Comment by csense
12 days ago
There are plenty of people saying these tariffs will not work.
But a person used to be able to graduate high school and get a job that could support a house with a yard, a car, a non-working spouse and children.
How we get that level of prosperity back? That's the people really want. Tariffs are simply a means to that end.
I wish people would stop writing articles about 100% criticizing tariffs and instead write articles 50% about criticizing tariffs and 50% brainstorming alternative solutions to achieve the same objective.
> There are plenty of people saying these tariffs will not work.
Work to do what?
> But a person used to be able to graduate high school and get a job that could support a house with a yard, a car, a non-working spouse and children.
Why do you think this has anything to do with tariffs or manufacturing?
> How do we get that level of prosperity back?
Better pay for the jobs people actually work. Reducing inequality by preventing the richest 0.1% from capturing all the massive gains in wealth the US has seen over the past few decades. Removing regulations that prevent the country from building housing and therefore driving up housing costs. Switching to a healthcare model in nearly any of the comparable developed countries almost all of which deliver better healthcare at half the cost. Not expecting everyone to be able to live a completely unsustainable suburban life. Having the government support children's upbringing by paying for high quality education, instituting rules and regulations that require mandatory paid maternity/paternity leave, etc.
Lost of poorer countries manage to do this and more just fine. The US is far richer than most of those countries.
Very little of this has to do with manufacturing jobs falling from 18mm to 13mm.
> Work to do what?
Bring back manufacturing, and make the US economy work better for workers.
> Why do you think this has anything to do with tariffs or manufacturing?
Because usually the best-paying jobs were in factories, especially if you didn't have a college degree. A lot of towns in the Rust Belt were economically dependent on a local factory -- think cars or steelmaking. Often, part of the reason these factories were so high paying is because the jobs were unionized.
Companies moved overseas to save money on that expensive labor.
Now, companies have all the negotiation leverage. "If you unionize / demand higher pay, we'll move operations overseas" is a real and credible threat, as countless companies have already done it.
Tariffs are supposed to make operating overseas more expensive. Undo the economic justification for moving the jobs overseas and they will come back.
This takes away the companies' negotiation leverage. The "If you unionize / demand higher pay, we'll move operations overseas" threat isn't credible if everyone knows overseas manufacturing is super expensive due to tariffs.
I grew up in the Rust Belt and I'm old enough to properly remember when some of those factories were still operating. I saw with my own eyes what used to be a respectable blue-collar community decay into an economic wasteland. The drugs are getting bad. A lot of people have lost hope. Young ambitious folks see no reason to stay here.
The problem and its underlying factors are so obvious to me that I'm constantly amazed to see well-informed, intelligent people who don't seem to understand it.
> The problem and its underlying factors are so obvious to me that I'm constantly amazed to see well-informed, intelligent people who don't seem to understand it.
Do you understand that labor is priced into the cost of the product? Who is going to buy all of these American products made by highly paid unionized workers?
I understand the Rust Belt situation sucks, but people can’t afford to buy everyday consumer goods made with American labor. I’m wearing an American made pair of shoes right now that is 20-30x more expensive than a pair of shoes from Walmart, and even ‘less expensive’ US made shoes like Red Wing are 10-15x as expensive. Now imagine paying 10-30x more for everything, it’s not sustainable.
3 replies →
>Bring back manufacturing, and make the US economy work better for workers.
Seemingly, this is going to magically happen? Where are the programs to make sure this does happen? Erecting tariffs is one thing, but having an actual plan and executing on said plan is another. So far, all I see is rising prices and looming threats of job cuts due to slow downs which stem from increased costs, and there is nothing coming to buffer that.
Let alone, the investment capital isn't moving in this direction. As of this writing, the general posture of the Republican donor class is 'wait and see how long the tariffs last' not 'lets invest in American industry again'
>Because usually the best-paying jobs were in factories, especially if you didn't have a college degree. A lot of towns in the Rust Belt were economically dependent on a local factory -- think cars or steelmaking. Often, part of the reason these factories were so high paying is because the jobs were unionized.
Emphasis mine. Do you believe that the modern Republican party is pro union? Do you really think they won't undermine organized labor even if jobs come back in some form? Even though the modern Democratic party have a spotty history on labor issues, the Republicans have shown for 40 years to be the anti labor party. They rarely - if ever - pass legislation that is pro labor. This administration isn't proving to be different in that regard either, and it wasn't different the first time around.
>I grew up in the Rust Belt and I'm old enough to properly remember when some of those factories were still operating. I saw with my own eyes what used to be a respectable blue-collar community decay into an economic wasteland.
So did I. Hallowed home town and all. One of the poorest in the state I grew up. You know what else never happened? Sustained public policy to help these areas. There were largely no programs to help transition workers from one industry to another. We don't have comprehensive safety nets and retraining / re-education programs for workers. We lack all of that. Why aren't we starting by implementing those programs? Its rather wishful thinking that bringing manufacturing back to the US, that it will end up in these same areas to begin with, because manufacturing is very different than it used to be. I doubt most of these areas would be good places to re-build manufacturing capacity in the US. What manufacturing is done here is already concentrated in the South which precludes huge chunks of the traditional rust belt.
We don't. We need only take a look at Detroit, holdout of American manufacturing. They have been automating and robotizing everything they can. ["... However, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis notes that motor vehicle manufacturing employment declined 17% from 1994 to 2018, while motor vehicle productivity increased by about 13% over the same period..."] If manufacturing does come back to the US, it won't create very many jobs. Mostly just the people to maintain and fix the machinery.
Given the improvements in cameras and computer vision and AI and robotics, there is no reason to think this won't accelerate. A long long time ago, labor was cheap and resources were expensive. Today, the opposite is true. Keynes predicted in the 50s that we would be working 15 hour work weeks. The reason he was "wrong" was that he underestimated our insatiable human greed. We all want more. Average house size in the 50s was < 1200 sq ft. Today it is 2400+. Each kid must have their own room that is 12x12!! (I grew up with 4 boys in a 10x10, lol). Each kid must get a new $200 bat each year for little league, etc. We want a higher standard of living for ourselves and our kids. This is understandable but we forget our role in the never ending chase.
> How we get that level of prosperity back?
It’s so simple it hurts. Stop the ruling class hoarding all the wealth.
Top tax bracket used to be 94%.
Have a VERY steep wealth tax, an inheritance tax and whatever else is needed. The fact individuals exist with many hundreds of millions of dollars while so many in the same society are struggling so bad is a disgrace.
oh that can be done in 3 easy steps.
1. win a world war that destroys the economy of every other country in the world for a decade.
2. destroy about the past 50 years of technology and all knowledge of how manufacture it.
3. Kill 90% of people over retirement age to lower demand for housing, healthcare costs, and retirement benefits.
In the modern world with modern technology there's a lot less productive work out there for people without specialized education. We could do a better job of training more people for trades jobs (e.g. plumbers, electricians etc), and removing college requirements from some professions (e.g. med school and law school could probably be college level education rather than post college) but anyone saying that we're going back is just lying.
> But a person used to be able to graduate high school and get a job that could support a house with a yard, a car, a non-working spouse and children.
> How do we get that level of prosperity back?
The issue is that this is a false premise. The house sucked. Only 1/3rd of American families had a single car at the time, and the cars sucked. We can go on and on about everything else. Not to mention the social environment at the time sucked.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do something about the issues Americans face. But tariffs with a shifting set of sanewashed justifications are just Not It.
Why will a factory job will pay enough for one person to raise a family and buy a house on a single income?
Like what is unique about factory work that allows for this? I’ve heard stuff like this so much and I just do not believe it. Is anyone working in a factory in the USA today able to buy a home and have a stay at home spouse on a single income?
When I was studying economics, my macro professor used to belabor the point that post-WW2 US socioeconomics was a highly unique (and special) time-and-place; and, it is a mistake to generalize economic theory from that time-and-place.
So... here goes: rather than proclaiming a "housing crisis", maybe we're seeing the end of an exceptional period of "housing affordability". (A similar analysis of Europe and Asia applies, piecemeal.)
As such, if we want to re-enter into a new period of housing affordability, we need to ask ourselves what we plan to give up and/or trade for that?
For WW2, it was millions of lives and worldwide devastation. It seems like we'd need a complete re-evaluation of the way wealth, family structures, and social safety nets work in order to vastly expand housing. (In the US.)
Maybe if we stopped viewing housing as an investment vehicle, with the expectation that house prices are going to rise forever then you would see affordable housing.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-much-will-home-equity-level...
The last time that I know of housing losing values was 2008 before that, it was 1991
This is my gut reaction; but, then I've been looking at Barcelona — which has analogs in New Jersey and Chicago. In these three cities there used to be significant housing stock that could be affordably purchased by low income families. (These are row-houses and 2x3s, etc.) In Barcelona, for instance, a unit could be purchased by a single family earner in about 5–8 years. What happened, over time, was that a neighbor would move out, and so a tenant would buy the neighboring unit to "expand" (remember: the units are cheap). Over a period of 25–30 years a relatively modest income could be used to gradually buy up an entire unit. Then, at the end of that period the whole unit would be sold as a single family dwelling. The problem is that what was once 6 modest (affordable) units, is now a single fantastically expensive unit. The economic model that covers this is a deflationary zero-sum market. (Pretty much all real estate is going to fall into this trap without very careful consideration.)
I think this problem is much, much, much harder than most people think. Almost every single society — except for Japan, AFAICT — is getting hit by this issue, but each in their own, novel way, that covers every possible "obvious" solution.
I think it's a complicated equation and there may be room for some strategic tariffs, de-regulation, anti-dumping, competing more on manufacturing etc. But the time you're talking about? Almost the entire world's industrial capacity was decimated other than the US.
>How we get that level of prosperity back?
By making everyone poorer. Seriously.
You are competing with your fellow citizens for those things. This was true even back then.
Right now, today, it has never been easier to make a lot of money working. So you need to compete with people in that environment. You need to be able to outbid those people for that beautiful home you want. In an environment of lots of educated and skilled workers getting skilled salaries for doing vary valuable work. That's where the bar is.
We can lower the bar back to blue-collar-high-school-diploma, but then we need to also sacrifice all those high earning college degree jobs.
Not going to happen.
> How we get that level of prosperity back? That's the people really want.
And something they're not going to get. Manufacturing is going to be heavily automated. The money is going to continue to funnel into a small portion of the population.
> used to be able to graduate high school and get a job that could support a house with a yard, a car, a non-working spouse and children.
When was that last really true? 1971?
People literally do just that today in the midwest. The coastal housing imbalance is just that a housing imbalance and not reflective of a lack of buying power today. Also consider that americans back then outside of the car and home had no other large purchases. No computer, no $1k phone on a $1k/yr plan, no big tv. People weren’t even eating out or flying back then when they could afford a family vacation.
> americans back then outside of the car and home had no other large purchases. No computer, no $1k phone on a $1k/yr plan, no big tv. People weren’t even eating out or flying back then when they could afford a family vacation.
Back then cars and homes and essentials were relatively cheap and TVs and flying were expensive. Today it's flipped. TVs are cheap, phones are cheap. Essentials, like housing, are expensive.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/en_VpZtUFcE
How much do you think a house costs, vs how much do you think a TV costs?
And perhaps more importantly, do you have any idea what rent currently is costing? As a fraction of median income?
This is an avocado toast argument.
What if I told you that you can buy a 3br turnkey house for maybe $100k all over the midwest. Now consider living at your parents for four years after highschool rent free while working literally any job full time. You’d probably be able to throw down 50% on that house at least.