Bringing back manufacturing jobs -- why would this not work?

Great Debates
61

I apologize for speaking too broadly regarding passing lower prices on to customers. Some companies do this. But there are too many that don’t–DeBeers, Nike, and at least one insurance company (as referenced in my previous post).

The fact, still, and my point: lower manufacturing costs do not directly and necessary result in lower costs to consumers. Pricing is affected by a multitude of factors. Offshoring results in fewer jobs for Americans. So unless we have enough low-skilled replacement jobs for everybody–and we don’t–offshoring is bad.

62

Nowadays ? I’d say that’s been the trend for, well, recorded history, starting with agriculture and domestication (which are fundamentally cheating at hunting-gathering :))

63

[QUOTE=Rachellelogram]
The fact, still, and my point: lower manufacturing costs do not directly and necessary result in lower costs to consumers. Pricing is affected by a multitude of factors. Offshoring results in fewer jobs for Americans. So unless we have enough low-skilled replacement jobs for everybody–and we don’t–offshoring is bad.
[/QUOTE]

Cite? There is a post in this thread that contradicts this assertion, so what evidence do you have to back it up with?

64

How do you determine how many are “too many”?

Most economists will tell you that it’s good, for the overall economy. Of course there will be winners and losers, but net/net it’s better for the economy and for consumers.

Now, when Honda or BMW build a car plant in the US, is that “bad” too?

65

Germany has historically been extremely protectionist. It can’t be now, because of the EU, but then it doesn’t need to be because the EU imposes its own protectionism and the Germans have relatively little intra-Euro competition in their manufacturing sectors.

66

One thing you have to remember is that when our board members advocate for the status quo in regard to the economy, and cite “most economists” and “Economics 101” they are not citing a well established field like math or chemistry, where observations can be made, measurements taken, etc. Economics are more like 1/3 math, 1/3 wish fulfillment for wealthy conservatives and 1/3 voodoo. It’s not all that good at prediction.

For example, I distinctly remember all those warnings we DIDN’T get from economists prior to Crash of 2007. You’d think an economic disaster of that magnitude would have been predictable if economics were the staid and stable science its advocates make it out to be, but there were VERY FEW, almost NO voices screaming about the fiscal debacle that was fast approaching. That’s because the wealthy elites REALLY, REALLY wanted the party to go on as long as possible so they could suck as much money out of it as possible. The sad truth is that there are very few chairs in economics that are funded by wealthy working men and/or women.

For example, they have cited Smoot-Hawley and other protectionist measure that backfired, but they AREN’T citing the broad range of protectionist measure that postwar Japan developed in the aftermath of World War II under William Deming (a minor god among business majors) which worked BEAUTIFULLY to protect and grow Japanese industries until they were able to compete in international markets.

You won’t hear much about THAT because it does not fit the frame of their narrative about protectionism. Used to nurture industries and then discarded, the evidence of Japan indicates, protectionist measure can be very handy indeed.

In fact, the people who cite “mainstream economists” and “Economics 101” are trying to frame the context of this discussion within the context of economics that simply does not exist. Economists, for the most part, are self-interested lapdogs for the wealthy. That’s why so often, nothing can be done to help the poor and the middle class, such as the things you are suggesting.

There ARE a lot of horrible manufacturing jobs that do exist, but as has been pointed out, robots are moving heavily into manufacturing, and will eventually movie into the service sector and destroy a lot of jobs. That along with the UNDENIABLE concentration of wealth and power in the One Percent, means we are fast approaching a day when the wealthy elite will control all the means of production, all the resources (timber, food, oil) and they won’t need 90 percent of the 99 percent to do ANYTHING for them. 90 percent structural unemployment … that’s gonna be a party, you betcha.

Oh, yeah. The way the people on this board have been laughing about the dire predictions of robotics. Have any of them even READ about the social costs of the Industrial Revolution? The kids that were worked to death in mills? The adults that went from jobs that did not provide a living wage even among people who defined “living” as being barely better off than a modern homeless person, the drugs, the drinking, the crime, the horrible blighted lives … yeah, that was a party, all right. Breezed right through it, the wealthy industrialists and the middle class did. The poor … not so much …

And the thing is, robotics mean that there will be NO jobs to go to. None. Some poor people will probably survive it, and I think the world will be a much nicer place for those who do. As Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein recently said, “The US economy has been GREAT at creating wealth, but it is not at all good at DISTRIBUTING wealth.”

When the bosses of capitalism are in agreement with me, I worry. I worry a lot.

67

Yeah, and when posters say that “Economists, for the most part, are self-interested lapdogs for the wealthy” that’s a fact. You can look it up on the internet!

68

The crash was at the end of 2008.

Deming helped grow business by teaching statistical process control and quality assurance techniques. What in the world does this have to do with protectionism?

Who’s going to design, build and service the robots?
I was going to respond to a number of topics, but really can’t be bothered given the misinformation and vitriol you’re spewing.

69

Evil Captor you are all over the place. This thread is about whether protectionist measures would be good for the American economy not about a bunch of other things in which you may even have a point but which have little to do with the topic.

I totally agree with that. America has many problems and is dysfunctional in many ways. I have said more than once that America has very serious problems with inequality, violence, xenophobia, nationalism, militarism and other things but that has nothing to do with the fact that protectionist measures would not help the economy and that is the subject of this thread.

But if it makes you feel better I agree with you that inequality in America is a bad thing and it is getting worse. On the other hand, I am not American, why should I feel any solidarity with Americans who are getting screwed by the system they have chosen themselves democratically? Specially when the solutions they are proposing are to screw people in other countries who are even poorer? If your solution is to screw others then don’t ask for sympathy when you are the one getting screwed. What goes around comes around.

70

This shows a total lack of understanding on how markets and prices work. Prices are not set by the cost of making a product, prices are set by the market and business model. What the market will pay for a certain pair of shoes has almost nothing to do with how much it cost to make them. If a pair of shoes will sell for $50 and a company can make them for less then they make money but if the production cost is higher then they lose money.

The mechanism that ensures low prices is not the good intentions of “corporations who pass savings on to their customers”, that is just silly, it is a healthy competition where whoever is more efficient can offer lower prices than their competitors and sell more.

So if your competitor can make shoes cheaper than you can, and it does not matter whether it is by machine automation, outsourcing or plain old better organization, that competitor will sell more shoes than you can and the customers benefit. Why does it matter if the savings are a function of machinery or some guy in China? higher productivity is always good. Anything else is pointless make-work and countries that do that kind of thing soon fall far behind.

71

:smiley:

There is a large element of complete unaware selfishness to this line of reasoning.

72

It is certainly my opinion, informed by a certain cynicism I have developed about economics after observing the way it is used as a frame to control arguments about wealth disparity and how to aid the middle class and the poor against the economic class war being waged by the wealthy. All the sad little references to Econ 101 and basic economics come off as, “Oh, you disagree with me? Well what I am talking about is Economics 101, you ignorant little person. Hur, hur, hur.” They really get annoying after a while, especially when you consider that in the specific case at issue here, Japan and Germany, two of the most successful economies in the world, have a history of using tariffs to protect their economies, but THAT’s not important because “Smoot-Hawley donchaknow.”

73

Wikipedia describes it as the “Financial Crisis of 2007-2008” so we’re BOTH right. Moving on …

I had read that Deming had something to do with Japan instituting tariffs, but looking around I couldn’t find any cites for it, so will let that pass. Japan DID use tariffs to protect their economy when it was weak after World War II, which was my major point. ( Cite– scroll down to Import Policies/Postwar era.)

I can’t name them but I am sure they will be a tiny fraction of the people whose jobs will be lost.

You are under no compulsion, etc.

74

Everything in my post is a direct response to what others have said earlier in the thread. And some of it does relate directly to protectionist measures.

Well it does give us a starting point for discussion, if nothing else.

Well schadenfreude might be the appropriate feeling for you, then. As for US protectionism hurting others, I never heard the least concern expressed for the harm that lowering trade barriers has done to the American middle class. Frankly, I do agree that robotics and directly addressing wealth inequality are more important issues, but protecting US jobs temporarily and letting our economy reset instead of sliding into Third World status strikes me as a partial solution.

75

No selfishness at all to the lack of concern for the harm done to the American middle class. I would be JUST FINE with the entire world being as wealthy as the American middle class was in the 1960s, their heyday. Or wealthier. I think that will happen, eventually, but not by dragging the American middle class down to Third World poverty.

76

You are wrong. Lower trade barriers have benefitted all Americans.

You are wrong again. American standard of living is much higher today that it was 50 years ago.

You are just not listening so I guess there’s not much point in repeating what has already been said and which proves you are wrong.

77

Then explain to me why wages for the American middle class have been stagnant for decades, since the lower trade barriers have benefited ALL Americans.

Standard of living is such a nebulous phrase. College enrollments are going down, people have been losing their homes … but hey, wide screen TVs are cheaper than ever!

Not believing does not equal not listening.

78

Moot point, anyway. I’d be OK with the Third World having the same standard of living that American middle class people have right now. Hell, I’d LIKE to have the standard of living for average folks in places like Germany and Finland, and the rest of the world with me. I don’t wanna keep people down, I wanna get us all going up. No race to the bottom for me.

79

Just as a point of reference, home ownership in 1960 was about 62%. In 2010 it was about 67%. I’ll let you look up college enrollment data for those two dates.

Standard of Living is a much better indicator than “wages”.

80

And furthermore, what was the average home size then and what is it now? What was the home quality then and what is it now? For the same cost (in terms of hours worked) that you built a small home then you can build today a home which is much bigger and better in every respect. The average home built in the 1950s or 60s was tiny by today’s standards, had one bathroom and was basic and badly insulated. You could not even think of building something like that today.

How about number of phone lines per capita? Not to mention the convenience of mobile phones.

How about cars? They are cheaper and much better. What are the statistics on car ownership?

Clothes were much more expensive, kept longer and passed on. Today people throw away clothes which would be considered new 50 years ago.

Food is much cheaper in real terms.

Some people just have a false, idealized view of the past and would like a return to that imaginary past whether it is to put blacks back in their place … or put the Chinese back in their place. Sorry, the clock cannot be turned back. You need to learn to live with blacks, Chinese and everybody else. You are not above them.

Americans now have it better than they ever had in history and much better than most of the world. Beside the point that protectionism does not work and would harm the American economy, it is quite selfish to want to protect your much higher standard of living at the expense of people who are much poorer and worse off. It would not work in any case but it says a lot about the people who propose it.