What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

No, I don't but I don't know why what happened in 1800s is included in the discussion of the Post-OPEC embargo manufacturing decline.

I am pretty sure the height of the manufacturing economy in the West was in the 1900s.

[The Minsky Moment]

The essential premise - that negative social consequences like higher mortality or addiction rates may follow from a decline in stable employment opportunities  - is not that counter-intuitive, in fact it would be pretty surprising to find otherwise.

But why does it have to to manufacturing? It would make sense to me to make jobs that will be useful in the future, not trying to artificially recreate the industrial economy of decades ago.

It doesn't really - the issue is that in certain parts of the country, declines in manufacturing employment opportunities weren't offset by equivalent availability in other sector.

The second question is what does this have to do with NAFTA or trade policy more generally?  Don't know.

[CountDeMoney]

Yes there is manufacturing work to be done but it is not the manufacturing work of decades ago. Raising taxes to make goods more expensive for the poor is not going to solve the problem. We are transitioning to a new economy, one that has the potential to be far better.

We have already transitioned.  Quite some time ago, actually.

[Valmy]

The essential premise - that negative social consequences like higher mortality or addiction rates may follow from a decline in stable employment opportunities  - is not that counter-intuitive, in fact it would be pretty surprising to find otherwise.

But why does it have to to manufacturing? It would make sense to me to make jobs that will be useful in the future, not trying to artificially recreate the industrial economy of decades ago.

It doesn't really - the issue is that in certain parts of the country, declines in manufacturing employment opportunities weren't offset by equivalent availability in other sector.

The second question is what does this have to do with NAFTA or trade policy more generally?  Don't know.

Right. But sometimes I wonder why these things need to be so regional. Surely in the age of the internet there should be lots of work that can be done wherever you are. Or at least one might think. Yet it seems to be having the opposite effect: people are being forced into cities like never before. I wonder why that is?

[Razgovory]

I wonder if the opposite is true.  Has the increase in manufacturing made for more happy marriages in China?

[grumbler]

Are you suggesting that back in the height of the industrial revolution there was less drinking problems and less spousal abuse? Because I am pretty sure it is the opposite. But back then people were saying factory work is alienating and dehumanizing. Not sure what is so ennobling about it now.

At the height of US manufacturing (which was post-WW2) there were, in fact, fewer divorces, less reported spousal abuse, less drug use, etc, whether you are pretty sure the opposite is true, or not.

The nobility of work has nothing to do with it, whether you believe that or not.  We could even discuss the reasons why the loss of manufacturing jobs causes problems in some communities, if you were not so fucking belligerent and determined to be contrary.

[grumbler]

It doesn't really - the issue is that in certain parts of the country, declines in manufacturing employment opportunities weren't offset by equivalent availability in other sector.

The second question is what does this have to do with NAFTA or trade policy more generally?  Don't know.

The third question is whether or not increased opportunities created by trade offset lost opportunities created by trade.  For 250 years, we have believed that it does.  Exploiting the gains requires labor mobility, though.

[Eddie Teach]

I wonder if the opposite is true.  Has the increase in manufacturing made for more happy marriages in China?

More comfortable ones.

[Valmy]

At the height of US manufacturing (which was post-WW2) there were, in fact, fewer divorces, less reported spousal abuse, less drug use, etc, whether you are pretty sure the opposite is true, or not.

Drug use...yes because drugs were less available. But I said drinking, not drugs.

And spousal abuse in an era where beating your wife and kids was considered a necessary evil if not positive good? Color me skeptical.

We could even discuss the reasons why the loss of manufacturing jobs causes problems in some communities, if you were not so fucking belligerent and determined to be contrary.

Ooooooh so belligerent. Here I am talking on the internet and stopping grumbler from talking about what he wants to talk about.

I am not determined for it to be the contrary at all. This is a strawman. I am saying any economic change causes problems. The rise of manufacturing work created all kinds of social disruption. That did not mean we should have smashed all the factories and sent everybody back out to be peasants then anymore than it means we should be trying to recreate the past now. People at the time romanticized the peasant and the artisan and now they are romanticizing the industrial worker. This is nostalgia talking. We should be focusing on moving forward with work and the economy. That is what I am saying and I was not aware I was threatening anybody with violence physical or verbal in doing so. My apologies if I was.

[Eddie Teach]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we need a version of the smiley for Valmy. 

[Valmy]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we need a version of the smiley for Valmy. 

Am I really that scary? CdM must be rubbing off on me.

[Grey Fox]

You have topics that triggers you just like Berkut used to be triggered.

[Eddie Teach]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we need a version of the smiley for Valmy. 

Am I really that scary? CdM must be rubbing off on me.

You intimidated Grumbler, who fought at Guadalcanal and Gettysburg.

[Admiral Yi]

Am I really that scary? CdM must be rubbing off on me.

You need to pick better role models.

[grumbler]

Drug use...yes because drugs were less available. But I said drinking, not drugs.

Who cares about the specific details of your strawman?  We are discussing Navarro's report.

And spousal abuse in an era where beating your wife and kids was considered a necessary evil if not positive good? Color me skeptical.

Since you are now just making shit up, color ME skeptical.

Ooooooh so belligerent. Here I am talking on the internet and stopping grumbler from talking about what he wants to talk about.

You aren't stopping me from doing anything.  You are just cutting yourself off from intellectual discussion because you want to insist that the ost-WW2 era, for instance, was one in which the problems Navarro outlines were worse than they are today.  Even though that isn't true, and you know it.

I am not determined for it to be the contrary at all. This is a strawman. I am saying any economic change causes problems. The rise of manufacturing work created all kinds of social disruption. That did not mean we should have smashed all the factories and sent everybody back out to be peasants then anymore than it means we should be trying to recreate the past now. People at the time romanticized the peasant and the artisan and now they are romanticizing the industrial worker. This is nostalgia talking. We should be focusing on moving forward with work and the economy. That is what I am saying and I was not aware I was threatening anybody with violence physical or verbal in doing so. My apologies if I was.

You are correct:  that is a strawman. 

No one is romanticizing the industrial worker.  Navarro is pointing out that the kinds of people who could make a good living in manufacturing jibs don't have the skills to compete for the well-paying post-industrial jobs, and so, feeling left behind and useless, they are more prone to drug abuse, alcoholism, marital disputes, etc.  Your disbelief in his thesis doesn't make it untrue.