3 ms·

Good points. However, the macroeconomic benefits of manufacturing don't necessarily require people to be employed in manufacturing, do they? If America builds e

Good points. However, the macroeconomic benefits of manufacturing don't necessarily require people to be employed in manufacturing, do they? If America builds enough productive, highly-automated factories, the country is still generating wealth. As long as some of this wealth is captured for the people, then standard of living can increase.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> However, the macroeconomic benefits of manufacturing don't necessarily require people to be employed in manufacturing, do they? "Macroeconomic benefits" as usually measured by aggregate output measures, clearly not. Distributional benefits, OTOH... well, not a strong requirement. But... > As long as some of this wealth is captured for the people, then standard of living can increase. The challenge is establishing the mechanism for that capture outside of employment. A fairly fundamental premise of the existing economic system is that the prime manner of that capture to provide distributed benefits will be employment, and there is fairly strong resistance (including from the people who would retain the benefits in the absence of employment without some knew capture mechanism) to changes to the structure.
- titanomachy 10y ago
  That resistance is strong, but not universally or globally. It's not the kind of social innovation likely to come from America. But that doesn't mean it's a doomed prospect at the outset.
  - nickbauman 10y ago
    If I am an American, then, the prospect is likely doomed. And likely doomed for my daughter, too, who has had a terrifically difficult time with her post-college life even though both her parents are college educated and gainfully employed.
crdoconnor 10y ago
>Good points. However, the macroeconomic benefits of manufacturing don't necessarily require people to be employed in manufacturing, do they? Pretty much. The stuff you buy from China wasn't shipped 3000 miles because they have better robots than us.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> However, the macroeconomic benefits of manufacturing don't necessarily require people to be employed in manufacturing, do they? "Macroeconomic benefits" as usually measured by aggregate output measures, clearly not. Distributional benefits, OTOH... well, not a strong requirement. But... > As long as some of this wealth is captured for the people, then standard of living can increase. The challenge is establishing the mechanism for that capture outside of employment. A fairly fundamental premise of the existing economic system is that the prime manner of that capture to provide distributed benefits will be employment, and there is fairly strong resistance (including from the people who would retain the benefits in the absence of employment without some knew capture mechanism) to changes to the structure.

titanomachy 10y ago
That resistance is strong, but not universally or globally. It's not the kind of social innovation likely to come from America. But that doesn't mean it's a doomed prospect at the outset.
- nickbauman 10y ago
  If I am an American, then, the prospect is likely doomed. And likely doomed for my daughter, too, who has had a terrifically difficult time with her post-college life even though both her parents are college educated and gainfully employed.

crdoconnor 10y ago

>Good points. However, the macroeconomic benefits of manufacturing don't necessarily require people to be employed in manufacturing, do they? Pretty much. The stuff you buy from China wasn't shipped 3000 miles because they have better robots than us.