Biden cited the need for "American steel workers"

[tonbei]

This is from today's news.

---------------
Biden opposes plan to sell US Steel to a Japanese firm, citing the need
for 'American steel workers'
-------------

My question is about "the need for 'American steel workers".
specifically the usage of "need" here.

I've interpreted two different ways:
1) American steel workers are needed, so they must be protected.
2) We should listen to what those workers need, or their demand or
request

I guess 1) is more likely.
What do you say?

[Stefan Ram]

Post by tonbei
Biden opposes plan to sell US Steel to a Japanese firm,
citing the need for 'American steel workers'

Looks like the "for" in this context is hella sus, straight-up
signaling it's the American steelworkers themselves that are
needed, not that their demands or wishes are being factored in!

[HenHanna]

This is from today's news.

---------------
Biden opposes plan to sell US Steel to a Japanese firm, citing the need
for 'American steel workers'
-------------

My question is about "the need for 'American steel workers".
specifically the usage of "need" here.


I've interpreted two different ways:
1) American steel workers are needed, so they must be protected.
2) We should listen to what those workers need, or their demand or request


I guess 1) is more likely. What do you say?

Post by Stefan Ram

Post by tonbei
Biden opposes plan to sell US Steel to a Japanese firm,
citing the need for 'American steel workers'

Looks like the "for" in this context is hella sus, straight-up
signaling it's the American steelworkers themselves that are
needed, not that their demands or wishes are being factored in!

yes... what Biden is saying (implying) is borderline-Racist

What is Trump saying about it?

[jerryfriedman]

Post by tonbei
This is from today's news.
---------------
Biden opposes plan to sell US Steel to a Japanese firm, citing the need
for 'American steel workers'
-------------
My question is about "the need for 'American steel workers".
specifically the usage of "need" here.
1) American steel workers are needed, so they must be protected.
2) We should listen to what those workers need, or their demand or
request
I guess 1) is more likely.
What do you say?

I say 1. 2 would be "the needs of American steel workers".

--
Jerry Friedman

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by tonbei
This is from today's news.
---------------
Biden opposes plan to sell US Steel to a Japanese firm, citing the need
for 'American steel workers'
-------------
My question is about "the need for 'American steel workers".
specifically the usage of "need" here.
1) American steel workers are needed, so they must be protected.
2) We should listen to what those workers need, or their demand or
request

The cynical explanation: Democrats need to win Pennsylvania to hold
onto the White House. Pennsylvania still has a lot of steel
workers,[1] and polls show that Democrats are weaker there than they
would like to be. The Republican standard-bearer, Donald Trump,
proposes to crash the economy with high protective tariffs, which the
steelworkers like, even though Trump is a staunch union-buster. Biden
wants to at least give them second thoughts about throwing their
support behind Trump. US Steel in particular is symbolic because most
of the other old-line unionized steel producers (Bethlehem, Jones &
Laughlin, etc.) have gone bust.

-GAWollman

[1] Although far fewer than it did when the steel industry was at its
zenith.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 15:44:26 -0000 (UTC),

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by tonbei
This is from today's news.
---------------
Biden opposes plan to sell US Steel to a Japanese firm, citing the need
for 'American steel workers'
-------------
My question is about "the need for 'American steel workers".
specifically the usage of "need" here.
1) American steel workers are needed, so they must be protected.
2) We should listen to what those workers need, or their demand or
request

The cynical explanation: Democrats need to win Pennsylvania to hold
onto the White House. Pennsylvania still has a lot of steel
workers,[1] and polls show that Democrats are weaker there than they
would like to be. The Republican standard-bearer, Donald Trump,
proposes to crash the economy with high protective tariffs, which the
steelworkers like, even though Trump is a staunch union-buster. Biden
wants to at least give them second thoughts about throwing their
support behind Trump. US Steel in particular is symbolic because most
of the other old-line unionized steel producers (Bethlehem, Jones &
Laughlin, etc.) have gone bust.
-GAWollman
[1] Although far fewer than it did when the steel industry was at its
zenith.

Here's a chart that shows steel production since 2026 -
https://www.statista.com/statistics/209343/steel-production-in-the-us/

Steel production was higher back before cars started using
aluminum and fiberglass, etc. The level of production dropped
after the 1970s, it has not dropped severely in recent years.

I don't know when the jobs were lost, but IIRC most of the
job loss is blamed on automation, not to decreased market.

Right now, the Japanese are attempting to buy US Steel --
"Biden preparing to block Nippon Steel Purchase of US Steel"
is a current headline. I have not bothered to follow it, even
though it is local.

In 2016, Trump made promises to coal and to steel to save
the industries, while Clinton was promising job re-training.
Trump's efforts seemed to be confined to reducing fines for
pollution by billions. Oh, wait, he did declare Canada and
Mexico to be "enemy nations" so that he could impose tariffs
under a law from the 1980s.

Several coal companies declared bankruptcy during Trump's
term, so I don't think he can claim any victory there.

Unlike steel, coal is collapsing owing also to a great decrease
in demand, but automation also has cost them many jobs. Giant
machines scraping the tops off mountains employ fewer workers
than deep mines do.

[Silvano]

Post by Rich Ulrich
Unlike steel, coal is collapsing owing also to a great decrease
in demand,

Quite logical, because burning coal is a main contributor to the present
climatic catastrophe.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 08:21:24 +0200, Silvano

Post by Silvano

Post by Rich Ulrich
Unlike steel, coal is collapsing owing also to a great decrease
in demand,

Quite logical, because burning coal is a main contributor to the present
climatic catastrophe.

I think there is a double whammy on use of coal -- natural gas
presently is cheaper for new power plants (where the supply is
available), even before you add the equipment for assuring a
clean smokestack.

I don't remember seeing it spelled out, but I think that China
continues to burn a lot of coal not only because they have
plenty of it, but also because they don't have the natural gas
or the infrastructure for distributing it. So they are stressing
solar panels.

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by Rich Ulrich
I don't remember seeing it spelled out, but I think that China
continues to burn a lot of coal not only because they have
plenty of it, but also because they don't have the natural gas
or the infrastructure for distributing it. So they are stressing
solar panels.

Also because a lot of industrial processes rely on synthesis gas[1]
and/or large quantities of steam. You can make hydrogen from methane,
but if you have lots and lots of coal and unpriced environmental
externalities, the coal is still cheaper.

The big thing that happened to the steel industry is that the big,
labor-intensive steel plants were organized around reducing iron from
its ore in a blast furnace -- a big consumer of coal -- whereas today
much more steel is recycled and the melting can be done in an electric
furnace.

-GAWollman

[1] A mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, with traces of water
vapor and some carbon dioxide which is just a waste product.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Rich Ulrich
Several coal companies declared bankruptcy during Trump's
term, so I don't think he can claim any victory there.

I'm confident he could - and there seem to be lots of people who would
accept his word on... pretty much anything.

[Rich Ulrich]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Rich Ulrich
Several coal companies declared bankruptcy during Trump's
term, so I don't think he can claim any victory there.

I'm confident he could - and there seem to be lots of people who would
accept his word on... pretty much anything.

Yes, that was careless of me. The proper idea is that no honest
person could claim any victory there.

Trump is claiming victory on immigration, where he never constructed
executive orders that the courts agreed were legal.

And his advisers keep saying, Talk about the economy -- but the
NUMBERs on the economy do not match the high inflation, low jobs,
bad stock market, inhibited oil production, etc., that he and his
party keep pretending that Biden gave us, whereas Trump
inherited an easy circumstance and gave us egregious tax cuts
for the wealthy and bail-outs for the farmers hurt by his tariff war.

[Snidely]

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Rich Ulrich
Several coal companies declared bankruptcy during Trump's
term, so I don't think he can claim any victory there.

I'm confident he could - and there seem to be lots of people who would
accept his word on... pretty much anything.

Yes, that was careless of me. The proper idea is that no honest
person could claim any victory there.
Trump is claiming victory on immigration, where he never constructed
executive orders that the courts agreed were legal.
And his advisers keep saying, Talk about the economy -- but the
NUMBERs on the economy do not match the high inflation, low jobs,
bad stock market, inhibited oil production, etc., that he and his
party keep pretending that Biden gave us, whereas Trump
inherited an easy circumstance and gave us egregious tax cuts
for the wealthy and bail-outs for the farmers hurt by his tariff war.

fivethirtyeight.com, before it became an organelle in Disney's ABC, did
a study of economic indicators by presidency. In general, first term
presidents couldn't take credit or blame, and second term presidents
might by victims or benefitees of investment cycles as much as policy.
(and of course, policies are also apt to react to cycles, perpetuating
them. qv Greenspan et al)


/dps

[Steve Hayes]

Post by tonbei
This is from today's news.
---------------
Biden opposes plan to sell US Steel to a Japanese firm, citing the need
for 'American steel workers'
-------------
My question is about "the need for 'American steel workers".
specifically the usage of "need" here.
1) American steel workers are needed, so they must be protected.
2) We should listen to what those workers need, or their demand or
request
I guess 1) is more likely.
What do you say?

Yes.

The use of "for" indicates that.

If it were (2) it would be "of" as in "needs of".