Originally posted by dadudemonSaying that a policy can "hurt" a company or industry is no more emotionally charged than you asking how it "harms" their bottom line. They basically mean the same exact thing.
Actually, yes it is.You just made the same mistake. You used the word "hurt." I want actual facts. Do you have them?
Trump's idea is not an appeal to emotion. It's based on facts: trade-deficit to the tune of half a trillion dollars. The appeal to emotion parts are how he wants to go about it.
Appeal to emotion uses emotionally charge language devoid of facts to make an argument. "Hurt", "terrible", "outrageous", etc. Stick with facts and be wary of bullshit logical fallacies. That video is very well done and interviews industry relevant people. But did you hear a single fact about their companies on how it actually harmed their bottom line? I didn't. That's a red flag. While the video is dressed up in super fancy impartiality and high quality production, if you look a bit closer, you can see the bias.
I thought the most interesting facts presented were how the products China is exporting are often comprised of parts manufactured elsewhere (including the US). So the trade deficit is a very misleading metric to user in such an intertwined global market.
Most of the manufacturing jobs in China will not be coming back here. They will sooner go to Vietnam or if they did come back here they will be automated away. The old 20th century model of an American economy based on industrial manufacturing is gone.
Originally posted by mike brown
Saying that a policy can "hurt" a company or industry is no more emotionally charged than you asking how it "harms" their bottom line. They basically mean the same exact thing.
Wrong. I want facts. Me asking for facts is the opposite of the fallacy. I even gave you an example. When I ask for bottom-line figures but I'm given "hurts", that's lame as f*ck.
Originally posted by mike brown
The old 20th century model of an American economy based on industrial manufacturing is gone.
LSS practitioner, here. You're wrong. The most efficient and cost effective method is to have all of it done in one location close to your materials sourcing.
Everything else is a less optimal state. The cost to reach the optimal state also can be prohibitive so most companies struggle along with less than optimal states making compromises here and there to obtain the most cost effective efficiencies.
Originally posted by dadudemonYou want facts what, though? The specific extent to which the bottom line was hurt in these companies in the video? I don't have any facts on those companies other than what was in the video.
Wrong. I want facts. Me asking for facts is the opposite of the fallacy. I even gave you an example. When I ask for bottom-line figures but I'm given "hurts", that's lame as f*ck.
I think they were being used to
1) put a human face on the problem
2) give some examples of how interdependant different manufacturers from different countries are on one another
3) give some examples of how the tariffs are impacting costs
It wasn't about the specific details of any given company, it was an illustrative example of the logic that can be used to decipher how putting tariffs on one Country can affect companies in other countries.
The facts part of it was more like how they broke down how much of the manufacturing cost of building an IPhone goes to China, or that something like 60% of the companies exporting from China are American.
LSS practitioner, here. You're wrong. The most efficient and cost effective method is to have all of it done in one location close to your materials sourcing.I'm not saying manufacturing in general is ****ed, I'm saying it's not going to be the backbone of economy it once was. Not for the working man, anyway. Automation will eventually replace foreign labor, but trying to force manufacturing back to the United States will speed up that process. We need to start looking for a new and better backbone for our economy.Everything else is a less optimal state. The cost to reach the optimal state also can be prohibitive so most companies struggle along with less than optimal states making compromises here and there to obtain the most cost effective efficiencies.
Originally posted by mike brown
You want facts what, though? The specific extent to which the bottom line was hurt in these companies in the video? I don't have any facts on those companies other than what was in the video.I think they were being used to
1) put a human face on the problem
2) give some examples of how interdependant different manufacturers from different countries are on one another
3) give some examples of how the tariffs are impacting costsIt wasn't about the specific details of any given company, it was an illustrative example of the logic that can be used to decipher how putting tariffs on one Country can affect companies in other countries.
The facts part of it was more like how they broke down how much of the manufacturing cost of building an IPhone goes to China, or that something like 60% of the companies exporting from China are American.
You did not present a single fact towards my question. 👆
Here's why: you don't have it. Neither do the people who made that video. I don't either.
Go back to the drawing board and find some facts. I don't want to read about what hurts, capisci?
I can deal with "2% cost increase for an average boat price hike of $2,000." I can deal with, ".4% price hike with an average increase of $100 per ton of industrial steel" is another fact I can deal with.
I'll get you started with making your argument (yes, I'm legitimately and genuinely trying to make your argument for you):
Start here:
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodities
Steel is there.
Here is the price of industrial steel over time (warning, big image):
So what conclusion can we make? The tariff seems to have greatly dropped the price of steel. WTF? This doesn't even come close to fitting the narrative being presented. It seems the opposite of what you are saying, as well.
Dude...wtf?
Originally posted by mike brown
I'm not saying manufacturing in general is ****ed, I'm saying it's not going to be the backbone of economy it once was. Not for the working man, anyway. Automation will eventually replace foreign labor, but trying to force manufacturing back to the United States will speed up that process. We need to start looking for a new and better backbone for our economy.
You just said it but don't realize it. Bringing more automated, AI driven, manufacturing back to the United States is a great move for American companies. We just so happen to be strong in AI and robotics. There will be some efficiencies gained if they move those operations back to the United States especially if the cost of "entry" now has a digestible opportunity cost (due to the tariffs). WEEEEEE!
Alright, so, where is this discussion, now? What came of it? What was accomplished?
Originally posted by mike brown
How is the blue collar worker going to benefit from bringing manufacturing jobs that are going to be filled by robots?
Let me understand your question, better. I need to frame and clarify what you're asking.
Because a bunch of AI, robotics, and software engineering jobs (and the business management and administration positions to go around those, of course) could come to the US, you're wanting to know how the currently nonexistent blue collar jobs are going to benefit?
Is that what you're asking?
Originally posted by dadudemonI'm asking for the formerly employed blue collar worker is going to benefit.
Let me understand your question, better. I need to frame and clarify what you're asking.Because a bunch of AI, robotics, and software engineering jobs (and the business management and administration positions to go around those, of course) could come to the US, you're wanting to know how the currently nonexistent blue collar jobs are going to benefit?
Is that what you're asking?
You know, the guys that Trump appealed to when he said he was going to bring their jobs back from China.
It's a joke to think the average factory worker is going to become a techie, lol.
Not only are there way fewer jobs managing those robots than there were when it was people doing the menial work, most people who fall into a menial job for a long term career don't have the capacity to be good tech worker even if they wanted to.
Originally posted by mike brown
I'm asking for the formerly employed blue collar worker is going to benefit.
You're asking if new tech jobs, unrelated to the blue collar workers who are seemingly laid off in your scenario, are going to work in white collar jobs that didn't previously exist and for which they are not qualified to work?
Originally posted by mike brown
You know, the guys that Trump appealed to when he said he was going to bring their jobs back from China.
You can take those arguments up with Trump. I haven't talked about that. But nice try on moving the goal posts. 🙂
Originally posted by Blakemore
Yeah I don't think ddm has grasped that former blue collar workers have spent time at home learning software on the internet whilst being out of work.............And he is one......
I seriously don't understand what it is you're trying to say. I'm a pansy. I never worked "blue collar."
My point is these nonexistent blue collar workers are not going to be working in the, currently, nonexistent (not nearly enough professionals ready to meet the demand) white collar jobs.
He's proposing a nonsensical hypothetical because he wants to push the conversation towards Trump instead of working in reality.
Originally posted by mike brown
It's a joke to think the average factory worker is going to become a techie, lol.
Right. But about the strawman you just did, here...
Where did I say or even come close to implying that blue collar workers were going to become AI Software Engineers, software development managers/directors, business development professionals, etc.? Can you at least try to be slightly honest? Just a bit? A tiny bit? 🙂
Originally posted by mike brown
Not only are there way fewer jobs managing those robots than there were when it was people doing the menial work, most people who fall into a menial job for a long term career don't have the capacity to be good tech worker even if they wanted to.
I think you think most humans are dumb as rocks.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You can take those arguments up with Trump. I haven't talked about that. But nice try on moving the goal posts. 🙂
It goes back to what we were talking about earlier. Manufacturing jobs used to be one of the biggest ways for lower and middle class workers to make a decent living. Those days aren't coming back. If it's not cheap foreign labor replacing you, it's a robot. I'm sure the average worker in the rust belt isn't going to be nearly as excited to bring a manufacturing plant back to their town if it's still not going to employ them.
Originally posted by dadudemonThat was in response to Blake, who seemed to be suggesting you were and example of someone who went from blue collar to the tech sector. If I misunderstood him then my bad. But I certainly wasn't straw manning you, especially since I wasn't even responding to you.
Right. But about the strawman you just did, here...Where did I say or even come close to implying that blue collar workers were going to become AI Software Engineers, software development managers/directors, business development professionals, etc.? Can you at least try to be slightly honest? Just a bit? A tiny bit? 🙂
I think you think most humans are dumb as rocks.No. I think a lot of people who work those kinds of jobs aren't really up for something like coding though.
Originally posted by mike brown
That was in response to Blake, who seemed to be suggesting you were and example of someone who went from blue collar to the tech sector.
Then my bad, homie. I was wrong.
Originally posted by mike brown
No. I think a lot of people who work those kinds of jobs aren't really up for something like coding though.
I have more faith in humans being able to adapt to the changing world than you do. However, if they aren't working, now, then these hypothetical cutting edge technology jobs won't be for them. Still. Nothing will change for them. But young up and coming people will have the opportunity to change the world.
The eventual goal is to create things that check the box for the self-replicating machines. They can do all the agriculture, maintenance, and resource collection needed to sustain themselves and humans. Then this concept of money is stupid.
XYZ knows more about this idea than I do: he's a proponount of a no-money system.
I went to a community college and sat side by side with perfectly competent blue collar workers struggling to grasp basic coding. I've seen it first hand. Anecdotal, I know. But that's been my experience.
When I was at Walmart I literally had a cashier pull out her phone and type in 25 - 5 = .... To figure out the correct change .