A bit of (potential) good news

[werepossum]

I meant to post this months earlier, but here it is.
http://www.appliancemagazine.com/editorial.php?article=2429&zone=114&first=1
This article says that a study done by the Boston Consulting Group has identified seven manufacturing sectors which they predict will in the next five years begin resourcing jobs from China due to increasing costs.

ith U.S. competitiveness continuing to improve and costs in China rising, the United States will be in a strong position by 2015 to eventually add 2 million to 3 million jobs and an estimated $100 billion in annual output in a range of industries, according to a new report by The Boston Consulting Group (BCG).

The report - U.S. Manufacturing Nears the Tipping Point: Which Industries, Why, and How Much? - is the latest study by the group of the emerging reshoring or "insourcing" trend. The report expands upon earlier BCG research released last year on the changing economics that are starting to favor manufacturing in the U.S.

The first report, published in August, explained how 15-20% annual increases in Chinese wages and other factors were rapidly eroding China's manufacturing cost advantage over the U.S.

In October 2011, BCG's second set of findings identified seven broad industry sectors most likely to reach a "tipping point" in the next five years - the point where China's shrinking cost advantage should prompt companies to rethink where they produce goods meant for sale in North America.

The second formal report - authored by Harold L. Sirkin, Michael Zinser, Douglas Hohner, and Justin Rose - elaborates on those findings and projects how much production work is likely to shift from China to the U.S. in each of the seven tipping-point sectors - including appliances.

The combination of manufacturing work returning from China in these sectors and increased U.S. exports due to improved global competitiveness is expected to create 2 million to 3 million U.S. jobs by the end of the decade. The job gains will come directly through added factory work (600,000 to 1 million jobs) and indirectly through supporting services, such as construction, transportation, and retail.

Harold L. Sirkin, a BCG senior partner and coauthor of the report, said higher wages in China is only part of the reason that America may see a manufacturing renaissance. "The U.S. manufacturing sector has gotten a lot more competitive over the past decade. And in recent years, companies have been paying much closer attention to the total costs of delivering a product made in China compared with making it closer to the end customer."

BCG identified several large and small companies that have added or plan to add U.S. production after assessing the costs and risks. Among them: Farouk Systems Group, a Houston-based producer of professional hair care appliances and spa products. The report noted that Farouk Systems plans to move final assembly of some appliances from China and South Korea to a 1000-worker factory in Houston as a way of cutting inventory costs.

It's not a long editorial and it's well worth reading. If it holds true - and it just might, since while there are many other poor nations there are none with China's size, aggressively low wages, and top-down manufacturing-friendly business environment - then it will be good news indeed. We might even be able to trade with China on somewhat of an even footing, in a best case scenario. And while I'm more of a protectionist, this is one area where I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

On a related issue: http://www.appliancemagazine.com/news.php?article=1575014&zone=0&first=1

We just bought a Whirlpool refrigerator this past weekend. It took a bit to talk my wife out of the Mexican-manufactured LG she so liked, but in the end we found an American-manufactured Whirlpool she loves. It's worth the extra time and trouble, and a little extra cash.

 

[Anarchist420]

See, tariffs aren't necessary as this is all happening without the Party of Protection.

 

[Infohawk]

Eventually this is going to be true. But what does that mean? Is it cause for celebration? Let's assume it is in 5 years. What have we lost since the period that outsourcing and deindustrialization started? Higher wages? Affordable higher education? Reasonable personal debt? Less income disparity? We've already seen a decline in the US. So yes, we can and have raced to the bottom. If we see outsourcing slow down and a reversal that is better than nothing, but let's not forget the damage that has been already done.

China isn't the only poor country left in the world. The assumption in the article seems to be that it's a choice between China and the US. I do agree with the second assumption though, if we turn the US into a third-world shithole low-wage jobs will certainly come back. Do we want to do that though?

 

[First]

Eventually this is going to be true. But what does that mean? Is it cause for celebration? Let's assume it is in 5 years. What have we lost since the period that outsourcing and deindustrialization started? Higher wages? Affordable higher education? Reasonable personal debt? Less income disparity? We've already seen a decline in the US. So yes, we can and have raced to the bottom. If we see outsourcing slow down and a reversal that is better than nothing, but let's not forget the damage that has been already done.

China isn't the only poor country left in the world. The assumption in the article seems to be that it's a choice between China and the US. I do agree with the second assumption though, if we turn the US into a third-world shithole low-wage jobs will certainly come back. Do we want to do that though?

Your posts on offshoring are true headscratchers. We've been "inshoring" for years now as our taxes have gotten lower, as Chinese wages have gone up and as the weakened dollar has expanded our exports. Our domestic manufacturing has seen a boom for years, a good solid 4-5 years now. By your prior reasoning on P&N we should be seeing far lower unemployment, yet this is clearly not a reality. You still lament a strong Chinese middle class without realizing a strong Chinese middle class invariably takes away their #1 (by FAR) comparative advantage with the U.S.; low wages.

I'm not sure how you still believe what you believe knowing the above reality. The "damage" you claim outsourcing has caused can't be traced to anything statistically significant; the negative effects of offshoring can't be traced to wages or employment between 1980 and 2001, since both grew significantly during that period of time. You can't claim that the worsened employment and wages between 2001 and 2011 were due to offshoring because we experienced both a once-in-a-generation credit bubble AND a tech bubble, both completely unrelated to offshoring. AND we also have examples of a decade long stagnant wage period in recent U.S. history; specifically, the 1960's. Hell, we didn't see any nominal movement in the Dow between between 1965 and 1980.

 

[Infohawk]

Your posts on offshoring are true headscratchers. We've been "inshoring" for years now as our taxes have gotten lower, as Chinese wages have gone up and as the weakened dollar has expanded our exports. Our domestic manufacturing has seen a boom for years, a good solid 4-5 years now. By your prior reasoning on P&N we should be seeing far lower unemployment, yet this is clearly not a reality. You still lament a strong Chinese middle class without realizing a strong Chinese middle class invariably takes away their #1 (by FAR) comparative advantage with the U.S.; low wages.

There are multiple factors affecting unemployment. Just because wages have fallen doesn't mean they've fallen enough to be truly competitive with China's wages. Also, the minimum wage sets a price floor.

I'm not sure how you still believe what you believe knowing the above reality. The "damage" you claim outsourcing has caused can't be traced to anything statistically significant; the negative effects of offshoring can't be traced to wages or employment between 1980 and 2001, since both grew significantly during that period of time. You can't claim that the worsened employment and wages between 2001 and 2011 were due to offshoring because we experienced both a once-in-a-generation credit bubble AND a tech bubble, both completely unrelated to offshoring. AND we also have examples of a decade long stagnant wage period in recent U.S. history; specifically, the 1960's. Hell, we didn't see any nominal movement in the Dow between between 1965 and 1980.

One problem we have is we view the reality differently. I've challenged your factual assertions and provided links to which you simply have not responded to. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2256868&page=3
There's not much point discussing the implications of the facts if we can't agree on the facts.

 

[First]

There are multiple factors affecting unemployment. Just because wages have fallen doesn't mean they've fallen enough to be truly competitive with China's wages. Also, the minimum wage sets a price floor.

Again, I don't know what reality you're living in, but Chinese wages don't compete with U.S. wages. This is a fact of international economics and comparative advantage. Here: http://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/Details/comparativeadvantage.html

One problem we have is we view the reality differently. I've challenged your factual assertions and provided links to which you simply have not responded to. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2256868&page=3
There's not much point discussing the implications of the facts if we can't agree on the facts.

Your sources there are awful though; you linked a Forbes article that says we have fewer workers in manufacturing in 2011 (~11M) than we did in 1979 (19M), and that is quite literally it. That's the whole article, and does nothing to dispute the REALITY that manufacturing jobs have picked up, yet you cannot come to terms with the reality that jobs that can even be offshored in the first place make up a small % of the overall 160M+ U.S. workforce. The fact that I even have to link this shows you're far gone from reality and that you don't follow business news carefully, but I will link you anyway:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304587704577333482423070376.html

All this comes amid signs of a promising, though modest, comeback in U.S. manufacturing employment. After a 35% decline in the number of manufacturing jobs between 1998 and 2010, the tally has since risen by 489,000, or 4.3%, to 11.9 million. Most of that increase is due to the economic recovery rather than reshoring. But IHS Global Insight, an economic research firm, forecasts that the number of manufacturing jobs will climb 3.2% this year compared with a 1.6% increase in all jobs.

"We're becoming more competitive," says Daniel Meckstroth, chief economist at the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation, a research group in Arlington, Va.

Harry Moser, president of the Reshoring Initiative, a nonprofit campaigning to bring back manufacturing jobs, estimates that at least 25,000 manufacturing and related support jobs have been brought back to the U.S. in the past few years. That is a drop in the ocean of unemployment, but Mr. Moser thinks the potential is far greater as companies recalculate the costs of producing overseas.

Manufacturing experts say the decision to reshore hinges on a host of fluctuating factors—including taxes, regulations, currencies and government incentives—and some products, such as most shoes and clothing, may never make sense to manufacture in the U.S. again.

A survey of 105 companies in January and February by David Simchi-Levi, an engineering professor and supply-chain expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, found that 39% were considering moving some manufacturing back to the U.S.

U.S. manufacturing has become attractive for some companies as Asian wages have surged over recent years and the wage gap between the U.S. and China has narrowed. The drop in the dollar over the past decade has also made U.S.-produced goods more competitive. And higher oil prices have increased the cost of shipping goods across oceans, making domestic manufacturing more appealing.

In terms of your wage argument, it is ridiculously easy to look this up yourself on the BLS, and the fact you keep making up nonsense statement about wages declining recently without even having the wherewithal to cite a credible source or note what year inflation is affixed to or even taking into account that calculating the real wages in the 1970's is extremely difficult given that we experienced massively unpredictable inflation and decoupled from gold in that decade, shows you're not particularly interested in the facts or being informed about this reality.

Here is the BLS statistics for the last 9 years showing hourly wages being flat, but wages rising for highly skilled jobs, with lower skilled jobs taking a hit:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf

These are facts, and no Wikipedia chart is going to save you on this one.

Your other points don't even make sense, honestly.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Why am I not excited by this? These jobs should have never left our country to begin with.

 

[werepossum]

Again, I don't know what reality you're living in, but Chinese wages don't compete with U.S. wages. This is a fact of international economics and comparative advantage. Here: http://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/Details/comparativeadvantage.html



Your sources there are awful though; you linked a Forbes article that says we have fewer workers in manufacturing in 2011 (~11M) than we did in 1979 (19M), and that is quite literally it. That's the whole article, and does nothing to dispute the REALITY that manufacturing jobs have picked up, yet you cannot come to terms with the reality that jobs that can even be offshored in the first place make up a small % of the overall 160M+ U.S. workforce. The fact that I even have to link this shows you're far gone from reality and that you don't follow business news carefully, but I will link you anyway:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304587704577333482423070376.html



In terms of your wage argument, it is ridiculously easy to look this up yourself on the BLS, and the fact you keep making up nonsense statement about wages declining recently without even having the wherewithal to cite a credible source or note what year inflation is affixed to or even taking into account that calculating the real wages in the 1970's is extremely difficult given that we experienced massively unpredictable inflation and decoupled from gold in that decade, shows you're not particularly interested in the facts or being informed about this reality.

Here is the BLS statistics for the last 9 years showing hourly wages being flat, but wages rising for highly skilled jobs, with lower skilled jobs taking a hit:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf

These are facts, and no Wikipedia chart is going to save you on this one.

Your other points don't even make sense, honestly.

I think that in most realities a 4.3% uptick would not make the previous 35% decline in the number of manufacturing jobs somehow insignificant. Manufacturing is wealth creation, and we've outsourced a lot of our wealth creation to China and Mexico while increasing our wealth consumption and simply borrowing the difference. That's a recipe for disaster. It's led directly to an ever-increasing income disparity as well by forcing more people into lower paying service industry jobs, which by increasing the labor competing for those jobs further depresses their relative value, and it's decreased job security because as we've seen, service sector jobs (particularly retail and hospitality) are much more easily eliminated without greatly damaging profitability. A machine to replace a checkout register operator, for instance, is much cheaper than is a machine to replace a welder or a steamfitter.

It's also worth pointing out that since China's currency is pegged to ours, no amount of devaluing our currency will make us more competitive with China, by far our largest competitor (and now the world's largest manufacturer.)

 

[Infohawk]

Again, I don't know what reality you're living in, but Chinese wages don't compete with U.S. wages. This is a fact of international economics and comparative advantage. Here: http://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/Details/comparativeadvantage.html

I'm saying Chinese wages are lower. Do you have an issue with that?

Your sources there are awful though; you linked a Forbes article that says we have fewer workers in manufacturing in 2011 (~11M) than we did in 1979 (19M), and that is quite literally it. That's the whole article, and does nothing to dispute the REALITY that manufacturing jobs have picked up, yet you cannot come to terms with the reality that jobs that can even be offshored in the first place make up a small % of the overall 160M+ U.S. workforce. The fact that I even have to link this shows you're far gone from reality and that you don't follow business news carefully, but I will link you anyway:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304587704577333482423070376.html

In terms of your wage argument, it is ridiculously easy to look this up yourself on the BLS, and the fact you keep making up nonsense statement about wages declining recently without even having the wherewithal to cite a credible source or note what year inflation is affixed to or even taking into account that calculating the real wages in the 1970's is extremely difficult given that we experienced massively unpredictable inflation and decoupled from gold in that decade, shows you're not particularly interested in the facts or being informed about this reality.

Here is the BLS statistics for the last 9 years showing hourly wages being flat, but wages rising for highly skilled jobs, with lower skilled jobs taking a hit:


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf

These are facts, and no Wikipedia chart is going to save you on this one.

You're entering the territory of intellectual dishonesty instead of recognizing some credible sources, especially when they ultimately use the same sources you're relying on. The title of the Forbes article is "Manufacturing Jobs Aren't Coming Back, And That's OK." Now perhaps you consider that editorializing but it also shows a graph with continued decline in manufacturing jobs.

As I recognize earlier in this thread, eventually there might be a rise in manufacturing jobs in the US again (beyond just a short-term fluctuation). Maybe it's happening as we speak. The problem is that is only goods news if you ignore the fact that the US working class has suffered for 30 years and that the manufacturing jobs now pay less.

As for you trashing the wikipedia graph, its data comes from the BLS and Federal Reserve! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Real_Wages_1964-2004.gif

In terms of wages stagnating or falling, there is story after story of wages falling in general and including when adjusting for consumer prices. Here is just one example which also points to census data. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...nd-as-consumers-may-retrench-on-spending.html These are respectable outlets getting their data from the government. If you think that all of these business outlets are involved in some sort of conspiracy to make things look worse than they are, I don't know what to tell you.

Your other points don't even make sense, honestly.

You mean like pointing out that when you list areas where certain jobs have to be in America because regulation says so (like IT), it's an argument for protectionism?

As I said in the other thread: It's one thing if you were arguing that the current drawbacks with free trade are somehow better compared to going towards protectionism, but you seem to go beyond that. You don't even seem to recognize the malaise and real decline of many aspects of American life. Do you think all these stories about Americans struggling are in their heads?

 

[bfdd]

Here's a bit more good news

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-researchers-create-highly-236698.aspx

UCLA researchers create highly transparent solar cells for windows that generate electricity
By Jennifer Marcus July 20, 2012
UCLA researchers have developed a new transparent solar cell that is an advance toward giving windows in homes and other buildings the ability to generate electricity while still allowing people to see outside. Their study appears in the journal ACS Nano.

The UCLA team describes a new kind of polymer solar cell (PSC) that produces energy by absorbing mainly infrared light, not visible light, making the cells nearly 70% transparent to the human eye. They made the device from a photoactive plastic that converts infrared light into an electrical current.

"These results open the potential for visibly transparent polymer solar cells as add-on components of portable electronics, smart windows and building-integrated photovoltaics and in other applications," said study leader Yang Yang, a UCLA professor of materials science and engineering, who also is director of the Nano Renewable Energy Center at California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI).

Yang, who is also the holder of the Carol and Lawrence E. Tannas, Jr., Endowed Chair in Engineering, added that there has been intense world-wide interest in so-called polymer solar cells. "Our new PSCs are made from plastic-like materials and are lightweight and flexible," he said. "More importantly, they can be produced in high volume at low cost."

Polymer solar cells have attracted great attention due to their advantages over competing solar cell technologies. Scientists have also been intensely investigating PSCs for their potential in making unique advances for broader applications. Several such applications would be enabled by high-performance visibly transparent photovoltaic (PV) devices, including building-integrated photovoltaics and integrated PV chargers for portable electronics.

 

[werepossum]

Here's a bit more good news

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-researchers-create-highly-236698.aspx

If these things really can be manufactured cheaply for the output, that will be really good news indeed. I'm not sure people will accept 70% transmissive (to visible spectra) windows, but our office building like many is brick and glass. The windows are already heavily tinted and non-operable, so a 70% transmissive applique wouldn't be a big problem. And at the least, a transparent or highly translucent solar cell could be applied in many places not currently suitable.

IR and long wave thermal "solar" cells represent to me one of the Holy Grails of this technology, as we waste tons of heat in industrial processes, automobile, and power generation, to name only a couple places.

 

[dmcowen674]

I meant to post this months earlier, but here it is.
http://www.appliancemagazine.com/editorial.php?article=2429&zone=114&first=1
This article says that a study done by the Boston Consulting Group has identified seven manufacturing sectors which they predict will in the next five years begin resourcing jobs from China due to increasing costs.

We just bought a Whirlpool refrigerator this past weekend. It took a bit to talk my wife out of the Mexican-manufactured LG she so liked, but in the end we found an American-manufactured Whirlpool she loves. It's worth the extra time and trouble, and a little extra cash.

Thank you sir for buying a product built in Evansville Indiana :thumbsup:

The epic center of Appliance Manufacturing in the U.S.

They have shrunk the operation there quite a bit but I don't think they completely shut it down.

If you have ever been to Evansville the sheer size of the plant is impressive.

 

[bfdd]

I think it would be great for things like sky scrappers. I'm also curious how it would effect plants in a green house. Would be interesting to see if they can still grow and bloom well in a green house covered in this stuff. Would allow them to power heaters or cooling equipment in various climates, basically allow growing in areas where space and climate don't really allow.

 

[werepossum]

Thank you sir for buying a product built in Evansville Indiana :thumbsup:

The epic center of Appliance Manufacturing in the U.S.

They have shrunk the operation there quite a bit but I don't think they completely shut it down.

If you have ever been to Evansville the sheer size of the plant is impressive.

They've got a nice big plant in Cleveland, Tennessee too, though I don't think it's a big as Evansville. Basically they consolidated all the little Cleveland plants they inherited with the smaller manufacturers they purchased into one central state of the art plant.

We didn't have much luck with three of the last four Whirlpool appliances we've bought - our dishwasher performs only fair, our range was never much good, and our washing machine died after only a few years. Only our dryer really performed well (although I think I've found the problem with the dishwasher.) But two different Lowes salesmen told us the Whirlpools were the brand with which they have the least warranty issues, and they were the only made in American choice we could find that we could afford. (While I could technically buy a $3,500 refrigerator I sure as hell can't afford one. LOL) So here's hoping Whirlpool is once again the king of reliability, which should stick a finger in the eye of Mexican-built GE, LG, Samsung, Frigidaire, etc. A big shit-out to Frigidaire especially, a company producing high end products at a big premium over other brands that STILL has to go for cheap Mexican labor. I'd like to think in some (very) small way I'm doing to Frigidaire what Frigidaire did to its American workers - and for that matter, to its Mexican workers, who can never aspire to afford one of the appliances they build.

When American manufacturers are willing to keep manufacturing here, or move it back, we need to support them. Personally that's worth another $300 to me.

 

[alzan]

If these things really can be manufactured cheaply for the output, that will be really good news indeed. I'm not sure people will accept 70% transmissive (to visible spectra) windows, but our office building like many is brick and glass. The windows are already heavily tinted and non-operable, so a 70% transmissive applique wouldn't be a big problem. And at the least, a transparent or highly translucent solar cell could be applied in many places not currently suitable.

IR and long wave thermal "solar" cells represent to me one of the Holy Grails of this technology, as we waste tons of heat in industrial processes, automobile, and power generation, to name only a couple places.

For a home, 70% transmissive would be acceptable since I'll be getting the generated electricity that I can use for some supplemental lighting. I prefer natural lighting but there's nothing like a focused beam from a lamp for reading and close work.

If the photovoltaic cells discussed in the UCLA article are absorbing IR, imo long wave thermal cells couldn't be too far behind. My thinking might be off (just like my personality) but couldn't thermal "solar" cells be done with a change in the polymer used and/or the base plastic? Collection/gathering strategies for thermal waves in existing buildings could be worked out with existing technology, new buildings can be designed to allow for best collection/gathering.

 

[First]

I'm saying Chinese wages are lower. Do you have an issue with that?

Again, you don't get it. Chinese wages being lower doesn't actually mean U.S. wages must therefore be lower. Comparative advantage doesn't work like that. Read the link.

You're entering the territory of intellectual dishonesty instead of recognizing some credible sources, especially when they ultimately use the same sources you're relying on. The title of the Forbes article is "Manufacturing Jobs Aren't Coming Back, And That's OK." Now perhaps you consider that editorializing but it also shows a graph with continued decline in manufacturing jobs.

I'm not sure why you think manufacturing jobs declining means the American worker is hurting as a result of the offshoring. Offshoring has rapidly increased the rate at which we need higher skilled jobs in the U.S., which we have a shortage of because Americans aren't as well trained as they need to be. I see this all the time and all the data shows it. Btw, it's pretty odd that you object to me bringing up 1980 but cite a Forbes article using 1979 as a comparison date.

As I recognize earlier in this thread, eventually there might be a rise in manufacturing jobs in the US again (beyond just a short-term fluctuation). Maybe it's happening as we speak. The problem is that is only goods news if you ignore the fact that the US working class has suffered for 30 years and that the manufacturing jobs now pay less.

Airline pilots are also paid considerably less than they used to, as are newspaper writers. Why should I lament the very natural free market occurrence of comparative advantage? You realize we've been trading substantially with many nations for hundreds of years, yes?

As for you trashing the wikipedia graph, its data comes from the BLS and Federal Reserve! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Real_Wages_1964-2004.gif

It's useless data without any context to it. The Fed and BLS make up all sorts of graphs with qualifiers and context that is lacking in that chart. It's pointless.

In terms of wages stagnating or falling, there is story after story of wages falling in general and including when adjusting for consumer prices. Here is just one example which also points to census data. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...nd-as-consumers-may-retrench-on-spending.html These are respectable outlets getting their data from the government. If you think that all of these business outlets are involved in some sort of conspiracy to make things look worse than they are, I don't know what to tell you.

Again, I already ended this argument by citing irrefutable BLS data that shows flat wages between 2003 and 2012. This is in the context of significantly rising wages between 1980 and 2001, something you oddly chose to ignore. Therefore your claim that wages have declined are irrefutably false. False.

You mean like pointing out that when you list areas where certain jobs have to be in America because regulation says so (like IT), it's an argument for protectionism?

Your idea of protectionism doesn't even make sense. By some degree our international trade policy is "protectionist", because we charge tariffs. Same with China's tariff on imported American or Japanese cars. I'm not sure how my point about IT is an argument for protectionism anyway? Huh?

As I said in the other thread: It's one thing if you were arguing that the current drawbacks with free trade are somehow better compared to going towards protectionism, but you seem to go beyond that. You don't even seem to recognize the malaise and real decline of many aspects of American life. Do you think all these stories about Americans struggling are in their heads?

I'm well aware that Americans are struggling; I just find it odd that, despite the vast majority of the 163M workforce having no chance of their job being offshored, you still seem to think that it has a substantial enough effect that it is responsible for our current economic circumstances? (8.2% unemployment and lower wages?).

Fact is that's a bunk argument. There aren't enough actual offshore-able jobs to even affect the unemployment rate that much. Your own Forbes article lists 19M total manufacturing jobs in 1979. And somehow this is a substantial amount compared to the 163M person workforce? Seriously, your arguments are just weird and nonsensical.

 

[Infohawk]

Again, you don't get it. Chinese wages being lower doesn't actually mean U.S. wages must therefore be lower. Comparative advantage doesn't work like that. Read the link.

I understand what comparative advantage is. If American workers want to compete with Chinese ones, they generally need to try to match their prices. I don't buy that Americans are inherently superior workers. Any productivity advantage due to education is withering away.

I'm not sure why you think manufacturing jobs declining means the American worker is hurting as a result of the offshoring. Offshoring has rapidly increased the rate at which we need higher skilled jobs in the U.S., which we have a shortage of because Americans aren't as well trained as they need to be. I see this all the time and all the data shows it. Btw, it's pretty odd that you object to me bringing up 1980 but cite a Forbes article using 1979 as a comparison date.

I think it's common sense. If a steel plant closes here and opens in South Korea, the US has lost manufacturing jobs. Its naive to think they all the former steel workers are going to retrain and find similarly-paid employment in another US manufacturing plant.

The US doesn't have a shortage of skilled workers. Recent educated graduates are having trouble finding jobs, even STEM graduates. If corporations are taking in H1Bs, its because they can claim a shortage and get foreigners for cheaper.

Are you sure I was merely objecting as to the date of 1980? I doubt it. I think comparing everything in the Post WW2 period is relevant with keeping and eye on the 1970s as a sort of turning point for large exposure to third-world trade.

Airline pilots are also paid considerably less than they used to, as are newspaper writers. Why should I lament the very natural free market occurrence of comparative advantage?

You don't have to if it you feel it doesn't affect you but it clearly has an affect on the people in this country. If you are you trying to say that you like it when the global market becomes more efficient, that's generally fine but becomes absurd when you ignore the human effect it has due to rapid changes in the global market.

You realize we've been trading substantially with many nations for hundreds of years, yes?

Technology has increased each country's exposure to international trade. Not only that but are you really pretending that the current free trade scheme that has been explicitly laid-out in well-known treaties since WW2 is not significantly different than the various colonial and protectionist schemes before that?

It's useless data without any context to it. The Fed and BLS make up all sorts of graphs with qualifiers and context that is lacking in that chart. It's pointless. Again, I already ended this argument by citing irrefutable BLS data that shows flat wages between 2003 and 2012. This is in the context of significantly rising wages between 1980 and 2001, something you oddly chose to ignore. Therefore your claim that wages have declined are irrefutably false. False.

Yeah you're not being intellectually honest here. When you present BLS data I'm supposed to be awed by it and when someone else does you resort to saying statistics are lies. Really the entire point of the stats is to show that many Americans are suffering and that in many ways quality of life is declining in the US for many people. At this point that is something you can either agree with or not. If you don't, then I don't think you're in the same frame of reference as most of the US political discussion is.

Your idea of protectionism doesn't even make sense. By some degree our international trade policy is "protectionist", because we charge tariffs. Same with China's tariff on imported American or Japanese cars. I'm not sure how my point about IT is an argument for protectionism anyway? Huh?

The issue with your IT example was that I asked you why multinational corporations are going to bother hiring Americans over people in Asia. Your response was that they have to hire certain IT workers here because of regulations. That is playing into the idea that protectionism is necessary to retain and create jobs. I'm not sure why you're even talking about with the tariffs. Those are protectionist. It's not like it's a binary choice between free trade and protectionist. Obviously there are degrees.

I'm well aware that Americans are struggling; I just find it odd that, despite the vast majority of the 163M workforce having no chance of their job being offshored, you still seem to think that it has a substantial enough effect that it is responsible for our current economic circumstances? (8.2% unemployment and lower wages?).

Fact is that's a bunk argument. There aren't enough actual offshore-able jobs to even affect the unemployment rate that much. Your own Forbes article lists 19M total manufacturing jobs in 1979. And somehow this is a substantial amount compared to the 163M person workforce? Seriously, your arguments are just weird and nonsensical.[/QUOTE]

You seem to be assuming that if the US hadn't opened up to free trade with third world countries, that manufacturing would have simply stayed constant at 19M. I don't see why that would be the case. Leaving aside jobs that are basically stuck here because of the type of protectionism I'm advocating for, there are a lot of jobs that can be transferred abroad. Sure there are auto mechanics and repairmen that need to work here. Many people work in office jobs that could be done overseas. IT jobs that aren't legally required to be here? They can be outsourced. Finance jobs? No reason Asians making less money can do those abroad. The jobs left over are low-wage service jobs.

I don't think my claim is that outlandish. In a world where billions of potential workers are willing to work for cheaper in worse conditions, people in developed countries are going to have to compete with them by matching those wages and conditions. I don't deny that in the long-run the global market could be more efficient and that overall standards of living could conceivably increase (ignoring natural resource issues). The problem is that it will take a long time and during that time many millions of Americans and other Westerners will suffer tremendously not to mention other issues like the shift of technological superiority and manufacturing base to totalitarian countries like China.

You seem to be toeing the line that free trade is better for everyone but you don't seem to really even recognize the creative destruction aspect that I don't think is especially contested (in addition to ignoring national security / political concerns).

 

[First]

I understand what comparative advantage is. If American workers want to compete with Chinese ones, they generally need to try to match their prices. I don't buy that Americans are inherently superior workers. Any productivity advantage due to education is withering away.

You don't have to "buy it", it's a reality. Under no scenario is comparative advantage putting downward pressure on wages here in the U.S. unless the trade is inherently unfair, which does indeed happen. Which is why we need free and fair trade. By and large that is happening.

I think it's common sense. If a steel plant closes here and opens in South Korea, the US has lost manufacturing jobs. Its naive to think they all the former steel workers are going to retrain and find similarly-paid employment in another US manufacturing plant.

The reality that American workers have to re-train isn't particularly surprising, nor should it be discouraged when we had a clear over-supply of manufacturing-centric workers as a result of being the lone true superpower left on the planet after WWII. Those manufacturing workers lasted a generation and, of course, very logically died out with the advent of newer technologies and an emphasis on highly skilled jobs as the supply of labor changed.

Btw, none of this is controversial, and it's one of the few issues BOTH sides of the political spectrum quite clearly agree on more often than not.

The US doesn't have a shortage of skilled workers. Recent educated graduates are having trouble finding jobs, even STEM graduates. If corporations are taking in H1Bs, its because they can claim a shortage and get foreigners for cheaper.

This is bullshit and it's well known bullshit. College grads are not skilled enough to take on the vast increases in prerequisites for highly skilled jobs. This isn't because of foreigners or a conspiracy by corporations; it's because actual industry requirements have grown faster than the labor force is able to keep up. Why this scenario would shock you (or hasn't even occurred to you) is interesting but ultimately not important. That's the reality when there's a major shift in technology as there has been since 1979.

You don't have to if it you feel it doesn't affect you but it clearly has an affect on the people in this country. If you are you trying to say that you like it when the global market becomes more efficient, that's generally fine but becomes absurd when you ignore the human effect it has due to rapid changes in the global market.

Every time people lament the plight of the worker you simply have to ask yourself what the alternative would be. And I'm afraid you haven't given us any reason to believe you have one. The alternative is simply worse; what could the U.S. possibly due but take the disastrous step of imposing, what, high tariffs? Reducing the U.S. population? Passing laws that disallow manufacturing being taken abroad? Discouraging immigration? Haha, in hindsight your adverseness to immigration makes sense in the context of this offshoring debate.

Technology has increased each country's exposure to international trade. Not only that but are you really pretending that the current free trade scheme that has been explicitly laid-out in well-known treaties since WW2 is not significantly different than the various colonial and protectionist schemes before that?

It's different in that the items shipped are different, but absolutely identical in that it has continued to revolutionize trade. The post-WWII trade tech explosion is simply no different than the revolution of fast steam boat ships in U.S. ports in late 19th/early 20th century that revolutionized transit across the globe, exponentially increasing what could and could no longer be traded. You don't see this, apparently, but it doesn't matter ultimately what you do or do not see when it comes to the reality that free trade is very, very good for the U.S.

Yeah you're not being intellectually honest here. When you present BLS data I'm supposed to be awed by it and when someone else does you resort to saying statistics are lies. Really the entire point of the stats is to show that many Americans are suffering and that in many ways quality of life is declining in the US for many people. At this point that is something you can either agree with or not. If you don't, then I don't think you're in the same frame of reference as most of the US political discussion is.

For one, come to terms with being wrong about wages declining in the most recent decade. The BLS stats are clear and your Wiki chart doesn't have any reference material that I can see so it's totally pointless to analyze. A reference-less chart gets an F in any legitimate statistics course. Secondly, in what way are declines being manifested exactly, you're just sort of saying things without specifics. The main things I can come up with are declines in the standard of living due to higher healthcare, education and gas prices, which are certainly unfortunate during this last decade....but I'm not sure what in the world that has to do with free trade.

The issue with your IT example was that I asked you why multinational corporations are going to bother hiring Americans over people in Asia. Your response was that they have to hire certain IT workers here because of regulations. That is playing into the idea that protectionism is necessary to retain and create jobs.

That's not protectionism, it's common sense security protocol; many datacenters aren't legally allowed to outsource IT jobs because (by extension) privacy laws such as attorney-client privilege or PHI revisions in the ACA HI-TECH Act do not allow data to cross borders. And generally that means tons of IT labor simply cannot be farmed out. This has nothing to do with protectionism, it's just a natural occurrence due to the merits of good IT security.

I'm not sure why you're even talking about with the tariffs. Those are protectionist. It's not like it's a binary choice between free trade and protectionist. Obviously there are degrees.

You need tariffs in free trade, otherwise it's not fair trade and you distort the comparative advantage. How "protectionist" that is, is up for debate. But so far you've offered nothing but manufacturing-centric sob stories decrying trade without actually being, well, specific at all.

You seem to be assuming that if the US hadn't opened up to free trade with third world countries, that manufacturing would have simply stayed constant at 19M. I don't see why that would be the case. Leaving aside jobs that are basically stuck here because of the type of protectionism I'm advocating for, there are a lot of jobs that can be transferred abroad. Sure there are auto mechanics and repairmen that need to work here. Many people work in office jobs that could be done overseas. IT jobs that aren't legally required to be here? They can be outsourced. Finance jobs? No reason Asians making less money can do those abroad. The jobs left over are low-wage service jobs.

I don't think my claim is that outlandish. In a world where billions of potential workers are willing to work for cheaper in worse conditions, people in developed countries are going to have to compete with them by matching those wages and conditions. I don't deny that in the long-run the global market could be more efficient and that overall standards of living could conceivably increase (ignoring natural resource issues). The problem is that it will take a long time and during that time many millions of Americans and other Westerners will suffer tremendously not to mention other issues like the shift of technological superiority and manufacturing base to totalitarian countries like China.

You seem to be toeing the line that free trade is better for everyone but you don't seem to really even recognize the creative destruction aspect that I don't think is especially contested (in addition to ignoring national security / political concerns).

All of this interesting in theory but not born out by actual declining wages, declining standards of living, or declining wealth.

So while it is true there are negative aspects to free trade, you haven't told us your protectionist alternative and how it has worked in the past. I'm sorry, but a declining manufacturing base after a post-WWII glut of manufacturing jobs in the 50's and 60's doesn't prove your point.

 

[Infohawk]

You don't have to "buy it", it's a reality. Under no scenario is comparative advantage putting downward pressure on wages here in the U.S. unless the trade is inherently unfair, which does indeed happen. Which is why we need free and fair trade. By and large that is happening.



The reality that American workers have to re-train isn't particularly surprising, nor should it be discouraged when we had a clear over-supply of manufacturing-centric workers as a result of being the lone true superpower left on the planet after WWII. Those manufacturing workers lasted a generation and, of course, very logically died out with the advent of newer technologies and an emphasis on highly skilled jobs as the supply of labor changed.

Btw, none of this is controversial, and it's one of the few issues BOTH sides of the political spectrum quite clearly agree on more often than not.



This is bullshit and it's well known bullshit. College grads are not skilled enough to take on the vast increases in prerequisites for highly skilled jobs. This isn't because of foreigners or a conspiracy by corporations; it's because actual industry requirements have grown faster than the labor force is able to keep up. Why this scenario would shock you (or hasn't even occurred to you) is interesting but ultimately not important. That's the reality when there's a major shift in technology as there has been since 1979.

Every time people lament the plight of the worker you simply have to ask yourself what the alternative would be. And I'm afraid you haven't given us any reason to believe you have one. The alternative is simply worse; what could the U.S. possibly due but take the disastrous step of imposing, what, high tariffs? Reducing the U.S. population? Passing laws that disallow manufacturing being taken abroad? Discouraging immigration? Haha, in hindsight your adverseness to immigration makes sense in the context of this offshoring debate.



It's different in that the items shipped are different, but absolutely identical in that it has continued to revolutionize trade. The post-WWII trade tech explosion is simply no different than the revolution of fast steam boat ships in U.S. ports in late 19th/early 20th century that revolutionized transit across the globe, exponentially increasing what could and could no longer be traded. You don't see this, apparently, but it doesn't matter ultimately what you do or do not see when it comes to the reality that free trade is very, very good for the U.S.



For one, come to terms with being wrong about wages declining in the most recent decade. The BLS stats are clear and your Wiki chart doesn't have any reference material that I can see so it's totally pointless to analyze. A reference-less chart gets an F in any legitimate statistics course. Secondly, in what way are declines being manifested exactly, you're just sort of saying things without specifics. The main things I can come up with are declines in the standard of living due to higher healthcare, education and gas prices, which are certainly unfortunate during this last decade....but I'm not sure what in the world that has to do with free trade.



That's not protectionism, it's common sense security protocol; many datacenters aren't legally allowed to outsource IT jobs because (by extension) privacy laws such as attorney-client privilege or PHI revisions in the ACA HI-TECH Act do not allow data to cross borders. And generally that means tons of IT labor simply cannot be farmed out. This has nothing to do with protectionism, it's just a natural occurrence due to the merits of good IT security.



You need tariffs in free trade, otherwise it's not fair trade and you distort the comparative advantage. How "protectionist" that is, is up for debate. But so far you've offered nothing but manufacturing-centric sob stories decrying trade without actually being, well, specific at all.



All of this interesting in theory but not born out by actual declining wages, declining standards of living, or declining wealth.

So while it is true there are negative aspects to free trade, you haven't told us your protectionist alternative and how it has worked in the past. I'm sorry, but a declining manufacturing base after a post-WWII glut of manufacturing jobs in the 50's and 60's doesn't prove your point.

The fact that corporations can hire a Chinese person for much less money to do the same job that in American would do decreases the wage for that job in America. This is how markets work. Do you dispute that? The data center laws has the same effect as protectionism. Again, there is little reason to hire Americans for many jobs unless Americans are willing to reduce their salaries to third world levels and work under the same third-world conditions.

The fact that both political parties support free trade doesn't show anything. They have agreed on all sorts of bad ideas in the past and its not really a surprise since they are both inclined to pursue corporate interests.

About the college students not being qualified enough, in the past employers would train American workers when they have no other choice. Of course they are not inclined to train Americans anymore because they can get cheaper labor elsewhere.

As for the alternative, remember that my point is mainly that it was a bad to open up to mass third-world trade in the 1970s. A lot of the damage is already done and reversing free trade would also have significant costs at this point. My alternative would have been to not open up China to trade in the 70s and to generally avoid opening up trade with third-world countries then and afterwards. There would have been more high-wage likely unionized jobs. The working classes would have continued spending their higher wages on middle-class services like they did in the post-war era. There would have been secondary effects of less time wasted on education for people who didn't need it and less money pushing up education prices in general. Some people act like the US would have self-destructed if it hadn't opened up the third world to free trade. It wouldn't have. The alternative would simply have been to keep going as the US had gone before.

If you're asking what I would do today, I would impose tariffs that penalize countries with substandard labor laws, environmental laws, and totalitarian qualities if not penalize cheaper than minimum-wage labor altogether.

 

[Infohawk]

I meant to post this months earlier, but here it is.
http://www.appliancemagazine.com/editorial.php?article=2429&zone=114&first=1
This article says that a study done by the Boston Consulting Group has identified seven manufacturing sectors which they predict will in the next five years begin resourcing jobs from China due to increasing costs.

It's not a long editorial and it's well worth reading. If it holds true - and it just might, since while there are many other poor nations there are none with China's size, aggressively low wages, and top-down manufacturing-friendly business environment - then it will be good news indeed. We might even be able to trade with China on somewhat of an even footing, in a best case scenario. And while I'm more of a protectionist, this is one area where I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

On a related issue: http://www.appliancemagazine.com/news.php?article=1575014&zone=0&first=1

We just bought a Whirlpool refrigerator this past weekend. It took a bit to talk my wife out of the Mexican-manufactured LG she so liked, but in the end we found an American-manufactured Whirlpool she loves. It's worth the extra time and trouble, and a little extra cash.

I find it strange that they can argue that rising wages in China can make a huge difference when there are still tons of areas in the world where people are dirt poor (not to mention the fact that last time I checked there are still many Chinese peasants).

 

[Pr0d1gy]

I am kind of skeptical about this. It almost feels like a girlfriend that dumped all of us and is now coming back after her new boyfriend beat her ass.

 

[First]

The fact that corporations can hire a Chinese person for much less money to do the same job that in American would do decreases the wage for that job in America.

No, it simply does not. Comparative advantage means that someone replaces the work you because they have something you don't (lower wages primarily), but that has nothing to do with the wages in a completely different country with very different local, state and federal circumstances, be it standards of living, labor laws, etc.

For example, take programmers, probably the prototypical offshored job of any industry. Since 2000, wages for programmers have increased in real terms an average of 1.5%/yr. Under your contention, this would simply not be possible, as under your theory foreign and domestic wages equalize. Yet, it is a reality that this prototypical offshored position is seeing consistent gains in wages.

Here is a study very clearly delineating that the strongest evidence still shows that even persistent trade deficits don't have any significant effect on unemployment because there isn't even ENOUGH of it in the first place to have that sort of impact.

THE STAGNATION OF WORKER COMPENSATION

Impact of the Trade Deficit: The linkage of the U.S. trade
deficit to lost jobs and reduced wages in the manufacturing
sector is easily dismissed. A trade deficit does not necessarily
cause a reduction in domestic output. Far more often, a trade
deficit allows a nation to increase domestic spending beyond its
economic capacity. This latter scenario was certainly the case
for the United States in 1980s.

For the sake of argument, however, Lawrence and Slaughter assume
that the large trade deficits of the 1980s led to a reduction in
domestic manufacturing output. Then they ask whether such a
change would be able to explain the degree of wage deterioration
seen in the manufacturing sector. They conclude that the shift in
the trade balance is far too small to explain the deterioration
of hourly wages.

This is how markets work. Do you dispute that? The data center laws has the same effect as protectionism. Again, there is little reason to hire Americans for many jobs unless Americans are willing to reduce their salaries to third world levels and work under the same third-world conditions.

This is not how markets work, your world view is false. See above. There is simply no way Americans will accept that reduction in the standard of living, and they haven't. The "protectionism" of datacenter laws is a NATURAL market force, whose purpose had NOTHING to do with trade imbalance or offshoring. There is simply no way you can claim that artificial barriers to trade should occur so that fewer jobs are being offshored unless you can show it has reduced American employment and standards of living in a causal way. You can't. Your lack of sources or studies to back up your claims is deafening.

The fact that both political parties support free trade doesn't show anything. They have agreed on all sorts of bad ideas in the past and its not really a surprise since they are both inclined to pursue corporate interests.

Both parties have agreed for decades on ideas that were bad for the country? Really? I'm curious; which ones, specifically?

About the college students not being qualified enough, in the past employers would train American workers when they have no other choice. Of course they are not inclined to train Americans anymore because they can get cheaper labor elsewhere.

As I have said numerous times now; cheaper labor means nothing when:

1) Cheap labor /= efficient labor.
2) Cheap labor /= well-trained labor.
3) Cheap labor, even when used, leads to expansion of production and inevitably leads to higher skilled job creation domestically to fund the R&D for further production.
4) And most importantly, the majority of jobs in the U.S. are employed in small businesses with less than 50 employees, virtually none of which offshore. There's also the reality that the VAST majority of total jobs in the U.S. simply cannot offshore jobs to different locations and time zones if they require a physical presence, which is the lion's share of jobs in the first place, like healthcare or services.

As for the alternative, remember that my point is mainly that it was a bad to open up to mass third-world trade in the 1970s. A lot of the damage is already done and reversing free trade would also have significant costs at this point. My alternative would have been to not open up China to trade in the 70s and to generally avoid opening up trade with third-world countries then and afterwards. There would have been more high-wage likely unionized jobs. The working classes would have continued spending their higher wages on middle-class services like they did in the post-war era. There would have been secondary effects of less time wasted on education for people who didn't need it and less money pushing up education prices in general. Some people act like the US would have self-destructed if it hadn't opened up the third world to free trade. It wouldn't have. The alternative would simply have been to keep going as the US had gone before.

There is no scenario where Americans would have thought it sensible to become an isolationist state, ignoring the rest of the world as if they didn't exist in the 70's. If anything it's entirely un-American, as we have been very open to trade since our founding. I also don't really think you understand there was NO 3rd world to open up to for much of the post WWII era, so your whole theory is premised on the idea that the rest of the world existed in anywhere near the same form in the mid-40's as they did by the late 60's. The 3rd world had productive capabilities by the 70's. By the 50's? Lol no. (This is to say nothing of the political and foreign policy backlash of an isolationist stance on "3rd world" trade, had we gone that inane route).

I also think it's cute you think we would have had the same technological and engineering ability or innovations without opening up trade to 3rd world nations. I'm curious how an iPhone and it's million apps and the hundreds of thousands of jobs it has created would be manufactured in a high-wage unionized America. That's rich stuff.

Btw, your isolationist stance explains your xenophobia on immigration quite adequately in hindsight.

If you're asking what I would do today, I would impose tariffs that penalize countries with substandard labor laws, environmental laws, and totalitarian qualities if not penalize cheaper than minimum-wage labor altogether.

Any studies that show this is effective and doesn't lead to a tariff-based trading war? Anything at all? Bueller?

 

[First]

By the way, there's an article today on the shortage of skilled labor in the U.S. here. Read up.

 

[Infohawk]

No, it simply does not. Comparative advantage means that someone replaces the work you because they have something you don't (lower wages primarily), but that has nothing to do with the wages in a completely different country with very different local, state and federal circumstances, be it standards of living, labor laws, etc.

You are acting like the laws of supply and demand stop at national boundaries (without trade protections). It just doesn't seem logical at all. I'm not sure there's much point discussing this topic you are going to act like there is not an international labor market. I am not saying that there is an international job market for ALL jobs, but you seem to be denying that it exists at all.

For example, take programmers, probably the prototypical offshored job of any industry. Since 2000, wages for programmers have increased in real terms an average of 1.5%/yr. Under your contention, this would simply not be possible, as under your theory foreign and domestic wages equalize. Yet, it is a reality that this prototypical offshored position is seeing consistent gains in wages.

1.5% gains in an industry that is supposed to be in crazy demand (such that they need to take in H1Bs) is not that impressive. In terms of why it has fallen, it would depend on the quantity of programmers abroad. IT has been and should continue to be a large growth area. I'm not saying that industry growth will never offset some of these effects or that some of the jobs aren't prone to being outsourced (like database administrators who need to be in permanent direct communication with their managers according to some). Mostly though, the fact that programming wages, a trade that is behind the biggest technological revolution of out time, hasn't really increased isn't really inconsistent with what I'm talking about.

This is not how markets work, your world view is false. See above. There is simply no way Americans will accept that reduction in the standard of living, and they haven't.

Again we go back to the question of whether you think there has been a decline in American quality of life. I thought you at least recognized a decline, but now it seems like you're going back to saying there hasn't been one. In my opinion, many Americans have accepted a reduction in quality of life (and again I dont' think having an iphone makes up for not being able to afford college, a house, or having a stable job market). I don't think they will necessarily continue to take it. It's no surprise Obama is starting to attack Romney on offshoring. There's a political demand for it.

The "protectionism" of datacenter laws is a NATURAL market force, whose purpose had NOTHING to do with trade imbalance or offshoring. There is simply no way you can claim that artificial barriers to trade should occur so that fewer jobs are being offshored unless you can show it has reduced American employment and standards of living in a causal way. You can't. Your lack of sources or studies to back up your claims is deafening.

I love how after pages and pages you finally find a study from 1994 and you feel that allows you to get on your high horse about studies. 1994! Give me a break.

It is ridiculous to define "NATURAL" as a government-imposed limit. A trade barrier is just as NATURAL.

Both parties have agreed for decades on ideas that were bad for the country? Really? I'm curious; which ones, specifically?

Were you a fan of the Iraq war? America's foreign policy in general? Please answer this one because I do get the sense from you are a fan of conventional wisdom and the status quo. If you question question that the parties can agree on bad policy, this is hopeless. And if you do realize that they can agree on bad policies, it's yet another example of your intellectually dishonest style of debate that ultimately ends up being a waste of time for everyone involved.

As I have said numerous times now; cheaper labor means nothing when:
1) Cheap labor /= efficient labor.
2) Cheap labor /= well-trained labor.
3) Cheap labor, even when used, leads to expansion of production and inevitably leads to higher skilled job creation domestically to fund the R&D for further production.
4) And most importantly, the majority of jobs in the U.S. are employed in small businesses with less than 50 employees, virtually none of which offshore. There's also the reality that the VAST majority of total jobs in the U.S. simply cannot offshore jobs to different locations and time zones if they require a physical presence, which is the lion's share of jobs in the first place, like healthcare or services.

You accuse me of being xenophobic but I'm not sure how you think the US can maintain efficiency and training advantages. I don't think Americans are inherently better workers than people around the world. I don't deny difference in labor qualities existed in the past and that they may still exist, but they are dwindling. They are pretty much nonexistant at this point for a trade like manufacturing.

There is no scenario where Americans would have thought it sensible to become an isolationist state, ignoring the rest of the world as if they didn't exist in the 70's. If anything it's entirely un-American, as we have been very open to trade since our founding. I also don't really think you understand there was NO 3rd world to open up to for much of the post WWII era, so your whole theory is premised on the idea that the rest of the world existed in anywhere near the same form in the mid-40's as they did by the late 60's. The 3rd world had productive capabilities by the 70's. By the 50's? Lol no. (This is to say nothing of the political and foreign policy backlash of an isolationist stance on "3rd world" trade, had we gone that inane route).

We're starting to go in circles here. I've already addressed this point. You pretend like major free trade initiatives never happened. If the US had been trading like this for all its history, those free trade initiatives would never have been necessary. The fact is free trade geared up after world war II. Nixon opening up trade with China in the 1970s was watershed moment in terms of the third-world.

Your other points don't really seem to contradict what I'm saying. I understand that there was not a manufacturing base in the third world in the 1950s. I'm saying that shows that the universe would have gone on and could still go on without the third-world in play.

I also think it's cute you think we would have had the same technological and engineering ability or innovations without opening up trade to 3rd world nations. I'm curious how an iPhone and it's million apps and the hundreds of thousands of jobs it has created would be manufactured in a high-wage unionized America. That's rich stuff.

Widespread smartphone adaptation might be a ways off. I don't deny that. Again, we've already discussed this. I pointed out to you that most people would laugh in your face if you told them gadgets were worth giving up the decreases in quality of living that many people have experienced.

Additionally, you ignore basic ethical considerations beyond economic ones. We could have all sorts of cheap luxuries if you wanted to trade with a slave state with no worker protections. It's easy for you to say your electronics are worth the Foxconn suicides.

Again, I'm not really the one that sees this as black and white like you seem to. To you, neoliberal economic considerations are 100% great and don't seem to have noteworthy costs. I recognize they have benefits but simply don't think they're worth the costs in every circumstance.

Btw, your isolationist stance explains your xenophobia on immigration quite adequately in hindsight.

This is the second time you've brought this topic up. Clearly this is a personal thing with you. Too bad you can't discuss something rationally without attacking your opponent. If you think that opposing illegal immigration is xenophobic, I don't know what to tell you. I don't think it is.

Any studies that show this is effective and doesn't lead to a tariff-based trading war? Anything at all? Bueller?

I recognize the costs that would come with raising trade barriers now, including a trade war if not worse. Again, I know you think you've shifted the burden of proof with your 1994 study but you haven't. Stop acting like economics is a field where someone can conclusively solve an issue in global economics like someone would publish a mathematical proof.

By the way, there's an article today on the shortage of skilled labor in the U.S. here. Read up.

I don't know what you think this adds. I recognize certain industries in the US will grow, especially health care with Obamacare. Like I said before, I don't think you can have a healthy economy built primarily on healthcare.