This analysis is why the Democratic Party needs to fire its entire messaging team and hire you, John.
I am dead serious.
I would go further here.
The ‘left behind’ narrative often ignores how geography shapes inequality. A software engineer in Nashville thrives while a textile worker in Spartanburg suffers not because of tariffs, but because America lacks a cohesive strategy for place-based investment.
Democrats could reframe the trade debate by stealing a page from Buffett’s playbook: Pitch ‘economic moats’ for workers. Example - Use tariffs temporarily to fund Appalachian microchip factories, with sunset clauses tied to employment targets. Protect people, not just industries.
Still, your closing point is important. Buffett’s vision of global prosperity requires trust, and right now, the working class trusts neither coastal elites nor the factories that abandoned them.
I love: “protect people, not just industries.” Really appreciate your feedback, Neela! Hopefully the Dems (or any political party) starts harping on that messaging while also respecting democratic institutions and the rule of law. Thanks for reading!
There's several memes floating around the internet depicting Americans working in Asian-like factories, soldering circuit boards and sewing sneakers. I just can't see Americans picking up this kind of work, even if it pays $20 an hour. I don't see the incentive for factories to move back, especially with an unwilling workforce AND such political and possibly social instability.
In other words, the USA is unlikely to go back to more Americans doing drudgery work--even if MAGA says they want that work.
Generally agree, but not all manufacturing work is the same. Manufacturing semiconductors like TSMC is critical, as is defense manufacturing. But that doesn’t explain why Trump’s tariffs are not targeted.
My point in this essay is that instead of simply dismissing the sweeping tariff argument (or weaponizing trade as Buffett put it), we cannot forget the underlying forces that got us here in the first place - the reality that globalization left behind many Americans in the Midwest and South.
The middle class has indeed lost a lot of ground since 1980. And this is sowing the seeds of a revolution, to which we have been seeing Act 1 for some time now.
I’m an advocate for at least a partial UBI to take some of the sting of being in the lower classes.
We need a new model for commerce, to which I have written about.
And, of course, there is my alternative democracy.
I’m going to refer you and your readers to book review I did a few years back.
“Mana” is a novellette about two choices we have with displaced workers:
On my drawing boards, I have an article about “truck drivers.” Automated driving is eventually going to take over. But I think it will be a slow transition, so people can make their own decisions, which is OK.
But truck driving provides great opportunity for people of lower education. When this opportunity disappears, this demographic will be more disenfranchised.
Which is a good reason why we need to consider the second option of “Mana.”
This analysis is why the Democratic Party needs to fire its entire messaging team and hire you, John.
I am dead serious.
I would go further here.
The ‘left behind’ narrative often ignores how geography shapes inequality. A software engineer in Nashville thrives while a textile worker in Spartanburg suffers not because of tariffs, but because America lacks a cohesive strategy for place-based investment.
Democrats could reframe the trade debate by stealing a page from Buffett’s playbook: Pitch ‘economic moats’ for workers. Example - Use tariffs temporarily to fund Appalachian microchip factories, with sunset clauses tied to employment targets. Protect people, not just industries.
Still, your closing point is important. Buffett’s vision of global prosperity requires trust, and right now, the working class trusts neither coastal elites nor the factories that abandoned them.
I love: “protect people, not just industries.” Really appreciate your feedback, Neela! Hopefully the Dems (or any political party) starts harping on that messaging while also respecting democratic institutions and the rule of law. Thanks for reading!
There's several memes floating around the internet depicting Americans working in Asian-like factories, soldering circuit boards and sewing sneakers. I just can't see Americans picking up this kind of work, even if it pays $20 an hour. I don't see the incentive for factories to move back, especially with an unwilling workforce AND such political and possibly social instability.
In other words, the USA is unlikely to go back to more Americans doing drudgery work--even if MAGA says they want that work.
Generally agree, but not all manufacturing work is the same. Manufacturing semiconductors like TSMC is critical, as is defense manufacturing. But that doesn’t explain why Trump’s tariffs are not targeted.
My point in this essay is that instead of simply dismissing the sweeping tariff argument (or weaponizing trade as Buffett put it), we cannot forget the underlying forces that got us here in the first place - the reality that globalization left behind many Americans in the Midwest and South.
The middle class has indeed lost a lot of ground since 1980. And this is sowing the seeds of a revolution, to which we have been seeing Act 1 for some time now.
I’m an advocate for at least a partial UBI to take some of the sting of being in the lower classes.
We need a new model for commerce, to which I have written about.
And, of course, there is my alternative democracy.
I’m going to refer you and your readers to book review I did a few years back.
“Mana” is a novellette about two choices we have with displaced workers:
https://tiereddemocraticgovernance.org/blog_details.php?blog_cat_id=20&id=76
Hint: We are making the wrong choice.
On my drawing boards, I have an article about “truck drivers.” Automated driving is eventually going to take over. But I think it will be a slow transition, so people can make their own decisions, which is OK.
But truck driving provides great opportunity for people of lower education. When this opportunity disappears, this demographic will be more disenfranchised.
Which is a good reason why we need to consider the second option of “Mana.”