The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I want to know what the conservative ideas that help poor people are.

Just to add to what CrescentMoonie said, there is also the philosophy that direct aid can actually hurt the poor. See: Milton Friedman, The Tragedy of American Compassion(Marvin Olasky), etc. The idea basically is that you damage the character, dignity, self-respect of the poor by giving them finances greater than or equal to what they could gain by working; they no longer would then have any impetus to do so. "Poor" is not viewed as the bottom rung on the ladder, but rather "Pauperism", a more permanent condition and state of dependency. To this mindset, direct relief programs and some charity groups would be considered to be doing more harm than good. The economic liberty argument is also related.

They have a point, but I think a central, societal authority is needed and government's really the only group that fits the bill. I do think it's imperative for it to be as unintrusive as possible though.

.02

[JPhillips]

Friedman believed in a negative income tax that was basically a universal basic income. He was in favor of cash payments to the poor.

The proposal for a negative income tax is a proposal to help poor people by giving them money, which is what they need, rather than as now, by requiring them to come before a government official to tally all their assets and liabilities and be told that you may spend X dollars on rent, Y dollars on food, etc.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

I'll pretend that's an honest question and say: the conservative approach is to allow private organizations to do the work. Some do a great job of it. Some are just fronts for taking people's money.

I don't think it's a really sound approach if it essentially boils down to "eh, enough people will do the right thing." Because they won't. There are a lot of good people, but there are an awful lot of assholes and there always have been (see: Scrooge). Imagine if all the money the Kochs have put into PACs and media campaigns went instead to charity. But no, it's more important to use that as an investment to insure further oil profits.

Also, how is it that some of these organizations are incredibly rich? Mormon land/building holdings alone have been estimated at $35B in value (it's estimated the church makes $7B in tithes annually). The Catholic church does a lot of good, but isn't exactly poor either.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The idea basically is that you damage the character, dignity, self-respect of the poor by giving them finances greater than or equal to what they could gain by working

And what of the working poor?

Corporation: "Well, we could pay them more, but I think they'd rather have their dignity."

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Or maybe they're right to view abortion as murder, and not "controlling fertility," but dead wrong on compassion after birth.

Thing is, when I say "controlling fertility," abortion is part of that, yes, but it's not the whole picture. There's sex ed - Texas stands out as a state that went to "abstinence-only" education and then saw the teen birthrate skyrocket. The overt decision to not educate young girls about birth control and contraceptives for fear of encouraging teen sex backfired, and has cost that state money.

When people flip out over Planned Parenthood because abortion, they forget or ignore that abortion is only one of the fertility control services they make available.

Now, that said, I wouldn't argue about them being wrong on postnatal compassion.

I've said before, here and elsewhere, that I am personally pro-life, but that I don't believe "pro-life" is a stance limited to the whether and why of abortion; right now, national policy all but ignores the rest of the equation and focuses on abortion as political red meat, and that's why, despite being pro-life, I don't support further restrictions on abortion.

We can disagree on what "safe, rare, and legal" ought to constitute, but I will say speaking for myself that until a politician is willing to wonk out over "what comes next" and lay out a logical plan for how the State plans to deal with the fertility ramifications of an abortion ban, politicians who try to make their bones as "pro-life" won't find a sympathetic ear from me. It's easy to talk the talk that gets you elected - it's another matter entirely to deal with the subject in a thoughtful and nuanced way and say "look, this is what I believe, but these are the consequences we need to grapple with if we want to do this," to make that case and sell it.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Friedman believed in a negative income tax that was basically a universal basic income. He was in favor of cash payments to the poor.

Yes, but not as high as what they would get by working. He said the maximum feasible rate was 50%(meaning, the government would make up only half the difference between your income and the zero-tax minimum). His reasoning was the same; ensuring there is still some incentive to work.

[JPhillips]

But you said this:

To this mindset, direct relief programs and some charity groups would be considered to be doing more harm than good.

which is not at all what Friedman advocated.

I don't have a problem with trying to incentivize work, as that is generally better for society and the individual. But when you go down the road of direct payments are harmful, that reads more as social Darwinism than help.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

I'll pretend that's an honest question and say: the conservative approach is to allow private organizations to do the work. Some do a great job of it. Some are just fronts for taking people's money.

The problem with the "conservative" approach is that the religious organizations that actually do the work the right way are under attack from the alt-right/Trump dumpster fire and have been since day 1.

"In their private lives, religious Americans are extremely generous. According to the Lake Institute on Faith and Giving at Indiana University, donations to congregations, denominations, mission board, and TV and radio ministries account for roughly one-third of all annual giving in the U.S."

"In 2001, the University of Pennsylvania professor Ram Cnaan tried to tally the financial value of all congregational social services in Philadelphia, estimating that it added up to roughly $247 million."

I oon't equate giving to churches with giving to the poor. I grew up and spent a good portion of my adult life as a catholic though now I am atheist so I think I can have opinion on this. Many of those who give to churches do it as they believe it is paying there way into heaven. Also much of the money does not get out of the hands of the church and to the average joe. Lastly, those helped usually are those willing to sign up for that religions "team". Lastly, since religious groups aren't taxed or there donations money tracked by the IRS who knows anything.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Galaril

I oon't equate giving to churches with giving to the poor. I grew up and spent a good portion of my adult life as a catholic though now I am atheist so I think I can have opinion on this. Many of those who give to churches do it as they believe it is paying there way into heaven. Also much of the money does not get out of the hands of the church and to the average joe. Lastly, those helped usually are those willing to sign up for that religions "team". Lastly, since religious groups aren't taxed or there donations money tracked by the IRS who knows anything.

Funny how you conveniently left this part out of your quote:

"Using a national survey of religious congregations in the U.S., the Duke Divinity School professor Mark Chaves found that 83 percent of congregations have some sort of program to help needy people in their communities."

[QuikSand]

Just about anyone being taken seriously in any contemporary debate about aid to the poor includes an element of "incentive to work" in such a proposal. I'm sure there are far-left fringes to whom this doesn't apply, but anywhere near the political center that's universal. So, it's a bit of a canard to cite decades-old quotes from the right that are simply attacking unrestricted cash payments to low-end families.

There are quite a few true conservatives (then and now) who would, given the right context, say that broad-based cash transfers (like a negative income tax, or some variation on the universal basic income) is preferable to a multi-faceted welfare state for numerous reasons - economic efficiency and reduced market distortion usually topping the list.

I think it remains fairly polarizing politically when you are essentially asking the question "what does society owe a so-called able-bodied person who appears capable of working but doesn't really do so?" When that person has children, or medical problems, or something similar, that question gets even thornier.

I don't think every reasonable person necessarily comes down in the same place on that core question. Some of that variation is due to a different degree of respect for the power of incentive, but that isn't all of it.

[CrescentMoonie]

Jeff Flake getting way out in front for the role of anti-Trump GOP candidate in 2020.

GOP senator: I wish Republicans had stood up to birtherism | TheHill

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Jeff Flake getting way out in front for the role of anti-Trump GOP candidate in 2020.

GOP senator: I wish Republicans had stood up to birtherism | TheHill

He just voted to confirm a Federal judge who was writing birthed stuff while on the bench. Flake is all talk.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Funny how you conveniently left this part out of your quote:

Thanks for the correction. I did honestly miss that. I don't believe the survey is accurate but YMMV. In the end, I believe the world would be a better place with no organized religion but get some folks need that stuff to get thru the day.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Thanks for the correction. I did honestly miss that. I don't believe the survey is accurate but YMMV. In the end, I believe the world would be a better place with no organized religion but get some folks need that stuff to get thru the day.

I try to always take research over anecdote. My personal experience growing up is similar to yours, but I've also been exposed to organizations outside of what I grew up around that are actually doing what they claim. Several of them aren't as in your face as the ones that just want to separate you from your money so you have to either know people associated with them or seek them out yourself.

My personal experience is also that government intervention is mostly a useless money pit as well, but I know there are some programs that are well run and helpful. Figuring out how to discern the honest parts of each element that wants to help is the challenge.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

I try to always take research over anecdote. My personal experience growing up is similar to yours, but I've also been exposed to organizations outside of what I grew up around that are actually doing what they claim. Several of them aren't as in your face as the ones that just want to separate you from your money so you have to either know people associated with them or seek them out yourself.

My personal experience is also that government intervention is mostly a useless money pit as well, but I know there are some programs that are well run and helpful. Figuring out how to discern the honest parts of each element that wants to help is the challenge.

Thanks for the further insight and anytime anyone whether associated with religion or not helps those less fortunate things are better for everyone.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I think it remains fairly polarizing politically when you are essentially asking the question "what does society owe a so-called able-bodied person who appears capable of working but doesn't really do so?" When that person has children, or medical problems, or something similar, that question gets even thornier.

I wonder when do those in the US stand up and admit that in the future more and more people will be unemployed, many countries around the globe are planning towards this with some Scandinavian countries giving a living wage to people and such ... yet in the US despite there being huge amounts of visible automation incoming (self driving cars, automation of retail shops etc.) peoples heads seem wholly stuck in the sand with the concept that people should 'have' to work in order to have any value at all ...

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I wonder when do those in the US stand up and admit that in the future more and more people will be unemployed, many countries around the globe are planning towards this with some Scandinavian countries giving a living wage to people and such ... yet in the US despite there being huge amounts of visible automation incoming (self driving cars, automation of retail shops etc.) peoples heads seem wholly stuck in the sand with the concept that people should 'have' to work in order to have any value at all ...

It will take people admitting that Capitalism was great for the industrial era, but much like Feudalism couldn't last when the world changed neither will Capitalism with the combination of automation and sharing economy that is coming. It's not going to be pretty for those who hold on to the parts of Adam Smith they like as if it's gospel.

[bob]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

It will take people admitting that Capitalism was great for the industrial era, but much like Feudalism couldn't last when the world changed neither will Capitalism with the combination of automation and sharing economy that is coming. It's not going to be pretty for those who hold on to the parts of Adam Smith they like as if it's gospel.

I have a serious question and I'm not attacking anyone with it...

So with that out of the way, I keep seeing the following:
- We need guaranteed minimum income
- We don't spend enough on education
- We don't spend enough on health care
- We don't spend enough on mental health care
- We don't spend enough on infrastructure

And I'm sure there are others. So let's say we did "spend enough." What's our country look like at that point? What are tax rates? What employment rate are we looking at and are we comfortable with? What happens to people that bought a house under the assumption they made $X but now their taxes have increased a massive amount? Etc. I see a lot of "we should do a, b, and c" but not enough "but we will need to be aware of x, y, and z" and I don't think you can have a real conversation without acknowledging both parts.

So any ideas here?

[JPhillips]

New Chief of Staff Kelly Moves Quickly to Tame Trump's Tweets

Well, so much for that.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by bob

I have a serious question and I'm not attacking anyone with it...

So with that out of the way, I keep seeing the following:
- We need guaranteed minimum income
- We don't spend enough on education
- We don't spend enough on health care
- We don't spend enough on mental health care
- We don't spend enough on infrastructure

And I'm sure there are others. So let's say we did "spend enough." What's our country look like at that point? What are tax rates? What employment rate are we looking at and are we comfortable with? What happens to people that bought a house under the assumption they made $X but now their taxes have increased a massive amount? Etc. I see a lot of "we should do a, b, and c" but not enough "but we will need to be aware of x, y, and z" and I don't think you can have a real conversation without acknowledging both parts.

So any ideas here?

I think part of the equation is lowering our spending in the military to offset increases for infrastructure and stuff like that. We can cut military spending quite a bit. Do we really need to nearly triple the next highest spender? Couldn't we get by with merely doubling the next highest spender?

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by bob

I have a serious question and I'm not attacking anyone with it...

So with that out of the way, I keep seeing the following:
- We need guaranteed minimum income
- We don't spend enough on education
- We don't spend enough on health care
- We don't spend enough on mental health care
- We don't spend enough on infrastructure

And I'm sure there are others. So let's say we did "spend enough." What's our country look like at that point? What are tax rates? What employment rate are we looking at and are we comfortable with? What happens to people that bought a house under the assumption they made $X but now their taxes have increased a massive amount? Etc. I see a lot of "we should do a, b, and c" but not enough "but we will need to be aware of x, y, and z" and I don't think you can have a real conversation without acknowledging both parts.

So any ideas here?

The simplified solution is that businesses pay taxes to cover the employees they are no longer paying, and that money is distributed. Obviously it's more detailed than that, but the loss/elimination of jobs isn't getting rid of the revenue being generated.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

New Chief of Staff Kelly Moves Quickly to Tame Trump's Tweets

Well, so much for that.

Pretty much met the over/under on this one. It continues to amaze me how he continues to attack veterans in congress (Though Blumenthal is hardly an exemplary model in this area) with his 5 deferments. And I know lot's of folks received deferments, they just don't shit on those that did serve like he does.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think part of the equation is lowering our spending in the military to offset increases for infrastructure and stuff like that. We can cut military spending quite a bit. Do we really need to nearly triple the next highest spender? Couldn't we get by with merely doubling the next highest spender?

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia

Agreed. How many F-35s do we need each year? They're just now under $100 million each to produce and that doesn't include upkeep over the life of one of them. Throw the cost per hour of flight on top of it and you're talking around $200 million per plane for the F-35A which is the cheapest model.

Here are the most recent expected purchase numbers for each variant of the F-35:

The U.S. Air Force is the largest F-35 operator of all the international forces with a planned purchase of 1,763 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant.

The Marine Corps currently flies the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variant, with plans to purchase 353 STOVL jets and 67 F-35C carrier variant aircraft.

Together with the Marines, the U.S. Navy will bring 5th Generation capability to the sea with 260 F-35C jets."

United States F-35 | F-35 Lightning II

Is there a legitimate need for 1763 F-35A fighters? Let's take that $200 million per plane over its lifetime and buy 200 fewer fighter jets. The current expectation for the F-35 program is that it will last through 2070. That's $40 billion to invest in 52+ years, around $770 million per year, into either infrastructure or universal income. If you cut the program down to 1500 F-35A you save $52.6 billion, putting you at about $1 billion per year.

There are a lot of easy cuts to make to our current level of military spending that would benefit everyone quickly.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Agreed. How many F-35s do we need each year? They're just now under $100 million each to produce and that doesn't include upkeep over the life of one of them. Throw the cost per hour of flight on top of it and you're talking around $200 million per plane for the F-35A which is the cheapest model.

Here are the most recent expected purchase numbers for each variant of the F-35:



United States F-35 | F-35 Lightning II

Is there a legitimate need for 1763 F-35A fighters? Let's take that $200 million per plane over its lifetime and buy 200 fewer fighter jets. The current expectation for the F-35 program is that it will last through 2070. That's $40 billion to invest in 52+ years, around $770 million per year, into either infrastructure or universal income. If you cut the program down to 1500 F-35A you save $52.6 billion, putting you at about $1 billion per year.

There are a lot of easy cuts to make to our current level of military spending that would benefit everyone quickly.

Agree with you both on this. Military spending should be the first area that is looked at when it comes to addressing the deficiencies in areas such as healthcare/education and infrastructure. I also think you need to throw rescheduling/decriminalization of marijuana into the mix as a way the states could generate more tax revenue in these areas as well.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I wonder when do those in the US stand up and admit that in the future more and more people will be unemployed, many countries around the globe are planning towards this with some Scandinavian countries giving a living wage to people and such ... yet in the US despite there being huge amounts of visible automation incoming (self driving cars, automation of retail shops etc.) peoples heads seem wholly stuck in the sand with the concept that people should 'have' to work in order to have any value at all ...

I work in the tech world and do see automation increasing which will definitely displace some workers. There are some that will never get a good job again and there are others that will adapt to whatever new job comes from automation. Automation frees us from doing the mundane to do other things.

I think what you are saying is the # of displaced, never to be employed again etc. will greatly exceed the # of new jobs that automation brings or frees "us" to build/invest in other areas that will create new jobs?

FWIW, I think the threat is not as much automation as it is from China (and possibly others) where we will lose our "lead" (e.g. innovation, desirability etc.).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think part of the equation is lowering our spending in the military to offset increases for infrastructure and stuff like that. We can cut military spending quite a bit. Do we really need to nearly triple the next highest spender? Couldn't we get by with merely doubling the next highest spender?

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia

Your point is taken but why not % of GDP as an indicator?

And it just should not be defense, it should be a holistic solution to SS, Medicare, Medicaid, taxes etc.

[bob]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think part of the equation is lowering our spending in the military to offset increases for infrastructure and stuff like that. We can cut military spending quite a bit. Do we really need to nearly triple the next highest spender? Couldn't we get by with merely doubling the next highest spender?

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia

So not to attack, but this is another example of the "a, b, c" without the "x, y, z". What does it mean for us to reduce our military spending by 1/3, both in terms of geopolitical maneuvering as well as the jobs lost in the military industrial complex?

[bob]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

The simplified solution is that businesses pay taxes to cover the employees they are no longer paying, and that money is distributed. Obviously it's more detailed than that, but the loss/elimination of jobs isn't getting rid of the revenue being generated.

It's been said that businesses never pay taxes, as they just raise the price of goods to cover taxes. So unless we put price caps in place or nationalize all industries, how does this work?

I'm just trying to understand this all even though I don't believe it will or can ever happen barring some sort of revolution.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bob

It's been said that businesses never pay taxes, as they just raise the price of goods to cover taxes. So unless we put price caps in place or nationalize all industries, how does this work?

Just like the socialism so many seem to want.

Free sunshine AND rainbows for errybody, just like they have in all the other socialist paradise locales.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Just like the socialism so many seem to want.

What's your answer to issues with the expected increase in automation and large scale reduction in available jobs that will be coming down the road? Asking honestly, not trying to bait out anything here. Is this just not on the radar, is there a plan to handle this, thoughts in general?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Radii

What's your answer to issues with the expected increase in automation and large scale reduction in available jobs that will be coming down the road? Asking honestly, not trying to bait out anything here. Is this just not on the radar, is there a plan to handle this, thoughts in general?

For someone who is always looking to the past, what does the future matter?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Radii

What's your answer to issues with the expected increase in automation and large scale reduction in available jobs that will be coming down the road? Asking honestly, not trying to bait out anything here. Is this just not on the radar, is there a plan to handle this, thoughts in general?

Is the question what should we do?
Or what (do I believe) will most likely bedone?

Regardless, you did say "thoughts in general" so I'll offer those.

We already have a population that is surplus to needs, and under current conditions that seems likely to trend upward.

Among the steps that should be taken (not entirely in priority order): make the virtual elimination of illegal immigration AND of existing illegal immigrants an actual priority, immediate end of "anchor baby" look more closely at areas where legal immigration can be cut back, begin to de-incentivize adding to the problem by steadily reducing government payments/benefits based around a per-child notion, mandatory birth control for recipients of child-based government assistance (basically the Chinese had the right idea in terms of population intervention, just the wrong selection method).

Do I think any of those things are likely to happen? Nope, they make too much sense and as a society we seem to hate rational thought more than just about anything.

The much more likely approach is to continue down the same paths until we fully sink under our own weight.

[Edward64]

FWIW, I don't really see a tie between illegal immigration and increased automation causing job loss.

I would encourage legal immigration for well educated foreigners, most of them coming thru our colleges/universities. We want the brain drain from other countries coming here.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

FWIW, I don't really see a tie between illegal immigration and increased automation causing job loss.

The additional job loss is only a real problem if we have population surplus to needs however. Therefore, it's an element of the solution. Certainly not the entire solution, but a legitimate element.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by bob

It's been said that businesses never pay taxes, as they just raise the price of goods to cover taxes. So unless we put price caps in place or nationalize all industries, how does this work?

I'm just trying to understand this all even though I don't believe it will or can ever happen barring some sort of revolution.

That's why I say it's going to require society coming to grips with Capitalism no longer being an adequate system for the world we live in. It was perfect for the industrial age, but didn't exist before that. There will be a time when it's not fit for the world as it is. I wouldn't rule out some sort of cultural revolution being required to get us there.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

That's why I say it's going to require society coming to grips with Capitalism no longer being an adequate system for the world we live in. It was perfect for the industrial age, but didn't exist before that. There will be a time when it's not fit for the world as it is. I wouldn't rule out some sort of cultural revolution being required to get us there.

So if not capitalism then its what?

Some system that redistributes and betters "equalizes" wealth so everyone can have a basic subsistence when there aren't enough jobs?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So if not capitalism then its what?

Some system that redistributes and betters "equalizes" wealth so everyone can have a basic subsistence when there aren't enough jobs?

Maybe a money-less society like Star Trek

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So if not capitalism then its what?

Some system that redistributes and betters "equalizes" wealth so everyone can have a basic subsistence when there aren't enough jobs?

That's like asking the people who lived before the industrial era to come up with capitalism. The signs are obvious that there won't be enough paying work to sustain livable conditions for people in the very near future. The most prominent suggestion right now is a baseline universal income. That may or may not be the way forward. We need to try things and see what works best as the landscape continues to change. Smith's Wealth of Nations came a good 10-15 years into the industrial revolution.

What do you do with people who would work, and who are doing work of some sort, but can't get paid enough to survive because their work is being done by machines/AI? Should a pastor no longer be paid because his congregation, filled with people whose jobs disappeared despite their skill and willingness to work, can no longer support him? Should skilled tradesmen be left to rot because we've found a way to build a robot that can do their job more efficiently?

We can either come up with the sociopathic view that there are too many people and create ways to eradicate them or keep them from existing in the first place, or we can be decent human beings and look for a real solution.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Maybe a money-less society like Star Trek

A digital equivalent of a bartering system wouldn't be a bad thing to try. Even a hybrid that takes elements of capitalism forward while piecing the rest of it together could be a real possibility.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

A digital equivalent of a bartering system wouldn't be a bad thing to try. Even a hybrid that takes elements of capitalism forward while piecing the rest of it together could be a real possibility.

Our government can't even get it together on health care right now, imagine the hilarity as they try and implement something like this.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

What do you do with people who would work, and who are doing work of some sort, but can't get paid enough to survive because their work is being done by machines/AI? Should a pastor no longer be paid because his congregation, filled with people whose jobs disappeared despite their skill and willingness to work, can no longer support him? Should skilled tradesmen be left to rot because we've found a way to build a robot that can do their job more efficiently?

We can either come up with the sociopathic view that there are too many people and create ways to eradicate them or keep them from existing in the first place, or we can be decent human beings and look for a real solution.

We encounter this now with outsourcing, NAFTA and manufacturing moving south/overseas, and increased competition from China et al. I think your main premise is automation will cause this? I think its innovation, progress, globalization etc. of which automation is one aspect.

The solution is education & re-training. Admittedly its not 100% and yes, some people get left behind and they will suffer.

[ISiddiqui]

Interesting you say manufacturing. While people point to manufacturing jobs moving, manufacturing output is actually close to historic peaks for US manufacturing output (it has almost matched the levels prior to the 2008 recession, which was higher than manufacturing output anytime prior in the US's history). And, of course, the US is the world's second largest manufacturer. Why? Automation.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Interesting you say manufacturing. While people point to manufacturing jobs moving, manufacturing output is actually close to historic peaks for US manufacturing output (it has almost matched the levels prior to the 2008 recession, which was higher than manufacturing output anytime prior in the US's history). And, of course, the US is the world's second largest manufacturer. Why? Automation.

Would be interested in reading that report if you can find it. Also, wonder if the basis is manufacturing per capita (or some way to normalize it from pre-90s).

Maybe the better wording is "some manufacturing" ... which then has been replaced by "other manufacturing" if our manufacturing output is still high.

[ISiddiqui]

Can find the reports sourced with FRED (and graphs!), which comes from US BEA, in the Wikipedia article on it:

Manufacturing in the United States - Wikipedia

The United States is the world's second largest manufacturer, with a Q3 2016 industrial output (nominal GDP, annualized) of approximately $2.18 trillion, a record level. Real output in Q3 2016 of $1.92 trillion (i.e., adjusted for inflation) was still below the 2007 peak before the Great Recession of $1.95 trillion, but has generally been trending upward since reaching a trough of $1.71 trillion in Q1 2009.[5]

[ISiddiqui]

And this article shows the manufacturing output from the 70s to 2015:

Think nothing is made in America? Output has doubled in three decades - MarketWatch

Today, U.S. factories produce twice as much stuff as they did in 1984, but with one-third fewer workers.

[Edward64]

Found another report that breaks it down a little.

Think nothing is made in America? Output has doubled in three decades - MarketWatch

The output of the food and petroleum industries are at record highs, but the output of the chemicals, paper and printing industries are all off significantly from the pre-recession peak.

And, of course, other industries have nearly disappeared. The output of the apparel industries is down more than 80% since the heydays in the 1980s, while the output of textile mills is down about 50% since 2000. Those are the factories and jobs that are really gone for good.

Refined petroleum products — such as gasoline, fuel oil, jet fuel and liquefied refinery gases — are America’s top manufactured product, with a value of shipments going out the factory door of nearly $700 billion in 2014, more than four times as much as the No. 2 product: light trucks.

America’s other top manufactured products are pharmaceuticals, airplanes and automobiles. Rounding out the top 10 are iron and steel, animal slaughtering, plastics, organic chemicals and petrochemicals.

I think apparel and automotive have taken a hit. Petroleum is the heavy lifter.

Was it automation that cause apparel to go south/overseas? Or labor arbitrage?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think apparel and automotive have taken a hit. Petroleum is the heavy lifter.

Was it automation that cause apparel to go south/overseas? Or labor arbitrage?

Labor intensive industries have always moved to cheaper labor cost areas, first the US South from the Rust Belt (and few complained even though factories were closing all over the Midwest) and then to other countries. However, as automation gets cheaper and cheaper, it makes more sense to stay in capital intensive countries as areas with higher labor productivity tend to produce more efficiency and lower costs for those industries (ie, look at the auto industry - and how many new plants auto manufacturers are opening).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Labor intensive industries have always moved to cheaper labor cost areas, first the US South from the Rust Belt (and few complained even though factories were closing all over the Midwest) and then to other countries. However, as automation gets cheaper and cheaper, it makes more sense to stay in capital intensive countries as areas with higher labor productivity tend to produce more efficiency and lower costs for those industries (ie, look at the auto industry).

My point is automation isn't driving this per my statement below, its a bunch of other factors of which automation plays a part.

We encounter this now with outsourcing, NAFTA and manufacturing moving south/overseas, and increased competition from China et al. I think your main premise is automation will cause this? I think its innovation, progress, globalization etc. of which automation is one aspect.

[ISiddiqui]

Labor intensive industries have already moved. Capital intensive industries are looking to save costs. How will they do that? Automation is a very probable way forward. It's merely another word for 'innovation', IMO.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

we have population surplus to needs

Never heard that phrase. What does it mean? How is it quantified?

In all honesty is it like WAR? Average American needs X resources. Each American is +/- average. Those who are - and/or undocumented should.... so all deserving Americans can be + on the needs scale?