3 ms·

But many of the jobs "lost" were replaced by jobs that produces less value and has worse salary. That's only natural. If there was a higher value job that could

But many of the jobs "lost" were replaced by jobs that produces less value and has worse salary. That's only natural. If there was a higher value job that could be done, it would already have replaced the "lost" job before it was lost. We can turn and twist and look at it from many different angles but the conclusion is the same: Global economic output increased and economic inequality in rich countries increased. I don't think it's meaningful to blame any other countries like China and Vietnam for this development. But critique against globalization/our current system of trade should be taken seriously.

churchill 1y ago
Yet, the average American can afford abundantly more stuff now, compared to when these jobs were in the US? How does that compute? Buying 31-inch CRT TV in the 1990s would have set you back somewhere between $2-$3k, adjusted for inflation. But, because it's been outsourced to where it can be made more efficiently, a 32-inch HD TV costs just $99 from Amazon. This is just one product. I could go on and on. If you want to mention housing, it's a political problem since zoning doesn't permit anything to get built. The reason inequality increased is because Western governments (everyone, really) printed trillions into existence and it diluted the purchasing power of savers, the poor, and the middle class, and went into stock markets to bid up securities. That's the problem, not China making affordable stuff that costs fewer hours of labor to buy.
- geysersam 1y ago
  It's hard to make a fair comparison of "living standards" in different times. What would an iphone be worth in the 1990s? $20 million? Does that mean every American is now a millionaire? Not really.
- imtringued 1y ago
  What you said merely inflates the value of stocks. It doesn't actually explain why things have gotten worse and you're making a weird separation between stock holders and savers, they are functionally equivalent. We have cheap goods from China now, so what exactly is going wrong in your scenario? You didn't flesh that part out at all. If anything, you've decided to gloss over it, because housing is the primary issue. As someone else has said: current account deficit is capital account surplus, meaning that the Chinese are flooding the US with money that could be used to build housing, but the Americans in their wisdom decided that that's a stupid idea and the money should go in the same quantity of housing and bid it up instead. Unlike stocks people actually need housing to live in. It doesn't take much to explain how a rising cost of housing makes people feel squeezed, since it can literally lead to their eviction and homelessness.
bigbadfeline 1y ago
> I don't think it's meaningful to blame any other countries like China and Vietnam for this development. Obviously, they sold what the buyer was asking to buy. > Global economic output increased and economic inequality in rich countries increased. > critique against globalization/our current system of trade should be taken seriously. Globalization promised increased economic output and delivered, I assume you're OK with that. Then your serious critique must be directed towards the increased economic inequality. However, there's no reason to believe that globalization has anything to do with that, on the contrary, given a trickle-down distribution system, inequality would increase with or without globalization. It's kind of obvious now that globalization was implemented the way it was in order to increase inequality and... blame "globalization" for that outcome. This little trick allowed the libertarian foundations of trickle-down and competition-is-for-losers to remain intact, out of scrutiny and boosted by a giant dose of steroids. In other words, the critique against globalization is a coverup for more of the same. Trade can be balanced without tariffs... why tariffs then? Simple, because tariffs are a tax on the population at large, not on the top tier of inequality who created this mess. The latter get... why, they tax cuts ofcourse. Do you still blame inequality on globalization?

churchill 1y ago

Yet, the average American can afford abundantly more stuff now, compared to when these jobs were in the US? How does that compute? Buying 31-inch CRT TV in the 1990s would have set you back somewhere between $2-$3k, adjusted for inflation. But, because it's been outsourced to where it can be made more efficiently, a 32-inch HD TV costs just $99 from Amazon. This is just one product. I could go on and on. If you want to mention housing, it's a political problem since zoning doesn't permit anything to get built. The reason inequality increased is because Western governments (everyone, really) printed trillions into existence and it diluted the purchasing power of savers, the poor, and the middle class, and went into stock markets to bid up securities. That's the problem, not China making affordable stuff that costs fewer hours of labor to buy.

geysersam 1y ago
It's hard to make a fair comparison of "living standards" in different times. What would an iphone be worth in the 1990s? $20 million? Does that mean every American is now a millionaire? Not really.
imtringued 1y ago
What you said merely inflates the value of stocks. It doesn't actually explain why things have gotten worse and you're making a weird separation between stock holders and savers, they are functionally equivalent. We have cheap goods from China now, so what exactly is going wrong in your scenario? You didn't flesh that part out at all. If anything, you've decided to gloss over it, because housing is the primary issue. As someone else has said: current account deficit is capital account surplus, meaning that the Chinese are flooding the US with money that could be used to build housing, but the Americans in their wisdom decided that that's a stupid idea and the money should go in the same quantity of housing and bid it up instead. Unlike stocks people actually need housing to live in. It doesn't take much to explain how a rising cost of housing makes people feel squeezed, since it can literally lead to their eviction and homelessness.

bigbadfeline 1y ago

> I don't think it's meaningful to blame any other countries like China and Vietnam for this development. Obviously, they sold what the buyer was asking to buy. > Global economic output increased and economic inequality in rich countries increased. > critique against globalization/our current system of trade should be taken seriously. Globalization promised increased economic output and delivered, I assume you're OK with that. Then your serious critique must be directed towards the increased economic inequality. However, there's no reason to believe that globalization has anything to do with that, on the contrary, given a trickle-down distribution system, inequality would increase with or without globalization. It's kind of obvious now that globalization was implemented the way it was in order to increase inequality and... blame "globalization" for that outcome. This little trick allowed the libertarian foundations of trickle-down and competition-is-for-losers to remain intact, out of scrutiny and boosted by a giant dose of steroids. In other words, the critique against globalization is a coverup for more of the same. Trade can be balanced without tariffs... why tariffs then? Simple, because tariffs are a tax on the population at large, not on the top tier of inequality who created this mess. The latter get... why, they tax cuts ofcourse. Do you still blame inequality on globalization?