Rare earth metal prices explode, may lead to increased prices for electronics

gamerk2

Posts: 601   +525
Oh I know how much people are willing to endure. The thing is, never before has the average person been so financially assaulted from so many vectors at the same time as they are today, especially in the USA (which makes me glad I'm Canadian).

The average American is facing rising costs for electricity, healthcare, automobiles, insurance and now there's a housing crisis to boot. If the cost of tech keeps going up as well, millions will be forced to prioritise things other than tech and the tech industry will contract because there will be far fewer people able to buy it.
All of which are solvable; other countries have long since figured out how to keep costs for these services under control, yet one political party refuses because "Capitalism", even as costs to consumers continues to rise beyond their ability to pay for them.

As for housing, it's an expected consequence of economic growth. More high paying jobs = higher cost of housing. Basic Supply/Demand, especially since you can't easily expand demand in many of the regions where this growth is occurring. Only real way to address this would be to mandate some housing be set aside for lower income residents, undercutting the market somewhat. [Note: I would spread this out to prevent creating localized slums, a mistake many cities have made over the years]
 

gamerk2

Posts: 601   +525
If it's more profitable to make something on the side of the planet than next door there is something seriously wrong with your own market.
Not really? Manufacturing has *always* been done where costs are lowest. And not because companies can't afford to, but because they can make an even larger profit somewhere else.

You can't have it both ways: A high standard of living is going to result in low-skilled jobs moving where costs are lower. Pretty much that simple. If you want to compete with China (and other SE Asian countries), you'll need workers willing to work for at most $1/hour with no benefits. Even if you could legally offer such, there are enough jobs out there where there would be *very* few takers.

And I note the US can directly address outsourcing whenever they want; just implement a "reimport tax" for all goods made by American companies that are imported from elsewhere. This prevents a mutually destructive trade war as it only targets companies that outsource in order to enhance profits, only punishes those companies that outsource to re-import, and turns a profit for the federal government on the side.

...Oh wait, that might hurt stock prices. Never mind then.

EDIT

Forgot to mention, the entire concept of "you have to physically produce things to grow an economy" is ***-backwards economic thinking. Creating jobs that have no purpose but to keep people employed but not having enough money to participate in the economy contributes nothing to the economy.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,800   +2,155
TechSpot Elite
Priced dropped under Trump due largely due to the pandemic. OPEC lowered production in order to jack up prices, and now that people are driving again the supply shortage is driving price increase.
Yep, the cost of fuel is a result of world market pressure and the reduced cost when Trump was president was a result of Saudi Arabia having an oil pricing dispute with Russia. Some people just don't get that not everything in this world is about the United States of America.
Anyone who thinks which party controls the Presidency has any effect on oil prices really doesn't understand how those prices get set. Case in point: Oil production EXPLODED under Obama, yet you blame him for rising gas prices.
Agreed. It had absolutely nothing to do with who was president of the USA at that time. Anyone who says otherwise is an ignorant political hack.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,800   +2,155
TechSpot Elite
All of which are solvable; other countries have long since figured out how to keep costs for these services under control, yet one political party refuses because "Capitalism", even as costs to consumers continues to rise beyond their ability to pay for them.
Actually, in the USA, both political parties are like that.
As for housing, it's an expected consequence of economic growth. More high paying jobs = higher cost of housing. Basic Supply/Demand, especially since you can't easily expand demand in many of the regions where this growth is occurring. Only real way to address this would be to mandate some housing be set aside for lower income residents, undercutting the market somewhat. [Note: I would spread this out to prevent creating localized slums, a mistake many cities have made over the years]
Actually no. The housing crisis is a result of investment corporations having purchased single-family homes to use as rental units. As a result, the cost of houses in the USA has become astronomical due to scarcity and also due to the fact that these corporations will outbid anyone.

This actually has its roots in 2008 when these corporations bought up all of the Freddie Mack / Fannie Mae foreclosures and turned them into "investment properties" (a fancy way of saying "rentals"). There is a pattern here of economic catastrophes being VERY profitable for the wealthiest 1% in the USA. If things don't change, the USA as we know it now will not live to see 2030. It would appear that the rich didn't pay attention in history class when they were taught about the fate of Louis XVI.
 
Last edited:

eforce

Posts: 465   +585
Not really? Manufacturing has *always* been done where costs are lowest. And not because companies can't afford to, but because they can make an even larger profit somewhere else.

You can't have it both ways: A high standard of living is going to result in low-skilled jobs moving where costs are lower. Pretty much that simple. If you want to compete with China (and other SE Asian countries), you'll need workers willing to work for at most $1/hour with no benefits. Even if you could legally offer such, there are enough jobs out there where there would be *very* few takers.

And I note the US can directly address outsourcing whenever they want; just implement a "reimport tax" for all goods made by American companies that are imported from elsewhere. This prevents a mutually destructive trade war as it only targets companies that outsource in order to enhance profits, only punishes those companies that outsource to re-import, and turns a profit for the federal government on the side.

...Oh wait, that might hurt stock prices. Never mind then.

EDIT

Forgot to mention, the entire concept of "you have to physically produce things to grow an economy" is ***-backwards economic thinking. Creating jobs that have no purpose but to keep people employed but not having enough money to participate in the economy contributes nothing to the economy.
It appears backwards because people have gotten used to living off fiat for the past 50 years rather than hard work, but the party will end eventually and the purchasing power of the USD in particular will plummet.
 

TheRealSCDC

Posts: 15   +31
You mean when prices rose relative to the end of Obama's second term in office?


2013: $3.584/Gal
2014: $3.425/Gal
2015: $2.510/Gal [Start of Shale Oil boom]
2016: $2.204/Gal
2017: $2.469/Gal
2018: $2.794/Gal
2019: $2.698/Gal
2020: $2.242/Gal [Start of Pandemic]

And as per usual, gas prices were basically flat when adjusted for inflation.

Gotta love it when people don't even look at the data before making an argument.

Let alone killing the pipeline right after getting into office. The left just doesn't get it. Doesn't get a lot of things. You have to show an ID to buy or do so many things, but they don't want people to have to show a legal ID to vote for the leaders of our country?

That alone shows a huge problem with logic.
 

gamerk2

Posts: 601   +525
Actually, in the USA, both political parties are like that.

Actually no. The housing crisis is a result of investment corporations having purchased single-family homes to use as rental units. As a result, the cost of houses in the USA has become astronomical due to scarcity and also due to the fact that these corporations will outbid anyone.
In some places? Yes. But it's also driven by growth in cities like Seattle where large corporations are giving 6 figure salaries to people straight out of college.
 

gamerk2

Posts: 601   +525
Let alone killing the pipeline right after getting into office. The left just doesn't get it. Doesn't get a lot of things. You have to show an ID to buy or do so many things, but they don't want people to have to show a legal ID to vote for the leaders of our country?

That alone shows a huge problem with logic.
Not really.

First off, the right to vote is Constitutionally protected and thus such ID laws have a MUCH higher burden to prove they are both non-discriminatory and does not place an undue burden on the voter. Most other acts that require a voter ID are *not* Constitutionally protected and thus do not have the same burden.

Secondly, note the specific restrictions many states are putting on which Voter IDs are accepted. In almost every case, Federal ID cards are rejected in favor of alternatives that voters either are not guaranteed to have (Drivers License, etc.) or require some sort of fee to obtain (which I hold is an implicit poll tax and thus unconstitutional). This shows the intent of these laws isn't to have voter identification for the purposes of voter identification, but instead an attempt to limit participation by groups (specifically the poor and minorities) that trend democratic.

Of course, if the Federal Government decided to issue a voter ID card to every citizen and mandated they be accepted by the states as proof of identification, the same people pushing voter ID laws would lose their **** over "government interference" and "deep state something or other".
 

gamerk2

Posts: 601   +525
It appears backwards because people have gotten used to living off fiat for the past 50 years rather than hard work, but the party will end eventually and the purchasing power of the USD in particular will plummet.
Why? Explain to me how exactly a dollar earned through something like a Software Engineering job is any less valuable then a dollar earned through some manufacturing job?

So long as people are making money off their work, and so long as money flows to purchase goods and services, I fail to see what the problem is.

But to you, for "reasons" you can't even explain, it isn't about "jobs", it's about "specific jobs", ignoring the fact that the basic laws of Capitalism you hold deer mandate those jobs be shipped elsewhere. You ignore any proposals (like the one I gave above) to address the specific case of outsourcing that is most damaging, while waving your arms around asking someone to do something, anything, regardless of how damaging it is to the greater economy.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 17,408   +6,143
You can thank Biden and the Left for all this.
No, you can thank all the imbeciles in the world who absolutely have to have three of every new "device" that comes down the pike.

1: Thank the gamers who are so obsessed they'e willing to pay double or more MSRP, just so they can run the latest titles.
2: thank the scalpers who got the ball rolling in that regard..
3: thank the doucjhes who feel the need to pay Apple or Samsung a $1,000 plus dollars for a damn cell phone.
4: Thank the American consumer, who's greed is such that they'll never be satisfied with the devices they already have.

Are people so oblivious to reality, they think manufactures and material suppliers aren't paying close attention to the scalping trend, and after building chip fabs worth billions of dollars, they want their share of the spendthrift's pie, while simultaneously taking money out of scalpers' mouths?

I mean after all, what Biden did is manage to pass stimulus legislation to try and help people through the lock down. Those that weren't affected by loss of income, can piss that money away however their heart's desire.

You're right though, this would have never happened if Trump hadn't "had the election stolen from him". Now why don't you toddle along and polish your swastikas, and don't forget not to wear a mask, or bother to get vaccinated,, so you can spout your cocaimine ideas all over everybody you come into contact with, and give them SARS-2 in the process.
 
Last edited:

eforce

Posts: 465   +585
Why? Explain to me how exactly a dollar earned through something like a Software Engineering job is any less valuable then a dollar earned through some manufacturing job?

So long as people are making money off their work, and so long as money flows to purchase goods and services, I fail to see what the problem is.

But to you, for "reasons" you can't even explain, it isn't about "jobs", it's about "specific jobs", ignoring the fact that the basic laws of Capitalism you hold deer mandate those jobs be shipped elsewhere. You ignore any proposals (like the one I gave above) to address the specific case of outsourcing that is most damaging, while waving your arms around asking someone to do something, anything, regardless of how damaging it is to the greater economy.
You may wish to look into how money is created, as of 1972 the USD is no longer backed by anything but faith, and not everyone can fill those software jobs, there is a large amount of poverty in the US particularly in those less capable who would otherwise work in factories.
 

EdmondRC

Posts: 148   +126
First off, the right to vote is Constitutionally protected and thus such ID laws have a MUCH higher burden to prove they are both non-discriminatory and does not place an undue burden on the voter. Most other acts that require a voter ID are *not* Constitutionally protected and thus do not have the same burden.
It's estimated that there are 45M immigrants in our country, I could not find whether or not that total included the estimated 14.5M illegal immigrants or if those were only legal immigrants. That's significant, more significant by far than the number of US citizens who might struggle to get an ID (which are required for jobs, government benefits, and basically to function in our society). If you want an open society that is accepting of immigrants (which we are more than most countries in the world), then you have to have a way to ensure that those voting in the US are indeed citizens because non-citizens do not have voting rights and with those numbers could easily usurp the will of US citizens. Without securing the identity of the electorate, there is no way to ensure that only US-citizens are voting.
 

gamerk2

Posts: 601   +525
You may wish to look into how money is created, as of 1972 the USD is no longer backed by anything but faith, and not everyone can fill those software jobs, there is a large amount of poverty in the US particularly in those less capable who would otherwise work in factories.
You are making a flawed argument. Your argument is essentially "low skilled workers are living in poverty because they are unable to find jobs".

If what you are arguing was true, what you would expect to see is a glut of workers who are permanently unemployed due to lacking the necessary skill set required to work higher skilled jobs. But you don't see this in reality; what you see is these lower-skilled workers holding one (or more) low-paying jobs, with only a very small subset of people in poverty outright unable to be employeed.

The reason why so many in the US live in poverty is that someone making the minimum wage (which is, I note, what you would expect unskilled manufacturing to make) would make less then the current poverty line of the course of a year.

Simply put, people are (for the most part) not living in poverty due to no jobs being available, but instead because the jobs that exist paying like crap. Which can be easily addressed by raising the minimum wage.

Oh right, the hurts corporate profits and makes you spend a little more on goods and services. Nevermind then.

Gotta love the irony: The simple solution to poverty is "pay workers more", which conservatives don't want to do because doing so would "hurt the economy". Two minutes later, they complain about poverty, without offering any solutions of their own.
 

gamerk2

Posts: 601   +525
It's estimated that there are 45M immigrants in our country, I could not find whether or not that total included the estimated 14.5M illegal immigrants or if those were only legal immigrants. That's significant, more significant by far than the number of US citizens who might struggle to get an ID (which are required for jobs, government benefits, and basically to function in our society). If you want an open society that is accepting of immigrants (which we are more than most countries in the world), then you have to have a way to ensure that those voting in the US are indeed citizens because non-citizens do not have voting rights and with those numbers could easily usurp the will of US citizens. Without securing the identity of the electorate, there is no way to ensure that only US-citizens are voting.
You are making some implicit assumptions here, mainly that the presence of immigrants (legal or otherwise) implies voter fraud. But there's also the implicit assumption that the only way to secure elections is via voter identification.

Secondly, any voter id requirement that has the effect of preventing (or at least placing an unreasonable burden) on a legalized citizen's right to vote is outright unconstitutional, regardless of any supposed benefits to preventing voter fraud.
 

eforce

Posts: 465   +585
You are making a flawed argument. Your argument is essentially "low skilled workers are living in poverty because they are unable to find jobs".

If what you are arguing was true, what you would expect to see is a glut of workers who are permanently unemployed due to lacking the necessary skill set required to work higher skilled jobs. But you don't see this in reality; what you see is these lower-skilled workers holding one (or more) low-paying jobs, with only a very small subset of people in poverty outright unable to be employeed.

The reason why so many in the US live in poverty is that someone making the minimum wage (which is, I note, what you would expect unskilled manufacturing to make) would make less then the current poverty line of the course of a year.

Simply put, people are (for the most part) not living in poverty due to no jobs being available, but instead because the jobs that exist paying like crap. Which can be easily addressed by raising the minimum wage.

Oh right, the hurts corporate profits and makes you spend a little more on goods and services. Nevermind then.

Gotta love the irony: The simple solution to poverty is "pay workers more", which conservatives don't want to do because doing so would "hurt the economy". Two minutes later, they complain about poverty, without offering any solutions of their own.
No I am making the argument that government has priced the jobs out of the market with minimum wage/regulations/taxes.

The jobs pay like crap because they are crap, and raising the minimum wage further will just price more jobs out of the market, making it even worse.
 

gamerk2

Posts: 601   +525
No I am making the argument that government has priced the jobs out of the market with minimum wage/regulations/taxes.

The jobs pay like crap because they are crap, and raising the minimum wage further will just price more jobs out of the market, making it even worse.
And lowering it will keep people in poverty. Nevermind that adjusted for inflation the minimum wage is lower then it has been in decades.

And I note your assumption that minimum wage increases leads to a reduction in jobs is false. In the short term (1-2 year) timespan, yes, a rising minimum wage will lead to some companies reducing payrolls. Over a longer timespan however, raising the minimum wages *consistently* leads to faster job growth. This is expected, as you have consumers with more money to spend, which in turn leads to increased production of goods/services to meet that demand.

Conversely, decreasing the minimum wage will lead to more people holding multiple jobs (paradoxically *increasing* the amount of people out of work), but also decrease consumer spending. You then get the effects you see during recessions: A decline in consumer spending leads directly to job losses as goods/services are decreased in order to match the market conditions.

Your primary argument here is just flat out wrong; there is zero economic evidence of people being unable to find and work jobs because low-skilled manual labor jobs have largely moved to overseas market. Retail and the service industry has more then taken up the slack. You do not see large swaths of permanently unemployed workers.
 

eforce

Posts: 465   +585
And lowering it will keep people in poverty. Nevermind that adjusted for inflation the minimum wage is lower then it has been in decades.

And I note your assumption that minimum wage increases leads to a reduction in jobs is false. In the short term (1-2 year) timespan, yes, a rising minimum wage will lead to some companies reducing payrolls. Over a longer timespan however, raising the minimum wages *consistently* leads to faster job growth. This is expected, as you have consumers with more money to spend, which in turn leads to increased production of goods/services to meet that demand.

Conversely, decreasing the minimum wage will lead to more people holding multiple jobs (paradoxically *increasing* the amount of people out of work), but also decrease consumer spending. You then get the effects you see during recessions: A decline in consumer spending leads directly to job losses as goods/services are decreased in order to match the market conditions.

Your primary argument here is just flat out wrong; there is zero economic evidence of people being unable to find and work jobs because low-skilled manual labor jobs have largely moved to overseas market. Retail and the service industry has more then taken up the slack. You do not see large swaths of permanently unemployed workers.
No, lowering it will give people more opportunities and lowers the costs of production which in turn lowers prices. The the debasement of the currency has made this much worse though.

It leads to a reduction in the quality of jobs.
 

Dimitrios

Posts: 914   +711
You can thank Biden and the Left for all this.

Thank you for your ballz stating this. I get banned here a lot when I state things like that. I notice prices have gone up once Biden was in office. What angers me is the pipeline deal being shutdown while Biden's son was up and running.

Everything Biden has touch has gone to $hit. Anyone that defends Biden now is the true problem to our country. I wish others would take their head out of the sand.

Now there are billboards slamming Biden, here ------->
 
Last edited:

gamerk2

Posts: 601   +525
No, lowering it will give people more opportunities and lowers the costs of production which in turn lowers prices. The the debasement of the currency has made this much worse though.

It leads to a reduction in the quality of jobs.
Flaw in thinking here is that prices are set soirely by cost of production, which has been proven false repeatedly.

Prices are driven by people's ability to pay for them combined with overall scarcity of goods. As long as the rest of the population continues to make the same amount of money, the cost of goods and services will not decline even though cost of production does, as doing so would reduce profits.
 

gamerk2

Posts: 601   +525
Thank you for your ballz stating this. I get banned here a lot when I state things like that. I notice prices have gone up once Biden was in office. What angers me is the pipeline deal being shutdown while Biden's son was up and running.

Everything Biden has touch has gone to $hit. Anyone that defends Biden now is the true problem to our country. I wish others would take their head out of the sand.

Now there are billboards slamming Biden, here ------->
Prices are up simply because of scarcity now that the economy is moving again (grew 6.5% last quarter; funny how that never gets any attention). Once the backlog of demand is worked out, inflation will drop to normal levels (you already see it leveling off).

As for Afghanistan, I note Biden just followed the agreement that Trump implemented. Regardless, Biden was absolutely right to get out of there given the US really never had a plan for how to stop the insurgency there. And before you say a word: I work in the defense industry and have had "many" a conversation on this topic. I've heard tales of the absolute gross mismanagement of funds, the inability of US forces to deal with Taliban operating out of our "ally" Pakistan, and how money/goods given to outlying areas were just handed over to the Taliban the instant US forces leave the area. The US "never" had a plan on how to win in Afghanistan, and keeping troops there indefinitely was simply no longer a viable option.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 17,408   +6,143
Funny thing, is elements 3, 4 & 5 on the periodic tsable aren't products of fusion,. They are unstable, and only occur between heliun, and the tri-alpha process, which gives us carbon.

#3 is of particular interest, lithium. So, stars can;'t produce it via fusion, it has to occur via the nova or supernova route, the same as any element heavier than iron.

While it may seem obvious for elements such as nickel and uranium, the very light and lowly lithium, falls into this same category..

So at 26 (Fe) Iron, is when star goes "boom", and most of what you're looking for in the way of "rare earths", happen way after that.
 

cliffordcooley

Posts: 13,001   +6,317
You are making a flawed argument. Your argument is essentially "low skilled workers are living in poverty because they are unable to find jobs".
Skill doesn't have anything to do with it. I've seen skilled workers held back from positions they wanted. All because they were the ones getting their current job done. While low skilled workers were getting promotions.
 

eforce

Posts: 465   +585
Flaw in thinking here is that prices are set soirely by cost of production, which has been proven false repeatedly.

Prices are driven by people's ability to pay for them combined with overall scarcity of goods. As long as the rest of the population continues to make the same amount of money, the cost of goods and services will not decline even though cost of production does, as doing so would reduce profits.
The more people able to produce items, lowers costs of said items.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 17,408   +6,143
s for Afghanistan, I note Biden just followed the agreement that Trump implemented. Regardless, Biden was absolutely right to get out of there given the US really never had a plan for how to stop the insurgency there. And before you say a word: I work in the defense industry and have had "many" a conversation on this topic. I've heard tales of the absolute gross mismanagement of funds, the inability of US forces to deal with Taliban operating out of our "ally" Pakistan, and how money/goods given to outlying areas were just handed over to the Taliban the instant US forces leave the area. The US "never" had a plan on how to win in Afghanistan, and keeping troops there indefinitely was simply no longer a viable option.
The simple fact of the matter is, the Afghans were just mimicking, American values and societal concepts. After all we paid them to serve. The only real "brainwashing" that was done, was to ourselves,. I'd be willing to bet, that half the men in the Afghan army, were relieved to see the Taliban come back. Now they'll be able to stuff their old ladies back in burkas, ASAP., and blame it on the Taliban. God knows what else they would have inherited fro us, the "Me Too" movement?

So, it's back no book learnin' for the girls, honor killing, and getting down on your knees 5 times a day, to pray to a god which more than likely, doesn't .exist.

When you come right down to it, at least half of the Afghan army was relieved.we left, and were secretly relived to "surrender".

As for the "refuges" our leaving created, as a mathematical fact, the people who want to get out, are under 1% of the population

Life was good in the 7th century, and it will doubtless be as good once again.

If the Soviets couldn't control that crew, it was sheer ego and arrogance to think that we could.
 
Last edited: