| ▲ | smallmancontrov a day ago |
| No, bringing the price of 50" 4k TVs down to $300 does not make up for lost jobs. That's an easy choice, which is why it was never presented to the American worker but rather foisted upon us by shareholders in pursuit of profit and a government content to look the other way. |
|
| ▲ | otterley a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| If it’s such an easy choice, why wasn’t that the outcome? |
|
| ▲ | Hammershaft a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Advanced manufacturing requires cheap global inputs. Before tariffs, unemployments was ~3.5% and real wages were rising, and part of why wages have been rising is because the cost of goods like TVs have been falling. |
| |
| ▲ | smallmancontrov a day ago | parent [-] | | Just because the dumbest president in American History can't do industrial policy doesn't mean that industrial policy can't or shouldn't be done. |
|
|
| ▲ | epolanski a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 1. For the n-th time: manufacturing jobs are being lost to automation. Globally, not just in America. This is true in Asia as well. Manufacturing is facing the same fate of agriculture: machines and robots will keep displacing people. Nothing is going to stop it. 2. There is no such world where we'll choose to do things less efficiently to artificially save few jobs. And it's not about your TV being 100$ more expensive, it is about everything you touch and see being considerably more expensive, with a cascade effect on the businesses that need the equipment. 3. Average Joe in US is as much a shareholder as some imaginary person you have in mind. And a company's duty is towards shareholders first, workers second. |
| |
| ▲ | smallmancontrov a day ago | parent | next [-] | | No, Average Joe (Median Joe) is not a shareholder, asset appreciation is not a meaningful fraction of his income so policies which dump labor to pump capital hurt Average Joe on net by a wide margin. Shareholders are 30/30/30 top 0.1%/1%/10%. You and I may be in those categories, but Average Joe is not. | | | |
| ▲ | triceratops a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Everything you said is objectively true, except for one thing. > a company's duty is towards shareholders first, workers second. This is just like, an opinion, man. There's no reason a company has to be like that. It just benefits company management to act like it's an objective truth because their pay is stock-based. | | |
| ▲ | epolanski a day ago | parent [-] | | > There's no reason a company has to be like that. Law. Board and CEO have fiduciary duty towards shareholders. | | |
| ▲ | triceratops 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That doesn't mean what you think it means. Management has to act in shareholders' best interests especially when those conflict with their own. That's not the same thing as shareholders above workers (or anyone else for that matter). | |
| ▲ | Larrikin a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you search fiduciary duty on just this site you'll find hundreds of replies dating back years refuting your point. |
|
| |
| ▲ | anjel a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Good thing the birth rate is depressed then |
|
