6 ms·

It's really pretty simple. "The jobs" didn't go to robots, they went to humans in China. Blaming automation is just a way to sweep under the rug the results of

It's really pretty simple. "The jobs" didn't go to robots, they went to humans in China. Blaming automation is just a way to sweep under the rug the results of the last 20 years of American trade policy. Even if all those jobs eventually get automated, at this point they will be done by robots in China, not in America. It's still a big loss for the US.

space_fountain 8y ago
How come us manufacturer output has gone up while we shed jobs then?
- dd36 8y ago
  How is it measured?
- Camillo 8y ago
  Because it's counted by the value of the finished products even if most of the actual manufacturing is done abroad.
- jjoonathan 8y ago
  Only if you play with the numbers to make it appear that way. https://qz.com/1269172/the-epic-mistake-about-manufacturing-thats-cost-americans-millions-of-jobs/ https://qz.com/1269172/the-epic-mistake-about-manufacturing-...
  - Latteland 8y ago
    Okay I read that. It basically says if you took away the computer industry growth the us grew at an anemic rate, like 0.2%. Or most of the growth was in one particular sector. I don't think they were arguing that the growth is somehow overinflated, just that it was focused on one sector. Does it matter that it was flat everywhere except in the computer field? I think there must be something more you are getting at.
owens99 8y ago
Automation will bring the robots back to USA, actually. Since robots cost the same to operate in US and they do in China, factories will shift location closer to the markets they supply. EDIT: my point was not clear enough. I'm saying in the long-term automation will reduce the cost of labor close to zero, leaving only the cost of inputs and distribution (supply chain). Not to mention the IP risks of locating tech in China, advanced automation will make it more cost effective to shift production to be located next to the markets where those products are sold to consumers. China is well aware of this, which is why the current government policy is focused on boosting the local innovation and technology economy.
- anovikov 8y ago
  Except the markets they supply will also be in China as economy there is already bigger and consumption will very soon be also bigger...
  - owens99 8y ago
    The economy is not bigger in China yet. Also, the competition in China will be more fierce for US companies than in domestic markets, meaning they will have less market share.
  - sremani 8y ago
    China has aging population (median 41 years age) and things get further complicated by one child policy, which are not reversing even with relaxation of it. Their attempts to pivot to consumption economy did not yield much of a result. Once their shawdow financing faces a day of reckoning, we have to wait an see what their real consumption capacity is.
    - Latteland 8y ago
      That is surprisingly old for China. I looked up a random source on the internet that was close to that. Doesn't really change your point though. This article says Chinese median age in 2019 is 37.3 and us is 36.5. That's interesting that we are the same. China has the other problem of producing too many men and not enough women, leading to increasing problems of pressure. That problem of not enough women to match the men seems like it will be a worse problem. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/china-population/ http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/china-populati... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dgzl 8y ago
What are the biggest reasons companies send jobs overseas? It has always been my impression that companies do this because regulations in the US are too strict, and minimum wage is too high to support certain work.
- zwkrt 8y ago
  Saying that something moves to China because minimum wage is too high has always been an interesting topic for me. With a positive spin this argument becomes "the American government has set a standard of living which is too high to allow such manufacturing processes or subjective abuse of labor". Reducing regulations or lowering minimum wage would verly likely not result in a better standard of living, even though it would be most economically efficient for everyone to be working for peanuts 60hr/week. It seems to me that it is part of the governments job to say "yes this is economically feasible, but not socially acceptable." Outsourcing breaks this dynamic by introducing moral hazard--we can have our cake and eat it too. I think if there were a minimum global standard of living, most cheap plastic shit just wouldn't get made.
  - dgzl 8y ago
    Brilliant comment, I've had this understand for a while myself. We can legislate ourselves to a higher standard of working/living, but the work then becomes a premium and will support fewer people, as outsourcing occurs, to automation and other workforce that doesn't demand such benefits. What does that make the person who demands a better working condition for themselves, but is fine that a percentage of work is outsourced to a sweatshop?
    - drak0n1c 8y ago
      Labor and wage regulations economically function akin to a "carbon tax" on labor. In addition to encouraging outsourcing, they are encouraging the early adoption of technological alternatives (robots/AI) that face no such restrictions.
  - throwaway34241 8y ago
    The traditional model is that US employment is driven by fiscal and monetary policy. So the Gov. and central bank stimulate the economy until it reaches full employment, then put on the brakes when inflation gets too high. With this model, even if some jobs shift to China or are automated, that just means the central bank can step on the gas a little bit more, and employment and standard of living is unaffected. One problem with this model is structural problems where say jobs are being created but are in a different place than the ones being destroyed. People may be unwilling to move or it may be too expensive. They also could require different skills. Another issue is that the central banks are limited in their ability to lower interest rates (their traditional way of stimulating the economy and getting out of recessions). Fiscal policy (Gov. borrowing and spending) is not expensive at all now (the Gov. currently pays hardly any inflation-adjusted interest on the debt), but if interest rates were ever to rise substantially having a large debt could be a problem. Spending the money efficiently also could be a challenge and it's politically controversial to do it at all. Personally I think something like a UBI is probably a good idea to insure against things just imploding. In the event of a recession they could just increase it to stimulate the economy, which probably can happen a lot faster than infrastructure projects etc. And if automation accelerates, it may be tough for large numbers of people to adapt quickly (even if they eventually do).

space_fountain 8y ago

How come us manufacturer output has gone up while we shed jobs then?

dd36 8y ago
How is it measured?
Camillo 8y ago
Because it's counted by the value of the finished products even if most of the actual manufacturing is done abroad.
jjoonathan 8y ago
Only if you play with the numbers to make it appear that way. https://qz.com/1269172/the-epic-mistake-about-manufacturing-thats-cost-americans-millions-of-jobs/ https://qz.com/1269172/the-epic-mistake-about-manufacturing-...
- Latteland 8y ago
  Okay I read that. It basically says if you took away the computer industry growth the us grew at an anemic rate, like 0.2%. Or most of the growth was in one particular sector. I don't think they were arguing that the growth is somehow overinflated, just that it was focused on one sector. Does it matter that it was flat everywhere except in the computer field? I think there must be something more you are getting at.

owens99 8y ago

Automation will bring the robots back to USA, actually. Since robots cost the same to operate in US and they do in China, factories will shift location closer to the markets they supply. EDIT: my point was not clear enough. I'm saying in the long-term automation will reduce the cost of labor close to zero, leaving only the cost of inputs and distribution (supply chain). Not to mention the IP risks of locating tech in China, advanced automation will make it more cost effective to shift production to be located next to the markets where those products are sold to consumers. China is well aware of this, which is why the current government policy is focused on boosting the local innovation and technology economy.

anovikov 8y ago
Except the markets they supply will also be in China as economy there is already bigger and consumption will very soon be also bigger...
- owens99 8y ago
  The economy is not bigger in China yet. Also, the competition in China will be more fierce for US companies than in domestic markets, meaning they will have less market share.
- sremani 8y ago
  China has aging population (median 41 years age) and things get further complicated by one child policy, which are not reversing even with relaxation of it. Their attempts to pivot to consumption economy did not yield much of a result. Once their shawdow financing faces a day of reckoning, we have to wait an see what their real consumption capacity is.
  - Latteland 8y ago
    That is surprisingly old for China. I looked up a random source on the internet that was close to that. Doesn't really change your point though. This article says Chinese median age in 2019 is 37.3 and us is 36.5. That's interesting that we are the same. China has the other problem of producing too many men and not enough women, leading to increasing problems of pressure. That problem of not enough women to match the men seems like it will be a worse problem. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/china-population/ http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/china-populati... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dgzl 8y ago

What are the biggest reasons companies send jobs overseas? It has always been my impression that companies do this because regulations in the US are too strict, and minimum wage is too high to support certain work.

zwkrt 8y ago
Saying that something moves to China because minimum wage is too high has always been an interesting topic for me. With a positive spin this argument becomes "the American government has set a standard of living which is too high to allow such manufacturing processes or subjective abuse of labor". Reducing regulations or lowering minimum wage would verly likely not result in a better standard of living, even though it would be most economically efficient for everyone to be working for peanuts 60hr/week. It seems to me that it is part of the governments job to say "yes this is economically feasible, but not socially acceptable." Outsourcing breaks this dynamic by introducing moral hazard--we can have our cake and eat it too. I think if there were a minimum global standard of living, most cheap plastic shit just wouldn't get made.
- dgzl 8y ago
  Brilliant comment, I've had this understand for a while myself. We can legislate ourselves to a higher standard of working/living, but the work then becomes a premium and will support fewer people, as outsourcing occurs, to automation and other workforce that doesn't demand such benefits. What does that make the person who demands a better working condition for themselves, but is fine that a percentage of work is outsourced to a sweatshop?
  - drak0n1c 8y ago
    Labor and wage regulations economically function akin to a "carbon tax" on labor. In addition to encouraging outsourcing, they are encouraging the early adoption of technological alternatives (robots/AI) that face no such restrictions.
- throwaway34241 8y ago
  The traditional model is that US employment is driven by fiscal and monetary policy. So the Gov. and central bank stimulate the economy until it reaches full employment, then put on the brakes when inflation gets too high. With this model, even if some jobs shift to China or are automated, that just means the central bank can step on the gas a little bit more, and employment and standard of living is unaffected. One problem with this model is structural problems where say jobs are being created but are in a different place than the ones being destroyed. People may be unwilling to move or it may be too expensive. They also could require different skills. Another issue is that the central banks are limited in their ability to lower interest rates (their traditional way of stimulating the economy and getting out of recessions). Fiscal policy (Gov. borrowing and spending) is not expensive at all now (the Gov. currently pays hardly any inflation-adjusted interest on the debt), but if interest rates were ever to rise substantially having a large debt could be a problem. Spending the money efficiently also could be a challenge and it's politically controversial to do it at all. Personally I think something like a UBI is probably a good idea to insure against things just imploding. In the event of a recession they could just increase it to stimulate the economy, which probably can happen a lot faster than infrastructure projects etc. And if automation accelerates, it may be tough for large numbers of people to adapt quickly (even if they eventually do).