3 ms·

What sort of enlightenment were you expecting that you did not find? That is to say, what is your agenda?

leereeves 10y ago
I can see how this story would play to Bloomberg's audience of wealthy professionals and would like to offer a different perspective. Having worked in that field, coming from a family that's worked in the field, I know it can be dangerous work. At least, the occasional carnage makes for a more graphic story than the health consequences of sitting at a desk for 40 years. That doesn't mean the jobs aren't appreciated, even enjoyed, or that blue collar workers (not Bloomberg's audience) would rather not have those jobs. Also, I'm genuinely curious why Bloomberg has taken up this story. Is it simply an attempt to hurt Trump (who has made restoring American manufacturing a big part of his platform)?
- walshemj 10y ago
  And the average auto worker probably thinks well its not like a "snake" in a steel rolling mill or a marsh gas explosion in a deep mine. A snake is where a red hot slab of steal comes off the rollers and flails around the factory floor.
  - malandrew 10y ago
    Is this what you're talking about: http://imgur.com/7rP7q5r.gifv http://imgur.com/7rP7q5r.gifv
- intopieces 10y ago
  >Also, I'm genuinely curious why Bloomberg has taken up this story. To provide a counter to the idea that "bringing back manufacturing" will be a panacea to that which ails the middle class. I think the article is transparent in its agenda.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    Perhaps. There are people on the left whose goal is to make jobs unappealing. "Jobs Americans won't do" so corporations can hire illegal immigrants and pay them pennies, or ship the jobs overseas and pay workers there pennies. There's profit in that, I suppose. If so, is the agenda of this article, as you see it, to send those jobs to Asia or Mexico, where labor is cheap and OSHA has no authority? Or perhaps laying the groundwork for Democrats to reach out to blue collar workers (many of whom turned to Trump in the 2016 election) with a push for worker safety?
  - graycat 10y ago
    For your > will be a panacea to that which ails the middle class. IIRC, Trump's campaign statement was "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs." Each time I heard him say that, I wondered, what kind of jobs, for how much money? All I could think of was that OHSA, unions, various labor laws and inspections, and, then, likely most important of all, lawyers suing companies that have injured workers, would largely determine what kinds of jobs and for how much. On the "how much" part, broadly we will have to continue to use the old forces of supply and demand: Or, with enough new manufacturing jobs, there will be a worker shortage. Then there will be more robots and better trained and paid workers to run the robots. From the figure that the US has 90+ million people who could work not working, I suspect that the US is now essentially digging itself out of a big, black hole that it never should have gotten into in the first place. IMHO, nearly all of Trump's campaign statements are simplistic in the extreme (I make this as something easy to observe and relevant but without a value judgment except that maybe such simplicity can be effective political speech making). But, maybe he is correct about manufacturing: Maybe to dig out of the hole the US needs to have a lot of the 90+ million working in factories. I would hope for better than that. That factory work chews up people is a 100+ years old story. Maybe with enough in robots, good employers, etc. factory work can be made humane. Maybe the situation is better at, say, Boeing or Lockheed. To me, that factories result in lost fingers, limbs, and worse is such an old story that there is little or no excuse for such things now. Lawyers that have laws suits that specify $1 million per finger should get the safety switches installed, the inspections done, the oil leaks fixed, etc. IIRC, there are cases where the CEOs are saying that there are big shortages of well qualified, e.g., trained, workers. Of course, maybe the CEOs just want the taxpayers to pay for the training. Whatever, if training is needed, then it stands to be the case that the workers will be more highly valued by the CEOs. We don't want bad situations. Maybe if nearly all of us are smarter from our educations, jobs, political participation, etc., we can do better. For Bloomberg, both the person and apparently the publication, apparently they don't much like Trump. Mike Bloomberg has given $100+ million to medical research and education at Johns Hopkins University so is a good guy in at least some respects! Maybe he was on balance a good mayor of NYC. Of course, in NYC he was for (A) rules to reduce salt in restaurant food, (B) rules to forbid selling really large sugar sweetened soft drinks, and (C) putting wind turbines on the tops of the buildings in NYC. Gee, Mike, all those wind turbines -- would look like some hideous scene from a Gothic Batman movie! Maybe Mike just wanted the wind turbines only on the tops of Trump's buildings?

I can see how this story would play to Bloomberg's audience of wealthy professionals and would like to offer a different perspective. Having worked in that field, coming from a family that's worked in the field, I know it can be dangerous work. At least, the occasional carnage makes for a more graphic story than the health consequences of sitting at a desk for 40 years. That doesn't mean the jobs aren't appreciated, even enjoyed, or that blue collar workers (not Bloomberg's audience) would rather not have those jobs. Also, I'm genuinely curious why Bloomberg has taken up this story. Is it simply an attempt to hurt Trump (who has made restoring American manufacturing a big part of his platform)?

walshemj 10y ago
And the average auto worker probably thinks well its not like a "snake" in a steel rolling mill or a marsh gas explosion in a deep mine. A snake is where a red hot slab of steal comes off the rollers and flails around the factory floor.
- malandrew 10y ago
  Is this what you're talking about: http://imgur.com/7rP7q5r.gifv http://imgur.com/7rP7q5r.gifv
intopieces 10y ago
>Also, I'm genuinely curious why Bloomberg has taken up this story. To provide a counter to the idea that "bringing back manufacturing" will be a panacea to that which ails the middle class. I think the article is transparent in its agenda.
- leereeves 10y ago
  Perhaps. There are people on the left whose goal is to make jobs unappealing. "Jobs Americans won't do" so corporations can hire illegal immigrants and pay them pennies, or ship the jobs overseas and pay workers there pennies. There's profit in that, I suppose. If so, is the agenda of this article, as you see it, to send those jobs to Asia or Mexico, where labor is cheap and OSHA has no authority? Or perhaps laying the groundwork for Democrats to reach out to blue collar workers (many of whom turned to Trump in the 2016 election) with a push for worker safety?
- graycat 10y ago
  For your > will be a panacea to that which ails the middle class. IIRC, Trump's campaign statement was "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs." Each time I heard him say that, I wondered, what kind of jobs, for how much money? All I could think of was that OHSA, unions, various labor laws and inspections, and, then, likely most important of all, lawyers suing companies that have injured workers, would largely determine what kinds of jobs and for how much. On the "how much" part, broadly we will have to continue to use the old forces of supply and demand: Or, with enough new manufacturing jobs, there will be a worker shortage. Then there will be more robots and better trained and paid workers to run the robots. From the figure that the US has 90+ million people who could work not working, I suspect that the US is now essentially digging itself out of a big, black hole that it never should have gotten into in the first place. IMHO, nearly all of Trump's campaign statements are simplistic in the extreme (I make this as something easy to observe and relevant but without a value judgment except that maybe such simplicity can be effective political speech making). But, maybe he is correct about manufacturing: Maybe to dig out of the hole the US needs to have a lot of the 90+ million working in factories. I would hope for better than that. That factory work chews up people is a 100+ years old story. Maybe with enough in robots, good employers, etc. factory work can be made humane. Maybe the situation is better at, say, Boeing or Lockheed. To me, that factories result in lost fingers, limbs, and worse is such an old story that there is little or no excuse for such things now. Lawyers that have laws suits that specify $1 million per finger should get the safety switches installed, the inspections done, the oil leaks fixed, etc. IIRC, there are cases where the CEOs are saying that there are big shortages of well qualified, e.g., trained, workers. Of course, maybe the CEOs just want the taxpayers to pay for the training. Whatever, if training is needed, then it stands to be the case that the workers will be more highly valued by the CEOs. We don't want bad situations. Maybe if nearly all of us are smarter from our educations, jobs, political participation, etc., we can do better. For Bloomberg, both the person and apparently the publication, apparently they don't much like Trump. Mike Bloomberg has given $100+ million to medical research and education at Johns Hopkins University so is a good guy in at least some respects! Maybe he was on balance a good mayor of NYC. Of course, in NYC he was for (A) rules to reduce salt in restaurant food, (B) rules to forbid selling really large sugar sweetened soft drinks, and (C) putting wind turbines on the tops of the buildings in NYC. Gee, Mike, all those wind turbines -- would look like some hideous scene from a Gothic Batman movie! Maybe Mike just wanted the wind turbines only on the tops of Trump's buildings?