Or we would have automated assembly faster—the investment in which would’ve been counted in domestic investment offsetting the trade deficit, right? I’m trying to verify my mental model of what’s going on.
The only conclusion you can draw is that the automated assembly will still be more expensive compared to the current manual one.
Like car manufacturing where the models are more consistent each year with longer cycles to refresh.
I honestly don’t see that as a big issue. It may even be better.
-american labour is expensive
-because of tariffs (or geopolitics) cheap asian labour unavailable
-investment in automation research
-first Gen automation is expensive
-further research
-2nd Gen automation is price-competitive with american labour
-iterate n times
-Nth Gen automation is price-competitive with asian labour
> why doesn't it happen with the chinese supply chain
The idea is that because asian labour is so cheap, there is no real incentive to invest in automation research, because everyone knows it won't be price-competitive for long.
No idea if that is actually true, but that is the argument.
As more jobs get automated, this is becoming more and more inevitable anyways.
There have been massive strides in computer vision and planning in the past few years. I think in 5-10 years we'll have robots that can handle nearly any manual labor task.
In 10-15 years, we could be facing skyrocketing unemployment. We'll either see the collapse of society as the economy collapses, or we'll need to increase taxes on the owners to fund UBI.
A typical HN techbro may not care because they're likely in the wealthiest 35 million, but the only way for the top 3 million / 1% to continue growing at the same rate once the bottom 90% have nothing more to lose is to take the wealth from the 32 million between 1% and 10%.
It took 50 years for the bottom 90% to halve the ownership of wealth in the US. Once they are fully tapped out the only way the 1% will continue to increase their wealth is taking it from the 10%. Then the 0.1% from the 1%.
In reality, it definitely feels like zero sum when the government moves to eliminate social programs so they can give a tax break to the rich.
The productivity growth from such new technology would induce more consumption, and induce _different_ consumption. These would produce new work opportunities.
UBI is not necessarily the only solution. And to me, it cannot be a solution from which taxation is utilized to fund.
Whose consumption? There is nothing impossible about a scenario in which there are about 2-3 millions of owners of fully automatic businesses and/or landlords who, with their total output combined, produce more than enough of anything needed for, or desired by, 2-3 million people. The only problem is that the rest of humanity would have to somehow disappear to not sullen this perfectly harmonious market economy of entrepreneurs (which is ironically quite similar to Adam Smith's naive descriptions of it in his own times), but we do have negative fertility rates, after all.
So there is absolutely a path where the well-to-do will just switch to trading with each other, with aggregate output shrinking to match the shrunk demand, and the rest of people could go and drop dead or whatever they want, as long as they don't trespass on the private property. After all, most of what those losers would have would be their ability to work but it just won't be priced competitively: the fair market price equals marginal costs (which for labour is the price of the subsistence minimum), and if robot maintenance is cheaper... yeah. To quote on of the designers of the shock reforms of 1992 in Russia, "what do you care for those people? So, 30 millions will go extinct. They failed to fit into the market".
So we can either 1. artificially increase the price of offshore-created goods, causing higher prices for consumers and a whole bunch of factories and mills being needlessly built here, assuming it somehow becomes cheaper to build them here than there (The current administration's plan), or 2. give up on the romanticism of factory work and accept it's going to be done where it's cheapest.
Now you can argue that the cheaper prices we have today is even better and worth the lost factory work. But that’s a different argument than saying domestic manufacturing isn’t feasible, because it clearly is and we did it until recently.
Americans will not work for $2-$4/hr which would be required in order for American-made goods to be as cheap as foreign-made goods.
Americans will not pay 3-4X for all their goods to be made in America by people earning American wages.
I guess, to be complete the only other thing that could happen to cause goods to be manufacturable in America would be 3. for the cost of labor in China (and other places with similar textile and industrial capability) to rise to match that of America.
People lived simpler. They had less material wealth, and was fine with it.
Will people today be the same? Judging by the amount of consumer debt and how much the buy-now-pay-later popularity grew, i dont think so.
It wasn't a "sacrifice". It was literally the only life they knew at the time. But going back to it now would be an actual sacrifice for a lot of people.
Running a household on an income of $70k isn't a sacrifice if that's what you make right now. It would be a sacrifice if you make $500k right now and had to immediately start making do with $70k.
i dont think the above time period was considered a sacrifice, and the idea that moving the manufacturing back to america would restore that time period is wrong. Because the world has moved on, and productivity has increased so much by now, that it definitely would be a sacrifice if conditions returned back to said time period.
There are already "dark factories" that don't require light or heating because they are fully automated and don't require human presence.
Guess where they are? China.
The factory can go anywhere, in China, in France, in California, in North Dakota.
What benefit is that to the average American citizen?
Or you could bypass all that and simply tax Apple now, despite their factory being in China.
Assuming no change in costs, how does moving its factories from China to Nebraska change anything, for apple, for the US government or the US citizen?
There are hints of a strange energy to your questions, which does not bother me, but I am curious whether you feel hostile to me, e.g., because you inferred from my answers that I probably support a political faction that you regard as the enemy.
Why not try to improve it?