Replies

Two things I don't understand.

Was there this much concern as America moved from an agricultural based economy to a manufacturing based economy? Do were eventually "run out" of economies or are we innovative enough to push new frontiers?

Would Americans be willing to pay $500 (or whatever the price might be, it would certainly be a lot more expensive than it is now) for a VCR in exchange for keeping a manufacturing based economy?

It occurs to me that Japan, in addition to other things, has tried both models and it doesn't seem to be working out very well for them.

We went from an agricultural to an industrial economy because machinery made it possible to raise more crops with less labor. The excess or redundant agricultural workers could move into manufacturing. The concern now is that the necessary industrial base is moving overseas and we won't be able to rely on it.

We didn't experience the same anxiety moving from an agricultural to an industrial country. A country like Britain did though. They had to rely on imports to feed themselves -- a problem we didn't have. An unexpected event, like the submarine warfare of the 20th century could have reduced them to starvation. But our own transition to industrialism was frought with other anxieties: the subjugation of independent, self-reliant and self-sufficient small farmers to employers and time clocks, the growing power of money, industrial wealth, and large corporations, and the fear that government or revolutionaries might confiscate private and corporate property in the name of the workers and curtail freedoms.

What troubles many people now is that in spite of all the new technologies, automation, and managerial techniques, production always seems to come down to the brute fact of cheap labor. If you benefit from this, it's a sign that freedom always wins out over barriers, borders, regulations and restrictions. If you are threatened by it, it's a sign that your life is governed by powerful forces that you can't keep under control or at bay.

Becoming a service economy is not a new frontier. Unless you think making $7.00 an hour at wal-mart is a step up. The profit motive, which is great, by the way, goes too far when US companies take the means of production overseas. They do this less for tax purposes and more for the incredibly cheap labor. This idea of "free trade" being fair is a myth: workers should earn a good living wage, and they do, but those that can get away without paying a good living wage to their workers do so with aid from the US (NAFTA, for example). A job that would pay a US citizen $25.00 an hour pays a Brazilian $4.00 an hour, which is a whole lot for the Brazilian.

Illegal immigration compounds the problem. If we're going to throw our weight around in the world, we should push for other countries to reform their economies like the US--to at least set minimum wages comparable to US standards. If not, there will be no manufacturing or industry, or even high technology in the US. No matter the industry or tech., the cheaper the labor, the higher the profits. The United States is fast becoming irrelevant in the world economy.

Our trade deficit is so high because of ridiculously cheap imports. Imports are cheap because workers' wages are nothing overseas. Great for the consumer, but we have to work in able to be able to consume. Standards of living diminish when these good jobs leave.

No doubt, we have to protect the US economy--if we're serious about free trade, etc., then other countries should be as well, and play fair.

You are correct. As we moved from an agri based economy to industrial, did we lose the agri business? No, we are the largest overall food producer in the world.

People use the term "service industry" to denegrate and that's ridiculous. I worked in the hotel industry as a Controller for 15 years and I saw plenty of capital being spent and many jobs created.

It's not my fault the mostly unionzed workers in the Mideast have never bothered to learn any new skills or save money when being well paid or think about moving if jobs dry up. Where is it written you have to live in one place all of your life? I went from California to Ark to Texas to N. Carolina to Tenn from 1960-1990. I went where the work was and the taxes were low.

As to "protection", as I wrote in this thread already, who's to say? Were we supposed to protect all those lost jobs when calculators and computers replaced slide rules? Do kids in school today even bother to learn geometry with protractors and graph paper anymore? I guess we should worry that the Palm Pilot might eventually replace spiral notebooks. Can't have all those spiral notebook workers in Backwater, Ohio out of work!

Do any of the "have to protect our base" people ever consider all the jobs created in the new industries?

I know all the arguements about things like steel (can't rely on foreign sources, we'd be doomed) or oil and I can relate to them somewhat. But keeping old industries that can't or won't adapt like textiles in South Carolina alive only to protect the job of some voter is stupid.

And then there are the arguements about how us trading with China, etc. are helping spread our ideals and systems to the relics of the past that beleived in Communism and socialism. All that fits in and should be discussed.

But those are other threads.