Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore - Fixing the rust belt cities

[Ethel mermania]

Detriot is supposedly improving, thanks to "THE HIPSTERS"

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/taki ... troit.html

I can tell you right now it isnt. while downtown is being built up with new businesses and attractions, the neighborhoods remain in a state of decay

That is how it starts, NYC was dirt cheap in the late 70's, then the village and Soho started to gentrify, and now NYC is pretty much unaffordable to the middle class.

[Novus America]

I can tell you right now it isnt. while downtown is being built up with new businesses and attractions, the neighborhoods remain in a state of decay

That is how it starts, NYC was dirt cheap in the late 70's, then the village and Soho started to gentrify, and now NYC is pretty much unaffordable to the middle class.

NYC had a 10% population loss in the 70s, and saw population begin increasing again in the 80s.
Detroit lost over 60% and continues to fall.

Detroit has a very long way to go to get back to, let alone above 1970 population levels.
NYC did so in 2000.

[Des-Bal]

That is how it starts, NYC was dirt cheap in the late 70's, then the village and Soho started to gentrify, and now NYC is pretty much unaffordable to the middle class.

It's really not the same, the population replacement in Detroit is ridiculously low and the taxes are enough to scare away investors who don't see a future for the city.

[Confederate States of German America]

You'd need the parties getting serious and forming a more coherent policy. Trump making efforts on CFIUS was a good move, but it's not all we should be doing:

- Congress should expand MEP funding by at least double to $200 million annually, while retaining the 2-to-1 match.
- Direct the Small Business Administration to devote at least half its portfolio to supporting high-growth potential, high-tech firms, including a much larger share of manufacturers, with funding specifically supporting SMEs’ innovation and R&D efforts through investments such as in new capital equipment, machinery, or IT software.
- Restore long-term authorization of the Small Business Innovation Research program, through which 2.5% of federal agency research budgets is allocated to small businesses, and the Small Business Technology Transfer program, through which 0.3% of federal agency research budgets is allocated to universities or nonprofit research institutions that work in partnership with small businesses.
- AMTech’s funding should be ramped up to at least $500 million annually and support precompetitive applied research into 20 key advanced technologies.
- Congress should increase the statutory lending authorization of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, which provides export credit financing to U.S. manufacturers, from $100 billion to $160 billion, and direct the bank to increase its statutory goal to providing at least 25% of its financing to small businesses.
- Congress should allow the Export-Import Bank to use $20 billion in unobligated authority to lend directly to domestic manufacturing companies that are in competition with subsidized competitors and can demonstrate that the funds would support expanded manufacturer activities in the United States.
- Create a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation in the same vein as the Fraunhofer Institutes of Germany, and integrate the “mini Fraunhofers” U.S. States have created, such as Connecticut Center for Advanced Technology, the Florida Center for Advanced Aero-Propulsion, and Virginia’s Commonwealth Center for Advanced Manufacturing.

[Novus America]

You'd need the parties getting serious and forming a more coherent policy. Trump making efforts on CFIUS was a good move, but it's not all we should be doing:

- Congress should expand MEP funding by at least double to $200 million annually, while retaining the 2-to-1 match.
- Direct the Small Business Administration to devote at least half its portfolio to supporting high-growth potential, high-tech firms, including a much larger share of manufacturers, with funding specifically supporting SMEs’ innovation and R&D efforts through investments such as in new capital equipment, machinery, or IT software.
- Restore long-term authorization of the Small Business Innovation Research program, through which 2.5% of federal agency research budgets is allocated to small businesses, and the Small Business Technology Transfer program, through which 0.3% of federal agency research budgets is allocated to universities or nonprofit research institutions that work in partnership with small businesses.
- AMTech’s funding should be ramped up to at least $500 million annually and support precompetitive applied research into 20 key advanced technologies.
- Congress should increase the statutory lending authorization of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, which provides export credit financing to U.S. manufacturers, from $100 billion to $160 billion, and direct the bank to increase its statutory goal to providing at least 25% of its financing to small businesses.
- Congress should allow the Export-Import Bank to use $20 billion in unobligated authority to lend directly to domestic manufacturing companies that are in competition with subsidized competitors and can demonstrate that the funds would support expanded manufacturer activities in the United States.
- Create a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation in the same vein as the Fraunhofer Institutes of Germany, and integrate the “mini Fraunhofers” U.S. States have created, such as Connecticut Center for Advanced Technology, the Florida Center for Advanced Aero-Propulsion, and Virginia’s Commonwealth Center for Advanced Manufacturing.

These are all great ideas.
Also we should reform investor visa rules to ensure money better goes where it is most needed.

[San Lumen]

You'd need the parties getting serious and forming a more coherent policy. Trump making efforts on CFIUS was a good move, but it's not all we should be doing:

- Congress should expand MEP funding by at least double to $200 million annually, while retaining the 2-to-1 match.
- Direct the Small Business Administration to devote at least half its portfolio to supporting high-growth potential, high-tech firms, including a much larger share of manufacturers, with funding specifically supporting SMEs’ innovation and R&D efforts through investments such as in new capital equipment, machinery, or IT software.
- Restore long-term authorization of the Small Business Innovation Research program, through which 2.5% of federal agency research budgets is allocated to small businesses, and the Small Business Technology Transfer program, through which 0.3% of federal agency research budgets is allocated to universities or nonprofit research institutions that work in partnership with small businesses.
- AMTech’s funding should be ramped up to at least $500 million annually and support precompetitive applied research into 20 key advanced technologies.
- Congress should increase the statutory lending authorization of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, which provides export credit financing to U.S. manufacturers, from $100 billion to $160 billion, and direct the bank to increase its statutory goal to providing at least 25% of its financing to small businesses.
- Congress should allow the Export-Import Bank to use $20 billion in unobligated authority to lend directly to domestic manufacturing companies that are in competition with subsidized competitors and can demonstrate that the funds would support expanded manufacturer activities in the United States.
- Create a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation in the same vein as the Fraunhofer Institutes of Germany, and integrate the “mini Fraunhofers” U.S. States have created, such as Connecticut Center for Advanced Technology, the Florida Center for Advanced Aero-Propulsion, and Virginia’s Commonwealth Center for Advanced Manufacturing.

How is that going to help? They seem like good proposals though

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

If you already have the tariffs in place, the offer of reducing or eliminating them in exchange gives you more bargaining power than a mere threat.

But why? If you draw a line in the sand, at which crossing it gives you tariffs, doesn't that give them more to lose by crossing it?

And I am not against fair and equal trade in which both parties play by the same rules.

So you're okay with free trade with, let's say, Canada?

But that is not what we have in most cases, especially places like China.
In those cases the comparative adavantge comes from labor abuse and environmental destruction, not higher productivity.

It could be a little from column A and a little from column B. Asians do score higher on IQ tests than whites do.

Who says the do not necessarily speak the language? And they can learn.

They can, yes. But in the meantime they are vulnerable.

Why is the movement of goods better than the movement of people?

It isn't necessarily better either way. Each has its pros and cons. Neither is a substitute for the other. See above for an example of the aforementioned tradeoffs.

Why is it inherently better they make the goods elsewhere?

Some climates are better suited to some goods. You wouldn't want to try to farm pineapples in Siberia.

Besides nobody is forcing them to go.

In theory, no. In practice, their circumstances blur the distinction between coercion and non-coercion.

In any other context, I'd probably be arguing for letting more migrants in... and I still think the USA should, compared to what it does now. But it's no substitute for international trade.

Also international shipping produces massive pollution, making a product closer to its customers provides numerous environmental benefits.

If it's being brought by ship, couldn't ocean currents take them the rest of the way?

Of course this is putting aside that national borders aren't the same thing as distances anyway. Arizona's a lot closer to Mexico than it is to Maine.

Plus there are the National security benefits and wage benefits.

Such as...?

And if we are discussing rebuilding the rust belt cities, obviously changing the trade policies that caused the much of the problems in those cities in the first place is a good place to start.

Where were we on the issue of Japan and Germany? I feel like I lost track of where we were on that. I do not recall feeling particularly convinced of the case against their superiority in automotive manufacturing.

[Novus America]

You'd need the parties getting serious and forming a more coherent policy. Trump making efforts on CFIUS was a good move, but it's not all we should be doing:

- Congress should expand MEP funding by at least double to $200 million annually, while retaining the 2-to-1 match.
- Direct the Small Business Administration to devote at least half its portfolio to supporting high-growth potential, high-tech firms, including a much larger share of manufacturers, with funding specifically supporting SMEs’ innovation and R&D efforts through investments such as in new capital equipment, machinery, or IT software.
- Restore long-term authorization of the Small Business Innovation Research program, through which 2.5% of federal agency research budgets is allocated to small businesses, and the Small Business Technology Transfer program, through which 0.3% of federal agency research budgets is allocated to universities or nonprofit research institutions that work in partnership with small businesses.
- AMTech’s funding should be ramped up to at least $500 million annually and support precompetitive applied research into 20 key advanced technologies.
- Congress should increase the statutory lending authorization of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, which provides export credit financing to U.S. manufacturers, from $100 billion to $160 billion, and direct the bank to increase its statutory goal to providing at least 25% of its financing to small businesses.
- Congress should allow the Export-Import Bank to use $20 billion in unobligated authority to lend directly to domestic manufacturing companies that are in competition with subsidized competitors and can demonstrate that the funds would support expanded manufacturer activities in the United States.
- Create a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation in the same vein as the Fraunhofer Institutes of Germany, and integrate the “mini Fraunhofers” U.S. States have created, such as Connecticut Center for Advanced Technology, the Florida Center for Advanced Aero-Propulsion, and Virginia’s Commonwealth Center for Advanced Manufacturing.

How is that going to help? They seem like good proposals though

By creating manufacturing jobs. The key is making sure the jobs are created where most needed.
Although the large amount of underutilized industrial land in the Rust Belt helps.

Maybe some program to buy and transfer said land to the manufacturers these programs would support (provided of course that the actually use it for the intended purpose).

If we created hundreds of thousands of new manufacturing jobs across the rust belt, that would help reverse the deindustrialization that created the Rust Belt in the first place.

[Novus America]

If you already have the tariffs in place, the offer of reducing or eliminating them in exchange gives you more bargaining power than a mere threat.

But why? If you draw a line in the sand, at which crossing it gives you tariffs, doesn't that give them more to lose by crossing it?

And I am not against fair and equal trade in which both parties play by the same rules.

So you're okay with free trade with, let's say, Canada?

But that is not what we have in most cases, especially places like China.
In those cases the comparative adavantge comes from labor abuse and environmental destruction, not higher productivity.

It could be a little from column A and a little from column B. Asians do score higher on IQ tests than whites do.

Who says the do not necessarily speak the language? And they can learn.

They can, yes. But in the meantime they are vulnerable.

Why is the movement of goods better than the movement of people?

It isn't necessarily better either way. Each has its pros and cons. Neither is a substitute for the other. See above for an example of the aforementioned tradeoffs.

Why is it inherently better they make the goods elsewhere?

Some climates are better suited to some goods. You wouldn't want to try to farm pineapples in Siberia.

Besides nobody is forcing them to go.

In theory, no. In practice, their circumstances blur the distinction between coercion and non-coercion.

In any other context, I'd probably be arguing for letting more migrants in... and I still think the USA should, compared to what it does now. But it's no substitute for international trade.

Also international shipping produces massive pollution, making a product closer to its customers provides numerous environmental benefits.

If it's being brought by ship, couldn't ocean currents take them the rest of the way?

Of course this is putting aside that national borders aren't the same thing as distances anyway. Arizona's a lot closer to Mexico than it is to Maine.

Plus there are the National security benefits and wage benefits.

Such as...?

And if we are discussing rebuilding the rust belt cities, obviously changing the trade policies that caused the much of the problems in those cities in the first place is a good place to start.

Where were we on the issue of Japan and Germany? I feel like I lost track of where we were on that. I do not recall feeling particularly convinced of the case against their superiority in automotive manufacturing.

The treat gives them more to lose but less to gain.
But the actual tariffs raise tax revenue. Threats do not.
But I am okay with given them a chance to change before implementing in cases where the other side actually appears to be acting in good faith.

And I do support our current trade agreements with Canada.
Truly free trade simply does not exist though. Never has, and never will.
US Canada trade is not completely free.

Still we have a generally balanced reciprocal trade arrangement, and clearly they are no national security threat, and do not create vulnerable ship based supply lines.

IQ has not been proven to be genetic, IQ improves as education improves.

But anyways we have Asians in the US and can always get more.

Okay if the horrible conditions in their home countries make it effectively coercion we are still offering them a better life here than they had at home.

Sure the movement of both people and goods can be good or bad.
Trade can be good. It can be bad too.
Which is why we should not refuse all trade, but which is why we should not automatically assume more trade is good either.
I am not against all trade, only harmful, unbalanced and/or unfair trade.

Sure some climates have certain advantages with certain things.
Obviously the US will never be great at growing coffee in our current borders. But we do have great climatic diversity.

However must manufactured goods are not impacted by climate at all.

Sure Mexico is closer to Arizona than to Maine.
But that is okay. International shipping via ship is the biggest pollution problem.
It needs to be addressed, likely by moving less stuff by ship.

The wage advantages are that outsourcing leads to wage stagnation and growing inequality, at least in the wealthier place. If a high wage country trades with a low wage one, it creates wage growth in the low wage one, but conversely wage stagnation or decline in the higher wage one.

The National security advantages are obvious.
We would have lost WWII if not for our superiority in manufacturing.
If you get in a war, and the enemy controls your source of goods, or can intercept it via say sinking the ships carrying it, you are in trouble.

I did show that Japan and Germany used government intervention to gain advantages.
Besides it is not clear they are better anyways, we actually produce more vehicles than they do.
Plenty of American cars are as good as, or superior to their German and Japanese counterparts.

But cars is only a very small part of the problem anyways. Our biggest problem now is China, not Germany and Japan.

Anyways this article is excellent
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ry/510380/

It covers everything from how Japan and the US built our manufacturing bases (by government intervention) and how our current trade situation is no longer working.

[San Lumen]

here’s how you can fix these rust belt cities. How about instead of amazon building a headquarters in New York or Virginia go too Omaha, St. Louis or Detroit or Charleston, West Virginia Or any other economically depressed city?

You’d be hiring people who need jobs and help revitalize the economy

[Thanatttynia]

here’s how you can fix these rust belt cities. How about instead of amazon building a headquarters in New York or Virginia go too Omaha, St. Louis or Detroit or Charleston, West Virginia Or any other economically depressed city?

You’d be hiring people who need jobs and help revitalize the economy

One of the biggest problems with the proposed HQ2 in New York was that the majority of the jobs on offer at the location were not jobs that local residents would be hired for. If I remember right they had a ridiculously high average salary, in the six figures.

I think it’s also a deeper mistake to rely so completely on private enterprises to spur economic growth, though I respect that it may be difficult in the US to do otherwise rn and solutions are really needed sooner rather than later

[San Lumen]

here’s how you can fix these rust belt cities. How about instead of amazon building a headquarters in New York or Virginia go too Omaha, St. Louis or Detroit or Charleston, West Virginia Or any other economically depressed city?

You’d be hiring people who need jobs and help revitalize the economy

One of the biggest problems with the proposed HQ2 in New York was that the majority of the jobs on offer at the location were not jobs that local residents would be hired for. If I remember right they had a ridiculously high average salary, in the six figures.

I think it’s also a deeper mistake to rely so completely on private enterprises to spur economic growth, though I respect that it may be difficult in the US to do otherwise rn and solutions are really needed sooner rather than later

That was part of the problem people had. How about Amazon going to Detroit or Omaha or West Virginia and hiring people there? I see no problem with it

[Hammer Britannia]

I'm surprised nobody has suggested the sane and realistic solution

[Thanatttynia]

One of the biggest problems with the proposed HQ2 in New York was that the majority of the jobs on offer at the location were not jobs that local residents would be hired for. If I remember right they had a ridiculously high average salary, in the six figures.

I think it’s also a deeper mistake to rely so completely on private enterprises to spur economic growth, though I respect that it may be difficult in the US to do otherwise rn and solutions are really needed sooner rather than later

That was part of the problem people had. How about Amazon going to Detroit or Omaha or West Virginia and hiring people there? I see no problem with it

As in, in packaging etc.? I have no problem with it that isn’t part of a wider problem with Amazon itself. Jobs of that Ilk are important in working-class communities

[San Lumen]

I'm surprised nobody has suggested the sane and realistic solution

Its that supposed to be funny because its not.

That was part of the problem people had. How about Amazon going to Detroit or Omaha or West Virginia and hiring people there? I see no problem with it

As in, in packaging etc.? I have no problem with it that isn’t part of a wider problem with Amazon itself. Jobs of that Ilk are important in working-class communities

That and hire people from Detroit, Omaha, St Louis or Baltimore for those jobs in that new HQ and not bring people in.

[Hammer Britannia]

Its that supposed to be funny

Yes, and you know it is

[Thanatttynia]

I'm surprised nobody has suggested the sane and realistic solution

Its that supposed to be funny because its not.

As in, in packaging etc.? I have no problem with it that isn’t part of a wider problem with Amazon itself. Jobs of that Ilk are important in working-class communities

That and hire people from Detroit, Omaha, St Louis or Baltimore for those jobs in that new HQ and not bring people in.

The jobs were mostly executive-level, which most unemployed working-class people don’t have the education or experience for straight off the bat. They could train them, I suppose, but I doubt Amazon would do that willingly as it could take a long time and be costly. If that were a prerequisite Amazon may well just choose to move elsewhere or not move at all as they have done, they’ve been relying on the promise of tax breaks etc. which are bad enough in relatively wealthy cities like New York but would be completely unworkable in very poor cities with population decline like those in the Rust Belt

[San Lumen]

Its that supposed to be funny because its not.

That and hire people from Detroit, Omaha, St Louis or Baltimore for those jobs in that new HQ and not bring people in.

The jobs were mostly executive-level, which most unemployed working-class people don’t have the education or experience for straight off the bat. They could train them, I suppose, but I doubt Amazon would do that willingly as it could take a long time and be costly. If that were a prerequisite Amazon may well just choose to move elsewhere or not move at all as they have done, they’ve been relying on the promise of tax breaks etc. which are bad enough in relatively wealthy cities like New York but would be completely unworkable in very poor cities with population decline like those in the Rust Belt

Well about taking that 100 billion dollar profit and helping communities?

[Thanatttynia]

The jobs were mostly executive-level, which most unemployed working-class people don’t have the education or experience for straight off the bat. They could train them, I suppose, but I doubt Amazon would do that willingly as it could take a long time and be costly. If that were a prerequisite Amazon may well just choose to move elsewhere or not move at all as they have done, they’ve been relying on the promise of tax breaks etc. which are bad enough in relatively wealthy cities like New York but would be completely unworkable in very poor cities with population decline like those in the Rust Belt

Well about taking that 100 billion dollar profit and helping communities?

I agree they should, I just don’t see them doing it willingly, which is why I think we need redistributionary policies mandated by law

[San Lumen]

Well about taking that 100 billion dollar profit and helping communities?

I agree they should, I just don’t see them doing it willingly, which is why I think we need redistributionary policies mandated by law

I dont think we ought to be forcing companies into doing things but they could instead of pitting places against each other going to communities like Detroit and helping them by hiring local people. You could turn Detroit around in a few years time.

[Thanatttynia]

I agree they should, I just don’t see them doing it willingly, which is why I think we need redistributionary policies mandated by law

I dont think we ought to be forcing companies into doing things but they could instead of pitting places against each other going to communities like Detroit and helping them by hiring local people. You could turn Detroit around in a few years time.

I agree. But how do we get them to do that when they are a company driven by profit?

[San Lumen]

I dont think we ought to be forcing companies into doing things but they could instead of pitting places against each other going to communities like Detroit and helping them by hiring local people. You could turn Detroit around in a few years time.

I agree. But how do we get them to do that when they are a company driven by profit?

I dont know. But going to Detroit or St Louis would bring them profit and help the community as well

[Confederate States of German America]

here’s how you can fix these rust belt cities. How about instead of amazon building a headquarters in New York or Virginia go too Omaha, St. Louis or Detroit or Charleston, West Virginia Or any other economically depressed city?

You’d be hiring people who need jobs and help revitalize the economy

One of the biggest problems with the proposed HQ2 in New York was that the majority of the jobs on offer at the location were not jobs that local residents would be hired for. If I remember right they had a ridiculously high average salary, in the six figures.

I think it’s also a deeper mistake to rely so completely on private enterprises to spur economic growth, though I respect that it may be difficult in the US to do otherwise rn and solutions are really needed sooner rather than later

Amazon literally was taking tax subsidies from the poor and middle class to fund jobs for six figure tech geeks of the same social class. Literally, Jeff Bezos needs to go fuck himself as the shit human being he is.

[Darussalam]

One of the biggest problems with the proposed HQ2 in New York was that the majority of the jobs on offer at the location were not jobs that local residents would be hired for. If I remember right they had a ridiculously high average salary, in the six figures.

I think it’s also a deeper mistake to rely so completely on private enterprises to spur economic growth, though I respect that it may be difficult in the US to do otherwise rn and solutions are really needed sooner rather than later

Amazon literally was taking tax subsidies from the poor and middle class to fund jobs for six figure tech geeks of the same social class. Literally, Jeff Bezos needs to go fuck himself as the shit human being he is.

Good, they're better off that way.

[Confederate States of German America]

How is that going to help? They seem like good proposals though

By revitalizing the industrial core that used to be the economic heart of those cities.