacturing is becoming anyway, it was a stance of both Trump and Sanders that didn't make a world of sense to me. To draw an anaology, if automation is a growing cancer to the employability(?) of people who work in manufacturing, then this is less putting a bandage over a bullet hole, and more a case of putting a bandage over a cancerous tumour.

Basically the truth is, the factory line worker is going the way of the switchboard operator, lamplighter and window tapper.

ancapailldorcha

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

No one is suggesting abandoning free trade entirely, what has to be weighed up is nation interest. Is the short term pursuit of profit alone at the expense of degrading the state and national insititutions that enabled the mental and technical know how to create said company in the first place, desirable for a states long term survival? No it isnt, ask why the US doesnt manufacture defence technology overseas or why they keep that area tied to the national interest and skilled jobs in the US, because its a long term plan, its viable long term thinking. Short term profit at the expense of everything else is detrimental to the nation state.

Not all commodities are alike. I suspect that defence technology is still very much based in the US is a combination of logistics, expertise and a reluctance to have China make your tanks and fighter planes.

Billy86 wrote: »

And especially with how increasingly automated manufacturing is becoming anyway, it was a stance of both Trump and Sanders that didn't make a world of sense to me. To draw an anaology, if automation is a growing cancer to the employability(?) of people who work in manufacturing, then this is less putting a bandage over a bullet hole, and more a case of putting a bandage over a cancerous tumour.

Basically the truth is, the factory line worker is going the way of the switchboard operator, lamplighter and window tapper.

I disagree. Many people could be enrolled on IT courses and the like to help them find new jobs. Obviously some people will slip through the cracks but automation and globalisation aren't going to halt for anyone.

Billy86

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

No one is suggesting abandoning free trade entirely, what has to be weighed up is nation interest. Is the short term pursuit of profit alone at the expense of degrading the state and national insititutions that enabled the mental and technical know how to create said company in the first place, desirable for a states long term survival? No it isnt, ask why the US doesnt manufacture defence technology overseas or why they keep that area tied to the national interest and skilled jobs in the US, because its a long term plan, its viable long term thinking. Short term profit at the expense of everything else is detrimental to the nation state.

The US can tax defensive technology and manufacturing, it's more than a little different than domestic electronics, kitchenware and clothing, so it would be a poor example. There is one other major problem to your point... 80% of all defense components are bought from foreign countries!

The simple truth is, if you return the manufacturing of these goods to the US, you increase the price of these goods. If you increase the price, people can afford less. If people can afford less, people get unhappy. EDIT TO ADD: Then they will just buy the cheaper versions made overseas by entirely foreign companies, thus doing far more harm as the US companies (including, but not nearly limited to their factory line workers) go bust.

But there is one other big problem with your post... The Defense Department recently revealed that an estimated 80 percent of all defense components are bought from foreign countries.

KingBrian2

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Globalisation is good for business, not a nation.

Globalisation has been good for some Nations. Ireland did it well when we negotiated our trade deals. We were open to deal with any nation. Former rivals, new partners, exotic far away lands. We expanded our horizons and comingled with very different cultures. It can be done to make your country a better place.

Billy86

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I disagree. Many people could be enrolled on IT courses and the like to help them find new jobs. Obviously some people will slip through the cracks but automation and globalisation aren't going to halt for anyone.

Oh no, that's my point entirely - the cancer analogy wasn't meant to be dismissive or negative, so much as to point out how much of a waste of time the huge effort of moving manufacturing back to the US would be. I fully agree that retraining and further education is an absolute must there, even while outsourcing, to avoid Detroit (or even Sheffield) types of situations popping up all over the place. That was what I was getting at with my last sentence - as you said, automation and globalisation will not stop, no matter what.

BoJack Horseman

Billy86 wrote: »

The Defense Department recently revealed that an estimated 80 percent of all defense components are bought from foreign countries.

I can't find a link for that, do you have it?

There are many systems that are foreign, but are produced in the US under license. (the most famous probably being that German 120mm cannon sticking out of the front of every Abrams).

KingBrian2

Hillary and Trump need to answer if they have any way to reform the stock market. The Stock Market needs to be better supervised and fit for purpose. A market place for the free exchange of goods and services with little gvt oversight.

Suryavarman

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Results of globalisation for the average Yank.

Gained
Cheap tat you dont need, and more cheap tat you dont need.

Lost
Stable respectable jobs, reasonable standard of living and being able to afford to pay off your mortgage send your kids to uni.

Globalisation is good for business, not a nation.

An IGM poll found that 95% of economists polled agreed or strongly agreed the gains to free trade outweighed the losses. The same percentage of economists said the average US Citizen was better of as a result of NAFTA. 5% of economists polled were unsure. So 0% of economists polled agree with your view that free trade/globalisation is bad for a nation.

BoJack Horseman

Suryavarman wrote: »

So 0% of economists polled agree with your view that free trade/globalisation is bad for a nation.

Good to know...

T'would be great if the EU would get moving....
This is what is in place as is.

Not much... could do with some more!

walshyn93

Black Swan wrote: »

Are 7 out of 10 women that view Trump as unfavourable in a national tracking poll from July to March "mostly young unmarried women?" Polls describe "Trump has a 70% unfavorable and 23% favorable image among women," and the unfavorable tracking poll has been increasing from 58% July 2015 to 70% unfavorable March 2016. Of all 5 candidates running for the Democratic or Republican nominations Trump has been the most unfavorable among American women.



"Women who are... smarter?" Review "How Donald Trump Answers A Question" using a simple 4th grade reading level (Flesch-Kincaid readability test), the lowest of all candidates running for president, Sanders being at the 10th grade level (highest of the 5 remaining candidates).

Certainly having a college/university degree does not guarantee that someone will be smarter, but "The single best predictor of Trump support in the GOP primary is the absence of a college degree."

You just wasted a lot of time nitpicking a word. I meant older women tend to be more wise than younger women. I don't think anyone would disagree with this.

Akrasia

The problem with free trade theory is that it tends to ignore the distribution of wealth

The basic theories about natural advantage, absolute advantage and comparative advantage focus on the overall pot of wealth being increased, but overall wealth is not as important as distribution of wealth.

It might be less 'efficient' to produce locally, but if the wealth generated by this economic activity remains in the local economy and enriches the participants in that economy, it is better than outsourcing the production to a lower cost of production, but those cost savings are fed into the profits of the international distributor rather than the workers who make the goods, or the consumers who purchase them

Lets say it costs €5 to make a widget in Ireland, but 1 euro to produce it in China and transport it to Ireland.

International trade theory says it is obvious that it should be produced in China and transported, but the competitive pricing of the final good means the distributor can sell it in Ireland for €4.50 so Irish consumers only save 10% and the distributor can keep the vast majority of the surplus as profit.

Ireland loses out by €4.50, China gains by €1 but the distributor gains by €3.50. is 'the world better off' because more wealth was generated? Not if that wealth is just funnelled into the pockets of an ultra wealthy elite while the ordinary people get less and less from each transaction.

Free trade theory says each place should focus on specialising on producing things for which it has a comparative advantage, but with global trade, there are plenty of places where the absolute advantage makes higher cost economies less competitive, so rather than free trade increasing wealth, it tends to drive down costs, and the costs it drives down, are wages, and standards of environmental and worker protection.

In modern international capitalism, the same corporations and their 'partners' can own all the stages of the distribution network and also own licences and patents so idealised' free market competition can be either difficult or impossible in the short term.

Free trade agreements need to allow local economies power to protect standards and impose restrictions on imports from markets where the same environmental and workers rights are not in place.

oscarBravo

I thought this was interesting.

Trump proposes to “mend” relations with China by standing up to them and forcing them to respect us as equals, after they have supplied unilateral concessions to us.

[...]

Trump does not identify any hostile Russian behavior that must change. This is telling since, having singled out China’s muscle-flexing in the South China Sea, he ignores Russia’s much more flagrant bullying of its neighbors, such as Ukraine, whose territory it has gobbled up. Instead he identifies “shared interests” with Russia — opposition to Islamic terrorism — and proposes to end “this horrible cycle of hostility.” Describing American-Russian relations as a cycle of hostility assigns the blame to both sides, rather than to Putin’s aggressiveness.

So Trump is signalling a clear turn in American policy, which under his administration would ramp up hostility toward China and wind down hostility toward Russia.

[...]

When asked about his embrace of a dictator who has murdered journalists, Trump replied last year, “It’s never been proven that he’s killed anybody. So, you know, you’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.”

Brian?

Billy86 wrote: »

And especially with how increasingly automated manufacturing is becoming anyway, it was a stance of both Trump and Sanders that didn't make a world of sense to me. To draw an anaology, if automation is a growing cancer to the employability(?) of people who work in manufacturing, then this is less putting a bandage over a bullet hole, and more a case of putting a bandage over a cancerous tumour.

Basically the truth is, the factory line worker is going the way of the switchboard operator, lamplighter and window tapper.

Disagree. Factories simply change. I work in a factory, but it's not what most people think of when they think of a factory. We move atoms around to make semi conductor devices. We have a factory in China, the corporation has given up on them ever keeping pace with what we do and spun them off into lower tech memory stuff.

Each iteration of the process becomes exponentially more difficult to control. When I started there were people being hired as operators with leaving certs. Not minimum entry is a L7 degree.

We're not alone. High tech manufacturing will never move wholesale to China, they can't do it.

JPNelsforearm

Suryavarman wrote: »

An IGM poll found that 95% of economists polled agreed or strongly agreed the gains to free trade outweighed the losses. The same percentage of economists said the average US Citizen was better of as a result of NAFTA. 5% of economists polled were unsure. So 0% of economists polled agree with your view that free trade/globalisation is bad for a nation.

A poll of economists... You could do a simple test and ask why now it takes two wages to keep a family afloat and to buy a house as opposed to one...

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

ancapailldorcha

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

A poll of economists... You could do a simple test and ask why now it takes two wages to keep a family afloat and to buy a house as opposed to one...

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Your link only proves stagnant wages, a claim a wide variety of outlets would back. Do you have anything to show that free trade is responsible?

Suryavarman

Akrasia wrote: »

The problem with free trade theory is that it tends to ignore the distribution of wealth

The basic theories about natural advantage, absolute advantage and comparative advantage focus on the overall pot of wealth being increased, but overall wealth is not as important as distribution of wealth.

It might be less 'efficient' to produce locally, but if the wealth generated by this economic activity remains in the local economy and enriches the participants in that economy, it is better than outsourcing the production to a lower cost of production, but those cost savings are fed into the profits of the international distributor rather than the workers who make the goods, or the consumers who purchase them

Lets say it costs €5 to make a widget in Ireland, but 1 euro to produce it in China and transport it to Ireland.

International trade theory says it is obvious that it should be produced in China and transported, but the competitive pricing of the final good means the distributor can sell it in Ireland for €4.50 so Irish consumers only save 10% and the distributor can keep the vast majority of the surplus as profit.

Ireland loses out by €4.50, China gains by €1 but the distributor gains by €3.50. is 'the world better off' because more wealth was generated? Not if that wealth is just funnelled into the pockets of an ultra wealthy elite while the ordinary people get less and less from each transaction.

Free trade theory says each place should focus on specialising on producing things for which it has a comparative advantage, but with global trade, there are plenty of places where the absolute advantage makes higher cost economies less competitive, so rather than free trade increasing wealth, it tends to drive down costs, and the costs it drives down, are wages, and standards of environmental and worker protection.

In modern international capitalism, the same corporations and their 'partners' can own all the stages of the distribution network and also own licences and patents so idealised' free market competition can be either difficult or impossible in the short term.

Free trade agreements need to allow local economies power to protect standards and impose restrictions on imports from markets where the same environmental and workers rights are not in place.

There's no such thing as "free trade theory".

Professional economists use things more advanced than the "basic theories" people learn in their first year of college.

Your scenario has no basis in reality. Do you have any proof that companies margins increase by the massive amount you claim when trade barriers decrease? Or do you have any proof that it costs 70% of the final cost of a good to transport it from China to Ireland?

Absolute advantage doesn't make anyone uncompetitive. You're using terms you don't understand. If China has an absolute advantage in producing cars and pharmaceuticals but can only produce one of them it will produce the good in which its absolute advantage. Ireland would then produce the other good because it has a comparative advantage in that good.

When countries reduce trade barriers some people lose out but most people gain. For instance, if the EU got rid of trade barriers to food farmers would lose out. Everybody else would gain from cheaper food. The worst off in society would end up gaining the most from society. The problem is that it is much easier to attribute the losses of the farmers to free trade than it is to attribute the gains of everyone else to free trade.

JPNelsforearm

Suryavarman wrote: »

When countries reduce trade barriers some people lose out but most people gain. For instance, if the EU got rid of trade barriers to food farmers would lose out. Everybody else would gain from cheaper food. The worst off in society would end up gaining the most from society. The problem is that it is much easier to attribute the losses of the farmers to free trade than it is to attribute the gains of everyone else to free trade.

Not necessarily, you tank your domestic food production capacity, which has rigid standards and employs a lot of people for what? Cheap rubbish from overseas with lower safety and quality standards. We already have a massive obesity problem from the Americanisation of our diet/lifestyle, increasing that, in addition to blowing the majority of our independent farmers out of existence is not sustainable long term, the costs outweigh the benefits of having marginally cheaper food.
Its better to pay more and keep your money in the country.

Christy42

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Not necessarily, you tank your domestic food production capacity, which has rigid standards and employs a lot of people for what? Cheap rubbish from overseas with lower safety and quality standards. We already have a massive obesity problem from the Americanisation of our diet/lifestyle, increasing that, in addition to blowing the majority of our independent farmers out of existence is not sustainable long term, the costs outweigh the benefits of having marginally cheaper food.
Its better to pay more and keep your money in the country.

We also can't get money from anywhere and everything stagnates.

JPNelsforearm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Your link only proves stagnant wages, a claim a wide variety of outlets would back. Do you have anything to show that free trade is responsible?

What would you say it is? It now takes a couple working, to essentially live in the same manner(minus all the trinkets and distractions) as a working man could do on the one paypacket.

Forget even manufacturing, look at tech jobs, supposedly the future "salvation of the middle class", all free trade has done is to cap wages in that sector, bringing in cheaper workers on visa's under the auspices of "free trade agreements", case in point, Disney tech support training their cheaper imported replacements and then being fired themselves.

ancapailldorcha

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

What would you say it is? It now takes a couple working, to essentially live in the same manner(minus all the trinkets and distractions) as a working man could do on the one paypacket.

Forget even manufacturing, look at tech jobs, supposedly the future "salvation of the middle class", all free trade has done is to cap wages in that sector, bringing in cheaper workers on visa's under the auspices of "free trade agreements", case in point, Disney tech support training their cheaper imported replacements and then being fired themselves.

I'm asking you to back up your claim that free trade has capped wages.

K-9

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Not necessarily, you tank your domestic food production capacity, which has rigid standards and employs a lot of people for what? Cheap rubbish from overseas with lower safety and quality standards. We already have a massive obesity problem from the Americanisation of our diet/lifestyle, increasing that, in addition to blowing the majority of our independent farmers out of existence is not sustainable long term, the costs outweigh the benefits of having marginally cheaper food.
Its better to pay more and keep your money in the country.

Things like corn subsidies play a part in US foods, obesity. AFAIK some farmers earn more from Government for growing things like corn than the actual selling price.

I do think free trade etc. needs highlighting, but let's not reduce it to soundbites, is Trump capable of that?

Problem is competition, stagnant incomes, pressure on family budgets etc.

Incomes are stagnant but it's hard on the US to compete with the Far East. Germany is thriving but wages are pretty stagnant there too.

I think Apple started to actually manufacture some of its products in America again, whether they can do that successfully in the long term, I don't know.

Suryavarman

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Not necessarily, you tank your domestic food production capacity, which has rigid standards and employs a lot of people for what? Cheap rubbish from overseas with lower safety and quality standards. We already have a massive obesity problem from the Americanisation of our diet/lifestyle, increasing that, in addition to blowing the majority of our independent farmers out of existence is not sustainable long term, the costs outweigh the benefits of having marginally cheaper food.
Its better to pay more and keep your money in the country.

According to this page from TCD tariffs on agricultural imports are around 18-28%. So even if you maintained all non tariff barriers for food, like quality standards, the price of food would drop by around 20% from having free trade. That's a lot more than a marginal decrease and would have a big impact on the pockets of the poorest in society.

JPNelsforearm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm asking you to back up your claim that free trade has capped wages.

Aside from the manufacturing losses and wage depression etc, I'll just stick to tech ,as its more modern and is supposedly the future job and wage growth for everyone, you cannot make all the usual arguments that those jobs would have been lost anyway as happens with most of these arguments..

In the US, those tech jobs have been undercut, H1B visas, which exist solely due to trade agreements. This is an example of wage stagnation within the last twenty years(that matches the broader trends of wage stagnation+free trade) directly due to "free trade".

Ron Hira, assistant professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, compiled the median wage in 2005 for new H-1B information technology (IT), these wages were found to $50,000, lower than starting wages for IT graduates with a B.S. degree. The U.S. government OES office's data indicates that 90% of H-1B IT wages were below the median U.S. wage and 62% in the 25th percentile for the same occupation.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160420192528/http://www.informationweek.com/to-h-1b-or-not-to-h-1b/d/d-id/1056918?page_number=3

Applications for 47 percent of H-1B computer programming workers were for wages below even the prevailing wage claimed by their employers.
Very few H-1B workers earned high wages by U.S. standards. Applications for only 4 percent of H-1B workers were among the top 25 percent of wages for U.S. workers in the same state and occupation.

http://cis.org/LowSalariesforLowSkills-H1B
http://cis.org/PayScale-H1BWages

JPNelsforearm

Suryavarman wrote: »

According to this page from TCD tariffs on agricultural imports are around 18-28%. So even if you maintained all non tariff barriers for food, like quality standards, the price of food would drop by around 20% from having free trade. That's a lot more than a marginal decrease and would have a big impact on the pockets of the poorest in society.

I would say its better to use our own land capacity and keep indigenous food production alive, than to have 20% lower food costs. In addition to keeping all profits and spend within the home economy. The knock on effects are not worth it.

How do you maintain quality standards btw? As we have seen with the horsemeat, glucose for honey, BSE, foot and mouth etc etc scandals, its very hard to maintain food standards within ones own border, and we are supposed to entrust it to a foreign, profit motivated conglomerate, I cant see it working out.

Farming should be promoted as a way of life, its a valuable job, it makes no sense beyond the bottom line to turn it into an overseas factory operation.

Suryavarman

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Aside from the manufacturing losses and wage depression etc, I'll just stick to tech ,as its more modern and is supposedly the future job and wage growth for everyone, you cannot make all the usual arguments that those jobs would have been lost anyway as happens with most of these arguments..

In the US, those tech jobs have been undercut, H1B visas, which exist solely due to trade agreements. This is an example of wage stagnation within the last twenty years(that matches the broader trends of wage stagnation+free trade) directly due to "free trade".

Ron Hira, assistant professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, compiled the median wage in 2005 for new H-1B information technology (IT), these wages were found to $50,000, lower than starting wages for IT graduates with a B.S. degree. The U.S. government OES office's data indicates that 90% of H-1B IT wages were below the median U.S. wage and 62% in the 25th percentile for the same occupation.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160420192528/http://www.informationweek.com/to-h-1b-or-not-to-h-1b/d/d-id/1056918?page_number=3

Applications for 47 percent of H-1B computer programming workers were for wages below even the prevailing wage claimed by their employers.
Very few H-1B workers earned high wages by U.S. standards. Applications for only 4 percent of H-1B workers were among the top 25 percent of wages for U.S. workers in the same state and occupation.

http://cis.org/LowSalariesforLowSkills-H1B
http://cis.org/PayScale-H1BWages

That just discusses the wages of immigrants. That says nothing about the impact of free trade on wages or even the impact of immigration on the wages of natives.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I would say its better to use our own land capacity and keep indigenous food production alive, than to have 20% lower food costs. In addition to keeping all profits and spend within the home economy. The knock on effects are not worth it.

How do you maintain quality standards btw? As we have seen with the horsemeat, glucose for honey, BSE, foot and mouth etc etc scandals, its very hard to maintain food standards within ones own border, and we are supposed to entrust it to a foreign, profit motivated conglomerate, I cant see it working out.

Farming should be promoted as a way of life, its a valuable job, it makes no sense beyond the bottom line to turn it into an overseas factory operation.

Do you have any research to back up the claim in the first paragraph?

You maintain quality standards by maintaining the regulations. If the food doesn't meet the standards it isn't allowed in. Alternatively you could leave the low quality food compete with the high quality European food. Then people can have the choice between higher quality food or lower prices.

Why should poor people have to pay to maintain an uncompetitive sector of the economy?

JPNelsforearm

Suryavarman wrote: »

That just discusses the wages of immigrants. That says nothing about the impact of free trade on wages or even the impact of immigration on the wages of natives.

They are being recruited and hired(on vias that came into existence due to free trade) at lower salaries than the native workers. you can put 1 and 1 together and get the answer. Basic economics.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2868428/new-h-1b-bill-will-help-destroy-us-tech-workforce.html

Do you have any research to back up the claim in the first paragraph?

You maintain quality standards by maintaining the regulations. If the food doesn't meet the standards it isn't allowed in. Alternatively you could leave the low quality food compete with the high quality European food. Then people can have the choice between higher quality food or lower prices.

Why should poor people have to pay to maintain an uncompetitive sector of the economy?

http://www.askaboutireland.ie/enfo/sustainable-living/farming-in-ireland-overvi/
The agri-food sector is one of Ireland's most important indigenous manufacturing sectors, accounting for employment of around 150,000 people. It includes approximately 600 food and drinks firms throughout the country that export 85% of our food and seafood to more than 160 countries worldwide. Research has shown that Ireland’s investment in agriculture produces a far bigger return than investment in other sectors. That is because agriculture sources 71% of raw materials and services from Irish suppliers, compared to 44% for all manufacturing companies.

Data from the Central Statistics Office (CSO) indicates that the agri-food sector (including agriculture, food, drinks and tobacco) accounts for around 7% of GDP with primary agriculture accounting for around 2.5% of GDP.

So you test all food coming into the country. Logistically impossible.

"uncompetitive", loaded term, not competitive with what, third world subsistence cash crop farming? Of course not, but you are talking about knocking knocking say, 30 cent off of the price of a bag of carrots. There is not that level of food poverty in Ireland, and if there is, exporting our farming base(and all the tax and spend in country) overseas is not the answer. That paper you linked doesnt measure the true cost. You dont create a country based on getting **** as cheaply as possible.

walshyn93

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm asking you to back up your claim that free trade has capped wages.

Not that I think free trade is necessarily responsible, but can you explain why wages have stagnated?

K-9

walshyn93 wrote: »

Not that I think free trade is necessarily responsible, but can you explain why wages have stagnated?

Corporates are under pressure to keep costs low and wages tends to be the easiest thing cut, either numbers or pay levels. Companies are making massive profits but it tends to go on dividends to shareholders. Great if you are an employee with a share scheme, not so great otherwise.

Not the sole reason either, but another important factor.