Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,570
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Democrats and Republicans agree, Biden and Trump are hugging each other in agreement:
Manufacturing jobs are superior to other jobs and must get special subsidy.
And Bernie Sanders is chiming in with his "Good-paying jobs! Good-paying jobs! Good-paying jobs!" chant, which means mainly factory jobs to be brought back from China etc. where the costs were lower.
The U.S. Economy needs more manufacturing jobs (not necessarily more manufacturing per se, or better production, but more "JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!" in factories, regardless of any benefit to consumers). President Biden is taking credit for increasing manufacturing jobs during his term:
www.freightwaves.com
And also Trump did the same, with his increased trade barriers against China, causing more auto and steel production to return to the U.S. (where the production costs are higher).
But no one ever explains why there should be an artificial preference given to manufacturing instead of letting the free market/supply-and-demand guide the production decisions. Why are factory jobs more important than other kinds of work?
There are many labor shortages in the economy today. There are shortages throughout many sectors with varying levels of skill and training. The needs are documented: farming, construction, health care, truck drivers, bus drivers, first responders, firefighting, restaurant workers, education, air traffic control, military, etc. etc. There is a huge list of sectors of the economy suffering these shortages. And yet, virtually
No shortage of factory products. So, why do both Biden and Trump think manufacturing is more important? Which voters are clamoring for more factory jobs, and why? What is driving the pro-factories religion?
Here's a video on the "decline of American manufacturing" -- mostly nostalgia about change, reduced factory jobs in the U.S. There's much lamenting the changes, but no explanation how the manufacturing is any worse because more is done abroad. All we know is that the prices are lower as a result of foreign competition. No one argues that any less is produced for consumers as a result of the foreign production:
The only complaint about the loss of manufacturing jobs is just the need for the jobs per se, not anything about what makes domestic production better. The premise is that the purpose of the jobs is the jobs per se, not the production. I.e., the only point of the production is to provide jobs rather than to serve consumers. The function of consumers is to provide receptacles for the production, some place to dump the products, to provide the needed DEMAND for keeping those workers busy (and out of mischief).
Also, there's some magic about MANUFACTURING jobs in particular, that they "create" still more jobs, by a multiplier effect of some kind, meaning still more places (jobs) where we can put the undesirables.
So according to this video, the right option in our poll is "Factory jobs = best babysitting place to keep the rabble out of mischief." I.e., we need the jobs per se as a place to put undesirable people ("deplorables"?) who need to be put somewhere, because they're an eyesore of some kind, something that needs to be removed out of the way from someone where they're causing a problem by being there. So we need "jobs" where we can put them to remove them from where they are some kind of deplorable nuisance.
This video also tells the myth that the trade deficit causes a debt owed by the deficit country to the surplus country. But the trade deficit is not a debt owed to China. There is no repayment of any principle or any interest to China, no deadline date when payment is due or there's default.
Why doesn't anyone ever explain how the trade deficit harms the economy? Why is this preached as a religion, but no one ever gives any facts to show what damage is done by the trade deficit?
It's true that other countries also obsess on manufacturing and pay costs to subsidize manufacturing, believing they must produce more to export than they import. But there's no evidence that they're better off from paying the cost to subsidize domestic factories, or from artificially reducing their trade deficit. No evidence that the Soviet Union was made better off from its wall-to-wall factories.
The trade deficit does not cause anything bad to happen in the country. Rather, there are some bad things in the economy which might contribute to the trade deficit, so this might be a RESULT of something bad happening, but not itself a CAUSE of anything bad happening. How does obsessing on the trade deficit per se make anything better? How does artificially reducing the trade deficit improve the economy, if it means higher production cost and less benefit to consumers?
Manufacturing jobs are superior to other jobs and must get special subsidy.
And Bernie Sanders is chiming in with his "Good-paying jobs! Good-paying jobs! Good-paying jobs!" chant, which means mainly factory jobs to be brought back from China etc. where the costs were lower.
The U.S. Economy needs more manufacturing jobs (not necessarily more manufacturing per se, or better production, but more "JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!" in factories, regardless of any benefit to consumers). President Biden is taking credit for increasing manufacturing jobs during his term:
American manufacturing is coming back. So are strikes.
Amid the historic UAW strike, we're seeing more militant labor leadership than ever. It's a sign that the American economy is healthy.
www.freightwaves.com
And also Trump did the same, with his increased trade barriers against China, causing more auto and steel production to return to the U.S. (where the production costs are higher).
But no one ever explains why there should be an artificial preference given to manufacturing instead of letting the free market/supply-and-demand guide the production decisions. Why are factory jobs more important than other kinds of work?
There are many labor shortages in the economy today. There are shortages throughout many sectors with varying levels of skill and training. The needs are documented: farming, construction, health care, truck drivers, bus drivers, first responders, firefighting, restaurant workers, education, air traffic control, military, etc. etc. There is a huge list of sectors of the economy suffering these shortages. And yet, virtually
no shortage in manufacturing
No shortage of factory products. So, why do both Biden and Trump think manufacturing is more important? Which voters are clamoring for more factory jobs, and why? What is driving the pro-factories religion?
Here's a video on the "decline of American manufacturing" -- mostly nostalgia about change, reduced factory jobs in the U.S. There's much lamenting the changes, but no explanation how the manufacturing is any worse because more is done abroad. All we know is that the prices are lower as a result of foreign competition. No one argues that any less is produced for consumers as a result of the foreign production:
The only complaint about the loss of manufacturing jobs is just the need for the jobs per se, not anything about what makes domestic production better. The premise is that the purpose of the jobs is the jobs per se, not the production. I.e., the only point of the production is to provide jobs rather than to serve consumers. The function of consumers is to provide receptacles for the production, some place to dump the products, to provide the needed DEMAND for keeping those workers busy (and out of mischief).
Also, there's some magic about MANUFACTURING jobs in particular, that they "create" still more jobs, by a multiplier effect of some kind, meaning still more places (jobs) where we can put the undesirables.
So according to this video, the right option in our poll is "Factory jobs = best babysitting place to keep the rabble out of mischief." I.e., we need the jobs per se as a place to put undesirable people ("deplorables"?) who need to be put somewhere, because they're an eyesore of some kind, something that needs to be removed out of the way from someone where they're causing a problem by being there. So we need "jobs" where we can put them to remove them from where they are some kind of deplorable nuisance.
This video also tells the myth that the trade deficit causes a debt owed by the deficit country to the surplus country. But the trade deficit is not a debt owed to China. There is no repayment of any principle or any interest to China, no deadline date when payment is due or there's default.
Why doesn't anyone ever explain how the trade deficit harms the economy? Why is this preached as a religion, but no one ever gives any facts to show what damage is done by the trade deficit?
It's true that other countries also obsess on manufacturing and pay costs to subsidize manufacturing, believing they must produce more to export than they import. But there's no evidence that they're better off from paying the cost to subsidize domestic factories, or from artificially reducing their trade deficit. No evidence that the Soviet Union was made better off from its wall-to-wall factories.
The trade deficit does not cause anything bad to happen in the country. Rather, there are some bad things in the economy which might contribute to the trade deficit, so this might be a RESULT of something bad happening, but not itself a CAUSE of anything bad happening. How does obsessing on the trade deficit per se make anything better? How does artificially reducing the trade deficit improve the economy, if it means higher production cost and less benefit to consumers?
Last edited:
