01-16-2017, 01:51 PM
Quote:Quote:The things that did go overseas were things like auto manufacture. A lot of that has come back, albeit under Japanese ownership. The jobs didn't come back as much because of automation.
We're still well below peak production, and mooted further shifts in production to Mexico (possibly put on hold now) would likely make that figure fall once more.
And those Japanese plants in the South DO actually employ a fair number of workers. And the Japanese didn't build them solely out of market considerations, but as a response to political pressure from none other than Saint Reagan and his government.
And that's not the only industry we've let haemorrhage overseas.
The Japanese did that in return for being allowed to keep nontariff barriers that prevent US automakers from selling into Japanese markets to this day.
I don't have a problem with driving a hard bargain, by the way, and I think it's great if the deal favors the US, as long as "the US" includes both US manufacturers and US consumers. I just want the deals to be win-win and not lose-lose, and actual trade wars are lose-lose.
Quote:Quote:The biggest problem, though, is that jobs which used to be "good jobs" no longer are. Back in the 1970s, for example, slaughterhouse workers made $25/hour in today's dollars; now they make half that. There hasn't been any outsourcing there; the wage decline is all attributable to substitution of immigrant and illegal immigrant labor for US born labor.
Agreed, and that was another issue that went on my original post on the original subject of this thread.
Quote:I agree that the policy should be to maximize the standard of living of Americans as a whole. That's one of the reasons why I think it's great to offshore labor intensive manufacture to places where wages are a fraction of ours: we get to have all sorts of nice things that we couldn't otherwise have.
Victorian Britain, 18th century Holland, even increasingly Hong Kong today all made the same arguments. Uncompetitive labor, a financialized economy, domestic disinvestment due to higher financial returns overseas, and eventual stagnation are the results. The tradeoff you're talking about isn't cost-less, and there is no guarantee that newer, shinier, better paying jobs will be there to replace the ones lost. Lower prices don't help if your income sinks more.
Britain benefited from its empire until the world wars, in the process managing to avoid most of the negative fallout from one generational crisis (Civil War / Taiping Rebelliion). I'd say that worked pretty well. Unless you think Britain could othwerwise have rejected the Washington Naval Treaty and defeated the US along with Germany and Japan in WWII?
Quote:Quote:Apparently unlike you, I'm not here to argue; I'm here to learn. For me, the argument is just a way to make sure I only learn stuff that survives careful scrutiny and is likely to be true. The idea that there was a policy change in 2000 that affected things suddenly was new to me and thus a potential learning experience; the general loss of manufacturing is something I'm familiar with and not worth rehashing for me. Sorry.
As you say, arguing is how you put what you learn (or already know) to the test. It is also enormously entertaining. Well, am sorry I didn't provide you with the result you were hoping for. Best of luck with Cruz 2020.
It's been a good discussion. I've already emailed the Cruz folks to tell them not to run in 2020; it's pretty pointless to challenge a sitting president. 2024 maybe, if Trump does a good job and Pence decides not to run.