What is the American Way of Life?

[oldmanfan]

10 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

How hard is this to figure out? You import millions and millions of poor people and transfer our manufacturing base overseas and what do you get? Answer: a hollowed out middle class. It’s not complicated. (PS: reducing the upper tax bracket from 37.5% back to 35% didn’t cause this.)

How should we help our manufacturing base compete in a global market where wages are so much less in certain countries?  Serious question.

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

How should we help our manufacturing base compete in a global market where wages are so much less in certain countries?  Serious question.

Serious answer: That’s been true for most of the last century but we were able to compete and excel. It’s done through innovation, attention to quality, and a tax structure that incentivizes American companies to make things here. No magic wand...just good business/ governmental policies and practices. 

[ALF]

5 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

How should we help our manufacturing base compete in a global market where wages are so much less in certain countries?  Serious question.

 

If you sell it here , make it here

[oldmanfan]

Just now, ALF said:

 

If you sell it here , make it here

That won't work.  It's a global market now.

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

Serious answer: That’s been true for most of the last century but we were able to compete and excel. It’s done through innovation, attention to quality, and a tax structure that incentivizes American companies to make things here. No magic wand...just good business/ governmental policies and practices. 

Good answer.  We need to focus back on funding research to get us that innovation.  

[SoCal Deek]

9 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

That won't work.  It's a global market now.

Good answer.  We need to focus back on funding research to get us that innovation.  

‘We’ don’t need to fund innovation. The private sector does that every day at no cost to ‘we’. It’s called competition. It’s pretty inefficient (lots of ideas end up failing) but the competitive system works. What ‘we’ need to do is incentivize the successful companies to keep building things here. What we’ve done instead is to publicly demonize people for succeeding in that race for innovation. 

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

 

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by SoCal Deek

[ALF]

22 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

That won't work.  It's a global market now.

 

Can't make everything here just enough to have a middle class and for national security.

[oldmanfan]

19 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

‘We’ don’t need to fund innovation. The private sector does that every day at no cost to ‘we’. It’s called competition. It’s pretty inefficient (lots of ideas end up failing) but the competitive system works. What ‘we’ need to do is incentivize the successful companies to keep building things here. What we’ve done instead is to publicly demonize people for succeeding in that race for innovation. 

 

Research funded by the NIH and NSF has been a godsend to our country.

[All_Pro_Bills]

58 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

That won't work.  It's a global market now.

Good answer.  We need to focus back on funding research to get us that innovation.  

 

51 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

‘We’ don’t need to fund innovation. The private sector does that every day at no cost to ‘we’. It’s called competition. It’s pretty inefficient (lots of ideas end up failing) but the competitive system works. What ‘we’ need to do is incentivize the successful companies to keep building things here. What we’ve done instead is to publicly demonize people for succeeding in that race for innovation. 

 

A lot is determined by the concept of comparative advantage.  You do something better than me and I do something better than you.  Rather than both of us doing both things we each do the one thing we're best at and trade between ourselves the goods or services one or the other make and don't make.  That makes sense. 

 

But regarding the USA I think there are a few questions that needs to be asked and answered (maybe not by any of us):

 

1) What are "we" good at making?  What do we have a comparative advantage in doing over trading partners?

2) What do we want to be good at making?  What future or current manufacturing or technology areas do we want to develop a comparative advantage in?  Like robotics or medical devices or EV's?

3) What national or local policies and programs might be needed to accomplish this goal?  What are we doing now? What else needs to be done?

4) What private sector innovations or inventions or expertise is there to leverage and nurture?

5) What are the skills needed to support these industries and areas?  Does our population have these skills?  And if not, why not?

6) What targeted educational programs or paths do we have in effect now to support this goal?  What more is needed to do?

 

While there might be other questions or issues I think the core problem is the USA has nothing that might be described as a plan or strategy whatsoever.  At any level, with a few exceptions in business and government there is just no vision and there is a lack of visionaries required to pull it all off.  Other international competitors are eating our lunch because they do have plans and are executing them well.  But Washington and the business community, and the American people are focused and engaged in a lot of fools errands right now.  Like sitting in the living room of the house and arguing about racism while the house is burning down around them. The thing that might facilitate a lot of positive things happening at some point unfortunately needs to be a disaster that will be the crash and burn of the current system of political, social, and economic con-games and hustles.  Which I think is coming fast.  And the Phoenix will rise from the ashes!   

[oldmanfan]

11 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

 

A lot is determined by the concept of comparative advantage.  You do something better than me and I do something better than you.  Rather than both of us doing both things we each do the one thing we're best at and trade between ourselves the goods or services one or the other make and don't make.  That makes sense. 

 

But regarding the USA I think there are a few questions that needs to be asked and answered (maybe not by any of us):

 

1) What are "we" good at making?  What do we have a comparative advantage in doing over trading partners?

2) What do we want to be good at making?  What future or current manufacturing or technology areas do we want to develop a comparative advantage in?  Like robotics or medical devices or EV's?

3) What national or local policies and programs might be needed to accomplish this goal?  What are we doing now? What else needs to be done?

4) What private sector innovations or inventions or expertise is there to leverage and nurture?

5) What are the skills needed to support these industries and areas?  Does our population have these skills?  And if not, why not?

6) What targeted educational programs or paths do we have in effect now to support this goal?  What more is needed to do?

 

While there might be other questions or issues I think the core problem is the USA has nothing that might be described as a plan or strategy whatsoever.  At any level, with a few exceptions in business and government there is just no vision and there is a lack of visionaries required to pull it all off.  Other international competitors are eating our lunch because they do have plans and are executing them well.  But Washington and the business community, and the American people are focused and engaged in a lot of fools errands right now.  Like sitting in the living room of the house and arguing about racism while the house is burning down around them. The thing that might facilitate a lot of positive things happening at some point unfortunately needs to be a disaster that will be the crash and burn of the current system of political, social, and economic con-games and hustles.  Which I think is coming fast.  And the Phoenix will rise from the ashes!   

Interesting thoughts.  I find your comments to be consistently well put.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

How should we help our manufacturing base compete in a global market where wages are so much less in certain countries?  Serious question.

By devaluing the dollar and reducing the entitled standard of living to be more level with those certain countries. Unfortunate but true. 
 

 

[daz28]

Innovation isn't going to bring back manufacturing.  Only rocket scientists can make rockets.  Anything that Americans can produce, another country can do it cheaper.  Shouldn't good ol capitalism, and the free market be working to make cheaper goods for consumers??  There's a massive flaw in the system, and there's no answer for it.  We can make it so we consume our own goods, but we'll never be able to make anything cheap enough to export it.  Should have stopped the greed train before saint Ronnie got it rolling.

[SoCal Deek]

4 hours ago, daz28 said:

Innovation isn't going to bring back manufacturing.  Only rocket scientists can make rockets.  Anything that Americans can produce, another country can do it cheaper.  Shouldn't good ol capitalism, and the free market be working to make cheaper goods for consumers??  There's a massive flaw in the system, and there's no answer for it.  We can make it so we consume our own goods, but we'll never be able to make anything cheap enough to export it.  Should have stopped the greed train before saint Ronnie got it rolling.

Oh brother.  We've been making things in America for decades now, and still do today. Businesses adjust all the time to an ever changing world of competition both from abroad and domestically. I'm not sure what position you're even arguing here. Change is a constant.  What I cannot figure out is given the current state of affairs, why does it make any sense at all to import millions of unskilled people.  We are not expanding our nation's physical territory, and our 'unskilled' manufacturing base is shrinking.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

5 hours ago, daz28 said:

Innovation isn't going to bring back manufacturing.  Only rocket scientists can make rockets.  Anything that Americans can produce, another country can do it cheaper.  Shouldn't good ol capitalism, and the free market be working to make cheaper goods for consumers??  There's a massive flaw in the system, and there's no answer for it.  We can make it so we consume our own goods, but we'll never be able to make anything cheap enough to export it.  Should have stopped the greed train before saint Ronnie got it rolling.

The entitled loser mentality in a nutshell.
 

..Isn’t going to bring back...

...,no answer for it...

....never be able to...

 

typical mindset... let me sit home, suck my thumb and complain until I get my handouts.
 

This right here is THE problem. Elon Musk called it out very aptly. 

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[daz28]

24 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

The entitled loser mentality in a nutshell.
 

..Isn’t going to bring back...

...,no answer for it...

....never be able to...

 

typical mindset... let me sit home, suck my thumb and complain until I get my handouts.
 

This right here is THE problem. Elon Musk called it out very aptly. 

 

Are you willing to work for less than a N. Korean or a Chinese worker?  name one American business that would be successful trying to undercut them??  While China is building cities they don't even need, we're giving the billionaires tax cuts, so they can create the so called jobs that aren't happening,  We are a consumerism economy.  We export $200B in consumer goods, and import $650B.  If you want plastic forks made in America, we can make them for triple the cost, while the rest of the world blows by us.  Maybe we can innovate some more electronics so Shenzhen can keep making them.  Sorry I'm facing the reality that you refuse to face.  #MAGGATS talking tough about China, while the trade deficit went from -$347B in 2016 to -$420B in 2019.  Blame the Democrat socialist tho.  Trumps new fantasy world he created for you ignores the FACTS.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

2 hours ago, daz28 said:

Are you willing to work for less than a N. Korean or a Chinese worker?  name one American business that would be successful trying to undercut them??  While China is building cities they don't even need, we're giving the billionaires tax cuts, so they can create the so called jobs that aren't happening,  We are a consumerism economy.  We export $200B in consumer goods, and import $650B.  If you want plastic forks made in America, we can make them for triple the cost, while the rest of the world blows by us.  Maybe we can innovate some more electronics so Shenzhen can keep making them.  Sorry I'm facing the reality that you refuse to face.  #MAGGATS talking tough about China, while the trade deficit went from -$347B in 2016 to -$420B in 2019.  Blame the Democrat socialist tho.  Trumps new fantasy world he created for you ignores the FACTS.

I’m willing to do whatever I have to to feed my family.
 

I spent summers pushing lawnmowers 70/80 hours a week for minimum wage and no OT and living like a pauper to pay for my own education. 
 

I create jobs and work for a company that competes globally, including Mexico and India. 

 

I do blame weak minded whiners for sitting around expecting any politician, who doesn’t care a whit about them, to hand you your life, standard of living and then b!tch and complain it’s too hard to compete, because the worlds a tough place.  
 

There are plenty of jobs to go around, and they are being taken by people who immigrated here because they know it’s easy to eat lazy American kids lunch because they don’t particularly like to work too hard and think STEM is a waste of time. 
 

this is what our future  sounds like 👎 

8 hours ago, daz28 said:

Innovation isn't going to bring back manufacturing.  Only rocket scientists can make rockets.  Anything that Americans can produce, another country can do it cheaper.  Shouldn't good ol capitalism, and the free market be working to make cheaper goods for consumers??  There's a massive flaw in the system, and there's no answer for it.  We can make it so we consume our own goods, but we'll never be able to make anything cheap enough to export it.  Should have stopped the greed train before saint Ronnie got it rolling.

save me government save me! Give me give me.  It’s not fair because Jeff Bezos and Mark Z have all the money. 
 

and I know you keep wanting to talk about your sociopathic orange lunatic heart throb. But I could care less about him or your pandering binary politics. 

Edited March 3, 2021 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[SoTier]

11 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Serious answer: That’s been true for most of the last century but we were able to compete and excel. It’s done through innovation, attention to quality, and a tax structure that incentivizes American companies to make things here. No magic wand...just good business/ governmental policies and practices. 

 

I think that your incorrect historical analysis of the last century, ie, the 20th century, has led you to giving a simplistic answer to a very complex problem.

 

For most of the first half of the 20th century, the US faced limited competition from manufacturing in other countries.  Prior to WW II, most Asia and Africa were were divided into colonies controlled by European colonies that exploited their colonies for their natural resources like minerals, forest products or agricultural production.   Much of the manufacturing in countries like Argentina, Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico and the USSR were for internal development.   Central American and the Caribbean were essentially economic colonies of the US or the European powers.   That meant that US manufacturers faced limited competition, primarily from Western Europe and the British Isles.  Eighty years ago, most of the world's population lived and worked in economies that exported agricultural products and/or raw materials for manufacturing.

 

World War II changed everything.  Industry in almost all of Europe, from France to the USSR , as well as in Japan, was devastated, requiring that factories be rebuilt from scratch.  That would take decades to do.  WW II also killed colonialism, freeing much of the world to follow their own economic self-interest rather than the economic interests of their mother countries.   Industrial development in Africa and Asia would also take decades.  Some of the wars of liberation and civil wars that were part of the Cold War also held up industrialization in those countries.  So, for about two decades after the end of WW II, the US had little competition in manufacturing, which made American manufacturers complacent.  The 1950s and early/mid 1960s were the high points of American industrial power. 

 

By the late 1960s, the situation began changing.   In the 1950s, Japan rebuilt its economy by exporting cheap consumer goods to the US.  "Made in Japan" was synonymous with poor quality.  In the 1950s, imported European cars tended be expensive luxury or sports cars beyond the budgets of all but wealthy Americans.  It was American manufacturers' reluctance to invest in remodeling existing factories or building new ones to take advantage of better efficiency and quality which  resulted in American goods becoming uncompetitive with imported goods.  While the Japanese and Germans were using computers to make steel as good as any produced in the US, American steel companies were still using inefficient labor intensive Bessemer and open-hearth steel making processes from the 1800s until the 1960s (Bessemer) and through 1980s (open hearth).  It took a while for the US manufacturers to regain their competitiveness, but they did.  The problem was -- and remains -- that modern manufacturing procedures make extensive use of significantly less manpower than previously to produce the same amount or more product.  The modern processes not require fewer workers but those workers need to be much more technically adept in order to run modern factories and produce high quality product.  Throughout the last third of the 20th century, innovation was largely synonymous with automation which always cost workers their jobs.

 

For labor intensive manufacturing processes that aren't easily automated -- clothing manufacturing is a good example -- manufacturers were always looking for cheaper labor.   American clothing manufacturing was largely dependent upon sweatshops throughout the 20th century.  When American wages, even in sweatshops, became too costly, American manufacturers built factories in Mexico under the maquiladora programs that started in the 1960s.  When Mexican wages became too expensive, clothing manufacturing moved to cheaper places like Sri Lanka and Indonesia.

 

I haven't even touched on the fundamental change in the US economy to a consumer economy that began after WW I and exploded after WW II.  It has changed the very nature how the US economy works.  I also haven't talked about the information revolution -- most commonly thought of as computerization -- that  has changed not only blue collar manufacturing jobs but also white collar and pink collar ones as well since the 1980s.

 

A three or four sentence solution that claims, essentially, that "we need to get back to basic good business practices of the past" isn't a serious solution at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

8 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

I think that your incorrect historical analysis of the last century, ie, the 20th century, has led you to giving a simplistic answer to a very complex problem.

 

For most of the first half of the 20th century, the US faced limited competition from manufacturing in other countries.  Prior to WW II, most Asia and Africa were were divided into colonies controlled by European colonies that exploited their colonies for their natural resources like minerals, forest products or agricultural production.   Much of the manufacturing in countries like Argentina, Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico and the USSR were for internal development.   Central American and the Caribbean were essentially economic colonies of the US or the European powers.   That meant that US manufacturers faced limited competition, primarily from Western Europe and the British Isles.  Eighty years ago, most of the world's population lived and worked in economies that exported agricultural products and/or raw materials for manufacturing.

 

World War II changed everything.  Industry in almost all of Europe, from France to the USSR , as well as in Japan, was devastated, requiring that factories be rebuilt from scratch.  That would take decades to do.  WW II also killed colonialism, freeing much of the world to follow their own economic self-interest rather than the economic interests of their mother countries.   Industrial development in Africa and Asia would also take decades.  Some of the wars of liberation and civil wars that were part of the Cold War also held up industrialization in those countries.  So, for about two decades after the end of WW II, the US had little competition in manufacturing, which made American manufacturers complacent.  The 1950s and early/mid 1960s were the high points of American industrial power. 

 

By the late 1960s, the situation began changing.   In the 1950s, Japan rebuilt its economy by exporting cheap consumer goods to the US.  "Made in Japan" was synonymous with poor quality.  In the 1950s, imported European cars tended be expensive luxury or sports cars beyond the budgets of all but wealthy Americans.  It was American manufacturers' reluctance to invest in remodeling existing factories or building new ones to take advantage of better efficiency and quality which  resulted in American goods becoming uncompetitive with imported goods.  While the Japanese and Germans were using computers to make steel as good as any produced in the US, American steel companies were still using inefficient labor intensive Bessemer and open-hearth steel making processes from the 1800s until the 1960s (Bessemer) and through 1980s (open hearth).  It took a while for the US manufacturers to regain their competitiveness, but they did.  The problem was -- and remains -- that modern manufacturing procedures make extensive use of significantly less manpower than previously to produce the same amount or more product.  The modern processes not require fewer workers but those workers need to be much more technically adept in order to run modern factories and produce high quality product.  Throughout the last third of the 20th century, innovation was largely synonymous with automation which always cost workers their jobs.

 

For labor intensive manufacturing processes that aren't easily automated -- clothing manufacturing is a good example -- manufacturers were always looking for cheaper labor.   American clothing manufacturing was largely dependent upon sweatshops throughout the 20th century.  When American wages, even in sweatshops, became too costly, American manufacturers built factories in Mexico under the maquiladora programs that started in the 1960s.  When Mexican wages became too expensive, clothing manufacturing moved to cheaper places like Sri Lanka and Indonesia.

 

I haven't even touched on the fundamental change in the US economy to a consumer economy that began after WW I and exploded after WW II.  It has changed the very nature how the US economy works.  I also haven't talked about the information revolution -- most commonly thought of as computerization -- that  has changed not only blue collar manufacturing jobs but also white collar and pink collar ones as well since the 1980s.

 

A three or four sentence solution that claims, essentially, that "we need to get back to basic good business practices of the past" isn't a serious solution at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and yet we’ve seen near full employment several times in the past two decades and average household income keeps growing and immigration continues.
 

it’s so silly to me that the liberals feel like we need to evolve socially and not in terms technological sophistication or means of production. Why would the same standard apply for both? It’s a growth mind set. Follow the process! 

[SoCal Deek]

8 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

I think that your incorrect historical analysis of the last century, ie, the 20th century, has led you to giving a simplistic answer to a very complex problem.

 

For most of the first half of the 20th century, the US faced limited competition from manufacturing in other countries.  Prior to WW II, most Asia and Africa were were divided into colonies controlled by European colonies that exploited their colonies for their natural resources like minerals, forest products or agricultural production.   Much of the manufacturing in countries like Argentina, Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico and the USSR were for internal development.   Central American and the Caribbean were essentially economic colonies of the US or the European powers.   That meant that US manufacturers faced limited competition, primarily from Western Europe and the British Isles.  Eighty years ago, most of the world's population lived and worked in economies that exported agricultural products and/or raw materials for manufacturing.

 

World War II changed everything.  Industry in almost all of Europe, from France to the USSR , as well as in Japan, was devastated, requiring that factories be rebuilt from scratch.  That would take decades to do.  WW II also killed colonialism, freeing much of the world to follow their own economic self-interest rather than the economic interests of their mother countries.   Industrial development in Africa and Asia would also take decades.  Some of the wars of liberation and civil wars that were part of the Cold War also held up industrialization in those countries.  So, for about two decades after the end of WW II, the US had little competition in manufacturing, which made American manufacturers complacent.  The 1950s and early/mid 1960s were the high points of American industrial power. 

 

By the late 1960s, the situation began changing.   In the 1950s, Japan rebuilt its economy by exporting cheap consumer goods to the US.  "Made in Japan" was synonymous with poor quality.  In the 1950s, imported European cars tended be expensive luxury or sports cars beyond the budgets of all but wealthy Americans.  It was American manufacturers' reluctance to invest in remodeling existing factories or building new ones to take advantage of better efficiency and quality which  resulted in American goods becoming uncompetitive with imported goods.  While the Japanese and Germans were using computers to make steel as good as any produced in the US, American steel companies were still using inefficient labor intensive Bessemer and open-hearth steel making processes from the 1800s until the 1960s (Bessemer) and through 1980s (open hearth).  It took a while for the US manufacturers to regain their competitiveness, but they did.  The problem was -- and remains -- that modern manufacturing procedures make extensive use of significantly less manpower than previously to produce the same amount or more product.  The modern processes not require fewer workers but those workers need to be much more technically adept in order to run modern factories and produce high quality product.  Throughout the last third of the 20th century, innovation was largely synonymous with automation which always cost workers their jobs.

 

For labor intensive manufacturing processes that aren't easily automated -- clothing manufacturing is a good example -- manufacturers were always looking for cheaper labor.   American clothing manufacturing was largely dependent upon sweatshops throughout the 20th century.  When American wages, even in sweatshops, became too costly, American manufacturers built factories in Mexico under the maquiladora programs that started in the 1960s.  When Mexican wages became too expensive, clothing manufacturing moved to cheaper places like Sri Lanka and Indonesia.

 

I haven't even touched on the fundamental change in the US economy to a consumer economy that began after WW I and exploded after WW II.  It has changed the very nature how the US economy works.  I also haven't talked about the information revolution -- most commonly thought of as computerization -- that  has changed not only blue collar manufacturing jobs but also white collar and pink collar ones as well since the 1980s.

 

A three or four sentence solution that claims, essentially, that "we need to get back to basic good business practices of the past" isn't a serious solution at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the history lesson. I appreciate you putting the time into it, but my simplification is because this is a message board, not a documentary. I think you understand the basic point I’m making. American companies (not the American people or American government) have been successfully competing in an ever changing world for years. Sure, the competition and competitors change from decade to decade but our innovators compete year after year. I think the biggest difference of opinion I’ve read on here is between those that are looking for a ‘we’ solution and those that have faith in an “I” approach. Trying to control all of this from some centralized hub is fruitless. The best thing that the ‘we’ can do is not make it intentionally or even unintentionally more difficult for the ‘I’s’ to innovate and compete.

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by SoCal Deek

[Scraps]

9 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

I think that your incorrect historical analysis of the last century, ie, the 20th century, has led you to giving a simplistic answer to a very complex problem.

 

For most of the first half of the 20th century, the US faced limited competition from manufacturing in other countries.  Prior to WW II, most Asia and Africa were were divided into colonies controlled by European colonies that exploited their colonies for their natural resources like minerals, forest products or agricultural production.   Much of the manufacturing in countries like Argentina, Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico and the USSR were for internal development.   Central American and the Caribbean were essentially economic colonies of the US or the European powers.   That meant that US manufacturers faced limited competition, primarily from Western Europe and the British Isles.  Eighty years ago, most of the world's population lived and worked in economies that exported agricultural products and/or raw materials for manufacturing.

 

World War II changed everything.  Industry in almost all of Europe, from France to the USSR , as well as in Japan, was devastated, requiring that factories be rebuilt from scratch.  That would take decades to do.  WW II also killed colonialism, freeing much of the world to follow their own economic self-interest rather than the economic interests of their mother countries.   Industrial development in Africa and Asia would also take decades.  Some of the wars of liberation and civil wars that were part of the Cold War also held up industrialization in those countries.  So, for about two decades after the end of WW II, the US had little competition in manufacturing, which made American manufacturers complacent.  The 1950s and early/mid 1960s were the high points of American industrial power. 

 

By the late 1960s, the situation began changing.   In the 1950s, Japan rebuilt its economy by exporting cheap consumer goods to the US.  "Made in Japan" was synonymous with poor quality.  In the 1950s, imported European cars tended be expensive luxury or sports cars beyond the budgets of all but wealthy Americans.  It was American manufacturers' reluctance to invest in remodeling existing factories or building new ones to take advantage of better efficiency and quality which  resulted in American goods becoming uncompetitive with imported goods.  While the Japanese and Germans were using computers to make steel as good as any produced in the US, American steel companies were still using inefficient labor intensive Bessemer and open-hearth steel making processes from the 1800s until the 1960s (Bessemer) and through 1980s (open hearth).  It took a while for the US manufacturers to regain their competitiveness, but they did.  The problem was -- and remains -- that modern manufacturing procedures make extensive use of significantly less manpower than previously to produce the same amount or more product.  The modern processes not require fewer workers but those workers need to be much more technically adept in order to run modern factories and produce high quality product.  Throughout the last third of the 20th century, innovation was largely synonymous with automation which always cost workers their jobs.

 

For labor intensive manufacturing processes that aren't easily automated -- clothing manufacturing is a good example -- manufacturers were always looking for cheaper labor.   American clothing manufacturing was largely dependent upon sweatshops throughout the 20th century.  When American wages, even in sweatshops, became too costly, American manufacturers built factories in Mexico under the maquiladora programs that started in the 1960s.  When Mexican wages became too expensive, clothing manufacturing moved to cheaper places like Sri Lanka and Indonesia.

 

I haven't even touched on the fundamental change in the US economy to a consumer economy that began after WW I and exploded after WW II.  It has changed the very nature how the US economy works.  I also haven't talked about the information revolution -- most commonly thought of as computerization -- that  has changed not only blue collar manufacturing jobs but also white collar and pink collar ones as well since the 1980s.

 

A three or four sentence solution that claims, essentially, that "we need to get back to basic good business practices of the past" isn't a serious solution at all.

To what extent do legacy costs such as pensions affect the competitiveness of US goods.

[daz28]

16 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

I’m willing to do whatever I have to to feed my family.
 

I spent summers pushing lawnmowers 70/80 hours a week for minimum wage and no OT and living like a pauper to pay for my own education. 
 

I create jobs and work for a company that competes globally, including Mexico and India. 

 

I do blame weak minded whiners for sitting around expecting any politician, who doesn’t care a whit about them, to hand you your life, standard of living and then b!tch and complain it’s too hard to compete, because the worlds a tough place.  
 

There are plenty of jobs to go around, and they are being taken by people who immigrated here because they know it’s easy to eat lazy American kids lunch because they don’t particularly like to work too hard and think STEM is a waste of time. 
 

this is what our future  sounds like 👎 

save me government save me! Give me give me.  It’s not fair because Jeff Bezos and Mark Z have all the money. 
 

and I know you keep wanting to talk about your sociopathic orange lunatic heart throb. But I could care less about him or your pandering binary politics. 

Who besides government can stop American businesses from outsourcing your job and your company to places where they will have less costs, and higher profits.  You're a very passionate, but niave man.