What about the larger numbers of people that can afford stuff made with Mexican steel that will no longer be able to get the stuff they need after on-shoring?

Economics is not zero-sum. We don't forcibly on-shore, we take care of the people who need help.

The problem is "we take care of people that need help" kind of ignores all of the jobs that were lost by off-shoring...

How many manufacturing jobs has the US lost due to competition in an open market with countries that don't have basic human rights (IE: Kids in sweat shops in various countries. The US doesn't make clothes anymore because we can't compete with those conditions.)

You say "those people need jobs too"... but then ignore all the lost American jobs, reduction in American competitiveness (due to closed factories, outsourced skills, etc) and the various human rights issues that take place around the world.

Am I simplifying things? Sure... but so are you...

It is a greatly complicated problem - and, as you said, not a zero sum... but at the end of the day, I don't think it's "unfair" to care more about "us" than "them" as long as "they" don't have the same standards we do.

I think there should be barriers that keep competition on a level playing field. 40 hour work week vs 40 hour work week. Basic human rights vs basic human rights.

Pipe dream? of course... but I think that countries would improve themselves to have entry to our markets (and to have us allowed into theirs).

And isn't that what you really want? Improvements all around?

I'm just focused on different improvements (Here at home and then abroad) instead of your improvements (Improvements abroad and maybe someday improvements here)

>You say "those people need jobs too"

No I didn't, the US taxpayer on aggregate saves more than enough to pay those people to live for the rest of their lives.

>I don't think it's "unfair" to care more about "us" than "them" as long as "they" don't have the same standards we do.

I don't. The US on aggregate gets as much, or more, benefits from off-shoring as the country who takes it on does.

>Improvements abroad and maybe someday improvements here

The sole reason there aren't an equal number of improvements here in the United States is due to regressive thinking that assumes that bringing the jobs back would be a net positive while simultaneously blaming anybody who's been left behind for not working hard enough. Like I said, this isn't zero sum.

I don't think there are many people arguing that bringing jobs back would be a net positive. It's obvious that the rich are making tons of money off of this situation. I think the people arguing for bringing jobs back is so that quality of life can stop decreasing for the lower class and rural areas of the country that have been massively affected by globalization.

This is the complicated part, and in a sane society it requires education, discussion, and compromise. But in our insane, dishonest, political partisan societies, both sides pretend the other side of the argument has zero merit, if they even acknowledge it.

I would take it a step further... the "other side" pretends that if you disagree on anything you are a "Traitor" (RINO! DINO! TREASON!!!).

Can you be a Republican that's Pro-Gun Control and Pro-PP? Can you be a Democrat that's Pro Life and Anti-Illegal Immigration?

If you are, you are a pariah and banned from both sides...

How can you have a middle ground when two sides care more about the other side losing than they do about moving forward as a country/human race?

If we only pretended the other side had no merit, we'd be able to actually have rational discussions and move forward...

Well said, and "If you are, you are a pariah and banned from both sides..." is where I lie. The depressing part to me is that I get the sense the majority of HN commenters believe they are above all this. (Furthermore, the HN comment frequency throttle seems to become suspiciously aggressive depending on one's political persuasion. All in my mind though I'm sure.)

In the US? I would say there are far fewer families as a percentage of the US population who can afford stuff made of steel (say new cars) today than 40 years ago.

Toasters? Pans? Shaving blades? All the small daily things? Also, a lot of steel is used in construction; a road or a bridge upgrade can be feasible or not, and everyone would use it (or not, if it's too expensive to build).

I find it difficult to believe toasters and pans would be unaffordable if the manufacturers used US steel. Also, shaving blades are massively marked up by Gillette. The generic blades cost pennies.

It's like minimum wage increases; the benefits of higher employment/higher wages almost always outweigh the benefits of cheaper goods.

The problem is "higher employment/higher wages" with increased minimum wages aren't a given.

Plenty of studies (and real world examples) show that higher minimum wages means fewer jobs - why pay a cashier when you can install a touch screen kiosk?

There could be an argument that it's because of unbalanced minimum wages (one city, state, etc)... but I think that even a national minimum wage increase to $15... or even a smaller one like $10... would do more damage to unskilled labor than would be beneficial.

Personally? I could see an inflation based auto-increase... but just doubling the minimum wage in a short time frame is going to be damaging. IMO.