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

The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

rand.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 523 posts

Re: The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

#401

Post by AngryData »

slicktux wrote: post #146
ryandrake wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because the US has emphasized college as the only respectable education path, as well as the only path to well paid jobs. If I could make as a machinist what I make as a software monkey, all other things being equal, I'd go back in time and train to be a machinist. People will go where the money is.

I know laborers that make well above most “software monkeys” and don’t even get me started with how much heavy machine operators make!

And I know many laborers that work for wages that most "software monkeys" wouldn't do just to shit in a pot. If you are in software development you are far more likely to live in a more expensive area of the nation where trades have a much higher than average value. In places that aren't employing many software developers trades don't pay nearly as well.

Re: The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

#402

Post by class3shock »

jmward01 wrote: post #142

I keep seeing people advocating that the idea that we should build everything, and every piece or everything, here is a good one. Why? Is this just an isolationist dream? The reductive, absurd, extreme of this is why don't individual people go out and build all their own stuff like cars and houses. Let's all go out and learn how to mine and refine metal ore so we can get started on building the family sedan! There is…

"and likely a good argument that at lest some minor capability should exist so we can keep re-assessing the value of that industry"

But that doesn't work. You need economies of scale and technological advancement for an industry to be competitive. Once you sellout an industry (what government and corporations spent the last half century doing) you've lost a capability forever unless drastic shifts happen and even then it would take years/decades to recover.

Why care? I guess I would say, as someone who works with physical products, it's hard to see a good future when we build nothing and buy everything. That is the direction we've been going. It's not about building everything ourselves it's just about building stuff ourselves. I think you touch on this talking about "the right balance".

Re: The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

#403

Post by bluGill »

oceanplexian wrote: post #364
bluGill wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed one: the person they can pay is better. I have rebuilt engines, but my cars go a mechanic because it is done in a day not a month. I can texture drywall but I need a lot more practice before it looks even like it should. I know 'scabs' who did a job while the union was on strike - the union people were 10x faster for similer quality - give a few months and they would be that fast. (The strike didn't last t…

It’s interesting you brought up scabs because other than a local service economy, the entire concept of a union can’t exist in a globalized economy. Companies will simply pay labor overseas in countries where organized labor is illegal.

Unions so long as they don't demand too much (normally money but could be other factors) can exist just fine. Experience is valuable as is having the factory close to the engineers. Local shipping helps. Automation means there are not many in the factory as well so you can pay more.

Re: The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

#404

Post by mrcsharp »

protocolture wrote: post #357
rainsford wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because the US has emphasized college as the only respectable education path, as well as the only path to well paid jobs. There's this idea that the shift to college and white collar jobs was some artificial push, but it seems more like an incredibly natural and obvious move to me. A lot of blue collar work is just not super great from a working conditions and pay perspective and while not every white collar job is…

In the UK and Australia there were huge incentives. I recall reading that the peak of the damage to the UK was in the late 90s early 00s when all the older tradesmen began retiring and basic shit like plumbing because scarce. Largely blamed on thatcher.

I'm curious if you have any links you can share on this topic. Thanks.

Re: The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

#405

Post by simgt »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #135
simgt wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the proof of our success is all around if you're willing to actually look. Get a slice of humble pie. The proof of American failure is also all around if you're willing to actually look. Urbanism, health, environment, MAGA, Vietnam, Irak, Afghanistan. Easy to cherry pick, turns out many of us who have the luxury of being able to work in the US if they wanted to chose not to do so, maybe with good reasons? "Most…

What makes urbanism bad?

Car centricity is the main culprit

[0] https://m.youtube.com/shorts/0dKrUE_O0VE

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oHlpmxLTxpw

[2] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TheOkz8oF_I

Re: The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

#406

Post by AngryData »

whimsicalism wrote: post #51
morkalork wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crushing unions is partly to blame here. I've got relatives whose families have been working in the mining industry for a few generations. They all lament the good old days that are long gone now.

how would increasing the cost of labor mean that we have more manufacturing jobs in the US today?

Giving labor better bargaining means higher pay for employees and so they need to work less, which leaves room for more employees. Better working conditions also leads to a better and bigger pool of candidates who are interested in your work and industry. Giving labor more power also makes it far harder to offshore their work and the higher pay for everyone improves local economies and induces more local demand. Having wealthier owners doesn't help the local economy nearly as much as more prosperous labor, especially if they end up spending a bunch of that capital in investing in a foreign assets with lower labor costs, essentially throwing what could have been local economic investment into desperate foreign labor markets.

Re: The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

#407

Post by nickpp »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #321
WalterBright wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wealth concentration has been a deliberate US domestic policy for decades. Wealth is not concentrated in a market society. It is created. Some people creating more wealth than others is not "concentrating" wealth in their hands. Another way to put it is it is not a fixed pie, where if one gets more another necessarily gets less. If I buy some art supplies for $20, and paint a masterpiece I sell for $100,000, wealth…

Two societies. In each one, someone buys $20 of art supplies, paints a masterpiece and it sells for $100,000. In one society, a marginal tax rate system taxes the artist with an upper rate of 92%, and they end up retaining about $50,000 of the income, with the rest flowing back into the control of the society (via its government). In the other society, a margin tax rate system taxes the artist with an upper rate of 2…

In the first society, the probability of the artist completing and selling that masterpiece is correspondingly lower, since money is a strong motivator and even artists have bills to pay.

Thus the first society tends to create less value overall, since value creators are demotivated by punishing taxation. Because of that, prospective buyers for that piece of art will be overall poorer so they will bid less for it, pushing the artist's reward even lower.

The first society ends up poorer than the second, from its own policy. And that’s how you get inequality between nations, which you can’t “redistribute” away. Which inequality sooner or later leads to wars, as we can clearly see these days.

Re: The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

#408

Post by UncleMeat »

markus_zhang wrote: post #304
UncleMeat wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a threat? To mass murder government bureaucrats?

What? I said nothing about murder.

I'm curious what your illegal and disorderly path is specifically.

Re: The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

#409

Post by DeathArrow »

jmward01 wrote: post #142

I keep seeing people advocating that the idea that we should build everything, and every piece or everything, here is a good one. Why? Is this just an isolationist dream? The reductive, absurd, extreme of this is why don't individual people go out and build all their own stuff like cars and houses. Let's all go out and learn how to mine and refine metal ore so we can get started on building the family sedan! There is…

>I keep seeing people advocating that the idea that we should build everything, and every piece or everything

Here's another idea. A country should build whatever makes economic sense and it should be able to produce almost anything. It should not depend much on others for key technologies or industries.

The idea is not to isolate from others but extract the maximum economic benefits while surviving with if a war starts or alliances start shifting.

Re: The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

#410

Post by kashunstva »

snowwrestler wrote: post #302
hudon wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the gist is: When you can manufacture ships, you can also manufacture warships. When you can manufacture warships, you can protect your economy. or: If all you sell are financial services, and a pandemic hits and you need to protect your people, where will you find masks? We don't need to build literally everything ourselves, that's a reductionist argument, we just need to become a lot more productive than we are now…

The U.S. already manufactures warships, though, and we’re already by far the best at it. Not only do we already protect our economy, we protect pretty much all shipping on the high seas by all economies on the globe. The John F Kennedy—built in the U.S.!—is in sea trials this year to become the 12th nuclear aircraft carrier in the U.S. fleet. No other nation has more than two carriers. The U.S. has more aircraft carr…

> we already protect our economy…aircraft carriers…subs…weapons

Except when the threat to your economy and security isn’t something against which those weapons will ever be effective. Even the USS John F. Kennedy, as wonderful as I’m sure it is, won’t fix the giant foot gun that is presently threatening your economy and security.

Post reply on HN