Protectionism Won

[BL53931]

Mr. Trump did not win because he courted the racist homophobic vote, he did not win because of the media. He won because in one major area he ran as a Democrat. He ran on a protectionist trade policy that traditional blue collar democrats found attractive. He won Pennsylvania not because the center of the state went red - they always have and always will. He won because Erie County went red and Scranton (Biden's hometown) barely stayed blue. These are democratic strongholds. Like Ronald Reagan - Donald Trump was successful in communicating ideas to regular blue collar men and women. His performance overall in the "rust belt" proves that.

If democrats want to learn anything from this election they will seriously look at how they have suddenly become the party of Wall Street and big business and how they allowed a real estate tycoon and big businessman to win over so many traditional democrats.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Most of the enthusiastic Trump voters I talk to think protectionism will bring back jobs.  They don't listen when I tell them we'll lose a lot more jobs than we gain, and the jobs that come back will be high-tech jobs running automated manufacturing, not the old blue-collar jobs.

Trade deals aren't the problem.  Unfair trade deals that enrich a corporate hegemony are the problem.  Hopefully we don't go full idiot and destroy our markets that thrive on large scale global trade.

[drwho1]

Because Hillary running as a pro-TPP and pro-NAFTA worked for her and the democrats?

Hillary completely ignored blue collar white catholics (Reagan Democrats).

Keep the midwest factories open.

Closing them and moving the jobs to other countries only enriches the corporations.

[ApatheticAustrian]

letting china do the big deals instead of the US is going to harm the US workers even more in the long run, but i guess some regions need to learn that lesson themselves, while harming US interests at the same time.

but i guess he west needs this lesson to learn.

[AllAboard]

Our current trade deals (more like steals) give away jobs for cheaper TVs, cars, and phones.

It's better to have jobs than cheaper selfie machines. An economist doesn't see the difference as long as the subjective value of a fancy phone is the same as the wage of a job. But we all know the dignity of the job is more important.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Our current trade deals (more like steals) give away jobs for cheaper TVs, cars, and phones.

It's better to have jobs than cheaper selfie machines. An economist doesn't see the difference as long as the subjective value of a fancy phone is the same as the wage of a job. But we all know the dignity of the job is more important.

What about automation?  Is the "dignity of the job" more important than cheaper, more productive manufacturing methods?  Do you think we should ban technology that displaces workers?  (Spoiler alert: we shouldn't.)

[Beet]

Our current trade deals (more like steals) give away jobs for cheaper TVs, cars, and phones.

It's better to have jobs than cheaper selfie machines. An economist doesn't see the difference as long as the subjective value of a fancy phone is the same as the wage of a job. But we all know the dignity of the job is more important.

What about automation?  Is the "dignity of the job" more important than cheaper, more productive manufacturing methods?  Do you think we should ban technology that displaces workers?  (Spoiler alert: we shouldn't.)

Sure, on a macro level, technology must move forward, but the devastation of communities is qualitatively more affecting than increases in efficiency. Urban wonks who are trained to think in utils forget.

[ApatheticAustrian]

protectionism is even less useful today than it was 40-50 years ago and a safe tool to harm the little guys.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Our current trade deals (more like steals) give away jobs for cheaper TVs, cars, and phones.

It's better to have jobs than cheaper selfie machines. An economist doesn't see the difference as long as the subjective value of a fancy phone is the same as the wage of a job. But we all know the dignity of the job is more important.

What about automation?  Is the "dignity of the job" more important than cheaper, more productive manufacturing methods?  Do you think we should ban technology that displaces workers?  (Spoiler alert: we shouldn't.)

This is a complete straw-man. Sure, on a macro level, technology must move forward, but but the devastation of communities is qualitatively more affecting than increases in efficiency. Urban wonks who are trained to think in utils forget.

I didn't say that communities weren't affected by changes in technology.  Hell, the entire journalism industry has been devastated with the rise of the internet.  The question is, from a policy perspective, what should we do about it?  Protect workers from changes in technology?  Protect journalists by regulating the Internet?

Getting back to globalization, all protectionism will do is spur more high-tech manufacturing in this country.  Which might be a boon for electronics and software engineers (who will need higher pay to keep up with the cost of goods), but it's not going to bring back displaced jobs.  The world has changed, and either we build a new economy and help everyone find a place in it, or we pretend that we can return to horses and buggies.

[Beet]

Journalists are dis-aggregated individuals, at most a medium-sized newspaper in a much larger town. There aren't a lot of towns where the local paper is the biggest employer.

Yes, we should protect workers from changes in technology when doing otherwise would create devastation at the community level. My preference is not to do it with dumb tariffs that apply across the board, but with smart subsidies that target the specific people that need protection. Subsidize the 50 year old man who's been working on the assembly line his whole life, and can't be realistically retrained. But don't hire any new people to his position. Instead, target investments in these communities for younger workers. This may slow the pace of technological change, but it won't stop it.

[angus]

I like the really advanced economy on Star Trek, where pretty much everyone has the freedom to pursue whatever curiosities.  You study astrophysics or the violin or engineering because it's interesting, not because you need it to eat or pay the rent.

We're not going to achieve such an advanced economy by squelching technological advance.  There will be some mistakes along the way, human displacement, environmental catastrophe, and the like, but that's how we learn.  We're already learning not only how to be industrious by consuming fewer unrenewable resources, but also that environmentally-friendly technologies can save revenue over the long run.  We would not have learned such lessons without first running low on energy.  Necessity is the mother of invention.

Workers will still depend upon paychecks for a long time, though, so as more tasks are automated or exported to lower-cost labor markets, US workers will need to be educated in other fields--and yes, people can learn, even fifty-year-old assembly-line workers.  There are plenty of opportunities for infrastructure improvement in the US, and such tasks need experienced hands, so it's not like there's not work to be done here in the United States.  

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Journalists are dis-aggregated individuals, at most a medium-sized newspaper in a much larger town. There aren't a lot of towns where the local paper is the biggest employer.

No, but there are a lot of towns where corruption now runs rampant because there's no one investigating wrongs and speaking truth to power at the local level.  There's also the death of any concept of credential authority or objective reporting.  We live in the "post-truth" world.

My point was more that it's a prime example of the terrible effect that technological advance can have on an industry, but at the same time an inevitability, one that taking steps to halt would cause more harm than good.

[Beet]

Journalists are dis-aggregated individuals, at most a medium-sized newspaper in a much larger town. There aren't a lot of towns where the local paper is the biggest employer.

No, but there are a lot of towns where corruption now runs rampant because there's no one investigating wrongs and speaking truth to power at the local level.  There's also the death of any concept of credential authority or objective reporting.  We live in the "post-truth" world.

My point was more that it's a prime example of the terrible effect that technological advance can have on an industry, but at the same time an inevitability, one that taking steps to halt would cause more harm than good.

I agree with you insofar as that, but it's not about effects on industries, I'm talking about effects on human beings.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Journalists are dis-aggregated individuals, at most a medium-sized newspaper in a much larger town. There aren't a lot of towns where the local paper is the biggest employer.

No, but there are a lot of towns where corruption now runs rampant because there's no one investigating wrongs and speaking truth to power at the local level.  There's also the death of any concept of credential authority or objective reporting.  We live in the "post-truth" world.

My point was more that it's a prime example of the terrible effect that technological advance can have on an industry, but at the same time an inevitability, one that taking steps to halt would cause more harm than good.

I agree with you insofar as that, but it's not about effects on industries, I'm talking about effects on human beings.

Why not provide a social safety net so that displaced individuals are free to pursue other things?  Why pay people to do unnecessary work, when you could just pay them to do things that might be of more value to the economy or society?  What dignity is there in stamping sheet metal all day when a machine can do the same job 50 times faster and cheaper, thanks only to the largess of your company or the government?

Technological advancement frees people to do things that only human beings are capable of.  This adds more value to the economy.  People create wealth.

[Beet]

Journalists are dis-aggregated individuals, at most a medium-sized newspaper in a much larger town. There aren't a lot of towns where the local paper is the biggest employer.

No, but there are a lot of towns where corruption now runs rampant because there's no one investigating wrongs and speaking truth to power at the local level.  There's also the death of any concept of credential authority or objective reporting.  We live in the "post-truth" world.

My point was more that it's a prime example of the terrible effect that technological advance can have on an industry, but at the same time an inevitability, one that taking steps to halt would cause more harm than good.

I agree with you insofar as that, but it's not about effects on industries, I'm talking about effects on human beings.

Why not provide a social safety net so that displaced individuals are free to pursue other things?  Why pay people to do unnecessary work, when you could just pay them to do things that might be of more value to the economy or society?  What dignity is there in stamping sheet metal all day when a machine can do the same job 50 times faster and cheaper, thanks only to the largess of your company or the government?

There's more dignity in it than collecting welfare. It's not like this is unprecedented... during the New Deal we paid farmers to grow crops that were then turned around and destroyed. That was when agriculture was relatively declining just as manufacturing jobs have been lately.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Journalists are dis-aggregated individuals, at most a medium-sized newspaper in a much larger town. There aren't a lot of towns where the local paper is the biggest employer.

No, but there are a lot of towns where corruption now runs rampant because there's no one investigating wrongs and speaking truth to power at the local level.  There's also the death of any concept of credential authority or objective reporting.  We live in the "post-truth" world.

My point was more that it's a prime example of the terrible effect that technological advance can have on an industry, but at the same time an inevitability, one that taking steps to halt would cause more harm than good.

I agree with you insofar as that, but it's not about effects on industries, I'm talking about effects on human beings.

Why not provide a social safety net so that displaced individuals are free to pursue other things?  Why pay people to do unnecessary work, when you could just pay them to do things that might be of more value to the economy or society?  What dignity is there in stamping sheet metal all day when a machine can do the same job 50 times faster and cheaper, thanks only to the largess of your company or the government?

There's more dignity in it than collecting welfare. It's not like this is unprecedented... during the New Deal we paid farmers to grow crops that were then turned around and destroyed. That was when agriculture was relatively declining just as manufacturing jobs have been lately.

Paying people a living severance or pension as a reward for a career of hard work is not welfare, even if that pension is publicly funded.  You can pay people to go back to school, to gain new skills, to do public works projects.  All things that don't involve standing in the way of more efficient material production.

I do think that no worker should simply be discarded when his or her job becomes obsolete.  I think companies should be encouraged to retain workers who have given them their labor and lives.  But keeping obsolete jobs around just to give people something to do is a waste of human effort.  These people could be doing something better for society, even if that something is collecting a pension and volunteering in their communities.

[Beet]

Journalists are dis-aggregated individuals, at most a medium-sized newspaper in a much larger town. There aren't a lot of towns where the local paper is the biggest employer.

No, but there are a lot of towns where corruption now runs rampant because there's no one investigating wrongs and speaking truth to power at the local level.  There's also the death of any concept of credential authority or objective reporting.  We live in the "post-truth" world.

My point was more that it's a prime example of the terrible effect that technological advance can have on an industry, but at the same time an inevitability, one that taking steps to halt would cause more harm than good.

I agree with you insofar as that, but it's not about effects on industries, I'm talking about effects on human beings.

Why not provide a social safety net so that displaced individuals are free to pursue other things?  Why pay people to do unnecessary work, when you could just pay them to do things that might be of more value to the economy or society?  What dignity is there in stamping sheet metal all day when a machine can do the same job 50 times faster and cheaper, thanks only to the largess of your company or the government?

There's more dignity in it than collecting welfare. It's not like this is unprecedented... during the New Deal we paid farmers to grow crops that were then turned around and destroyed. That was when agriculture was relatively declining just as manufacturing jobs have been lately.

Paying people a living severance or pension as a reward for a career of hard work is not welfare, even if that pension is publicly funded.  You can pay people to go back to school, to gain new skills, to do public works projects.  All things that don't involve standing in the way of more efficient material production.

I do think that no worker should simply be discarded when his or her job becomes obsolete.  I think companies should be encouraged to retain workers who have given them their labor and lives.  But keeping obsolete jobs around just to give people something to do is a waste of human effort.  These people could be doing something better for society, even if that something is collecting a pension and volunteering in their communities.

It's welfare if they are sitting around doing nothing. It's easy to post here on a message board about going back to school, gaining new skills, and so on, but it's not really so easy to be the person who actually has to do it. Imagine learning a new language at age 50. Not so easy. And even if you get there, you're working with a bunch of young people who are quicker, sharper than you. You feel like an old nincompoop even though you're been working a lot longer than the kids in your office. And your new job probably doesn't provide the same pay or benefits as the old one, either.

The new 'skilled' jobs aren't really a replacement for old unskilled jobs in manufacturing. The advantage of a good-paying unskilled job that didn't require a college education was that anyone could do it. Joe the Plumber from high school could it. Joe the Plumber from high school would feel like a fish out of water trying to be a graphics designer or an accountant. To be blunt, there are a lot of people out there who are just dumb. The old system gave these people good, high-paying jobs. The new system isn't an adequate replacement.