4 ms·

The difficulty is that while we can move the job to where the cheaper (or specialized) labor is, we can't (currently) easily move the people around to where the

The difficulty is that while we can move the job to where the cheaper (or specialized) labor is, we can't (currently) easily move the people around to where the job is. So lower skilled people living in areas surrounded by high skill/cost people can't easily find a better Cost-of-Living balance. They get trapped with no job to match their skill. To put it more bluntly - the people of Detroit simply aren't allowed to move to the surrounding areas of the BYD factories in China.

mtrovo 1y ago
I think the idea would be that you can train people to move up the ladder into more productive roles, think about how China grew by eating the supply chain of western companies upwards. IMHO a bigger problem is the whole MBA mentality of stripping companies down to the bones, lots of huge companies are now just trademarks and vendors, to the point that's hard to prove what exactly is their advantage besides the brand.
- gessha 1y ago
  > I think the idea would be that you can train people to move up the ladder In an ideal world, yes, this would help/solve the problem. In reality, government and the private sector have done little about this.
diputsmonro 1y ago
Which is exactly why strategies like UBI are so important. Eventually the average American with no specialized skill will find that they cannot produce value when competing on a global scale. Our strategy so far has been to let them starve and tell them to "learn to code" or "become a machine operator/technician", but that strategy can only help so many people. We do not need as many technicians as laborers that the machine replaced. And when you have a mass of people who see that the future globalist economy is moving in a way that has no place for them, or plan to make sure they don't starve, you get the globalism backlash like what's happening in the US and UK over the last decade, and nationalistic pandering politicians taking advantage. The only solution is to tax the billionare owners of the job-displacing machines to provide basic living UBI to the people they replaced.
- twoodfin 1y ago
  For this claim to work, you have to demonstrate why this time is different, why standards of living and disposable income have been rising in the West and all over the world for 50 years or more—all while technological progress was as fast or faster than today.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    > standards of living and disposable income have been rising in the West and all over the world for 50 years or more Standard of living has been steadily declining in most of Western Europe post 2009: stagnating wages, exploding costs of living, declining public healthcare, pension and welfare funds, with longer waiting queues and scarcity in public services, etc. Hence why so many people are mad and see globalization as one of the main factors. They feel rug-pulled: those with inherited wealth can relax and cash in on this new status quo, those without now have to compete with Asia as they no longer have a moat that guaranteed a good and stable income from basic low-skill jobs.
    - spwa4 1y ago
      > Standard of living has been steadily declining in most of Western Europe post 2009: stagnating wages, exploding costs of living, declining public healthcare, pension and welfare funds, with longer waiting queues and scarcity in public services, etc. Actually this is because of how government financing works. Globalization, if anything, gave Europe another 50 years of growth (since this really should have become a critical problem in the 1980s) by providing very cheap products and services. The economic theory ("capitalism") that the west supposedly lives by is that in times of excess (like the last 80 years, or since 2008 at the very least) the government saves up enormous amounts, because they can easily do that, so that when international trade causes problems again that built up wealth can buffer against shocks by having the government directly finance a significant portion of GDP. The EU itself is a massive force of globalization of course, if countries join the EU they can go a lot deeper in debt. So really ... they shouldn't have done this (because if they join they can't avoid taking on extra debt). Oh wait. European governments haven't saved - at all. In fact they are deep in debt. Well, then shocks are as unavoidable as they would otherwise be, BUT now there's nothing the government can do about it. And while, yes, there is inherited wealth, frankly, it's a rounding error. Especially compared to the situation in "Asia". Not that I support inequality, I just don't understand why this is called out when it is such a small part of the problem. The problem is extreme government overspending through financialization. That is not an accident, it was (and is) deliberate policy. The real problem is that labor "needs to become more efficient". A lot more of Europe's people need to work more and/or longer. Because underneath it all, it's not really a money problem. It's a problem that things aren't getting done because governments have built all of this on income tax - which has made many jobs impossible. The situation is that we've come from a situation of growth, where everybody gets a little bit extra, and we're mostly just discussing who gets how much extra. Now, there's no growth. That means the only way pensioners get more is if unemployed people get less. The only way kids get more education is if we let more cancer patients die. The only way unemployment can go up is if we let the roads deteriorate ... And, because the governments are overfinancialized ... I wouldn't worry about wealth. Wealth has to be tied up in ownership of resources. Houses, companies, ... And when everybody is forced to use less, the prices of houses, companies, ... where that wealth is tied up, will fall a lot more than wages will fall. One thing I really hate is that people don't see what is coming. Now the argument is "we'll tax the rich". That will, of course, fail. If you steal all the wealth you've solved ... nothing. And ... you know what is a really easy, stupid job that can avoid all those tax problems? The army. And how will you finance that? "We'll just make those rich $neighboring_country assholes pay for it after we conquer them!" In other words: what's coming in Europe is war. It'll take 2 decades, but it's coming.
maxerickson 1y ago
All you people doing Detroit discourse need to also explain why the county just to the north, Oakland County, is one of the richest large counties in the United States. I guess they have a lot of Pizza Huts or something?
- cvwright 1y ago
  Are you trying to imply something racist? Just come out and say it.
  - maxerickson 1y ago
    No, not being racist. Southeast Michigan still has plenty of manufacturing is the point.

mtrovo 1y ago

I think the idea would be that you can train people to move up the ladder into more productive roles, think about how China grew by eating the supply chain of western companies upwards. IMHO a bigger problem is the whole MBA mentality of stripping companies down to the bones, lots of huge companies are now just trademarks and vendors, to the point that's hard to prove what exactly is their advantage besides the brand.

gessha 1y ago
> I think the idea would be that you can train people to move up the ladder In an ideal world, yes, this would help/solve the problem. In reality, government and the private sector have done little about this.

diputsmonro 1y ago

Which is exactly why strategies like UBI are so important. Eventually the average American with no specialized skill will find that they cannot produce value when competing on a global scale. Our strategy so far has been to let them starve and tell them to "learn to code" or "become a machine operator/technician", but that strategy can only help so many people. We do not need as many technicians as laborers that the machine replaced. And when you have a mass of people who see that the future globalist economy is moving in a way that has no place for them, or plan to make sure they don't starve, you get the globalism backlash like what's happening in the US and UK over the last decade, and nationalistic pandering politicians taking advantage. The only solution is to tax the billionare owners of the job-displacing machines to provide basic living UBI to the people they replaced.

twoodfin 1y ago
For this claim to work, you have to demonstrate why this time is different, why standards of living and disposable income have been rising in the West and all over the world for 50 years or more—all while technological progress was as fast or faster than today.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  > standards of living and disposable income have been rising in the West and all over the world for 50 years or more Standard of living has been steadily declining in most of Western Europe post 2009: stagnating wages, exploding costs of living, declining public healthcare, pension and welfare funds, with longer waiting queues and scarcity in public services, etc. Hence why so many people are mad and see globalization as one of the main factors. They feel rug-pulled: those with inherited wealth can relax and cash in on this new status quo, those without now have to compete with Asia as they no longer have a moat that guaranteed a good and stable income from basic low-skill jobs.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    > Standard of living has been steadily declining in most of Western Europe post 2009: stagnating wages, exploding costs of living, declining public healthcare, pension and welfare funds, with longer waiting queues and scarcity in public services, etc. Actually this is because of how government financing works. Globalization, if anything, gave Europe another 50 years of growth (since this really should have become a critical problem in the 1980s) by providing very cheap products and services. The economic theory ("capitalism") that the west supposedly lives by is that in times of excess (like the last 80 years, or since 2008 at the very least) the government saves up enormous amounts, because they can easily do that, so that when international trade causes problems again that built up wealth can buffer against shocks by having the government directly finance a significant portion of GDP. The EU itself is a massive force of globalization of course, if countries join the EU they can go a lot deeper in debt. So really ... they shouldn't have done this (because if they join they can't avoid taking on extra debt). Oh wait. European governments haven't saved - at all. In fact they are deep in debt. Well, then shocks are as unavoidable as they would otherwise be, BUT now there's nothing the government can do about it. And while, yes, there is inherited wealth, frankly, it's a rounding error. Especially compared to the situation in "Asia". Not that I support inequality, I just don't understand why this is called out when it is such a small part of the problem. The problem is extreme government overspending through financialization. That is not an accident, it was (and is) deliberate policy. The real problem is that labor "needs to become more efficient". A lot more of Europe's people need to work more and/or longer. Because underneath it all, it's not really a money problem. It's a problem that things aren't getting done because governments have built all of this on income tax - which has made many jobs impossible. The situation is that we've come from a situation of growth, where everybody gets a little bit extra, and we're mostly just discussing who gets how much extra. Now, there's no growth. That means the only way pensioners get more is if unemployed people get less. The only way kids get more education is if we let more cancer patients die. The only way unemployment can go up is if we let the roads deteriorate ... And, because the governments are overfinancialized ... I wouldn't worry about wealth. Wealth has to be tied up in ownership of resources. Houses, companies, ... And when everybody is forced to use less, the prices of houses, companies, ... where that wealth is tied up, will fall a lot more than wages will fall. One thing I really hate is that people don't see what is coming. Now the argument is "we'll tax the rich". That will, of course, fail. If you steal all the wealth you've solved ... nothing. And ... you know what is a really easy, stupid job that can avoid all those tax problems? The army. And how will you finance that? "We'll just make those rich $neighboring_country assholes pay for it after we conquer them!" In other words: what's coming in Europe is war. It'll take 2 decades, but it's coming.

maxerickson 1y ago

All you people doing Detroit discourse need to also explain why the county just to the north, Oakland County, is one of the richest large counties in the United States. I guess they have a lot of Pizza Huts or something?

cvwright 1y ago
Are you trying to imply something racist? Just come out and say it.
- maxerickson 1y ago
  No, not being racist. Southeast Michigan still has plenty of manufacturing is the point.