3 ms·

Retired or fired. That leads to the disaster of a huge loss of expertise and manual skills. Sure we can rebuild factories that have disappeared, but who is go

Retired or fired. That leads to the disaster of a huge loss of expertise and manual skills. Sure we can rebuild factories that have disappeared, but who is going to work in those factories? Who knows how to do fitting and turning these days? Who is skilled in designing equipment? Who knows how to use a sewing-machine? Who knows how to use explosives in mining? What about the use of a soldering-iron? And many more skills which have disappeared. Then there is the huge amount of background knowledge and expertise that has also disappeared. What is the best design for a ship? Where can we get the cheapest materials for refining X? What is the best, fastest, or cheapest process for refining X? Should we be refining X? Maybe it would be best to use Y instead, because it doesn't corrode as easily as X. Offshoring is quick and easy. Onshoring is a completely different kettle of fish. Once manufacturing goes, it very rarely comes back to anywhere near the extent we had before. That capability is gone forever.

nonethewiser 4y ago
Seems like you're talking about jobs that were eliminated. I agree with your diagnosis in that regard. But the article is about unfilled positions. They aren't unfilled because they fired people.
skibidibipiti 4y ago
[dead]
TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
> Who knows how to use a sewing-machine? Who knows how to use explosives in mining? What about the use of a soldering-iron? YouTube videos! /s
cudgy 4y ago
“Offshoring is quick and easy. Onshoring is a completely different kettle of fish.” Offshoring is onshoring in the opposite country, so this makes no sense.
- simonblack 4y ago
  Offshoring is onshoring in the opposite country, so this makes no sense. Offshoring is the loss of your own workers and expertise. Onshoring back to your own country is hopefully a regain in workers and expertise. But as I said, that is a completely different kettle of fish. Onshoring overseas manufacturing back to your own country doesn't happen because all those workers and expertise that your country used to have in the past, before those manufacturing companies were offshored have been lost. Onshoring to the opposite country means that opposite country is the country which gains in both skilled workers and also expertise. Their gain is your loss. Their economy grows, your economy dies. Their workers get richer, your workers have to go on the dole. Once upon a time, in the 1980s, I had relatives who worked in a Paper factory in Michigan. I wonder where those guys from that town are working now. I wonder how many people, if any, that Paper factory employs now. Oops. Seems that paper mill was shutdown in 1994 and demolished in 2002. China is today's biggest paper producer. Who coulda foreseen that? https://www.swmpc.org/downloads/mill_historysignfinal.pdf https://www.swmpc.org/downloads/mill_historysignfinal.pdf
  - cudgy 4y ago
    You said that off-shoring is fast and easy, but on-shoring is difficult (and slow I presume). My point is that this cannot logically be true and creates a paradox: for the other country (China for example), the on-shoring to china from the off-shoring from the USA would be fast and easy, but the off-shoring from china to the on-shoring to the USA would be difficult. This violates your basic rule, since China would then have fast and easy on-shoring but slow and difficult off-shoring. I would argue that the US can on-shore quickly just like China did over the last 20-30 years, if it actually wanted to do it. Unfortunately, there is no political will to do so, but the capability is there.
    - simonblack 4y ago
      I would argue that the US can on-shore quickly just like China did over the last 20-30 years Nope. Onshoring back to the US is not now cost-effective. The US is not (at present) a low-wage alternative, like China was in the 1990s. The only way the US will become a low-wage alternative is if/when the US Dollar collapses. That probably won't be for another 5-10 years.

nonethewiser 4y ago

Seems like you're talking about jobs that were eliminated. I agree with your diagnosis in that regard. But the article is about unfilled positions. They aren't unfilled because they fired people.

skibidibipiti 4y ago

[dead]

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago

> Who knows how to use a sewing-machine? Who knows how to use explosives in mining? What about the use of a soldering-iron? YouTube videos! /s

cudgy 4y ago

“Offshoring is quick and easy. Onshoring is a completely different kettle of fish.” Offshoring is onshoring in the opposite country, so this makes no sense.

simonblack 4y ago
Offshoring is onshoring in the opposite country, so this makes no sense. Offshoring is the loss of your own workers and expertise. Onshoring back to your own country is hopefully a regain in workers and expertise. But as I said, that is a completely different kettle of fish. Onshoring overseas manufacturing back to your own country doesn't happen because all those workers and expertise that your country used to have in the past, before those manufacturing companies were offshored have been lost. Onshoring to the opposite country means that opposite country is the country which gains in both skilled workers and also expertise. Their gain is your loss. Their economy grows, your economy dies. Their workers get richer, your workers have to go on the dole. Once upon a time, in the 1980s, I had relatives who worked in a Paper factory in Michigan. I wonder where those guys from that town are working now. I wonder how many people, if any, that Paper factory employs now. Oops. Seems that paper mill was shutdown in 1994 and demolished in 2002. China is today's biggest paper producer. Who coulda foreseen that? https://www.swmpc.org/downloads/mill_historysignfinal.pdf https://www.swmpc.org/downloads/mill_historysignfinal.pdf
- cudgy 4y ago
  You said that off-shoring is fast and easy, but on-shoring is difficult (and slow I presume). My point is that this cannot logically be true and creates a paradox: for the other country (China for example), the on-shoring to china from the off-shoring from the USA would be fast and easy, but the off-shoring from china to the on-shoring to the USA would be difficult. This violates your basic rule, since China would then have fast and easy on-shoring but slow and difficult off-shoring. I would argue that the US can on-shore quickly just like China did over the last 20-30 years, if it actually wanted to do it. Unfortunately, there is no political will to do so, but the capability is there.
  - simonblack 4y ago
    I would argue that the US can on-shore quickly just like China did over the last 20-30 years Nope. Onshoring back to the US is not now cost-effective. The US is not (at present) a low-wage alternative, like China was in the 1990s. The only way the US will become a low-wage alternative is if/when the US Dollar collapses. That probably won't be for another 5-10 years.