How do you create better jobs? Not with three word slogans. Better anything in a complex society requires a better society. Producing a better society takes a high degree of rationality. Coercing corporations won't do it. Producing intimidation, coercion and force is not how a complex society functions. It's like trying to tune a television with a hammer and chisel.

Every time a business closes or moves, employees have to look for jobs. No one is going to prevent such events from occurring. Chiseling won't do it. It will only create problems, degrade the economy and make job opportunities worse.

There are displacement problems constantly, as economies develop and transform. It takes rationality to solve those problems, not mindless use of force.

Here is an article on Vox explaining how the complexities are handled in creating jobs in a rapidly changing and automating job culture:

Automation is inevitable. Here's how to make sure we create jobs, not just destroy them. by Timothy B. Lee, Vox, Dec 7, 2016.

One of the endless errors of conservatives is to reduce complexities to a question of quantity while sacrificing quality. More or less of something is not a fix for complexities, where extended consequences must be accounted for. In this case, there are not enough workers available to redevelop industrial production in the U.S.

There are two major problems in re-industrializing the U.S. One is that complex technology requires a lot more components than old-style hardware. A lot of feeder industries are needed for modern products. Only globalized economics can produce the endless branching of industries.

The other problem is that modern, complex products must be sold globally, because there is no efficiency in producing a small number of complex things. Global selling cannot be separated from global production. In other words, global selling is a massive thing. It requires a lot of tonnage of materials and labor which cannot be concentrated in isolated places.

The auto industry is an example. Auto parts are produced around the world now days. They used to be produced near the final assembly plants. That can't be done any more. There would be too many factories in too small of a space to produce all of the components near each other. At one time, autos were made with 200 components. Now they are made with 20,000 components. That means 20,000 factories replacing 200.

I can imagine simple-minded conservatives saying, we can produce every part for this product in this state. Doing so would have two major drawbacks. One, it would shove out other industries; and two, it would eliminate the specialization and competition needed for efficiency and quality. It isn't a question of convincing the snowflakes to get by with lower quality. Sales are determined by quality and price. Attempting to insulate the U.S. economy from foreign competition is never going to work with any amount of force and violence.

I can also imagine conservatives not believing a word of this. Are foreigners going to buy American products which cost more and are lower quality than products produced elsewhere? Who is going to make them do it? Maybe conservatives don't understand that there are not enough consumers in the U.S.A. to support modern industries without foreign markets. Most people already have these things figured out. Conservatives haven't.

In other words, the modern complexity of products requires vastly spreading industries which cannot be localized, as they were during the fifties. The population of the U.S.A. is too small to change anything about this situation. Force and violence won't change these facts.

Cities give corporations billions of tax dollars for locating in their area. The tax money could be spent on schools. Giving it to corporations is noncompetitive and a shift of resources out of the lower classes for wantonness. Corporations have more important reasons for determining location. Developing the schools would be a more important factor for corporations than a mindless tax give-away. The reason Jeffrey Immelt gave for GE's foreign expansion was inadequate education of the workforce in the U.S. (Charlie Rose, around 2009)

It's important to realize that globalization of production and economies is not the same thing as globalization of sovereignty. Bait and switch is being used to institute globalization of sovereignty because of the need for globalization of economies.

What is job loss?

Commentators keep talking about losing jobs to China. They don't know what they are talking about. If Chinese eat more rice, and Americans eat less rice, are Americans losing rice to China?

Conservatives don't know what an economy is. An economy is an interaction between consumers and producers. Intervention through force is not compatible with the process.

If someone doesn't like something about the economy, they need to do something about the relationship between consumers and producers. Anything other than that will be a degradation of the economy. To assume that economies can be shifted in favor of some motives through force is naive.

It's like trying to tinkering with a cell to improve it. Evolution balances every element of metabolism producing slow adjustments over time. Anything other than that will degrade or destroy the cell. GMOs prove this. To get a desired protein in place typically reduces yields by 20-30%. Economies evolve complex interactions just as biological cells do.

This means, if something is undesirable about an economy, the consumers and producers need an economic reason to change something. Economic reasons are typically to produce a more desirable product or to have more money to spend to buy desired products. Economies are generated or stimulated by increasing consumer spending and by producing better (more competitive) products.

Producing better products is dependent upon more freedom and opportunities to do so. Corrupters pushing their weight around doesn't get there.

Expanding Economy

The US economy is sluggish because of austerity and similar forces. Conservatives have been taking from the needy and giving to the rich for decades, which shrinks the economy. If all other factors stay the same, putting money into the hands of the needy expands the economy, because the needy spend money on meeting their basic needs. The rich do not. They have all they want, and all they do with more money is invest it in the stock market. To assume they expand the economy with it is naive. There is a surplus of investment capital, and no one limits there production for want of it. Corporations are buying back their own stocks due to the excessive availability of capital.

The conservative claim that tax give-aways to the rich (warmed over Reaganomics) will stimulate the economy by promoting investment or development is contradicting the fact that business taxes are applied only to profits, not expenses. There is no business tax on money spent on development. The only businesses that benefit from a federal tax give-away are those who are making a profit and not spending it on expansion or development. There is already excessive capital available for someone else's development, which is pushing the stock market into "irrational exuberance."

After development, businesses pay capital gains tax, but it only applies to expanded facilities or equivalent investments. It doesn't prevent development.

Some persons assume that innovation and inventiveness are not adequate for expanding the economy. That's not what is happening. Conservatives are restricting the economy, which limits expansion to money manipulations.

Before conservatives took over the world in 1981, liberal progressives were solving problems. They said something needs to be done about the water shortage, and they suggested such things as melting Arctic ice with nuclear energy and piping the water south. All such concepts were replaced by war mongering in 1981.

The entire concept of agriculture needs to be modernized around drip irrigation. But the existing technology of drip irrigation has only been developed for areas which do not freeze in the winter. Developing drip irrigation for northern areas would revolutionize agriculture. Produce could be produced in all fifty states, and organic would be the norm. That's a lot of economic development that is being squashed.

Another area of economic development that is needed is designing safe nuclear energy, because none of the other sources of energy have long term potential. Breeder reactors would provide unlimited energy. Opponents claim there is no such thing as safe nuclear energy. Safety is dependent upon responsible technology, sociology and politics. It's not a technological limitation; it's a corruption limitation.

Simple minded persons would say that there is very little export potential in developing agriculture and energy. That mentality is assuming that progress can be dictated. It never is. Progress comes out of the freedom and economic opportunity which allows creative persons to respond to the problems and solutions which they encounter. Conservatives block progress by sucking up resources and channeling them into financial manipulations for the rich while oppressing the lower classes, which is where progress comes from.

Specialization Prevents Suck-Back Economics

The assumption that jobs were lost to other countries and they can be sucked back is normally evaluated as a trade war. But there is a more basic problem—specialization. Specialization means a few factories must produce for a lot of consumers. This includes the components that go into complex products. The opposite is like saying everyone must build their own washing machines. The factories specialize in doing that.

The implication of sucking back jobs is that we can build all we need right here. That was in the nineteenth century. Things are a lot more complex than that now. If the US built every component that is needed for automobiles, autos would be reduced back to the simplicity of decades ago. The huge complexity of modern autos cannot be produced in one country. Trying to do so would divert the entire economy to one purpose and fail.

Not the least problem is that modern businesses need to export. Not enough specialized components can be built in one country for supplying the rest of the world.

Exploiters seem to be assuming that we will just produce the final product in the US, while the rest of the world feeds us what we need to do so. It doesn't work that way. They rest of the world will do their own deciding. Shock and awe won't fix the problem.

Another stupid assumption is that putting the final product together is a great exploit for labor. The wages of auto workers is declining in the absence of unions, which the exploiters do not promote. Building autos is no long-term rip off for labor. Building plastic door handles might be better for labor in the absence of labor unions to prevent the constant slide in working conditions.

In other words, the complexity of modern industry requires globalization of production. It can't be done with walls around 180 countries.

Tricle-up is the Problem

Economists theorize that these problems should all come out in the wash, since increased production is occurring in all countries. But the results show that the result is not a solution to problems. Where the economic theories fail is in assuming that trickle-down will solve everyone's problems, while trickle-up is how the economy works in the US.

One of the most persistent news stories of the past few years is that the lower classes keep getting poorer, while the rich get richer. This isn't about the homeless; it's about the largest part of the working society.

This problem is trickle-up by definition. The money flows upward, not downward. The simple reason is because the power up there is used to do the deciding. Power mongers decided that they prefer trickle-up rather than trickle-down.
 

Home Page	Science Errors	Sociology of Corruption