Economic woes and scapegoats...

[sarahtasher]

There is truly a problem with, shall we say, well-paying manufacturing jobs nowadays. Physical jobs, that require qualifications but not a degree. However, finding the solution is much harder than saying it's a problem : cue to blaming the Americans (if you live outside of the US, it's a very common excuse in Canada), blaming the other countries (if you live in the US), blaming ''globalists'', trade unions, the government, the migrants...

I will illustrate with a telling example and picture, a very extreme one, why usually speaking, desindustrialization is not an issue solved with catchy slogans.

I happen to live in Québec, a few dozens kilometres from a mining region, hit hard by changing trends in public use of the mineral produced there. (Not really a mineral, but you get the idea).

I'm quite open to hear suggestions about how we can 'bring back the jobs'' in this mining area (without considering that people were dying in droves there up to the fifties because of industrial diseases)-and I would add that before giving up, the government of Québec did the usual gig : nationalize the mining companies as soon as it became obvious that the industry was going the way of the dodo.

The town is called Absestos, I'm going to search for the exact production of the said town, but I think I have an idea...

[Theinquisition]

The only way those jobs will come back is if there is a demand for the product and you can supply it at a lower price than your competition

[Deleted]

if the mining industry in an area is dying, it can't be saved, its a shitty job that no one wants to do, unless they are getting paid a lot, which makes it unprofitible. the best thing a government can do in the situation is make sure that area that relied upon mining industry doesn't go to shit once its gone. see what happened in england when the mining industry died and those areas had nothing to fall back on, some places have still barely recovered.

anyway, just my opinion of course, im not an expert on economies

[BannedForViews]

I'm not really sure I understand the question. You want to know how failing mining towns can keep themselves alive after the mining industry has moved on? Welfare. See like every old mining town in America. It's all Welfare.

Really though, the only way is for the area to attract people, and that means providing them something they can't get, or get as cheaply, somewhere else. Is the area nice? Does it have favorable taxes? Is there anyway to attract "sustainable" i.e. not based on scarce resources, jobs? These are real problems faced the world over. The only way to fix it is to be competitive.

[Deleted]

The thing is... Manual physical jobs are dying out. We're either automating manufacturing jobs or creating some form of robotic technology to do them cheaper, faster and better than humans can ever do them. That's why most countries are working towards making Education a thing everyone can receive so that everyone eventually will move towards jobs that require creative thinking and such that robots can never do. But that's just my opinion.

[starlord]

it is doubtful that any jobs like that will be able to be brought back. the western economy is moving towards a service based one.

each town is in a different situation, but i have heard of them recovering via "gentrification", of a sort. basically they have to find a way to put thenselves on the map. maybe make nice, clean, affordable housing. appeal to the hipsters with "locally sourced" cuisine and nature attractions if they are in the boonies. encourage businesses to come there like restaurants or breweries etc. there are ways to make jobs, it takes some creativity on the part of the town however.

[Theodarzna]

I think expecting areas that were economically blighted by policies supported by both parties or all parties with power to simply become quiet little Palo Alto's or San Jose's or whatever was a severe miscalculation on the part of some.

The problem with our economic woes are simply that the peoples asked to sacrifice for Globalization's sake are not the ones benefiting from it.

- - - Updated - - -

it is doubtful that any jobs like that will be able to be brought back. the western economy is moving towards a service based one.

each town is in a different situation, but i have heard of them recovering via "gentrification", of a sort. basically they have to find a way to put thenselves on the map. maybe make nice, clean, affordable housing. appeal to the hipsters with "locally sourced" cuisine and nature attractions if they are in the boonies. encourage businesses to come there like restaurants or breweries etc. there are ways to make jobs, it takes some creativity on the part of the town however.

Gentrification has the problem of driving the poor out of those areas however.

[Kapadons]

Something something alt-right. Something something agitprop

[sarahtasher]

In the example given in the OP, the Québec governement spent decades blaming everyone for this : the ecologists, the Americans, the federal. That's an extreme case, but think to the coal towns in the USA...

- - - Updated - - -

Something something alt-right. Something something agitprop

Contrary to some other posters, I don't see alleged foes in every thread.

[NED funded]

The problem with our economic woes are simply that the peoples asked to sacrifice for Globalization's sake are not the ones benefiting from it.

This.


People need to realize that those that are harmed by the free trade do not see enough compensation for it and that neither cheaper products at WalMart or affordable Iphones suffice as proper compensation.

[Yunru]

Hm....turism?

Asbestos is realy something people stop using. Unless we maybe need it for some type of space fuel in future (or material needed for shielding).
http://www.nesasbestos.co.uk/blog/as...he-space-race/

[Endus]

if the mining industry in an area is dying, it can't be saved, its a shitty job that no one wants to do, unless they are getting paid a lot, which makes it unprofitible.

Also, in many cases, mines just get tapped out. They may be long-term employers, over generations, but they're not permanent employers, because their job is to exploit and remove a finite resource, not to manage and refresh a renewable resource (as agriculture or forestry do, by comparison).

The Western world isn't a manufacturing-based economy. I don't know precisely when the USA shifted out of that, but I know that for Canada, we stopped being a manufacturing-based economy in the '40s. What that means is that manufacturing ceased to be the biggest employment sector, because the service sector had grown so large. It's continued to grow, and now the knowledge sector is cleaving off from that and being identified as its own thing, and one that's about to take over as the primary sector.

This is all good. Before we were manufacturing-based economies, we were agriculture-based economies. Moving to manufacturing meant that man-hours were spent more effectively, producing more value, and boosting economic growth. The same was true in moving to service sector jobs (which isn't just cashiers and call center people, it's a huge sector, and includes a ton of white-collar work, like paralegals, HR staff, etc). The same is true of the current expansion of knowledge sector jobs.

What we need is effective retraining programs that are accessible to those who need them, and relocation programs to aid those who can't retrain for some reason. Not everyone's going to be able to retrain, but most could, given the right incentives. That'll likely mean the small mining town where everyone's employed by the mine? That town may cease to exist as the population largely retrains and moves away. But that's fine. That's an issue with the main employer of that town shutting down. It's not an economy-wide issue.

[starlord]

Gentrification has the problem of driving the poor out of those areas however.

ideally, they would be able to change to service based jobs instead. it is not a good alternative to sit and pray for the yum-yum fish to return (mines or factories to re-open) while bemoaning cruel fate.

[Deleted]

The problem with our economic woes are simply that the peoples asked to sacrifice for Globalization's sake are not the ones benefiting from it.

This. A thousand times this.

[NED funded]

Also, in many cases, mines just get tapped out. They may be long-term employers, over generations, but they're not permanent employers, because their job is to exploit and remove a finite resource, not to manage and refresh a renewable resource (as agriculture or forestry do, by comparison).

The Western world isn't a manufacturing-based economy. I don't know precisely when the USA shifted out of that, but I know that for Canada, we stopped being a manufacturing-based economy in the '40s. What that means is that manufacturing ceased to be the biggest employment sector, because the service sector had grown so large. It's continued to grow, and now the knowledge sector is cleaving off from that and being identified as its own thing, and one that's about to take over as the primary sector.

This is all good. Before we were manufacturing-based economies, we were agriculture-based economies. Moving to manufacturing meant that man-hours were spent more effectively, producing more value, and boosting economic growth. The same was true in moving to service sector jobs (which isn't just cashiers and call center people, it's a huge sector, and includes a ton of white-collar work, like paralegals, HR staff, etc). The same is true of the current expansion of knowledge sector jobs.

What we need is effective retraining programs that are accessible to those who need them, and relocation programs to aid those who can't retrain for some reason. Not everyone's going to be able to retrain, but most could, given the right incentives. That'll likely mean the small mining town where everyone's employed by the mine? That town may cease to exist as the population largely retrains and moves away. But that's fine. That's an issue with the main employer of that town shutting down. It's not an economy-wide issue.

This is not good. I agree that during the process of globalization is in overall good for the economy and the majority of people, but you are undermining it's effects. The current process we are seeing it's not one or two factories closing at a time, or wages droping by insignificant values, giving people enough time to retrain and prepare. Wages drop significantly for those affected and we now know that those displaced workers are not faring well despite retraining and that this effect might be permanent. Meanwhile prices of food keep increasing and rents continue to increase faster than median income. So free trade seems to only benefit those in the midle midle class men and above. Anyone below that is getting the shaft.

[Endus]

This is not good. I agree that during the process of globalization is in overall good for the economy and the majority of people, but you are undermining it's effects. The current process we are seeing it's not one or two factories closing at a time, or wages droping by insignificant values, giving people enough time to retrain and prepare. Wages did drop significantly for those affected and we now know that those displaced workers are not faring well despite retraining and that this effect might be permanent. Meanwhile prices of food keep increasing and rents continue to increase faster than median income.

If those are truly issues with globalization, rather than American economic policy, then they should be observable in other similar countries. Plus, it ignores internal factors, such as the Baby Boomer demographic bubble, who have had increasing wealth as they age and have typically seen their real estate holdings as an "investment", and are thus unwilling to accept losses on those units, meaning they've resulted in a strong upward pressure in prices, since you always need to sell for more than you bought for, and those you were selling TO were largely other Boomers who were "trading up" similarly.

Trying to boil down those kinds of complexities to "it's all globalization" is just unsupportable.

It also bears repeating for those who haven't been in economics discussions with me that I'm a market socialist, ideologically; while I don't have any issue with market activity such as with globalization, that's separate from the support I feel a government should be providing to its citizens. Which I'd agree has been lacking for nearly a half-century, in North America.

[NED funded]

If those are truly issues with globalization, rather than American economic policy

I'm American so I don't know about other countries, but just by simple observation English towns suffer the same consequences.

Plus, it ignores internal factors, such as the Baby Boomer demographic bubble, who have had increasing wealth as they age and have typically seen their real estate holdings as an "investment", and are thus unwilling to accept losses on those units, meaning they've resulted in a strong upward pressure in prices, since you always need to sell for more than you bought for, and those you were selling TO were largely other Boomers who were "trading up" similarly.

Yes, that's the thing. Economic theory states that drop in prices should be enough of a compensation for those that see their wages stagnate or flat out loose their jobs. But in the basics we see things like rents and food increase in prices (even in Canada), essential things for everybody. So while they can now afford iPhones they cannot afford increase in prices of foods and rents, thus stagnating.

Trying to boil down those kinds of complexities to "it's all globalization" is just unsupportable.

Trade shocks that result from the process of free trade are more complex than you think.

[Theodarzna]

ideally, they would be able to change to service based jobs instead. it is not a good alternative to sit and pray for the yum-yum fish to return (mines or factories to re-open) while bemoaning cruel fate.

This places the burden exclusively on the displaced workers. Consider the time and money required to gather new skills. If your a father at the age of 40+ asked now to go back to school, incur all that debt AND take care of your family and spend maybe 6 or more years getting an advanced degree, you have a different perspective.

That is the other factor in the "Just get better skills!" claim that goes wrong fast. The economy and technology change at a rate that vastly outruns anybodies practical ability to adapt to it. IMHO Most adaptations are pure luck at this point and definitely will be in the coming years.

- - - Updated - - -

This.


People need to realize that those that are harmed by the free trade do not see enough compensation for it and that neither cheaper products at WalMart or affordable Iphones suffice as proper compensation.

Some people act as if places like West Virginia or Kansas do not exist. Cheaper goods mean nothing when you must now work at Wal-Mart to subsist and endure all the humiliations that entails.

Free Trade has brought some benefits, nobody will deny that. But the primary beneficiaries of Free Trade and Neo-Liberalism have sacrificed nothing for those benefits.

What is happening now is people are aghast that the lamb offered for sacrifice now wants a say in the matter.

[sarahtasher]

This places the burden exclusively on the displaced workers. Consider the time and money required to gather new skills. If your a father at the age of 40+ asked now to go back to school, incur all that debt AND take care of your family and spend maybe 6 or more years getting an advanced degree, you have a different perspective.

That is the other factor in the "Just get better skills!" claim that goes wrong fast. The economy and technology change at a rate that vastly outruns anybodies practical ability to adapt to it. IMHO Most adaptations are pure luck at this point and definitely will be in the coming years.

- - - Updated - - -



Some people act as if places like West Virginia or Kansas do not exist. Cheaper goods mean nothing when you must now work at Wal-Mart to subsist and endure all the humiliations that entails.

Free Trade has brought some benefits, nobody will deny that. But the primary beneficiaries of Free Trade and Neo-Liberalism have sacrificed nothing for those benefits.

What is happening now is people are aghast that the lamb offered for sacrifice now wants a say in the matter.

Okay. It's because of globalism that coal mines closed everywhere in the world ?

[Theodarzna]

Okay. It's because of globalism that coal mines closed everywhere in the world ?

To a degree, yes. A combination of various factors and government policy have changed those things. However nothing was done about those displaced people. I mean they might shovel student loans upon them, but in material terms they vaporized the underpinnings of whole communities and have left them to rot.

Thus the term Appalachification, these areas are severally blighted. THEY did not receive the benefits of Globalization, they were sacrificed FOR the benefits.

My problem with globalism in general is simply that the some sacrifice nothing yet reap the lion share of the rewards.

Imagine if I were able to make a billion dollars right now, all I had to do was burn your house down and break your spine leaving you crippled. With that billion I'd feed starving kids, raise wages in the Congo, ect..... but still I am sacrificing YOU for something that will mostly benefit me, and incidentally a few others. More over I just expect you to deal with the consequences and remind you that "Hey, over all good has come from this!" That is not a good sell to you now is it?