3 ms·

Jobs moving to where they can be performed cheapest is simple economic force. Through black market or white market, communism or capitalism, that populaces goos

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.

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.