3 ms·

I agree with the principle of bringing local jobs back, bolster our own industries to be more self-sufficient, however I think it is being done in the most disr

I agree with the principle of bringing local jobs back, bolster our own industries to be more self-sufficient, however I think it is being done in the most disruptive and unstabalizing way possible. We should be going for a firm but gentle push, instead of swinging a sledgehammer around our heads and hoping we don't break the wrong skulls.

squarefoot 8y ago
To compete with China 25% tariffs are nothing. We're talking about goods costing a fraction of what is made in the western world (if they're still made at all). In the end only common people will be pissed because their full-Chinese cellphone costs $250 instead of $200 compared to the half-Chinese one which still costs $600, and not a single job will be created. To me that's pure propaganda. The irony is that to compete with China it would be also necessary a huge low cost workforce the US alone cannot provide; too bad Trump just built a wall and enacted laws to keep a good part of that workforce unavailable for hire.
ravitation 8y ago
Just wondering, but what does a "firm but gentle push" look like that brings "back" local jobs? "Bringing back local jobs" is the entirely wrong way to solve the issues facing those that are losing jobs in declining domestic industries. It's just the easiest for a (probably) blue-collar worker to engage with and the easiest for a politician to sell, even if it's pure fantasy.
- abiox 8y ago
  > "Bringing back local jobs" is the entirely wrong way if so, what is the right way?
  - ravitation 8y ago
    Workers need new jobs, most likely in new industries. That's how it's always worked. But a coal miner learning a new skill/new skills is a lot harder for him than just getting his old coal mining job back... Unfortunately one of those (well maybe both of them) isn't going to happen. This is just as true for steel manufacturing.
    - robotbikes 8y ago
      But is this supposed to go on ad infinitum ? What if at some point the new jobs created are worse than the jobs that were lost ? Does everyone in the US need to have a so-called service job or else be an information worker ? And to what end l so that cheaper items can result in more conspicuous consumption to fuel the accumulation of wealth by those who are lucky enough to own stock and the companies that are profiting from this. I don't know if there is some kind of steady state sustainable economy where enough people have meaningful productive outlets (aka jobs w/o coercive bosses) and we as humans are not extracting or destroying more of the non-human planetary resources than can easily be renewed. But that would seem to be a better goal than whatever the meaningless metric of the GDP in and of itself.
      - ravitation 8y ago
        > But is this supposed to go on ad infinitum? Yes... That's how technological progress works? Countless millions of jobs were lost during the Industrial Revolution, but in there place were new jobs often requiring new (and more) skills. The pace of that turnover has been increasing since the invention of the wheel, one problem now is that we've crossed a threshold where the rate of change is no longer intergenerational but intragenerational. > I don't know if there is some kind of steady state sustainable economy where enough people have meaningful productive outlets (aka jobs w/o coercive bosses) and we as humans are not extracting or destroying more of the non-human planetary resources than can easily be renewed. This doesn't exist and has never existed; it's only that the rate of change has come to a point where it's now easily perceived (and financially felt). I would even argue it will never, and should never exist. Should we lessen the impact that this rate of change can have on people's lives? Yes, with better access to social services and education. Should we lessen the impact that the global economy has on the environment? Yes. Should we strive towards some steady, and therefore stagnant, equilibrium? No, absolutely not. Anyway, the point is that every small bit of technological progress fundamentally changes the economy and that inevitably changes what jobs are needed. Jobs are created and destroyed, it's the nature of progress.
        robotbikes 8y ago
794CD01 8y ago
Ideally yes, but when you are a retard with a sledgehammer, your options are limited.

squarefoot 8y ago

To compete with China 25% tariffs are nothing. We're talking about goods costing a fraction of what is made in the western world (if they're still made at all). In the end only common people will be pissed because their full-Chinese cellphone costs $250 instead of $200 compared to the half-Chinese one which still costs $600, and not a single job will be created. To me that's pure propaganda. The irony is that to compete with China it would be also necessary a huge low cost workforce the US alone cannot provide; too bad Trump just built a wall and enacted laws to keep a good part of that workforce unavailable for hire.

ravitation 8y ago

Just wondering, but what does a "firm but gentle push" look like that brings "back" local jobs? "Bringing back local jobs" is the entirely wrong way to solve the issues facing those that are losing jobs in declining domestic industries. It's just the easiest for a (probably) blue-collar worker to engage with and the easiest for a politician to sell, even if it's pure fantasy.

abiox 8y ago
> "Bringing back local jobs" is the entirely wrong way if so, what is the right way?
- ravitation 8y ago
  Workers need new jobs, most likely in new industries. That's how it's always worked. But a coal miner learning a new skill/new skills is a lot harder for him than just getting his old coal mining job back... Unfortunately one of those (well maybe both of them) isn't going to happen. This is just as true for steel manufacturing.
  - robotbikes 8y ago
    But is this supposed to go on ad infinitum ? What if at some point the new jobs created are worse than the jobs that were lost ? Does everyone in the US need to have a so-called service job or else be an information worker ? And to what end l so that cheaper items can result in more conspicuous consumption to fuel the accumulation of wealth by those who are lucky enough to own stock and the companies that are profiting from this. I don't know if there is some kind of steady state sustainable economy where enough people have meaningful productive outlets (aka jobs w/o coercive bosses) and we as humans are not extracting or destroying more of the non-human planetary resources than can easily be renewed. But that would seem to be a better goal than whatever the meaningless metric of the GDP in and of itself.
    - ravitation 8y ago
      > But is this supposed to go on ad infinitum? Yes... That's how technological progress works? Countless millions of jobs were lost during the Industrial Revolution, but in there place were new jobs often requiring new (and more) skills. The pace of that turnover has been increasing since the invention of the wheel, one problem now is that we've crossed a threshold where the rate of change is no longer intergenerational but intragenerational. > I don't know if there is some kind of steady state sustainable economy where enough people have meaningful productive outlets (aka jobs w/o coercive bosses) and we as humans are not extracting or destroying more of the non-human planetary resources than can easily be renewed. This doesn't exist and has never existed; it's only that the rate of change has come to a point where it's now easily perceived (and financially felt). I would even argue it will never, and should never exist. Should we lessen the impact that this rate of change can have on people's lives? Yes, with better access to social services and education. Should we lessen the impact that the global economy has on the environment? Yes. Should we strive towards some steady, and therefore stagnant, equilibrium? No, absolutely not. Anyway, the point is that every small bit of technological progress fundamentally changes the economy and that inevitably changes what jobs are needed. Jobs are created and destroyed, it's the nature of progress.
      - robotbikes 8y ago

794CD01 8y ago

Ideally yes, but when you are a retard with a sledgehammer, your options are limited.