Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trade (and Tariffs)

xkcd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 272 posts

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#11

Post by neaden »

apexalpha wrote: post #7

This is a pretty reductive take. If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours. Protecting workers from that kind of competition seems fair. Tariffs aren't bad in itself. They are just a tool. Unfortunately fools wielding a tool like this can cause a lot of damage, but that's true for any tool.

"If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours." - This is not obviously true to me, can you explain why it is for you?

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#12

Post by budman1 »

marcosdumay wrote: post #6
derwiki wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the whole trick: if the feedback cycle is long enough, the next person gets blamed for it, not the current.

The most impressive thing about Trump is that he managed to shorten up the feedback loops on an overwhelming number of his policies. You would expect the US industry to silently absorb his trade policies and only break decades after he leaves. Somehow, they aren't healthy enough for that.

Slack is expensive. At least it has a cost that is not always appreciated.

Everyone has been optimizing to increase profits for decades. A 1950's US economy would have taken a lot longer to collapse.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#13

Post by apexalpha »

neaden wrote: post #11
apexalpha wrote: post #7

This is a pretty reductive take. If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours. Protecting workers from that kind of competition seems fair. Tariffs aren't bad in itself. They are just a tool. Unfortunately fools wielding a tool like this can cause a lot of damage, but that's true for any tool.

"If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours." - This is not obviously true to me, can you explain why it is for you?

Imagine a factory line where each worker makes 10 items per hour.

In, say, China a worker doing 996 will make 720 items. Te average working hours in the Netherlands are 36 hours or so per week. Making 360 items.

As long as there is free trade the Chinese factory will simply outproduce the Dutch one since they utilise their capex better.

Obviously European workers can't be reasonably asked to compete in an open market when labour laws, salary, health inspection etc... in China are at a 1920 Dutch level.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#14

Post by budman1 »

neaden wrote: post #11
apexalpha wrote: post #7

This is a pretty reductive take. If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours. Protecting workers from that kind of competition seems fair. Tariffs aren't bad in itself. They are just a tool. Unfortunately fools wielding a tool like this can cause a lot of damage, but that's true for any tool.

"If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours." - This is not obviously true to me, can you explain why it is for you?

Although it is not a law of nature, and it is not linear across the hours.. In general if I work M-F more work will be done that if I just work on Monday morning.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#15

Post by kemayo »

apexalpha wrote: post #13
neaden wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours." - This is not obviously true to me, can you explain why it is for you?

Imagine a factory line where each worker makes 10 items per hour. In, say, China a worker doing 996 will make 720 items. Te average working hours in the Netherlands are 36 hours or so per week. Making 360 items. As long as there is free trade the Chinese factory will simply outproduce the Dutch one since they utilise their capex better. Obviously European workers can't be reasonably asked to compete in an open market…

You seem to be assuming that productivity scales linearly with time spent working, which doesn't seem to inherently be true.

If your factory workers spend twice as long working, it's likely that more widgets will get made. I'm not certain you can generalize too far from that, though.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#16

Post by thcipriani »

apexalpha wrote: post #7

This is a pretty reductive take. If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours. Protecting workers from that kind of competition seems fair. Tariffs aren't bad in itself. They are just a tool. Unfortunately fools wielding a tool like this can cause a lot of damage, but that's true for any tool.

The comic satirizes the 2026 US tariff rationale, vs. worker protection tariffs. But I do often think about Noam Chomsky's opposition to NAFTA[0] when talking heads explain why tariffs are bad.

[0]: https://chomsky.info/secrets03/>

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#17

Post by Kim_Bruning »

apexalpha wrote: post #7

This is a pretty reductive take. If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours. Protecting workers from that kind of competition seems fair. Tariffs aren't bad in itself. They are just a tool. Unfortunately fools wielding a tool like this can cause a lot of damage, but that's true for any tool.

Just as a note: if you work 6x12 shifts, you're actually working less efficiently, because you'll be regularly fatigued, make more mistakes, need more rework, etc etc. You might end up with the same net yield as if you'd done 3x6 hour shifts.

(edit: And only if you don't fall asleep at the controls and destroy the factory first. 12 hour shifts are brutal. At least one place I know bans you the next day if you exceed 11h, for your own protection if nothing else)

(edit2: This was documented in the 1st world war when munitions factories that tried to ramp up by increasing shift durations past a certain point ended up hardly improving productivity, but did increase accident and sickness rates to the point that it was starting to hurt the war effort. )

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#19

Post by neaden »

apexalpha wrote: post #13
neaden wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours." - This is not obviously true to me, can you explain why it is for you?

Imagine a factory line where each worker makes 10 items per hour. In, say, China a worker doing 996 will make 720 items. Te average working hours in the Netherlands are 36 hours or so per week. Making 360 items. As long as there is free trade the Chinese factory will simply outproduce the Dutch one since they utilise their capex better. Obviously European workers can't be reasonably asked to compete in an open market…

So this is just not correct. First off a factory can run 24/7 regardless of the shift length, which is what will determine the total productivity. Second off it assumes there are no trade offs in terms of more errors or anything else by having longer shifts. Third off it assumes that factories in different countries are going to be equally effective with each other, instead of different nations/areas within nations specializing in certain areas. It also ignores the economic benefits that come with having people in your nation having more leisure time, higher education, more time with children, etc. It's a very simplistic model that is also very incorrect.

Re: Trade (and Tariffs)

#20

Post by tobr »

apexalpha wrote: post #13
neaden wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours." - This is not obviously true to me, can you explain why it is for you?

Imagine a factory line where each worker makes 10 items per hour. In, say, China a worker doing 996 will make 720 items. Te average working hours in the Netherlands are 36 hours or so per week. Making 360 items. As long as there is free trade the Chinese factory will simply outproduce the Dutch one since they utilise their capex better. Obviously European workers can't be reasonably asked to compete in an open market…

So since the math extrapolates linearly and there is apparently no cost, why would anyone settle for anything other than 1680 items per week?
Post reply on HN