8 ms·

The problem with this argument is that numerous studies have shown that trade is responsible for a small proportion of manufacturing jobs lost in America in the

• riazrizvi 10y ago
  Maybe the point is that an economic strategy that chases marginal cost savings only creates short term benefits for investors while selling out an industrious workforce that were otherwise poised to create the next big innovation.
  • hsitz 10y ago
    Probably not. The people that get sold out are not the innovators, not the highly educated. The people that get sold out are the people on lower rungs of economic ladder, whose jobs are automated and/or done more cheaply overseas, and who are mainly left scrounging for lower-paying service sector jobs. Only the more industrious, intelligent, and adaptable among them will be able to get re-training/education to get new jobs that pay the same.
  • twblalock 10y ago
    What big innovation did you expect factory workers to create?
    • nradov 10y ago
      The famous Toyota Production System is designed around getting a continuous stream of innovations from factory workers.
    • braveo 10y ago
      Are you implying factory workers aren't intelligent enough to come up with something new?
      • nsp 10y ago
        I'd say they're less likely to invent the next big thing when working full time on an assembly line than otherwise.
        • braveo 10y ago
          I've personally met several of these workers who have created things that ended up being very helpful for their employers. There's a reason why most of these companies have programs to encourage their workers to come up with these ideas and submit them to said company.
    • riazrizvi 10y ago
      Well, in a Widget Factory there are all sorts. It's a hierarchy of workers with different skills. Typically though it is experienced/managerial/technical staff, who figure out how to improve things. Yes some of them do come out of the lower ranks. Pretty sure Henry Ford was just an engineer in someone else's company before he started making cars which lead him to inventing the modern assembly line as we know it today.
      • eru 10y ago
        Ford used to work for Edison. (According to Wikipedia.)
  • eru 10y ago
    Automation was (and still is) that next big innovation. Or do you want only innovations that don't disturb the status quo?
    • st3v3r 10y ago
      How does it benefit those it displaces? Automation can be great. But we need to think long and hard about what to do with those that are going to be left behind. Job retraining can help somewhat, but a person who was 10 years or so away from retirement isn't likely to be helped by that, as they're going to have a very difficult time finding a job. And please don't say "basic income". There is no way that is anywhere near politically feasible right now.
    • riazrizvi 10y ago
      Automation is a subset of operational efficiency, which itself is only a small impetus for innovation. Off the top of my head, the impetus for innovation can be 1) to create bigger markets, 2) to create better quality, 3) to create extended product function, 4) to reduce cost. Cost reductions themselves can be discovered through 4.1) reduced labor costs (automation), 4.2) reduced material cost, 4.3) synergies with other product development efforts, 4.4) reduced risk/waste in production processes, 4.5) regulatory cost reduction, 4.6) reduced energy costs...
  • chillacy 10y ago
    Imagine if word processing never happened because the Typists union lobbied for laws which require a human typist to draft documents, or if engineering technicians prevented CAD software from being used and replacing their jobs. Those workers were industrious, but removing them increases productivity.
    • st3v3r 10y ago
      Here's the big problem: You're not wrong in that automation is mostly good. But most people who are cheering for automation, or even for overseas cost savings, are not interested in what happens next to those who lose their jobs because of it. And we need to come up with a variety of solutions for that, because there are many different types of people who are losing these jobs. People who are younger are more likely able to be retrained to do something else, but someone who is 50 and nearing retirement is going to need a different approach. Not only will it be harder for them to be retrained, it will be much harder for them to get a job after that retraining.
      • eru 10y ago
        You are writing as if technological unemployment has even been a problem. It just hasn't. (We might see some in the future, but I would bet against it.) Let's look at a recent historic example: The housing bubble employed lots of blue collar workers in construction. The bubble burst, and those jobs went away. But---and here's the crucial part---people forget that unemployment did not pick up: basically those laid off found new jobs. We only got a general uptick in unemployment when the fed's mismanagement turned this minor recession into The Great Recession. See https://www.aei.org/publication/did-the-housing-crash-cause-the-great-recession-no-it-was-the-fed/ https://www.aei.org/publication/did-the-housing-crash-cause-... and just look at the timelines: housing starts (and thus employment in the construction sector) decline by around half between the peak in 2006 and the end of 2007. General unemployment barely budges. Then only in 2008 The Great Recession kicks in, and unemployment takes off. The oft-repeated narrative that when the housing bubble burst, those blue collar workers lost their jobs and never got another one is simply not true. The narrative that those blue collar workers who lost their job during The Great Recession didn't have another job to switch to, that's much closer to the truth. But that Great Recession was entirely avoidable.
• binalpatel 10y ago
  That's a reasonable argument, and I'll have to read up more on it. What I posted above was via by economics classes from some time ago, so it may be time to actually take a look at the data. By no means am I for trade restrictions - I was just commenting on the fact that the answer (like most of any complex issues) is "it depends".
• brightball 10y ago
  I would be interested to see a tally of how many manufacturing jobs exist in China that are almost entirely exporters to the US.
  • chillacy 10y ago
    Not sure if that's comparable though. If you're going to start a factory in China, you look at the cost of labor vs automation, and you pay for labor. If you have to start a factory in the US, you have a higher minimum wage, and realize automation is cheaper, so you hire less workers.
    • brightball 10y ago
      The comparable piece though, is that every time a manufacturer opens up somewhere the supply chain to that manufacturer develops around it. Manufacturing still has the highest economic multiplier of any business sector at $1.8 per $1 invested.
• Spooky23 10y ago
  Nobody on the ground believes that, it looks smells and sounds like horseshit. This plays out in every collective bargaining deal. The company says "here's the offer, if you don't like it, we'll close the place and go to [Alabama|Mexico|China]". The automation thing is a statistics trick. You look at total value of the finished output which skews the numbers to things like car assembly where many tasks are automated, but ingnore the downstream parts manufacturing, much of which is offshore or in Mexico. Have you ever seen a textile factory? There isn't a ton of automation for many phases of the work. Just a race to the bottom to places like Bangladesh where it's easy to abuse the workforce. The economic outputs may be bigger, the cream is only rising to the top.
  • Analemma_ 10y ago
    Some evidence in favor of this argument is that automation is taking jobs even when it's impossible for those jobs to be outsourced: e.g. in coal mines.
  • snowwrestler 10y ago
    This conversation is the election in a nutshell. Obama and Hillary stuck with a whole-economy, stats-based approach to talking about the recovery, meanwhile Trump addressed the anger and despair of middle class working folks who see their jobs going away or getting worse.
  • twblalock 10y ago
    > Nobody on the ground believes that, it looks smells and sounds like horseshit. If you don't like an evidence-based argument, you should respond with a different evidence-based argument rather than dismissing it as "horseshit" and "tricks."
    • BipolarElsa 10y ago
      Most people buy the fat capitalist factory-owner alibis hook, line and sinker. So don't be surprised he if he calls it horseshit. That's exactly what it is.
  • birken 10y ago
• LordHumungous 10y ago
  >trade is responsible for a small proportion of manufacturing jobs lost in America I've seen conflicting claims on this. Other reports say trade has caused massive job losses. Anyone who lives in a formerly manufacturing heavy area is going to be find that argument hard to believe. We see companies closing down shops and moving them overseas time and time again.
  • twblalock 10y ago
    > Anyone who lives in a formerly manufacturing heavy area is going to be find that argument hard to believe. We see companies closing down shops and moving them overseas time and time again. The studies I mentioned showed that about 15% of the manufacturing jobs lost in the US were sent overseas due to trade. That's a small proportion of the total jobs that were lost, but it still adds up to a lot of people seeing their local factories close down.