4 ms·

I’m sure plenty of Americans would love to work a factory job if it meant they could provide a comfortable life for their family. Unfortunately, due to decades

I’m sure plenty of Americans would love to work a factory job if it meant they could provide a comfortable life for their family. Unfortunately, due to decades of anti-labor practices, that isn’t possible anymore. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t attempt to rectify the situation.

dragonwriter 1y ago
Its not “due to decades of abti-labor practices" but “due to a century of economic progress driving higher expectations”. Now, its true that there have, within that, been a few decades of regression in tax and other policy effecting a worsening of the distributional situation, such that labor gets a smaller share of the returns that are returned. But even with that, basically every segment of society is better off in absolute terms than when manufacturing was more dominant: working against comparative advantage and regressing on the US’s industrial mix would only reduce aggrgeate output and do nothing to improve distribution. And that's the point, because its a policy proposed by those who don't want to deal with distribution, and in fact want to take further steps to worsen it, because they expect the benefit their narrow group will receive from that will outweigh, for them, the impact of shrinking the total output.
- hippo22 1y ago
  The worsening of the distribution of wealth is exactly the problem. Productivity is increasing faster than wages. That means labor is losing out on economic gains. Your argument is that labor should just accept this because “at least they’re better off than before.” Imagine you invest $1000 in the stock market and the market is growing at 10%. But when you open your brokerage account, you see only 5% growth, and it turns out someone has been pocketing the difference. When you confront this person, they say: don’t be angry, you’re still better off than you were before. You would be right to be angry and you would be right to demand policies that force this person to give you your fair share.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > The worsening of the distribution of wealth is exactly the problem. That's literally what I said, and why the solution is to undo the things that produced that instead of undoing the things that fueled the aggregated growth while doubling down on the sources of inequality.
    - hippo22 1y ago
      Then I agree. But, one of the sources of inequality is labor arbitrage by the capitalist class. Tariffs decrease the utility of that arbitrage.
      - SR2Z 1y ago
        Tariffs decrease that utility by decreasing the utility of all imports, even the ones that were supporting domestic employment. It's not 1910 anymore. The US is integrated into the global economy and many if not most jobs export to a global audience. Do you want to hurt the labor arbitrage that allows us to support advanced manufacturing?
SR2Z 1y ago
You're sure, but virtually no Americans want to work in factories when there are plenty of jobs with either less physical demands or higher pay. This is a well-known problem with factory jobs: https://fortune.com/2025/04/15/americans-want-factory-jobs-reshored-dont-want-work-them/ https://fortune.com/2025/04/15/americans-want-factory-jobs-r... It's not possible because you simply cannot afford to pay manual factory workers a competitive wage AND sell the goods from the factory for competitive prices. Factory work coming back to America would have to look like car factories do right now: highly automated, highly skilled work that takes full advantage of cheap inputs and advanced technology. It will not be helped by raising the price of inputs, deporting engineers, and defunding research.

dragonwriter 1y ago

Its not “due to decades of abti-labor practices" but “due to a century of economic progress driving higher expectations”. Now, its true that there have, within that, been a few decades of regression in tax and other policy effecting a worsening of the distributional situation, such that labor gets a smaller share of the returns that are returned. But even with that, basically every segment of society is better off in absolute terms than when manufacturing was more dominant: working against comparative advantage and regressing on the US’s industrial mix would only reduce aggrgeate output and do nothing to improve distribution. And that's the point, because its a policy proposed by those who don't want to deal with distribution, and in fact want to take further steps to worsen it, because they expect the benefit their narrow group will receive from that will outweigh, for them, the impact of shrinking the total output.

hippo22 1y ago
The worsening of the distribution of wealth is exactly the problem. Productivity is increasing faster than wages. That means labor is losing out on economic gains. Your argument is that labor should just accept this because “at least they’re better off than before.” Imagine you invest $1000 in the stock market and the market is growing at 10%. But when you open your brokerage account, you see only 5% growth, and it turns out someone has been pocketing the difference. When you confront this person, they say: don’t be angry, you’re still better off than you were before. You would be right to be angry and you would be right to demand policies that force this person to give you your fair share.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > The worsening of the distribution of wealth is exactly the problem. That's literally what I said, and why the solution is to undo the things that produced that instead of undoing the things that fueled the aggregated growth while doubling down on the sources of inequality.
  - hippo22 1y ago
    Then I agree. But, one of the sources of inequality is labor arbitrage by the capitalist class. Tariffs decrease the utility of that arbitrage.
    - SR2Z 1y ago
      Tariffs decrease that utility by decreasing the utility of all imports, even the ones that were supporting domestic employment. It's not 1910 anymore. The US is integrated into the global economy and many if not most jobs export to a global audience. Do you want to hurt the labor arbitrage that allows us to support advanced manufacturing?

SR2Z 1y ago

You're sure, but virtually no Americans want to work in factories when there are plenty of jobs with either less physical demands or higher pay. This is a well-known problem with factory jobs: https://fortune.com/2025/04/15/americans-want-factory-jobs-reshored-dont-want-work-them/ https://fortune.com/2025/04/15/americans-want-factory-jobs-r... It's not possible because you simply cannot afford to pay manual factory workers a competitive wage AND sell the goods from the factory for competitive prices. Factory work coming back to America would have to look like car factories do right now: highly automated, highly skilled work that takes full advantage of cheap inputs and advanced technology. It will not be helped by raising the price of inputs, deporting engineers, and defunding research.