The TPP and the future of America as a global power

[Cairhiin]

I've been thinking about this, and one of the questions I have is this: We have a network of computing devices that can communicate with each other across the country in real-time. Why was the outcome of this for tech companies to cluster in...what, three cities in the US? Four? Isn't that antithetical to the utility of the internet, where you can have a guy living in Michigan talk to a guy in Dubai and a guy in Frankfurt and there's no downtime in that communication?

Because industry clustering allows for economies of scale, sharing of resources, and coordination with related companies. Other services related to, or supporting, the main industry start clustering near it. Even though information is instant, there is still an advantage to having similar industries in the same geographical area. There's spillover effects and access to skilled labour and capital to consider etc.

[Nadiru]

Because industry clustering allows for economies of scale, sharing of resources, and coordination with related companies. Other services related to, or supporting, the main industry start clustering near it. Even though information is instant, there is still an advantage to having similar industries in the same geographical area. There's spillover effects and access to skilled labour and capital to consider etc.

Not in tech, where distance is effectively irrelevant. There are time zone issues but within the Lower 48? That's not a problem in any meaningful sense. The only real producer in Silicon Valley is Intel and software producers won't give a shit about hardware production. And the firms which produce electronic goods will largely be importing them from Asia, which explains Pacific tech centers but not Atlantic ones. It's like a weird path-dependency problem.

- - - Updated - - -

I would imagine it's largely based on relative employee availability.

I mean, not that anyone affected would want to hear it, but it's possible that it's simply not sustainable to have places like a lot of those small towns unless they're tied to agriculture or something. I know in Michigan that a lot of small towns were based around summer tourism, and when things like I-75 came in and changed not just the route people took to go up north, but the number of times they needed to stop along the way, a lot of those towns began to die. Some of them are still doing fine and are in and of themselves popular destinations for summer tourism (Oscoda and the surrounding area, for instance, is all summer cottages), but a lot of them have basically nothing going on in terms of business opportunities.

My point is that with the internet, someone could live in Appalachia and as long as they had an internet connection and what is academically referred to as "skillz to pay the billz" it oughtn't matter where the firm is relative to the employee.

[Nadiru]

My point is someone with the "skillz to pay the billz" probably isn't living in some tiny little podunk town in the first place.

My point is that they could and save most of their money, since 100k in San Fran is closer to 35k elsewhere in the country.

[Shadowferal]

My point is someone with the "skillz to pay the billz" probably isn't living in some tiny little podunk town in the first place.

Well you're already well biased against rural living, even though I find that far far better than the shitty city.

[Cairhiin]

Not in tech, where distance is effectively irrelevant. There are time zone issues but within the Lower 48? That's not a problem in any meaningful sense. The only real producer in Silicon Valley is Intel and software producers won't give a shit about hardware production. And the firms which produce electronic goods will largely be importing them from Asia, which explains Pacific tech centers but not Atlantic ones. It's like a weird path-dependency problem.

That is true but the tech industry is not just about programming. There is also a large amount of R&D which specifically requires the availability of skilled labour. While true, in the tech industry distance isn't as important as in manufacturing, clustering still offers advantages.

[SirBeef]

Axing TPP is an easy way for Trump to show he was serious about those white working class people who have been harmed by globalization.

Sorry studies show that it's automation that had a larger impact.

[SirBeef]

Am I the only one, who finds it rather weird that he'll bring back jobs "it's about time", by cancelling a trade agreement that isnt even in force yet? Are his voters really this stupid?

He brought all those jobs back to Ford from Mexico that were not leaving in the first place.

[Nadiru]

That is true but the tech industry is not just about programming. There is also a large amount of R&D which specifically requires the availability of skilled labour. While true, in the tech industry distance as important as in manufacturing, clustering still offers advantages.

A lot of tech today is very much about programming. Most firms are built on software alone, and very very few firms are built on any sort of hardware platform; when it is, it's integrated programming for specialized equipment (hospital computers, etc)

[Zenfoldor]

My point is someone with the "skillz to pay the billz" probably isn't living in some tiny little podunk town in the first place.

The reason Donald Trump won the election.

[SirBeef]

My point is someone with the "skillz to pay the billz" probably isn't living in some tiny little podunk town in the first place.

There are plenty of wealthy suburbs I could live in in the greater metro Detroit area, but I enjoy my quaint little podunk home downriver. The first home I bought. I see no need to waste that much money on a home that size just to be with people I don't really want to associate with.

[Zenfoldor]

That's not a tired and baseless meme or anything.

...but it's true, so.....

[sarahtasher]

Good fucking riddance.

Not that i am surprised to see globalists more than willing to destroy consumer rights and communities like the doujin community in their grand delusion while ignoring that trade deals will purely benefit big corporations in the worst possible way for ordinary people.

And when other countries tried to have protective deals, the agitprop instructions were to scream that we were ''kommuniss''. I mean, if an alt-right guru give orders to belive that free trade is a jew conspiracy, it's true.

[DJ117]

They voted for trump. Sooooo I feel like the level of stupidity is self explanatory.

Wauw, you must feel quite stupid for losing to stupid people.

[SirBeef]

Um... Where in SE Michigan is anything "quaint" or "podunk"? I'm talking shit like Omer and Luzerne, not the smaller townships on the outskirts of Metro Detroit that may technically have a small population, but are still conveniently located next to a sprawling mass of civilization and modern amenities.

I consider Brownstown podunk.

[Nadiru]

And when other countries tried to have protective deals, the agitprop instructions were to scream that we were ''kommuniss''. I mean, if an alt-right guru give orders to belive that free trade is a jew conspiracy, it's true.

On the other hand, if the US is openly protectionist now, that opens up the opportunity for other countries to be openly protectionist. Which mostly fucks over China and Japan and Germany, so that's pretty good.

[NED funded]

The IP provisions of TPP alone were more than enough reason for me to oppose it. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

I think it was meant to protect American IP from the same bullshit that China is peddling.

[Shadowferal]

Sorry studies show that it's automation that had a larger impact.

Sorry. But whatever study your claiming, doesn't affect what people believe.

General Motors Announces First Layoffs in Six Years; cuts 2,000 jobs

The Lordstown plant makes the Cruze sedan. GM also makes a hatchback version of the Cruze at a plant just over the border in Mexico. GM started selling that Mexican-made version of the car in the U.S market with the 2017 model.

President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly told automakers that, if elected, he intends to impose a 35% tax on cars they build in Mexico for the U.S. market.


------------------------------

This was the day after the election.
I bet Ohio and Michigan feel smugly justified in becoming Red states.
The upshot is that going to Mexico had nothing to do with automation. Going to a country that is non-union workers...when means dirt-cheap wages, and little regulation is likely better reasons to leave.

[sarahtasher]

On the other hand, if the US is openly protectionist now, that opens up the opportunity for other countries to be openly protectionist. Which mostly fucks over China and Japan and Germany, so that's pretty good.

After driving our companies to the ground and finding loopholes to prevent the companies that were competitives to reach the US market.

[Shadowferal]

[Citation needed]

You didn't bother reading it the first few times it was posted...but here ya go:

The exit polls tell us one sure thing: Voters wanted change

I finally got enough sleep after Election Day to function mentally. Here's my take from a deep dive into the 2016 exit poll.

Voters in the Rust Belt were especially tired of hearing Democrats say how good the economy was while working families were having a hard time paying their mortgages and feeding their families every month.

President-elect Trump proved that simple messages work best. (Disclaimer: I am not related to Steve Bannon, chairman of the Trump campaign). Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's message on the economy was too complex.

Saying the economy is bad, like Trump did, rang truer to voters in the industrial Midwest than Clinton's message that the economy was getting better, but we had a lot more to do to make sure everyone enjoyed the fruits of economic growth under President Obama.

The proof was that the overwhelming majority of economically marginal white voters without a college degree supported Trump (67 percent) over Clinton (28 percent). If that isn't enough to make the point, barely half (51 percent) of the voters from lower middle-class households supported the Democratic nominee.

The coda to the 2016 campaign was General Motor's announcement the day after the election that it was laying off 2,000 workers in its assembly plants in Ohio and Michigan. Those 2,000 workers were hurt by international trade. Exit polls showed there were more voters who thought international trade took away American jobs (42 percent) than those who believed it created jobs here (38 percent).

On this issue, Clinton's change of heart on trade didn't help her. The voters who thought trade agreements were bad went for Trump more than two to one (65 percent to 31 percent).

Frustration with the pace of economic growth went hand in hand with anger toward the political and economic establishment.

Only a third (33 percent) of the voters thought the country was "generally going in the right direction." An overwhelming majority of the electorate (62 percent) believed the U.S. was "seriously off on the wrong track." The large bloc of voters who were bent out of shape went for Trump (69 percent to 25 percent) ... big-league.

The anger toward the condition of the economy extended to anger with the federal government.

Few voters (29 percent) were pleased with the federal government, while more than twice as many voters (69 percent) were unhappy.

Guess whom the anti-federalists supported? Trump, of course, 58 percent to 36 percent.

The Republican congressional majority deserves much of the blame for the poor performance of the federal government but the guy at the top, Obama, and his favored candidate, Clinton, took the hit.

One of the most fascinating pieces of data from the exit poll was the overall opinion of the candidates.

Clinton's negative rating was high, but it not nearly as bad as Trump's. The former secretary of State's popularity was 10 percent points underwater, but Trump's was buried in the subterranean depths of the ocean with a net negative of 22 points.

So why did the candidate with the biggest negative do almost as well as the Democratic nominee in the popular vote?

The answer is that voters weren't voting against Clinton as much as they were expressing their frustration with the status quo.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the populist icon from the Bay State, put it best when she told the AFL-CIO last week that "They voted for him (Trump) despite the hate. They voted for him out of frustration and anger and out of hope he would bring change."

Voters were buying change while Clinton was trying to sell status quo.

When a candidate is tainted with Wall Street and the economic policies of the incumbent president, it's difficult to sound like an agent of change. It didn't matter much that voters thought the GOP nominee treated women like dirt (70 percent) and that he was unqualified for the job (60 percent).

Those things should have mattered, but they didn't. The most important quality that voters wanted in a president was someone who could change things. These change voters overwhelmingly (83 percent to 14 percent) supported the Republican nominee.

Clinton neglected the populist economic message that would have won the industrial Midwest — and the presidency.

[Shadowferal]

This isn't what I'm asking for. I'm asking for how I got Donald Trump elected by virtue of accurately referring to small towns as "podunk."

Now you're just playing shitty games...I mean is this like scoring points now...?