←back to thread

842 points putzdown | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
NoTeslaThrow ◴[] No.43706451[source]
We never stopped manufacturing, we just stopped employing people.

> We don’t have the infrastructure to manufacture

That's trivially false given we're the second-largest manufacturer in the world. We just don't want to employ people, hence why we can't make an iphone or refine raw materials.

The actual issue is that our business culture is antithetical to a healthy society. The idea of employing Americans is anti-business—there's no willingness to invest, or to train, or to support an employee seen as waste. Until business can find some sort of reason to care about the state of the country, this will continue.

Of course, the government could weigh in, could incentivize, could subsidize, could propagandize, etc, to encourage us to actually build domestic industries. But that would be a titantic course reversal that would take decades of cultural change.

replies(26): >>43706502 #>>43706516 #>>43706762 #>>43706806 #>>43707207 #>>43707370 #>>43707504 #>>43707592 #>>43707667 #>>43707700 #>>43707708 #>>43707764 #>>43707801 #>>43707865 #>>43707875 #>>43707911 #>>43707987 #>>43708145 #>>43708466 #>>43709422 #>>43709521 #>>43709923 #>>43711367 #>>43714873 #>>43717675 #>>43804408 #
glitchc ◴[] No.43706516[source]
Concur, employee training and retention are at an all-time low. There are no positions available for junior employees, minimal onboarding and mentoring of new employees. Organizations have stopped planning people's careers. Used to be that the employee's career growth was their manager's problem, while the employee could focus on the work. Now the employee must market themselves as often, if not more often, than actually doing the work. Meanwhile organizations see employees as cost centres and a net drain on their revenue sources.

Corporate culture in America is definitely broken. I'm not sure how we can fix it.

replies(8): >>43706727 #>>43707096 #>>43707408 #>>43707516 #>>43707703 #>>43707734 #>>43712887 #>>43715014 #
nradov ◴[] No.43706727[source]
Employees have always been responsible for managing their own career growth and always will be. How can it be otherwise? It would be foolish for an employee to let someone else handle career growth for them as their interests aren't aligned (or even known). If you want help with career growth then find a mentor, don't rely on your manager.

Managers should facilitate training to improve employee productivity and help prepare them for a promotion. But that isn't really the same as career growth.

replies(4): >>43706849 #>>43706907 #>>43708790 #>>43711881 #
glitchc ◴[] No.43706849[source]
> Employees have always been responsible for managing their own career growth and always will be. How can it be otherwise?

On the contrary, from the 40s to the 70s (possibly well into the 80s) the corporation was heavily invested in your career. Employees were expected to dedicate their lives to the firm, and the firm, in turn, was expected to take care of them. This "free-for-all" employment model is fairly recent.

Edit - added source (1993): https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/employers-employees-no-...

replies(3): >>43706995 #>>43707233 #>>43707835 #
1. owlstuffing ◴[] No.43707835{3}[source]
Outside of government, this shift also coincides with the decline of pensions and the rise of the 401k.

Career growth has always been a shared responsibility between employees and employers. In white-collar fields--especially medicine and engineering--education has long been frontloaded, with formal schooling as the main on-ramp.

Blue-collar jobs, by contrast, have relied more on trade schools, mentorship, and hands-on training. These pathways have steadily eroded since the 1980s.

Much of this traces back to the Open Door Policy with China and the broader Free Trade Agreements that followed. These moved massive segments of industry offshore--along with the structures that once incentivized long-term employee development through education and skill-building.

Revitalizing domestic industry could reintroduce competition among employers, which in turn could restore the pre-1990s incentives for long-term investment in the workforce.

replies(2): >>43719002 #>>43726952 #
2. bcrosby95 ◴[] No.43719002[source]
It's the same problem in the trades. Apprentices tend to cost the company more than their output so no one wants to hire and train them.
3. thedougd ◴[] No.43726952[source]
I would point to the emergence of Milton Friedman’s school of thought that the only thing a company should care for is delivering “shareholder value.”