Does U.S. need more steel-worker jobs?

[Lumpenproletariat]

Labor Day Tribute to American crybaby wage-earner victims


Trump claims he has saved millions of jobs to "make America great again." But how does increasing all these manufacturing jobs make America greater?

Does U.S. need more steelworker jobs?

You can quibble over how many real jobs he "saved" or "brought back" from China, but we know there have been at least a few. And the only complaint of Democrats is that he has not brought back enough of them, and that Biden/Sanders/Hillary etc. would really "save" more of them, or "bring back" more than Trump, who only pretends to be saving jobs for American worker victims, while the Demos would save even more, and would kick more capitalist butt and more Chinese butt than Trump is kicking.

But instead of this butt-kicking, we should ask:

Why do we need more steelworker jobs? (or auto jobs, or textile jobs, etc.?) Why are the factories so sacred? What makes them valuable that we need to insert more workers into those jobs, doing something already being done anyway in China (at lower cost)?

Why not instead take all those who need jobs and put them to work putting out fires in California?

All that factory work was getting done anyway. Shifting that production from China to the U.S. does not mean anything more is produced than was already being produced before. Rather, the only difference is that this work now has become more costly, because of the higher labor cost, and so the cost of the steel (or autos, textiles, etc.) is higher than it was before. How is America made "greater" when it only means our cost of living is higher and nothing additional has been produced, i.e., nothing more than was already being produced before?

In cases where the U.S. cost really is lower, there is no need to "bring back" the jobs, because companies will automatically do it anyway. The only reason they have the work done abroad is in order to save on the cost. In cases where the U.S. cost is not higher, they will move the jobs to the U.S., or keep them in the U.S. Outsourcing is done only when the foreign cost is LOWER than the U.S. cost. So, what is gained by relocating the jobs to the U.S. from China (when this means a cost increase)? The only result is higher prices to consumers.

So we get the same production as before (or probably less), but at higher cost than before = LOWER STANDARD OF LIVING for all consumers.



But what if instead those U.S. workers were put to work putting out fires in California -- what would be the net result of that? It would be billions of $$$$ savings in property losses.

So bringing back jobs from China = higher cost and prices = lower living standard.

While sending the workers to California to put out fires = billions of $$$$ savings = higher living standard.

So, which workers are more valuable --

Steel workers paid $30 or $40 or $50 per hour = higher cost to consumers and lower living standard? or

Firefighters paid minimum or lower than minimum wage, even working for free (prisoners)?

And yet the philosophy of Trump and the Democrats is to put Americans to work in factories where we don't need them and they only drive up the cost of living for consumers. While letting millions of acres and thousands of homes be destroyed, for shortage of firefighters.

 

[Tigers!]

Isn't this a category mistake?
Both categories of jobs are important but the importance cannot be made into a $ or some metric.

Firefighters save property and lives
Steel workers create products and provide livelihoods.

Both are important.

 

[Patooka]

Isn't this a category mistake?
*snip*
Both are important.

Not sure if you are aware, but a significant portion of firefighters are inmates in prison. Like about 20 percent of them. Both are not considered equally important in the US. And to be fair steel working jobs, thanks to automation, are becoming as numerous and common as wagon repair. Firefighters are going to be more necessary, not less in the years to come. I for one am not looking forward to this Christmas.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

steelworkers are OVERvalued. Firefighters are UNDERvalued -- i.e., supply-and-demand.

Isn't this a category mistake?
Both categories of jobs are important but the importance cannot be made into a $ or some metric.

Yes it can be. The value is measured in $$$$, or how much has to be paid in order to get the work done. The amount to pay, the value, increases as needed to attract applicants where there's a shortage.

And something is wrong today, because there's no shortage of steel workers, and yet they're paid more than $30.00 per hour. Their real value is how much has to be paid in order to attract the needed workers. So they are overpaid today, in the U.S. and other developed countries, where it's easy to replace them, if they quit, and so there's no need to pay them so much.

Whereas the firefighters are UNDERpaid, because we don't have enough of them, so their real value is higher than what they're paid. If they were paid more, then this would attract more applicants to do that job, which is unattractive and therefore has more value, in dollars. The value is based on supply & demand, so that if the supply is low then the value is higher, but if the demand is low then the value is lower.

Something's wrong when we're paying so low for needed workers (firefighters) where there's a shortage of them, and yet more than $30/hour to workers who are in oversupply and are easily replaced (steelworkers) and whose work is already done at much lower cost in China.

The difficulty of getting the work done, or of attracting the needed workers, is proportional to the value or how much needs to be paid in order to get the work done.

Firefighters save property and lives

Yes, but today the supply of them falls short of the need we have for them, which means their job has greater value than what they're being paid, and as a result property and lives are being lost unnecessarily. If they were being paid more, then there'd be more firefighters and there'd be much less loss of property and lives.

Steel workers create products and provide livelihoods.

And there's no shortage of these. We have all the steel we need, and plenty of sources of steel from dozens of countries. Which means these workers are OVERvalued, or overpaid, being paid far more than is necessary in order to get the need met.

Both are important.

But the need for firefighters (shortage) is much greater, and so their value is much higher than what they're being paid.

There's no shortage of steel workers, and no chance of any shortage of the steel products. Steel flows from many countries, so all the need is supplied. And a steel worker is easily replaceable, because there are plenty of steel worker job applicants ready to take the place of a steel worker who threatens to quit.

This distortion of the economy is what we get when we react with knee-jerk emotion to the Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump religion of factory jobs and worship of manufacturing, as if factories were handed down from on High as something sacred which has to be preserved and multiplied for its own sake, rather than as a means to serve consumers or to meet the market demand for the product.

Today's need for steel and steel products has gotten easier to meet, with more technology, so that these jobs are not worth as much as they once were -- their value has decreased. Whereas the value of firefighters has increased as the demand for them has increased, but because of degenerates like Trump and Sanders (and the fools who vote for them) we're neglecting the real needs and misallocating the resources into manufacturing where there's no shortage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Another issue here:

Steelworker jobs per se aren't an issue. We need jobs, not any particular profession. However, domestic steel production is important.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Another issue here:

Steelworker jobs per se aren't an issue. We need jobs, not any particular profession.

Some kinds of work are needed more than others. It's the market, or supply-demand, which determines which ones are needed more, which ones less.

However, domestic steel production is important.

We have domestic steel production. There's no evidence of any shortage, or a need to increase the domestic production, or an impending disaster if domestic production decreases. Production is more and more being diversified so that some of it happens in one country and some in another, for the same production.

Obsessing on the need for more DOMESTIC production to head off an impending disaster, is mostly paranoid.

 

[Rhea]

Some kinds of work are needed more than others. It's the market, or supply-demand, which determines which ones are needed more, which ones less.

Supplly and demand are not wise, and they are not prescient.
Some jobs should be kept domestic to ensure national security.

Perhaps not all of them or not as many as historically, but it makes valuable sense for non-business reasons to support domestic production of certain items. It also makes sense in some business reasons, but for non-normal circumstances. COVID supply chain disruption has shown that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Another issue here:

Steelworker jobs per se aren't an issue. We need jobs, not any particular profession.

Some kinds of work are needed more than others. It's the market, or supply-demand, which determines which ones are needed more, which ones less.

However, domestic steel production is important.

We have domestic steel production. There's no evidence of any shortage, or a need to increase the domestic production, or an impending disaster if domestic production decreases. Production is more and more being diversified so that some of it happens in one country and some in another, for the same production.

Obsessing on the need for more DOMESTIC production to head off an impending disaster, is mostly paranoid.

We do not currently have a shortage. Let me remind you of 1973, though--we should be able to be self-reliant on as much as possible to prevent hostile countries from using resources as a weapon.

 

[DBT]

I don't see the two options as being mutually exclusive. Both can be achieved. Manufacturing should be maintained....if only for the sake of national security.

 

[DBT]

Labor Day Tribute to American crybaby wage-earner victims

Labour day is a tribute to what workers have achieved in helping to build the nation and keep it running, often for little reward. Without workers, it would not have been possible.

 

[ZiprHead]

Labor Day Tribute to American crybaby wage-earner victims

Labour day is a tribute to what workers have achieved in helping to build the nation and keep it running, often for little reward. Without workers, it would not have been possible.

Makes me wonder what lumpen does for a living.

 

[Elixir]

A sufficiently robust infrastucture revamping program would drive demand for domestic steel production, but more of the actual jobs created would be for people to make stuff out of the steel once it was produced.

Makes me wonder what lumpen does for a living.

We can probably eliminate a few things. Like concrete flatwork, driving a school bus, house painting, refrigerator repair ... or any other form of "crybaby wage earning".

 

[Elixir]

Some kinds of work are needed more than others. It's the market, or supply-demand, which determines which ones are needed more, which ones less.

Supplly and demand are not wise, and they are not prescient.
Some jobs should be kept domestic to ensure national security.

Perhaps not all of them or not as many as historically, but it makes valuable sense for non-business reasons to support domestic production of certain items. It also makes sense in some business reasons, but for non-normal circumstances. COVID supply chain disruption has shown that.

Demand and supply for goods/services are not the only driver of prices. Firefighting for instance, has a romantic appeal that reduces its dollar value way below what what would be assumed from knowing the professional risks entailed in the job and the necessity for someone to perform that job. It appeals to the adrenaline junkie, the young person out to "prove him/herelf" and the starry-eyed ones wanting to take up the mantle of saving people.

FWIW, smoke jumpers ... some of the hardest-core people I've ever encountered. But not the wealthiest.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

No danger of a steel shortage. Profit motive + free market + supply-and-demand + competition --> best of all possible worlds.

Some kinds of work are needed more than others. It's the market, or supply-demand, which determines which ones are needed more, which ones less.

Supply and demand are not wise, and they are not prescient.

translation: Please give us long Walls of Text to make your point, instead of trying to be succinct.

OK, here's another Wall of Text (not as long as some others, but longer than originally was necessary in order to make the legitimate point, but now necessary to meet the requirement to explain every phrase and word and comma, since you insist):

To say that "the market determines" something like what's needed, or how much, or how costly, or how many, etc., is not intended to mean that "the market" has a brain, or a mind with intelligence, or feelings, or opinions, etc. What it means is that the market factors like supply and demand, and also the market conditions (about available resources and skills and technical equipment, etc.) are what the decision-makers must take into consideration in order to make good decisions. If they ignore these market conditions, their decisions will not be good decisions. Or, without considering those factors, they will make mistakes, in setting the prices, or deciding how much to produce, or how much to invest, or where to make the investments, etc.

There are many decisions to be made, and those decisions can easily be wrong, if the decision-maker does not take into consideration the market factors, like supply and demand. The decision-maker has to try to guess how much demand there is for this or for that, or how much buyers are willing to pay, and how much supply is available now, and so on. The decision-maker must get it right, or get accurate information on this, or the result will be negative, and a loss for the company as well as for the consumers and the society.

So it's correct to say that "the market decides" it, or "the market conditions determine" what is the right price or the right amount to produce, or WHAT to produce, etc. There is a RIGHT decision and a WRONG decision, in the sense of guessing correctly how much should be produced, or what should be produced, or what price to charge. It's not "the market" as an impersonal abstraction which makes decisions, but still it's "the market" which directs the decision-makers, or it's the "market" factors, conditions, etc., which the decision-makers have to consider in making the decision, or the determination of the prices to charge, or what to produce, or how many units, at what cost, etc. Those conditions are not imagined by the decision-makers, but are dictated by the facts of the market, which the decision-makers must recognize and analyze and apply to the future possibilities, to try to predict what will happen if this or that choice is made.

All the above jibber-jabber is summed up in the simple phrase -- "the market determines" which workers are needed more and which ones less, or which ones should be paid more and which ones less, or which ones can be replaced by machines and which ones not. Or other such decisions.

The decision-makers are not heartless cold-blooded ghouls, if they're doing the right thing, but are mechanically analyzing the factors and being driven to the bottom line of higher profit, rather than by spontaneous thoughtless emotions which might be popular with the mindless masses who want only instant gratification.

Some jobs should be kept domestic to ensure national security.

Like military jobs. Probably. But not steel-worker jobs. Possibly some scientists or engineers designing military weapons. But not textile jobs or auto factory jobs. Not most of the jobs President Trump is protecting from foreign competition. Not dairy farmer jobs. Not tractor or washing machine factory jobs. It's better to let the market conditions determine if this or that kind of production is done better domestically or abroad. If it's less costly to produce it in Asia, or in Central America, at the same quality level, then it should be done there instead of in the U.S.

The savings on cost should determine where it's produced, assuming the same quality.

Perhaps not all of them or not as many as historically, but it makes valuable sense for non-business reasons to support domestic production of certain items.

Not steel or any other of the above. For steel in particular, there are at least a dozen producing countries, with no shortage or foreseeable shortage, as far into the future as we can project. There can be no reason to insist on driving up the price in order to have it American-made, except for some kind of emotional satisfaction, because steel is a high-profile product which has become romanticized and given some special status, in the imagination rather than in the real world.

There is in fact plenty of domestic production of steel already, and many foreign suppliers other than China. However, as long as China sells it at the lowest price, it's reasonable to take advantage of the low price. If China wants to shift half of its economy to steel production, there's no harm in that, except that China might be deluded into thinking that steel is more important than all other production. It's only China which can be harmed by this mistake. If it tries to artificially subsidize steel at a loss to its economy, then all other sectors will suffer in order to pay that cost. It's not the U.S. or other importers who will suffer any loss, but China which is imposing a cost onto its economy in order to subsidize this one industry. This is a delusion driven by some kind of obsession on steel, as though everything else in the world and in nature depends on this one product, sort of like Spain and Portugal obsessed on gold and silver 400 years ago. It possibly produced some short-term instant-gratification benefit, but did not benefit their economy overall.

It's not up to the U.S. to cure China of its obsession with steel. It's not true that China gains some kind of economic superiority over the whole world by becoming the world's steel superpower producer, by sacrificing everything else for the sake of this one product. Or that the U.S. or other importing nation becomes subservient to this one steel superpower producer. There will always be other producer-nations also, including the U.S., and if Chinese supply of steel is ever reduced, there are alternatives to Chinese production to meet the need.

Even if there's a downturn in Chinese supply of steel, this would happen gradually, so that other countries would gradually increase production to fill the need. The worst scenario would be some price increase in steel until higher production levels are reached in order to meet all the need.

It also makes sense in some business reasons, but for non-normal circumstances.

There has been no shortage of steel or anything else due to any non-normal circumstances, other than very short-term. There are always minor disruptions here and there, and the economy has to adjust. But allowing maximum competition is the best course, because this means maximum production, which leads to the best results overall, or the least possibility of a shortage.

Of course stockpiling might be a good strategy for some items which could run short, though even for this it's probably best to leave it to private companies to do it, who have plenty of incentive, as long as they're permitted to raise the price a little when there's a shortage. Just leaving "the market" alone to do it is usually all that's necessary.

Nothing is ever accomplished by promoting more costly production through cracking down on the less costly. Rather, the best results are always achieved by trying to outperform the more competitive producers, by allowing full competition and cost reduction among the different producers. Declaring war on someone just for being more competitive never makes any sense. It's only uncompetitive crybabies who are threatened by producers who are more competitive.

The Chinese only hurt themselves by sacrificing their other sectors in order to subsidize steel, or by sacrificing Chinese consumers in order to subsidize production for export. No one is doing us harm simply because they choose to sacrifice themselves now in order to gain more later. They could harm themselves doing this, if they miscalculate.

COVID supply chain disruption has shown that.

Nothing about supply chain disruption shows any reason to prop up one sector of the economy at the expense of others, such as subsidizing steel or any other product, or protecting any sector from foreign competition at the expense of other sectors. It is impossible to protect any sector imagined as being more important, without doing it the expense of other sectors which have to pay the cost for this protection.

Supply chains are fine, but you can't subsidize the supply chains of certain select sectors on the pretense that these sectors are more important than other sectors which don't need to be subsidized. ALL sectors presume to be the most important ones and needing to be subsidized by sacrificing others which are said to be less important. All of them have their supply chains, and if you protect one sector's supply chain, it can only be done at the cost of sacrificing another sector's supply chain. You can't protect a sector against having to compete except at the expense of another which pays the cost one way or another.

But there is no rational basis for pronouncing any one sector, like steel, as more important and needing to be protected at the expense of the others. And, it is impossible to protect any one select sector without doing it at the expense of other sectors which have to be penalized in order to pay the cost of protecting the sector selected as more important. All you can do is transfer resources away from one sector in order to protect another, and there's no evidence to show that the protected sector is really more important than the others. Rather, it's only a delusion that steel or any other sector is somehow more important than the other sectors.

You could just as easily argue that the oil industry, or energy, or agriculture, or mining, or transportation is the bedrock of the economy upon which all other sectors depend, so it needs to be protected at the expense of the others. Singling out steel as the bedrock sector of the economy is based on an emotional romantic appeal only, not on science or fact or history.

 

[bilby]

Nobody's asking for walls of text, Lumpy.

Nobody's even reading them, unless it's their first day here.

 

[DBT]

Nobody could hope to address every point in a wall of text, therefore the poster feels they have made good points simply because others have failed to address them?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

More domestic production doesn't require protectionism, or trade-bashing xenophobia.

However, domestic steel production is important.

We have domestic steel production. There's no evidence of any shortage, or a need to increase the domestic production, or an impending disaster if domestic production decreases. Production is more and more being diversified so that some of it happens in one country and some in another, for the same production.

Obsessing on the need for more DOMESTIC production to head off an impending disaster, is mostly paranoid.

We do not currently have a shortage. Let me remind you of 1973, though--we should be able to be self-reliant on as much as possible to prevent hostile countries from using resources as a weapon.

OK, there can be a shortage, like from an embargo, or whatever cause, and it could be dangerous. But any kind of protectionism, like throwing up high tariffs on something to eliminate foreign competition, is no solution to anything.

Also, even if there could be a shortage of steel-workers some day, hypothetically, there is a REAL shortage of firefighters today in the U.S., and probably of some other work categories also. Whereas there is no shortage of steel-workers, and yet they are vastly higher-paid than firefighters who are in short supply. So it makes little sense that Trump and Biden want to "bring back" all the steel jobs (which would get done just fine anyway) when there are other needs going unmet.

So the need for steel-workers is more symbolic than real.

Maybe some form of encouraging domestic production is needed, but that doesn't mean driving up the price for consumers by cracking down on imports.

Any issue about a possible shortage, or not enough domestic production, etc., is never solved by erecting tariff barriers against foreign imports. Rather, the solution is to encourage MORE trade, MORE competition, seeking MORE sources of whatever is needed, but not any kind of restriction of the market, or closing off trade, or erecting barriers to something.

No special tariffs against foreign oil, or closing our market, or use of boycotts or retaliation or sanctions against a country would have done anything to benefit the U.S. in 1973 and head off the oil embargo, just as no China-bashing and cracking down on Chinese steel and punishing consumers with higher prices will do anything to benefit the U.S. today and head off a future Chinese steel embargo against the U.S.

There would have been nothing wrong with encouraging domestic production back then, or before '73, new drilling, or new leases, etc., but that doesn't mean any form of trade protectionism to achieve it, or propping up domestic oil production or drilling by means of excluding foreign competition or cracking down on imports of anything or increasing tariffs on oil.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was a legitimate way to meet that need, which required no protectionism, and possibly helped encourage some domestic production. It's always PRO-trade measures which resolve a problem, not restriction on trade, foreign or domestic, or artificially driving up the price of something foreign, labeling it "unfair" because their price is too low.

The domestic production is fine as long as it's competitive and doesn't require protectionist barriers or other anticompetitive measures to prop it up. Less competition, or restricting competition, or accusing the hated foreigners of "dumping" and other crybaby nonsense is never beneficial, and at best might create some whining crybaby spoiled-brat domestic producers, which are not what we need. Opening the economy to MORE competition always leads to the better results, higher-quality domestic production and more self-sufficiency, whereas banning something because it's foreign or not "made in America" and other nativist xenophobia just turns us into a nation of "economic girly-men" (sorry about that).

The foreign competition forces the domestic producers to improve their performance. At worst it only hurts the least competitive, or the poorest performers.