Comment by itsdavesanders
1 year ago
I find it strange that they would write "The hollowing out of US manufacturing has led to social and political division and left us in a precarious place geopolitically." And then suggest the answer to that is robotics and ML, which does nothing but exacerbate the social and political divisions - unless government and enterprise make the hard choices to provide a real safety net. And then, if we do that, it doesn't matter if the US is excelling in manufacturing as a source of revenue or not - providing revenue to fund these programs is coming in from somewhere, the source is far less important.
Manufacturing today (even overseas) is very different than what it was in the great off-shoring. The status quo has changed & won't be coming back -- automation is now the norm. But still, the multiplier effect for manufacturing is massive: For every $1 of economic output, it generates somewhere between $2-$3 of GDP -- and that is heavily centered in the community housing the factory. It's much better for a distributed society than many other sectors that tend to exfiltrate GDP.
There are two factors to consider though.
On the one hand, you're correct that it does nothing for the American worker to bring manufacturing back if it means huge buildings with skeleton crews and machines that effectively run themselves. I don't particularly have a solution for this. Americans have gotten used to the price of goods being artificially low because of inexpensive labor in impoverished countries. Unless we want to take a manufacturing approach akin to Germany or the Nordic countries, focusing on high quality precision built or luxury items, we simply can't produce goods at commodity prices while both paying people enough to live well on and producing the kind of profit that is required by investors. So that's where YC sees machines as solving that conflict, at no benefit to working people.
That said, there is the advantage that we have seen how fragile the global JIT supply chain is to disruptions. Either political, environmental or just plain Acts of God like COVID. Having goods produced much closer to where they're consumed is something I think every country needs to invest in. Especially for goods that aren't just nice-to-haves but necessary for basic functioning of society. Things like construction and repair materials, medicines, medical devices, etc. I support building up a greater local resilience over global dependence, especially what with climate change on the horizon.
I wish we could do this in a way that meant good blue collar jobs with strong benefits and union wages. But you can't ever expect a investors YC to take that path.
> On the one hand, you're correct that it does nothing for the American worker to bring manufacturing back if it means huge buildings with skeleton crews and machines that effectively run themselves.
This seems analogous to the transition from bespoke manufacturing of goods to mass production.
I think what we need is leadership that can get people excited, in good faith, about a future where small groups of people can produce goods for orders of magnitude less capital, effort, etc. with robotics, ML, and other tech.
Today a popular dystopian narrative of tech is that it’s being deployed by the elite to enrich themselves and build moats around their fiefdoms. Feudalism doesn’t get pluralities excited. How can that mainstream narrative be changed in a manner that makes people clearly understand how they can be a beneficiary instead of an exploit?
> Feudalism doesn’t get pluralities excited, so how does that mainstream narrative change in a manner that feels like everybody is part of the journey instead of an exploit?
The problem is not the need for a narrative change. The need is actual change.
1 reply →
Is the narrative incorrect though? I feel like the underlying situation is described pretty well by that narrative in most cases. Inequality has increased pretty massively since tech has taken over the economy
Maybe take a crack at it, what is incorrect with the "feudalism" narrative? what is the better way of framing it that you're implying exists?
2 replies →
I think this is an interesting take and something I've been relatively close to personally. I have a family member who owns one of those 100k Brother CNC machines, a robotic arm and some vice clamps and is starting a small manufacturing business with it out of his garage. While this isn't something that an average American can do, it can allow distribution of manufacturing to places that don't need a 500 acre lot, and with more small time manufacturing operations popping up competing with each other, can bring down the price of creating purely made-in-America products.
4 replies →
> it does nothing for the American worker to bring manufacturing back if it means huge buildings with skeleton crews and machines that effectively run themselves
I don't think that right. It still means goods are being produced in America, which means:
1. Greater security of production against geopolitical threats, and
2. More goods being produced overall, meaning cheaper goods.
Even without significant employment, those are good things!
> Greater security of production against geopolitical threats
I address this in the second paragraph.
> More goods being produced overall, meaning cheaper goods.
I'm not convinced cheaper, more abundant goods are the top problem to solve right now. Especially as wants get cheaper, needs are getting much more expensive. And low and stagnant wages at the bottom means survival becomes increasingly difficult, despite cheaper candy and toys.
1 reply →
I'm going to guess that whatever is able to heal social and political (ie economic) divide won't come from capital lol—maybe the next depression might put the work in.
Well, the point isn't to stop the social and political division. The point is stop the geopolitical precariousness.
> My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.
I would suggest that our geopolitical precariousness comes from our social divisions. I doubt Russia, China, or anyone else will ever be able to invade.
But if the losers of globalism keep getting purposefully shortchanged I can more easily foresee them deciding to change the system by force.
I don't think that's a terribly likely outcome, but much more likely than Red Dawn.
Our social divisions means they don't have to invade in order to unseat the U.S. as a global superpower.
> And then suggest the answer to that is robotics and ML, which does nothing but exacerbate the social and political divisions
Maybe it does those things. But clearly it doesnt do “nothing but” those things. It brings manufacturing back which is the entire point. I really think you’re ignoring the whole point to go off on a highly partisan political tangent.
> It brings manufacturing back which is the entire point.
If the point is to bring back manufacturing salaries in the quantity and amount previously available, it's not the entire point.
>It brings manufacturing back
It is completely unsurprising to me that those making this nonsense claim never accept the burden of proof. If they did, it would only further reveal that they are pushing total bullshit.
I don’t understand what you are trying to say but “bringing manufacturing back” is the starting premise. He already begets bringing it back.
Its not that automation necessarily brings back manufacturing, its that if it does its not only going to increase social and political division.