Pundits will debate the wellsprings of Donald Trump's election triumph for years. Right now, cultural explanations are in the lead. Multiple researchers and journalists are stressing the role of "racial resentments" and xenophobia as the deepest sources of Trump's appeal. And such explanations cannot be dismissed.
But the decades-long decline of U.S. manufacturing employment and the highly automated nature of the sector's recent revitalization should also be high on the list of explanations. The former is an unmistakable source of the working class rage that helped get Trump elected. The latter is the main reason Trump won't be able to "make America great again" by bringing back production jobs.
The Rust Belt epicenter of the Trump electoral map says a lot about its emotional origins, but so do the facts of employment and productivity in U.S. manufacturing industries. The collapse of labor-intensive commodity manufacturing in recent decades and the expansion in this decade of super-productive advanced manufacturing have left millions of working-class white people feeling abandoned, irrelevant, and angry.
To see this, one has only to look at the stark trend lines of the production data, which show a massive 30-year decline of employment beginning in 1980. That trend led to the liquidation of more than a third of U.S. manufacturing positions. Employment in the sector plunged from 18.9 million jobs to 12.2 million.
[...] In fact, the total inflation-adjusted output of the U.S. manufacturing sector is now higher than it has ever been. That's true even as the sector's employment is growing only slowly, and remains near the lowest it's been. These diverging lines—which reflect the sector's improved productivity—highlight a huge problem with Trump's promises to help workers by reshoring millions of manufacturing jobs. America is already producing a lot. And in any event, the return of more manufacturing won't bring back many jobs because the labor is increasingly being done by robots.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 21 2016, @09:20PM
Nuh huh, you wrong
Look, I realize you think you're saying something relevant. But this is the essence of charlatans, kooks, and anyone who couldn't argue their way out of a wet paper bag.
Going back to the post I criticized, the phrase "money supply" shouldn't even be there. I explained why.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @04:31AM
> Look, I realize you think you're saying something relevant.
Hello, mcfly? Are you looking in a mirror when you write that? Of course I didn't say anything relevant, I just flamed your ass for a reductively meaningless criticism.
Seriously, is this some sort of "I'm rubber and you're glue" defense?
you are a damn child
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 22 2016, @08:07AM
a reductively meaningless criticism
And I explained why it wasn't.