Made in USA: Bringing manufacturing jobs back to the homeland

So your defending the corporate interest in mass consumption and planned obselesence?

And there is this.

Machines will create 58 million more jobs than they displace by 2022, World Economic Forum says

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/09/18/machines-will-create-million-more-jobs-than-they-displace-by-world-economic-forum-says/?outputType=amp

And this

"Here’s an example. A Deloitte study of automation in the U.K. found that 800,000 low-skilled jobs were eliminated as the result of AI and other automation technologies. But get this: 3.5 million new jobs were created as well, and those jobs paid on average nearly $13,000 more per year than the ones that were lost."

https://venturebeat.com/2017/09/07/...orkers-then-created-3-5-million-new-jobs/amp/

 

competing with foreign slave labor is un-capitalistic

 

No communist dictator who ever existed was not a greedy bastard too

Thats human nature

 

America making quality products would not stifle foreign competition but it would bring at least some jobs home and I'm not sure what it is you don't understand about automation. I gave you two very informative links on it

 

Nobody thinks we will bring all the manufacturing back to America and nobody thinks we will only buy American products. Bringing back as much as possible would be beneficial to America and Americans.
The better technology gets at doing repetitive labor with robots the more we can compete with third world countries with their cheap labor and having those companies here will benefit our tax base and employment numbers and pollution in the world. I honestly don't see how any rational person can argue we are better off losing industries and jobs to China

 

Maybe you need to explain yours. I've bent over backwards explaining mine

 

A couple of things to keep in mind.

(1) We haven't always had this volume of trade with China or this level of trade imbalance with China. Yet somehow, we got along just fine making things here in the U.S.

(2) We are not talking about ending trade with China. What we are talking about is achieving a trade balance with China. In the process, there would be adjustments in what some things cost.

(3) The U.S. will not unduly suffer as adjustments are made. We can do this.

 

Of course we can, but the questions is: should we? I firmly believe we should not. In the final analysis, what you are advocating is a lower standard of living for Americans.
I find it telling that you felt the need to qualify the word suffer. Maybe you need to think this through just a little more.

 

How does more and better paying jobs with US companies producing higher quality products in an environmentaly sound fashion equate to a lower standard of living for Americans?

Maybe you need to think this through just a little more

 

The trade deficit with China in 2018 was $420 billion. Over the past 10 years, the trade deficit with China is $3.28 trillion. That's trillion with a T.

https://howmuch.net/articles/the-us-trade-deficit-with-china-2009-2018

With a trade balance, that $3.28 trillion would create jobs and economic growth in the U.S. rather than in China. We would still receive cheap crap from China, just not quite as much. The goal is to achieve fairness, not dominance, and to keep more of the work here in the U.S.

 

LOL! You sound like AOC now, magical thinking. I know, we can get the unicorns to pay the difference for the more expensive items.

 

Again you are under the mistaken impression that more industries here and less in China means no cheap overseas products will be available to those who want them. As per the OP it's up to us the consumers to chart the way and the more of us ween ourselves from this disposable junk and opt for higher quality longer lasting and yes more expensive durable goods the better off we will be both economically and environmentally

 

The real issue here is national trade policy. Offshoring only became profitable because of NAFTA and other trade agreements entered into by the US government.
The problem is that the Federal Government is by mandate of the Constitution supposed to only act in the "general welfare" of the country.
What that means is the Federal Government is supposed to consider the rights of all citizens in their decisions and to always act in a way that is going to be beneficial and in the best interests of all the people.
Clearly the trade agreements entered into at the end of the 20th century did not meet those criteria. They benefited large corporations, some of which are not even American at the expense of American workers and citizens. While corporations and Wall St. made trillions of dollars, the working middle class in the US was devastated. Wealth disparity grew at an alarming rate, and the wealth of the working class in the US declined substantially.
The US is the largest market for goods and services in the world, and that market should be reserved to benefit all American citizens and not just a few of the wealthy who have the means to bribe our elective representatives. Our trade agreements should be written to benefit all Americans, not just the corporations and Wall St.

 

I agree and will add the fact that strict environmental standards should be part of trade deals. We have lost numerous industries because it's cheaper for other countries to produce goods when we have to pay to do things in a clean green fashion and they do not. We have exported jobs and pollution

 

99% of all monies spent on the environment are wasted. I worked for a utility company that built a new substation and cut a road though a hill to do it. The sides of the road where the it cut through the hill were solid rock. The States environmentalist required the utility to truck 10000 gallons of water a week to this spot and water the solid rock for 2 years as if they believed vegetation was going to grow. This was during a severe water shortage and cost the ratepayers over a million dollars. After 2 years the rock was just as barren as when they started. This was typical of every encounter we had with the State environmental department.

 

I can get a made in Honduras hoodie for $10, and help to keep them from migrating here...... If it lasts 3 years, I would need the USA hoodie to last 30 years to be worth it. I don't want to wear the same hoodie for 30 years.....

 

Any true growth in manufacturing in the U.S. will result in more automation, not a whole lot of more jobs. My cousin works for an international manufacturer. He says humans are on the way out for most manufacturing. Robots are taking over, humans will mainly just be maintaining the robots.

 

Kind of like making logging companies replant clear cuts. Trees grow back naturally like weeds and planting them is a waste of money unless the companies themselves want to replant preferred species for future harvest.
Some things are good though like mining and factory dumping pollutants and clean air regulations that other countries don't do so our companies can't compete with them

 

Kind of like bribing people to not immigrate here huh. There's better ways than that and your choice of disposable clothing instead of long lasting attire is your business. I have a pair of 25 year old bike shorts that I just replaced this summer. They were expensive but I'd say I got my money's worth and they are still fine to wear as shorts but the padding has broken down in them. Should be around a few more summers as casual wear.
It is interesting though that the left in here suddenly has no interest in the carbon footprint or general pollution of the products they purchase and only care about cheap. I wonder why that is, as if I don't know.

 

In BOLD above, your president has been telling you that unemployment is the lowest on record, especially for minorities, somewhere around 3.7%, so unless he is lying again, your comments above don't hold water. According to Trump everyone working, and they get to buy inexpensive stuff from Dollar Store...sounds to me like this is a WIN-WIN for Americans!

And according to your article above;

So, the final price tag for the hoodie Blackstone followed from the cotton fields to the gin to the mill to the dyer to the knitwear plant to the store, is no bargain: $108.

 

What's a win for America is better jobs in America and less reliance on China. You also ignore the fact that producing a hoodie once that will last 30 years is much more environmentally sound than producing and transporting half a dozen hoodies over the same period. Suddenly the left doesn't care about their carbon footprint and pollution in general? Why is that? Care to explain?