Why do we need to "bring back" manufacturing?

[Lumpenproletariat]

[quote=“Eagle-Keeper, post:7, topic:172391”]

First let me say that it’s up to each company and small business to make this type of decision.

Yes, and therefore not up to the President to force them to “bring back” production which left for good reasons, to save on cost and to benefit consumers.

You are say that manufacturing things here will reduce our standard of living because manufacturing things in other countries is much cheaper . . .

But not ALL the manufacturing. Some of it’s cheaper to produce here, and that’s the manufacturing which did NOT leave. So there’s no need to “bring back” the manufacturing which did leave in order to save on cost. In some rare cases it does come back anyway for legitimate business reasons, so we don’t need Trump to force them to “bring back” anything, as the companies know what’s best to produce here and what’s best to produce in China (or Mexico etc.).

So Trump’s crusade to “bring back” the factories is phony demagoguery, not legitimate economics or business.

. . . in other countries is much cheaper and hence will increase the prices we pay for things. On the flip side of this is that we provide many forms of welfare to those who are in low paying jobs, which in turn reduces our standard of living.

But it reduces our standard of living even more if we force the employers to be the welfare-providing babysitters for their workers, instead of letting them do their proper function of serving consumers. Businesses are good at making profit by serving consumers, not by serving as babysitters for the indigent. There is no economic reason to ever force anyone to pay a higher price than the value of what is produced, whether it’s for labor or any other commodity.

So the question then becomes economically, which is better (or worse)?

Perverting businesses into babysitting centers is by far the worse. Let them do their proper function. If we need professional babysitters for some low-paid workers, who are paid low because their value is low, then find a solution without disrupting the production. Let them have their low-wage job rather than having no job at all because we crack down on their employers for not performing a good babysitting function.

The thing is I have heard some people here say that they will be happy to spend more for a burger for example if it means a higher minimum wage but now it . . .

No no, it makes no sense to pay more unless there’s an improvement in what we’re paying for. We pay more for a better product, or for better performance by the worker. It’s merit which needs to be rewarded. Better performance, better production. Not just out of pity for the worker, like charity.

. . . seems that now they don’t want to spend more if it means better paying jobs?

So therefore we must create artificial manufacturing jobs, because they pay more? That makes no sense. (Actually, traditional manufacturing is slowly paying less and less – if they’re not worth more, they should not be paid more, and factory jobs today are declining in value.) We do not need those jobs, which are done much cheaper in China.

You can’t divorce the compensation from the real value produced.

You could just as easily invent phony “manufacturing” jobs in which the workers only PRETEND to do work, pushing phony buttons, levers, etc., to keep them out of mischief, and then pay them $30 or $40 per hour, to do nothing of any value, but just be paid the high income (because it’s “manufacturing”) to keep them off the streets. And that would benefit our standard of living? because it saves on state welfare cost? How many tens of millions of these phony “jobs” would we need to impose onto the corporations in order to fill the social need and save those costs to taxpayers?

I’ll apply for one of those phony jobs which pay people to do “work” we don’t need them to do. There would have to be enough of them so everyone who wants one is guaranteed to get hired = 0% unemployment.

[Cynic]

Constructing a freeway overpass, and someone QC’ing a commoditized widget in a factory, are not even close to the same thing…

[Axxowiz]

The Democratic Party is the party of the working man? Now there the party of cheap goods from Walmart when did this happen.

[PurpnGold]

@Axxowiz

The Democratic Party is the party of the working man? Now there the party of cheap goods from Walmart when did this happen.

Unfettered capitalism!

Free market principles!

[Cynic]

I can’t teach you basic economics in the span of this thread. Good luck.

[Lumpenproletariat]

[ImRightYoureWrong:]

Or, the top 5% in this country, and large corporations, who have grown their wealth and profits exponentially decade after decade can stop taking so much, and pay people better wages without raising prices.

Why should they do that? Out of pity? Why shouldn’t they pay the same as a poor mom-n-pop store, if it’s for the same labor? They mostly do pay more, to gain the better workers, but other than that, why should they? What’s wrong with companies shopping for cheaper labor, to save on costs? just as consumers shop for cheaper products?

Shopping for a better deal is (or should be) a fundamental principle and “God-given Right” in a free-market economy, which every player is entitled to take advantage of – rich or poor. (And many job-seekers who cannot get hired are denied this right, who would take a lower-paying job out of desperation, but are denied the right to do this, by law.)

But, since they give up nothing, it will never happen. Instead, they’ll keep giving out debt to the middle class instead of better wages -

They should “give out” better wages why? Out of pity? The fact is that good workers who improve their performance do actually gain better wages BECAUSE THEY EARNED IT, by improving, by producing higher value. It’s Crybaby Economics to demand higher wages out of pity and guilt-tripping. You want more? then PRODUCE MORE.

. . . that way you still own people. Wages are awesome when the worker pays you back at interest.

But some wage-earners are rich, because they’re more competitive and earn it, so they “own” their employers who are dependent upon them and must pay them higher in order to retain them.

Ultimately it’s the CONSUMERS WHO OWN THE CAPITALISTS/producers, in a free market where the producers must serve consumers. While even the uncompetitive poor are still very lucky, leeching off the work of others and having so much more, including more opportunity to get ahead, if they can find a place where they could serve a value, rather than just whine and demand more pity.

[Lumpenproletariat]

[quote=“Eagle-Keeper, post:8, topic:172391”]

The thing is that it got me to think that if in theory - or reality - anything can be manufactured cheaper somewhere else, . . .

Your phony point here has been refuted several times. There is no such theory or suggestion. What Trump is doing is artificially forcing some manufacturing back to the U.S. which is better done abroad, and was being done there because of basic economic need.

. . . then why is it that there still is manufacturing here in the US?

Most of the manufacturing is divided, done partly in the US and partly abroad, out of economic need, to maximize benefit to consumers and profit to companies. Trump is artificially interfering with this market efficiency and imposing unnecessary higher cost onto Americans, out of emotional slogans and ideology, i.e, “jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!” which is well received by millions of mindless idiots, Republicans as well as Bernie Sanders wackos, who think this is Economics.

He is arguing that if we want a better standard of living that this would be the way to go, correct?

The “way to go” is to let the companies continue to serve consumers, by locating the production wherever it is most efficient. And stop the phony demagoguery of Sanders and Trump to artificially “bring back” the factories, which operate more efficiently in China (or Mexico, etc.).

Why then don’t law makers push for that if that is what is going to raise our standard of living?

No, don’t “push for” anything. Just get out of the way and stop babbling about “jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!” and “bringing back” the factories and other rubbish. Stop dictating where something should be produced. The companies are serving consumers just fine, producing wherever it’s most efficient, without these demagogues, led by Trump and Sanders and other babbling blowhards pandering to the mindless masses who don’t understand the law of supply-and-demand.

[Lumpenproletariat]

[Eagle-Keeper]:

One of the main points of this thread is about doing things or not doing things that affect the standard of living in the US. So in that regard government trying to bring certain jobs back to the US can potentially be a positive thing.

No, it’s negative, because the businesses already know where the production should be done, and so they will locate the jobs wherever it’s most efficient for the production. They don’t need the President or other demagogues to dictate to them where the production should be done, or where the jobs should be. Overruling their judgment is detrimental to the production. It’s producing for consumers which matters, not providing jobs to crybabies.

[Axxowiz]

I guess the country will learn economics 101 under the school of Bernie Sanders as he is probably will win the Democratic primaries. I am not really sure if he’s from the economic school of Keynesian, Austrian, or Lenin.

[Axxowiz]

Ron Paul would be proud, now there was a constitutionalist. Although I don’t think many would want to go back to the gold standard, but he was a unabridged free trader.

[Lumpenproletariat]

@Eagle-Keeper

On the flip side of this is that we provide many forms of welfare to those who are in low paying jobs, which in turn reduces our standard of living.

Let’s compare 2 workers:

#1 An illegal immigrant in a low-paying job

#2 A factory worker for whom Trump created a job by “bringing back” factories from China

Of these, #2 is by far the greater cost to America, and by comparison is a parasite leeching off those who are productive.

#1 is doing a job which likely would not otherwise be done at all. Or, if the employer hires a citizen, he has to pay twice as much, meaning higher prices to consumers.

But #2 is doing a job which would have been done anyway, so he contributes nothing to the economy, despite being paid $30 or $40 per hour, because that work was already being done, and switching it now to this US worker results in no new production.

So the illegal alien, #1, is contributing something new and real to the economy and costing very little, while the American worker, #2, is contributing nothing new.

Meanwhile, the American worker is just as likely to consume welfare, or other social benefits, as the illegal alien, if not even more. The social benefits to the middle class are just as costly as those to the lower class, if not even more costly.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@Lumpenproletariat

They should “give out” better wages why? Out of pity? The fact is that good workers who improve their performance do actually gain better wages BECAUSE THEY EARNED IT, by improving, by producing higher value. It’s Crybaby Economics to demand higher wages out of pity and guilt-tripping. You want more? then PRODUCE MORE .

You are uninformed. Workers have increased their outputs massively decade after decade while wages remain stagnant. But I get it. Everyone who doesnt have a liveavle wage is lazy, doesnt work hard…

Productivity vs. Wages

Income gaps:

Pretty much since the late 70s, probably the China/Nixon deal, the middle class has been almost destroyed by jobs being shipped overseas. And while workers become more productive, the top earn more. Because it doesn’t trickle down via wages. It trickles down via DEBT - mortgages, car loans, student loans, etc. Why pay people better wages when they can pay you at interest.

[Lumpenproletariat]

[ImRightYoureWrong]: You are uninformed. Workers have increased their outputs massively decade after decade while wages remain . . .

No, it’s the machines which have increased the outputs, not the workers operating the machines. Just because technology gave those workers better machines to operate does not mean those workers have increased the output, or have improved their production or value.

The ones who produced that improved performance are the scientists and engineers and specialists who provided the new technology. Only they have produced something better, not the 99% of factory workers operating the machines.The vast majority of factory workers have become LESS valuable and LESS productive, as their supply increases while the demand for them DEcreases. Higher supply + lower demand = LOWER VALUE (Economics 1A).

. . . while wages remain stagnant. But I get it. Everyone who doesn’t have a liveable wage is lazy, doesn’t . . .

No, they just have low value. But even many with a “liveable” wage or higher also have low value. Many high-wage workers are more parasitic than the ones below, because they’re overpaid. In too many cases the workers are paid OUT OF PITY for them rather than in return for their real value in the production.

Factory workers paid $20 or $30 or $40 per hour are mostly overpaid, because there are unemployed job-seekers who could replace them and do the same work for half the wage. It’s not laziness but low value that explains why their wage is stagnant, because they’re already overpaid, as factory work becomes less and less valuable, as the demand for factory work decreases.

. . . Everyone who doesn’t have a liveable wage is lazy, doesn’t work hard…

No, even if they “work hard” it doesn’t change the fact that they have low value, because value is determined by supply-and-demand (Economics 1A), not “hard work,” and factory workers are mostly in over-supply with low demand for them.

Productivity vs. Wages – [graph]

etc. Yes, there are many graphs showing how the “productivity” has increased, but this higher productivity is due to new and better technology, not higher-performing labor, except for the tiny minority of specialists, scientists, engineers, who are being rewarded for their improvements to the technology but are not shown in your “worker productivity” graph. These ones really responsible for the higher production are getting the higher income they deserve to reflect their contribution.

Whereas workers as a class, collectively, have not increased in value, but have actually decreased. But they are making up for this with their increased WHINING. And the crybabies who whine the loudest do often get more.

So, in the realm of Crybaby Economics you have a valid point, and there are Leftist Marxist economists who pander to these crybabies, telling them the greedy capitalist pigs are cheating them out of their “fair” share of proceeds from the improved production.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@Lumpenproletariat

No, it’s the machines which have increased the outputs, not the workers operating the machines

Of course its the workers operating the machines. Tools in society to help efficiency have always existed. Regardless, workers are still producing more and more decade after decade and wages are flat.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@Lumpenproletariat

So, in the realm of Crybaby Economics you have a valid point, and there are Leftist Marxist economists who pander to these crybabies, telling them the greedy capitalist pigs are cheating them out of their “fair” share of proceeds from the improved production.

You talk like you just finished Freshman economics.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@Lumpenproletariat

Yes, there are many graphs showing how the “productivity” has increased, but this higher productivity is due to new and better technology, not higher-performing labor, except for the tiny minority of specialists, scientists, engineers, who are being rewarded for their improvements to the technology but are not shown in your “worker productivity” graph.

Yes they are. The graph is all wages not just manufacturing. And GASP, scientists and engineers have used new technologies and tools to make their jobs more efficient. It isnt just manufacturers thst use machines and robots. You dont think scientists and engineers and farmers and administrators use machines and computers? Dance all you want, but workers in this country at a macroeconomic level are producing more than ever and making less than ever.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@Lumpenproletariat

These ones really responsible for the higher production are getting the higher income they deserve to reflect their contribution.

Again youre simply wrong. I get it that you probably just took intro to macroeconomics, but you have to back up your claims with real data.

Scientists and engineers have always earned more relatively speaking. Even for scientists and engineers (vast majority of which make less than $100k), their wages have been flat for the last 5 decades. And even those that make close to 6 figures with standard jobs, work huge amounts of hours. Its been mostly executive and CEO, or the very very few who have grown their wages, despite the fact that workers produce more and more every year.

[Lumpenproletariat]

“No, it’s the machines which have increased the outputs, not the workers operating the machines.”

ImRightYoureWrong: Of course its the workers operating the machines. Tools in society to help efficiency have always existed.

No, they had to be invented, before which they did NOT exist. When they were invented, then the improved performance happened, not before. What made the difference was that someone invented them and thus caused the improvement, not the operator of the new machine.

ImRightYoureWrong: Regardless, workers are still producing more and more decade after decade and . . .

Only with the better machines provided to them, which are the cause of the improvement and without which the production would not have improved, while the particular workers/operators could easily be replaced and the new production would happen anyway. It’s only the producers of the new technology who are irreplaceable and valuable as the source of the improved production.

ImRightYoureWrong: . . . decade after decade and wages are flat.

Yes, for the mainline factory workers, reflecting the stagnating value of that labor, which did not increase simply because workers were provided a new machine to operate.

[Lumpenproletariat]

[quote=“ImRightYoureWrong, post:37, topic:172391”]

"Yes, there are many graphs showing how the “productivity” has increased, but this higher productivity is due to new and better technology, not higher-performing labor, except for the tiny minority of specialists, scientists, engineers, who are being rewarded for their improvements to the technology but are not shown in your “worker productivity” graph.

ImRightYoureWrong: Yes they are. The graph is all wages not just manufacturing.

Yes, but 98% of it is the lower-level workers whose value did not increase. The improved production is due to the work of a small minority of workers, specialists, much higher-level, more educated, without whose work the improvements would not have happened.

ImRightYoureWrong: And GASP, scientists and engineers have used new technologies and tools to make their jobs more efficient.

Yes, but the credit they deserve is for the NEW innovations they added to the earlier ones. Their higher value is due to the new contribution they added, not to the earlier technologies/tools provided to them by their predecessors.

ImRightYoureWrong: It isn’t just manufacturers that use machines and robots. You don’t think scientists and engineers and farmers and administrators use machines and computers?

Of course their higher-value performance is due partly to the earlier innovations they benefit from. But their own individual higher value is the new innovations they added to the earlier value. The value of each innovator is due to their individual IRREPLACEABILITY in the process. And the mainline factory workers operating the machines are highly replaceable and thus of low value.

ImRightYoureWrong: Dance all you want, but . . .[/quote]

Now for my next number . . .

ImRightYoureWrong: . . . but workers in this country at a macroeconomic level are producing more than ever . . .

Because of the better technologies provided to them. Those innovations are doing the real improvements in production, not the low-level operators etc.

ImRightYoureWrong: and making less than ever.

Reflecting their lower-than-ever value, due to the realities of supply-and-demand. Their supply is higher than ever, and the demand for them lower.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

Its funny. You post walls of conceptual economics but no real data. Wages have stagnated despite worker outputs. Until you can provide data otherwise, youre just posting in an ivory tower.

Do you have any real data to present, or are just going to repeat concepts?