manufacturing jobs are not coming back

[charrison]

linkage

Since early 2001, through the recession and slow recovery, 2.8 million more factory jobs were cut, most of which will never be recovered.

Some jobs disappeared because of rising imports or the movement of jobs overseas. But by far most manufacturing jobs were eliminated because companies used new technologies and management techniques to achieve productivity gains -- the amount of goods and services produced per hour worked, the Washington Post reported.

For example, nearly 25 years ago, General Motors employed 454,000 workers, more than any other company in America, to produce 5 million cars and trucks a year, according to the Harbour Report which tracks the auto industry.

Today, GM makes about the same number of vehicles, but employs just 118,000 workers because of increased mechanization and technology.

It would appear automation is bigger problem than outsourcing.

It would appear manufacturing is still strong in the US, it is just requiring far fewer people to do it.

 

[gsaldivar]

I don't necessarily see gains in productivity from automation as a "problem".

As a result of these gains, GM is a more efficient, profitable and productive company.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
I don't necessarily see gains in productivity from automation as a "problem".

As a result of these gains, GM is a more efficient, profitable and productive company.

But what about the jobs?

Anyway - I'm guilty as charged.
The company I work for helps to put workers out of a job...I guess. We automate production lines and factories. Anyone know how many people used to be employed husking corn during harvest? Well...Not too many people actually do that any more...this summer I helped design, engineer, and program a husker line for a major corn processer's plant. 6 huskers - only a couple employees to oversee the whole husker line - although there still are people who have to visually check the product after it is husked.
Just one example of the many projects we do throughout the year that increases productivity(and labor costs) of our clients.

CkG

/me ducks awaiting flames

 

[Witling]

The problem isn't that some jobs are disappearing, the problem is social and that we're not willing to properly allocate costs. Take the job of picking cotton by hand. Yes, it used to take a lot of people. I think there are better things for those people to do. Jobs that produce a higher wage and that have a much nicer working atmosphere. But our production capabilities are exceeding our ability to employ labor. In the GM example, cars get cheaper but you now have 336,000 people who can't afford to buy one unless they get a different job. We are not investing enough in job training. And, as jobs get more complicated, there will be certain people who just can't handle the load -- much like the spindly 89 pounder 150 years ago couldn't throw hay bales on the wagon all day. Ultimately, the work week will be decreased, but in the meantime -- this means your lifetime, even if you're young -- you're going to see a lot of unemployment as a systemic problem. Unfortunately, our society blames this on the worker. While it is true that ANYONE can get a job; it is not true that EVERYONE can get a job. A good analogy is a fire breaking out in a theater with limited exits. Some people may make it out, but not everyone will.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Whitling
The problem isn't that some jobs are disappearing, the problem is social and that we're not willing to properly allocate costs. Take the job of picking cotton by hand. Yes, it used to take a lot of people. I think there are better things for those people to do. Jobs that produce a higher wage and that have a much nicer working atmosphere. But our production capabilities are exceeding our ability to employ labor. In the GM example, cars get cheaper but you now have 336,000 people who can't afford to buy one unless they get a different job. We are not investing enough in job training. And, as jobs get more complicated, there will be certain people who just can't handle the load -- much like the spindly 89 pounder 150 years ago couldn't throw hay bales on the wagon all day. Ultimately, the work week will be decreased, but in the meantime -- this means your lifetime, even if you're young -- you're going to see a lot of unemployment as a systemic problem. Unfortunately, our society blames this on the worker. While it is true that ANYONE can get a job; it is not true that EVERYONE can get a job. A good analogy is a fire breaking out in a theater with limited exits. Some people may make it out, but not everyone will.

This has always been the case. This is nothing new.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
I don't necessarily see gains in productivity from automation as a "problem".

As a result of these gains, GM is a more efficient, profitable and productive company.

But what about the jobs?

Anyway - I'm guilty as charged.
The company I work for helps to put workers out of a job...I guess. We automate production lines and factories. Anyone know how many people used to be employed husking corn during harvest? Well...Not too many people actually do that any more...this summer I helped design, engineer, and program a husker line for a major corn processer's plant. 6 huskers - only a couple employees to oversee the whole husker line - although there still are people who have to visually check the product after it is husked.
Just one example of the many projects we do throughout the year that increases productivity(and labor costs) of our clients.

CkG

/me ducks awaiting flames

I don't think there is anything to feel ashamed about in your line of work. You're helping companies to develop more efficient and productive methods of harvesting crops. This can only benefit society as a whole by providing a greater amount of selection, at a minimum of cost.

Some people are under the misguided impression that once they choose a career in life, that they are "entitled" to gainful and indefinite employment in that industry.

These people believe that we should shun the use of newer technologies that displace human labor in manufacturing and agriculture, because of the "human costs" of putting people out of work. While it is true that some people will be put out of work as a result of productivity gains from new technology and manufacturing processes, I personally don't think this is a strong enough reason to avoid using techniques that increase efficiency.

As we continue to artificially protect domestic industries (through the use of tariffs, quotas, subsidies, unions etc.) which fail to be globally competitive, we gradually reduce the economic advantage our country currently enjoys in the world.

If some auto-manufacturing jobs are eliminated due to gains in effiency in that industry - so be it...

Time to retrain for a different like of work.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
I don't necessarily see gains in productivity from automation as a "problem".

As a result of these gains, GM is a more efficient, profitable and productive company.

But what about the jobs?

Anyway - I'm guilty as charged.
The company I work for helps to put workers out of a job...I guess. We automate production lines and factories. Anyone know how many people used to be employed husking corn during harvest? Well...Not too many people actually do that any more...this summer I helped design, engineer, and program a husker line for a major corn processer's plant. 6 huskers - only a couple employees to oversee the whole husker line - although there still are people who have to visually check the product after it is husked.
Just one example of the many projects we do throughout the year that increases productivity(and labor costs) of our clients.

CkG

/me ducks awaiting flames

well but look at it this way, the place you work for employ people just to make manufacturing more automated, so people not working at manufacturing are instead working in making it more automated

 

[mastertech01]

I just dont know how we can continue killing off jobs for machines and expect to sell what we produce. There simply is not enough high tech jobs to go around. Its cheaper to throw stuff away than to fix it. So what good is high production with low employment or under employment for your buyers? The more unemployment the more competition for the jobs out there. The big bosses see that and keep wages low because "there are 10 people standing in line for your job"

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
I don't necessarily see gains in productivity from automation as a "problem".

As a result of these gains, GM is a more efficient, profitable and productive company.

But what about the jobs?

Anyway - I'm guilty as charged.
The company I work for helps to put workers out of a job...I guess. We automate production lines and factories. Anyone know how many people used to be employed husking corn during harvest? Well...Not too many people actually do that any more...this summer I helped design, engineer, and program a husker line for a major corn processer's plant. 6 huskers - only a couple employees to oversee the whole husker line - although there still are people who have to visually check the product after it is husked.
Just one example of the many projects we do throughout the year that increases productivity(and labor costs) of our clients.

CkG

/me ducks awaiting flames

well but look at it this way, the place you work for employ people just to make manufacturing more automated, so people not working at manufacturing are instead working in making it more automated

Or out keeping it working. The service industry is only going to grow.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Whitling The problem isn't that some jobs are disappearing, the problem is social and that we're not willing to properly allocate costs. Take the job of picking cotton by hand. Yes, it used to take a lot of people. I think there are better things for those people to do. Jobs that produce a higher wage and that have a much nicer working atmosphere. But our production capabilities are exceeding our ability to employ labor. In the GM example, cars get cheaper but you now have 336,000 people who can't afford to buy one unless they get a different job. We are not investing enough in job training. And, as jobs get more complicated, there will be certain people who just can't handle the load -- much like the spindly 89 pounder 150 years ago couldn't throw hay bales on the wagon all day. Ultimately, the work week will be decreased, but in the meantime -- this means your lifetime, even if you're young -- you're going to see a lot of unemployment as a systemic problem. Unfortunately, our society blames this on the worker. While it is true that ANYONE can get a job; it is not true that EVERYONE can get a job. A good analogy is a fire breaking out in a theater with limited exits. Some people may make it out, but not everyone will.

This has always been the case. This is nothing new.

I would disagree because not only are jobs getting automated many have never been easier to ship elsewhere.

Personally I think it is going to continue to bring wages down in america, while at the same time continuing the desparity between the have and have nots, just that there may not be as many haves.

Everyone is too fat anyways.

 

[Witling]

Czar, you say "well but look at it this way, the place you work for employ people just to make manufacturing more automated, so people not working at manufacturing are instead working in making it more automated."

Nice thought, but not true. Let's say one person can pick one bale of cotton per day but a cotton harvester can pick and bale 5,000 bales a day. One harvester, built by lots of capital and 12 guys in three days, just put 4,999 guys out of work (hey, it's not all bad news, somebody has to drive the harvester). Twelve of them will get jobs at the new automated weaving plant that's made possible by the increased production of cotton at a reduced price. Up until now, there have been some replacement jobs available, e.g., computer repair or laser assembly. But, Drub, the mildly retarded guy who was the fastest picker in the crew, can't get one of these jobs. So we give him six months unemployment (a piteous wage if you've ever collected it) and say, good luck.

I'm not knocking the increased production efficiency, I'm advocating more concern for people. Incidentally, when I was a child in the '50s, a black and white TV cost about $350. A pretty good wage was $500/ month. You don't even want to know what rent was, it would make you cry.

 

[Czar]

Whitling,
very true, what I meant was that the jobs you see lost in the process of automating manufacturing are not exactly lost, lots are needed in other places for the automation.
like in your case, someone has to make the parts for the harvester, someone has to make the parts for the truck, the mantainance for the truck, gas, you name it, its all connected

 

[KenGr]

And eventually it all balances limited only by the flexibility of the work force to adapt to the new conditions. As automation increases, (if it truly results in fewer people in the entire production chain) prices drop making it easier for people to buy the product and still have money left to buy other products which will then require more workers.

I just read about a factory in Japan that is totally automated (a "black" factory, meaning no lights required) with all operations done by robots. What does it produce? Believe it or not, robots. However, many people are involved in the supply chain to the factory and the programming and maintenance of the factory. And those are better jobs than assembly line jobs.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Whitling The problem isn't that some jobs are disappearing, the problem is social and that we're not willing to properly allocate costs. Take the job of picking cotton by hand. Yes, it used to take a lot of people. I think there are better things for those people to do. Jobs that produce a higher wage and that have a much nicer working atmosphere. But our production capabilities are exceeding our ability to employ labor. In the GM example, cars get cheaper but you now have 336,000 people who can't afford to buy one unless they get a different job. We are not investing enough in job training. And, as jobs get more complicated, there will be certain people who just can't handle the load -- much like the spindly 89 pounder 150 years ago couldn't throw hay bales on the wagon all day. Ultimately, the work week will be decreased, but in the meantime -- this means your lifetime, even if you're young -- you're going to see a lot of unemployment as a systemic problem. Unfortunately, our society blames this on the worker. While it is true that ANYONE can get a job; it is not true that EVERYONE can get a job. A good analogy is a fire breaking out in a theater with limited exits. Some people may make it out, but not everyone will.

This has always been the case. This is nothing new.

I would disagree because not only are jobs getting automated many have never been easier to ship elsewhere.

Personally I think it is going to continue to bring wages down in america, while at the same time continuing the desparity between the have and have nots, just that there may not be as many haves.

Everyone is too fat anyways.

Haven't you been reading? The AT Experts think it's great those jobs are going overseas and they say the Wal-Mart jobs left behind are somehow magically raising Wages.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Czar
Whitling,
very true, what I meant was that the jobs you see lost in the process of automating manufacturing are not exactly lost, lots are needed in other places for the automation.
like in your case, someone has to make the parts for the harvester, someone has to make the parts for the truck, the mantainance for the truck, gas, you name it, its all connected

The services required to keep this economy going are quite broad and often pay quite well.

 

[ReiAyanami]

if everything becomes automated, that means the machines do the work for us. if push comes to shove, we can just have everybody pick fruit singing "do you want fry's with that?"

 

[Witling]

Charrison, the process of shifting service jobs overseas has begun. You're no doubt familiar with HPs contract with Indian workers to provide online service for some of their equipment. Most major typing operations now scan documents and transmit them to the third world to be typed. My personal guess is that insurance will be the next thing to leave.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Charrison, the process of shifting service jobs overseas has begun. You're no doubt familiar with HPs contract with Indian workers to provide online service for some of their equipment. Most major typing operations now scan documents and transmit them to the third world to be typed. My personal guess is that insurance will be the next thing to leave.

He knows that, he thinks it's great. McD jobs for everyone.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Charrison, the process of shifting service jobs overseas has begun. You're no doubt familiar with HPs contract with Indian workers to provide online service for some of their equipment. Most major typing operations now scan documents and transmit them to the third world to be typed. My personal guess is that insurance will be the next thing to leave.

Why even have indians do it?

Why not perfect OCR?

Why not just have electronic documents to start(there are ads for this on tv right now?

Is our workforce so poorly educated that they can only type?

 

[CWRMadcat]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Whitling
Charrison, the process of shifting service jobs overseas has begun. You're no doubt familiar with HPs contract with Indian workers to provide online service for some of their equipment. Most major typing operations now scan documents and transmit them to the third world to be typed. My personal guess is that insurance will be the next thing to leave.

Why even have indians do it?

Why not perfect OCR?

Why not just have electronic documents to start(there are ads for this on tv right now?

Is our workforce so poorly educated that they can only type?

Exactly. There's no reason to leave mundane work around in the US if it can be done elsewhere more cheaply and just as efficiently. The economy is changing, I think this will be an excellent catalyst for people in the United States to develop new skills.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CWRMadcat

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Whitling
Charrison, the process of shifting service jobs overseas has begun. You're no doubt familiar with HPs contract with Indian workers to provide online service for some of their equipment. Most major typing operations now scan documents and transmit them to the third world to be typed. My personal guess is that insurance will be the next thing to leave.

Why even have indians do it?

Why not perfect OCR?

Why not just have electronic documents to start(there are ads for this on tv right now?

Is our workforce so poorly educated that they can only type?

Exactly. There's no reason to leave mundane work around in the US if it can be done elsewhere more cheaply and just as efficiently. The economy is changing, I think this will be an excellent catalyst for people in the United States to develop new skills.

"catalyst for people in the United States to develop new skills."

Many keep saying this but not putting any teeth into their statement, what new skills exactly?

Ding, the Fries are ready.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Ding, the Fries are ready.

Dave you aren't singing it right.

Here is a little help for you Ding fries are done

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

We are getting some manufacturing jobs in Carlsbad.. Calloway is closing their Hogan golf in Texas and moving some of it to here. Net reduction will be about 60% of the Texas based Hogan workforce.. I guess no one will want to move here and pay 5 times the rent or house price so we'll pick up some jobs..

 

[Ferocious]

I agree.

Companies either modernize and do more with less are they outsource overseas or to Mexico.

The company I work for is doing exactly this. With a unionized workforce that has a good security clause....the company was forced to put their engineers to work as well has some of its financial modelers (ahem) and figure out ways to become more productive rather than take the easy rode out and ship everything overseas.

Over the last couple of years the workforce has shrunk due to attrition, the plant has become more efficient, and some work was shipped overseas. This pattern will likely continue for a couple more years till an equilibrium of sorts is reached. The result will be about half the original jobs will still be here....but good paying jobs....and the company will be even more profitable than it was.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
I agree.

Companies either modernize and do more with less are they outsource overseas or to Mexico.

The company I work for is doing exactly this. With a unionized workforce that has a good security clause....the company was forced to put their engineers to work as well has some of its financial modelers (ahem) and figure out ways to become more productive rather than take the easy rode out and ship everything overseas.

Over the last couple of years the workforce has shrunk due to attrition, the plant has become more efficient, and some work was shipped overseas. This pattern will likely continue for a couple more years till an equilibrium of sorts is reached. The result will be about half the original jobs will still be here....but good paying jobs....and the company will be even more profitable than it was.

The quality of products will likely be much higher/more consistant as well.