Trump attacks unemployment in the USA promising to concentrate on getting Americans employed. This is a motherhood issue for the USA. It is an easy plank to insert in a political platform to get low cost, high-value votes. However, increasing employment in the USA requires not only the reduction of imports and access to imports but also the acceptance by the American consumer of the higher prices associated with buying domestically manufactured goods. No politician can make that claim.
The USA is one of the largest traders in the world. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/imports It has an approximate trade deficit of $41144.00 million. Any protectionist policy shift to keep jobs in the USA is likely to result in retaliation from other countries affected by the protectionist policy. There would have to be a net increase in jobs created in the shift to a sufficient extent to justify the consequences of the retaliation. Trade protectionism has proven to be a failing strategy. Although there may be positive results in the short term, it has turned out to be a bad decision in the long run. http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Trade-Protectionism.htm
A well-known example is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. By the time the tariff became law, it had become much more encompassing than originally drafted. Other countries retaliated such that it prolonged the adverse effects of the Great Depression. http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Trade-Protectionism.htm Not only have the measures taken to enhance employment had to result in more jobs, but the adverse consequences cannot be under-estimated. Will Americans pay more for the lifestyle to keep Americans employed at a fair living wage? Maybe, but they may not be able to tell whether goods were made wholly or substantially in the USA according to Consumer Reports. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/02/made-in-america/index.htm In June of 2016, Rasmussen polled 1000 adults (hardly representative of the US public) who supported the idea. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business. This statement is countered by statistics in more reliable and reasonable research. In an article written by Drew DeSilver writing for PEW Research where he states that “Americans are relatively unconcerned about the wide income gap between rich and poor”. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/07/5-facts-about-economic-inequality/. The accompanying statistics show a complete lack of social consciousness to the continuing job-related inequalities in the USA. American made goods are too expensive. An article by Catherine New in the Huffington Post highlights an effort by Mike Catherwood, the co-host on the radio advice show “Loveline” who has been trying to buy only American-made products in a personal study of one-year duration reported on his Domestic Journey blog. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/made-in-america-the-luxury-label-will-cost-you_n_1891127.html People are price conscious. Wages versus the cost of goods is a primary consideration. When push comes to shove, people might buy American but it is just too expensive. The US political system will delay or arrest a progression to employing Americans at a fair wage. The US Political System, being a two party system, is not designed to allow open-mindedness and fair play into the system This matter was reviewed by David Akadjian / Daily Kos http://www.alternet.org/economy/america-land-low-pay-numbers-will-surprise-you In a two party political system, politicians are two affected by groups of intense and highly financed corporate lobbyists. Politicians are always looking to the next election, for which they need financial support, so corporate support is their target. Business looks for greater profit, which is found not through competitive consumer pricing, but by many of the largest retailers reducing wages and benefits to their employees. Walmart pressures down wages and benefits for employees. Costco pays salaries 70% higher that Walmart through innovative methods of remuneration. Business profitability, especially in larger retailers, does not support or compliment higher priced goods or higher wages. The business wants the profit and will keep the excess. Donald Trump cannot succeed on his promise to increase US jobs without the participation of the US public in the purchase of domestically produced products at a higher price. It is not just about employment; it is also employment at a fair wage. Politicians should be accountable for their statements and be required to provide a fully considered policy, not a hip shoot, vote-getting baseless statement. I am reminded of a speech by Michael Douglas’s character in the movie, The American President when he criticizes the character ably played by Richard Dreyfus on appealing to people’s fears to gain election without having a solution for them. Substitute Donald Trump for Bob Rumson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zemrWBIc_hE Although Trump attacks unemployment in the USA, the political system, corporate business interests and the consumer, will be unwilling to support the changes in consumer pricing and spending sanction the payment of a living wage if it affects adversely their bottom line, their ability to buy or their quality of their lifestyle.http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/imports “>”>http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/imports
It has an approximate trade deficit of $41144.00 million.
Any protectionist policy shift to keep jobs in the USA is likely to result in retaliation from other countries affected by the protectionist policy. There would have to be a net increase in jobs created in the shift to a sufficient extent to justify the consequences of the retaliation. Trade protectionism has proven to be a failing strategy. Although there may be positive results in the short term, it has turned out to be a bad decision in the long run. http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Trade-Protectionism.htm
A well-known example is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. By the time the tariff became law, it had become much more encompassing than originally drafted. Other countries retaliated such that it prolonged the adverse effects of the Great Depression.
Not only have the measures taken to enhance employment had to result in more jobs, but the adverse consequences cannot be under-estimated.
Will Americans pay more for the lifestyle to keep Americans employed at a fair living wage? Maybe, but they may not be able to tell whether goods were made wholly or substantially in the USA according to Consumer Reports. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/02/made-in-america/index.htm
In June of 2016, Rasmussen polled 1000 adults (hardly representative of the US public) who supported the idea. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business. This statement is countered by statistics in more reliable and reasonable research. In an article written by Drew DeSilver writing for PEW Research where he states that “Americans are relatively unconcerned about the wide income gap between rich and poor”. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/07/5-facts-about-economic-inequality/. The accompanying statistics show a complete lack of social consciousness to the continuing job-related inequalities in the USA.

American made goods are too expensive. An article by Catherine New in the Huffington Post highlights an effort by Mike Catherwood, the co-host on the radio advice show “Loveline” who has been trying to buy only American-made products in a personal study of one-year duration reported on his Domestic Journey blog. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/made-in-america-the-luxury-label-will-cost-you_n_1891127.html
People are price conscious. Wages versus the cost of goods is a primary consideration. When push comes to shove, people might buy American but it is just too expensive.
The US political system will delay or arrest a progression to employing Americans at a fair wage. The US Political System, being a two party system, is not designed to allow open-mindedness and fair play into the system
This matter was reviewed by David Akadjian / Daily Kos http://www.alternet.org/economy/america-land-low-pay-numbers-will-surprise-you
In a two party political system, politicians are two affected by groups of intense and highly financed corporate lobbyists. Politicians are always looking to the next election, for which they need financial support, so corporate support is their target.
Business looks for greater profit, which is found not through competitive consumer pricing, but by many of the largest retailers reducing wages and benefits to their employees. Walmart pressures down wages and benefits for employees. Costco pays salaries 70% higher that Walmart through innovative methods of remuneration. Business profitability, especially in larger retailers, does not support or compliment higher priced goods or higher wages. The business wants the profit and will keep the excess.
Donald Trump cannot succeed on his promise to increase US jobs without the participation of the US public in the purchase of domestically produced products at a higher price. It is not just about employment; it is also employment at a fair wage. Politicians should be accountable for their statements and be required to provide a fully considered policy, not a hip shoot, vote-getting baseless statement. I am reminded of a speech by Michael Douglas’s character in the movie, The American President when he criticizes the character ably played by Richard Dreyfus on appealing to people’s fears to gain election without having a solution for them. Substitute Donald Trump for Bob Rumson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zemrWBIc_hE
Although Trump attacks unemployment in the USA, the political system, corporate business interests and the consumer, will be unwilling to support the changes in consumer pricing and spending sanction the payment of a living wage if it affects adversely their bottom line, their ability to buy or their quality of their lifestyle.

Today is July 15 2016. The trending news is disturbing. We can choose between the mass carnage in niece France, the death of a mother and daughter at the hands of the mother’s former partner or the shaming of an innocent woman by a narcissistic self and edge and indulgent self-righteous classless publicity seeker.
In order of priority, there’s no doubt that the senseless death of the people in Nice France has to be addressed. It is an example of how the person with a rage fueled set of distorted values and a complete disregard for human life can take a useful tool and turn it into a killing machine. The presence of possible explosives and firearms further enhances the heinousness of this individual’s determination to cause damage to innocent people.
The incident in Nice, France is virtually unpreventable. A lone individual, with tools that can cause massive death and destruction, would only be thwarted by luck. The fact that we have a name for the character of his objectives, “soft targets”, is indicative of the fact that we are all too aware of the vulnerability of a free thinking society to the acts of terror. It places the burden on us to be diligent, understand our surroundings and to prepare for an adverse event that could occur wherever we are. The act does not have to be deliberate nor does it have to be calculated. We just have to be able to react.
We send our thoughts to the families of the victims, to the first responders, and to those traumatized by the carnage.
Our family was saddened by the news of the Los of Taliyah Marsmen. Her death arising from a relationship between her mother and a former partner is repugnant. While the attacks on soft targets in Nice was no less than a terrorist act of the greatest magnitude, the unnecessary death of this five-year old who represented no threat is significantly troubling. Children are another form of soft target. They are so vuolnerable. Those of us who enter into social interactions have to think of our loved ones at the time that we get involved with others. It forces us to take stock of all or significant encounters socially, in business in friendships and in day-to-day life. We cannot ignore or be oblivious to the consequences of any relationship in any circumstance that we entertain. The presence of obvious signs of threat or a potential threat to what we hold dear has to be addressed.
In comparing the terrorist attack in Nice to the action of publicity seeker Deni Mathers, you have to wonder whether a comparison can be drawn between the terrorist in Nice and the conduct of Deni Mathers.
Both actions were designed for publicity, either to create publicity for a person or cause. In the case of the Nice terrorist, the cause will be determined. It will probably be linked to the proliferation of an ideology or an extreme religious belief that does not hold life sacred. In the case of Deni Mathers, the only thing that could have been intended by her social media publication is that she believes that she is better than anyone else.
Both behaviors have a significant, clinical, affected behavior taken to the extreme. Mathers went after a soft target. The person is not identified and is unlikely to be a body shape glamour seeker. Mathers represents a mindset that beauty is of greater value than the quality of the person. She does this publicly through testing the boarders of acceptable behavior, including parading nude, making controversial statements and breaking society-acceptable behavior.
The act of photographing a naked person in an area where there is an expectation of privacy has to be taken seriously. A photo-capable device used in areas where privacy is expected has to be a criminal offence. If the tables have been turned, you can bet that Mathers would’ve played up the situation to enhance her public image. There’s only one place where people like Mather’s matters can be sanctioned effectively, and that is in their pocketbook. It is up to corporate America, social networks, other publicity enterprises and the general public to make it not profitable ( and in fact a costly venture) for an individual to use publicly inappropriate methods to advance themselves financially. A criminal charge will result in an apology and a minimum sentence. The public simply has to avoid supporting any enterprises that would contract for Mather’s services so that she no longer becomes an asset to that enterprise.