Why Are Politicians So Obsessed with Manufacturing? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Are Politicians So Obsessed with Manufacturing?

#241

Post by whybroke » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 5:37 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #240

whybroke wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the result of increased wealth inequality, even if you maintained the same level of social mobility, will worsen not improve situation. The description of a rise in absolute mobility would be a misunderstanding of the issue. If that is too theoretic, consider the analogy of a lottery where one group of children win automatically and an other group has say a 10% chance of winning during their life. Increasing the…

Or indeed by your logic simply raising the salary of a CEO by a massive amount also raises the "absolute mobility" of all other employees Yes. If I had a 1% chance of being the CEO and having my income go from $100k to $1M, my expected payoff was $900k x 1% = $9k. If my income stays at $100k but the CEO income goes to $10M, and my odds of being the CEO stay at 1%, my expected payoff is $9.9M x 1% = 99k. My situation…

Or by that logic you could cut your pay from $100K to $1K and give your CEO $10M and be just as happy. There are plenty of people who live on $1K a year after all.

Although in the CEO's case, often no further harm is done, if half of a population has a massive increase in wealth while the other half does not then then poorer half must compete for limited resources with a group that will not only drive prices up but can now purchase assets as a form of rent seeking. So in fact, greater inequality acts as currency devaluation for the disadvantaged group.

The CEO example was not meant to cause unjustified envy but to show that according to your logic, instead of ever giving employees a raise you could simply give all raises to the CEO and tell employees that by cost benefit analysis the effect is the same, that they are better off.

To put it concretely, from now on, every time you ask for a raise just ask that your boss get that extra compensation instead. I think you will find the effect is not remotely the same.

Or from now on, ask for all of your pay check that exceeds poverty line for chances at a completely fair trillion dollar lottery.

Simple cost benefit multiplication is being erroneously applied in these cases (and often is)

Re: Why Are Politicians So Obsessed with Manufacturing?

#242

Post by mywittyname » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

blazespin wrote: post #144

It's because Germany and Japan is so successful with manufacturing. Donald is asking why the US cant compete with Germany and Japan.

We outproduce both Japan and Germany combined in manufacturing. Manufacturing is roughly 18% of GDP for each Japan and Germany, but only 12% of the USA.

Germany GDP: ~$4 trillion.

Japan GDP: ~$5 trillion.

USA GDP: ~$17 trillion.

9 * 0.18 = 1.6

17 * 0.12 = 2.0

So, as usual, Mr. Trump's ignorance is causing him to ask the wrong questions.

Re: Why Are Politicians So Obsessed with Manufacturing?

#243

Post by hrxn » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 5:41 PM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #236

pavedwalden wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>However, I suspect that most politicians who talk about a manufacturing revival understand that it won't really happen. The thought that maybe some of them don't understand that is what scares me the most.

The worst aspect of politicians is you can never differentiate between what they pay lip service to and what they truly believe.

So, just like everyone else, basically...

Re: Why Are Politicians So Obsessed with Manufacturing?

#244

Post by ryanmarsh » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 5:49 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #222

mamon wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define "unskilled". I would say that even if software developer does not have a degree he or she still needs to be quite smart. Now imagine typical blue collar worker having IQ below 100, who dropped from high school (as they often do) learning advanced technical concepts like network protocols, dozen of JS frameworks, not to mention higher order functions and macros. That's the issue with technical advancements: the…

> Now imagine typical blue collar worker having IQ below 100 I, quite honestly, really struggle to imagine this person. As someone involved in the agriculture industry, I see a lot of blue collar people. They all seem quite intelligent and capable to me. Some I could consider absolute geniuses. Save a small group who have real crippling disabilities, I'm not sure I have ever met a person who I think would struggle wi…

This. I've worked with plenty of smart uneducated people. In the army and various industries I've been around (trucking, manufacturing) there are plenty of knuckleheads but also a surprising number of very smart people for whom the education system either wasn't a fit or an option.

Re: Why Are Politicians So Obsessed with Manufacturing?

#245

Post by hrxn » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 5:58 PM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #242

blazespin wrote: post #144

It's because Germany and Japan is so successful with manufacturing. Donald is asking why the US cant compete with Germany and Japan.

We outproduce both Japan and Germany combined in manufacturing. Manufacturing is roughly 18% of GDP for each Japan and Germany, but only 12% of the USA. Germany GDP: ~$4 trillion. Japan GDP: ~$5 trillion. USA GDP: ~$17 trillion. 9 * 0.18 = 1.6 17 * 0.12 = 2.0 So, as usual, Mr. Trump's ignorance is causing him to ask the wrong questions.

Yes, as the trade surplus so aptly shows. Oh, wait..

Re: Why Are Politicians So Obsessed with Manufacturing?

#246

Post by JDiculous » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 7:00 PM UTC

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #169

JDiculous wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we fix this? Here's an idea - direct democracy where one can only vote on a topic that he/she has proven a minimal set of competence in. This could be in the form of an exam on a topic (eg. economics) and/or logic test. The goal is that one should not be allowed to vote on something like climate change without knowing the science and data behind climate change. We need to acknowledge that the world is too comp…

Corruption is one of those things that probably isn't going away any time soon: It isn't just a plague on politicians, but other areas of life as well. Businesses, etc. And unfortunately, you have to have someone produce those voting tests. How do you think they will get their positions? Do you think that the tests in states such as Utah will have the same sort of things as tests in California or Vermont? In your ver…

I'm not saying that every decision must be handled by the entire voting populace, just that we need to embrace a more issue-focused mindset and acknowledge that the world is too complex for one person to know what's best on every policy stance.

The test should be on the federal level (knowledge is universal), and wouldn't be designed by politicians. The tests should be very very basic and test a minimal level of understanding. For example you should be able to explain what the Fed does if you were voting on an issue pertaining to monetary policy. The questions would be as objective as possible.

Yes we may still need politicians, but again the main idea is that we seek to have people only working on matters they're qualified for rather than some jack of all trades who's supposed to have the country's answers on everything. Military operations would be handled by military personnel, housing policy would be designed by experts in housing policy, energy and climate change issues would be designed by experts in those fields, foreign policy would be dictated by foreign policy experts, etc.

Could this new system be a slippery slope? Are there other problems? Of course. But our current system is failing - just look at the presidential "debates", they're a complete laughingstock. We need to try to figure out how to improve this broken system rather than keep perpetuating the status quo.

I'd love to hear your ideas on how we could improve things.

Re: Why Are Politicians So Obsessed with Manufacturing?

#247

Post by 3minus1 » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 7:03 PM UTC

DiffEq wrote: post #213

Manufacturing is a strategic asset. When/If war ever comes upon us again we will need such assets to preserve ourselves. We must not let hubris cause us to think we are above the ruin as other great peoples have suffered.

As other have pointed out, US manufacturing is at an all time high. It just doesn't require as many people these days.

Re: Why Are Politicians So Obsessed with Manufacturing?

#248

Post by JDiculous » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 7:04 PM UTC

maverick_iceman wrote: post #151

JDiculous wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we fix this? Here's an idea - direct democracy where one can only vote on a topic that he/she has proven a minimal set of competence in. This could be in the form of an exam on a topic (eg. economics) and/or logic test. The goal is that one should not be allowed to vote on something like climate change without knowing the science and data behind climate change. We need to acknowledge that the world is too comp…

This is an extremely naive view. The sort of direct democracy you propose will most likely end up systematically discriminating against various groups. >As long as there are politicians, there will always be corruption Corruption is unlikely to go away with politicians, my guess is that it'll be there as long as human nature stays the same. >Ideally of course we'd have AI deciding our best course of action because hu…

What's your solution?

I'm not claiming that this idea isn't without its flaws. Our current system is just such an inefficient laughingstock that we need to be seeking to improve it.

Of course corruption will most likely persist under any system. The goal is to minimize it. The purpose of my proposal would be to make us make more informed policy decisions and incentive society and the media to focus on the issues.

Re: Why Are Politicians So Obsessed with Manufacturing?

#249

Post by JDiculous » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 7:23 PM UTC

chillacy wrote: post #154

JDiculous wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we fix this? Here's an idea - direct democracy where one can only vote on a topic that he/she has proven a minimal set of competence in. This could be in the form of an exam on a topic (eg. economics) and/or logic test. The goal is that one should not be allowed to vote on something like climate change without knowing the science and data behind climate change. We need to acknowledge that the world is too comp…

> one should not be allowed to vote on something like climate change without knowing the science and data behind climate change Okay, so in states where the majority don't believe in climate change and evolution, you'll have them design tests to exclude voters who believe in evolution/climate change from voting? > This could be in the form of an exam on a topic (eg. economics) and/or logic test We already have a long…

The tests should be as objective and unbiased as possible. Yes one can never remove 100% of bias, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything at all.

Remember, the whole point is to only have people qualified on a topic voting on said topic.

So if you're voting on, say, the minimum wage, you should be familiar with the economic ramifications of it. You should be familiar with both the arguments and counter-arguments, and perhaps the general consensus of economists.

If you're voting on trade policy, you should know the economic ramifications of a tariff. You should probably know the history of our positions on trade as well.

If you're voting on some issue related to the national debt, you should know the difference between a country's debt and household debt. You should probably also know the role of the Fed as well and how it relates to this.

The tests should be on a federal level because knowledge is universal. I'm really surprised that you and the other commenter implied that these tests would be on a state basis, and am curious as to what made you guys think that.

> We already have a long history of stifling voting rights

Poll taxes and religious tests are totally irrelevant. Literacy tests are sort of comparable to what I'm proposing, but I wouldn't advocate literacy tests because I don't care if you can't speak English if you know what you're talking about. Again, the main idea is that only people qualified on a specific issue should be voting on said issue.

Or maybe I should propose it from this angle - we should institute direct democracy instead of our current republic system due to the reasons I outlined in my original post. Direct democracy however has some glaring flaws (mainly that most people are too stupid and emotional), and the solution I propose seeks to rectify the glaring problem with direct democracy.

Re: Why Are Politicians So Obsessed with Manufacturing?

#250

Post by JDiculous » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 7:30 PM UTC

hasenj wrote: post #158

JDiculous wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we fix this? Here's an idea - direct democracy where one can only vote on a topic that he/she has proven a minimal set of competence in. This could be in the form of an exam on a topic (eg. economics) and/or logic test. The goal is that one should not be allowed to vote on something like climate change without knowing the science and data behind climate change. We need to acknowledge that the world is too comp…

The problem then is it gives too much power to few people. Especially in the case of AI.

That's already are problem - power is concentrated in too few people (politicians) that are bought out by special interests.

My direct democracy proposal expands that power to more people. You would have the power to vote on issues you're qualified to vote on rather than be beholden to your jack-of-all-trades representative who isn't the most qualified person to be making every decision.