There is a huge issue with allowing core manufacturing to degrade or be eliminated. That is; even if reduced Federal funds rates decline and borrowing money is "cheaper" than before, there's little manufacturing infrastructure left to rebuild/revitalize to make products that would otherwise be subject to high tariffs if imported.
It takes time to construct new manufacturing plants or rebuild older ones; not to mention environmental concerns that must be addressed. Assuming no logistics issues; realistically how many plants could be constructed/refurbished by the end of Trump's term of office?
The speed with which industrial infrastructure can be rebuilt is ultimately a function of the priority placed on it. Industrial production soared during WW2 because there was a huge need for the weapons of war.
If there were a similar existential priority we might be able to rebuild plants fairly quickly, or at least start opening up production lines fairly quickly. But that all boils down to the sense of urgency--and that is not something that corporate America has at the moment.
All of the bad economic news will be blamed on Trump, of course, because that’s what corporate media does. However, some of the decline in jobs is due to AI. Peter, is someone keeping track - reliably - on jobs loss due to the implementation of AI?
"But...AI" has become the common reflex response to any reports of job loss.
Anyone arguing that AI is to blame for job loss is seriously missing the point, which is that workers need jobs, and businesses need to provide them.
Regardless of what AI does or does not do, the demographics of employment are what they are: there are those who are fully employed, there are those who are underemployed, there are those who are unemployed, and there are those who have managed to fall completely out of the labor force and no longer "count" as unemployed.
Economic prosperity hinges on one primary factor above all else: jobs. For people to be prosperous, they need to be productive. For people to be productive, they need to be employed. AI has not changed this fundamental economic axiom, nor can it.
Perhaps AI is making certain job functions less relevant. Businesses need to find new ways to employ workers and keep them economically relevant, because their long-term survival depends on it. Without workers, businesses fail and economies collapse. AI cannot escape that reality, and we should not look for it to try.
Agreed! That’s why I’m wondering if anyone is compiling actual data on the effect of AI. Is the “But..AI” excuse being used as a convenient rational for certain narratives? If you see any good data in coming months, please pass it along, Peter. Thanks!
There is a huge issue with allowing core manufacturing to degrade or be eliminated. That is; even if reduced Federal funds rates decline and borrowing money is "cheaper" than before, there's little manufacturing infrastructure left to rebuild/revitalize to make products that would otherwise be subject to high tariffs if imported.
It takes time to construct new manufacturing plants or rebuild older ones; not to mention environmental concerns that must be addressed. Assuming no logistics issues; realistically how many plants could be constructed/refurbished by the end of Trump's term of office?
An excellent question.
The speed with which industrial infrastructure can be rebuilt is ultimately a function of the priority placed on it. Industrial production soared during WW2 because there was a huge need for the weapons of war.
If there were a similar existential priority we might be able to rebuild plants fairly quickly, or at least start opening up production lines fairly quickly. But that all boils down to the sense of urgency--and that is not something that corporate America has at the moment.
All of the bad economic news will be blamed on Trump, of course, because that’s what corporate media does. However, some of the decline in jobs is due to AI. Peter, is someone keeping track - reliably - on jobs loss due to the implementation of AI?
"But...AI" has become the common reflex response to any reports of job loss.
Anyone arguing that AI is to blame for job loss is seriously missing the point, which is that workers need jobs, and businesses need to provide them.
Regardless of what AI does or does not do, the demographics of employment are what they are: there are those who are fully employed, there are those who are underemployed, there are those who are unemployed, and there are those who have managed to fall completely out of the labor force and no longer "count" as unemployed.
Economic prosperity hinges on one primary factor above all else: jobs. For people to be prosperous, they need to be productive. For people to be productive, they need to be employed. AI has not changed this fundamental economic axiom, nor can it.
Perhaps AI is making certain job functions less relevant. Businesses need to find new ways to employ workers and keep them economically relevant, because their long-term survival depends on it. Without workers, businesses fail and economies collapse. AI cannot escape that reality, and we should not look for it to try.
Agreed! That’s why I’m wondering if anyone is compiling actual data on the effect of AI. Is the “But..AI” excuse being used as a convenient rational for certain narratives? If you see any good data in coming months, please pass it along, Peter. Thanks!