| ▲ | bubbluppugus 5 hours ago |
| America didn't lose manufacturing jobs it sold them The whole economy for 40-ish years now been built on finance engineering away labors grip on anything in the US |
|
| ▲ | fasterik an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| U.S. manufacturing output is almost at an all time high. At its peak in 2007, it was only 5% higher than today. The current trend is upward. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS We did lose manufacturing jobs, but not because we "sold" them, it's because productivity has increased so much. This happens to all mature economies, where services and knowledge work become a larger percent of GDP as productivity, education, and living standards increase. It's a sign of progress that we have more people working in offices and fewer people working in hazardous conditions for low pay. |
| |
| ▲ | phainopepla2 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > We did lose manufacturing jobs, but not because we "sold" them, it's because productivity has increased so much. It's because of both. Mature economies would do well to hold onto some basic manufacturing capacity as a matter of national security. Or at the very least, retain some of that capacity within the sphere of close and trusted allies, assuming allies of that type can even be maintained by the US at this point. |
|
|
| ▲ | bolangi 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Some analysts, notably Andre Martyanov, describe how the US has lost strategic thinking and long-range planning in the military domain. The loss of the US ability to mine and refine rare earths is a good example of absence of strategic thinking in the supply chain. |
| |
| ▲ | rylando 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I’ve been wondering more and more lately if it was designed this way by whoever made these decisions at the top level to prevent another cold-war standoff situation. By requiring the US to rely on often adversarial countries to supply some of its most crucial military components like rare earth minerals, the US couldn’t really go toe to toe with those countries. I’m just not sure if they factored in the rapid technological rise of those adversarial countries like China. Or maybe it really is the simplest answer that it was all purely in effort to obtain the greatest profit margins… | | |
| ▲ | AngryData 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Im sure some people with wealth and power have thought that. The only problem is haven't we seen this strategy repeatedly end up as the cause of war and conflict when one side gets cut off from a critical resource due to politics? Japan in WWII didn't really give a shit about the US except as a bottleneck to their supply of gasoline and oil. And im sure I could cherry pick out numerous examples throughout history. Being self-sufficient prevents you from conflict both in preventing external politics from potentially cutting off from critical supplies, and by making the potential fruits of conquest and war fairly limited. Like who is going to go to war over 5% cheaper steel? You will trade for that deal, but likely not kill. But the trading could be part of the source of the problem because it can hollow out your own native industry over enough time, or prevent native industry from being built when it can be bought cheap. | |
| ▲ | guelo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is true. During the late Bill Clinton era the arguments for normalizing trade with China were 1) more economic engagement would somehow make China democratic 2) an economically integrated China would be more interested in maintaining international stability 3) WTO membership would force China to follow trade rules | |
| ▲ | flanz_10 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I’ve been wondering more and more lately if it was designed this way by whoever made these decisions at the top level to prevent another cold-war standoff situation. Indulging in conspiracy at least allows you to pretend that the "top level" had a plan here. It's much more comforting to think there was a positive intention for the way things turned out, and not just greed and short-sightedness. Lots of people have written about "the cycles of empires". | | |
| ▲ | jollyllama 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It's much more comforting This kind of psychologizing can be used to subjectively argue either case. For example, I could say that it's much more comforting to think that current circumstances are artifacts of greedy fools rather than coordination by malevolent and powerful actors. > that the "top level" had a plan here You're also being somewhat reductive here. Sure, entry-level conspiracies rely on an all-powerful council with top-down authority, but there are more nuanced understandings where they can arrive out of alliances of convenience between rival factions. | | |
| ▲ | flanz_10 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Sure. But when someone says "designed this way", it really comes off as top-down. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | barelysapient 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Or corruption. | |
| ▲ | vrganj 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Capitalist businesses don't work in strategic and long-range terms, they work on quarterly earnings. Who gives a shit about sovereign capability if you can have a real good earnings report? | | |
| ▲ | AuthAuth 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | What evidence could you possibly have for that? Plenty of capitalist businesses have been around a long time and engage in long term planning and investment. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | nickff 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The combination of tax policy disincentivizing capital investment, and regulatory policy making physical things hard to do has shifting increasing amounts of investment into finance, software, and services (and away from resource extraction, processing, and manufacturing). |
| |
| ▲ | mekdoonggi 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is all a function of the dollar as a reserve currency. The US is optimized to be the place to own things. The rest of the world is where people make things. Addendum:
I think this is bad. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | epolanski an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Manufacturing output in US is way higher than 40 years ago. Manufacturing jobs are killed by automation. Robots replaced people in plants. This is happening in Europe and Asia too. People "dreaming" or cushy well paid union jobs assembling stuff are talking nonsense nostalgia. |
|
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >The whole economy for 40-ish years now been built on finance engineering away labors grip on anything in the US Because when these plants and facilities come up for reinvestment the rules and laws have inevitably made a piecemeal sell out the only financially viable move. The environmentalists point at the financiers. The financiers point at the environmentalists. It's like the two party system. Worse, there was always some degree of unwritten understanding between government and big business. Like if big business built out a factory they would expect to use it for 50-100yr with refreshes every 30 or so. When the government started crapping on that sort of thing to the degree that various investments became wholly non-viable it became risky to make those investments, less of them, less to spread any risk over, more expensive, it's a spiral. And so if you can't be sure your facility will be allowed to be viable in the long term you've gotta milk what you can each quarter. |
|
| ▲ | umeshunni 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Once you make it hard to build something, the incentives to build the thing goes away.
Can you imaging trying to build a factory in California in 2026? Or 2006? The NIMBYs can barely stand building an ice cream store. |
| |
| ▲ | bluGill 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Fortunately you can build in other parts of the US. There are a lot of places that would love to have you build in the US. Many of them would not be your first choice of where to live. If you only need 10 employees many small towns would love to have you, but they can't supply much more labor than that. 50 employees there are tiny cities that would love to have you, but not all of them. | | |
| ▲ | andrewmutz 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Look what is happening to the attempts to build AI data centers. The only thing democrats and republicans can agree on is that building AI data centers should be stopped. | | |
| ▲ | jltsiren 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think much of the opposition to data centers is because companies are rushing to build them as quickly as possible. When you are building a traditional factory, you probably expect it to remain operational for 30+ years, so it makes sense to get the local community on board first. But a data center building could be obsolete in 10–20 years, if the requirements change enough that it's not feasible to retrofit it for new hardware. | |
| ▲ | marcosdumay an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, if the company that wants to build the factories became known for operating it on the most polluting way possible¹, you can bet nobody would let it open either. 1 - Way more polluting than anybody even considered possible before. | |
| ▲ | mbgerring an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It’s so crazy that nobody wants a gigantic, loud, ugly building that raises their power bill and puts them out of a job in their neighborhood | |
| ▲ | bluGill 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not in all places. However you will see the places where they are stopped in the news. |
|
| |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The guy who runs SendCutSend has repeatedly said he'd love a CA facility but it wouldn't pencil out without the value-add powder coating, electro plating, painting and other services offered and that intentionally adversarial state policy precludes new facilities that do that so he's not gonna try. |
|