Jensen: 'We've done our country a great disservice' by offshoring
Claims that the U.S. has “done itself a great disservice” by offshoring manufacturing prompt a wider debate over who actually benefited from globalization and whether reshoring is realistic or merely political theater. Commenters argue that the core problems are wealth concentration, weak labor power, high domestic costs (notably healthcare and housing), and energy prices, which make low- and mid-skill jobs uncompetitive at home even as AI and data centers consume more resources. Many see calls to rebuild domestic industry as self-serving coming from corporate leaders, warning that without structural changes to labor, taxation, and social policy, any new factories or data centers will do little to improve broad prosperity.
Wealth concentration, system design, and culture
- Several argue the core problem isn’t lack of wealth or factories but extreme concentration of wealth and power; offshoring and now AI/data centers amplify this.
- The “system” is seen as working as designed: laws, lobbying, and corporate structures tilt power to capital, not labor. Some say calling it a “flaw” is wrong; it’s a feature that must be changed, not just better policed.
- Cultural critiques: a competitive “elbow society” erodes solidarity; media, education, and politics reinforce the idea that fundamentals are untouchable, encouraging scapegoating instead of systemic reform.
- Proposed remedies include stronger labor organizing, anti-corruption, more progressive taxation, and “microgrants”/social enterprises to realign incentives toward social good, but people doubt these can scale under current incentives.
Offshoring, manufacturing, and the nature of “good jobs”
- Commenters question whether simply “bringing back manufacturing” would recreate mid‑20th‑century style “good jobs,” given automation, weak unions, and higher domestic costs.
- Modern factories and data centers are both far more automated; per-site employment is in the dozens or low hundreds, not thousands. Job density vs land/energy use is debated.
- Some argue service work could be “good work” if pay, protections, and social valuation changed; others stress that exportable, tradable sectors (manufacturing, high-end services) remain structurally different.
Energy, AI data centers, and capital allocation
- Energy is framed as the real foundation: high power prices make primary metals and heavy industry uncompetitive. Many say the US needs to roughly double generation (nuclear, solar, etc.).
- Others worry any new capacity will be absorbed by AI data centers, not manufacturing, further enriching a few and raising everyone’s power bills.
- There’s skepticism that tying “reindustrialization” to AI/data centers is anything but self‑interested positioning for subsidies, with little clarity on what real manufacturing would follow.
Healthcare, labor costs, and globalization
- High US healthcare costs (often $10k–$20k+ per employee per year) are repeatedly cited as a major driver of offshoring: foreign workers can be paid less than the cost of US health benefits alone.
- Long discussion contrasts US insurance-driven complexity and profits with single‑payer or regulated systems; many see employer-tied coverage as a deliberate tool to keep labor docile.
- Global labor arbitrage (offshoring and migration controls for workers vs free movement of capital) is viewed as central: capital exploits wage and regulatory gaps until or unless global labor standards rise, which many see as politically unrealistic.
Motives, hypocrisy, and limits of reshoring
- Multiple commenters note that the GPU company itself fabs abroad (e.g., via TSMC) and has offshored jobs; calling for reshoring now is seen as either hypocrisy or a bid to secure US-backed AI infrastructure spend.
- Some emphasize that even successful reshoring will be highly automated; the deeper issues—labor’s bargaining power, cost of living (especially housing and healthcare), and political capture—must be addressed or prosperity will remain narrowly distributed.