7 ms·

This is a pretty reductive take. If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a wee

This is a pretty reductive take. If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours. Protecting workers from that kind of competition seems fair. Tariffs aren't bad in itself. They are just a tool. Unfortunately fools wielding a tool like this can cause a lot of damage, but that's true for any tool.

eigenspace 21d ago
I don't think the comic is claiming that all tariffs in any context are bad, that would indeed be a reductive, bad take. Given the timing and the metaphor of blood being sent to and from a limb, this is almost surely a reference to the tariff threats against Canada.
- apexalpha 21d ago
  Oh this is a good point. I was not aware of new developments with US-Canada today, that makes the more-than-normal stingy reactions expected. Sorry, I'm European and can't keep up with the erratic US Gov. I read a summary at the end of the week.
  - AnimalMuppet 20d ago
    The US would be better off if more people followed your example.
simlevesque 21d ago
I never realized I've been working this much.
neaden 21d ago
"If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours." - This is not obviously true to me, can you explain why it is for you?
- apexalpha 21d ago
  Imagine a factory line where each worker makes 10 items per hour. In, say, China a worker doing 996 will make 720 items. Te average working hours in the Netherlands are 36 hours or so per week. Making 360 items. As long as there is free trade the Chinese factory will simply outproduce the Dutch one since they utilise their capex better. Obviously European workers can't be reasonably asked to compete in an open market when labour laws, salary, health inspection etc... in China are at a 1920 Dutch level.
  - kemayo 21d ago
    You seem to be assuming that productivity scales linearly with time spent working, which doesn't seem to inherently be true. If your factory workers spend twice as long working, it's likely that more widgets will get made. I'm not certain you can generalize too far from that, though.
  - neaden 21d ago
    So this is just not correct. First off a factory can run 24/7 regardless of the shift length, which is what will determine the total productivity. Second off it assumes there are no trade offs in terms of more errors or anything else by having longer shifts. Third off it assumes that factories in different countries are going to be equally effective with each other, instead of different nations/areas within nations specializing in certain areas. It also ignores the economic benefits that come with having people in your nation having more leisure time, higher education, more time with children, etc. It's a very simplistic model that is also very incorrect.
    - apexalpha 21d ago
      It's not a perfect example of course but the gist that tariffs do and should protect workers is true. Tariffs aren't inherently bad, they're a tool.
      - Kim_Bruning 20d ago
        Eh, I think every industrial society has independently arrived at something like 36-44 hours of factory time per week (plus overtime up to a max of something like 55 hours) , simply because that's the actual optimum[1]. While tariffs might work for other stuff [2], I think you're right that they can be a narrowly applicable scalpel, but plausibly you accidentally picked a bad example. [1] Caveats apply. For example more advanced machinery with higher stress may necessitate shorter shifts; while highly motivated creative work might permit longer shifts at times. [2] Adam Smith -for instance- was mostly against tariffs, though he identified certain exceptions such as national defense reasons.
fg137 21d ago
That is a ... pretty reductive take as well.
thcipriani 21d ago
The comic satirizes the 2026 US tariff rationale, vs. worker protection tariffs. But I do often think about Noam Chomsky's opposition to NAFTA[0] when talking heads explain why tariffs are bad. [0]: <https://chomsky.info/secrets03/ https://chomsky.info/secrets03/>
Kim_Bruning 21d ago
Just as a note: if you work 6x12 shifts, you're actually working less efficiently, because you'll be regularly fatigued, make more mistakes, need more rework, etc etc. You might end up with the same net yield as if you'd done 3x6 hour shifts. (edit: And only if you don't fall asleep at the controls and destroy the factory first. 12 hour shifts are brutal. At least one place I know bans you the next day if you exceed 11h, for your own protection if nothing else) (edit2: This was documented in the 1st world war when munitions factories that tried to ramp up by increasing shift durations past a certain point ended up hardly improving productivity, but did increase accident and sickness rates to the point that it was starting to hurt the war effort. )
edgyquant 21d ago
Unfortunately in our hyper partisan, sound bite, climate you can’t discuss the trade offs of tax policies anymore you either support the party line or you’re the enemy.
- apexalpha 21d ago
  I am European... Tariffs are completely normal here we protect our workers all the time. It seems I've 'stung the wasps nest' on HN by not denouncing them outright it seems.
  - MattCruikshank 21d ago
    How many 100% tariffs do you have on every good from an entire country? A scalpel is one thing. Dynamite is something else.
    - apexalpha 21d ago
      I was not aware this comic was a reation to new developments for US-CAN. I thought it was just a generic take on tarrifs and responded accordingly. I agree the current US strategy behind tariffs is pretty retarded. Good example of fools trying to use a powerful tool.
      - MattCruikshank 20d ago
        Yeah, I think you've got it. Agreeing with you and continuing my thought: If I had to guess at the comic author's intention... It's commentary that the logic is flawed. If this is why you're doing tariffs, you're not using them correctly. Not that tariffs should never be used.
    - edgyquant 20d ago
      Context is important. 100% tariffs on Canada is stupid, 100% tariffs on China because we don’t want any industry dependent on a major military adversary is something worth discussing even if the answer is to not do that in the end
cdrnsf 21d ago
My dad worked 12 hour shifts for decades (4 days on, 4 days off). Anyone working 72 hours a week isn't going to last long.
throw0101d 21d ago
> This is a pretty reductive take. Yes, because it's a one-panel comic.
thisisit 20d ago
> Protecting workers from that kind of competition seems fair. Tariffs aren't bad in itself. They are just a tool. At the cost of consumers paying for goods/services? Your take is as reductive as the take in the comics. People in a nation working 5 days a week for 8 hours are getting paid less and less over time. Heck lot of people now need double shifts to make ends meet totaling up to 12 hr or even more. They can only afford a Christmas light from the nation mass producing it by working 6 days a week, 12 hr shift. And lets not pretend this was only about protecting workers. There were multiple agendas: 1. Bring back jobs 2. Remove trade barriers between countries 3. Make US rich by collecting huge amount of tariffs All three can't be true at the same time. If jobs are brought back then you aren't going to collect huge amount of tariffs because nothing is being produced outside. If trade barriers are removed then that comes at a cost of slashing tariffs so you can't really collect huge amount of tariffs. The foolish reasoning highlighted in the comics is the reason there is so much trade war.
Hammershaft 20d ago
Have you ever heard of comparative advantage?
Lamires 20d ago
> If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours. If a nation has a decades-long technological lead over another nation, then obviously it will outcompete it in many industries and enjoy major advantages in trade. But somehow that advantage doesn't seem to count in your argument. Cherry-picking one side's advantages is not an analysis of international trade; it's just bias.

eigenspace 21d ago

I don't think the comic is claiming that all tariffs in any context are bad, that would indeed be a reductive, bad take. Given the timing and the metaphor of blood being sent to and from a limb, this is almost surely a reference to the tariff threats against Canada.

apexalpha 21d ago
Oh this is a good point. I was not aware of new developments with US-Canada today, that makes the more-than-normal stingy reactions expected. Sorry, I'm European and can't keep up with the erratic US Gov. I read a summary at the end of the week.
- AnimalMuppet 20d ago
  The US would be better off if more people followed your example.

simlevesque 21d ago

I never realized I've been working this much.

neaden 21d ago

"If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours." - This is not obviously true to me, can you explain why it is for you?

apexalpha 21d ago
Imagine a factory line where each worker makes 10 items per hour. In, say, China a worker doing 996 will make 720 items. Te average working hours in the Netherlands are 36 hours or so per week. Making 360 items. As long as there is free trade the Chinese factory will simply outproduce the Dutch one since they utilise their capex better. Obviously European workers can't be reasonably asked to compete in an open market when labour laws, salary, health inspection etc... in China are at a 1920 Dutch level.
- kemayo 21d ago
  You seem to be assuming that productivity scales linearly with time spent working, which doesn't seem to inherently be true. If your factory workers spend twice as long working, it's likely that more widgets will get made. I'm not certain you can generalize too far from that, though.
- neaden 21d ago
  So this is just not correct. First off a factory can run 24/7 regardless of the shift length, which is what will determine the total productivity. Second off it assumes there are no trade offs in terms of more errors or anything else by having longer shifts. Third off it assumes that factories in different countries are going to be equally effective with each other, instead of different nations/areas within nations specializing in certain areas. It also ignores the economic benefits that come with having people in your nation having more leisure time, higher education, more time with children, etc. It's a very simplistic model that is also very incorrect.
  - apexalpha 21d ago
    It's not a perfect example of course but the gist that tariffs do and should protect workers is true. Tariffs aren't inherently bad, they're a tool.
    - Kim_Bruning 20d ago
      Eh, I think every industrial society has independently arrived at something like 36-44 hours of factory time per week (plus overtime up to a max of something like 55 hours) , simply because that's the actual optimum[1]. While tariffs might work for other stuff [2], I think you're right that they can be a narrowly applicable scalpel, but plausibly you accidentally picked a bad example. [1] Caveats apply. For example more advanced machinery with higher stress may necessitate shorter shifts; while highly motivated creative work might permit longer shifts at times. [2] Adam Smith -for instance- was mostly against tariffs, though he identified certain exceptions such as national defense reasons.

fg137 21d ago

That is a ... pretty reductive take as well.

thcipriani 21d ago

The comic satirizes the 2026 US tariff rationale, vs. worker protection tariffs. But I do often think about Noam Chomsky's opposition to NAFTA[0] when talking heads explain why tariffs are bad. [0]: <https://chomsky.info/secrets03/ https://chomsky.info/secrets03/>

Kim_Bruning 21d ago

Just as a note: if you work 6x12 shifts, you're actually working less efficiently, because you'll be regularly fatigued, make more mistakes, need more rework, etc etc. You might end up with the same net yield as if you'd done 3x6 hour shifts. (edit: And only if you don't fall asleep at the controls and destroy the factory first. 12 hour shifts are brutal. At least one place I know bans you the next day if you exceed 11h, for your own protection if nothing else) (edit2: This was documented in the 1st world war when munitions factories that tried to ramp up by increasing shift durations past a certain point ended up hardly improving productivity, but did increase accident and sickness rates to the point that it was starting to hurt the war effort. )

edgyquant 21d ago

Unfortunately in our hyper partisan, sound bite, climate you can’t discuss the trade offs of tax policies anymore you either support the party line or you’re the enemy.

apexalpha 21d ago
I am European... Tariffs are completely normal here we protect our workers all the time. It seems I've 'stung the wasps nest' on HN by not denouncing them outright it seems.
- MattCruikshank 21d ago
  How many 100% tariffs do you have on every good from an entire country? A scalpel is one thing. Dynamite is something else.
  - apexalpha 21d ago
    I was not aware this comic was a reation to new developments for US-CAN. I thought it was just a generic take on tarrifs and responded accordingly. I agree the current US strategy behind tariffs is pretty retarded. Good example of fools trying to use a powerful tool.
    - MattCruikshank 20d ago
      Yeah, I think you've got it. Agreeing with you and continuing my thought: If I had to guess at the comic author's intention... It's commentary that the logic is flawed. If this is why you're doing tariffs, you're not using them correctly. Not that tariffs should never be used.
  - edgyquant 20d ago
    Context is important. 100% tariffs on Canada is stupid, 100% tariffs on China because we don’t want any industry dependent on a major military adversary is something worth discussing even if the answer is to not do that in the end

cdrnsf 21d ago

My dad worked 12 hour shifts for decades (4 days on, 4 days off). Anyone working 72 hours a week isn't going to last long.

throw0101d 21d ago

> This is a pretty reductive take. Yes, because it's a one-panel comic.

thisisit 20d ago

> Protecting workers from that kind of competition seems fair. Tariffs aren't bad in itself. They are just a tool. At the cost of consumers paying for goods/services? Your take is as reductive as the take in the comics. People in a nation working 5 days a week for 8 hours are getting paid less and less over time. Heck lot of people now need double shifts to make ends meet totaling up to 12 hr or even more. They can only afford a Christmas light from the nation mass producing it by working 6 days a week, 12 hr shift. And lets not pretend this was only about protecting workers. There were multiple agendas: 1. Bring back jobs 2. Remove trade barriers between countries 3. Make US rich by collecting huge amount of tariffs All three can't be true at the same time. If jobs are brought back then you aren't going to collect huge amount of tariffs because nothing is being produced outside. If trade barriers are removed then that comes at a cost of slashing tariffs so you can't really collect huge amount of tariffs. The foolish reasoning highlighted in the comics is the reason there is so much trade war.

Hammershaft 20d ago

Have you ever heard of comparative advantage?

Lamires 20d ago

> If a nation works 6 days a week, 12 hours a shift then obviously they will outcompete any nation where people work 5 days a week for 8 hours. If a nation has a decades-long technological lead over another nation, then obviously it will outcompete it in many industries and enjoy major advantages in trade. But somehow that advantage doesn't seem to count in your argument. Cherry-picking one side's advantages is not an analysis of international trade; it's just bias.