What caused the Rust Belt to rust?

[darklordoftech]

What really happened to the factories in the Rust Belt?

[TML]

I would say the biggest factor is the way free trade deals were structured to allow corporations and/or their owners to get away with outsourcing American manufacturing jobs.

[Benjamin Frank]

Either cheaper imports and foreign competition,
Even without free trade deals, American consumers are going to prefer cheaper imports (and why shouldn't they?) and, more importantly, people in other nations are going to prefer cheaper imports. So, even if the U.S manufacturers hold their home market due to tariffs, they won't be able to compete internationally.

This is a problem for other U.S manufacturers, because, for instance, if U.S auto manufacturers are forced to buy more expensive U.S made steel due to import tariffs, it makes U.S autos less competitive internationally.

Or (from Wiki)

Rust is an iron oxide, a usually reddish-brown oxide formed by the reaction of iron and oxygen in the catalytic presence of water or air moisture. Rust consists of hydrous iron(III) oxides (Fe2O3·nH2O) and iron(III) oxide-hydroxide (FeO(OH), Fe(OH)3), and is typically associated with the corrosion of refined iron.

Given sufficient time, any iron mass, in the presence of water and oxygen, could eventually convert entirely to rust. Surface rust is commonly flaky and friable, and provides no passivational protection to the underlying iron, unlike the formation of patina on copper surfaces.   

[Bismarck]

Free trade, union pressure, automation, and lack of economic diversification all played a role.

[Benjamin Frank]

Free trade, union pressure, automation, and lack of economic diversification all played a role.

And corporate/executive greed.

[Cassandra]

There was a "crisis of profitability" in the US in the '70s. Capitalist firms profit rates declined from the post-war golden age due to:

1) Overseas competition, most importantly from Japan and West Germany, which had rebounded from the war
2) Rising energy prices (see: "OPEC embargo," "US conventional oil production peak")
3) Rising domestic labor costs due to, yes, labor power

Therefore, capital sought to increase profitability by relocating production to cheaper manufacturing centers (China, Mexico, etc.). And yes, automation also played a role in this process, though it must be noted that automation began displacing labor in the 1950s (hitting black workers first, with harrowing implications for the social crisis as signaled by Watts in 1966).

In a sentence, making stuff in the US got to be too expensive, so capitalists boosted profits by relocating production to cheaper sites.

I want to close with a little provocation: the only way the rust belt could have avoided rusting out is if Labor had risen to the occasion and overthrown Capital. Capitalism will always orient itself towards profitability --> Developed countries are not suitable sites for cheap manufacturing --> American industrial prosperity is not sustainable under capitalism.

[Benjamin Frank]

There was a "crisis of profitability" in the US in the '70s. Capitalist firms profit rates declined from the post-war golden age due to:

1) Overseas competition, most importantly from Japan and West Germany, which had rebounded from the war
2) Rising energy prices (see: "OPEC embargo," "US conventional oil production peak")
3) Rising domestic labor costs due to, yes, labor power

Therefore, capital sought to increase profitability by relocating production to cheaper manufacturing centers (China, Mexico, etc.). And yes, automation also played a role in this process, though it must be noted that automation began displacing labor in the 1950s (hitting black workers first, with harrowing implications for the social crisis as signaled by Watts in 1966).

In a sentence, making stuff in the US got to be too expensive, so capitalists boosted profits by relocating production to cheaper sites.

I want to close with a little provocation: the only way the rust belt could have avoided rusting out is if Labor had risen to the occasion and overthrown Capital. Capitalism will always orient itself towards profitability --> Developed countries are not suitable sites for cheap manufacturing --> American industrial prosperity is not sustainable under capitalism.

It is but not with many workers, especially direct manufacturing workers.  There are likely American manufacturing companies with millions in revenue that have maybe 10 employees on the shop floor.

[Cassandra]

There was a "crisis of profitability" in the US in the '70s. Capitalist firms profit rates declined from the post-war golden age due to:

1) Overseas competition, most importantly from Japan and West Germany, which had rebounded from the war
2) Rising energy prices (see: "OPEC embargo," "US conventional oil production peak")
3) Rising domestic labor costs due to, yes, labor power

Therefore, capital sought to increase profitability by relocating production to cheaper manufacturing centers (China, Mexico, etc.). And yes, automation also played a role in this process, though it must be noted that automation began displacing labor in the 1950s (hitting black workers first, with harrowing implications for the social crisis as signaled by Watts in 1966).

In a sentence, making stuff in the US got to be too expensive, so capitalists boosted profits by relocating production to cheaper sites.

I want to close with a little provocation: the only way the rust belt could have avoided rusting out is if Labor had risen to the occasion and overthrown Capital. Capitalism will always orient itself towards profitability --> Developed countries are not suitable sites for cheap manufacturing --> American industrial prosperity is not sustainable under capitalism.

It is but not with many workers, especially direct manufacturing workers.  There are likely American manufacturing companies with millions in revenue that have maybe 10 employees on the shop floor.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you arguing that developed countries can be suitable sites for manufacturing given a completely automated production process? Because sure, there certainly are such factories here today. But that doesn't mean jack for the working class. I used the phrase "American industrial prosperity" to evoke the era of general welfare provided by stable factory jobs.

[Benjamin Frank]

There was a "crisis of profitability" in the US in the '70s. Capitalist firms profit rates declined from the post-war golden age due to:

1) Overseas competition, most importantly from Japan and West Germany, which had rebounded from the war
2) Rising energy prices (see: "OPEC embargo," "US conventional oil production peak")
3) Rising domestic labor costs due to, yes, labor power

Therefore, capital sought to increase profitability by relocating production to cheaper manufacturing centers (China, Mexico, etc.). And yes, automation also played a role in this process, though it must be noted that automation began displacing labor in the 1950s (hitting black workers first, with harrowing implications for the social crisis as signaled by Watts in 1966).

In a sentence, making stuff in the US got to be too expensive, so capitalists boosted profits by relocating production to cheaper sites.

I want to close with a little provocation: the only way the rust belt could have avoided rusting out is if Labor had risen to the occasion and overthrown Capital. Capitalism will always orient itself towards profitability --> Developed countries are not suitable sites for cheap manufacturing --> American industrial prosperity is not sustainable under capitalism.

It is but not with many workers, especially direct manufacturing workers.  There are likely American manufacturing companies with millions in revenue that have maybe 10 employees on the shop floor.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you arguing that developed countries can be suitable sites for manufacturing given a completely automated production process? Because sure, there certainly are such factories here today. But that doesn't mean jack for the working class. I used the phrase "American industrial prosperity" to evoke the era of general welfare provided by stable factory jobs.

Oh I see your point.  Yes, well, what can you do?  The past is past. You can be nostalgic all you want, but those days aren't coming back.

[Cassandra]

There was a "crisis of profitability" in the US in the '70s. Capitalist firms profit rates declined from the post-war golden age due to:

1) Overseas competition, most importantly from Japan and West Germany, which had rebounded from the war
2) Rising energy prices (see: "OPEC embargo," "US conventional oil production peak")
3) Rising domestic labor costs due to, yes, labor power

Therefore, capital sought to increase profitability by relocating production to cheaper manufacturing centers (China, Mexico, etc.). And yes, automation also played a role in this process, though it must be noted that automation began displacing labor in the 1950s (hitting black workers first, with harrowing implications for the social crisis as signaled by Watts in 1966).

In a sentence, making stuff in the US got to be too expensive, so capitalists boosted profits by relocating production to cheaper sites.

I want to close with a little provocation: the only way the rust belt could have avoided rusting out is if Labor had risen to the occasion and overthrown Capital. Capitalism will always orient itself towards profitability --> Developed countries are not suitable sites for cheap manufacturing --> American industrial prosperity is not sustainable under capitalism.

It is but not with many workers, especially direct manufacturing workers.  There are likely American manufacturing companies with millions in revenue that have maybe 10 employees on the shop floor.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you arguing that developed countries can be suitable sites for manufacturing given a completely automated production process? Because sure, there certainly are such factories here today. But that doesn't mean jack for the working class. I used the phrase "American industrial prosperity" to evoke the era of general welfare provided by stable factory jobs.

Oh I see your point.  Yes, well, what can you do?  The past is past. You can be nostalgic all you want, but those days aren't coming back.

true i guess, better stick to drinking

[Benjamin Frank]

There was a "crisis of profitability" in the US in the '70s. Capitalist firms profit rates declined from the post-war golden age due to:

1) Overseas competition, most importantly from Japan and West Germany, which had rebounded from the war
2) Rising energy prices (see: "OPEC embargo," "US conventional oil production peak")
3) Rising domestic labor costs due to, yes, labor power

Therefore, capital sought to increase profitability by relocating production to cheaper manufacturing centers (China, Mexico, etc.). And yes, automation also played a role in this process, though it must be noted that automation began displacing labor in the 1950s (hitting black workers first, with harrowing implications for the social crisis as signaled by Watts in 1966).

In a sentence, making stuff in the US got to be too expensive, so capitalists boosted profits by relocating production to cheaper sites.

I want to close with a little provocation: the only way the rust belt could have avoided rusting out is if Labor had risen to the occasion and overthrown Capital. Capitalism will always orient itself towards profitability --> Developed countries are not suitable sites for cheap manufacturing --> American industrial prosperity is not sustainable under capitalism.

It is but not with many workers, especially direct manufacturing workers.  There are likely American manufacturing companies with millions in revenue that have maybe 10 employees on the shop floor.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you arguing that developed countries can be suitable sites for manufacturing given a completely automated production process? Because sure, there certainly are such factories here today. But that doesn't mean jack for the working class. I used the phrase "American industrial prosperity" to evoke the era of general welfare provided by stable factory jobs.

Oh I see your point.  Yes, well, what can you do?  The past is past. You can be nostalgic all you want, but those days aren't coming back.

true i guess, better stick to drinking

There are a lot of jobs other than manufacturing. I honestly don't know why people romanticize manufacturing anyway.

It was often back-breaking, dirty work with nasty bosses yelling at you to work faster.

[Cassandra]

There was a "crisis of profitability" in the US in the '70s. Capitalist firms profit rates declined from the post-war golden age due to:

1) Overseas competition, most importantly from Japan and West Germany, which had rebounded from the war
2) Rising energy prices (see: "OPEC embargo," "US conventional oil production peak")
3) Rising domestic labor costs due to, yes, labor power

Therefore, capital sought to increase profitability by relocating production to cheaper manufacturing centers (China, Mexico, etc.). And yes, automation also played a role in this process, though it must be noted that automation began displacing labor in the 1950s (hitting black workers first, with harrowing implications for the social crisis as signaled by Watts in 1966).

In a sentence, making stuff in the US got to be too expensive, so capitalists boosted profits by relocating production to cheaper sites.

I want to close with a little provocation: the only way the rust belt could have avoided rusting out is if Labor had risen to the occasion and overthrown Capital. Capitalism will always orient itself towards profitability --> Developed countries are not suitable sites for cheap manufacturing --> American industrial prosperity is not sustainable under capitalism.

It is but not with many workers, especially direct manufacturing workers.  There are likely American manufacturing companies with millions in revenue that have maybe 10 employees on the shop floor.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you arguing that developed countries can be suitable sites for manufacturing given a completely automated production process? Because sure, there certainly are such factories here today. But that doesn't mean jack for the working class. I used the phrase "American industrial prosperity" to evoke the era of general welfare provided by stable factory jobs.

Oh I see your point.  Yes, well, what can you do?  The past is past. You can be nostalgic all you want, but those days aren't coming back.

true i guess, better stick to drinking

There are a lot of jobs other than manufacturing. I honestly don't know why people romanticize manufacturing anyway.

It was often back-breaking, dirty work with nasty bosses yelling at you to work faster.

because a man could support his whole family on those wages. We've still go plenty of sh*t jobs, but hardly any of them pay as much in relative terms.

[Benjamin Frank]

There was a "crisis of profitability" in the US in the '70s. Capitalist firms profit rates declined from the post-war golden age due to:

1) Overseas competition, most importantly from Japan and West Germany, which had rebounded from the war
2) Rising energy prices (see: "OPEC embargo," "US conventional oil production peak")
3) Rising domestic labor costs due to, yes, labor power

Therefore, capital sought to increase profitability by relocating production to cheaper manufacturing centers (China, Mexico, etc.). And yes, automation also played a role in this process, though it must be noted that automation began displacing labor in the 1950s (hitting black workers first, with harrowing implications for the social crisis as signaled by Watts in 1966).

In a sentence, making stuff in the US got to be too expensive, so capitalists boosted profits by relocating production to cheaper sites.

I want to close with a little provocation: the only way the rust belt could have avoided rusting out is if Labor had risen to the occasion and overthrown Capital. Capitalism will always orient itself towards profitability --> Developed countries are not suitable sites for cheap manufacturing --> American industrial prosperity is not sustainable under capitalism.

It is but not with many workers, especially direct manufacturing workers.  There are likely American manufacturing companies with millions in revenue that have maybe 10 employees on the shop floor.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you arguing that developed countries can be suitable sites for manufacturing given a completely automated production process? Because sure, there certainly are such factories here today. But that doesn't mean jack for the working class. I used the phrase "American industrial prosperity" to evoke the era of general welfare provided by stable factory jobs.

Oh I see your point.  Yes, well, what can you do?  The past is past. You can be nostalgic all you want, but those days aren't coming back.

true i guess, better stick to drinking

There are a lot of jobs other than manufacturing. I honestly don't know why people romanticize manufacturing anyway.

It was often back-breaking, dirty work with nasty bosses yelling at you to work faster.

because a man could support his whole family on those wages. We've still go plenty of sh*t jobs, but hardly any of them pay as much in relative terms.

OK, Fair enough point, but it should also not be left out that those jobs did not pay as highly as people seem to think they did. It was also the case that people didn't buy as much 'stuff' as they do now and that, for instance, the average American home is much larger now than in the 1950s and 1960s (some people say three times larger.)

People generally saved up to buy things rather than go into debt. I don't want to sound like some right winger going on about 'deferred gratification' because I'm not and I don't like it when people turn economics into some kind of morality play, but it is I think fair to say that a man could not support his whole family on those (adjusted for inflation) wages today.

Citations:
https://www.cyburbia.org/forums/threads/why-were-homes-were-so-small-in-the-50s-and-60s.47516/

and
https://www.quora.com/Why-were-houses-built-in-the-50s-so-much-smaller-than-now-but-families-were-much-bigger-then
There are several reasons that come to my mind that may have been factors. One of the big ones was that people didn’t necessarily have anywhere near the number of possessions that they have today. Clothes closets were small, for example, because in general people didn’t have as many outfits. Bedrooms were smaller because there wasn’t that much that was expected to go in them - usually just a bed, a dresser, and a mirror. Very few people had or expected to have recreation rooms or family rooms. You served company in the dining room but otherwise you ate in the kitchen, and it had cupboards, a refrigerator, a stove and the kitchen table and chairs. The living room was where the radio cabinet and the TV were, and chairs and chesterfields faced those locations.Kids didn’t expect to have their own rooms or their own everythings. I was an only child so I had my own bedroom but families I knew had bunk beds in the bedrooms for kids of the same sex. You were expected to share accommodations and share pretty well everything else, unlike today where kids feel entitled to their own rooms and TVs, computers, etc. Another factor - people were outside a lot more. The husband worked, the kids went to school and then played outside (yards were large rather than the modern pill-box size) and home was for meals and sleeping.

[Vice President Christian Man]

Automation was the biggest reason although they all played a role. Stricter labor laws and tougher action against outsourcing can be an alternative to restricting immigration and trade, but my concern about relaxing immigration is that corporations can take advantage of the cheap labor, creating somewhat of a slave class. Tariffs are a double-edge sword. On one hand they're an extra tax for the working class. On the other hand, free trade can lower demand of the national and local economy, costing jobs. Tariffs are the lesser evil, although it would be ideal if local industry could be protected without the need for tariffs. Big business is also part of the culprit as giant corporations have destroyed small and family businesses.

[If my soul was made of stone]

There was a "crisis of profitability" in the US in the '70s. Capitalist firms profit rates declined from the post-war golden age due to:

1) Overseas competition, most importantly from Japan and West Germany, which had rebounded from the war
2) Rising energy prices (see: "OPEC embargo," "US conventional oil production peak")
3) Rising domestic labor costs due to, yes, labor power

Therefore, capital sought to increase profitability by relocating production to cheaper manufacturing centers (China, Mexico, etc.). And yes, automation also played a role in this process, though it must be noted that automation began displacing labor in the 1950s (hitting black workers first, with harrowing implications for the social crisis as signaled by Watts in 1966).

In a sentence, making stuff in the US got to be too expensive, so capitalists boosted profits by relocating production to cheaper sites.

I want to close with a little provocation: the only way the rust belt could have avoided rusting out is if Labor had risen to the occasion and overthrown Capital. Capitalism will always orient itself towards profitability --> Developed countries are not suitable sites for cheap manufacturing --> American industrial prosperity is not sustainable under capitalism.

And then, much like old-school feminists, labor rallied behind Bill Clinton as their last hurrah and committed seppuku in the process. Nowadays the UMW endorses Hal Rogers from the desperate hope that he could get them some earmarks. At least we didn't have the incredible poetic irony of Poland undergoing this process under a folk hero union leader president, even if said union had always been right-coded by virtue of being what it was...

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

There was a "crisis of profitability" in the US in the '70s. Capitalist firms profit rates declined from the post-war golden age due to:

1) Overseas competition, most importantly from Japan and West Germany, which had rebounded from the war
2) Rising energy prices (see: "OPEC embargo," "US conventional oil production peak")
3) Rising domestic labor costs due to, yes, labor power

Therefore, capital sought to increase profitability by relocating production to cheaper manufacturing centers (China, Mexico, etc.). And yes, automation also played a role in this process, though it must be noted that automation began displacing labor in the 1950s (hitting black workers first, with harrowing implications for the social crisis as signaled by Watts in 1966).

In a sentence, making stuff in the US got to be too expensive, so capitalists boosted profits by relocating production to cheaper sites.

I want to close with a little provocation: the only way the rust belt could have avoided rusting out is if Labor had risen to the occasion and overthrown Capital. Capitalism will always orient itself towards profitability --> Developed countries are not suitable sites for cheap manufacturing --> American industrial prosperity is not sustainable under capitalism.

And then, much like old-school feminists, labor rallied behind Bill Clinton as their last hurrah and committed seppuku in the process. Nowadays the UMW endorses Hal Rogers from the desperate hope that he could get them some earmarks. At least we didn't have the incredible poetic irony of Poland undergoing this process under a folk hero union leader president, even if said union had always been right-coded by virtue of being what it was...

As much as it's a world away from the 21 Demands of 1981, one can't really blame Solidarity for rallying behind the glittering Americana vision that was the most the 90s zeitgeist had to offer, especially when it was being pitched by their folk hero and the alternatives were the party of their former bosses, a gaggle of ivory-tower intellectuals, and assorted crooks and weirdos. (Not that they were offering anything particuarly different, but vibes and history, you see) Even if it makes the current dynamic where Wałęsa is denounced by loads of his former comrades as a traitor to the revolution while being embraced as a mascot by the people he spent the 1990 campaign feigning disdain for as a Cunning Plan to divert the frustration of the masses seem as inevitable in hindsight as it is ironic. (Even if the city has changed beyond recognition since then, is there a better symbol of All That than him basing his campaign around rallies out in the sticks where you pledge to take the eggheads in Warsaw down a peg and generally commune with the crowd in much the same slightly fey way Trump does, and then winning Warsaw by a landslide?) A lot of sacrifices were inevitable even in the best-case scenario. The natural conclusion of all this, tho, was Solidarity going all-in on the neolib trainwreck that was the Buzek government to own the secular (post-)commies and pursue the fever dream of a popular capitalism hand in hand with the Church, and wrecking its ability to do anything other than draw out the agony of the coal industry and see what reforms it can wring out of PiS, which I suppose, given how much room for reform there is, is still somehow more dignified than the American situation in many places.

[If my soul was made of stone]

There was a "crisis of profitability" in the US in the '70s. Capitalist firms profit rates declined from the post-war golden age due to:

1) Overseas competition, most importantly from Japan and West Germany, which had rebounded from the war
2) Rising energy prices (see: "OPEC embargo," "US conventional oil production peak")
3) Rising domestic labor costs due to, yes, labor power

Therefore, capital sought to increase profitability by relocating production to cheaper manufacturing centers (China, Mexico, etc.). And yes, automation also played a role in this process, though it must be noted that automation began displacing labor in the 1950s (hitting black workers first, with harrowing implications for the social crisis as signaled by Watts in 1966).

In a sentence, making stuff in the US got to be too expensive, so capitalists boosted profits by relocating production to cheaper sites.

I want to close with a little provocation: the only way the rust belt could have avoided rusting out is if Labor had risen to the occasion and overthrown Capital. Capitalism will always orient itself towards profitability --> Developed countries are not suitable sites for cheap manufacturing --> American industrial prosperity is not sustainable under capitalism.

And then, much like old-school feminists, labor rallied behind Bill Clinton as their last hurrah and committed seppuku in the process. Nowadays the UMW endorses Hal Rogers from the desperate hope that he could get them some earmarks. At least we didn't have the incredible poetic irony of Poland undergoing this process under a folk hero union leader president, even if said union had always been right-coded by virtue of being what it was...

As much as it's a world away from the 21 Demands of 1981, one can't really blame Solidarity for rallying behind the glittering Americana vision that was the most the 90s zeitgeist had to offer, especially when it was being pitched by their folk hero and the alternatives were the party of their former bosses, a gaggle of ivory-tower intellectuals, and assorted crooks and weirdos. (Not that they were offering anything particuarly different, but vibes and history, you see) Even if it makes the current dynamic where Wałęsa is denounced by loads of his former comrades as a traitor to the revolution while being embraced as a mascot by the people he spent the 1990 campaign feigning disdain for as a Cunning Plan to divert the frustration of the masses seem as inevitable in hindsight as it is ironic. (Even if the city has changed beyond recognition since then, is there a better symbol of All That than him basing his campaign around rallies out in the sticks where you pledge to take the eggheads in Warsaw down a peg and generally commune with the crowd in much the same slightly fey way Trump does, and then winning Warsaw by a landslide?) A lot of sacrifices were inevitable even in the best-case scenario. The natural conclusion of all this, tho, was Solidarity going all-in on the neolib trainwreck that was the Buzek government to own the secular (post-)commies and pursue the fever dream of a popular capitalism hand in hand with the Church, and wrecking its ability to do anything other than draw out the agony of the coal industry and see what reforms it can wring out of PiS, which I suppose, given how much room for reform there is, is still somehow more dignified than the American situation in many places.

[sting in the rafters]

Overseas competition, most importantly from Japan and West Germany, which had rebounded from the war.

This is an underrated factor, and not solely because of conventional reasons. Toyota codified using "LEAN" production principles such as takt time, avoiding overproduction to enhance inventory turnover, and using punch cards to identify overburden along their assembly lines. Meanwhile Ford was busy fighting w/UAW in ways Michael Moore documented better than I. Quality control sunk other industries. Johnstown PA turned to a Silent Hill map after the EPA came into existence. The 82 recession f__ed over the steel plants because they were too cash-strapped to keep with w/foreign competitors who were upgrading to continuous casting. At any rate blaming free trade passes the buck for poor managerial decisions.

[Benjamin Frank]

Overseas competition, most importantly from Japan and West Germany, which had rebounded from the war.

This is an underrated factor, and not solely because of conventional reasons. Toyota codified using "LEAN" production principles such as takt time, avoiding overproduction to enhance inventory turnover, and using punch cards to identify overburden along their assembly lines. Meanwhile Ford was busy fighting w/UAW in ways Michael Moore documented better than I. Quality control sunk other industries. Johnstown PA turned to a Silent Hill map after the EPA came into existence. The 82 recession f__ed over the steel plants because they were too cash-strapped to keep with w/foreign competitors who were upgrading to continuous casting. At any rate blaming free trade passes the buck for poor managerial decisions.

To be fair, also union status quo bias (or whatever term you want to use 'entrenched beliefs' 'concern for loss of jobs..)

I think private sector unions are the best and only hope to prevent corporate 'fascism' but nobody should romanticize them or think they're perfect either.

[sting in the rafters]

To be fair, also union status quo bias (or whatever term you want to use 'entrenched beliefs' 'concern for loss of jobs..)

I think private sector unions are the best and only hope to prevent corporate 'fascism' but nobody should romanticize them or think they're perfect either.

Yep, unions both private and public caved in their hubris of always thinking they'd be taken care of. PATCO endorsed Reagan then he made an example out of the air traffic controllers the next summer. UAW cosigned loans for Chrysler against their pension fund in the late 70s as well as conceded shop-specific benefits cuts. If a local/chapter has different wages at say, Ford and Chrysler in the same district, then there's going to be incentive to join own over the other. This of course undermines the whole point of negotiating as a bloc. So yeah, needed some cataracts for the lack of foresight.

[Tintrlvr]

The Rust Belt industrial companies were lulled into complacency by the fact that the US was the only industrial power not completely devastated by World War II and failed to nimbly adapt to competition starting in the 1960s. Earlier industrial dominance was not due to anything inherent to higher trade barriers (which, indeed, probably hurt US industry in the 1950s) and more simply to the lack of active industrial infrastructure elsewhere. This failure to be nimble continued apace throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s, and by the time the crisis was fully recognized in the 80s, it was really far too late to do much to change and challenging from a governance/political perspective to do anything. Those who blame free trade are missing the point: Free trade benefited American industry in the late 40s and 50s, and our dominance in the era wouldn't have been possible without free trade. It was a failure to adapt and innovate that doomed American industry. Industrial production has continued to be a major part of the economy in Germany and Japan, the first rivals to the US to emerge, neither of which has anything like the US's "rust belt", despite their commitment to free trade and automation, and it could have been the same for the US.

Ultimately this might have been inevitable: It's easy enough, and really human nature, to get lulled into complacency when you don't have competitors and not plan for the future. And calling it a problem with corporate and union cultures that probably wasn't solveable by the government unless you would be willing for government to intervene quite heavily in industrial decisionmaking is convenient if you want to avoid placing blame on political actors. But ultimately I think it's the true answer.

(Immigration is simply obviously irrelevant and not even worth discussing.)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Something that doesn't get discussed enough is that the American manufacturing boom was largely driven by the devestation in post-war Europe, North America was just a far more lucrative place to base manufacturing. Once Europe rebuilt and healed that advantage was lost. After all basically the exact same thing happened in Canada, look at Windsor and Hamilton.

[If my soul was made of stone]

The Rust Belt industrial companies were lulled into complacency by the fact that the US was the only industrial power not completely devastated by World War II and failed to nimbly adapt to competition starting in the 1960s. Earlier industrial dominance was not due to anything inherent to higher trade barriers (which, indeed, probably hurt US industry in the 1950s) and more simply to the lack of active industrial infrastructure elsewhere. This failure to be nimble continued apace throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s, and by the time the crisis was fully recognized in the 80s, it was really far too late to do much to change and challenging from a governance/political perspective to do anything. Those who blame free trade are missing the point: Free trade benefited American industry in the late 40s and 50s, and our dominance in the era wouldn't have been possible without free trade. It was a failure to adapt and innovate that doomed American industry. Industrial production has continued to be a major part of the economy in Germany and Japan, the first rivals to the US to emerge, neither of which has anything like the US's "rust belt", despite their commitment to free trade and automation, and it could have been the same for the US.

Ultimately this might have been inevitable: It's easy enough, and really human nature, to get lulled into complacency when you don't have competitors and not plan for the future. And calling it a problem with corporate and union cultures that probably wasn't solveable by the government unless you would be willing for government to intervene quite heavily in industrial decisionmaking is convenient if you want to avoid placing blame on political actors. But ultimately I think it's the true answer.

(Immigration is simply obviously irrelevant and not even worth discussing.)

Indeed in the complacence of this golden era the brain trusts of American manufacturing, spearheaded typically by the uniquely American and sociopathic oligarchs of Detroit, rested on their laurels or even took to actively destructive practices like planned obsolescence. Ralph Nader coming to prominence with Unsafe at Any Speed, the Pinto memo, etc, are quite illuminating here. This then set the perfect scene, along with the oil crisis, for American manufacturers to be outpaced by the newer industrial capacity of Western Europe and East Asia that hadn't yet turned quite so rotten, resulting in great resentment among the American populace that too often became racialized and xenophobic (as encouraged by the rhetoric of the American right). The right-wing politicians enabled by such sentiment, though not always by the working class as seen in the falsified "Reagan Democrat" narrative in much of the country (until the Atari Dems and Bubba, as noted above), then set in motion the deregulation that would continue the death spiral with hopes and dreams of that indefinite underclass' support. Of course, eventually the Scary Foreign Competitors rested on their laurels themselves; the VW emissions scandal was a major turning point in radicalizing me, especially since my father owned one of the implicated vehicles at the time.

[Utah Neolib]

Iron oxide

[Indy Texas]

I'd recommend reading Glass House by Brian Alexander.

It talks about how financialization and the private equity model of business hollowed out America's industrial base, through the example of how a glass factory in Ohio was driven to ruin by the greed and shortsightedness of managers and outside investors.