![content_thatchersteel[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/I4BZgKk.jpg "content_thatchersteel[1].jpg")
What went wrong? Why was this allowed to happen?
>>1089755
Labour is cheaper in china
Technological progress resulting in less people needed. This allowed the workforce to specialize in other departments.
>>1089762
So? Why didn't Western politicians defend the interests of their constituents working in the steel industry by preventing the destruction of their employment?
>>1089765
Most of the people laid off in the steel industry never found real employment again and either went into minimum wage jobs or collected welfare.
>>1089762
True in some cases, but in other it's plain and simple technological progress. Farmers are maybe the best example of this. I can't guarantee that's how it looks in the US, but the sizes of farmland or their placements haven't changed yet less people produce more food than ever before.
>>1089771
>Farmers are maybe the best example of this.
Farmers are the only example of this, actually. Retards like you think that when fast food is fully automated the unskilled, low-education plebs who just got laid will go into the new high-tech sectors with all their amazing wealth of knowledge, ingenuity, and creativity. When in reality they just go into a life of crime or enter the welfare system. How are you people so unaware of the reality of the situation and how fucked the majority of humanity is when the robots are rolled out in large numbers in the next decades?
>>1089784
>laid off*
kek
>>1089767
Why spend tax dollars propping up unprofitable industry? I thought americans liked the free market
>>1089784
i am as left wing as you can get, but NONE, literally ZERO of those fast food workers would want to work a single HOUR labouring in a field, a greenhouse, or an orchard.
It is quite hilarious Americans need to bring in Mexicans to do all of this, while their own uneducated people are too lazy to work in agriculture.
>>1089767
Because unions weren't willing to accept lower wages and the Western public weren't willing to pay higher prices. So companies deiced fuck it.
>>1089827
They're not too lazy to work in agriculture, they're unwilling to work in agriculture for shit pay. There comes a point where the pay outstrips the reluctance to do hard labour.
>>1089755
It got too expensive in the west.
>>1089858
Yeah, its baffling that they advocate for the loosening of immigration laws when a direct consequence of that is that poor people already living here are screwed out of a job.
>>1089755
>What went wrong?
Nothing, read Hume.
>Why was this allowed to happen?
Plants reached the ends of their effective lives while new productive techniques were available. Simultaneously, capital discovered that workers outside the first world were amenable to labour discipline (Korea, Malaya, Japan, ROC), that transnational capital offered stable returns, and that first world and second world labour could be directly disciplined by withdrawing significant portions of work while paying off yellow dog union leaders.
It was called "the 1970s."
>>1089767
Western politicians don't defend the interests of their constituents you stupid fuck.
![copassport101414abus[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/h97lxlI.jpg "copassport101414abus[1].jpg")
>>1089827
Pic related of American blacks picking apples in New York orchards proves you wrong.
>>1089767
>So? Why didn't Western politicians defend the interests of their constituents working in the steel industry by preventing the destruction of their employment?
HAHAHAHAH
Hah
hohohohoho
HUEHUEHUEHUE
If you think politicians care about the little people... you're fucking retard.
>>1089874
Explain this please.
>>1089884
Well Hume discovered that based on what exists we can't make moral statements, which means that nothing is ever wrong. It is called "is/ought". Pretty famous.
>>1089755
>What went wrong? Why was this allowed to happen?
Private ownership of means of production, i.e. Capitalism.
>>1089884
Okay, so there was a major wave of steel plant construction in the US, UK, Germany around 1880 when the techniques of production stabilised. And again in the 1940s for some reason. By 1970 most of the 1880 plants had reached the end of their technological lives, in that they demanded so much labour that they couldn't supply a return no matter how hard you screwed the workers (cf: capital 1 for details).
At the same time semi-refined briquettes, arc furnaces, oxygen blows, etc were available.
In the 1960s ROK, ROC and Japan demonstrated that they would murder trade unionists in any quantity to maintain profits, and would accept capital transfers of profit back to imperialist countries. This allowed transnational capital confidence in investing in non-colonial areas, with access to a disciplined proletariat.
At the same time, a revolutionary wave occurred in the 1st and 2nd world (France '68, Czechoslovakia '68). The idea of disciplining the advanced working class was clear. Places like France or Italy, which were underdeveloped, didn't have the disciplined working class of Japan.
So instead the state allowed steel workers to get fucked.
Oh yeah, and from a military stand point ROC ROK Japan were firmly in the Western imperialist camp.
>>1089902
Taiwan has a steel industry?
Also, any good secondary works covering the history of the steel industry in the twentieth century? Thanks.
>>1089913
http://www.dormanlongtechnology.com/en/projects/CSC_blast_furnace.htm
Fucked if I know. I just come from a steel town that got raped in the 70s and 80s. The best histories would probably be local and focused on "steel towns" as the industry was geographically concentrated near coal.
Haven't heard of a transnational history of steel capital in the C20, but I don't do heavy industry history.
>>1089880
[spoiler]God you sound juvenile.[/spoiler]
China subsidies the shit out of their steel plants, giving them a competitive edge. Environmental regulations, especially CO2 taxes in some Western countries don't help either.
>>1089880
yes I remember being 16 and cynical too anon.
Why didn't Big Steel lobby the US government harder to keep their corporations competitive vs. foreign steel?
>>1090118
You're acting as if Big Steel is particularly US nationalist in nature, rather than capital in nature. As the ROK, ROC, Japanese repression of workers showed, as did their liberal capital movement laws, they weren't "foreign" but colonies.
>>1089755
>what went wrong
Nothing? Heavy industry isnt something you want in your back yard. The further way, the better.
Let third worlders deal with that, and then send the finished goods over.
>>1090159
Fuck me I could use a cheeseburger right now.
>those thicc pickle slices
mmm, perfect.
>>1089767
Because that's retarded.
*workforce*
Steel mills in the West will be all computerized / automated these days.
>>1089818
>Why spend tax dollars propping up unprofitable industry? I thought americans liked the free market
Only since the 70s though. America for most of it's history was a protectionist economy.
The free market being an American ideal is literally a 40 year old meme.
>>1089755
Post Industrialism.
Free market
Don't complain you'd be like the 16th century guy who complains England or Holland had to import polish grain.
They took the jobs we don't want anon! Even the people without jobs, somehow.
>>1089894
So there's nothing wrong with rape according to this guy? Genocide's not such a bad thing? Hitler didn't necessarily do anything wrong? This is why people hate philosophy.
>>1090003
>"free" trade
>expected to compete with companies that are actively backed up by a communist dictatorship
I've never understood this meme.
>>1089755
There is absolutely nothing wrong with automation and healthy competition.
>Why was this allowed to happen?
Why stop it?
>>1090375
Nothing is right either.
Feel free to solve is/ought. Kant failed.
>>1089755
This is the nature of technological advance in our days. It has superceded human beings in relevance.
Now we reached a stage where people say stuff like "fire people to let technology advance".
This is a strictly new phenomena and its a sacrficice of individuals and their stability for the good of technological progress.
>>1090523
>This is a strictly new phenomena
Time to read about enclosure mate.
Globalization.
Companies moved their factories to China.
>>1090526
I dont know what you mean.
>>1089913
>Taiwan has a steel industry?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Steel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Automotive_industry_in_Taiwan
All the strong East Asian and Southeast Asian economies have decent steel and automobile industries, except maybe Singapore that was already specialized in petroleum and relied on overseas investments earlier than most.
They all developed their economies by industrializing for exports.
>>1089755
Why is it a bad thing? It's not like unemployment has radically increades since de-industrialization, the major change is that the average joe now works in an office and not a factory.
>>1090579
But in the past life was stable. You did what you did, your life was predictable, you could rely and calculate what was gonna happen...
This was the old way of life.
Life as stable unchanging with rare occasions when it did change. Now its the opposite, a trend change that started with the industrial revolution.
What is wrong? Your peace of mind.
>>1090591
I'm gonna blow your mind with this but: things change. I know, it took me ages to comprehend it too, but I'm sure you'll get it!
I too couldn't believe that not everything stayed exactly the same, stagnant and static. But you know millions of years of history proved me wrong in the end.
>>1090591
>wake up
>eat
>work in a factory
>come back home tired as shit
>eat
>sleep
>repeat ad nauseam
is this your dream life senpai?
>>1090612
he's never had to experience it and he finds being able to control himself too hard so he romanticises a shittier time in history.
>>1090612
Are you retarded? Its obvious i meant pre industrial times, and no, It does not seem great to me cause I live in another time and am immersed in its ideals.
If there was nothing problematic with firing people they would not protest that they were being fired.
>>1090620
the lower class had it even worse in the industrial period senpai, living and working conditions were insulting
>>1090614
You people are literally morons. You think that just because I expressed anoppinion it means its mine..
Go back to your containment boards.
>>1090625
>using the naturalistic fallacy for being fired from your job
Comparative advantage.
>>1090620
>2016
>not being in the upper middle class.
Pretty baka senpai.
Jokes aside, will life has stagnated for some lower class westerners, it's improved a damn lot due to free trade forthe average Mexican/Asian. Africa could benefit too if they sorted out corruption, infrastructure, education etc, the government has failed in these places meaning that competitive markets can't work either.
>>1090629
>expresses an opinion
>gets shat on
>"you i-i-idiots! I don't actually believe that!"
>>1090630
>thinks that just because he ascribes to a certain conception of ethics we all must do the same.
>>1090643
>holds a delusional standpoint which runs on circular logic
>>1090641
Ah, yes, go back to /v/
>>1090646
Its simple being fired from your job is not fun so people protest. This is the disadvantage of having a society that is constantly becoming.
If you are the one being fired of course.
Now since you obviously misinterpreted what I wrote cause you wanted to stroke your ego, I am correcting you and we can move on.
>>1090641
How does it feel knowing you are acting your age? You are obviously in your teens or early 20's.
>>1089755
Nothing went wrong. It's called technology and optimization.
>>1090649
People have revolted and protested over things throughout the entire history of mankind. What makes your narrow conception of history special? As if any of these grievances have only occurred in the past 50 years? Sure, the context can be slightly different, but the method of how people react to change has not.
Face it, you got bruised over your silly and generalised comments and you're trying to cover your tracks.
>>1090655
How does it feel to samefag? Or to be anally flustered anon?
>>1090599
Oh I forgot that hundreds of thousands of years of adaptation to a hunter gatherer lifestyle followed by only a few thousand years of farming, and now the even more dissimilar modern lifestyle had no discernible differences, thanks for clearing that up.
>>1089898
>what went right?
Private ownership of the means of production I.e Capitalism.
>>1090657
These are not my ideas but the ideas of several influential philosophers.
Its not about reacting differently to technological change but the rate at whcih technological change happens and its impact on society and the life of the individual.
In the past you could live your life almost exactly the same from the day you were born till the day you died.
Today, change is constant and stability is rare.
the ones suffering are the minorities that have their balance and stability shaken for the benefit of everyone.
I am not against it, at least not till I am the one hurt and in any case I am so immersed in modernity that I find rapid technological progression very appealing.
I am not judging, i am simply analying.
It's amazing how Conservacucks sounds so much like how you'd imagine Confucian Chinese scholars sounded like when they argued that society shouldn't become more efficient because we have such an excess amount of workers.
>>1089755
Nothing. This is the 21st century. Coal and steel production are not relevant industrial indicators anymore.
>>1090656
That doesn't explain at all the collapse of the US steel industry in the 1980s considering the steel mills in Asia were often even less advanced than those in America.
>>1089755
What is this graph supposed to show?
>>1091251
Are you illiterate?
>>1089755
EPA regulations.
Cheap shipping costs.
Cheap foreign labor.
>>1090655
>not acting your age
>>1090749
I think the only way to be financially stable till you die is to start an online business or many small businesses using techinques of sale we have today that we didnt before (e-commerce) and put someone else in charge when you're like 55, that's the only pension kind of thing i can see actually sorting me out till i die
>>1089767
Why would they?
Are you some kind of socialist?
Environmentalism.
Making steel is nasty business.
Even China is moving steel production to Africa. So they can cut local emissions and move production closer to the ore.
>>1090749
>I am not against it, at least not till I am the one hurt and in any case I am so immersed in modernity that I find rapid technological progression very appealing.
Ah, right here is the crux of the problem: I don't care unless it affects me directly, and it's kind of a rush! Weee!!!!
How can we advance as a species when we are each individually encouraged to behave and think in such a hypocritically mindless fashion?
Hell, the goddamned Nazi's proved the effectiveness and worth of an industrialized economy (they took on the entire world) AND proved the effectiveness of keeping the population divided (so they could exterminate at will because "at least they ain't killing me").
We gotta open our eyes and use our minds, folks. Don't turn a blind eye to the suffering of others, because they're suffering is your suffering. Does it please you that the device you are using right now was made with what amounts to slave labor? Is that right? (Get lost, Hume!!) Should we enslave a part of our population so that some of us can have cool stuff? I mean, so long as I'm not the slave, why not......
>>1089827
Yeah, of course it's because today's poor people are just lazy and entitled. It's not like the vast majority of agricultural laborers in human history had to be coerced into non-sustenance agriculture though slavery or serfdom/s
>>1091521
I can't see anything wrong with the future you are painting besides the dubious statement that everything can be bought with money when it's plainly untrue since we can't just give middle east money for them to shut the fuck up for example and the fact that sometimes money will just be a useless piece of paper.
>>1091521
10/10 post my fellow spenglerian
>>1091521
>>1091521
>Roman debt-deflationary crisis 91-86 BC
I didnt even ever read about this
Holy shit, the analogy keeps getting stronger and stronger.
Welp, by this rate I'll be indeed seeing the first Caesar by the time I hit my 60 somethings
>>1091521
People will always naturally create their own little cultural rules to live by. Money can't buy human nature.
Maybe an economical global system will continue to live but multiculturalism will fail eventually. It's already failing.
>>1089767
Because Chinese steel could be produced for far less for similar quality, which would allow for more steel in the market, driving the price down and allowing governments and companies to build more. The greater efficiency costs is a net boost to the economy that would offset losing factory jobs. This is a simple fact that Western socialists don't seem to understand.
>>1089767
because capitalism
>>1089827
Working in a field is better than being in fast food or retail hell.
>>1089894
Well, you know what? We don't need moralizing to know that living in a country where the vast majority of people are unemployed is a bad thing. All we need to do is look at history and what tends to happen when there's large numbers of poor people with little prospects and nothing much to do other then sit and simmer in their own resentment over this fact.
>>1091595
multiculturalism=/=global culture
And your "little cultural rules" are honestly nothing more than modes of comsuption that build around artificial identities.
Culture is not a personal statement. Culture is not created out of thing air. Its borne along generations of a community, in a given piece of land, with deep rooted traditions and defining myths. A culture defines a fundamental world view.
within this, globalization only allows a single world cultural phenomenom: exactly the extreme liberalization, to the point of dissolution, of any and all cultural expression towards a single sterile culture mainly defined by late western principles
>>1091648
No it's not, this post screams Millenial ignorance
Getting up at 4am to work with your hands until dusk, often doing mind numbing tasks and developing back problems by 30 is not something that is fun or desirable for the vast majority of people.
>>1091595
>>1091693
I don't get it
>>1091614
>a net boost to the economy
So what? It wasn't worth laying off the people who worked at those steel mills.
You seem to think that more money is always the most important thing and this just isn't true. Social stability is also important and the massive amounts of unemployment we're heading towards are inherently destabilizing.
>>1091678
Again your definition of "working in a field" is retarded because it treats agricultural labor as some kind of special form of labor that could never be conformed to the rest of the economy through rule of law.
On modern commercial farms there is absolutely no reason why 8 hour shifts and everything else associated with manual labor in first world economies could not be implemented. All you are doing is showing your ignorance and justifying slave labor conditions in farms because I guess that makes you progressive or something. Are you even aware of what year it is?
>>1091678
It's coming from someone who has done both but I guess you know better than me.
>>1089767
>Western politicians
>Caring about what's best for their country
Pick one.
>>1091678
You do know that farming has changed a lot since feudal times right? (at least in the developed world)
You have machines nowadays that do a lot of the more physical work. And if we're talking about mind numbing tasks, I'll much rather do a mind numbing task picking up fruit in the open field, than doing a mind numbing task in a cramped space that smells of deep fried crap with muzak playing 24/7 in the background
Call me a romantic, I dont give a shit
>>1091709
>You seem to think that more money is always the most important thing and this just isn't true.
I never said that, I'm being objective in trying to explain how politicians observe the situation, which is literally a boost to GDP and efficiency no matter how you look at it. The fact that wages in the west have stagnated is offset by the introduction of welfare.
>Social stability is also important and the massive amounts of unemployment we're heading towards are inherently destabilizing.
Who's "we"? Unemployed in real terms has gone down or remained in par in much of the West since the 70's and 80's. That's just a fact. Besides, who are the west to be protectionist when Chinese people are desperate for better paying jobs that aren't farm work? Do you think the governments of the 3rd world will just sit back as they get fucked in the ass by western trade policies?
>>1091757
>Besides, who are the west to be protectionist when Chinese people are desperate for better paying jobs that aren't farm work?
The US and other sovereign western governments have no obligation to act in the interests of anyone but their own citizens, globalist scum.
>>1091713
>No reason to work more than 8 hours
Hahaha, you're fucked in the head mate. Farm labor is a full time job. If you have a problem with the crop, you have to go out and fix it. You can pretend that it's easy bullshit nowadays, but all the machinery in the world doesn't change the fact that it's a boring, menial task that still requires you to get your hands dirty every once in awhile.
>All you are doing is showing your ignorance and justifying slave labor conditions in farms.
I'm not justifying shit, I know how hard of a task farm work is. That's why whoever thinks that thinks it's somehow preferable to Retail or Fast Food is a fucking idiot.
>>1091714
Yeah m8, it's not like my father had to do that work all his life and has been suffering the consiquences or anything, I know nothing about that life.
>>1091755
I know it's changed, but the labor is still there and still needs to be done with the same intensity. You're not just picking fruit, you're expected to to pick it, pile it up, count the crop, go back, etc. etc. and you don't get a break or stop until you meet quota. There's never a shortage of work for you to do, you're lucky to get a week or so away from the farm to actually go anywhere for vacation. Nor would you want to, because the farm is your life. If you enjoy that, go right ahead, but just realize that most people don't want that kind of life.
>>1091806
>have no obligation to act in the interests of anyone but their own citizens
Then enjoy having no trade with these countries. Trade is give or take m8, the 3rd world has no more obligation to the west than the West does to it. This is just a reality of living in a global economy.
they did
in Poland, USSR, Ukraine, etc., etc. Today miner is the best paid job in Poland
>>1089755
Automation is cheap
>>1091820
>Developing world is lacking
"Fucking lazy ethnic slur. Always remaining poor."
>developing world's sticks up for itself in the global economy and uses its comparative advantage to its benefits
"muh jobs"
"when I meant free market I didn't mean it like that"
"it's just not fair"
"blame shifting intensifies"
That's how I see people
>>1091908
Yup, pretty much spot on.
![strawberry-picker-workers-7774131[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/UPohtBl.jpg "strawberry-picker-workers-7774131[1].jpg")
>>1091810
Again, you're a fucking retard that doesn't understand commercial farming in the US. You are either a leftist shill justifying modern day slavery or you a farm a third world shithole that still engages in subsistence agriculture.
There is no fundamental reason why hired manual labor on farms needs to be any different than hired manual labor in any other sector.
Explain why the unskilled, uneducated laborers in this picture need to each be on-site from dawn to dusk picking strawberries instead of having 8 hour shifts doing the same shit. These are fucking wage laborers, not agronomists or family farm owners. What makes picking fucking strawberries or apples or any other crop so special that it's impossible to get agricultural labor to conform to every other sector.
You're like the steel mill owners who justified two shifts of 12 hours per day in the mills because they couldn't shut down the furnaces. Instead of just having three 8 hour shifts. That's how illogical you are.
>>1091908
Believe it or not, most people advocating protectionism aren't fans of the free market or "free trade." Nice strawman there, bud.
>>1091918
>tfw family farms are nearly completely dead here ;_;
I don't like the look of these giant plots with nasty steel barns and shit.
>>1091918
>Explain why the unskilled, uneducated laborers in this picture need to each be on-site from dawn to dusk picking strawberries instead of having 8 hour shifts doing the same shit.
I agree with you, I think it's agregious, but I'm told you before in not justifying a thing, I was just replying to the poster who thought that Working at McDicks or Walmart is worse than working full time on a farm when it's not, both health wise and in terms of hours worked.
I think the main reason why agriculture is so stagnant is because the profit you make per bushel is pitiful, and that to remain somewhat competitive in a saturated market you need to harvest as much crop as possible. The problem with more mechanized labor in farm work is that the machinery is expensive and, unless it receives constant maintenance, won't harvest as well as a dawn to dusk day laborer. I think of it much like how healthcare will always need nurses as the human element, farming still requires manual tasks that aren't easy once you start getting into old age. It's not like steel, you are on a fixed time table with crops because you can only harvest so much a day before the season is over and the crop becomes useless. That's why people who own and/or work farms consider it a lifestyle rather than a career path, because in many ways it is.
And no, once again I'm not justifying it. Just to reiterate, I think that farm laborer as it currently is could and should do more to improve working conditions in most countries, as the people who work on these farms are overwhelingly older or are migrant workers.
>>1090159
That sounds great in the short term, but then your country slowly becomes irrelevant because it doesn't produce anything. Just look at the insane prices of electronics in Western Europoor
>>1092012
>That sounds great in the short term
It's also better in the long term health wise for the people who would otherwise be working it plants surrounded by toxic fumes and chemicals
We already have enough shit assaulting our bodies naturally and from just living a western lifestyle, you don't need highly toxic chemicals floating around and rendering you infertile.
>>1092093
>implying a good government would want a healthy population to start with
healthy people live longer and therefore they suck government welfare with retirement money for longer periods
healthy people can also be aware of their surroundings and have a minimal idea of the power structure they're a part of, and therefore, they are more likely to protest and rebel.
people should only be healthy enough to be useful to the state to grow.
not to mention heavy factory work is correlated with high birth rates, while people who work in the services sector have lower birth rates. just think of 19th century britain and 21st century japan.
>>1092183
(continuing)
so unless you want an aging population you shouldn't go loose with the services sector.
![graph-1210-3-02[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/0nLqokF.gif "graph-1210-3-02[1].gif")
>>1090766
Idiot.
>>1092203
And by truck I meant tractor.
>>1092183
high birth rates add more social welfare costs
I think the ideal demographics for the elite would be for africa and south america to do the breeding and europe and north america to be sterile.
>>1092230
>high birth rates add more social welfare costs
No they don't unless your country runs one of those stupid breeding initatives like Russia where they literally pay couples to have children.
In fact high birth rates within an aging population should be seen as a miracle.
If anything at least your country isn't going to die.
>the ideal demographics for the elite would be for africa and south america to do the breeding and europe and north america to be sterile.
By sterile do you mean stable?
Regardless, the ideal demographics is 2.1 B/M anywhere.
>>1091521
Is this supposed to make me sad or angry?
Sounds like a bretty gool future
>>1089858
>I find it ironic that modern leftists are the biggest proponents of keeping a perpetual slave force on America's commercial farms.
leftists are the ones in favour of minimum wages and worker's rights, pretty much everywhere. I'm not American so I could be wrong in your context. Are there actually leftists opposed to Workers' rights in Agriculture?
>>1090599
>Things are changing, how do we deal with these changes?
"I dunno dude things change lmao"
>>1092322
The thing is increasing wages and workers rights in the West just causes capital to flee oversea where that isn't the case or seek to limit its pool of employees. It's one of the reasons youth unemployment is as bad as it is unfortunately.
>>1090766
Uhuh...
>>1089784
> Farmers are the only example of this, actually.
It's not. Work that's dependant on extraction of natural resources and some sort of refinement have shown the same thing. Iron mines are another example. Scandinavian paper mills are maybe the best example of this in industrial countries since it have had some fucked up effects on the population; paper industries so big that small towns emerged around em. The paper is still produced in the same place, the amount of refined paper is more than ever, but less people than ever is also employed in the same industries. This have over a span of 50 years left a lot of people fucked over, people who haven't been able to complete in a new labour market where a new kind of specialization is asked for.
>Retards like you think that when fast food is fully automated the unskilled, low-education plebs who just got laid will go into the new high-tech sectors with all their amazing wealth of knowledge, ingenuity, and creativity. When in reality they just go into a life of crime or enter the welfare system. How are you people so unaware of the reality of the situation and how fucked the majority of humanity is when the robots are rolled out in large numbers in the next decades?
What the fuck are you talking about nigger, I didn't claim any of those things, I don't know what commie fucked your mother but I didn't have part in it.
>>1091693
>detroit.png
How did protectionist, state capitalism China grow so fast these last 40 years?
They even grew faster than Japan and Korea in their heyday. Only state capitalism Taiwan grew as fast.
>>1092392
Because Deng encouraged Western companies to invest in China, which they gladly did because it's a fuckhueg market with massive potential and always has been.
>>1092401
And why not say the Czech Republic or Poland?
Even they grew 10%, but only for a few years.
>>1091521
>>1092419
>And why not say the Czech Republic or Poland?
Because China is a far larger market and there is plenty of low hanging fruit.
>>1092392
Basically by creating their own mini versions of asian tigers which they can control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Economic_Zones_of_China
>>1092429
But Poland was literally straight up Communism longer than China.
>>1091649
>We don't need moralizing to [make moral claims]
I think you actually want to claim that high unemployment results in social instability. That isn't a moral claim. The moral claim is when you claim it is bad.
>this thread
>everyone ignoring basic concepts of economics
Let's start with comparative advantage.
>>1092419
>1.3 BILLION people
>Thousands of kilometers of undeveloped landmass
>Emerging middle class larger than the populations of most countries.
It was inevitable for China to reclaim its superpower status. Poland and Czech don't even register on the same scale.
>>1093300
Let's not. Comparative advantage doesn't answer the question as to why, for example, Anglophone steel industries were competitive in 1940 but uncompetitive in 1980.
>>1093356
Because they produced the best steel for the lowest price in 1940 but not in 1980?
What does that mean? It means that the US should focus on doing what it does better instead of worring about its inferior steel industry.
>>1093726
Your conclusion follows directly from your assumption without the intervention of empirical reality.
>>1093114
Stop being a pendant. You know damn well why the country you're living in turning into Brazil with more snow would be a bad (MEANING UNDESIRABLE YOU DELIBERATELY OBTUSE FUCK)thing for you, me and everyone else who can't afford a mansion with an army of heavily armed paramilitary bodyguards.
>>1091820
>>implying the US needs trade with bongoubuntonegroland in the first place.
The only thing we really need for our economy is petroleum, and we can get that from people who will always be willing to do business with us regardless of how protectionist we are.
>>1091757
>>Do you think the governments of the 3rd world will just sit back as they get fucked in the ass by western trade policies?
We're the ones with the massively powerful military, if mbutto mukdipshit wants to have his royal guard ground up in an M1's treads that is his business.
>>1093765
I'm sorry that you think that undesirable things are universals. Perhaps you ought to read some of the humanities before waving your big political dick around as if we all agree with you.
By the way, almost nobody agrees with your position on universal morality in the scholarly literature, nor is your position a supportable scholarly one.
Fuck off back to either /int/ or /pol/ where they care what opinions you shit out of yourself in public.
>>1093785
>>implying you want to live in a country that is chock full of poor angry desperate violent people with no real prospects
Yeah no, you know damn well you don't want this and neither do most other people either. You can engage in all the intellectual masturbation you wish but at the end of the day you know full well that you're just jacking yourself off.
>>By the way, almost nobody agrees with your position on universal morality in the scholarly literature, nor is your position a supportable scholarly one.
I'm not talking about morals, nice try. I'm talking about your, my and most people browsing this website's self-interest.
>>Fuck off back to either /int/ or /pol/ where they care what opinions you shit out of yourself in public.
Hmm, no, I think I'll take a warm steaming shit in your mouth instead fagboy.
>>1093802
>I'm not talking about morals
>I'm talking about … self-interest.
Come back when you're read Locke.
>>1093815
s/'re/'ve/3
>>1093815
You got BTFO you stupid fucking piece of shit.
Leave and fuck off.
>>1093838
Yeah, nah, cunt. If you can't see that self-interest is a moral statement then you have real problems. Try transferring into something easy like Engineering.
>>1089755
Efficiency increased.
You can make 100kT of steel in a year with 100 workers. Then the next year a new tech comes out that would let you produce 200kT in a single year.
Do you produce double the steel and flood the market far in excess of demand or do you just lay off 50 workers and mark down price 10% and pocket the rest of the 20% cost reduction in making 100kT of steel.
>>1089827
Hard labor sucks dick and people won't do it for 3 dollars a hour. Mexicans will because they're actually desperate.
>>1094146
>people won't do it for 3 dollars a hour
True, they'll do it for minimum wage with all the benefits provided for in every other labor sector, though.
>>1089755
Do not know about other countries but here is the US
Here are some facts you may not know about US manufacturing:
The vast majority of manufacturing firms in the United States are quite small. There are 256,363 firms, with all but 3,626 firms considered to be small (having fewer than 500 employees). In fact, three-quarters of these firms have fewer than 20 employees.
In 2014, the average manufacturing worker in the United States earned $79,553, including pay and benefits. The average worker in all industries earned $64,204. Looking at just wages, the average manufacturing worker earned $25.19 per hour.
Manufacturers have experienced tremendous growth over the past few decades. Output per hour for all workers in the manufacturing sector has increased by more than 2.5 times since 1987. In contrast, productivity is roughly 1.7 times greater for all nonfarm businesses.
Over the next decade, nearly 3.5 million manufacturing jobs will likely be needed, and 2 million are expected to go unfilled due to the skills gap. According to a recent report, 80 percent of manufacturers report a shortage of qualified applicants for skilled and highly skilled production positions.
>Part II soon
>>1094669
Over the past 25 years, U.S.-manufactured goods exports more than quadrupled. In 1990, manufacturers in the United States exported $329.5 billion in goods. By 2000, that number had more than doubled to $708.0 billion. In 2014, it reached an all-time high, for the fifth consecutive year, of $1.403 trillion.
Nearly half of all manufactured goods exports went to nations with which the United States has Free Trade Agreements. In 2014, manufacturers in the United States exported $674.9 billion in goods to FTA countries, or 48.1 percent of the total. The United States enjoys a $55.0 billion manufacturing trade surplus with its trade agreement partners, compared with a $579.2 billion deficit with other countries.
Manufacturing companies in the United States are responsible for nearly half of all U.S. exports while foreign-headquartered companies now invest nearly $750 billion in U.S. manufacturing and employ more than 1.6 million people.
A growing concern is the quality of manufacturing education in the United States. The U.S. is falling behind our major competitors in math and science achievement, graduating significantly fewer engineers and experiencing a major skills gap for production employees.
The US manufacturing sector is the world’s tenth largest economy.
>Part III soon
>>1094670
Employees in the most trade intensive industries earn an annual compensation that averages $92,660. This is 50 percent higher than average compensation in the least trade-engaged sectors of manufacturing.
SOURCES:
http://www.nam.org/Newsroom/Top-20-Facts-About-Manufacturing/
http://www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/Research/Facts-About-Manufacturing/~/media/A9EEE900EAF04B2892177207D9FF23C9.ashx
>>1092322
Because they're also proponents of illegal immigration from south america. These immigrants are payed much less and without benefits to do the same work, thus driving Americans who expect to be payed fairly and given benifits out of the industry
>>1095678
This. Even Cesar Chavez and the UFW were fighting illegal immigrants at the border when they were trying to organize farm laborers. They were smart enough to realize that illegal immigration and open borders undermines workers wages, benefits, unionization ability, etc. by constantly increasing the labor supply. Illegal immigrants are essentially scabs, I have no idea how "pro-labor" leftists could ever justify supporting them coming over here and undermining worker's organizing potential.
>>1097565
>I have no idea
Nobody is interested in your ignorance. If you're unable to simulate the thought processes of others, through empathy, then you'll make a poor student of the humanities.
>>1097605
Justify illegal immigration while simultaneously advocating strong labor unions then, Mr. psuedo-intellectual. You're a useful idiot of multinational corporations and you don't even realize it.
>>1097605
>muh empathy
>>1097652
>tu quoque
Firstly, we aren't interested in MY opinion either. We're interested in what was actually believed by "left" unions and organisations up to 1990.
Secondly, we aren't interested in whether their justifications are valid, but what the content of their justifications was, cf your own "I have no idea," our aim is to give you an idea.
Thirdly, pseudo- not psuedo
>You're a useful idiot of multinational corporations and you don't even realize it.
There's a board for positive political statements, it isn't this board.
So let us look at the actual content of some "left" organisation's positions on open migration.
United Autoworkers had a strongly internationalist perspective when it came to Canadian-US internationalism. This was based on a need to maintain US rates to keep Canadian rates high, and conversely to maintain Canadian rates to keep US rates high. This is a pretty direct example of economically motivated 1:1 solidarity across the lines of bourgeois states.
Another example is the internationalism of the seafarers and dock workers ("Longshoremen"). West Coast is probably the best example because they took part in the transnational maritime labour movement. This labour movement sees the movement of workers as based in the need to maintain all workers at a high level of wages in order to maintain US West Coast and Australian wages at high levels. Because it was impossible to get Chinese off the ships, the issue then became to get white wages for Chinese workers. This solidarity was also developed by the fact that international shipping and international dock ownership were centralised and transnational, meaning that the labour movement also had to be transnational in order to survive.
Another example, prior to 1990, would be the internationalism of academic unions in Australia, which was based in traditional craft entry restrictions to the trade plus labour aristocratic rates. Migrants were necessarily "one of us" and didn't undercut
>>1097666
>>muh empathy
Did I say sympathy? No. Empathy is one of the historians chief tools.
As an example, I personally detest the einsatzgruppen, but Browning and empathy allow me to understand how men lived their life in the einsatzgruppen and what they stood for on their own terms, not on the terms of my disgust for them. If I approached them through my disgust, I would be approaching them ahistorically.
>>1089755
Chinese state capitalism beat the west's more liberal free market capitalism.
That's what. Prove me wrong.
>>1093356
40 years of technological change and the rest of the world catching up
>>1097774
This still doesn't explain anything about industry shifts. In postal logistics, most Western powers maintained capital investment and modernisation over the period. Why did Western powers not similarly invest in new more productive technology outside of, for example, Germany?
>the rest of the world catching up
So you're supporting Lenin's thesis in Imperialism?
>>1089755
Alternate explanation
Really. Its all about State Capitalism.
When a nation back's its industry with the full force of the state, it can destroy foreign industries to a point where they will never be invested in again.
For example is the solar panel industry. The Chinese government gave large loans to their own industries so they could flood the market with cheap solar panel's destroying the US competitors.
Not to mention they manipulate their currency to make it cheaper across the board.
You can't compete.
Oh also the US will never have industrial jobs again like it used to. Any new manufacturing capacity will be robots.
>>1097852
>back's
backs, no possessive mate.
Japanese, ROC, ROK, PRC Steel weren't productive in the 1970s when the downturn in the West began. Rather, the West simply removed subsidies.
>>1089755
Blame everything except for evolution.
>>1097865
Sorry. I'm on my 5th beer for the night.
Basically, China makes 50% of the world's steel at this point.
And many of those producers are state owned enterprises so its not free market that's doing it.
But suffice to say they aren't using communism. They stop giving loans and subsidies to businesses that are not profitable and have closed many zombie businesses on their books.
That said, to say its liberal free market at work is just not true when the Chinese government is involved on so many level.
Again its not socialism. Its state capitalism. Like WW2 Germany.
>>1097907
>Basically, China makes 50% of the world's steel at this point.
This is true.
>And many of those producers are state owned enterprises so its not free market that's doing it.
This is specious. Capital has never been a free market, particularly steel. The primary steel consumer has been the state for war and infrastructure. Chinese capital has a locked market in steel.
Western capital had a locked market in steel.
Chinese capital didn't overtake Western capital in steel at the inflection point.
The inflection point was 1970. Western states withdrew capital support for steel PRIOR TO asian steel industries supplying a substitute.
Your facts are true, but your argument is garbage because your facts are incomplete.
>>1097964
Maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying the free market wasn't responsible for the Chinese growth and western decline.
I was saying the Chinese success wasn't because they completely liberalized, but took a different route than the west.
Where the west doesn't give a shit about its steel industry, China has a vested interest in being dominate so their system dominates the world economy.
>>1097805
>Why did Western powers not similarly invest in new more productive technology outside of, for example, Germany?
Because of comparative advantage. Steel industries usually develop in nations with emerging economies. After the US was sufficiently developed, there was no reason to continue to focus on steel, especially if considering that it was possible to import it from emerging nations i.e. China.
>>1098036
So your thesis is that the decline in Western steel production was due to "the west" not giving a shit. Who was the west? The state? The state as capital's servant? Capital? etc.
>>1098040
>Because of comparative advantage. Steel industries usually develop in nations with emerging economies.
Fucks sake: WHY IS THERE A COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE IN STEEL IN DEVELOPING NATIONS? WHY DID WEST GERMANY MAINTAIN STEEL WITH RENEWED CAPITAL STOCK?
You can't just claim that a phenomena matches a category without DEMONSTRATING how it matches the category.
>>1098076
Also: given that by 1920 German, US and UK capital had completed development in steel, why was Illawarra not built until 1950 when steel should have immediately fled to Australia, Canada, South Africa?
>>1098068
The west, IE the people and their democratic governments did nothing to make their steel industry competative through either capital injects by the government or manipulation of their currency.
To be fair, most western governments don't care enough to do that or its not politically viable, whereas in China they gave no fucks and manipulated their currency to make their steel cheaper and backed their state owned enterprises with capital.
Now that the industry is basically theirs, they let the non-profitable businesses fail and keep riding the trend.
The west could have competed if they fought the currency manipulation, but most politicians aren't for steel workers so they just let the industry go to China and reap the outsourcing rewards.
>>1098076
>WHY IS THERE A COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE IN STEEL IN DEVELOPING NATIONS?
Because China can produce steel at a rate that might not be faster, cheaper or of better quality than the US, but it is still worth for both nations to focus on what they do best and trade with each other. Also, the US didn't need to produce steel as much as in the past, so it could afford to import it.
>WHY DID WEST GERMANY MAINTAIN STEEL WITH RENEWED CAPITAL STOCK?
There are lots of variables there, but comparative advantage might have been one of the reasons.
>>1097565
>"pro-labor" leftists
That's because there are no more pro-labor leftists. In the 1980s they all became Reagan Democrats because the DNP had been ignoring them for so long that they switched party affiliations and now no longer identify as leftists.
This ignoring of labor continues to this day as Democrats would rather cozy up to far more lucrative corporate and social elite donors while "pro-labor" people are left out in the rain.
>>1098185
Their comparative advantage is because they manipulate their currency.
>>1098240
That's what international trade is. It means that China can sell steel at a cheaper price in world markets, giving them an advantage, which, in this case, might be absolute.
>>1098136
>The west, IE the people and their democratic governments
Last time I checked "the people" didn't possess capital, at least as "the people". You really need to differentiate the actors in your analysis if you want it to be suasive.
In states where productivity agreements were made (Australia) and capital injections were made Steel declined anyway, moreso during the period of productivity agreements. This leaves your argument falling onto currency manipulation as the basis for maintaining productivity in steel which, given equal capital costs, is an implicit argument of wage discipline, not productivity or developing status, being the basis for steel production comparative advantage.
Again: none of your argument explains the decline of Western steel from 1970. It might explain the rise of Chinese steel after 1989.
>>1098290
I member I read a n article about Developing countries having to deal with the dreaded
"China price"
>>1098300
The people control the votes for the people who are leaders in their country, in turn their leaders can give capital to businesses like when the US Government bailed out GM and the banks deemed too big to fail.
In this case, they deemed steel not worth saving. Or at least the people didn't vote in politicians who did.
>>1097805
>Why did Western powers not similarly invest in new more productive technology outside of, for example, Germany?
British Steel was either nationalized or heavily politicized for much of its history and often criticized for its failure to modernize. Something similar happened to a lesser extent with US steel as unions intentionally delayed crucial investment in innovations.
Germany on the other hand had no minimum wage so apprenticeships were considered par for the course in education to increase the marketability of someone's skills above minimum wage levels, as such people viewed skills as part and parcel of work and there was less fuss when union members were asked to retrain, a business could adapt quickly with little hassle. This attitude also helps keep efficiency high even if little is changing.
Geman steel did suffer in the 70s, but not as badly as anglo steel, later its auto industry picked up the slack dropped by the UK and steel benefited.
>>1089755
Well this is rather depressing.
t. worked six years in a booming steel-forming plant during the recession, prospering thereby.
>>1098315
1) Could the people have voted in politicians who did care?
2) Were the politicians who could be voted in who cared?
3) Why did the politicians choose not to act?
In the Australian case the answers are:
no, no, politicians chose to allow the destruction of steel by capital as part of a general ideology which directed state investment away from secondary industry, this policy having its origins across all ideologies.
>>1098325
Labour discipline isn't as simple as the absence of a minimum wage, you'll find that the West German system worked with a defacto minimum wage based around an informal set of agreements amongst capital, unions, labour and the state about levels of unemployment, access to skills progression and job security. The more critical difference is West German labour relations were far less antagonistic than British labour relations.
>>1098325
Good lord that picture.
>Germany on the other hand had no minimum wage so apprenticeships
I think apprenticeships are more of a cultural thing.
>>1098306
Sure. The Brazilian steel industry suffers a lot from it. But when you look at the bigger picture, you see that it actually is a positive thing for the Brazilian economy, as industries that have steel as an input will have it cheaper.
>>1098305
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_steel_industry_(1970–present)
>>1098411
Employment, steel, Australia, 1970-1989, ABS
>>1098377
Which I suppose is why the Chinese political system is superior when you have nationalism involved.
They give more fucks about being superior than western politicians do
>>1098432
>Which I suppose is why the Chinese political system is superior when you have nationalism involved.
The Chinese political system almost collapsed in 1989 under the assault of a coalition of displaced nomenklatura-intelligentsia, "old" sector industrial workers, and disaffected urban youth.
This is at what I would argue is precisely the inflection point of Chinese manufacturing output.
>>1098377
That is true, it was less antagonistic because the state didn't interfere in general and didn't keep backing up one side against all reason.
>>1098458
Well it didn't collapse because they crushed those people.
>>1089858
>and you will see huge tariffs having to be put in place to keep American farms from going bankrupt
Fixed
>>1098497
I'd argue that it is more that capital in West Germany managed to effectively include the unions as the bulk sellers of labour-power-as-capital to capital and actually living labour as the sellers of labour-power to capital into the interests of capitalism. The primary antagonism in West Germany, up until reintegration began and the 25 year rule kicks in, was anti-US anti-imperialism due to the occupation (cf: RAF, Berlin armed anarchism, autonomen, etc.). This meant that the struggle in Germany had already been translated successfully into a social plane and out of the industrial.
It didn't hurt that the occupiers got to rebuild the union movement on the terms of capital.
Generally, however, the state backs capital in the West, which means that antagonism in labour relations would have to be seen as arising from a perverse market relationship biased in favour of capital.
RIP America ;_;
>>1090007
As opposed to growing complacent and deluded with age out of fear and disillusionment?
>>1091614
Sue explains Detroit and every other former US industrial center.
>>1099640
effects don't precede causes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwjOJQtUAI
Why didn't we listen?
>>1099630
I was never much of an edgy teen.
>>1098068
>Who was the west? The state? The state as capital's servant? Capital? etc.
"The west" isn't less abstract than "the state", "capital", or any other boogeyman you can dream up.
>>1098240
As if every other country doesn't do that.
>German exports are falling, time to trash the Euro
>>1100197
So specify until you reach the determinate social relation. It isn't that fucking hard.
>>1098507
what did he post?
>>1099648
Exacerbation is the effect of the cause.
>>1098523
Capital had the taft-hartley act, labor had dodgy rules like "no new machinery if it results in job losses". I think the latter hurt steel workers more though.
>>1103083
I would suggest that the anti-militancy line by CIO leaderships "hurt steel workers more" than no-machinery clauses. Maintaining solidarity is a precarious business which is not aided by removing militancy and replacing class struggle with bureaucracy. I believe this to be true regardless of what the militancy is used for (reform / revolution). It is one of those "if you don't use power you lose power" issues.
>>1091521
hey you fucking NIMBY
fuck you, you people are the reason urban planning in north america is so shit
>>1089767
Don't you know all that stuff causes global warming you facist
>>1089827
Why the fuck would you when you have been told by people such as yourself that you deserve $15 per hour for that
No you would rather import Mexicans saying that are good because they provide cheap labor while saying everyone deserves a living wage for stupid jobs
>>1103697
nah wages are getting a bit too high in China so they are moving manufacturing overseas over the years to places that will do work for even less like many parts of Africa and South East Asia. China is getting CHINA'd.
>>1093314
That doesn't answer the question.
>>1094672
And yet it's getting literally JUST FUCK MY SHIT UP circa 2015-present.
>>1097809
Almost all of that output gain was in the fracking boom.
Which is JUST tier right now.
>>1103733
>nah wages are getting a bit too high in China so they are moving manufacturing overseas over the years to places that will do work for even less like many parts of Africa and South East Asia. China is getting CHINA'd.
Depends. I wouldn't say that. Employment in manufacturing is rising slowly in China still.
Furthermore, Vietnam/India/shitholes have had lower wages than China since at least 1980. Why didn't the jobs start moving back then?
Idiots think wages are all that matters.
No. It's productivity (and other factors). Classic economics says productivity = wage.
How does one become productive?
Well with manufacturing it generally has to have three factors to grow productivity:
1. Semi-educated workforce
2. High capital flows
3. Long-term revenue guarantees
What does China have?
Well China has a strong state, educated workers, state backed capital flows, and guaranteed long-term revenue from infastructure projects in China and across the world. This has created economies of scale and guaranteed long-term stability for foreign/domestic investors, leading to massive productivity gains.
Therefore even though Chinese wages have risen 4,000% since 1990, the productivity rate has risen 6,000%. Chinese workers are actually getting screwed out of what they truly deserve.
What does the Chinese government want? A growing consumer market. How do you get that? Grow the wages. How do you do that? Let go of the low wage jobs and put people in the higher-wage service jobs.
Also, China has an environmental problem. Kicking some of the worst polluting heavy industry out is in China's interest and so it is happening.
>>1103963
Jobs have been moving to India and Vietnam though. There is also a cost to moving your factories though, when you're moving from the US 15 dollars an hour to China 0.25 dollars an hour there's a massive cost benefit ratio in favor of the benefits. And when the wages in China are 1.50 and the wages in Vietnam are 0.60, moving your several dozen million ton machinery has a lot less benefit compared to cost.
>>1103982
Yes. The shittiest, most polluted, worst paying jobs that rely purely on two hands and at least one eye.
As long as productivity rises in China (it still is) the wages can increase without losing jobs.
>>1091918
Reiter Bros. in California, Brazil, Morrocco, Mexico etc. is experimentally deploying mechanized berry harvesters that are similar to cotton threshers. This is viewed as a good thing that frees-up Hispanic labor (hahah Mexican-American multinational that is wealthier than you) to go elsewhere and repeat the mechanization process in other areas. Winset, a Dutch company, does vine-based fruits ("vegetables") in hydroponics. You should note things:
-These are gigantic multinationals that won't die from $100 million lost in a bad year.
-Investments don't have a positive ROI for 10-20 years.
-Expansion is done where Mexicans immigrate from (expansion through entry-level families and resettlement) and where other employees are familiar with (expansion through higher-level employees).
I live in a White plurality region where these two companies plus a billion ranches operate and we have an average deficiency of farm laborers equivalent to 5% of the working population with about 9% unemployment. Well.
Anyway, in the 90s, farm laborers got paid about 40% more than they do now, some even getting close to the magical $20/hr point, and I got to see the books as a kid, and this was celery and tomatos and such. Gas price increases due to Bush made this impossible and the Recession finally killed a lot of independent labor crews and dramatically increase employment turnover, which is actually problematic because picking celery is not at all like living other vegetables, good luck all your employees just became a lot more inefficient.
Now. Big plans like Winset's hydroponics should be able to pay more, and I remember them having a fuss when an idiot manager made the mistake of introducing a training with a video of the incredibly lazy Arab-employee Canada operation. That helped. Then they got sued by a predatory agency, and because they are run by sometimes retarded Belgians/Dutch, they settled, and now they are being continuously sued.
Continued.
>>1104265
Uh, to summarize Winset...
Pros and Cons for laborer wages. Keep in mind they finally pay between 12 and 14 if you actually work like a Mexican, and you get Healthcare and some other benefits.
+ Hydroponics is more efficient.
- Experimental data is still required, and collapses of stock used to happen more often than desirable.
- Expanding production capacity at a rate of like 25% per year for the past 5 years or some ridiculously high rate, it pays off eventually and makes the previous - negligible thanks to the cellular/isolated nature of greenhouses.
- Absolutely pants-on-head retarded German engineering. One boiler uses frustrum-shaped screws for the sole purpose of employing more Germans in pointless jobs (it's a German boiler).
- The Belgians are racist, but not practically, and they pay themselves obscene wages.
- This is like an experimental operation. All equipment is new and expensive.
+ They produce a lot of produce. They sell it everywhere. It gets marked-up because it actually is real no-chemicals organic. Everything sells.
+ Most consumables can be recycled. Things that are consumables in regular agriculture are semi-permanent here.
- Retarded German engineering stipulates rusty steel-steel contact rolling joints shall be used everywhere. This is like giving Kindergarteners the degree of Professional Engineer.
- Their engineers fucking suck.
+ Their engineers are better than the despotic practices used by most minimum-wage-paying Ag operations around here.
+ Robots are everywhere.
+ Almost no employee turnover. Competetive hiring for what are equivalent labor to cherry-picking, except the cherries are cucumbers and you are riding on a robot.
+ Good and healthy working atmosphere for heavy labor.
- They never get sued, except when they don't fire stupid laborers. Which they can't do. Because they contact the labor. To a despotic operation. That dodges taxes and exploits them. (I am actually unsure about this.)
Hope I aided.
>>1104312
I should qualify that you can't just drop by and work, they have a waitlist and vet you, I think they actually fire people on the spot now and just call-up entire crew replacements from waitlists but I'm not sure. The people they fire are also too impulsive and stupid to work as cashiers, don't feel sorry for them, let eugenics sort them out, thank God for racist Belgians.
I'm surprised to see fifel still spews his bullshit on this board.
>>1104804
He can't help it.
>>1104312
>The Belgians are racist, but not practically, and they pay themselves obscene wages.
Wut?
Like they pay don't hire non Belgians?
>>1089767
Because all of the people who nowadays would be working in factories are instead working in offices, and making shittons more money
>>1089878
Yeah like in 1960
Face it: Blue collar work was well-paying only because Europe and Asia were crippled from WW2 while Africa was still too dangerous when its countries gained independence
>>1090591
Totally wrong.
You grow up, marry a man at age 18 because it's the only way you could move out of your parents' place, and if he beats or rapes you, there's nothing you can do about it.
Or you get killed by racists.
Life sucked for a lot of people back then.
>>1104948
It is a curious thing. They will not pay you, but if you manage to obtain evidence they are unfairly paying you relative to their own employees elsewhere, they will pay you.
It is like they are a race of Tsunderes.
>>1106272
Actually for Africa the labour was also untrained and did not have expertise in the relevant fields.
Were there any major trade agreements in the 1970s and 80s?
>>1091678
How much are farm pickers paid in the US?
Because I spent 4 months last summer break picking pineapples for $23 AUD, which in PPP to the US is ~$15.5
I'd do It again. It was [fairly] easy, and we worked 6am - 2pm. I admit If I didn't have an ipod to listen to all day I probably would've given up because otherwise It'll bore you to tears.
I couldn't see myself doing It all the time but It's definitely good seasonal work.
Chyna
>>1108947
In the U.S., farm labor is mostly done by immigrants, who work for 40-50$ a day, sometimes less, usually for around 10 hours a day. They aren't hired permanently, they're day laborers that are paid a contractile wage. Actual permenant farm work is rare and heavily unionized at around 130$ per day, but it's a full time job for 12 hours on average, dawn to dusk.
>>1111942
The funny thing to me, as an American, is that there have been a ton of holistic pushes in American culture as of late.
None of them move out to try and live that simple, ascetic life they want so badly though. They'd rather have it in the form of a "recyclable" coffee cup.
>>1089755
>What went wrong? Why was this allowed to happen?
Nothing went wrong.
It was allowed to happen because westerners are immoral bastards who love to exploit third worlders.
The west came up with a great scam where they wire 1s and 0s over a fiber optic cable,
and dumb third worlders slave away for 12 hours a day to send shiploads of manufactured goods back.
Why does this work? Why are the Chinese&co constantly falling for this? Who knows, but It's the perfect crime, like Tom Sawyer's fence painting trick on the scale of nations.
What happens when they realise they've been bamboozled? Who cares, with Automation coming along the way it is, third worlders in sweatshops are borderline obsolete anyway.
Because Americans don't want to work in heavy industries.
>>1108947
That surprises me, in the wine industry I only see vulnerable people (migrants, backpackers, desperate unemployed people) being ripped off wholesale, after a bit of cherry picking which came close I assumed labour in most agriculture in Australia was like that.
>>1091521
Why the fuck was this post deleted? It was top notch.
>>1089767
>Why didn't Western politicians defend the interests of their constituents
They did, their constituents being the Corporate Elite, who fund their election campaigns and give them no-show board of director gigs after they leave office...
>>1117146
True
>>1116935
It was retarded samefag
>>1089755
>Industry in the west collapsing
Mostly due to lack of proper Tariffs, Environmentalists, Government intervention. Another thing to note that pre-1974 is cold war era that could have had a boom/bust impact on the western economy. Could everyone be gearing up for a world war that didn't happen? Or perhaps technology is to blame with the invention of the robot putting more efficient use of energy to work for less pay.
Who killed the steel industry?
Was it managerial capitalism?
Or was it bad Governance?
Or was it the Denver Broncos?
This is why we need protectionism, tariffs, and unions.
>>1113902
>China is getting screwed
Uhhh
>>1115280
Nice meme
Because of government.
>>1113902
But westerners are the ones getting screwed. Look at the trade deficit between USA and China.
>>1121280
>liBAWWWWtarianism
nothing went wrong. it was your western empire expanding its power.
>>1123810
>>1123826
>empire expanding its power.
aka newspeak term globalisation
>>1123856
Either be a whole to the powers or just rot away.
>>1091678
Nah, field work is easier, cause it's just physical, working with people and gotta go fast all day is exhausting both physically and mentally. I always choose heavy work(which is done however fast you can), over some repeated task, which makes your brain explode.
>Back problems.
If you don't know how to lift properly, it's your problem, contrary to your opinion, I've worked on construction sides where lifting 1-2 50kilo bags of cement is normal, if you do it properly, it does not reflect on your back at all, there are proper ways to do heavy work without breaking your back, and it feels great btw, you're outdoors, you do different tasks, you build muscle, you clean fat, the people are nice(mostly).
>>1123961
>Nah, field work is easier, cause it's just physical, working with people and gotta go fast all day is exhausting both physically and mentally.
There is a lot of truth in this statement.
