>>3764929>Robots and computers were employed by automakers since the 70s.
Yeah you're right there is no difference between the use of computing machines in the 1970s and the global explosion of personal computers connected though a series of tubes, or the exponential growth and advancement of computing machines and their application or any of the other shit that we think of when we think of "the 90s." idk what decade you were born but 1990-2010 was defined by the explosion of technology and the internet revolution.
And even when we do want to pretend that things happened in a vacuum and NAFTA was the ONLY reason that manufacturing jobs in the US dwindled as we became a globalized consumer economy, who the fuck cares? Do you want to be working in a machine shop THAT bad? You wanna build Fords? You want to print shirts or weave artisanal baskets?
Should we just pay people to dig ditches? Why not? >If that many employees simply weren't needed because of automation more employees wouldn't be pursued and production facilities wouldn't be being built elsewhere
No you need to rebuild and modernize production facilities every few decades generally. Next time your Detroit plant with 500 workers or whatever ages out, you just build the new fancy juan in Mexico where you pay 10 Mexicans $15/hr each to monitor all the fancy new machines. >especially in places where the products would have to be transported great distances to the only people on this side of the hemisphere who'd be able to afford to buy them.
pretty easy to transpo shit meow. >Once again, you're completely wrong
You're not even addressing the argument. You're trying to defend why we got bamboozled into letting mexicans unionize and get 3x more while still being half as expensive as American labor. >NAFTA and other "free trade agreements" with countries with weak currencies is the retarded economic policy
Eh it strengthens our currency by making it globally traded and enforced and stuf