upvote
Agree. The problem is over extended lengths of time the people with the skills to make these things—or make tools that make them—will leave the workforce.

That's how this goes from being a market issue to a skill issue.

reply
The later form was part of the design from the beginning: relying on imports for something this critical in times of an epidemic was a supply chain risk. It was never intended to compete in terms of pricing.

It baffles me that this wasn’t made more explicit? That seems to be the root cause of the failure.

reply
Once the epidemic was over, stakeholders forgot about the original motives.
reply
Also, the stakeholders decided the epidemic was a hoax in the first place.
reply
Good thing the country isn't run by shareholders.

Note that a federal jobs program has something like 60-80% support by voters across all political spectrums in the USA.

reply
If the price is too high you aren’t skilled enough to make them cheaper
reply
Over time, the latter becomes the former.
reply
Only for a time until the market conditions improve. Humans are incredibly talented and we have a knack for picking up skills.
reply
I wish it were so. It's not.

For an object-level example, look at the difficulties the Russians had reconstituting their industrial base in the post-apocalyptic wasteland they found themselves after the 90s. It took them a decade to figure out how to restart production of the Tu-160M bomber, and they had all the original blueprints! Likewise, for a while, we forgot how to make this "FOGBANK" substance that's somehow important for nuclear weapons.

It's all too easy to forget how to do something if you stop doing it for a while.

reply