| ▲ | mothballed 2 days ago |
| The workers yearn to go back in the fiery sweaty steel mills where every 3rd year one of their coworkers has their arms turned into a molten blob. |
|
| ▲ | nyc_data_geek1 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| The children yearn for the mines |
| |
|
| ▲ | quacked 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Do you think that there shouldn't be any steel mills in the US? |
| |
| ▲ | mothballed 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't know. If we have a comparative advantage at it, sure. If we have a comparative advantage in designing the stuff that gets made in a steel mill in China I can't imagine workers rationally wanting to reverse that via tariffs. | | |
| ▲ | flir 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That's one of those industries you probably want to keep a domestic presence in, for strategic reasons. Chip fab might be another. But I'd do it via subsidy, not tariff, otherwise you're adding friction to everything downstream of it. | | |
| ▲ | crote 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I always thought that was why so much money went into the military. Requiring a domestic source for military equipment provides a neat way for local suppliers to sell their goods above fair market value. The government gets to give a subsidy without actually doing all the paperwork involved in giving subsidies, and very few people are going to argue with an "it's for national security" argument. |
| |
| ▲ | int_19h 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | When you hear the words "comparative advantage" in the context of international trade, most of the time it means "dirt cheap labor because of few / poorly enforced labor protections". There's really no reason why we shouldn't have steel mills aside from that. | | |
| ▲ | mothballed a day ago | parent [-] | | Can you explain why building more American steel mills would improve labor or even the human condition for the Chinese? It would be great if things were better for the common man there, but them having the comparative advantage at being dirt cheap is not an envious position I would imagine anyone is rationally wanting to change places with, especially if you change that to "me" vs "other guy." What's more likely, as I stated in another comment, is if you destroy their comparative advantage at a tariffed industry, the Chinese guy that had the steel mill as his best option now has to move to the next even shittier one. Tariffs are usually economically worse than zero-sum. | | |
| ▲ | int_19h a day ago | parent [-] | | I'm not suggesting that tariffs are the answer here - especially as enacted - but at the same time, people defending "free trade" (which is anything but given that the movement of labor across borders is very much not free) should be cognizant of what it is exactly they are saying when using cliches such as "comparative advantage". To answer the broader question, if you believe in markets at all, then demand creates supply, and supply for cheap (and therefore abused) labor is arguably at least in part responsible for economies like China being so shitty to your average worker. If all Western countries would e.g. slap tariffs on goods imported from places with poor labor rights, but they were specifically contingent on that (and not just a list of countries that our Great Leader has a problem with), that would put the pressure on the Chinese government to raise the standards to remain competitive. That would be the kind of tariff I would support, and I don't buy the argument that if we don't allow for such shitty jobs, the alternatives would be even worse - this is exactly the kind of attitude that creates a global race to the bottom that is the major driver for enshittification all around. |
|
| |
| ▲ | drysine 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What if China sanctions the US? What would the US do with their designs? | |
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The Romans externalized all their critical production. It didn't work out well for them. | | |
| ▲ | greycol 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Food, iron and salt where all from inside their empire. What critical production are you actually referring to? Closest I can think of is the Romans required a constant influx of cheap labour from outside their empire for their economy. When the flow stopped (diminished conquering meant diminished number of slaves coming in) that was a major factor in economic decline. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | MisterTea 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So it's cool that foreign steel mill workers are instead maimed. |
| |
| ▲ | mothballed 2 days ago | parent [-] | | People generally sign up to be in a steel mill because it's the best option they have to provide for their family. Another words, their alternatives are even worse. If you want tariff that option away from a bunch of China-men, have them do the next even shittier dangerous job that they bypassed on the way to the steel mill, and then save them while you instead work next to molten iron, that's the proposition you're moving towards. Of course if you want a little taste of being that hero, there are domestic steel mills currently hiring, you can take that job so the next guy in line won't get maimed. But somehow I think you won't, so you must be "all cool" they are "instead maimed." | | |
| ▲ | MisterTea a day ago | parent [-] | | So don't bother to improve safety either. I've worked in manufacturing for most of my life, worked manual lathes and mills in a machine shop and been in drop forging facilities. I'm well aware of industrial hazards so don't even try to patronize me. I'm not sure what you're arguing for here, but you come off as morally bankrupt. Worker safety can certainly be improved but people like you happily shrug it off and are fine with hazardous cost cutting which allows people to continue to be maimed as long as you're steel or whatever is super cheap. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | miltonlost 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| That's not what I was saying with my comment. There was no implication I want to go back to 1890s pre-labor rights. How did "raw materials should be cheap if you want to encourage manufacturing" get to "get rid of labor laws!!!". Your reading comprehension needs to be higher. Stating a basic economic principle does not imply the erosion of labor protections. |
| |
| ▲ | mothballed 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I think in 1890s is was probably closer to one blob arm every 3rd month. My apologies if it was read as changing labor protections, rather than in regards to moving industry back towards now imported inherently dangerous production of elementary inputs. |
|
