36 ms·

> manufacturing things that used to be manufactured in the west That's not how economies and economics work. It's not zero-sum at all. In fact, the more your n

• MrBuddyCasino 9y ago
  I wasn't meaning to imply that its a zero sum game, I'm totally with you on that one. The "worse-paying jobs move to poorer countries, the wealthier countries get better-paying, higher-skilled jobs" is true, but you could also phrase it differently: you now have to be this tall/smart/educated to get a job in the west because you're suddenly competing with people in china or mexico who will do it for 1/10 the wage. One could say that this is how it should work, because they need jobs more urgently than we do, and its a valid point. But tell that to an unemployed steel worker in the Rust Belt. This is how you got Trump.
  • forapurpose 8y ago
    I agree with your points generally, but here are some places I differ and some additional thoughts: (In some places I'm going to copy and paste parts of other comments of mine, so I can get off of HN and back to work!) ... > you now have to be this tall/smart/educated You always needed some ability; it's just that the abilities needed have changed. You used to need to be physically durable, strong, handy, and usually male. The nerdy, clumsy kid with the glasses, not to mention women, had no future in the coal mine or steel mill. It's not a lot different than a developer growing older, not learning the new technologies, and finding their skills are obsolete. I generally believe almost anyone is smart enough, if given education and opportunity, to do knowledge work. Many people just don't get the education and opportunity. ... > tell that to an unemployed steel worker in the Rust Belt This points to the fundamental problem, IMHO: Capital can move much faster than individuals; a factory can move to another country much faster than the workers can find new, equivalent jobs - for most, moving to another country is practically impossible - especially if half the town is now unemployed. Therefore, trade provides a net benefit, but the impact on individuals is disparate to a great degree. We need to protect those individuals, by giving them time to adjust (require a warning or continuing salary for X time, perhaps based on the impact on the local job market), by compensating them for the change (taxing the benefits of moving capital and giving some back to the people making the biggest sacrifice), and by means of the latter taxes, also raise the cost of such changes to the point where it's economically viable not just for the company and future employees, but for those left behind. > This is how you got Trump. I don't agree: Think of all the ways the theory doesn't apply: Most voters making less than $50K chose Clinton[0]; minority voters, who also lost jobs and who have higher unemployment than white voters, overwhelming chose Clinton; Trump's and the GOP's policies overwhelmingly favor the wealthy and big business, including cutting health care and other government services to the working class, and shifting relatively more of the tax burden onto them. To the extent working class white voters supported Trump, they did so against economic self-interest. But that's long been true of many such voters; remember the book 'What's the matter with Kansas?' (or whatever it was called - a f*ng obnoxious, ignorant, arrogant title that reveals the problem with Dems: 'customers aren't buying our product, what's the matter with them?'). The question is, why? [0] Based on a HN comment that cited some stats; I didn't check them myself, so take with salt. But I remember reading similar research after the election.
• HillaryBriss 8y ago
  > in the U.S. since 1950 it's grown around 3,000% 1950-2010 sure it's clear that the overall pie expands with additional trade. economists have been selling globalization to the US voter with that idea for a long time. i don't even think the comment you're replying to was disputing that. but, more interestingly, such pie expansion does not guarantee that every group's slice of pie grows too. it hasn't really worked that way in the US. Joe Stiglitz, in 2011: Most Americans are worse off than they were ten years ago, a dozen years ago, so it's actually trickle up economics. All the gains in our economic growth have gone to those at the top .... we've been getting more unequal while other countries have been becoming less unequal https://www.wnyc.org/story/121224-stiglitz-american-inequality/ https://www.wnyc.org/story/121224-stiglitz-american-inequali...
  • forapurpose 8y ago
    Agreed, there are serious problems of distribution and opportunity, as I said in my last paragraph in the GP. > economists have been selling globalization to the US voter with that idea for a long time And politicians have too. The argument long has been, as I understand it: There's a big aggregate benefit and the rising tide will lift all boats. Obviously that hasn't worked out, which shouldn't be surprising, raising a few issues: 1. People need opportunity to participate in the globalized economy. Opportunity and social mobility have decreased in the U.S. for decades, IIUC. Just consider access to quality K-12 and higher education, the latter probably being important for getting into the globalization game, much less the necessities for survival such as health care. 2. If people are to vote and work for the country's and world's aggregate benefit, rather than their particular benefit, then the 'aggregate' needs to support them in return through social benefits such as unemployment insurance and guarantees of basic needs such as healthcare, shelter, food, and education, and through opportunity (see #1). As it is, the beneficiaries are arguing for aggregate benefit, and then putting the benefits in their particular pockets and walking away with it. 3. My hypothesis for the cause is that working people simply didn't have a seat at the table when these deals were negotiated. Big business insisted that the particulars of their needs were explicitly addressed in great detail; consider the global intellectual property regime, for example. Working people were told that it would just work out somehow, 'a rising tide lifts all boats'. Strange that wasn't the response to Wall Street's and Hollywood's demands. Assuming things would just magically sort themselves out for everyone else was lazy and careless governance.