4 ms·

When blue collar jobs get destroyed, all I hear about is the benefits of creative destruction and the people will benefit through lower prices. When white colla

When blue collar jobs get destroyed, all I hear about is the benefits of creative destruction and the people will benefit through lower prices. When white collar jobs are threatened, everyone loses their shit.

taeric 8y ago
Oddly, I hear a ton about the loss of blue collar jobs. Your rhetoric makes it look like you likely just notice and are annoyed by the people pointing out some change as inevitable. Ultimately, this comes down to interests and money. Consider how much money is poured into saving a few well lobbied industries. Then look at how many more jobs are lost in the service/retail sector with relatively little press. I mean, sure, we all talked about Toys R Us going under. How many jobs did that represent? Why no considerations of a bailout? Sears, etc? Tons of discussion to prop up coal, of all industries. Retail? If there has been discussion, I've missed it. (So, definitely possible.)
- pessimizer 8y ago
  > annoyed by the people pointing out some change as inevitable. I think that it's more white-collar people declaring axiomatically that all losses of blue-collar jobs are inevitable due to rising productivity (while productivity is falling), and simultaneously declaring that massive inefficiencies should be preserved to protect white-collar jobs. If we're willing to forgo efficiency, of course all blue collar jobs could be preserved. The inevitability come from the fact that white-collar people get to choose in which areas of industry we should be efficient, and in which areas reducing inefficiencies is pointless.
  - bunderbunder 8y ago
    I see blue collar people suggesting the opposite - for example, supporting massive inefficiencies (like repealing NAFTA) in order to protect domestic blue collar jobs. Humans tending to empathize more readily with people like themselves is a regrettable, but not exactly exceptional or noteworthy, phenomenon.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      That’s not regrettable at all when the consumer excess from trade policy hasn’t been evenly distributed across all income cohorts. There is a difference between bureaucracy and labor cost arbitrage. Efficiency without social safety nets and other opportunities to replace existing blue collar jobs is brutal capitalism, inappropriate for a developed nation.
      - LyndsySimon 8y ago
        > Efficiency without social safety nets and other opportunities to replace existing blue collar jobs is brutal capitalism, inappropriate for a developed nation. This position is not unanimous. I strongly disagree; "brutal capitalism" is both more efficient and more compassionate in the long run. "Social safety nets" merely transfer the burden to more people, increasing it in the process through bureaucratic overhead.
        toomuchtodo 8y ago
        > This position is not unanimous. I strongly disagree; "brutal capitalism" is both more efficient and more compassionate in the long run. "Social safety nets" merely transfer the burden to more people, increasing it in the process through bureaucratic overhead. The majority of Americans support social safety nets [1], so I won't be arguing that point. Social safety nets have also been shown to reduce poverty, which reduces the burden on those paying taxes for social safety nets. [2] It would be economically irrational (and I'll go as far as to say foolish) not to support them based on that research. [1] http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/2-government-regulation-and-the-social-safety-net/ http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/2-government-regulati... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/nov/12/social-welfare-programs-food-stamps-reduce-poverty-america https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/nov/12/...
        pm90 8y ago
        This view is usually only shared by those who have never had to deal with all the things that come with being poor. Social Safety nets are just that: safety nets. They are not meant to provide a living for everyone, but to cushion the fall for those who have fallen on hard times. To not let the weakest members of the tribe left out when there is no shortage of the basic commodities for existence. We tried Brutal Capitalism before. It lead to all the evils of the Gilded age: poverty, inequality and wanton destruction of the environment by corporations gone amok.
  - taeric 8y ago
    I think it is more sides forming. Folks feel they are either on the side of white-collar or blue-collar. I would love to see a numbers run of the data to see if there are actual patterns. Ultimately, I think all jobs are on the table as something that will go away someday. That day is a long way from now, though. One of my favorite tweets from recently was in a theme of "things in your industry that are obvious, but folks out of the industry don't realize." The tweet was basically, "every piece of clothing you see was stitched together by a person." Basically, we get the impression that automation will be the big destroyer of jobs, but there is still a long way to go in that path. And, when it comes to it, white-collar jobs are probably more susceptible to automation than others. Consider, how many secretaries are there nowadays? Clerks? Data processors? I don't think these jobs have actually disappeared, but I do get the impression that they have drastically shrunken.
- LyndsySimon 8y ago
  > Tons of discussion to prop up coal, of all industries. I believe the argument is that domestic energy production is a matter of national security.
  - taeric 8y ago
    Seems dubious. I mean, yes, we should try and maintain energy independence. I don't think we need coal for that. Nor do I think we should necessarily just flat out drop coal. If there are avenues it makes sense to use, we should do so. However, it is a remarkably bad industry for all but the owners.
  - philipkglass 8y ago
    domestic energy production is a matter of national security The #1 factor in cutting US coal consumption/production over the past decade has been cheaper natural gas from domestic fracking. The #2 factor has been the rise of US wind power, which is also domestic. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25392 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25392
  - pm90 8y ago
    That argument does not hold much water. Natural Gas is the preferred source for almost all new power plants, and the US has a LOT of it (Shale oil/gas). Not to mention the shitloads of good ol petroleum in the Permian Basin, Alaska and the Arctic.
- jonhendry18 8y ago
  Blue-collar jobs in manufacturing are mostly gone, unlikely to return. Blue-collar workers are encouraged to train for work in white-collar fields, like healthcare. Before going on to also gut a large source of white-collar employment it'd be a good idea to figure out what we're going to do with the displaced white collar workers, and the blue-collar workers who have lost a potential source of employment.
kimdotcom 8y ago
Which is also weird, because they seem like a smaller voting block, increasingly so?

taeric 8y ago

Oddly, I hear a ton about the loss of blue collar jobs. Your rhetoric makes it look like you likely just notice and are annoyed by the people pointing out some change as inevitable. Ultimately, this comes down to interests and money. Consider how much money is poured into saving a few well lobbied industries. Then look at how many more jobs are lost in the service/retail sector with relatively little press. I mean, sure, we all talked about Toys R Us going under. How many jobs did that represent? Why no considerations of a bailout? Sears, etc? Tons of discussion to prop up coal, of all industries. Retail? If there has been discussion, I've missed it. (So, definitely possible.)

pessimizer 8y ago
> annoyed by the people pointing out some change as inevitable. I think that it's more white-collar people declaring axiomatically that all losses of blue-collar jobs are inevitable due to rising productivity (while productivity is falling), and simultaneously declaring that massive inefficiencies should be preserved to protect white-collar jobs. If we're willing to forgo efficiency, of course all blue collar jobs could be preserved. The inevitability come from the fact that white-collar people get to choose in which areas of industry we should be efficient, and in which areas reducing inefficiencies is pointless.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  I see blue collar people suggesting the opposite - for example, supporting massive inefficiencies (like repealing NAFTA) in order to protect domestic blue collar jobs. Humans tending to empathize more readily with people like themselves is a regrettable, but not exactly exceptional or noteworthy, phenomenon.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    That’s not regrettable at all when the consumer excess from trade policy hasn’t been evenly distributed across all income cohorts. There is a difference between bureaucracy and labor cost arbitrage. Efficiency without social safety nets and other opportunities to replace existing blue collar jobs is brutal capitalism, inappropriate for a developed nation.
    - LyndsySimon 8y ago
      > Efficiency without social safety nets and other opportunities to replace existing blue collar jobs is brutal capitalism, inappropriate for a developed nation. This position is not unanimous. I strongly disagree; "brutal capitalism" is both more efficient and more compassionate in the long run. "Social safety nets" merely transfer the burden to more people, increasing it in the process through bureaucratic overhead.
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        > This position is not unanimous. I strongly disagree; "brutal capitalism" is both more efficient and more compassionate in the long run. "Social safety nets" merely transfer the burden to more people, increasing it in the process through bureaucratic overhead. The majority of Americans support social safety nets [1], so I won't be arguing that point. Social safety nets have also been shown to reduce poverty, which reduces the burden on those paying taxes for social safety nets. [2] It would be economically irrational (and I'll go as far as to say foolish) not to support them based on that research. [1] http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/2-government-regulation-and-the-social-safety-net/ http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/2-government-regulati... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/nov/12/social-welfare-programs-food-stamps-reduce-poverty-america https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/nov/12/...
      - pm90 8y ago
        This view is usually only shared by those who have never had to deal with all the things that come with being poor. Social Safety nets are just that: safety nets. They are not meant to provide a living for everyone, but to cushion the fall for those who have fallen on hard times. To not let the weakest members of the tribe left out when there is no shortage of the basic commodities for existence. We tried Brutal Capitalism before. It lead to all the evils of the Gilded age: poverty, inequality and wanton destruction of the environment by corporations gone amok.
- taeric 8y ago
  I think it is more sides forming. Folks feel they are either on the side of white-collar or blue-collar. I would love to see a numbers run of the data to see if there are actual patterns. Ultimately, I think all jobs are on the table as something that will go away someday. That day is a long way from now, though. One of my favorite tweets from recently was in a theme of "things in your industry that are obvious, but folks out of the industry don't realize." The tweet was basically, "every piece of clothing you see was stitched together by a person." Basically, we get the impression that automation will be the big destroyer of jobs, but there is still a long way to go in that path. And, when it comes to it, white-collar jobs are probably more susceptible to automation than others. Consider, how many secretaries are there nowadays? Clerks? Data processors? I don't think these jobs have actually disappeared, but I do get the impression that they have drastically shrunken.
LyndsySimon 8y ago
> Tons of discussion to prop up coal, of all industries. I believe the argument is that domestic energy production is a matter of national security.
- taeric 8y ago
  Seems dubious. I mean, yes, we should try and maintain energy independence. I don't think we need coal for that. Nor do I think we should necessarily just flat out drop coal. If there are avenues it makes sense to use, we should do so. However, it is a remarkably bad industry for all but the owners.
- philipkglass 8y ago
  domestic energy production is a matter of national security The #1 factor in cutting US coal consumption/production over the past decade has been cheaper natural gas from domestic fracking. The #2 factor has been the rise of US wind power, which is also domestic. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25392 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25392
- pm90 8y ago
  That argument does not hold much water. Natural Gas is the preferred source for almost all new power plants, and the US has a LOT of it (Shale oil/gas). Not to mention the shitloads of good ol petroleum in the Permian Basin, Alaska and the Arctic.
jonhendry18 8y ago
Blue-collar jobs in manufacturing are mostly gone, unlikely to return. Blue-collar workers are encouraged to train for work in white-collar fields, like healthcare. Before going on to also gut a large source of white-collar employment it'd be a good idea to figure out what we're going to do with the displaced white collar workers, and the blue-collar workers who have lost a potential source of employment.

kimdotcom 8y ago

Which is also weird, because they seem like a smaller voting block, increasingly so?