Comments by "Brenda Rua" (@brendarua01) on "The real reason manufacturing jobs are disappearing | Augie Picado" video.

I have some problems with this presentation. First, the title is click bait. The presentation is about protectionism, not the real reason jobs are disappearing, which he says is automation. Second, his examples of the cost increase due to an increase in duties seems specious. The 30% should only apply to the products/components affected, not the retail price of the car, TV or skin product as a whole. Third, the whole argument seems short sighted since these manufacturers are undermining their own markets by laying off the workers who they need to be buying their goods. On the whole, this is not up to the standards I expect from TED.
105
Nickel Pickler I think you're right about all this. The thrust of my second point was very narrow, only noting the faulty application of the math. For example, if a component hit with the extra duty cost $1.00 then the new cost passed on would be 0.30 more than the old retail price to the consumer. I'm not sure why the presenter would choose to add the percent to the full retail price. But this does not change the dynamics that you bring up. Thank you.
3
Ahohnmycn You should have stuck with "uhhh, wut." my friend. It should be pretty obvious to you that a 30% increase of a $1.00 component won't raise the price of a $37,000 car 30% or $11,100. It would raise the price of the car by $0.30. But this is the error the presenter makes. The only way his example works is of the finished car is imported and the duty is applied to it. That was never stated in any of his models. In fact his point was just the opposite: The supply chain is a complex network leading to final assembly, presumably where the car is sold. I hope this makes more sense now.
2
Llama I think my 3rd point is sound, but perhaps not expressed well. I cut it short since it was not directly relevant to the theme of the talk. Within the simple context that I mentioned, I agree with you. But it is too simple, and short sighted. When you extend the model into a full network, looking at inputs and outputs throughout, you see that the ripple effect of job cuts leads to more and more job cuts. This ripple effect is very well studied, for example when a major employer in an area leaves. Add competitive pressures that cause other businesses to automate and cut jobs, and you will end up with a moribund consumer base that is not buying your airline tickets, leading to no demand for new aircraft, leading to more job losses.
1
Ahohmmycn No. at 09:10 he is not talking about his 3 sample cases. He is talking about a national level impact. This is made clear by his quantifying a more the 40% increase (not the 30% he used for his cases), or 80 Billion dollars. Forget a car at that price. I want a two-way rocket to Mars!
1