4 ms·

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 parad

by 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.
- cudgy 4y ago
  OK. I assume you recognize the fallacy in your statement. As for the statement regarding low wages being the primary driver, you are ignoring the impact of protectionism. The Chinese do it now, and they did it through the whole process of on-shoring jobs in the United States. The United States traditionally has done it as well, with the exception of the recent decades of globalism, hence the huge reduction of jobs overseas. Furthermore, there have been cheaper workers around the world compared to United States workers for as long as the United States has been in existence. If lower wages always determined the number of jobs in the United States, how did the US grow at incredible rates in the 20th century given the fact that cheaper wages were available around the world?

by cudgy 4y ago

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.

cudgy 4y ago
OK. I assume you recognize the fallacy in your statement. As for the statement regarding low wages being the primary driver, you are ignoring the impact of protectionism. The Chinese do it now, and they did it through the whole process of on-shoring jobs in the United States. The United States traditionally has done it as well, with the exception of the recent decades of globalism, hence the huge reduction of jobs overseas. Furthermore, there have been cheaper workers around the world compared to United States workers for as long as the United States has been in existence. If lower wages always determined the number of jobs in the United States, how did the US grow at incredible rates in the 20th century given the fact that cheaper wages were available around the world?