underused after 1900 pods

[lordroel]

Jan 12, 2020 19:56:58 GMT Zyobot said:

‘No War on Drugs’.

Well you made a lot of people in the US addicted to drugs.

[Zyobot]

Jan 12, 2020 20:00:19 GMT lordroel said:

Jan 12, 2020 19:56:58 GMT Zyobot said:

‘No War on Drugs’.

Well you made a lot of people in the US addicted to drugs.

That’s already the case now with a War on Drugs, though...

[lordroel]

Jan 12, 2020 20:02:16 GMT Zyobot said:

Jan 12, 2020 20:00:19 GMT lordroel said:

Well you made a lot of people in the US addicted to drugs.

That’s already the case now with a War on Drugs, though...

Well it will be much bigger if there is no war on Drugs.

[Zyobot]

Jan 12, 2020 20:07:43 GMT lordroel said:

Jan 12, 2020 20:02:16 GMT Zyobot said:

That’s already the case now with a War on Drugs, though...

Well it will be much bigger if there is no war on Drugs.

Even if that does turn out to be true, though, the War on Drugs still fuels lots and lots of organized crime and police militarization as a result. So maybe our crime and police brutality problems would be greatly reduced by no War on Drugs.

Also, didn’t they once decriminalize drugs in Portugal while opening up treatment facilities—only to see addiction and overdose rates go down tremendously?

[Zyobot]

'Gerald Ford Reelected In 1976'.

[lordroel]

Jan 13, 2020 22:27:22 GMT Zyobot said:

'Gerald Ford Reelected In 1976'.

We will se Carter try in 1980 and win most likely if the economy is not doing so good.

[EwellHolmes]

Jan 6, 2020 18:24:25 GMT Zyobot said:

'US Manufacturing Sector Stays In US'. As in, firms don't close down their factories here and outsource so many jobs and mass production overseas to developing cheap-labor havens, i.e. China and Vietnam.

The U.S. as a whole would boast a higher standard of living, with higher wages in general, while being much more Conservative; the continued importance of men in the economy and the retention of Union power will force the Democrats to remain more in the vein of the New Deal while the GOP would not stray into Reaganite Neo-Liberalism. I'd imagine we'd have Universal Healthcare and other things of the like.

Internationally, China is likely much poorer and most likely still much more Communist. Continued U.S. affluence, political stability and the lack of a serious challenger means U.S. global hegemony is still extremely strong into 2020. 

[stevep]

Jan 14, 2020 6:37:21 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Jan 6, 2020 18:24:25 GMT Zyobot said:

'US Manufacturing Sector Stays In US'. As in, firms don't close down their factories here and outsource so many jobs and mass production overseas to developing cheap-labor havens, i.e. China and Vietnam.

The U.S. as a whole would boast a higher standard of living, with higher wages in general, while being much more Conservative; the continued importance of men in the economy and the retention of Union power will force the Democrats to remain more in the vein of the New Deal while the GOP would not stray into Reaganite Neo-Liberalism. I'd imagine we'd have Universal Healthcare and other things of the like.

Internationally, China is likely much poorer and most likely still much more Communist. Continued U.S. affluence, political stability and the lack of a serious challenger means U.S. global hegemony is still extremely strong into 2020. 

  Possibly but isn't that mixing cause and effect?  US corporations did that because the cheap work-forces are overseas and also US industry was already getting hammered by Japan, Taiwan and the like.  Unless you assume that doesn't happen and then China stays very communists the workers are still there.  It might be that somewhere else such as Latin America or India say becomes the new source of cheap labour for much of the western world.

  If the US tried to keep industrial primacy it needs either:

a)  Very restrictive controls to prevent industry going abroad, which is unlikely given the US political situation.  In that case the country might maintain large but relatively inefficient industries based around a reversion to traditional protectionist policies.

b)  It manages to spend a lot - and spend it wisely - on educating its workforce, developing new industrial methods and new industries.  Even so as the established power this is going to be difficult as others can more easily play catch up but it would be possibly the best option for them.

[stevep]

Jan 14, 2020 4:47:44 GMT lordroel said:

Jan 13, 2020 22:27:22 GMT Zyobot said:

'Gerald Ford Reelected In 1976'.

We will se Carter try in 1980 and win most likely if the economy is not doing so good.

  I don't know if it would be Carter if he tried and failed in 76 but you would be likely to see a successful Democrat challenge if they failed in 76 and Ford had a less than dramatically impressive period of power.  Both because the Republicans would have been in power for 12 years, because of the continued taint of Watergate - especially assuming Ford still pardons Nixon - and assuming that the continued economic problems during the 70's worsen and the Shah still falls.  Almost certainly so if there is a hostage crisis in Tehran and Soviet adventurism in Afghanistan as OTL. - That's another reason why I don't think a more radical Carter is unlikely to be the Democratic candidate as he would be more likely to be defeated by a more conventional political figure of the time.

[EwellHolmes]

Jan 14, 2020 10:50:41 GMT stevep said:

Jan 14, 2020 6:37:21 GMT EwellHolmes said:

The U.S. as a whole would boast a higher standard of living, with higher wages in general, while being much more Conservative; the continued importance of men in the economy and the retention of Union power will force the Democrats to remain more in the vein of the New Deal while the GOP would not stray into Reaganite Neo-Liberalism. I'd imagine we'd have Universal Healthcare and other things of the like.

Internationally, China is likely much poorer and most likely still much more Communist. Continued U.S. affluence, political stability and the lack of a serious challenger means U.S. global hegemony is still extremely strong into 2020. 

  Possibly but isn't that mixing cause and effect?  US corporations did that because the cheap work-forces are overseas and also US industry was already getting hammered by Japan, Taiwan and the like.  Unless you assume that doesn't happen and then China stays very communists the workers are still there.  It might be that somewhere else such as Latin America or India say becomes the new source of cheap labour for much of the western world.

  If the US tried to keep industrial primacy it needs either:

a)  Very restrictive controls to prevent industry going abroad, which is unlikely given the US political situation.  In that case the country might maintain large but relatively inefficient industries based around a reversion to traditional protectionist policies.

b)  It manages to spend a lot - and spend it wisely - on educating its workforce, developing new industrial methods and new industries.  Even so as the established power this is going to be difficult as others can more easily play catch up but it would be possibly the best option for them.

Manufacturing losses before China were pretty small; Taiwan was a non-entity and West Germany/Japan were mainly confined to cars and steel. Most of what happened was really short term profit seeking:

Manhattan Institute

This question of what happens next is thus central to the economy’s trajectory. Without the productivity gain, nothing happens. Workers able to produce more than before, for whatever reason, is the sine qua non of economic progress. But only if accompanied by rising output are the effects for workers undeniably positive.



Historically, that has been the dynamic. From 1947 to 1972, for instance, economy-wide productivity roughly doubled. But output surged as well and, at the end of the period, the same share of the population was working and men’s wages were up 86%. In the manufacturing sector, productivity rose by 3.4% annually, but real value added rose by 4.2% annually; employment during the period rose by more than three million.



Compare that period to the 21st century, when America has lost nearly five million manufacturing jobs. Was any of this because of extraordinary technological breakthroughs that caused productivity to surge, allowing firms to do much more with many fewer workers? No. In fact, the average rate of productivity growth in manufacturing this century has been 3.1%—lower than 1947–72 and no different than 1972–2000. But output growth has been only 1.3%, less than a third the rate of the earlier period. We’ve gone from the world where firms use a doubling of productivity to double output, to one where they use it to lay off half their workers. Had output growth this century equaled that of 1950–2000, manufacturing employment today would be near an all-time high.



So when policymakers blame automation for job losses, they are looking in the wrong place. Productivity gains have always been with us—in fact, they used to come faster. If anything, the American economy is suffering from insufficient automation—as reflected in declining productivity growth, stagnant wages, and remarkably little use of robots. American manufacturers use only 200 industrial robots per 10,000 workers, the standard measure of adoption. In both Germany and Japan, that level exceeds 300. In South Korea, it exceeds 700. With greater automation and higher productivity, American firms would likely be more competitive in the international economy.

[stevep]

Jan 14, 2020 15:10:32 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Jan 14, 2020 10:50:41 GMT stevep said:

  Possibly but isn't that mixing cause and effect?  US corporations did that because the cheap work-forces are overseas and also US industry was already getting hammered by Japan, Taiwan and the like.  Unless you assume that doesn't happen and then China stays very communists the workers are still there.  It might be that somewhere else such as Latin America or India say becomes the new source of cheap labour for much of the western world.

  If the US tried to keep industrial primacy it needs either:

a)  Very restrictive controls to prevent industry going abroad, which is unlikely given the US political situation.  In that case the country might maintain large but relatively inefficient industries based around a reversion to traditional protectionist policies.

b)  It manages to spend a lot - and spend it wisely - on educating its workforce, developing new industrial methods and new industries.  Even so as the established power this is going to be difficult as others can more easily play catch up but it would be possibly the best option for them.

Manufacturing losses before China were pretty small; Taiwan was a non-entity and West Germany/Japan were mainly confined to cars and steel. Most of what happened was really short term profit seeking:

Manhattan Institute

This question of what happens next is thus central to the economy’s trajectory. Without the productivity gain, nothing happens. Workers able to produce more than before, for whatever reason, is the sine qua non of economic progress. But only if accompanied by rising output are the effects for workers undeniably positive.



Historically, that has been the dynamic. From 1947 to 1972, for instance, economy-wide productivity roughly doubled. But output surged as well and, at the end of the period, the same share of the population was working and men’s wages were up 86%. In the manufacturing sector, productivity rose by 3.4% annually, but real value added rose by 4.2% annually; employment during the period rose by more than three million.



Compare that period to the 21st century, when America has lost nearly five million manufacturing jobs. Was any of this because of extraordinary technological breakthroughs that caused productivity to surge, allowing firms to do much more with many fewer workers? No. In fact, the average rate of productivity growth in manufacturing this century has been 3.1%—lower than 1947–72 and no different than 1972–2000. But output growth has been only 1.3%, less than a third the rate of the earlier period. We’ve gone from the world where firms use a doubling of productivity to double output, to one where they use it to lay off half their workers. Had output growth this century equaled that of 1950–2000, manufacturing employment today would be near an all-time high.



So when policymakers blame automation for job losses, they are looking in the wrong place. Productivity gains have always been with us—in fact, they used to come faster. If anything, the American economy is suffering from insufficient automation—as reflected in declining productivity growth, stagnant wages, and remarkably little use of robots. American manufacturers use only 200 industrial robots per 10,000 workers, the standard measure of adoption. In both Germany and Japan, that level exceeds 300. In South Korea, it exceeds 700. With greater automation and higher productivity, American firms would likely be more competitive in the international economy.

  What time period are you talking about here?  I remember the complaints about the Japanese 'laser' approach as they selected and then came to dominate assorted areas of industry from the 70' onwards, starting with areas of heavy industry such as steel and shipbuild - which was probably more in the 60's, then cars, assorted electrical goods and then increasingly electronic ones and a growing domination of high tech items in computing and related areas in the 80's. 

  The US was already falling behind Japan, S Korea and Germany in robotics in the late 70s' and early 80's so the fact they may have closed the gap somewhat probably relates more to the Japanese fiscal meltdown in ~1990 that their never really recovered from.  I think the part from the 3rd paragraph of the MI quote points out the problem for the US.  Its no longer a case of using productivity to produce more but to produce similar amounts with less workers.  In part because the foreign market is a lot more challenging than in the decades after WWII.  The US can't expand against more organised opposition in part because they have concentrated less on better production methods and investment in the workforce. 

[EwellHolmes]

Jan 14, 2020 20:06:45 GMT stevep said:

Jan 14, 2020 15:10:32 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Manufacturing losses before China were pretty small; Taiwan was a non-entity and West Germany/Japan were mainly confined to cars and steel. Most of what happened was really short term profit seeking:

Manhattan Institute

  What time period are you talking about here?  I remember the complaints about the Japanese 'laser' approach as they selected and then came to dominate assorted areas of industry from the 70' onwards, starting with areas of heavy industry such as steel and shipbuild - which was probably more in the 60's, then cars, assorted electrical goods and then increasingly electronic ones and a growing domination of high tech items in computing and related areas in the 80's. 

  The US was already falling behind Japan, S Korea and Germany in robotics in the late 70s' and early 80's so the fact they may have closed the gap somewhat probably relates more to the Japanese fiscal meltdown in ~1990 that their never really recovered from.  I think the part from the 3rd paragraph of the MI quote points out the problem for the US.  Its no longer a case of using productivity to produce more but to produce similar amounts with less workers.  In part because the foreign market is a lot more challenging than in the decades after WWII.  The US can't expand against more organised opposition in part because they have concentrated less on better production methods and investment in the workforce. 

Yes, as I said it was short term profit seeking as then anything really structural. 

[stevep]

Jan 15, 2020 9:06:46 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Jan 14, 2020 20:06:45 GMT stevep said:

  What time period are you talking about here?  I remember the complaints about the Japanese 'laser' approach as they selected and then came to dominate assorted areas of industry from the 70' onwards, starting with areas of heavy industry such as steel and shipbuild - which was probably more in the 60's, then cars, assorted electrical goods and then increasingly electronic ones and a growing domination of high tech items in computing and related areas in the 80's. 

  The US was already falling behind Japan, S Korea and Germany in robotics in the late 70s' and early 80's so the fact they may have closed the gap somewhat probably relates more to the Japanese fiscal meltdown in ~1990 that their never really recovered from.  I think the part from the 3rd paragraph of the MI quote points out the problem for the US.  Its no longer a case of using productivity to produce more but to produce similar amounts with less workers.  In part because the foreign market is a lot more challenging than in the decades after WWII.  The US can't expand against more organised opposition in part because they have concentrated less on better production methods and investment in the workforce. 

Yes, as I said it was short term profit seeking as then anything really structural. 

  ??  Not sure what your referring to here?  The problems that resulted for the US because it failed to consider longer term needs/advantages in its industrial and technological policies or something else?

[EwellHolmes]

Jan 15, 2020 16:08:44 GMT stevep said:

Jan 15, 2020 9:06:46 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Yes, as I said it was short term profit seeking as then anything really structural. 

  ??  Not sure what your referring to here?  The problems that resulted for the US because it failed to consider longer term needs/advantages in its industrial and technological policies or something else?

The major U.S. companies chose cheap labor (short term profits) over making capital investments. It wasn't that the U.S. couldn't have remained on top, it's just that they chose to seek the aforementioned short term profits by offshoring. 

[stevep]

Jan 15, 2020 17:48:27 GMT EwellHolmes said:

Jan 15, 2020 16:08:44 GMT stevep said:

  ??  Not sure what your referring to here?  The problems that resulted for the US because it failed to consider longer term needs/advantages in its industrial and technological policies or something else?

The major U.S. companies chose cheap labor (short term profits) over making capital investments. It wasn't that the U.S. couldn't have remained on top, it's just that they chose to seek the aforementioned short term profits by offshoring. 

  Ok thanks for clarifying.  That's the same mistake that British [mis-]management, too often encouraged by politicians, has been making for most of the last ~170 years.