3 ms·

No, US didn't lose it, we collectively decided that whenever we buy something, the price was the most important aspect. It's like everybody forgot that their n

No, US didn't lose it, we collectively decided that whenever we buy something, the price was the most important aspect. It's like everybody forgot that their neighbour's job depend on them. We're repeating the same pattern with online shopping, malls and stores everywhere are closing because of our collective actions, we're not losing them like I lost my keys.

denkmoon 8mo ago
Homo economicus' desire for a 'good deal' or 'a bargain' will kill us.
- SlightlyLeftPad 8mo ago
  “Why would I hire X when I can get it for $20 a month on ChatGPT?” Hmm, I don’t like the sound of that.
vsgherzi 8mo ago
What you're describing literally is us losing it. We lost in the market. Price was above all for the market and we didn't adapt and lost. I agree with the point you're trying to make but we did lose it in the sense that we do not have the manufacturing capacity we once did
- alt227 8mo ago
  We didnt 'not adapt and loose' we welcomed it with open arms in order to get cheap prices. People voted with their wallets and collectively decided they didnt give 2 hoots about where something was made as long as the price was right.
  - kksidnsjd 8mo ago
    [dead]
donw 8mo ago
We collectively decided nothing. Our political/ruling class wanted more of the pie for themselves, dropped the trade barriers protecting American industry, and gorged themselves on the arbitrage as manufacturing flowed to our chief geopolitcal rival, who was quite happy to accept such a generous gift.
- insane_dreamer 8mo ago
  That's true, but we also collectively decided to buy cheap stuff from Walmart instead of buying from the local town store, creating a race to the bottom.
  - plagiarist 8mo ago
    Or did stagnant wages drive Americans to buy what they could afford instead of products that would last? We also have many US manufacturers moving sourcing their subcomponents from overseas to save a few cents per unit, there's no way to prevent that, nobody is going to check the BOM from everything they ever buy. I think collective behavior is a large component but it is not quite right to declare it as the primary driver.
    - Braxton1980 8mo ago
      What if people could have purchased American made goods but this means that they would have had to have less or what they did get wouldn't be as good. For example, I get a 40inch TV instead of a 65 inch or I buy a set of American made screwdrivers but then I can't get a bottle of Vodka. Most people have their basic needs met. They just want as much as possible for their money even if it harms other Americans. At the same time, if they happen to work at a factory making extension cords, they'll want people to buy their US made cords to protect their job. Because most people are selfish when it comes to people who aren't family or friends.
  - pixl97 8mo ago
    Ya, because the same item was way more at other stores and people didn't understand why. Most of it was logistics at first and not just cheap items. That and buying in very very large lots. It was over time that the hunt for more profits started chasing cheap items. Really the mom and pop store was set to die in the US because of car culture. You'll pay a bit more to walk to the closest store, but if you're already driving there is very little cost in driving to a store a little farther is almost nothing.
cucumber3732842 8mo ago
Who's we? The college educated white collar professionals who are grossly over-represented in policy discourse? Middle america, the formerly industrial northeast and the former bulk industry west have been complaining about this shit policy for over a generation. Implicitly shuttering our manufacturing and heavy industry by subjecting it to policy that we knew would make it increasingly noncompetitive at the margin and would prevent continuing investment was a macro/federal level economic policy choice that was actively pursued for approx 50yr.
- rangestransform 8mo ago
  Not overrepresented enough given that middle America has disproportionate per capita voting power
  - cucumber3732842 8mo ago
    It's not just middle america. It's the entire economy that deals in things first and numbers and ideas second.
- Braxton1980 8mo ago
  What government policies are you referring to? Businesses moved manufacturing to China because their goal is to make as much money as possible. The only potential barrier is if US citizens would care that it wasn't made in America. Products are labeled and most people don't care. This is an American quality where a person who works in a factory that makes extension cords and needs their job to survive would buy the cheaper lamp even though it's made in China. Most people aren't willing to make financial sacrifices to help people they don't know EVEN if they might be affected by another person having the same belief.
  - mschuster91 8mo ago
    > Businesses moved manufacturing to China because their goal is to make as much money as possible. There used to be other times and more honorable businessmen. Then came the Dodge Brothers who managed to get a court judgement asserting shareholder supremacy over long term interests [1]. The only thing I never understood is how in god's name Amazon got away with reinvesting profits and never dishing out to shareholders for decades. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
shiroiuma 8mo ago
>We're repeating the same pattern with online shopping, malls and stores everywhere are closing because of our collective actions Are you talking about the small mom-n-pop shops that are only open when most people are at work, while with online shopping you can do it any time 24/7? The same mom-n-pop shops that refused to take returns, and had poor selection and would take weeks to order something for you, at a ridiculous price? There are a lot of really good reasons online shopping has put so many stores out of business.
mschuster91 8mo ago
> We're repeating the same pattern with online shopping, malls and stores everywhere are closing because of our collective actions, we're not losing them like I lost my keys. A huge part of that is rents. Basically, a store that owns their property outright or even on mortgage has far less worries when business turns down during a crisis. Take Covid - a year or two, depending on where you were, in more or less lockdown conditions. A store that was owner-owned? No big deal. Staff was paid for by government assistance, not much ongoing cost for the building. Owned but mortgaged? Cut a deal with the bank, no bank wants to go through a 2007ff event again and they also got assistance for loans. But a store that was rented? Yeetie yeetie. Commercial renters have zero protections anywhere, and landlords are nonforgiving - especially when they are backed by REITs and other investment vehicles. Recent history is filled with examples of investment funds that behave like vultures - seek out a company that has sizable owned real estate, buy stocks, force the management to sell off the real estate in a heavily biased sale-and-lease-back maneuver, put the acquisition debt on the company's ledgers, sell off the real estate and let the husk of the company wither.
- alt227 8mo ago
  > A huge part of that is rents. And this is becasue huge international investors still own sites like malls and retail centers and still remember the massive rents they used to command for those units. The bubble will burst when enough sites are written off, and IMO rents will come back down to a reasonable level in a decade or 2.
  - mschuster91 8mo ago
    > And this is becasue huge international investors still own sites like malls and retail centers and still remember the massive rents they used to command for those units. Oh no. It's US pension funds that own a lot of real estate, and these will continue to get bailed out or protected by the government. The decision of the US to back pensions on the stonk market has insane, crippling side effects not just on their economy but also on the rest of the world.
    - 7mo ago
solidsnack9000 8mo ago
Choosing the lowest price is rational for the consumer. Setting the trade policy that allowed that lowest price -- the USA has less protection for the semiconductor industry than it has for textiles -- was the mistake. Free trade does result in the best prices but it has other, negative effects, and it is when we think as policy makers -- as citizens, not consumers or business owners -- that we are accountable for those effects.
dyauspitr 8mo ago
This is not a valid criticism. You cannot expect people to become activist consumers through every purchase in their lives. Some of this is on manufacturers too. With all the billions and trillions we have I don’t understand why Americans are refusing to set up large scale dark factories. China already has ramped up a huge number of them but we refuse to do it.

denkmoon 8mo ago

Homo economicus' desire for a 'good deal' or 'a bargain' will kill us.

SlightlyLeftPad 8mo ago
“Why would I hire X when I can get it for $20 a month on ChatGPT?” Hmm, I don’t like the sound of that.

vsgherzi 8mo ago

What you're describing literally is us losing it. We lost in the market. Price was above all for the market and we didn't adapt and lost. I agree with the point you're trying to make but we did lose it in the sense that we do not have the manufacturing capacity we once did

alt227 8mo ago
We didnt 'not adapt and loose' we welcomed it with open arms in order to get cheap prices. People voted with their wallets and collectively decided they didnt give 2 hoots about where something was made as long as the price was right.
- kksidnsjd 8mo ago
  [dead]

donw 8mo ago

We collectively decided nothing. Our political/ruling class wanted more of the pie for themselves, dropped the trade barriers protecting American industry, and gorged themselves on the arbitrage as manufacturing flowed to our chief geopolitcal rival, who was quite happy to accept such a generous gift.

insane_dreamer 8mo ago
That's true, but we also collectively decided to buy cheap stuff from Walmart instead of buying from the local town store, creating a race to the bottom.
- plagiarist 8mo ago
  Or did stagnant wages drive Americans to buy what they could afford instead of products that would last? We also have many US manufacturers moving sourcing their subcomponents from overseas to save a few cents per unit, there's no way to prevent that, nobody is going to check the BOM from everything they ever buy. I think collective behavior is a large component but it is not quite right to declare it as the primary driver.
  - Braxton1980 8mo ago
    What if people could have purchased American made goods but this means that they would have had to have less or what they did get wouldn't be as good. For example, I get a 40inch TV instead of a 65 inch or I buy a set of American made screwdrivers but then I can't get a bottle of Vodka. Most people have their basic needs met. They just want as much as possible for their money even if it harms other Americans. At the same time, if they happen to work at a factory making extension cords, they'll want people to buy their US made cords to protect their job. Because most people are selfish when it comes to people who aren't family or friends.
- pixl97 8mo ago
  Ya, because the same item was way more at other stores and people didn't understand why. Most of it was logistics at first and not just cheap items. That and buying in very very large lots. It was over time that the hunt for more profits started chasing cheap items. Really the mom and pop store was set to die in the US because of car culture. You'll pay a bit more to walk to the closest store, but if you're already driving there is very little cost in driving to a store a little farther is almost nothing.

cucumber3732842 8mo ago

Who's we? The college educated white collar professionals who are grossly over-represented in policy discourse? Middle america, the formerly industrial northeast and the former bulk industry west have been complaining about this shit policy for over a generation. Implicitly shuttering our manufacturing and heavy industry by subjecting it to policy that we knew would make it increasingly noncompetitive at the margin and would prevent continuing investment was a macro/federal level economic policy choice that was actively pursued for approx 50yr.

rangestransform 8mo ago
Not overrepresented enough given that middle America has disproportionate per capita voting power
- cucumber3732842 8mo ago
  It's not just middle america. It's the entire economy that deals in things first and numbers and ideas second.
Braxton1980 8mo ago
What government policies are you referring to? Businesses moved manufacturing to China because their goal is to make as much money as possible. The only potential barrier is if US citizens would care that it wasn't made in America. Products are labeled and most people don't care. This is an American quality where a person who works in a factory that makes extension cords and needs their job to survive would buy the cheaper lamp even though it's made in China. Most people aren't willing to make financial sacrifices to help people they don't know EVEN if they might be affected by another person having the same belief.
- mschuster91 8mo ago
  > Businesses moved manufacturing to China because their goal is to make as much money as possible. There used to be other times and more honorable businessmen. Then came the Dodge Brothers who managed to get a court judgement asserting shareholder supremacy over long term interests [1]. The only thing I never understood is how in god's name Amazon got away with reinvesting profits and never dishing out to shareholders for decades. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

shiroiuma 8mo ago

>We're repeating the same pattern with online shopping, malls and stores everywhere are closing because of our collective actions Are you talking about the small mom-n-pop shops that are only open when most people are at work, while with online shopping you can do it any time 24/7? The same mom-n-pop shops that refused to take returns, and had poor selection and would take weeks to order something for you, at a ridiculous price? There are a lot of really good reasons online shopping has put so many stores out of business.

mschuster91 8mo ago

> We're repeating the same pattern with online shopping, malls and stores everywhere are closing because of our collective actions, we're not losing them like I lost my keys. A huge part of that is rents. Basically, a store that owns their property outright or even on mortgage has far less worries when business turns down during a crisis. Take Covid - a year or two, depending on where you were, in more or less lockdown conditions. A store that was owner-owned? No big deal. Staff was paid for by government assistance, not much ongoing cost for the building. Owned but mortgaged? Cut a deal with the bank, no bank wants to go through a 2007ff event again and they also got assistance for loans. But a store that was rented? Yeetie yeetie. Commercial renters have zero protections anywhere, and landlords are nonforgiving - especially when they are backed by REITs and other investment vehicles. Recent history is filled with examples of investment funds that behave like vultures - seek out a company that has sizable owned real estate, buy stocks, force the management to sell off the real estate in a heavily biased sale-and-lease-back maneuver, put the acquisition debt on the company's ledgers, sell off the real estate and let the husk of the company wither.

alt227 8mo ago
> A huge part of that is rents. And this is becasue huge international investors still own sites like malls and retail centers and still remember the massive rents they used to command for those units. The bubble will burst when enough sites are written off, and IMO rents will come back down to a reasonable level in a decade or 2.
- mschuster91 8mo ago
  > And this is becasue huge international investors still own sites like malls and retail centers and still remember the massive rents they used to command for those units. Oh no. It's US pension funds that own a lot of real estate, and these will continue to get bailed out or protected by the government. The decision of the US to back pensions on the stonk market has insane, crippling side effects not just on their economy but also on the rest of the world.
  - 7mo ago

solidsnack9000 8mo ago

Choosing the lowest price is rational for the consumer. Setting the trade policy that allowed that lowest price -- the USA has less protection for the semiconductor industry than it has for textiles -- was the mistake. Free trade does result in the best prices but it has other, negative effects, and it is when we think as policy makers -- as citizens, not consumers or business owners -- that we are accountable for those effects.

dyauspitr 8mo ago

This is not a valid criticism. You cannot expect people to become activist consumers through every purchase in their lives. Some of this is on manufacturers too. With all the billions and trillions we have I don’t understand why Americans are refusing to set up large scale dark factories. China already has ramped up a huge number of them but we refuse to do it.