TPP was a brilliant strategic multilateral policy response by Obama to the economic threat posed by a China, a despotic, big-brother regime. TPP provided an alternative regulatory umbrella over the fragile states of the Pacific region to shield them from the economic muscle and aggressive economic policies of China. Biden is the only one if the top six candidates to support TPP.
Much of the American left is out to lunch on the issue of trade. Tariffs are, in general, foolish, with rare exceptions for limited periods of time.
Multilateralism of the past 20 years resulted in the steepest drop in poverty around the world in human history.
Much of the American left plays into President Banana-Doral’s hands by echoing him on trade resentments.
The majority of the European left, especially in the continent, have been far more suspicious of go-it-alone nationalism, undoubtedly in part due to long memories of the lead ups to the World Wars.
“There’s actually compelling evidence describing a process of mutual reinforcement between democratization and entrance into preferential trade agreements. In short, the problem facing the international community today isn’t free trade — it’s insufficient economic regulation and poor governance.”
Certain candidates play into Banana-Doral’s hands unwittingly by agreeing with his wacky unilateralism, seemingly suddenly forgetting the lessons of the 20th century.
“Progressive democrats should be designing trade policies that promote free trade while providing a more robust and compassionate safety net — government policies that tax and redistribute the gains from trade so that all Americans can benefit from free trade should be as central to progressives’ policy agenda as a progressive income tax and universal health care.” Hilary Matfess, The Progressive Case for Free Trade
I’m gonna say that I don’t know anywhere near enough about trade, and TPP in particular, as I ought; and that your comments about the lessons of the 20th century seem apt.
If Dems – including and especially Warren and Sanders — are going to challenge the free trade regimes of Clinton/Bush/Obama — and challenge Trump’s tariffs and seemingly needless trade wars, then we need to know what we’re getting ourselves into. I’m guessing that few of us do.
Going back to the status quo ante — pre-neoliberalism, if you will — doesn’t seem possible, and attempting it seems unwise.
Absolutely fair. My fear, though, is that many candidates are drifting so far afield they play into President Banana’s hands.
People want to believe that trade deals amount to the USA trading wheat to China in exchange for cell phones….it’s not that simple.
From what I have been able to discern, trade deals have more to with class than with nationality. Microsoft and Pfizer are at the negotiating table, workers are not.
Trade has more to do with drug patents and copyrights than anything else.
NAFTA was sold to us on the promise that it would create a booming Mexican middle class that would be a customer to higher paid workers in the USA, producing higher tech good for Mexico. Gee, that did not happen, did it?
Biden is tone deaf to the needs of the American working class, but he is far from alone in his party.
It’s always better for a country to be inside where they have more influence, rather than outside. Free trade easily passes the greatest good for greatest number test.
Not to me, not by my test, not to the test of many economists.
Microsoft and Pfizer don’t literally have seats at the table, I assume. These are treaties among countries, not corporations.
Both sides seem to get this issue wrong. The globalists always paper over the real loss of jobs, community, and dignity that accompanied the deindustrialization of the US. Anyone here been to Detroit? Or Akron? Or Gary Indiana? I lived in the Midwest for almost ten years and have seen the devastating effect these trade agreements have had on communities. So many abandoned buildings it’s like a neutron bomb went off.
The nativists are also wrong. I’ve also been to Manila, Seoul, and Tokyo and know that these loyal and staunch American allies would have benefitted from free trade with the US. My wife’s English speaking cousins have benefitted enormously from Manila call centers for American companies. It’s given them a real shot out of poverty and into the middle class.
The interior of America has cheap housing but no jobs. The coasts have jobs but no housing. The Green New Deal could connect the two, using green technology. This is the kind of “middle of the road” policy we need to pursue. Connect the losers or globalization to the winners and do so in a way that prepares us for a beyond carbon future. I don’t see any candidate with quite that package. We should pass TPP and offset it with the GND.
I agree with much of what you say and disagree with Terry’s false equivalence about the left and trade. You state it correctly as a “nativist” position that is wrong. I would not include much of the left who is skeptical of free trade in that group. Wanting American Only is not the same as wanting agreements with strong wage and environmental standards.
I got into an argument with one of my Nigerian friends about this and he made the valid point that it’s primarily the West that wrecked the economies of these places due to imperialism (single resource economies and extraction monopolies) and later Cold War politics (tolerating kleptocrats or white rule to block the Russians). Today we saddle these same countries with punitive IMF rules and now are holding them to labor and environmental standards they likely cannot reach while developing independent industrial capability. Not to mention we still dump or own subsidized surplus agriculture in the form of aid that crippled their ability to grow their own food.
So in theory if everybody plays by the same rules then free trade can lift everyone, but just like some students need scaffolding or IEPs, some leeway should be given to places historically oppressed by the West. The Philippines especially deserves most favored nation status since we essentially governed it as a state without representation for half a century and then encouraged military rule for nearly another half century. Developing their economy into an independent force is a win win for both countries.
I largely agree on labor and environmental standards. For the latter it’s likely their standards are stricter than the US. They were ahead of us in utilizing wind power and reducing plastic. For labor it’s likely they are worse, far worse in specific cases. I would encourage reciprocity in these areas. There’s still the issue that wages are lower since cost of living is a lot lower, and firms will be tempted to move there and other places with naturally occurring lower wages. Tariffs to prevent that have not been proven to work so far, so something must be done. Maybe through much higher corporate taxation as Tom and Warren suggest.
You ought to read “Rigged” by Dean Baker where he explains how lifting people in Manila does not require bringing people in Detroit down. It’s a free download. Chapter 1. pages 5,6,7…...In short, there is no truth to the story that the job loss and wage
stagnation faced by manufacturing workers in the United States and other
wealthy countries was a necessary price for reducing poverty in the
developing world. 5 This is a fiction that is used to justify the upward
redistribution of income in rich countries.
I reject the suggestion that the suffering of Detroit is caused by globalization.
I think that what is actually happening here is that top 0.1% (or even 0.001%) is literally sucking the wealth from everyone and everywhere else. That has everything to do with who owns our government, our media, and to a great extent our political parties and almost nothing to do with globalization.
I suggest that ruins of Detroit, Akron, Gary, and for that matter Fitchburg, Lawrence, Pittsfield, and a host of similar cities and towns here in Massachusetts are the detritus left behind by sucking the wealth and cash out of once-thriving communities. I don’t believe that Joe Biden is going to fix that. Neither will Michael Bloomberg or any other “centrist”.
The way to restore and rebuild America is to recapture the wealth plundered and hoarded by the tiny number of people at the very top. Elizabeth Warren talks about the six hundred seven billionaires. She asks each billionaire to pay 6% of their net worth in taxes each year. That’s THREE BILLION DOLLARS — from just one person!. No wonder Joe Biden is launching such vicious personal attacks against her — she’s beating him in the polls and attacking the core of his life-long financial support.
Is Joe Biden proposing to clawback anything at all from Mr. Bloomberg? Is Mr. Bloomberg himself proposing to tax himself? Of course not.
How far would THREE BILLION DOLLARS go towards rebuilding the devastated gateway cities of Massachusetts? This year’s Chapter 70 is about $4.9 B. Ms. Warren’s wealth tax from this single billionaire “Democratic” candidate alone could increase the statewide funding for the 351 cities and towns by FIFTY PERCENT. That would help our schools and reduce the pressure on the most regressive tax in the state — our property tax. Or it would allow a SIX-FOLD increase in our annual statewide transportation budget. All from just ONE billionaire.
Globalization isn’t our problem. NAFTA, the TPP, or similar agreements aren’t a solution that helps anybody.
Wealth concentration is our problem. Decades of cutting taxes on the very wealthy (starting with the Reagan administration) is our problem. Elizabeth Warren wants to solve that problem. Joe Biden wants to sweep it under the rug.
My example above (the three billion dollars) is for Michael Bloomberg, allegedly contemplating a run as a “Democrat”.
There’s a lot of reasons Detroit is a failed state within the US. I’d rather our government figure out a way to fix it (and Flint) rather than blame the victims. Not saying anyone here is, but it’s easy to blame laziness from the right as JD Vance is or globalization from the left and right or racism from the left. All have shades of truth to them.
Glass House which is an excellent book on the decline of the factory town of Lancaster OH shows how venture capital and equity traders destroyed their company rather than outsourcing. And the widening cultural and economic gap between workers and managers. Who used to drink and bowl together and now lead very distinct lives with distinct trajectories.
The gap between workers and managers is at least as old as organized labor. Your comment brings to mind one of the more memorable aspects of a brief sojourn I had in 1982. I lived in Pittsburgh for a year after being recruited by a then-exciting startup.
I lived in a middle-class suburb of Pittsburgh, and several of my neighbors were current or ex managers in area steel mills. The mills were closing right and left as the US steel industry was collapsing, and my neighbors were out of work just like the union workers on picket lines and in unemployment lines. It was a grim time for all involved.
When I talked to the union workers, they blamed management. When I talked to my neighbors, they blamed the “lazy”, “irresponsible”, and “greedy” union workers. Neither side was remotely willing to face the reality that both sides were victims of an industry collapse that was much larger than any of them.
The aspect that was most striking was a Christmas party at the home of one of my neighbors, where the hosts were explicit and adamant that no union members were welcome. I was quizzed about my standing before receiving the invitation. The animosity between the two sides was astonishingly (to me) intense. My neighbors in Glenshaw, PA would never EVER drink, bowl, or fraternize with ANY union workers.
I declined the invitation.
So I wonder why both sides could not band together to come up with a viable solution for their community which both acknowledged the economic realities and avoided blaming each other.
@I wonder why both sides could not …:
That is the point of my comment.
Both sides could not because each side despised the other. Each side believed and internalized the messaging they received from their respective peers and information sources that the other was to blame.
Both sides were victimized by the ultra-wealthy power brokers that owned and controlled both of them. The Pittsburgh mills did not close because union workers were lazy, careless, or greedy. The Pittsburgh mills did not close because management despised labor and purposely shuttered plants rather than pay higher wages.
The Pittsburgh mills closed because the executives of the major steel providers determined decades earlier that they would cash out their holdings rather than make the investments in money and time necessary to meet overseas competition from brand new factories and revolutionary (at the time) processes and techniques.
American steel executives saw the handwriting on the wall and ran their businesses into the ground — taking enormous profits and dividends along the way — rather than invest in rebuilding them. American steel executives “diversified” their portfolios, covering their expected losses from failing mills with gains from other acquisitions. Those executives insured that their lives and fortunes were unaffected, while intentionally throwing their workers and managers to the dogs.
American steel executives complained about “out of control” union wage increases while knowing full well that Japanese producers were building plants that produced better quality steel with ten or a hundred times fewer worker-hours needed for each ton.
The economic reality was that steel industry executives threw both labor and management under the bus — knowingly, intentionally, and over a period of decades.
These were steel towns where the mills were the entire reason for the existence of the town. Virtually ALL revenue in the town — wages, local business revenues, local taxes — all of it came from the mills. When the mills closed down, there were no schools. No police. No fire. No stores. No banks. Nothing. There were no other jobs, because all the other towns in the region were suffering the same fate.
There was no federal help because Ronald Reagan had just been elected (this was 1982) and the prevailing government dogma preached about “self reliance” and “individual responsibility”. The government line was “these workers brought it on themselves”.
I don’t doubt that some of the foreign competition was unfair. It didn’t matter, because the outcome would have been the same however the “game” was played.
It looks to me as though the same dynamics killed and are killing the rest of the “heartland”. The economic plundering and destruction will continue for as long we allow the ultra-wealthy to make the same self-serving decisions unconstrained by government or morality.
I see absolutely ZERO evidence that Joe Biden understands any of this. He has dedicated his entire career in public service to representing and advancing the interests of those corporate executives who bring this devastation on our nation. I don’t care whether or not he nibbles around the edges at high-profile and irrelevant stances on issues that don’t affect the core problem.
Until Americans put a stop to the abuses and exploitation of the top 0.01%, our economic malaise will only worsen. Free trade agreements won’t help. The ACA won’t help. Ditching Donald Trump won’t help.
People like Michael Bloomberg are vampires literally sucking the lifeblood from our economy (circulating wealth is literally the lifeblood of an economy). Neither Joe Biden nor Michael Bloomberg himself are going to put a stop to that.
Elizabeth Warren and to a lesser extent (in my opinion) Bernie Sanders are the only two candidates who demonstrate that they are aware, willing, and able to do anything at all to solve this core problem.
I’m starting to wonder what Biden ever did to you. What happened to being the guy from Scranton who has always enjoyed AFAIK lots of Labor support?
Your scenario sounds eerily familiar to me having lived in and around Lowell and knowing the story of the textile mills.
@What happened to being the guy from Scranton:
I suffered enough severe economic hardship to be acutely sensitive to Mr. Biden’s lifelong commitment to advancing the interests of predatory lenders, banks, and similar Delaware constituents.
I’m disappointed that you either aren’t more familiar with his record or don’t care about it.
At the top of my list is his outright betrayal of Labor with his 2005 bankruptcy giveaway to the plunderers (emphasis mine):
The credit card companies tried and failed to pass similar legislation in 2000. President Bill Clinton pocket-vetoed that bill. Joe Biden supported it and voted for the bill. The industry tried again and failed in 2001 — Joe Biden supported that attempt as well. The industry finally succeeded after going to the well a third time, with Mr. Biden’s enthusiastic support and cheerleading.
Joe Biden is no friend of working class men and women, whether or not organized labor admits that.
Well, I’ve always been somewhat forgiving of representing banks being from Delaware, and I generally figure that legislation that passes by a 74-25 margin is probably pretty reasonable, or at least not something to hold against someone as he seems to have had plenty of company even among Dems.
I think the 75-24 vote shows how easily bought most of Congress is. Having worked in a consumer bankruptcy firm I can attest that many of these people were victims of a system that was rigged against them. It’s a safety net that corporations enjoy that is now arbitrarily restricted to once every 7 years for ordinary consumers. Not to mention you need to take credit counseling courses that are run by the credit card companies. It both perpetuated myth that bankruptcy filers are irresponsible and in need of “counseling” while sending another $150 the creditors way.
You’ll need to show me finance reports before getting quite that cynical, and even then I have a hard time with the idea that so many people in both parties are that blatantly bribed.
What “finance reports” are you talking about?
If you want to ignore the way those 20 Democrats shafted working-class men and women (and middle-class men and women as well), that is certainly your right.
In my view, it is both incorrect and irresponsible to argue that the legislation in question is mischaracterized by James or me. The entire point of that bill was to plunder and screw working-class men and women. Joe Biden was its lead cheerleader in the Senate.
JConway accused Congress of being heavily and bipartisanly bought, but I would want to see who contributed to whom and what the actual correlation is.
I think that comment was metaphorical.
Finance reports from the turn of the century are not required to discern that the finance industry and its lobbyists were heavy contributors to Senate candidates and incumbents of both parties. The Republican party has long been aligned with those predatory interests.
A simple Google search (enter the following: “finance industry influence senate”) yields hits like “FIVE LOBBYISTS FOR EACH MEMBER OF CONGRESS ON FINANCIAL REFORMS” describing lobbying events of 2010 (emphasis mine):
There is no reason to believe this 2010 behavior was new or unusual. The banking and financial services sector has been a heavy — even dominant — campaign contribution and lobbying force for as long as I’ve been politically aware (since the late 1960s). Various contemporary sources reported that MBNA was the single largest contributor to Mr. Biden in 2004 and 2005. In addition to the direct contributions from MBNA, the now-infamous Hunter Biden was “hired out of law school by MBNA and later worked for the company”.
I’m not alleging that Mr. Biden or his son did anything illegal in 2000-2005, and I don’t see James making any similar allegations.
I AM saying instead that the support of Joe Biden was legally bought and paid for by the industry through companies like MBNA. Bought and paid for directly and through family ties. I am saying that the rest of those Senate Democratic votes were similarly legally bought and paid for.
I’m saying that MBNA and the industry it epitomized was and is engrained in Joe Biden and his entire family. Its corrupt influence is as pervasive for Mr. Biden as the corrupt influence of the gambling industry on Mr. DeLeo — who has similar personal, financial, and family ties to the industry and who’s public policy reflects those ties.
I am saying that this is another of example of the “legal corruption” that is so pervasive within our government. It is shameful for any Senator or other elected official to participate in it, legal or not. It is particularly offensive for candidate for President to participate in it, legal or not.
Joe Biden and his family have spent a lifetime enthusiastically participating in this legal corruption.
Elizabeth Warren has not.
You asked me why I so passionately oppose Mr. Biden’s candidacy and I’ve told you.
You mention his alleged support from Labor, and I showed you why that’s irrelevant. I think the difference between 74-25 and 73-26 was irrelevant then, What is interesting is how Joe Biden voted, because Joe Biden is the only one of those “Democrats” running for president today.
There were 44 Democrats in that Senate. No Republicans voted against the bill. 25 other Democrats voted against the bill, including both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Kerry (our senators at the time).
None of the other Democrats who voted for this bill are running for President. None of the Democrats who voted for this bill claim to be a champion of working-class men and women.
Why on earth is a vote to betray working-class men and women — not just once, but three times — not “something to hold against” this man?
There are other reasons I oppose him, and we’ve talked about them here. For the forty-odd years I’ve known Joe Biden, he’s been on the wrong side on issue after issue.
You make my point for me – If even Kennedy and Kerry voted for the legislation, being among the most liberal of Senators who definitely have claimed to be champions of working people with good reason, along with 23 other Dems, my contention is even stronger that supporting the bill was not THAT unreasonable.
I fear you misread my comment. Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Kerry voted AGAINST the bill.
The bill was an abomination for everyone except predatory lenders and creditors.
I indeed misread – sorry about that – but I still think a bill with such broad support is likely well within bounds. Plus it’s only been within the last handful of years that Dems have been expected to be very progressive.
No apology needed, and I appreciate the walk-back.
I have expected Democrats to be very progressive for pretty much as long as I’ve been a Democrat.
The Democratic support for this reprehensible legislation is why so many Americans conclude that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Saying that “everybody does it” or “everybody did it” may be true, but I don’t think it helps persuade anybody that Joe Biden is the best candidate for President.
It may not be the thing one wants to tout. I was just pushing back on implication that it makes him a DINO.
The AUMF (Iraq invasion vote in 2002) passed by a similar margin of 77 -23, with Biden voting for the invasion. A high margin of victory is not justification for horrible politics.
And I have previously cited that margin as a reason why that vote is forgivable as well. Plus as I recall at the time it was very good politics; voting against was what was politically risky. IMO it is almost always ridiculous to say how dare you vote for something that had such broad support. You are certainly free to disagree on the merits (which I do/did regarding AUMF), but the margin does effectively shield someone from charges of being a traitor to the party.
Tom, what policies would you support in Massachusetts to redistribute the concentrated wealth of Eastern Massachusetts to communities like Fitchburg, Lawrence, Pittsfield, Springfield, etc? Perhaps a small wealth tax on real estate over $500k which would be sent to those communities?
Plenty of people in the USA, including this state, need help with employment.
You don’t have to travel to the interior of America to see the impact of deindustrialization – travel to Western Massachusetts. You will see the same abandoned buildings, the same poverty. Perhaps so unimaginable to people who live and work in prosperous eastern MA that they can’t even internalize it.
While I can’t disagree with you that people in Manila have benefited from the call centers placed there, nor would I probably even argue that the people of Manila may do a better job than poor people in the USA, as you strip away layer after layer of jobs that *anyone* can do in the USA and send them to other countries, leaving behind only the jobs that *some* people can do, that leaves us with a pretty big problem – people who cannot perform work in the USA.
The Democratic answer has been tepid, and falls into two categories:
Neither of those things are palatable to most people – or are even realistic.
Using Massachusetts as a microcosm, how many people here would support the idea of relocating a million people from Western MA into the Boston area – but doing it in a way that didn’t give the people already in Boston the windfall of increased property value.
For example, eliminating all zoning laws, so that if you live in Brookline, in a $400k condo (which is simply the 2nd floor of a triple-decker) in a neighborhood of low-rises, without zoning laws, a six-story apartment building could now be built next door, I would point to this article that shows how Brookline’s zoning laws are
In short, would you support transforming Boston into Tokyo while at the same time making your “investment” in your own property worth less money? I’d be shocked if anyone supports that.
So the other alternative would be more direct transfer payments. How many people here would support, say, a 10% income tax instead of 5%, with the excess money being paid to unemployed/underemployed people in Western Massachusetts as cash payments? Anyone? Bueller?
No, supporting those things are pretty much against our nature. So what is the alternative? indirect subsidies that appear merit-based
One example of this is the minimum wage. The minimum wage effectively takes money from you and me (in the form of higher prices) and gives it to people who are not capable of earning more than this in the economy with their current set of economic skills. That is harsh, but indisputably true. I do happen support the idea of the minimum wage because I think that people with less economic skills than necessary *should* be supported, but it is an indirect subsidy nonetheless.
Mandatory unionization is another way we achieve this – like it or not, the fact that Massachusetts requires union labor for government work is a transfer of money from you and me to people who cannot otherwise command the wages they receive without that law. Again, I support this because I think that we should be propping up middle-class jobs, but you can’t possibly argue that this isn’t a subsidy, especially for government work (where there is no “owner” making profits – the “owners” are the taxpayers).
Another example would be forgoing efficiency, for example, not allowing efficiencies of scale. Massachusetts used to do this with liquor stores – up until 2012, no one could hold more than three liquor licenses. That is being gradually increased to nine in 2020. There is still a limit though, which impedes efficiency in the market.
Along all those lines, a tariff is in the same category. Instead of allowing consumers unfettered access to the lowest possible prices on a particular good, tariffs impede that pricing to give local producers the ability to compete. The result? Higher prices, but more people participating in the economy.
You can actually see the benefit of this in Springfield. One of the highest visible positive things that Deval Patrick did was to require the MBTA to purchase rail cars assembled in Massachusetts. This cost the state more money, however, it allowed a rail car plant to be built in Springfield. That plant employs 168 workers, including 108 union workers. The plant is also fulfilling contracts from other US-based projects, though Trump’s trade war has unfortunately scuttled a number of them.
TL:DR: Tariffs are a form of subsidy which give marginal workers more opportunity, not unlike minimum wage, unions, or other government policies. If done right, they can be beneficial.
I agree with all of the above, I think we can do both.
One example of how NAFTA influenced a central Mass company. I saw things from both sides of the workforce having started out sweeping factory floors and later going to management meetings. Both sides saw Washington as the culprit which allowed corporate ( based outside the US) to move machines from Mass, where guys were making $30 an hour, to Mexico where guys were making $30 a day. As part of their severance several workers had to go train the Mexicans on the machines which a month earlier they had been running themselves. 400 – 500 good jobs left the US, when you count jobs in shipping, maintenance, support, etc.
The culprit in your tale is not NAFTA, it is the automation that produced machines that were orders of magnitude more productive than the labor-intensive factories they replaced. The phenomena you described certainly happened. It certainly was devastating. The factories moved to Mexico because the new plants were built in Mexico — or China, or wherever.
It is true that some of those countries allow or encourage working conditions that are horrific compared to standards here. So long as American workers happily buy goods at places like Walmart produced by those sweatshops, the practices will continue. So long as Americans elect government officials who allow products made in such sweatshops to be imported without penalty, the practices will continue.
The problems you describe are very VERY real. The “solutions” offered by the GOP make those problems worse, not better. NAFTA, TPP, and similar trade agreements are mostly irrelevant.
Tom, as I posted moments ago, “These were also considered “high skilled” jobs, operating very technical machines and precision specs.” They did not ship the jobs to Mexico and then automate them.
Plus, automation is taking jobs from across the economic spectrum, not just common laborers.
I don’t know the specifics of this particular move. The general trend, though, has been to build newer factories outside of the US and move production to them rather than rebuild inside the US. Those new factories use more recent equipment, even if highly-skilled workers are needed to operate them. “Highly skilled” often means “able to program equipment using dashboards and displays.”
I agree that the impact of automation goes far beyond common laborers. I’m pretty sure that programming (my field) will be automated within a few years. The technology to so is very close.
Perhaps we agree that NAFTA and TPP aren’t the problem here. Even automation isn’t really the problem — it’s still a tool. The problem is our fundamental assumption that the very wealthy can do whatever they like and take as much wealth as they like with impunity.
When Labor has a seat at the table during NAFTA and TPP treaties, we can call them fair and something for the greater good. Until such time, they are just tools used by the wealthy to further game the system to their favor.
We have a general disdain for labor in the USA, especially labor that does not require a college degree.
I keep going back to conversations I have with Democrats who will not support higher wages for what they deem “low skilled labor” and their reply“If you want a living wage, get an education, better skills and a better job” ….a fascinating way to spin “I acknowledge this current job needs to be done, but whomever does that job deserves to be in poverty.
We’ve been down this road a gazillion times already. Let’s not do it again.
John, I sympathize with you, and I’m glad to see you fighting the tide here.
I have followed/noted deindustrialization for over 30 years. I have lately been shocked at the amount of revisionism that is taking place, primarily that “automation, not globalization, took the jobs”. It is a false talking point with a veneer of truth to it.
If automation was responsible for the decline in jobs, we would see either new or converted automated factories humming along in the communities where the jobs are lost. Instead, we see either old empty factories, factories converted to housing, or empty lots. No new automated factories here.
The veneer of truth is that there *has* been automation, and there *are* automated factories – in other countries. I worked for a manufacturer in Massachusetts, and yes, they automated, as manufacturing companies have done forever. But they didn’t have massive layoffs – they retrained/retained many of the workers for other positions. It wasn’t rapid, it was enough for the people and the region to handle.
That all changed post-NAFTA, and especially post China-WTO, though it was happening before that too. I saw it in Western Massachusetts as factory after factory closed, with the manufacturing either directly moving overseas, or the company just not being able to compete with cheap imports.
Now, 30 years later, the revisionism has hardened, and people actually believe that the USA *can’t* have manufacturing jobs, so it is a waste of time to even think about it. Democrats can differ on that point, but where we should not differ is what do we do with all the people?
I think that a Democrat needs to come up with a workable plan to help a community like Evansville, Indiana – and not just chide the people there about their beliefs/politics, and tell them that they should abandon Evansville and go to college and move to Boston.
In the example I gave it was the exact same machines unbolted in Mass and moved to Mexico. Friends who were factory workers went to Laredo Texas where a couple of the machines were set up to train the Mexicans in a classroom setting. The rest of the machines were in Mexico.
I know the economies are changing in different countries at different speeds. Andrew Yang is the only candidate who seems to understand the complexities, and he seldom gets to speak.
If I’m correct, did that company make parts for the auto industry? An acquaintance of mine was involved in delivering machinery to the Mexican site, where he said the people worked 10-12 hours a day, six days a week for less than a US worker made in one 8 hour day. These were also considered “high skilled” jobs, operating very technical machines and precision specs.