> The "Long Peace" is a term for the unprecedented historical period of relative global stability following the end of World War II in 1945 to the present day
This is an outrageously euro/america-centric world view. A war isn't "minor" if you're murdered in it. The Second Congo War alone killed nearly 5 million, the Soviet Afghan War killed nearly 3 million, Bangladesh nearly 3 million, Ethiopia/Eritrea 2 million, who knows how many in Ukraine and Gaza. While no one war approaches the loss of life in WW2, these are far from minor skirmishes.
I struggle to consider Syria, Myanmar, Somalia, or Sudan minor conflicts. Likewise, what is the measure of stability here considering the rate of civil wars and country creation?
> In Chatham County, the living wage per hour necessary for one adult with no children is $22.46 while those with one kid is $35.70, two kids is $43.45, and three kids is $56.93.
So that's fine then? A family of four with both parents working at $23.66/hr each is $3.87/hr above that level.
Unless you're saying "starvation wage" and "living wage" are the same thing, which I don't think is a reasonable characterization.
Only problem is if they decide to have a third kid, or if you have a single parent with one or more kids. And while I get that unforeseen things happen to people that lower their wages after they already have their kids, I'm also tired of people becoming parents without considering the financial aspects ahead of time. If you're making minimum wage and are barely surviving, don't have kids until you're on steadier ground.
> I'm also tired of people becoming parents without considering the financial aspects ahead of time. If you're making minimum wage and are barely surviving, don't have kids until you're on steadier ground.
Young is abolutely the best age to have kids. Ask biology.
If you want a society (I do) then you want a society that supports people having children.
If you want a healthy society (I do) then you want a society that supports people having children at a young age.
I’ve been thinking about how modern family structures seem increasingly misaligned with what our biology and history may have prepared us for. It seems likely that nature "intended" families to be multigenerational, larger clan-like units linked by shared responsibility, proximity, and care.
Modern norms have instead left many parents effectively on their own, juggling full-time work with full-time childcare. If multigenerational living were normalized, the retired could help raise the kids while the working adults focus on providing. That setup allows for more quality time rather than burnout.
This isn’t anecdotal. I didn’t grow up in a household like that. But the research supports it:
1. Older adults living with younger generations experience less loneliness, better mental health, and even longer lifespans.
2. Multigenerational households are more financially resilient, less likely to live in poverty, and able to share housing, food, and caregiving costs.
3. Children benefit cognitively and emotionally from regular grandparent involvement.
4. Multigenerational setups enable parents to stay in the workforce while providing more consistent and affordable childcare.
5. Families in these homes report stronger relationships and better intergenerational understanding.
Of course there are challenges. Privacy, space, and generational conflict are real. But with today's social isolation, rising living costs, and aging demographics, we might want to normalize this kind of household again.
Maybe the future isn't just smarter cities or more automation, but rethinking how we live together.
Speaking from experience, both are necessary. Public childcare and afterschool programs aren't a replacement for quality time with grandparents. They also don't cover weekends or evenings like grandparents can do.
I guess? The town my parents settled in was doing well when they moved there. 15 years later when I was born, it and all the surrounding towns were clearly in decline. Today, friends that have stuck around say it’s not safe to walk around because of the meth.
They also didn’t have jobs for programmers, so I moved to where they did.
There are some child care costs for two working adults, so the calculator wants about 15% more money in that case, but yes it says that wage is roughly enough for two adults and two children.
"Living wage" in that report isn't "starvation wage", though. For the housing component for instance, they use 40 percentile rents. The methodology page isn't too clear about how they determine the next highest cost component (transportation), but it looks like they also use the median cost for used cars. The "living wage" might not correspond to a luxurious experience, but it's nowhere near destitute, either.
It's literally called a "living" wage, and I guarantee you in reality it's nothing more than that, if even. Life tends to always have unexpected costs. I shouldn't need to tell anybody that, including you.
Indeed. The independently calculated Living Wage in my country (as opposed to the government's "Living Wage" which is just a minimum wage law with better branding) is actually very slightly higher than my average annual expenditure when I last checked.
Most people wouldn't want to live like me (I don't drink, I don't holiday abroad, I don't have kids, or expensive hobbies), but I prefer this. Also, some of the discrepancy is explained by the annoying "Being poor is expensive" where I can make choices that are cheaper over the long term but would be ruinously expensive for a poor person.
>It's literally called a "living" wage, and I guarantee you in reality it's nothing more than that
Did you read the methodology page or even my comment? I made specific objections with the methodology and you didn't even address them.
>Life tends to always have unexpected costs. I shouldn't need to tell anybody that, including you.
I shouldn't have to tell you that if you read the methodology page, you'd see there's a specific category for "Other necessities" and "Civic engagement" (whatever that means), and I'm not objecting to those categories.
I don't think there's a lot of groupthink or virtue signaling here, and those are the things that irritate me the most. If people here overestimate their knowledge or abilities, that's okay because I don't treat things people say as gospel/fact/truth unless I have clear and compelling reasons to do so. This is the internet after all.
Personally I also think the submissions that make it to the front page(s) are much better than any subreddit.
The article is a massive oversimplification of the importance of the weather gage, to the point it's not accurate at all.
A ship with the weather gage can choose when and how to engage.
> This was technically inferior since the lower gun ports could often be underwater (see image) and because the downwind (leeward) position made it easier to flee if needed.
This is reductive to the point of error. The ports of the lower gun deck MAY be unable to be fired in very heavy seas, but that doesn't affect frigates, or the upper deck of a ship of the line.
Additionally, if a leeward ship attempts to flee from the windward ship, the leeward ship would risk exposing its stern to the windward ship's raking fire. The stern of a ship is the least armored, least armed and also contains the essential steering elements of a ship. A stern raking fire could pierce the hull and fly the entire length of the ship, causing tremendous damage, in addition to potentially crippling a ship's ability to steer.
Finally, the encouragement to engage with the enemy has an advantage the article omits - massive career incentives - it's a chance for British Navy lieutenants and commanders to earn promotion. Many a commander was made post after a successful engagement with the enemy and many a lieutenant was promoted to commander after a successful battle. Beyond glory, a lieutenants would make roughly half what a commander made, and a post captain could rely on additional pay based on seniority and ship. Since promotion to admiral was almost solely due to seniority on the post captains list, naval officers felt urgency to win promotion and to get on the list as soon as possible. An admiral took a share of any prizes won by vessels under his command and was the true way to gain wealth in the Navy.
Finally, Byng's case is an extreme outlier and relying on it to make arguments is dicey at best.
While the torture takes place in Spanish held Port Mahon in Mallorca, the torturers are unarguably French (Colonel Auger, Captain Dutourd, unnamed other Frenchmen).
Reminds me of a friend’s defense of the service focused economy: “I’ve got a PhD in economics”.
Sure services may be great when things are going well, but you can’t ONLY have services, and then go and blow up international trade and expect to have a good time.
> Manufacturing constitutes 27 percent of China’s overall national output, which accounts for 20 percent of the world’s manufacturing output. In the United States, it represents 12 percent of the nation’s output and 18 percent of the world’s capacity. In Japan, manufacturing is 19 percent of the country’s national output and 10 percent of the world total. Overall, China, the United States, and Japan comprise 48 percent of the world’s manufacturing output.
Where is the disconnect between the US being the #2 manufacturer in the world and my sense of doom and gloom about Trumps trade-war attack on our trading partners?
I suspect it's this:
> Advanced manufacturing technology development can be found throughout the United States. In Indiana for example, Rolls Royce, which makes jet engines, employs thousands of engineers. Zimmer Biomet makes surgical products in Warsaw, Indiana, a city that has become a national hub for orthopedic products.
So much of what I buy as an individual is imported. My fruit comes from South America, my electronics come from Asia, my outdoor equipment comes from Canada (and the raw fabrics probably sourced from China).
thank you. the catastrophizing that makes up so much of this site is such a dead-end. seems people rather engage in sensational fantasy instead of understanding. cheers
Because a rising power (China) backed a country (Russia) which didn’t bow to the dominant power (USA) that enables international trade, and intentionally blowing up international trade agreements now allows the USA more time to rebuild strategic supply chains to counter further violations of the international order.
If the USA doesn’t have a secure industrial base and can’t reliably enforce the international order then there is no international trade.
> intentionally blowing up international trade agreements now allows the USA more time to rebuild strategic supply chains to counter further violations of the international order.
Sources?
>If the USA doesn’t have a secure industrial base and can’t reliably enforce the international order then there is no international trade.
The US reliably enforces international order and global trade now. Source where this is an issue?
> The US reliably enforces international order and global trade now
Yes, which is why many believe now is the time to revamp our industrial capacity while we still have strategic dominance.
The war in Ukraine has illustrated the importance of mass drone production, and we currently lack a lot of the direct capacity to make them. A lot of our military supply chains are also based too heavily on components assembled and manufactured in China and in parts of east Asia that could easily be disrupted and cripple our ability to project power and play the role we currently play.
You can improve all those things, even fast, without doing… this.
Tariffing close allies at the same time as likely or actual foes especially doesn’t make sense. And rather than this weird roundabout approach, the government can just… pay for things to happen. Like, they used to run weapons factories. If that’s the actual reason for this, it would have been a ton cheaper to just fire up a few government factories, continue and expand the chips act, and maybe ramp up some targeted tariffs and other controls, which would have been way more effective with allies on board. Or, they can start placing drone orders and handing out r&d contracts with specifications that they be entirely made in the USA.
You may be presenting a real perspective, and it could be entirely correct, and this still would be extremely stupid.
Yes, this is a real perspective. Again, I’m not endorsing the approach they’re taking, I’m simply explaining it.
I also don’t think even a moderate introduction of tariffs would have been viewed favorably. Reindustrialization is I think necessary/I agree with the desire to ramp up domestic production and secure supply chains in both America and Europe, but we haven’t done it yet because it’s going to be painful to reverse the current trajectory.
This could very well be a part of a kind of shock deal to get allies to know we’re serious as we negotiate down.
I’m not saying I agree with that tactic, either, and the complaints about the damage in trust are extremely valid.
That's... not how things will roll out. Sure it looks nice on some paper diagram my 5 year old son could pop out, but reality is way, way more complex.
Also, here its US who is doing massive 'violations of international order'. You know which order I talk about? WTO for example, US is founding member, an org specifically designed and accepted to handle this. Various international agreements between close allies. And so on, news are full of whims of one bipolar old man stomping left and right.
What is actually and already happening is that US will lose a lot of customers world wide. That Amazon cloud or tesla car or weapons (machinists heh) or literally any other US product ain't so cool or even acceptable anymore. What will happen actually that rest of the world will replace US products. Not just government, but regular people. Nobody wants to drink US whiskey or wine anymore. Nobody wants any US product or service anymore.
If you think 4% of global population (and just 26% of global GDP) can on whims dictate lives of 96% of mankind by force, well, that's like your opinion man.
The USA already dictates the direction of much of the world economy through its position in the WTO, and you are correct that the tariffs will cause more independent production. That’s part of the intention. Europe specifically is underproductive and the hope is that these tariffs and the change of tone for defense agreements will bolster Europes domestic industrial and defensive capabilities.
I also realize how incredibly complex modern supply chains are and how disruptive these tariffs are. While it seems clear to me the previous trade situation was unsustainable and going to break down without some sort of change of course, that doesn’t mean I’m in favor of the blanket tariffs or the way this was executed, and I don’t know whether it will work. I’m simply explaining the logic behind it, which is also more complex than just “a bipolar old man stomping left and right”.
> That’s part of the intention. Europe specifically is underproductive and the hope is that these tariffs and the change of tone for defense agreements will bolster Europes domestic industrial and defensive capabilities
So, rather than sell Europe weapons that we create in the United States, part of the “intention” of this policy is to cut off the European demand for our weapons systems and cause them to manufacture their own? How is that helpful to the United States and our bottom line? How is that at all in the US interests?
I agree that’s what is going to happen, but I see no evidence that it was part of the intention.
> So, rather than sell Europe weapons that we create in the United States, part of the “intention” of this policy is to cut off the European demand for our weapons systems and cause them to manufacture their own? How is that helpful to the United States and our bottom line? How is that at all in the US interests?
Are you asking why a single point of failure is a bad thing?
To restate what you asked: “if the USA weapons manufacturing capability is compromised and cannot sell weapons to approved parties, and said parties also cannot manufacture their own weapons, how is this in the interest of the US?”
> Are you asking why a single point of failure is a bad thing?
>To restate what you asked: “if the USA weapons manufacturing capability is compromised and cannot sell weapons to approved parties, and said parties also cannot manufacture their own weapons, how is this in the interest of the US?”
You can't equate weapons manufacturing to server uptime or data center diversity -- it's fundamentally different.
In terms of what is in the best interests of the United States -- yes, having a single point of weapons manufacture and having that be the United States would very much be in the US interests. It would allow the US to dictate, even more than we do today, how the rest of the world operates. Although we have not been a single source for weapons (Europe does make their own), our role as primary supplier would be (and has been) very profitable.
How is it that we can afford to create the advanced weapons that we do? F-35, Patriot, etc? It's because we can spread that research and development cost across other (allied) countries, because they buy our gear instead of developing their own. Reduce the market for our weapons, and you're going to reduce the quality of our weapons and increase their per-unit cost -- both things that are very much not in the interests of the United States.
This was sparked by the remark that this was all part of the "intention" of the policy. Since that intention would by definition be very contrary to US interests, both financial and strategic, it seems dubious that this was the intention.
> and you are correct that the tariffs will cause more independent production. That’s part of the intention. Europe specifically is underproductive and the hope is that these tariffs and the change of tone for defense agreements will bolster Europes domestic industrial and defensive capabilities.
> I’m simply explaining the logic behind it
I really disagree most strongly that this is the logic behind it. You genuinely think Trump and his base want these tariff wars to encourage more manufacturing in Europe?
As a foreigner, the message that comes across loud and clear from the US is "America first".
I can't speculate what is really going on inside Trump's head or inside his administration, but one thing I'm 100% sure of, they really don't care in the slightest about Europe or any other country in the world for that matter.
The message is absolutely America first, and the motivation to boost the middle class through reindustrialization is a huge factor.
The desire to eventually back out of defense commitments in Europe is not in contradiction to that.
The political will to commit troops and to defend Ukraine simply isn’t there, especially not while Taiwan is looming. Wanting Europe to reindustrialize and handle it’s own defense allows America to focus more domestically and on potential wars more aligned with American interests (disruption of chip manufacturing affects America much more than Russian occupation of Ukraine).
I linked to a hoover institute interview with Niall Ferguson explaining a lot of the thinking. You can also just listen to what the administration has been saying themselves. You don’t have to agree with it, but the goal is reindustrialization of both America and Europe so America doesn’t lose it’s defense capabilities and so Europe can defend itself without relying on American support.
Ok, I did watch the video. He does make a lot of points which sound plausible to a casual like myself.
I'm still sceptical. It's pretty clear that there is real distaste for Europe in the MAGA sphere. I really find it hard to believe that this is all an act, a ploy, to boost Europe's own economy. Everything I've witnessed about MAGA suggests this type of long range thinking is just a coping wish. I think it's much simpler than that. I think they have a real distaste for Europe, for a variety of reasons.
You are correct that there is a lot of distaste for Europe within the MAGA base. Although it’s important to note most of the distaste is about subsidizing their defense so they can have welfare states at the expense of US taxpayers, and a distaste for EU leadership. A lot of MAGA are friendly with other populist movements in Europe.
Again, I don’t think it’s an either or, and I don’t believe this is a ploy. The desire to reduce commitments in Europe and to have long term changes in trade is genuine.
The core motivation of the base is simple: middle America wants their industrial jobs back.
The motivation of advisors like the people at Hoover, military strategists and other intelligent higher ups is to deal with the weaknesses (present and future) that both Covid and Ukraine made obvious.
These are in alignment.
And yes, the MAGA base desire for a return of manufacturing came before the understanding of strategic weakness. That doesn’t mean the strategic motivations are a cope: I don’t think it’s a coincidence the bureaucracy were only willing to go along with this after both Covid and Ukraine discredited a lot of previously held beliefs about the state of the global order and the need for a course correction.
It’s also important to note politics and “cope” are basically the same thing. Everything is compromise.
The US didn't get to be the worlds global superpower out of nowhere. You formed alliances in the west and have pushed your global economic agenda for what, seven decades, with Europe going along with it (along with many other countries), including fighting in wars the US pushed for. That is what you got in return for your military backing. The US also didn't get into the cold war because of Europe,.
MAGA won't sell that though, it needs a different narrative. And this is the narrative it feels like this little exchange is pushing too, though forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you.
MAGA is acting as though the world isn't buying trillions of dollars worth of its services every year, that it hasn't controlled the global economic policy for decades, enriching itself in the process. Nope, MAGA is now claiming victim status.
I believe the reason it feels like I'm pushing is that in a sense, I am: I'm not adding any caveats or disclaimers to that narrative or explaining why other narratives do or don't matter. I think counter narratives to the ones supporting these tariffs are already well understood by most people here. The original person I was responding to was asking why this happened (presumably because it seemed irrationally stupid, as I think it does to most people here), and what I'm pushing for is an understanding of the point of view which explains it. If you understand the concerns of MAGA and the strategic concerns of the US Military the tariffs make sense. They might not make sense in relation to other concerns, and maybe it's wrong to be so focused on those concerns at the expense of other concerns like relationships with allies. But they do make sense from that point of view.
In order to repair international relations with allies, the root causes of these tariffs first needs to be understood and addressed. If this is simply viewed as a madman irrationally leading a horde of rednecks to punish allies, and the other strategic concerns are just considered window dressing to excuse that madness, the grievances of those who empowered Trump will remain and the strategic weaknesses will continue to be an anchor weighing the US down and interfering with our capacity to maintain relationships and enforce international law.
The narrative of the MAGA base is that middle America and the rust belt was in fact victimized by global economic policy. The benefits you mention about the world buying American services and getting into foreign wars didn't benefit the MAGA constituency, it hurt them. Yes, everyone benefits from cheaper goods and America in particular is able to buy more of them due to the fact we issue the global reserve currency, but on net the average middle class American family in an industrial town lost more than they gained.
That narrative is not the whole narrative. I am well aware that there are more people in the world than just MAGA that are feeling the opposite about all of these tariffs, and they have legitimate grievances. But the MAGA narrative is not false. Just like the narrative about betrayal on the part of allies and economic partners is not false. Just like the narrative I presented about domestic supply chains and strategic weakness is also not false (and is the narrative I'm most biased towards/what I care about most). In order to look for a balance point that maximally benefits everyone, all of the different narrative threads need to be understood.
In order to prevent a repeat of this situation in the future (if any semblance of the previous order can be re-established after the US secures it's domestic supply chains and repairs it's middle class, and I have no idea what the likelihood of that is), any re-establishment of global supply chains needs to ensure it doesn't erode domestic capacity and that there's an actual plan for how to maintain the middle class through either some degree of protections for domestic industry or a more effective plan to transition the middle class into services.
I'm actually appreciating this discourse, thank you.
For what it's worth, being an immigrant to the UK, I've watched kind of from the sidelines as similar events unfolded here around brexit. I tried very hard to have sympathy for the views of brexit voters. The problem I have, and I have the same problem with MAGA, is despite having real grievances, is the overall narrative is just lie after lie. The MAGA administration lied to the whole world about "trade deficits", completely ignoring services. Maybe the story rings true for a particular voter, but it is a misrepresentation of the whole truth, or more bluntly, is a lie.
I understand very well that certain people have not felt the benefit of deindustrialisation. I do get it.
You say this:
> The original person I was responding to was asking why this happened (presumably because it seemed irrationally stupid, as I think it does to most people here), and what I'm pushing for is an understanding of the point of view which explains it. If you understand the concerns of MAGA and the strategic concerns of the US Military the tariffs make sense.
No. I just don't agree. They make sense if Europe wasn't consuming billions of USD a year of US services, and the US wasn't growing increasingly wealthier than Europe each year.
Trump is pandering to his base. That makes sense. But the tariffs are just a means to that end, and trying to ratonalise the tariffs in other terms, I just don't agree with.
In any case, I have learned stuff from this conversation. I'm not even saying I am definitely correct, there is a chance I'm wrong and you're correct, and I will keep an open mind about that. Thank you.
Likewise. I enjoy commenting here because it’s one of the few places online where there’s actually discourse, and I like to think conversations like these have trickle effects/lead to more cross pollination and rational outcomes. Your pushback is valid; there’s a very real danger of getting too much in bed with Trump’s base and letting dumb populism overrule any need for strategic pivots if this doesn’t end up working. There was also some interesting pushback about European market demand for US weapons being more important than supply chain security which I hadn’t considered from the strategic angle; I don’t think I agree that it’s more important than eliminating foreign chokepoints in US military supply chains, but that’s a point in favor of these tariffs being too blunt and extreme an instrument for addressing the need to boost domestic industrial capacity for the defense industry.
I’ll keep an open mind as well. I hope things eventually work out for the best, but we’ll see what happens.
> The political will to commit troops and to defend Ukraine simply isn’t there, especially not while Taiwan is looming. Wanting Europe to reindustrialize and handle it’s own defense allows America to focus more domestically and on potential wars more aligned with American interests (disruption of chip manufacturing affects America much more than Russian occupation of Ukraine).
This seems like a coping narrative. The unwillingness to stand by commitments, groveling before Putin without receiving anything in return, threatening long-standing allies with annexation, and now the utterly moronic trade war (which is not based on any economic plan but apparently on chatbot output) are all weakening the US politically, economically and militarily, and giving countries like China a window of opportunity to act against it.
China has no strong allies, and its long-term goal has therefore been to isolate the US from its own allies in order to level the playing field. With each passing day, the US under Trump can indeed expect less and less support from its allies in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Despite all the hollow rhetoric against China, Trump is setting the stage for the invasion.
Had the US played its cards better, it could have had a booming economy, motivated allies across the globe, and tens of thousands of highly experienced soldiers from Ukraine's battlefields willing to return the favor in the war with China. Ideally, that would've led to China shelving the invasion plans. Instead, we see an embarrasing clown show, which serves as an open invitation to invade Taiwan.
Dictated, past tense. As a result of these tariffs. And that part's not coming back even if everything got magically reversed tomorrow. That level of trust is gone, forever.
If capital doesn't get very mad and do something fix the fallout immediately, it will get very bad. You can't wait for things to work themselves out; they will not. It's as stupid as it appears on the surface. These people are sociopathic, vengeful idiots, they're mad at anyone smarter than they are, and they're going to destroy everything that's good and replace it with much, much worse.
There is no logic behind it, no matter how badly everybody wants there to be. Trump's brain is stuck in the early 1980's when he first had a subliterate fixation on tariffs, and he's never let go of the idea. I'm sorry that's it not more complex than that -- it would be reassuring if there was an actual plan that anyone not MAGA-infected would thought would work! But there isn't. This is them destroying America and taking down as much of the global economy as America can reach.
We've been coasting on advances made many decades ago. Most developed, sure. Successful? By nearly any metric you can imagine or make up. Strongest? Our economy is eaten hollow by termites. A stiff wind would make it crumble. Worse, there doesn't appear to be any path to true recovery... we can't create the jobs that people need to prosper, but if we could somehow do that we no longer create the people who would grow up to fill those jobs. What industry is it exactly that you think the United States dominates in 2025? What vital, 21st century technology do we have a monopoly on, or at least some undeniable marketshare of? Do we build boats or planes or cars? Do we make computer chips or garments or appliances? Our only saving grace might be that we're self-sufficient agriculturally, without that we'd probably already have starved.
The US is the second largest manufacturer in the world - it's just moved into high end manufacturing. One of the difficult things about the current situation is how confidently wrong people are about the basic facts of the US economy.
> Do we build boats or planes or cars? Do we make computer chips or garments or appliances?
I mean .. obviously yes? It's just that you don't make all the chips and cars on the planet. Or even all the locally used ones.
The US is mostly an astonishingly wealthy country that has somehow convinced itself that it's in the middle of a decline, while simultaneously avoiding facing up to any of the QoL questions which people routinely fight over on HN where the US average or poorer citizen might actually be worse off.
Tech is the obvious one, but there are lots of less obvious ones, like designing the things that are manufactured elsewhere.
It turns out production of most goods is commoditized and a race to the bottom (assuming free trade), so if you want margins that can support high salaries, you have to move up the value chain (read: services).
If we keep tariffs high enough for long enough, we will bring back manufacturing jobs. They will not be high paying unless unions artificially constrain labor supply. The cost of everything will be higher (relative to people’s incomes), implying a lower standard of living.
tl;dr: If we want to withdraw from the world economy we mostly can, but don’t expect to have as nice of a life afterward.
>It turns out production of most goods is commoditized and a race to the bottom (assuming free trade), so if you want margins that can support high salaries, you have to move up the value chain (read: services).
I know, right? When you go home and sit down on your Oracle database to relax, then go to the kitchen to cook your evening meal in an AWS Lambda, then afterwards relax a little more by changing into some spreadsheets, it really puts it into perspective: everything a person needs is technology and software, and who wouldn't want to dominate that industrial sector?
>If we keep tariffs high enough for long enough, we will bring back manufacturing jobs.
Sure, but we don't have a commitment from Trump's eventual successors that they will continue, let alone from the opposition party. In other words, everyone knows that it will not continue long enough... the only real question is how do they best mitigate the pain while it does continue short-term? Trump could easily drop dead of a stroke or heart attack tomorrow, he is not a young man or in great health. But even should he survive the full term, the clock's already ticking. Why would anyone commit to an expensive long term investment today, when January of 2029 it will no longer be necessary?
>They will not be high paying unless unions artificially constrain labor supply.
The labor supply is already constrained... demographic implosion is well underway. The only way to unconstrain it would be to import millions of people from foreign countries.
>If we want to withdraw from the world economy we mostly can,
Why would this be withdrawing? Who do you think we'd want to sell the products to anyway? No, I believe we're talking about switching our role from consumer in the global economy to producer. What do you think the Chinese could even buy with all the trade deficit cash they're squirreling away, when we don't make anything? Some large chunk of it is buying up stock, real estate, etc. Give them something else to buy.
>but don’t expect to have as nice of a life afterward.
I'm like a 8th class (or lower still) software engineer in a fly-over city, and even my salary's six figure. The rest of you I always figured were doing better still. So I can understand why you don't get that for most people in the United States, "nice of a life" hasn't been a thing for generations, it's mostly stories they tell each other that have been repeated since the 1960s that originated with their great-grandparents. I mean, I would've thought some of that leaked through reddit and other such forums, where they complain about working 3 Uber-Eats-style jobs and never having a day off, only to be able to scrape by in some shit apartment while wondering how to keep their crappy used car from being repossessed.
You swim in this little bubble of atypicality, never noticing that the cheap clothes on the Walmart shelf show up from the distribution center looking what we would've called threadbare just 30 years ago. That no one you know (even those earning like you do) owns real furniture even if they earn a salary like yours. Even the "fancy" McMansions that you see from time to time are garbage, constructed as if no one cares that they last longer than 20 years. How many of the consumer goods in your home can you lay hands on that aren't 50% plastic or more?
To be clear, I’m not saying your or anyone else’s life is “nice.” I’m saying that however nice (or not) your life currently is, it will be worse. Those goods at Walmart will cost 30% more and still be equally threadbare. You’re mixing two things together, the declining quality of goods, and the places those goods are made.
Did you know you can buy premium clothes made in China? You can. Check out producers like Bob Dong or Bronson. Ironically, they make a lot of thick, quality clothes inspired by vintage US work-wear. The reason you probably never heard of them is buyers have to pay extra for that quality, and the appetite isn’t there.
The fact that everything you buy is cheaply constructed of cheap materials is entirely due to that being what sells. Most consumers won’t pay a premium for quality, so you have to go out of your way to look for it. Moving mass-market garment manufacturing back to America won’t change that.
If you just want to pay fistfuls of dollars for quality American-made clothing, you can do that today. Go buy yourself a $70 t-shirt from Lady in White. I’m sure we’ll be able to make shittier clothing cheaper, but it’s still going to be a lot more than shoppers are used to paying. You’re never going to get any American-made shirt for $4.98.
As to why tariffs constitute withdrawing: other countries can and will retaliate. China is not going to buy our expensive American-made commodity products, especially when they’ve got a 55% import duty on them, when they can buy equal or better quality things made at home or in SE Asia for half the price.
Even if successful, tariffs will make goods expensive. There’s no way around that. There is 0 reason to believe they will make goods any better. With reduced competitive pressure, quality is more likely to drop, if anything.
One of the "big things" people would joke about alongside solving world hunger was world clothelessness. People don't seem to realize that in our global economic state (at least a week ago) we solved that problem so hard that there's a pile of clothes in the atacama desert¹ (not to say it's without its consequences). Plastic microfibers are a problem I admit, but I would happily eat my weekly credit card(/s) knowing that far fewer people have to go naked. I for one hope that thrifting can fill the gaps, it may take a while to replace the 8000+ laborers that take part in making your white t-shirt² and maybe more.
We can definitely do better than where we're at. But I'm not sure working in factories is so much better. I wonder whether people will like having things like steel furnaces and injection molders in their towns. Exporting the dirty, smelly, dangerous stuff to elsewhere is one of the most devious tricks we played.
> No, I believe we're talking about switching our role from consumer in the global economy to producer. What do you think the Chinese could even buy with all the trade deficit cash they're squirreling away, when we don't make anything? Some large chunk of it is buying up stock, real estate, etc. Give them something else to buy.
Meanwhile over at the People's Daily, someone starts to type up "Why should we accept the Americans stealing good Chinese manufacturing jobs?"
> for most people in the United States
Now we start to talk about income inequality, and who exactly is having a nice life; but the minute you mention some of the policies of less unequal European countries, Americans go absolutely bananas and call you a communist. You might as well suggest doing something about the mass shootings, that's even more unpopular.
It the *right wing* Americans who go bananas calling you a communist. The left by and large wants to implement more social programs to reduce inequality and allow the growth of a middle class in our existing economy. You could probably say this is the crux of the culture war.
If everyone is educated, who is going to collect your garbage, fix your car, replace your broken pipe in the wall, cut down the rest of the tree that fell across the street, stock your groceries, sell you fast food, drive trucks across the country, build houses and buildings, pump septic tanks… I can keep going.
I don’t get it, never have. Education is not some magical bullet. In fact, having attended college and graduated with a now-lucrative job as an sw engineer, I can say I learned almost nothing at all in college because of the institution itself. At best it made me teach myself whatever was in the class textbooks. The professors mostly spoke English as a second or 3rd language and the TAs were even worse.
“Oh the culture, the diversity!” Meant absolutely nothing to me, I’ve had diverse family and friends since I was a child.
Did you mean to respond to my comment? I didn't mention education so don't really understand how it connects.
No one is saying to get rid of the jobs you mentioned. The goal is to make it so people working those jobs can provide for their families, have health care, have appropriate time off, and generally work with dignity.
And I should clarify that most of what you mentioned fall in the "middle class" category, including building houses, driving trucks, serving food, and pumping septic tanks. Cost disease (especially in housing and healthcare) has made these less stable occupations than they should be.
College education should be accessible and affordable for people who want to pursue it. I agree that it has been way over-emphasized in recent decades and had a similar experience to you. "Get an education" was a cop out excuse to paper over the structural problems occuring underneath (while tuition costs ballooned). For sure the pendulum has already started to swing the other way though.
Why is HN in English and always talking about FAANG?
Why do kids all around the world play with Spiderman?
Asking for "vital" and "21st century" is a paradox, so maybe it's not what you really meant. But the proof of our success is all around if you're willing to actually look.
>Why do kids all around the world play with Spiderman?
So we sell children's stories, in a world where technology makes it possible to copy not just any single story, but pretty much all of humanity's stories since time began onto a tiny little plastic doohickey that you can hang on a keychain. And then anyone in the world can also make up a new story with those same characters, or draw a picture, or whatever...
That's our wealth? Wow. Even if I had stock in that intellectual property, it seems like it never really was property to begin with and that I'm heading for ruin.
Those three examples were a sketch of the picture being missed by the parent comment. We clearly export entertainment on a massive scale, regardless of one's personal judgment of it.
> But the proof of our success is all around if you're willing to actually look.
Get a slice of humble pie.
The proof of American failure is also all around if you're willing to actually look. Urbanism, health, environment, MAGA, Vietnam, Irak, Afghanistan. Easy to cherry pick, turns out many of us who have the luxury of being able to work in the US if they wanted to chose not to do so, maybe with good reasons? "Most successful" is very subjective. "Dominant", yeah, you are.
On paper. That's not to say we don't have the greatest potential for even greater prosperity but you can't eat stonks. Right now we are making good on promises to the boomer generation while absolutely dicking over the generations who are making good on the promises of old.
The US has by far the world's strongest economy no matter how you measure it. We obviously can and do eat the fruits of our labor.
In fact we (being Americans broadly) eat only a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the absolutely gargantuan amount of value we (being Americans broadly) create.
Wealth inequality seems like completely perpendicular subject. What does on shoring lower paying jobs and ballooning the cost of goods do to help that?
The press report from ICE does not confirm that they "knew some would be dubious". The press report makes it clear that all the purchases were not done above board.
> The "Long Peace" is a term for the unprecedented historical period of relative global stability following the end of World War II in 1945 to the present day
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_econ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_globalization
I hope you learn something today.
reply