The US doesn't need to reindustrialize. Its industry is bigger than ever, and exports of manufactured goods have grown by more than 400% since the 80s. What's happening with the US industry is what happened with US agriculture before: tremendous productivity growth, which led to much reduced employment.

Which is why "reshoring" would probably be a short term fix, lasting only until new machines could be developed. You can just compare how many people are employed to make something like a steel ring when you have cheap workers [1] or expensive workers [2].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWXFhdeOjMY

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEF2erBBVZ4

> Its industry is bigger than ever, and exports of manufactured goods have grown by more than 400% since the 80s.

Why does this matter if only the top 10% are benefiting from this growth? Quality of life for the lower class is declining, not increasing.

That's my point :)

The parent poster was saying the US needs to "reindustrialize". I'm saying that not only it never de-industrialized, but if you were to pull in more industries (using tariffs and such), it wouldn't matter in the long term since - as you correctly point out - increasing the size of the industry doesn't increase the qualify of life for the lower class.

Ah, I see what you're saying, but I disagree with you. A lot of the kinds of manufacturing that was shipped to Mexico was the kind that couldn't easily be automated or demands in some way some form of manual labor. Some manufacturing processes are simply too complex to currently be done by machine, from what I understand. If we bring manufacturing back, those jobs would likely end up in smaller cities where the cost of living is lower so they could save money, thus driving up wages in the exact kind of areas that have been hurting.

Would it be a net positive with regards to wealth generation? Absolutely not. There are massive capital flow optimizations available with globalization. I just don't see any other way of increasing quality of life for our lower class in a way that's politically attainable.

GDP / Population is not always a fantastic metric for well being of a nation's citizens.

In no way did I say or imply it is.

"In no way"? The US doesn't need to reindustrialize because its industry is bigger than ever, exports are strong, etc?

How is that meaningfully different than GDP being high? They all completely ignore wealth distribution.

Apparently my writing was terrible, since two people misunderstood my point, for which I apologize, although I still struggle to say how else I could have written it.

My points are that you can't re-industrialized if you never de-industrialized, and also that any employment gains from "pulling back" some industries (using tariffs or similar) would be short lived for the same reason that the current US industry is shrinking employment despite continuing to grow. Like the videos I posted show, there's a big difference between the number of employees you hire when you have to pay them 1x or just 1/16x. I'd be surprise if most "recovered" jobs lasted a decade.

> A counterargument would be that the US government's job is to represent the people who pay taxes to it. Mexicans don't pay US taxes.

Why are you invoking tax payment to explain the relationship of a government to its citizen? Citizens' rights, and the government's interest in their well-being are not a service offered in exchange for money.

Of course it is. The expectation for the majority of people is that their taxes are going towards improving themselves, their-country, and their needy neighbors. The government "representing" the people is a proxy for letting the tax-payer "pick" where, how, and to what extent that obligation gets fulfilled.