>Those jobs never came back, and the ones that replaced them were never as numerous nor did they pay as well.
Really? I think software engineers in San Francisco c. 2013 make far more (in real terms) than Detroit autoworkers did c. 1973. Your view of the economy is too narrow. Yes, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, et. al. were hit hard by the closure of auto, steel and other heavy industry. But San Francisco, Seattle, Austin, Minneapolis are rising on the back of new industries.
>Finally, with regards to Japan specifically, Japan was and is a relatively closed society that didn't accept much foreign capital investment. That's totally different with China, India, and Brazil.
That's not true. In fact, China, India and Brazil all restrict foreign capital inflows to a much greater extent than Japan did. In fact, until very recently, it was illegal for a western firm to own an Indian subsidiary -- subsidiaries had to be at least 50%+1 Indian owned. China still has that restriction in many industries. Brazil has some of the highest import tariffs in the world. To this day, it's very difficult for a foreign firm to get started without a local partner in any of those countries.
Yes, their societies might be more open (though, w.r.t. to China, I find even that assertion to be dubious), but that doesn't mean that they're accepting of foreign capital investment. Capital investment is accepted very cautiously, because all these countries have learned the lesson that the "Asian tigers" were taught in 1997. Foreign capital is fickle, and if it is not properly controlled, it will go away at the worst possible moment.
Even ignoring outsourcing, jobs are going to disappear forever regardless. The entire premise of automation (really, of the industrial revolution) is that fewer people end up with jobs (and those jobs may or may not be more demanding).
Lots Detroit autoworkers lost their jobs to robots (lots more to outsourcing), and robot creators hired people (though almost surely not the same people...) However they almost certainly did not hire as many people as lost their jobs. Another industry happened to boom and perhaps did create as many new jobs as were lost (but again, almost certainly not hiring the same people) but those jobs were not born from automation in Detroit.
The common response to "dem robots are takin' our jobs!" is "No they aren't, robots create more jobs!", but while that may comfort some people it does not seem to be the reality. Sometimes more jobs are created, sometimes lots of new jobs are created, but there is no inherent relationship between jobs lost to automation and jobs created.
The more appropriate response is, "Yes they did, we call that progress. You are on the losing side of history if you get in its way, so be light on your feet." It is more appropriate because, although not very empathetic, it is more accurate.
At its peak, U.S. Steel employed 340,000 employees, more than Microsoft, Google, Apple, And Amazon combined. Almost all of those employees were in the U.S., versus the tech companies that have many employees outside the U.S.
Since 1950, San Francisco has gained 50,000 people. Seattle has gained 150,000. Pittsburgh lost 370,000. Detroit 1,100,000. Minneapolis over 100,000. Philadelphia 500,000. Buffalo over 300,000. Rochester 120,000. Etc.
Really? I think software engineers in San Francisco c. 2013 make far more (in real terms) than Detroit autoworkers did c. 1973. Your view of the economy is too narrow. Yes, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, et. al. were hit hard by the closure of auto, steel and other heavy industry. But San Francisco, Seattle, Austin, Minneapolis are rising on the back of new industries.
>Finally, with regards to Japan specifically, Japan was and is a relatively closed society that didn't accept much foreign capital investment. That's totally different with China, India, and Brazil.
That's not true. In fact, China, India and Brazil all restrict foreign capital inflows to a much greater extent than Japan did. In fact, until very recently, it was illegal for a western firm to own an Indian subsidiary -- subsidiaries had to be at least 50%+1 Indian owned. China still has that restriction in many industries. Brazil has some of the highest import tariffs in the world. To this day, it's very difficult for a foreign firm to get started without a local partner in any of those countries.
Yes, their societies might be more open (though, w.r.t. to China, I find even that assertion to be dubious), but that doesn't mean that they're accepting of foreign capital investment. Capital investment is accepted very cautiously, because all these countries have learned the lesson that the "Asian tigers" were taught in 1997. Foreign capital is fickle, and if it is not properly controlled, it will go away at the worst possible moment.