[Hencredible Casanova]

There's even a new law targeted towards people perceived as being "lazy" that will make them work for free. WTF.

Anyone in the UK on this forum that has any intel on this?

[Pilgrim37]

Well,when you have open borders to 8 countries where the average wage is £200-£400 a month, then when the economy takes a dive, all those part time and low paid jobs you wouldn't consider before are not available.

The Labour Party screwed the people it was supposed to represent over the last 15 years.
They were completely short sighted and now we're paying for it.

When they allowed the benefits culture to blossom and it was more lucrative to stay home than go out to work,the writing was on the wall.
Just allowing the unemployed to fester and they've bred indolence .

It's a mess,no doubt about it!

Noel Gallagher speaks pretty well on it too.
"We were the working class and we were the lowest now you've got the Can't be bothered working class"

[misterstir]

I have a very good friend in the UK, and even his grandfather who was white english was poor and there was a general lack of jobs there. You can try to blame immigrants, but its not immigrants fault there are no jobs, its globalizations fault and there were not many jobs in england back in the day anyways. In the 1930s anyone in the british empire could move freely throughout it. So a black person from Nigeria could move to England, but most didn't because there were no jobs until the economy picked up in the 60s there. It was really just a flash in the pan, they had a good economy for 30-40 years and now its ruined for all but the rich.

Sure there is a benefit culture and general laziness and people not wanting to work. But in a way I can see why, they jobs suck, are low paying slave labourer jobs and for many people they'd rather just stay home than do a shit job that pays shit money. Can't blame immigrants for doing the shit jobs no one else wants to do.

The benefits are what keep the rich rich. Thats right, end welfare, and then those poor welfare people will protest in the streets and rob the rich people store and overthrow the government. So the welfare is not there to help the poor, it is there to protect the rich. In times gone by, the rich would enter into regular wars to keep the poor away from home. I mean if you shut down the US army for a decade, you'd have millions of angry young men with no jobs, no skills and are good with guns, aggression and killing, a revolution would likely occur.

[Deluge]

(01-28-2012 11:51 PM)misterstir Wrote:  

I have a very good friend in the UK, and even his grandfather who was white english was poor and there was a general lack of jobs there. You can try to blame immigrants, but its not immigrants fault there are no jobs, its globalizations fault and there were not many jobs in england back in the day anyways. In the 1930s anyone in the british empire could move freely throughout it. So a black person from Nigeria could move to England, but most didn't because there were no jobs until the economy picked up in the 60s there. It was really just a flash in the pan, they had a good economy for 30-40 years and now its ruined for all but the rich.

Sure there is a benefit culture and general laziness and people not wanting to work. But in a way I can see why, they jobs suck, are low paying slave labourer jobs and for many people they'd rather just stay home than do a shit job that pays shit money. Can't blame immigrants for doing the shit jobs no one else wants to do.

The benefits are what keep the rich rich. Thats right, end welfare, and then those poor welfare people will protest in the streets and rob the rich people store and overthrow the government. So the welfare is not there to help the poor, it is there to protect the rich. In times gone by, the rich would enter into regular wars to keep the poor away from home. I mean if you shut down the US army for a decade, you'd have millions of angry young men with no jobs, no skills and are good with guns, aggression and killing, a revolution would likely occur.

The U.K had similar problems in the decades after WW II as well, a lot of British from industrial cities in the North West and West Midlands like Manchester and Birmingham came to Australia. Today those people are the grandparents of my classmates. That's what happens when a country transitions to becoming a service oriented economy.

[Cincinnatus]

There's also a lack of youthful employment here in the United States. Jobs which would normally be open to high school youths, such as cashiering jobs, restaurant gigs, and lawn work, are often dominated by cheap, under-the-table Hispanic labor.

[Deluge]

(01-29-2012 06:31 AM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

There's also a lack of youthful employment here in the United States. Jobs which would normally be open to high school youths, such as cashiering jobs, restaurant gigs, and lawn work, are often dominated by cheap, under-the-table Hispanic labor.

In the 1800's, today's Hispanics were similar to Irish Catholic immigrants, and they occupied the same position in society that many modern hispanics do, that of the urban working underclass; the "cheap labour stealing all our jobs". In 19th century New York, they didn't have housemaids from Ecuador, they had lasses from County Kerry do it instead. The same thing repeats itself many times over the course of United States history.

Side note:
Even as far as JFK's election roughly one hundred years later in the 1960's , Americans were terrified of electing a Catholic president for fear he would be loyal to the Pope of Rome. So far he has been the only Catholic in the entire line of Presidents, even though 25% of the U.S is Catholic. And let me tell you, one day there will be a Hispanic president, and history will repeat itself yet again.

[kosko]

The above poster got is bang on. Its cheaper for the elite to pay out social benefits versus paying real wages which reflect current costs of living. The UK is a mess and it has been for decades the immigrants are not at fault. The Govt has kept on selling its people on a return to greatness which will never come they threw toys at the people and made them lazy, they sunk tons of cash on war spending and mega projects that have all been busts (nuclear), the bet the house that the City financial sector would continue to grow and create spin off jobs for common people (it didn't), all the while common Brits folks sat around not saying anything as the benefits still roared in. Its both the govt and peoples fault, The UK deserves all its getting right now, it lived of the spoils of others for 100 yrs, good riddance.

[misterstir]

^I agree 100%. This is why I am conservative. When I look at welfare I see it being used to keep poor people poor. Its just an excuse to not pay people money or give them jobs. The reality is both sides of the aisle are dishonest. The real "problem" is globalization and your never going to get your production job back as long as there is someone willing to do the same work in China for cents a day. Sure prices would go up if we end globalization but when I think of who had it better, me or my parents in 1960 who could work their way from the mailroom of goldman sachs or some other company to the top, compared to today, where a MBA in finance from a top school might not even get you a branch manager job. All I know is jobs where just easier to get before they were all in China.

[kosko]

Globalization is a joke. Mind you its nothing new trade and new opportunities abroad have existed for hundreds of years but its current form whiten the western capitalist system is just a outsourcing of boom and bust where rewards and losses hold no favors with the end results of the few getting richer of the backs of many.

I am neither conservative or liberal, I simply just view better times in the past when nations specialized in what they we're good at and had a abundance of. OK cool you have tons of coal? Go at at.. tons of Uranium? Train your population to be nuclear technical experts and send them abroad to go run the plants ruining of your goods. go work of the treasures of your land and go off that. But see the thing is most Western Nations have ran through all of their spoils, if the UK were to rely on its resources the country would be broke, instead its created a fictitious financial industry which is nothing more than a glorified casino. A casino where its crummy service jobs are sold as such a huge benefit to the rot and corruption that it breads as a by-product.. this is the UK to a tee.

In regards to welfare. you do need certain social protections. Your population needs to be healthy and smart, healthcare and education need to be accessible and free or low cost. You need energy to run your economy so that also should be managed carefully, and nobody should go hungry. Basics need to be insured but not guaranteed - If you want to be lazy and fat and contribute nothing then your healthcare should be revoked and access to food taxed.

Its all supply and demand, University have turn into big companies with investment funds and powerful shareholders (Alumni). They are a businesses and look to pillage people left and right. Your parents could work at a job and move up because our economy was inclusive, supply for certain skills took time to develop, and growth wasn't instant like it is now. In old times companies had to strategically build up capital (monetary, and talent) to spur growth. It couldn't just acquire massive amounts of debt quickly like they do now. This discussion go go own for days, its a fucked up but interesting stuff. We can lean a lot from history and are parents. My folks had to move around to different parts of the globe to take advantages for opportunities either it be school, or work. Our generation has grown to comfy in believing that opportunities will always be down the street. This is why forums like this are good to open up Men to exploring the globe and learning game as both duos can almost assure a man success win all parts of life.

Back to the UK. When will they see the chickens have come home to roost. As long as they prop up this image of stability and growth they will more and more encourage resilient immigrants from their former colonies to come and bust their balls for opportunities. If the UK was smart they would start outsourcing there educated citizens abroad to go work for cheap. lol. It would alleviate the social costs burden and provide much needed employment.

[Deluge]

(01-29-2012 10:03 PM)misterstir Wrote:  

Sure prices would go up if we end globalization but when I think of who had it better, me or my parents in 1960 who could work their way from the mailroom of goldman sachs or some other company to the top, compared to today, where a MBA in finance from a top school might not even get you a branch manager job.

If you actually believe the bold part, your either insane or your definition of a "top school" is retarded.

(01-29-2012 10:03 PM)misterstir Wrote:  

All I know is jobs where just easier to get before they were all in China.

Yeah, manufacturing jobs. The make up of the economy changes dude. There was once a time when the average American was a farmer and then a factory worker. Today it's moving towards the Service sector. The only way to keep manufacturing alive in America is heavy subsidies and tarriffs, which as a "conservative" I think you'd be pretty opposed to. Protectionism destroys industry by making them inefficient. The same logic you used to oppose the Welfare State is the same logic to argue in favour of outsourcing manufacturing to China. To keep manufacturing going in America, you'd basically have to put the entire industry on "welfare" so to speak.

Unless you're only a social conservative and not a free market conservative, you should've already known that.

(01-29-2012 10:56 PM)kosko Wrote:  

In regards to welfare. you do need certain social protections. Your population needs to be healthy and smart, healthcare and education need to be accessible and free or low cost. You need energy to run your economy so that also should be managed carefully, and nobody should go hungry.

FYI What you've described is Social Democracy, which is the aim of most center left political parties in the world including the Democratic Party.

[kosko]

(01-29-2012 11:16 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

FYI What you've described is Social Democracy, which is the aim of most center left political parties in the world including the Democratic Party.

Like Sweden?!!!?

I hope this isn't the case. I would not call myself a social democrat I would be more of a libertarian with a for society at large. A thin layer of protections is all you need, with no freebies for corps and no freebies on power for Govt either. I feel you have to take care of the tree to make sure the fruit is good.

I've hear Sweden can be a mess as things take to long to get done. This is also the case in the largest Democracy in the World, India, where nothing gets accomplished and proposals contested at every step.

And about the MBA its true. My homie just got back from France and went to the top business school there, shelled out 50k to get an MBA, homie is back doing the same shit he has done before after tons of interviews. Everybody has a MBA now because its the only way to utilize any type of bushiness education effectively. In only 5 years the MBA has becomed watered down. Top business school kids all see the requirement of it further watering it down.

In all honesty unless ts technical, highly rigorous like becoming a trader, medical, or professional where you get accreditation and a title by your name its a crap shoot. The only advantage of pulling that MBA from a top dog school is that you can weasel it up with alumni and have instant network and connections but is that worth 25-50k?

And Pdog I have to disagree with you on protectionism.. you must be a business student because that sounds like something some delusional prof would say. America was its most efficient when it had high guards on imports/exports, Japan also in its hayday. India and China have seen record growth in the past 10-20 years but people still fail to see that they have some of the most rigid trade polices on the globe (Brazil also). Free marketers bitch at protections because it makes their job as leeching and sucking economies dry too damn hard.

What kills industry is miss allocation of resources by government. What destroyed American manufacturing wasn't that cheap labor appeared overnight is was a combination of government handed out to many subsidies which enabled industry to offer favorable social packages and sky rocking wages, couple this with government taking off safe guards, and then creating a climate in which it was to expensive for industry to acquire capital to facilitate growth. This all happened in a 10 year period from roughly 67-77. Manufacturing in the USA was as good as dead by the mid 80's because of this.

This set the stage for the Regans and the Thatchers to cry about the vacuum of revenues poring out of the government from high unemployment and then selling off any tangible assets it had, and gutting programs worsening the problem. Capitalists now had resources and new cheap money to go world wide to invest leaving American and the UK in the dust.

Shills like Paul Krugman would say otherwise, but i'd rather look at history and what happens on the ground. Protectionism puts up a softwall where in which government focus internally on expansion such as infrastructure versus aiding in expansion abroad once its lets the dogs loose with de-regulation. This is why the UK, America, and Canada rot away while new emerging nations give a big middle finger to the globe and try to invest whiten their own boundaries. Okay I get places like Brazil are still fucked up as a handful of people control the majority of the wealth, China is a flawed computer, and India is 10 years behind where it should be. But if one looks at how they handle there outputs and ins you see how carefully they limit or encourage certain things.

[Deluge]

(01-30-2012 12:22 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(01-29-2012 11:16 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

FYI What you've described is Social Democracy, which is the aim of most center left political parties in the world including the Democratic Party.

Like Sweden?!!!?

I hope this isn't the case. I would not call myself a social democrat I would be more of a libertarian with a for society at large. A thin layer of protections is all you need, with no freebies for corps and no freebies on power for Govt either. I feel you have to take care of the tree to make sure the fruit is good.

No, Sweden practices Nordic Socialism. Which is a more extreme form of Social Democracy. And yeah I agree with most of your political views here. Although I wouldn't call myself a libertarian. I am what I am.

[Diomedes]

Can give some ground-level intel.

Youth and general unemployment is very, very bad. It's most noticable when you walk down a high street during the day, you will encounter a parade of dour men aimlessly filling the streets.

The current figures show unemployment to be at 2.69m (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16608394). However, the figures are distorted in many ways and will not paint a true picture. For instance, if claiming unemployment benefit for more than a year an individual is outsourced to a private company (A4e being the largest) for two years who assist a claimant with their job search rather than their local benefit office. During this time an individual is removed from national figures. It is a handy method for sweeping the long-term unemployed under the carpet.

"There's even a new law targeted towards people perceived as being "lazy" that will make them work for free. WTF."

This is all true and the details of these work programs are very dodgy when you look into them. This jist of it is, if an individual has been unemployed for more than a year they can be placed on a work trial scheme with a private buisiness (for instance, Tesco, Asda, Poundland - shelf-stacking) for thirty-hours a week for two weeks (and up to six for some). These are presented to the claimant as training that will assist them getting back onto the job ladder and feature a guaranteed interview upon completion. However, all signs point to the reality being it as case of the government subsidising big buisness by providing free labour and few, if any as no statistics have been revealed, gaining employment post trial. During the trial a young person will recieve their £53.45 jobseeker payment and no stipend for travel costs to and from their work trial. These trials are compulsory with the threat of your benefits removed if it is not completed. Here is a young woman discussing her experience of a work trial and launching her judicial review proceedings in the high court against the program. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...-need-jobs

Some additional figures:

"According to Totaljobs, the average number of applications per job is 23. However, that hides wide variations across different industries: 46 people apply for every customer service job available; 45 for every secretarial job; and 42 applications per retail job.

Add in the variable of geography, and those numbers get even worse - on average 60 people apply for every secretarial job in London."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16342072

[misterstir]

(01-29-2012 11:16 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

(01-29-2012 10:03 PM)misterstir Wrote:  

Sure prices would go up if we end globalization but when I think of who had it better, me or my parents in 1960 who could work their way from the mailroom of goldman sachs or some other company to the top, compared to today, where a MBA in finance from a top school might not even get you a branch manager job.

If you actually believe the bold part, your either insane or your definition of a "top school" is retarded.

(01-29-2012 10:03 PM)misterstir Wrote:  

All I know is jobs where just easier to get before they were all in China.

Yeah, manufacturing jobs. The make up of the economy changes dude. There was once a time when the average American was a farmer and then a factory worker. Today it's moving towards the Service sector. The only way to keep manufacturing alive in America is heavy subsidies and tarriffs, which as a "conservative" I think you'd be pretty opposed to. Protectionism destroys industry by making them inefficient. The same logic you used to oppose the Welfare State is the same logic to argue in favour of outsourcing manufacturing to China. To keep manufacturing going in America, you'd basically have to put the entire industry on "welfare" so to speak.

Unless you're only a social conservative and not a free market conservative, you should've already known that.

(01-29-2012 10:56 PM)kosko Wrote:  

In regards to welfare. you do need certain social protections. Your population needs to be healthy and smart, healthcare and education need to be accessible and free or low cost. You need energy to run your economy so that also should be managed carefully, and nobody should go hungry.

FYI What you've described is Social Democracy, which is the aim of most center left political parties in the world including the Democratic Party.

I know unemployed mbas in toronto, can't get a branch manager job at a bank, they are competing with lots of other grads, everyone comes here and applies to the same jobs. People take courses in far off universities with no jobs near by and all come down to toronto. Can't speak for America though.

The Chinese are given an unfair advantage
-they pay no health/injury taxes, no retirement, no benefits
-they pay no retirement to previous workers
-they have no/little environmental regulations
-little safety requirements
-China manipulates its currency to keep it currency artificially low so US cannot export there (as US goods are artificially high cost to Chinese) and Chinese goods are artificially low cost to everyone else who doesn't manipulate currency
-Chinese companies are largely state companies that use a set of hidden or obscure transactions to try to hide this, or heavily state subsidized by the government. They more or less are just using artificial fiat currency to keep cost low.

All these things cost money to do business in America.

Allowing "free trade" in such a scenario is just saying send all jobs to China. You need to have some level of fairness. America can have free trade that is reasonable even with a country like Mexico where the laws are not so lopsided in favour of one country.

As for the argument that protectionism is welfare for domestic industries. Well if you cannot stop the Chinese from the above, then you don't have a free trade. What you have is an agreement to send all jobs to China. You have to fight fire with fire, and its something Donald Trump points out, the Chinese are laughing at us because they think we are stupid. We let their state owned companies come and dump their products here, and they won't even let US companies in china without a partner and they limit the money you can bring and takeout. You can't have free trade with 1 side.

Then the liberals want Americans to pay carbon tax. that won't stop pollution it will just send it to China. they say we can't dig an oil well in Alaska or off of California because it will kill the animals. You think those people drilling oil wells in the 3rd world care about the blue spotted owl, they don't even care about people.

[Deluge]

Herp Derp all the jobs going to China. In reality, manufacturing is already leaving the South of China for South East Asia.

China doesn't manipulate it's currency, it keeps a currency peg. The same is true for many countries. What China has done is not changed the peg quite a while now, so it does not reflect actual market conditions. America is considering responding by introducing a tariff to force China to stop, which it should.

You underestimate the benefits the Chinese get, the vestiges of Communism still linger. It's not quite as good as the West, but saying they get no benefits is false. Many of the elderly get given jobs by the government as street cleaners actually. It's quite an odd sight.

I can't speak for the major cities, but I've spent time in a few major Chinese cities I've seen that while safety conditions weren't up to Western standards, they improve considerably year by year.

Chinese manufacturing is far more efficient and productive than Americas ever could be. If Chinese companies followed American regulations and they floated their currency, the industry of the Pearl River Basin would still shit all over America's Rust Belt. Manufacturing in America is over. America needs to play to it's strengths, and manufacturing is NOT one of them.

[T and A Man]

(01-29-2012 11:16 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

Today it's moving towards the Service sector. The only way to keep manufacturing alive in America is heavy subsidies and tarriffs, which as a "conservative" I think you'd be pretty opposed to.

Japan and Germany are saying hello. They both have immense manufacturing sectors.

What has been eroded is 'cheap and easy' manufacturing, and that's because China can enter that space easy.

However China hasn't invented anything of technological note since the wheelbarrow.

Japan and Germany have invested in building stuff that no one else can build, and that requires investment... proper investment, not a ponzi finance scheme channel pension funds and debt into 'house prices to the moon'.

The same SHOULD happen to a service economy. The idea is to sell architectural services that no one else can do, radiology servies that no one else can do. Not servicing fast food at $5.95 an hour or selling mobile ring tones.

Again, this requires investment. Most western countries are plagued by baby boomers thinking their position is mature, thus no investment is required, god knows it plagues Australia.

Quote:

Protectionism destroys industry by making them inefficient. The same logic you used to oppose the Welfare State is the same logic to argue in favour of outsourcing manufacturing to China. To keep manufacturing going in America, you'd basically have to put the entire industry on "welfare" so to speak.

You don't need protection is everyone is on a level playing field. China supresses the real value of its currency, and supresses the remuneration its workers receives.

This prevents the Chinese workers from consuming at a level commensurate to their level of productive output, supressing their rightful aggregate demand of local and foreign goods. There is a method to this 'madness', and that is for China to usurp everyone elses manufacturing prowess.

Therefore it isn't a battle of efficiency. China want to topple everyone else, it isn't wise to standby and let it happen, especially when China doesn't earn it through merit.

[Deluge]

Your use of Japan and Germany is spot on. Hence why I wrote America needs to play to its strengths.

China vs. America = China wins manufacturing wise. Right now China is trying to keep itself from losing all it's manufacturing to Vietnam and Cambodia. It will happen eventually, the infrastructure in the South East hasn't caught up yet, but it will. The days of American manufacturing are long since over.

[T and A Man]

(01-31-2012 01:15 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

China doesn't manipulate it's currency, it keeps a currency peg. The same is true for many countries.

A peg is a government policy, or intervention. If it is an arbitrary outcome, and not a determinant of market forces, how is that not manipulation by the chinese government?

[Deluge]

(01-31-2012 01:23 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

(01-31-2012 01:15 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

China doesn't manipulate it's currency, it keeps a currency peg. The same is true for many countries.

A peg is a government policy, or intervention. If it is an arbitrary outcome, and not a determinant of market forces, how is that not manipulation by the chinese government?

It's insidious, but currency pegs are common. No one complains when a host of other countries do the same thing. They only get pissed about China because it allows them to make its exports cheap.

[T and A Man]

I has one major strength no one else has, aggregate demand.

No one else can come close.

It's problem is its population can't demand a sufficient amount because wgae share vs profit share for them is at the worst level since the gilded age. Wage share is now less than 50%.

During the 'all boats rise era' of 1945 to 1970, under keynesian conditions, wage share was close to 65%, this shift since the Reagan era, and the discretionary income gap has been supplemented by increased marginal debt i would say though the US has reached peak debt. That is what they have no, inadequate aggregate demand, because the wages of their working class is insufficient.

Even Henry Ford knew this, he had to pay his workers enough that they could afford to buy his cars. If he paid them insufficiently, there would be no market for his cars, thus no incentive to produce them in the first place.

[misterstir]

(01-31-2012 01:26 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(01-31-2012 01:23 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

(01-31-2012 01:15 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

China doesn't manipulate it's currency, it keeps a currency peg. The same is true for many countries.

A peg is a government policy, or intervention. If it is an arbitrary outcome, and not a determinant of market forces, how is that not manipulation by the chinese government?

It's insidious, but currency pegs are common. No one complains when a host of other countries do the same thing. They only get pissed about China because it allows them to make its exports cheap.

China's peg is different. Most these other countries peg to stop inflation in their own country. China manipulates currency simply to have an unfair trade advantage over all major trading partners. Ie. If Euro goes down, China devalues to undercut Germans. If Japanese Yen goes down, China manipulates currency again. It is difficult to compete against that kind of open and bias currency manipulation. A normal currency peg is set at a rate and rarely changed.

And why else would you not complain that they are engaging in unfair trade practices to devalue their currency and to make exports cheaper. Do you not see how that makes a barrier to any reasonable free trade. How can you have free trade with a partner whose goal is simply to destroy all your businesses not through competitive advantages because they are better but because their government is manipulating the currency. by that logic dumping products should be good too.

[misterstir]

(01-31-2012 01:22 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

Your use of Japan and Germany is spot on. Hence why I wrote America needs to play to its strengths.

China vs. America = China wins manufacturing wise. Right now China is trying to keep itself from losing all it's manufacturing to Vietnam and Cambodia. It will happen eventually, the infrastructure in the South East hasn't caught up yet, but it will. The days of American manufacturing are long since over.

So let me get this straight, the number 1 manufacturing nation for the majority of history since the 1800s, who invented the car, the plane, the submarine, modern computer, tv, ice fridge and probably 90+% of all useful manufactured goods, is not good at manufacturing. But the German and Japanese who copied America are better manufacturers and that is there strength?

Its not like America is Portugal and never had a manufacturing base, you're talking about the Chicago which was the industrial/manufacturing centre of the world and 50% of all manufactured goods in the hey day came from there, and most the services industries are based off these manufacturing industries.

When you remove all the things they do to cut corners like not pay pension or benefits, not protect the environment, you'd see they are less efficient than Americans.

[Deluge]

(01-31-2012 02:25 AM)misterstir Wrote:  

But the German and Japanese who copied America are better manufacturers and that is there strength?

Yes. The Germans and the Japanese are better at manufacturing then the USA. That's why their manufacturing industries are far more successful than Americas and have been for decades now. Get over it.

[T and A Man]

You confuse contemporary conditions with a prevailing strength.

By your logic, britain which was the best at manufacturing would have stayed, there.. thus the U.S. shouldn't even try and 'get over it'

[misterstir]

If I recall the Japans experienced a large amount of the same type of deindustrialization as the Americans did. The Germans to a lesser extent but was more or less saved in that regard by east germany and the eu which has cheap workers than would normally allow in a first world country.