4 ms·

Tell that to the parts of the American populace who suffered most from the lack of lower-education jobs. Deaths of despair have risen in that population sector

Tell that to the parts of the American populace who suffered most from the lack of lower-education jobs. Deaths of despair have risen in that population sector over the last four decades. Wages have become stagnant. The generation that was born after this shift to China will be the first American generation in centuries to have a lower standard of living than their parents. These companies tossed the heavy manufacturing capabilities of the United States to a geopolitical rival. To be clear: there is no China with superpower ambitions if the American shareholder class hadn't made it happen.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
beaeglebeached 3y ago
Jobs moving to where they can be performed cheapest is simple economic force. Through black market or white market, communism or capitalism, that populaces goose was cooked as soon as other parts of the world could perform and deliver their jobs cheaper. The strategy at that point is better comparative advantage. Education, capital improvements, infrastructure. Protectionism doesn't generate value .
- staplers 3y ago
  Another point to add, if there are less local manufacturing/physical labor jobs, market forces will incentivize innovation in other areas like infotech jobs, etc. Not saying it's overall beneficial but it likely pushes the working class towards other areas like infotech and more specialized trades which could lead to innovation in those spaces. Creates a trade dependency however.
  - lenerdenator 3y ago
    It does not likely do those things consistently on a national level. Information technology was great for a handful of states - well, cities, really; I can't help but notice the lack of a MacOS Bakersfield - but not across the geography of the United States. The capital concentrated in those areas to an absurd extent. During the low interest rate days, VCs in these areas were far more likely to invest in an absolutely terrible idea within a fifty-mile radius of their offices than they were to invest in a good idea 800 miles away. They also drastically overvalue businesses that can throw on a thin whitewash of "tech company" on an otherwise-conventional business model, even if the execution of that business model does poorly in actually producing value for the non-shareholder parts of the market economy.
    - staplers 3y ago
      was great for a handful of states - well, cities, really I assume many government decisions around the world have similar effects. Can't imagine it's isolated to infotech or a specific sector.
- lenerdenator 3y ago
  > Education, capital improvements, infrastructure All of which these areas lack because of revenue structuring that makes it impossible for them to pay for it.
  - beaeglebeached 3y ago
    Should be some extra money once you strip away most of what goes to the military and middlemen in healthcare.
    - lenerdenator 3y ago
      Many of the things mentioned are handled at the local/state level in the US, while the military and healthcare regulation are a more national concern. Congress doesn't carve out that much money to make sure that some kid in rural Missouri actually has what he needs from schooling to compete in the global economy. Even if they did, you'd have some conservative super PAC-funded state level politician arguing against it because it's "a way for out of touch Washington bureaucrats to attack local traditional values".
      - beaeglebeached 3y ago
        I mean it works all the way down. Eliminate the taxes I have to pay for military and extraneous healthcare costs, and I could and would afford to buy a little backhoe. With that I can improve the public road easement on my property, help my neighbors run utilities, make my property more hospitable to producing goods. Just opening up that cash, even if super PAC blocks it's reuse as tax, works wonders at an individual level at improving infrastructure.
        lenerdenator 3y ago
        Not to say that we couldn't budget better as a country, but that's far more ambitious than most of the people I encountered while in a 6-year-long relationship with someone in the rural lower Midwest. Hell, most people in those areas don't pay a meaningful amount of federal income tax, so cutting military expenditures wouldn't help there.
Aunche 3y ago
By the time China became the world's manufacturer, Japan and automation had already functionally killed lower-education jobs. On the other hand, the efficiency of Chinese manufacturing has enabled more desirable and lucrative jobs in services and entrepreneurship. Americans already the second highest incomes in the world [1], which have continued to trend upward despite the rise of China [2]. The pain that Americans face rose internally (healthcare, housing, and college). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
- pjmorris 3y ago
  > Americans already the second highest incomes in the world [1], I would like to see this broken down by decile over time; I suspect that doing so would show a shift favoring higher income deciles and disfavoring lower income deciles. If Bill Gates eats at a restaurant, the median net worth of the restaurant's customers makes them billionaires. But that doesn't mean they are all that well off. The same is true for income and for the US population.
  - Aunche 3y ago
    You're thinking of the mean. The median is the 50th percentile.
voxic11 3y ago
> These companies tossed the heavy manufacturing capabilities of the United States to a geopolitical rival. But for it to be considered treason they would have to committed that act with the intent of betraying the United States for their enemies. I think you will have a hard time showing that was their intent when a much more obvious and likely intent was making a profit. If you take out the intent part of treason then it would apply to all sorts of scenarios and would severely restrict the freedom of US citizens. For instance would you consider a US citizen who is loyal to the United States but takes a year to volunteer at an Iranian hospital to be committing treason? What about a US factory worker who strikes for better working conditions and the strike gives an advantage to a Chinese competitor?
huytersd 3y ago
From a third party perspective though, that globalization move helped lift more than a billion people out of abject poverty and helped industrialize about 1/7th of humanity and all it took was a marginal decrease in prosperity for the richest nation in the world. If there was a world wide arbiter, that move would be a no brainer.
- lenerdenator 3y ago
  > marginal decrease The decrease has been far from marginal. You don't get an increasing amount of political extremism from marginal changes in economic fortunes. You get them from a ton of alienation, desperation, and despair.
  - huytersd 3y ago
    It’s marginal compared to the change a poverty stricken Chinese that was starving to death went through. Also people are very resistant to moving backwards in any sort of way, I can see intense opposition to even a small reduction in quality of life.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

beaeglebeached 3y ago

Jobs moving to where they can be performed cheapest is simple economic force. Through black market or white market, communism or capitalism, that populaces goose was cooked as soon as other parts of the world could perform and deliver their jobs cheaper. The strategy at that point is better comparative advantage. Education, capital improvements, infrastructure. Protectionism doesn't generate value .

staplers 3y ago
Another point to add, if there are less local manufacturing/physical labor jobs, market forces will incentivize innovation in other areas like infotech jobs, etc. Not saying it's overall beneficial but it likely pushes the working class towards other areas like infotech and more specialized trades which could lead to innovation in those spaces. Creates a trade dependency however.
- lenerdenator 3y ago
  It does not likely do those things consistently on a national level. Information technology was great for a handful of states - well, cities, really; I can't help but notice the lack of a MacOS Bakersfield - but not across the geography of the United States. The capital concentrated in those areas to an absurd extent. During the low interest rate days, VCs in these areas were far more likely to invest in an absolutely terrible idea within a fifty-mile radius of their offices than they were to invest in a good idea 800 miles away. They also drastically overvalue businesses that can throw on a thin whitewash of "tech company" on an otherwise-conventional business model, even if the execution of that business model does poorly in actually producing value for the non-shareholder parts of the market economy.
  - staplers 3y ago
    was great for a handful of states - well, cities, really I assume many government decisions around the world have similar effects. Can't imagine it's isolated to infotech or a specific sector.
lenerdenator 3y ago
> Education, capital improvements, infrastructure All of which these areas lack because of revenue structuring that makes it impossible for them to pay for it.
- beaeglebeached 3y ago
  Should be some extra money once you strip away most of what goes to the military and middlemen in healthcare.
  - lenerdenator 3y ago
    Many of the things mentioned are handled at the local/state level in the US, while the military and healthcare regulation are a more national concern. Congress doesn't carve out that much money to make sure that some kid in rural Missouri actually has what he needs from schooling to compete in the global economy. Even if they did, you'd have some conservative super PAC-funded state level politician arguing against it because it's "a way for out of touch Washington bureaucrats to attack local traditional values".
    - beaeglebeached 3y ago
      I mean it works all the way down. Eliminate the taxes I have to pay for military and extraneous healthcare costs, and I could and would afford to buy a little backhoe. With that I can improve the public road easement on my property, help my neighbors run utilities, make my property more hospitable to producing goods. Just opening up that cash, even if super PAC blocks it's reuse as tax, works wonders at an individual level at improving infrastructure.
      - lenerdenator 3y ago
        Not to say that we couldn't budget better as a country, but that's far more ambitious than most of the people I encountered while in a 6-year-long relationship with someone in the rural lower Midwest. Hell, most people in those areas don't pay a meaningful amount of federal income tax, so cutting military expenditures wouldn't help there.

Aunche 3y ago

By the time China became the world's manufacturer, Japan and automation had already functionally killed lower-education jobs. On the other hand, the efficiency of Chinese manufacturing has enabled more desirable and lucrative jobs in services and entrepreneurship. Americans already the second highest incomes in the world [1], which have continued to trend upward despite the rise of China [2]. The pain that Americans face rose internally (healthcare, housing, and college). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

pjmorris 3y ago
> Americans already the second highest incomes in the world [1], I would like to see this broken down by decile over time; I suspect that doing so would show a shift favoring higher income deciles and disfavoring lower income deciles. If Bill Gates eats at a restaurant, the median net worth of the restaurant's customers makes them billionaires. But that doesn't mean they are all that well off. The same is true for income and for the US population.
- Aunche 3y ago
  You're thinking of the mean. The median is the 50th percentile.

voxic11 3y ago

> These companies tossed the heavy manufacturing capabilities of the United States to a geopolitical rival. But for it to be considered treason they would have to committed that act with the intent of betraying the United States for their enemies. I think you will have a hard time showing that was their intent when a much more obvious and likely intent was making a profit. If you take out the intent part of treason then it would apply to all sorts of scenarios and would severely restrict the freedom of US citizens. For instance would you consider a US citizen who is loyal to the United States but takes a year to volunteer at an Iranian hospital to be committing treason? What about a US factory worker who strikes for better working conditions and the strike gives an advantage to a Chinese competitor?

huytersd 3y ago

From a third party perspective though, that globalization move helped lift more than a billion people out of abject poverty and helped industrialize about 1/7th of humanity and all it took was a marginal decrease in prosperity for the richest nation in the world. If there was a world wide arbiter, that move would be a no brainer.

lenerdenator 3y ago
> marginal decrease The decrease has been far from marginal. You don't get an increasing amount of political extremism from marginal changes in economic fortunes. You get them from a ton of alienation, desperation, and despair.
- huytersd 3y ago
  It’s marginal compared to the change a poverty stricken Chinese that was starving to death went through. Also people are very resistant to moving backwards in any sort of way, I can see intense opposition to even a small reduction in quality of life.