This is a case of taking away existing artificial barriers and let what people do their thing in the market. 5 and 10 year plans are only for economies run into the ground by an elite intelligentsia.
America underestimates the difficulty of bringing manufacturing back
831–840 of 1001 posts
Re: America underestimates the difficulty of bringing manufacturing back
#832meta observation; It is amusing to me that the comments on this site are majority "No, we are not smart enough to run a drill press. That takes years of training!" but back in 2020, every commenter was pretending they were doctors.
Re: America underestimates the difficulty of bringing manufacturing back
#833And for those who want a video, watch Scott Galloway on Anderson Cooper https://youtu.be/qg3JOR44r6M?si=Ggwfuuy-_lXjFUxq. Galloway notes that the US is only second to China in manufacturing and the Cato survey that found 80% of Americans want more manufacturing but 1-in-4 or 1-in-5 have any interest in going to work in manufacturing. And he quotes Dave Chappelle, "we want to wear Nikes, not make Nikes." (https://youtu.be/LAg1bDvuarc?si=-aLApcSdAk75d7Vr)
Back to the article, I'm no expert on tariffs, but explaining things to people and trying to understand where they "are" (I'm a social worker, so this is SW-speak) are two things I've spent my policy career doing. If I hear one more quilter (I make and sell one-of-a-kind quilts) say that the solution to the high price of quilting fabric (because of tariffs) is returning manufacturing to the US and Trump is our savior for recognizing this, well, I don't know what I'm going to do other than share the link to this blog.
Re: America underestimates the difficulty of bringing manufacturing back
#834We never stopped manufacturing, we just stopped employing people. > We don’t have the infrastructure to manufacture That's trivially false given we're the second-largest manufacturer in the world. We just don't want to employ people, hence why we can't make an iphone or refine raw materials. The actual issue is that our business culture is antithetical to a healthy society. The idea of employing Americans is anti-bus…
> We just don't want to employ people, hence why we can't make an iphone or refine raw materials. This is it. Aside from manufacturing, most recent AI startups are almost universally aligned in the desire to use it to reduce headcount. It's plastered all over their landing pages as a selling point: "use our product and you won't have to hire people." Business culture is eating its own young and hollowing out the futu…
Ford Vs. Dodge Brothers
Re: America underestimates the difficulty of bringing manufacturing back
#835Earlier quoted context omitted.
France and Spain continue to exist and they were former hegemons. China has stably existed with long periods of turning inwards after more regional hedgemony.
It's really straight forward -- Do you consider things like liberal democracy, property rights, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom of association, due process, and the rule of law to be essential features of society? If you don't -- Chinese hegemony and the path it will lead the world down is the one for you. If you do -- Then American hegemony with all its flaws is something worth fighting for.
It’s hard to convince people to think the US is in any position to protect those principles when the current administration is attacking each and every one them head on.
Re: America underestimates the difficulty of bringing manufacturing back
#836Earlier quoted context omitted.
Concur, employee training and retention are at an all-time low. There are no positions available for junior employees, minimal onboarding and mentoring of new employees. Organizations have stopped planning people's careers. Used to be that the employee's career growth was their manager's problem, while the employee could focus on the work. Now the employee must market themselves as often, if not more often, than actu…
Employees have always been responsible for managing their own career growth and always will be. How can it be otherwise? It would be foolish for an employee to let someone else handle career growth for them as their interests aren't aligned (or even known). If you want help with career growth then find a mentor , don't rely on your manager. Managers should facilitate training to improve employee productivity and help…
> How can it be otherwise?
It was otherwise. And is IS otherwise in many other rich countries, as well as not-so-rich ones.
In these places, the employer-employee relationship is more of a relationship and less of a transaction to be reassessed every morning.
If you don't believe it, because you've never seen it, then you are probably American, probably young. And seeing other possibilities is a good reason to study (modern!) history, and to travel.
Re: America underestimates the difficulty of bringing manufacturing back
#837Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Employees have always been responsible for managing their own career growth and always will be. How can it be otherwise? On the contrary, from the 40s to the 70s (possibly well into the 80s) the corporation was heavily invested in your career. Employees were expected to dedicate their lives to the firm, and the firm, in turn, was expected to take care of them. This "free-for-all" employment model is fairly recent.…
Even the creepy business terminology "human capital" implies something that a business actively wants to grow. That is in stark contrast to how most businesses manage their people today.
How do you improve your "return on capital"?
That's right - by keeping output constant (e.g. through automation) while reducing capital!
Re: America underestimates the difficulty of bringing manufacturing back
#838Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think it's a matter of willingness, but simple global geo economics. I don't see a difference. If we want local industry, we must address the global geo economics.
Nobody really wants a "local" industry as much as consumers want cheap prices and companies want global reach. US manufacturing accomplishes higher prices and US only reach.
That's a narrow perspective. The "benefits" that are granted to a country have a cost and these costs need to be reconciled with on the international stage. This is achieved through tariffs otherwise the playing field isn't fair.
Re: America underestimates the difficulty of bringing manufacturing back
#839We never stopped manufacturing, we just stopped employing people. > We don’t have the infrastructure to manufacture That's trivially false given we're the second-largest manufacturer in the world. We just don't want to employ people, hence why we can't make an iphone or refine raw materials. The actual issue is that our business culture is antithetical to a healthy society. The idea of employing Americans is anti-bus…
The problem is that we're talking about "manufacturing" as one big homogeneous thing. The US obviously makes a bunch of stuff, but it has very limited ability to make lots of kinds of stuff, especially in a hostile trade environment. The US manufacturing sector is about half the size of China's in terms of value-add, but it's much smaller by any other measure. The US has focussed on high-value verticals like aerospac…
> The US has focussed on high-value verticals like aerospace
Which is about to take a huge nosedive, as both Europe and China pull back on buying critical systems from the US. And can you blame them?
There's an excellent youtube series (by a Finnish ex-military officer) on the likely impact of recent events on US arms sales to Europe. They do have choices!
Trump and Musk's threats to invade and blackmail (e.g. by cutting off Starlink) will be felt long after they're both gone.
Re: America underestimates the difficulty of bringing manufacturing back
#840Earlier quoted context omitted.
Global hegemony of the US is based not on 5% of people, rather the US sphere of influence. US, Canada, EU, Japan, Australia, South Korea, etc. The combination is immensely rich, powerful and advanced. Even more so when you keep India on board as well. It at least stands a fighting chance if it wasn't the case that this alliance is being destroyed before our eyes. I will admit that even an integrated alliance cannot p…
I can see your point, but I disagree on this. It is specifically "US hegemony" and not "western democracy hegemony" because the US is so extraordinarily powerful in economy and military. Interests/culture with other democracies aligns well enough (and the power differential is large enough!) that US leadership is tolerated/supported. But Canada, EU, Australia, Japan are NOT vasall states: If interests would clash and…
The reworking of the AUKUS deal seems like turning Australia into a vassal state