WASHINGTON, June 10 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump ‌said on Wednesday that he might not renew ⁠the USMCA free trade deal with Canada and Mexico. Speaking at the White House, ‌the ⁠president said he was discussing the ⁠matter with Mexican and Canadian ⁠leaders.

Reporting by Bo Erickson ⁠and Gram Slattery; Editing by Doina Chiacu

archive.org archive link: https://web.archive.org/save/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Fworld%2Ftrump-says-he-might-not-renew-usmca-2026-06-10%2F

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Except the purpose isn't social mobility for most Chinese people. Remember the '躺平' 'lie flat' propaganda movement the west loved talking about a few years ago? Yeah that wasn't new, or temporary, nor did it ever go away (and no it's not illegal). That's just how most Chinese people have been seeing life after getting up to 'western' standards (I would argue a roof, consistent meals, cheap electronics, and free healthcare is closer to the western standard than not, and that covers ~900 million people.) Yes there is a rising upper middle and upper class, but also the living standards of the bottom 50% are better than more than 150 countries and that's rising just about as quickly.

These facts skew the traditional western reporting of economic health, because western economists assume everyone wants to grow infinitely, and that's just not the case.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Suuure. Chinese people enjoy the fact that all the money is going to their rich. /s

and [lower income Chinese standards are] rising just about as quickly.

No, they're not, that's what K-shaped means.

[–] grey_maniac@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

would either of you care to share unbiased evidence supporting your statements?

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The World Inequality Database. I'd do a TL;DR, but I'd be reinventing the wheel.

It's important to know this is about wealth, while @avidamoeba@lemmy.ca is going by income. If you're out to defend China, you could say sure, they own less and less but the government will look after them, and make sure wages stay high. If that's a good bet in light of history is another question.

[–] grey_maniac@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Thank you. This is interesting information.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

No problem! Glad to hear someone else appreciates it the same way.

One explanation would basically be cronyism in a country where there's endemic corruption and the government intervenes a lot, and however it wants. It's a pretty classic story from economies all over.

The funny thing about that is that the CCP actually tends to leave certain sectors alone, more than the West even would. It's like a hybrid Confucian/Maoist thing where they don't want to concern themselves with the merchant class. (All I have for evidence on that one is hearsay, sorry)

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

Manufacturing wages sit at 113.5K CNY. Purchase power parity factor is 3.53. That means those wages are equivalent to what US $32K per year buys you in the US. The trend is for this to grow 4-6% per year. Don't know if Chinese welfare and high housing ownership is factored in.

https://tradingeconomics.com/china/wages-in-manufacturing https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PPP?locations=CN

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

K-shaped means the bottom half (or some large threshold) is getting poorer. China's bottom half appears to have rapidly growing real wages, while the top is growing faster. Most western bottom halves were fine with this arrangement, until their real wages stopped growing in the 70-80s.

I'm not super happy with either scenario but there's a reason the majority was okay with it for decades. That was the whole deal in the New Deal.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You're right actually, now that I check it looks like the proportional drop is big but not faster than their historical growth. That big growth means until recently it's more ramp shaped in absolute terms.

IIRC the wealth of the bottom half actually went up proportionally during the New Deal/post-WWII, although that's about the only peacetime period it's ever happened in. Not sure about income, although I'd guess the same.

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago

Suuure. Chinese people enjoy the fact that all the money is going to their rich. /s

Not what I said, I did say they enjoy owning their own home, basically ensuring they will never be homeless since there's no property taxes after the property is purchased, and they do enjoy the welfare system that allows them to eat and enjoy their free time regardless of their current employment status.

No, they’re not, that’s what K-shaped means.

Then whatever propaganda rag you got your information from is outdated as of 2023, but I think you kinda know that.