[mc32]

It was MFN classification and the fast tracking into the WTO that enabled this result: hollowing out of American manufacturing, wage stagnation for blue collar workers resulting in economic instability which in turn had an effect on health and substance abuse. And of course “wage gap” everyone laments.

People like bringing up good old Ronald Reagan, who had faults and was simplistic about the economy, but Clinton (as mr Perot presciently warmed us) truly did drive the stake through the blue collar workers back and left them where we are today, moribund looking for salvation.

Yes, mr Clinton, you did it. It was done eloquently and with the backing of neoliberal elites, and the then mainstream media. The sophisticated approach is why he doesn’t get the vilification Reagan does amongst the working class. But it’s long deserved.

[the_resistence]

Don't forget to add Rubin, Goldman Sachs, and the whole kabal. Someday the truth will really come out how they destroyed the US while enriching themselves beyond all belief.

[trianglem]

Those jobs were going to be outsourced either ways. There was no way the US could compete with Asian labor prices. It wasn't just the US either, it was most of the developed world.

[ChainOfFools]

indeed, the cheap labor source was always there, for at least a century. What changed? Cheap shipping. as in 90-99% reduction in overseas freight costs within less than two decades. blue collar workers can thank the humble intermodal shipping container and its systems integration refinement by malcolm McLean for much of their plight. oceans became lakes almost overnight.

[beerandt]

Intermodal containerization is one of the most underrated and underappreciated technologies of our civilization. I'm not saying it's unappreciated, but people don't realize the extent that it's changed the world.

But it didn't happen in a vacuum. Cheap shipping certainly wouldn't be possible without containerization and improvements in logistics, but the new system only made sense when scaled up to giant ships (fuel and crew size efficiency), which in turn only became feasable when ships could quickly/easily onload and offload at multiple ports in multiple countries, without quarantine/ security/ customs delays at each port.

You could say it's a chicken & egg situation, but the scale of the containerization age only began to make sense in the context of relaxed regulation and efficient import/export policy.

Also, it wasn't a case of non-existant regulation racing to catch up with a booming new technology (ala the internet or Uber/Lyft). International trade regulation has been around since before, well, nations were even a thing. It's the original bureaucracy. The regulation had to be addressed first, or at least simultaneously. Which to me is as impressive, if not moreso- cutting through a worldwide rats nest of bureaucratic red tape in so little time. (Regardless of if you agree with the resulting policy.)

[beerandt]

It's also worth noting China's effort to apply some of these same principles in the shape of their massive Belt & Road project, and the unintended consequences of trying to force "free" trade using planned market tactics:

https://pandapawdragonclaw.blog/2019/08/23/empty-trains-on-t...

I believe there was a HN discussion on the article when it came out.

[man2525]

I think the three strikes law he signed helped to offset the long-term effect of those job losses on the unemployment rate as well.

[beerandt]

Let's not forget NAFTA. Especially what it did to textiles and the car industry. (Mexico's not manufacturing the raw and intermediate materials they're making our car parts from.)

[hcknwscommenter]

I feel like this is very unfair. In my narrative, the Clinton administration saw the writing on the wall. Jobs would be outsourced regardless. The win-win was to get China into the global economy ASAP and retrain the displaced workers. What happened instead was that retraining budgets were unnecessarily thin because the GOP-lead congress cried "socialism" and funneled all that reduced budgetary outlay to for-profit colleges.

[bobwaycott]

I suspect this comment would be much stronger with some sources that show your narrative to be correct—have sources that document the GOP funneled money earmarked for retraining into for-profit colleges?