Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Bringing Imported Jobs Back to America

  1. #1
    is good for you
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Bringing Imported Jobs Back to America

    It's a very commonly proposed plan by politicians, but honestly it seems very shortsighted. Since having factories overseas is evidently profitable for the companies that own them and produce whatever they make, doesn't it mean they'll be considerably less profitable if they produce in the US? Either the government would have to make manufacturing overseas very expensive/illegal, or American workers would have to directly compete with foreign workers when it comes to wages, working hours, and conditions. Either way, I don't see it happening.

  2. #2
    Defenestration is imminent pichubro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Kaleidoscope Of Mathematics
    Posts
    18,710

    Default

    You either export the work or have people payhigher prices for domestically made products. It's why Harley-Davidson stuff costs so much compared to brands made in China.

    Either way, most manufactoring jobs are going to be replaced by robots and computers to some capacity, if not already. The countries that have not moved to this step like China and India will still supply general labor.

  3. #3
    Vanity of vanities, all is vanity Hicky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    13,550

    Default

    Do you really think it's particularly environmental that simple manufacturing processes involve vast, transnational supply chains?

    It makes sense to import raw materials from countries, but it's very West-centric to say that all that matters is that we get stuff for cheap.

    Yes, I believe it's a thoroughly good policy, although doubtless it would have disadvantages. Just pay more money for things but consume less and stop consuming goods that you don't need. If America or wherever else doesn't wake up to this reality then it will be forcibly imposed on you by impending global catastrophe.

    I think probably in the short-term we're entering a stage in which 'manufacturing jobs will be replaced by robots and computers'. In the long term we're entering a stage in which we realise we have so much stuff that we stop producing things in quite the same way as we currently do - i.e. in order to pointlessly drive up "economic growth" - and all manufacturing-related jobs will be in repairing and reusing things that we already have. Including pointless and short-termistic pieces of automation equipment, doubtlessly produced from raw materials mined by child laborers in Kyrygzstan. The actual physical computer equipment, produced by the demands of capitalism, will probably continue to deliberately last around two years, etc.

  4. #4
    Vanity of vanities, all is vanity Hicky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    13,550

    Default

    It is unfortunately some kind of lingering atavistic Enlightenment myth that computers and robots will drive forward linear progress and create an age of beauty and indolence.

  5. #5
    Registered Users Regular Rayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicky View Post
    It makes sense to import raw materials from countries, but it's very West-centric to say that all that matters is that we get stuff for cheap.

    Yes, I believe it's a thoroughly good policy, although doubtless it would have disadvantages. Just pay more money for things but consume less and stop consuming goods that you don't need. If America or wherever else doesn't wake up to this reality then it will be forcibly imposed on you by impending global catastrophe.
    why is it inherently better to move manufacturing jobs back to the west? how is that any less west-centric?

    labor standards in third world countries are shite and stuff like child labor does indeed happen. but in the average case you have a worker who is paid more and works in better conditions in the factory with the western contract than the farm he'd be on otherwise. manufacturing jobs arent a authoritarian conspiracy by the west pushed upon overseas laborers against their will. theres massive lines out the door in china filled with people who'd love a job at the iphone factory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicky View Post
    I think probably in the short-term we're entering a stage in which 'manufacturing jobs will be replaced by robots and computers'. In the long term we're entering a stage in which we realise we have so much stuff that we stop producing things in quite the same way as we currently do - i.e. in order to pointlessly drive up "economic growth" - and all manufacturing-related jobs will be in repairing and reusing things that we already have. Including pointless and short-termistic pieces of automation equipment, doubtlessly produced from raw materials mined by child laborers in Kyrygzstan. The actual physical computer equipment, produced by the demands of capitalism, will probably continue to deliberately last around two years, etc.
    i have no idea what this means

  6. #6
    Registered Users Regular Rayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicky View Post
    It is unfortunately some kind of lingering atavistic Enlightenment myth that computers and robots will drive forward linear progress and create an age of beauty and indolence.
    yeah this is a pretty common luddite refrain thats never accompanied by any sort of convincing argument

  7. #7
    what about .. eyebrows God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    among the people
    Posts
    50,263

    Default

    it would be the opposite of luddism since what hicky is expressing is optimistic. the luddite view would be that automation will cause mass long term unemployment. i think there are convincing arguments to that effect since we already have significant long term unemployment and under-employment even at a time when the central bankers pretend we're "close to full employment."

    and the luddites get a bad name. it was probably a good 50 years from when the early industrial revolution started displacing traditional craftsman until any real improvement in the living standards of most people materialized. the immediate response was massive disemployment, lowered wages and workmen being forced into a very unpleasant factory system. for any time frame the luddites cared about personally, they were right.
    "I'll go," said Chagataev. "But what will I do there? Build socialism?"
    "What else?" said the secretary.

  8. #8
    what about .. eyebrows God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    among the people
    Posts
    50,263

    Default

    it would be better to leave the manufacturing jobs to be outsourced or not depending on market forces and instead do either a basic income or preferably a job guarantee run by the federal government, or both to offset the job losses.
    "I'll go," said Chagataev. "But what will I do there? Build socialism?"
    "What else?" said the secretary.

  9. #9
    Registered Users Regular Rayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by God View Post
    it would be the opposite of luddism since what hicky is expressing is optimistic.
    uh no?

    the luddite view would be that automation will cause mass long term unemployment.
    not necessarily. that wouldve been the case during the industrial revolution but a luddite in this day and age is pretty much anyone who opposes technological progress for functional or aesthetic reasons.

  10. #10
    what about .. eyebrows God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    among the people
    Posts
    50,263

    Default

    what hicky said: "It is unfortunately some kind of lingering atavistic Enlightenment myth that computers and robots will drive forward linear progress and create an age of beauty and indolence."

    that's an optimistic view.

    the luddite view of technology's role in labor is that it displaces labor, which is the pessimistic view rather than the optimistic view hicky expressed that technology creates abundance and is positive.

    you can colloquially call someone a luddite because they don't like tech aesthetically, sure, but i don't know what the relevance of that is. hicky's view expresses techno-optimism, which is oppose to luddism.
    "I'll go," said Chagataev. "But what will I do there? Build socialism?"
    "What else?" said the secretary.

  11. #11
    Defenestration is imminent pichubro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Kaleidoscope Of Mathematics
    Posts
    18,710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by God View Post
    it would be better to leave the manufacturing jobs to be outsourced or not depending on market forces and instead do either a basic income or preferably a job guarantee run by the federal government, or both to offset the job losses.
    Basic income is the way of the future. Jobs can then become an add-on to life as a means of purpose or extra funds, and 40 hour work weeks would be a laughable concept.

  12. #12
    Registered Users Regular Rayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by God View Post
    what hicky said: "It is unfortunately some kind of lingering atavistic Enlightenment myth that computers and robots will drive forward linear progress and create an age of beauty and indolence."

    that's an optimistic view.

    the luddite view of technology's role in labor is that it displaces labor, which is the pessimistic view rather than the optimistic view hicky expressed that technology creates abundance and is positive.

    you can colloquially call someone a luddite because they don't like tech aesthetically, sure, but i don't know what the relevance of that is. hicky's view expresses techno-optimism, which is oppose to luddism.
    ....hicky didnt express an optimistic view. he called it an enlightenment myth.

  13. #13
    what about .. eyebrows God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    among the people
    Posts
    50,263

    Default

    it's his opinion that the view he explained is flawed, but that view that he presented is the optimistic one, not luddite.
    "I'll go," said Chagataev. "But what will I do there? Build socialism?"
    "What else?" said the secretary.

  14. #14
    Registered Users Regular Rayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,123

    Default

    yes and i said dissing on that view is a thing that luddites do

    guess i couldve phrased it better

  15. #15
    what about .. eyebrows God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    among the people
    Posts
    50,263

    Default

    the luddites were still right as far as it concerned themselves. the people worried about the disemployment effects of the upcoming automation forecasts are probably right too.
    "I'll go," said Chagataev. "But what will I do there? Build socialism?"
    "What else?" said the secretary.

  16. #16
    is good for you
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    3,169

    Default

    Is opposition to international labor market job manufacturing factory China iPhone Foxconn for the sake of domestic production just another form of neo-luddism? I'm sure Luddism in the modern day can be stretched from "Opposition to machines which threaten worker's job security because they are more viable" to "Opposition to whatever threatens worker's job security because they are more viable" which could include the international labor market.

  17. #17
    Registered Users Regular Rayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Celery View Post
    "Opposition to whatever threatens worker's job security because they are more viable"
    thats communism

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •