Reply #51: You're arguing against GLOBALISM/"Free Trade"/Neoliberalism now.

[Romulox]

People need jobs AND "free trade" is a job obliterating transfer of wealth from working people to the wealthy. AND. Both statements on either side of 'AND' are true. Neither contradicts the other.

We shouldn't simply say that's the way it is folks, you are going to make less and less while profits go up, so we can stay "competitive".

"We" aren't saying that though. YOU are, and even then, it is presumably a rhetorical argument.

Full employment at $7.00 an hour is profitable for business, and if we get that you can say Hurray there is no unemployment!

As an attorney, aren't you familiar with the concept of "necessary but not sufficient" conditions? "Full employment" is a necessary, but not sufficient, pre-condition for workers to have maximum leverage over employers. Moreover, globalism will obliterate any wage gains you posit absent addition protections for domestic workers. Ergo, we need both full employment AND additional protections for domestic workers and industries (e.g. tariffs.) Not only are these two things not in conflict with one another, indeed they are both mutually reinforcing and complementary!