U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 06-28-2018, 05:50 AM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
4,351 posts, read 4,394,397 times
Reputation: 15386

Advertisements

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.bdb8343721b5

"The analytical mistake was underestimating the effect that China’s accession to the WTO would have on domestic industries in the rich world. When workers complained about trade displacement, we free-traders pointed out that trade creates jobs as well as destroys them, leaving workers generally better off. That’s usually true. But China was a special case. Most trade liberalization occurs slowly, giving workers time to adjust, but when trade barriers to Chinese goods fell, manufacturing workers in the 37 nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development were suddenly exposed to competition from millions of low-wage workers. Recent research by economists David H. Autor, David Dorn and Gordon H. Hanson suggests that the “China shock” destroyed jobs faster than they could be created."

"Which brings me to free-traders’ second, more fundamental mistake: We forgot, in all our pro-trade rhetoric, that people care more about their identities as producers than they do as consumers.

Well into the China shock, people like me rather glibly pointed to all the cheap goods that trade with China had made available. Somehow, it didn’t occur to us that someone who has gone from making $20 an hour as a machinist to making $9 an hour as a Walmart associate doesn’t much care that his new employer now offers fabulous deals on flat-panel televisions.

Our rhetoric had worked when changes were slow and the relatively few people displaced could find reasonably similar employment. But when the changes were fast and harmed large numbers of people, this rhetoric seemed — and was — incredibly callous."

That pretty much sums up how we got Trump. When your good $20 per hour job as a machinist evaporates and you end up stocking shelves at Wally world on the night shift for $9 per hour, you're really pissed. Who wouldn't be.

Comments?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-28-2018, 06:29 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,938 posts, read 58,212,646 times
Reputation: 29464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vision67 View Post
Our rhetoric had worked when changes were slow and the relatively few people displaced
could find reasonably similar employment. But when the changes were fast and harmed
large numbers of people, this rhetoric seemed — and was — incredibly callous."
The "rhetoric" only appeared to work because the missing half of the plan wasn't appreciated.
Well, it wasn't appreciated by enough who would/could effect it.

When we reduced the number of worker slots needed by industry and commerce (for mostly solid reasons)...
we also needed to reduce the number warm bodies that would be available to industry and commerce.

We didn't do that.
If anything those who COULD have effected the needed changes worked AGAINST those measures.

Result? We have too many people available for too few slots.
And with that oversupply of people we have a market based reduction to the value of their time.
The problem is most acute at the lowest skill & education levels.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2018, 10:09 PM
 
8,306 posts, read 3,487,286 times
Reputation: 1592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vision67 View Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.bdb8343721b5

"The analytical mistake was underestimating the effect that China’s accession to the WTO would have on domestic industries in the rich world. When workers complained about trade displacement, we free-traders pointed out that trade creates jobs as well as destroys them, leaving workers generally better off. That’s usually true. But China was a special case. Most trade liberalization occurs slowly, giving workers time to adjust, but when trade barriers to Chinese goods fell, manufacturing workers in the 37 nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development were suddenly exposed to competition from millions of low-wage workers. Recent research by economists David H. Autor, David Dorn and Gordon H. Hanson suggests that the “China shock” destroyed jobs faster than they could be created."

"Which brings me to free-traders’ second, more fundamental mistake: We forgot, in all our pro-trade rhetoric, that people care more about their identities as producers than they do as consumers.

Well into the China shock, people like me rather glibly pointed to all the cheap goods that trade with China had made available. Somehow, it didn’t occur to us that someone who has gone from making $20 an hour as a machinist to making $9 an hour as a Walmart associate doesn’t much care that his new employer now offers fabulous deals on flat-panel televisions.

Our rhetoric had worked when changes were slow and the relatively few people displaced could find reasonably similar employment. But when the changes were fast and harmed large numbers of people, this rhetoric seemed — and was — incredibly callous."

That pretty much sums up how we got Trump. When your good $20 per hour job as a machinist evaporates and you end up stocking shelves at Wally world on the night shift for $9 per hour, you're really pissed. Who wouldn't be.

Comments?
Excellent! Also new technologies quickly displacing/moving or eliminating more jobs than they create.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top