Eh, this is classic leftist panic/demonization.
This guy is somehow simultaneously a bad guy for wanting robots doing jobs but also for wanting people doing jobs?
What he’s saying here is this:
-
Instead of outsourcing labor we should utilize domestic automation (Instead of sending auto plants away they should be run domestically with robotics).
-
American workers should be guaranteed long-term jobs maintaining these robots and factories, not just for their life but for generations to come.
Is this overall premise something we really strongly disagree with? Are we such media sheep that we’ll swallow every bad take without thought? Is it that easy to push our outrage buttons?
This sounds less like a bold vision and more like nostalgic pandering dressed up as an economic strategy. Also, you sound like Bill Maher.
Working in the same factory as your dad and grandfather isn’t the American Dream, it’s stagnation. The dream has always been about upward mobility, not multi-generational loyalty to a single employer. Automation and robotics aren’t inherently bad, but pitching them as a way to preserve some idealized version of the past rather than empowering people to do better feels disingenuous.
Let’s be real: maintaining robots isn’t going to employ the same number of people as working the line used to. And pretending that automation guarantees long-term, generational stability ignores how often companies automate specifically to reduce labor costs, not to create career paths for working-class Americans.
This isn’t a radical solution. It’s a comforting myth for those who benefit from stability, not transformation.
This question glosses over the real issue: what is the actual premise? That we should replace human labor with automation and STILL promise multi-generational jobs? That’s a contradiction. The critique isn’t about hating jobs or loving robots, it’s about questioning whether this vision is even coherent or achievable in practice. You can’t hand-wave away massive structural shifts in labor and call it a “dream.”
This is a lazy way to shut down criticism by implying disagreement = brainwashing. People aren’t “media sheep” for questioning whether factory loyalty across three generations is a dream or a trap.Accusing others of being easily manipulated while promoting a nostalgic, corporate-friendly fantasy is ironic at best.
Outrage isn’t always irrational, sometimes it’s a reasonable response to a flawed idea. People are reacting because the statement implies a rollback of economic aspiration. Being upset that someone is romanticizing generational factory work, in an era where we’re told to innovate and move up, isn’t button-pushing. It’s people demanding a better vision than just doing what your dad did.
This is peak Bill Maher energy - smug, self-satisfied centrism masquerading as intellectual independence. Classic “everyone’s crazy but me” stance. Sometimes the crowd is right and it takes real intellectual cowardice to pretend otherwise just to look above the fray.
It’s absolutely nostalgic pandering. I didn’t say there was anything bold or innovative about it, just that it was more “Jobs are good” than “You should be serfs.”
Can you point out where in your link Lutnick mentions the American Dream? I don’t see it referenced anywhere, so as far as I’m concerned right now all you’re doing is debunking The New Republic’s poor choice of headline.
No, people are media sheep for taking the media’s word that that’s what Lutnick said in the first place. As far as I can tell, he never said this.
I totally agree. In this case, I don’t see anything outrageous in the video (the longer one in the article). It’s a pretty vanilla, like you said feel-good vibes idea. Rather conventional and boring, not outrageous.