5 ms·

oh no, lost jobs and and dying economy!

by rozal 20d ago

LoganDark 20d ago
It is genuinely impossible to compete in a market where alternatives are cheaper enough, just look at how Amazon Basics squeezes competitors out of business.
- BowBun 20d ago
  This is why free trade is important. We had a decent setup where countries were specializing in their own manufacturing/services specialties, and then we all paid each other for what we needed. Then some greedy fools decided they needed more, and started trying to charge more on the way out or on the way in. Now the ones that specialized in the 'must haves' of today have insane leverage over everyone else. Then the 'easy' answer is to prevent those goods from coming into your country. It's all so incredibly shortsighted, it deflates me.
  - LoganDark 20d ago
    What are you saying? If people all choose a shitty version from China, there will be no market for a good local version and businesses will stop trying. The investment required to match China's manufacturing capability in any area is simply impossible unless you say it is an AI data center.
    - agileAlligator 19d ago
      on what basis do you claim the local product is "good" if people are not choosing it?
      - IAmBroom 19d ago
        You can manipulate the meaning of "good" to suit your purpose, but it generally refers to quality. Cost is a different aspect entirely. A one-dollar scoop of ice cream and a $100 scoop are both good.
        deleted 19d ago
        [deleted]
        agileAlligator 18d ago
        What is "quality"? What is the objective test of it? I have made my definition clear: if people are choosing a product consistently, it must be of some value to them. What is your definition?
    - BowBun 17d ago
      Real life isn't just "the shitty version from China", especially in 2026. Some of their products are better, some are worse. Nearly _all_ of our clothing comes from Asia, from low to high-end brands. I'm saying there's value in specializing, not every country needs to be able to make everything. The real issue is people weaponizing their specializations, in this case specifically the USA with its stupid trade moves.
  - somenameforme 20d ago
    The reality of the world is that when the US sets e.g. environmental or labor standards, we basically end up offshoring the affected industries to other places. Because those standards increase the cost of production which makes it more economical to produce stuff in a country that doesn't have such standards. With completely free trade, everything would be made in whichever country has the lowest standards, which is rather contrary to the implied values when passing environmental and labor standards in the first place. You could then try to make laws that countries we import from must abide certain standards, but just gets gamed endlessly. For instance cacao/chocolate makes extensive use of child slavery [1]. There have been numerous lawsuits over this until the Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that you could no longer sue Nestle/Cargill/Hershey/etc over child slavery in their supply lines. They were being sued because their oversight came down to asking, 'Hey you're not using child labor right?' 'Nah.' 'Cheers then, carry on.' When a company's goal is to not see something, they do a very good job of becoming blind. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_cocoa_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_cocoa_producti...
    - nl 20d ago
      Labor costs are orders of magnitude more than costs added by environmental or labor standards. The average hourly rate in the US is $42.50. In Vietnam is is $6.30, in the Philippines it is $5.40[1] These aren't people living in poverty - they live well. OTOH environmental legislation costs are harder to come by, but [2] estimates around 10% in a number of case studies. To be specific, that would mean US cost would be $4 less - that's still around 6 times the cost of Vietnam [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-hourly-earnings https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-hourly-earnings [2] https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2021/05/assessing-the-economic-impacts-of-environmental-policies_d55646c6/bf2fb156-en.pdf https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/report...
      - somenameforme 20d ago
        That paper discusses only the effect of increasing energy costs, and seems highly dubious as well. Their conclusion is that increases in energy prices would have a small effect that could even be positive. We got to see what happens after increasing energy prices since 2022. The effects have been neither modest nor positive. They studied only modest changes from the past, but they were speaking of energy costs shifts on a scale aiming to shift Earth's climate, which is not modest. The cost is going to be much more than 10%. Also the US economy is increasingly polarized so averages mislead. The median hourly is a bit under $21. [1] You also need to account for what happened to the economy after we start shipping these affected jobs overseas. That's an entire segment of the economy which is going to influence wages, consumption, and other distributions. I agree wages are always going to be a major factor, but we can also afford a premium because shipping stuff half way around the world isn't free, the broader economic impact of having less control over your supply line is itself also a significant cost, and so on. [1] - https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/le https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/le
nl 20d ago
> oh no, lost jobs and and dying economy! It worked for Australia (which has a fairly similar economy to Canada). It has led to a "Dutch disease" reliance on the resources sector in Australia, but that isn't radically different to the Australian economy before (mostly proportionally more coal & iron ore exports, less wool and grain)
inigyou 20d ago
That is a policy choice. Why do we need jobs if we're getting unlimited free stuff? The laws of physics aren't requiring us to - we are requiring us to.
- IAmBroom 19d ago
  I was unaware that goods self-assembled without human intervention. Please, elaborate.
  - inigyou 19d ago
    Other humans. If other humans were giving you everything you need for free, why do you need a job?
    - LoganDark 19d ago
      To afford things I merely want? To afford to support friends and partners?
      - inigyou 19d ago
        But other people are giving you everything you want for free. Why do you need to afford it? What does it even mean to question whether you can afford something you already get unlimited amounts of for free?
        LoganDark 19d ago
        You said "everything you need". I need shelter, I need food and water, but I want powerful computing, fast internet, a phone with cell service, treats and snacks and etc. I want games to play with my friends, I want gifts to buy for my friends. I don't need those things, but they greatly contribute to my quality of life. Also: > What does it even mean to question whether you can afford something you already get unlimited amounts of for free? If I had unlimited money, my limiting resources would quickly become time and energy instead. So affording something would mean fitting it into my day/week/month/etc, and finding the energy for it. I have severe ADHD and executive dysfunction, so I don't always have the capacity for things I should be able to do.
Barrin92 20d ago
protectionism is what kills your economy because it cannot raise aggregate output. You can't "save jobs" in total, only a minority at the expense of the majority. When you raise tariffs on Chinese imports every consumer takes an economic hit, which otherwise would have gone to.. job creation and consumption. You'll have on net fewer jobs because you've made your country poorer. Not to mention, Canada being largely a service and resource extraction economy doesn't even really compete much with China.

oh no, lost jobs and and dying economy!

by rozal 20d ago

oh no, lost jobs and and dying economy!

It is genuinely impossible to compete in a market where alternatives are cheaper enough, just look at how Amazon Basics squeezes competitors out of business.

BowBun 20d ago
This is why free trade is important. We had a decent setup where countries were specializing in their own manufacturing/services specialties, and then we all paid each other for what we needed. Then some greedy fools decided they needed more, and started trying to charge more on the way out or on the way in. Now the ones that specialized in the 'must haves' of today have insane leverage over everyone else. Then the 'easy' answer is to prevent those goods from coming into your country. It's all so incredibly shortsighted, it deflates me.
- LoganDark 20d ago
  What are you saying? If people all choose a shitty version from China, there will be no market for a good local version and businesses will stop trying. The investment required to match China's manufacturing capability in any area is simply impossible unless you say it is an AI data center.
  - agileAlligator 19d ago
    on what basis do you claim the local product is "good" if people are not choosing it?
    - IAmBroom 19d ago
      You can manipulate the meaning of "good" to suit your purpose, but it generally refers to quality. Cost is a different aspect entirely. A one-dollar scoop of ice cream and a $100 scoop are both good.
      - deleted 19d ago
        [deleted]
      - agileAlligator 18d ago
        What is "quality"? What is the objective test of it? I have made my definition clear: if people are choosing a product consistently, it must be of some value to them. What is your definition?
  - BowBun 17d ago
    Real life isn't just "the shitty version from China", especially in 2026. Some of their products are better, some are worse. Nearly _all_ of our clothing comes from Asia, from low to high-end brands. I'm saying there's value in specializing, not every country needs to be able to make everything. The real issue is people weaponizing their specializations, in this case specifically the USA with its stupid trade moves.
- somenameforme 20d ago
  The reality of the world is that when the US sets e.g. environmental or labor standards, we basically end up offshoring the affected industries to other places. Because those standards increase the cost of production which makes it more economical to produce stuff in a country that doesn't have such standards. With completely free trade, everything would be made in whichever country has the lowest standards, which is rather contrary to the implied values when passing environmental and labor standards in the first place. You could then try to make laws that countries we import from must abide certain standards, but just gets gamed endlessly. For instance cacao/chocolate makes extensive use of child slavery [1]. There have been numerous lawsuits over this until the Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that you could no longer sue Nestle/Cargill/Hershey/etc over child slavery in their supply lines. They were being sued because their oversight came down to asking, 'Hey you're not using child labor right?' 'Nah.' 'Cheers then, carry on.' When a company's goal is to not see something, they do a very good job of becoming blind. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_cocoa_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_cocoa_producti...
  - nl 20d ago
    Labor costs are orders of magnitude more than costs added by environmental or labor standards. The average hourly rate in the US is $42.50. In Vietnam is is $6.30, in the Philippines it is $5.40[1] These aren't people living in poverty - they live well. OTOH environmental legislation costs are harder to come by, but [2] estimates around 10% in a number of case studies. To be specific, that would mean US cost would be $4 less - that's still around 6 times the cost of Vietnam [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-hourly-earnings https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-hourly-earnings [2] https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2021/05/assessing-the-economic-impacts-of-environmental-policies_d55646c6/bf2fb156-en.pdf https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/report...
    - somenameforme 20d ago
      That paper discusses only the effect of increasing energy costs, and seems highly dubious as well. Their conclusion is that increases in energy prices would have a small effect that could even be positive. We got to see what happens after increasing energy prices since 2022. The effects have been neither modest nor positive. They studied only modest changes from the past, but they were speaking of energy costs shifts on a scale aiming to shift Earth's climate, which is not modest. The cost is going to be much more than 10%. Also the US economy is increasingly polarized so averages mislead. The median hourly is a bit under $21. [1] You also need to account for what happened to the economy after we start shipping these affected jobs overseas. That's an entire segment of the economy which is going to influence wages, consumption, and other distributions. I agree wages are always going to be a major factor, but we can also afford a premium because shipping stuff half way around the world isn't free, the broader economic impact of having less control over your supply line is itself also a significant cost, and so on. [1] - https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/le https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/le

nl 20d ago

> oh no, lost jobs and and dying economy! It worked for Australia (which has a fairly similar economy to Canada). It has led to a "Dutch disease" reliance on the resources sector in Australia, but that isn't radically different to the Australian economy before (mostly proportionally more coal & iron ore exports, less wool and grain)

inigyou 20d ago

That is a policy choice. Why do we need jobs if we're getting unlimited free stuff? The laws of physics aren't requiring us to - we are requiring us to.

IAmBroom 19d ago
I was unaware that goods self-assembled without human intervention. Please, elaborate.
- inigyou 19d ago
  Other humans. If other humans were giving you everything you need for free, why do you need a job?
  - LoganDark 19d ago
    To afford things I merely want? To afford to support friends and partners?
    - inigyou 19d ago
      But other people are giving you everything you want for free. Why do you need to afford it? What does it even mean to question whether you can afford something you already get unlimited amounts of for free?
      - LoganDark 19d ago
        You said "everything you need". I need shelter, I need food and water, but I want powerful computing, fast internet, a phone with cell service, treats and snacks and etc. I want games to play with my friends, I want gifts to buy for my friends. I don't need those things, but they greatly contribute to my quality of life. Also: > What does it even mean to question whether you can afford something you already get unlimited amounts of for free? If I had unlimited money, my limiting resources would quickly become time and energy instead. So affording something would mean fitting it into my day/week/month/etc, and finding the energy for it. I have severe ADHD and executive dysfunction, so I don't always have the capacity for things I should be able to do.

Barrin92 20d ago

protectionism is what kills your economy because it cannot raise aggregate output. You can't "save jobs" in total, only a minority at the expense of the majority. When you raise tariffs on Chinese imports every consumer takes an economic hit, which otherwise would have gone to.. job creation and consumption. You'll have on net fewer jobs because you've made your country poorer. Not to mention, Canada being largely a service and resource extraction economy doesn't even really compete much with China.