| | | Reply to Message 29028182
Because of the lies of Globalism, which is basically a tool to break down Nationalism to benefit a select few idiots that think they know it all, there are fewer and fewer physical labor jobs that pay a living wage.
Globalism can mean different things, but apparently you mean greater and freer trade. The expansion of trade and loosening of restrictions that suppress it has been one of the greatest positive forces for developing extra wealth and higher real incomes across the world in recent decades (and even recent centuries).
Also even without it there would be fewer jobs (at least as a portion of all jobs) focused on low skill hard physical labor.
As for "living wages", such jobs paid little in the past as well.
And there loss doesn't have a lot to do with trade. You can tie manufacturing job losses to trade to an extent but -
1 - Manufacturing isn't low end hard physical labor. Even more primitive and repetitive manufacturing isn't very low end. Most manufacturing jobs are not very much like ditch digging or fruit picking.
2 - If your focusing on manufacturing jobs rather than ditch diggers and such, you also have to consider the gains of jobs for companies that export manufactured items, and those that use imported goods and services to provide other goods and services.
3 - The reduced number of manufacturing jobs is primarily about extra productivity. To the extent globalization plays a significant role, its mostly about helping to push that productivity gain. Extra productivity is a good, even vital thing. Its the only way you can get sustained, broad, and significant, increased in incomes. These "job losses" are in many ways like the previous "loss" of farm jobs. In both cases the country, and the world, produces more with less. This productivity increase isn't only in the US or in richer countries, China has also had a net loss of manufacturing jobs in recent years, not because China is moving away from industry, its industrial production has been growing at a good clip, but because despite that growth, they don't need as many workers in this area, due to the increase in productivity. |
|
