did cheaper desktop PC+laptop result in NET loss or increase in US jobs?
Desktop PC today cost $200-$300 or thereabout, depending on configuration. You can get laptop for $500-$600 and up, depending on option.
Desktop PC used to cost $2K and up. Laptop used to cost $3K and up.
Did cheaper desktop PC and laptop result in net loss of US jobs or net gain?
ANS. net gain by increasing productivity of existing business and allowing new businesses to be created at lower cost.
1911A1 with custom features used to be unavailable as a production gun and when available, were extremely expensive due to requirement for custom fitting by gunsmith.
With advent of CNC/MIM technology and production of relatively inexpensive parts, did more affordable 1911 with custom features result on net, more or less jobs?
It actually resulted in more demand for 1911A1 and related jobs...true, there was some people who lost job, but realize that almost always, people buy more if the item cost less and people buy less, if the item cost more.
Demand for 1911 with custom features at $500-$700 (Taurus, low end Kimber) is much more than demand for 1911 with custom feature at $1500-$2000.
You don't want to protect jobs, whether it be American or for that matter, any other country.
You want to focus on productivity.
If you want to stimulate the economy, focus on reducing the transaction cost (both explicit and implicit (e.g. hidden cost of litigation)) and cost of capital (cost of starting new business).
Excellent paper on debunking economic fallacies:
Straight Talk About Economic Literacy by Bryan Caplan
George Mason University
http://www.mercatus.org/repository/docLib/20061011_Straight_Talk_About_Economic_Literacy.pdf
Excerpt:
Indeed, it is fair to say that an ample majority does not understand the basics of how markets work. They are especially confused about labor and international markets. We still call someone "literate" even if they misspell a word every now and then. Most voters lack elementary understanding of economics. They resist even ideas as simple as "In the long-run, preserving obsolete jobs reduces production." When prices change, vague conspiracy theories - not supply-and-demand - are their default explanation.
One of the first things that stands out is anti-foreign bias. When they contemplate economic interaction with foreigners, the general public gets unreasonably negative. Thus, most of the public is very worried about companies sending jobs overseas, but few economists take this seriously. I hardly find this surprising: Before I studied economics, the threat of foreign competition driving us to penury seemed like a genuine threat.
But then I learned about an amazing principle called comparative advantage. It shows how a fixed quantity of resources can always produce more wealth if countries specialize and trade. Cutting off foreign trade to "save jobs" makes about as much sense as boycotting your local grocery store.
Once you began to grow your own food, you would never again need to worry about how to spend your free time. You would probably have no free time left!
The public also worries a great deal about the economic harm of immigration, while economists see little cause for concern. Once again, I have been on both sides of the issue: Until I studied economics, immigration seemed to me at best a necessary evil.
But after you digest the implications of comparative advantage for international exchange of goods, it is only a small step to notice that the same idea holds for international exchange of labor. A fixed amount of labor can accomplish more if workers specialize and trade their services.
This is particularly clear in the U.S., where millions of highly skilled women leave the workforce for years due to the high cost of childcare, even though there are millions of women in Latin America who would be delighted to move here to offer childcare services at an affordable price.
If everyone involved in these transactions were born in the United States, the benefits would be plain to all; but when Americans hire foreigners, the public's warning bells go off.
A second major pattern in the public's economic illiteracy is make-work bias. People tend to see job loss as an unmitigated economic bad. The most primitive form of make-work bias is undoubtedly fear of the machine, concern that technology is making human beings superfluous.
The survey says that much of the public views it as a serious economic problem, though economists often question whether this is even true in the short-run. Employment often expands fastest in precisely those industries most marked by rapid technological progress. In the long-run, blaming technology for unemployment is just silly.
As the mechanization of agriculture beautifully illustrates, when machines replace people in one line of work, they switch to another. There is always something else to do, and the more goods the economy produces, the more goods a worker receives for a day's labor.