US manufacturing in decline

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: dirtboy


Why should we manufacture something when we can have someone else do it for us for a quarter of the price. Makes no sense.

Trade deficit?

Irrelevent.

Yep, I guess 3/4 trillion leaving the US more than coming in each year is irrelevent. Also might suggest why Germany has now surpassed the US in exporting each year.

If we had to pay the higher prices of goods produced here rather than China and elsewhere, our economy would be in BIG trouble. Cheap goods from China aren't exactly a bad thing...

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: charrison
linkage

The decline of manufacturing in rich countries is a more complex story than the piles of Chinese-made goods in shops suggest. Manufacturing output continues to expand in most developed countries?in America, by almost 4% a year on average since 1991. Despite the rise in Chinese exports, America is still the world's biggest manufacturer, producing about twice as much, measured by value, as China.

...
All that is good. Faster productivity growth means higher average incomes. Low rates of unemployment in the countries which have shifted furthest away from manufacturing suggest that most laid-off workers have found new jobs. And consumers have benefited from cheap Chinese imports.

Yet there is a residual belief that making things you can drop on your toe is superior to working in accounting or hairdressing. Manufacturing jobs, it is often said, are better than the Mcjobs typical in the service sector. Yet working conditions in services are often pleasanter and safer than on an assembly line, and average wages in the fastest-growing sectors, such as finance, professional and business services, education and health, are higher than in manufacturing.

...

People always resist change, yet sustained growth relies on a continuous shift in resources to more efficient use. In 1820, for example, 70% of American workers were in agriculture; today 2% are. If all those workers had remained tilling the land, America would now be a lot poorer.

It appears the death of US manufactuing is greatly exagerated and that worker are adapting to the change by find better jobs.

We all know Krispy Kreme and other such factories are expanding at a tremendous rate.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Do you actually know something about global economics, or do you post here to prove you are an idiot?

edit: Since you brought it up, how about some proof that the trade deficit is worse than having someone build it for less than we can.

First, the "idiot" remark was uncalled for. If you can't discuss in a nice manner, then I'll drop the discussion. I haven't attacked you in any way.

2nd, "proof trade defict is worse than having someone build it for less"? Uh, having someone build if for less is the reason for part of the trade deficit. What you stated makes no sense. I stand by my argument that wealth, capital leaving, technology leaving, countries advancing in science and engineering faster than the US all lead to the trade deficit. Simple economics, since I'm an idiot as you say, suggest that you eventually run out of money if you spend more than you take in. I guess we can simply print more though.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: dirtboy
I for one don't care much about a decline in manufacturing. Most manufacturing jobs a low pay, low skilled work. Perfect for other countries that have a significantly lower wage and an uneducated workforce.

Why should we manufacture something when we can have someone else do it for us for a quarter of the price. Makes no sense.

The manufacturing jobs we retain are the high tech manufacturning jobs, which is good.

Um, Mitsubishi makes cars where I live and they start at $17/hour. $17/hour is an excellent wage here. I know its not flipping burgers, but I think making cars still qualifies as manufacturing. I don't have the "My Pet Goat Economic Dictionary" handy.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Genx87
I have never believed our manufacturing sector was in danger. However I do believe the manufacturing worker is.

With automation the human aspect of the equation will keep getting pushed out to drive down costs and increase productivity.

Think about it. Would you rather own a factory that works 3 shifts, costing 3 times the wages, 3 times the admin costs, 3 times healthcare, 3 times the pensions? Or would you rather run a factory with automation where robots do most of the work and are doing it 24 hours a day with a skeleton crew?

This is where education and retraining needs to be focused to help manufacturing workers to move into other careers.

But the jobs of manufactoring will now go into servicing, production, design, etc of all the machines used to manufactor the goods. Change isn't a bad thing. Actually, throughout history, it's been a good thing and the wealth of the world is going up.

I know and have no problem with it.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: dirtboy
I for one don't care much about a decline in manufacturing. Most manufacturing jobs a low pay, low skilled work. Perfect for other countries that have a significantly lower wage and an uneducated workforce.

Why should we manufacture something when we can have someone else do it for us for a quarter of the price. Makes no sense.

The manufacturing jobs we retain are the high tech manufacturning jobs, which is good.

Um, Mitsubishi makes cars where I live and they start at $17/hour. $17/hour is an excellent wage here. I know its not flipping burgers, but I think making cars still qualifies as manufacturing. I don't have the "My Pet Goat Economic Dictionary" handy.

$17/hour is barely enough to even live on. It equates to about $33,000 BEFORE taxes. $17/hour, whether you like it or not, is low paying.

 

[nergee]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Do you actually know something about global economics, or do you post here to prove you are an idiot?

edit: Since you brought it up, how about some proof that the trade deficit is worse than having someone build it for less than we can.

First, the "idiot" remark was uncalled for. If you can't discuss in a nice manner, then I'll drop the discussion. I haven't attacked you in any way.

2nd, "proof trade defict is worse than having someone build it for less"? Uh, having someone build if for less is the reason for part of the trade deficit. What you stated makes no sense. I stand by my argument that wealth, capital leaving, technology leaving, countries advancing in science and engineering faster than the US all lead to the trade deficit. Simple economics, since I'm an idiot as you say, suggest that you eventually run out of money if you spend more than you take in. I guess we can simply print more though.

Engineer...you are exactly right. I read an article explaining how all the outsourcing adds significantly to the trade deficit...I'll see if I can dig it up again. As far as low paying....our unskilled people where I work are at $14/hr with another $12/hr thrown in for benefits.....not bad for just showing up everyday................and we can't find people to do even that....

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ntdz

$17/hour is barely enough to even live on. It equates to about $33,000 BEFORE taxes. $17/hour, whether you like it or not, is low paying.

Maybe in California (your home state where everything costs an outrageous amount), but $17 starting wage in many parts of the country is quite good and far from low. Just how many grocery clerks, restaurant workers, <insert regular non-professional service job here> start higher than $17 per hour in the "average" US state?

Oh, and it's $35,360 per year.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Do you actually know something about global economics, or do you post here to prove you are an idiot?

edit: Since you brought it up, how about some proof that the trade deficit is worse than having someone build it for less than we can.

First, the "idiot" remark was uncalled for. If you can't discuss in a nice manner, then I'll drop the discussion. I haven't attacked you in any way.

2nd, "proof trade defict is worse than having someone build it for less"? Uh, having someone build if for less is the reason for part of the trade deficit. What you stated makes no sense. I stand by my argument that wealth, capital leaving, technology leaving, countries advancing in science and engineering faster than the US all lead to the trade deficit. Simple economics, since I'm an idiot as you say, suggest that you eventually run out of money if you spend more than you take in. I guess we can simply print more though.

Seems to me that most educated people that I've met that have taken a basic course in econcomics undertands that there is more to the trade deficit than they know. The reality is there are econcomic surpluses, which everyone ignores, that negates that.

Let me give you an example:

Let's say I mow my own lawn. To do that I must buy and maintain a mower & edger, I must buy fertilizers and I must mow it every week.

Let's say it takes me an hour to completely do my yard every week.

Let's say I make $100 for each hour I'm working.

Let's say a gardner offers to do it for $10 a week.

That means I'm ahead $90 for each hour because I'm not wasting my time doing it. I can put my skills and education to making money.

The way you, and most people, look at the trade deficit is up to that point. They don't understand how I can indefinately continue to pay for this person to mow my lawn. They think I should do it, but the cost for someone is $100 a week vs $10 a week.

How do I do it???

I have money coming in to pay for it.

Global economics works the same way. We buy lots of stuff for China and send our money to them. What you don't see, because you don't understand, is that money flows back into our country from other sources.

If money didn't flow back, it wouldn't work. It does, so that is why we can indefinately run a trade deficit and not have to worry.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Global economics works the same way. We buy lots of stuff for China and send our money to them. What you don't see, because you don't understand, is that money flows back into our country from other sources.

If money didn't flow back, it wouldn't work. It does, so that is why we can indefinately run a trade deficit and not have to worry.

That's the key. Just where is the $700 billion flowing in from? Obviously, it isn't from us selling something to them. Are we borrowing from them (budget deficit) to fuel our own purchasing power? (yes to a certain extent). Are we going deeper and deeper into personal debt to buy those foreign made items? yes. Just exactly where is the money coming from that you suggest is flowing back in to cover this $700 billion yearly deficit. I suggest that part is actually from borrowing and printing money, creating inflation that actually harm part of the cheap items that we wanted to begin with.

Your example above (of yourself) doesn't have a negative outflow for outsourcing as you stated yourself that you make $90 per hour more. by doing it yourself. Are you suggesting that the US makes more by outsourcing? More money going outside the country = making more? (unless MORE is flowing in as you suggested but have yet to show me how or what that entails).

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: dirtboy
I for one don't care much about a decline in manufacturing. Most manufacturing jobs a low pay, low skilled work. Perfect for other countries that have a significantly lower wage and an uneducated workforce.

Why should we manufacture something when we can have someone else do it for us for a quarter of the price. Makes no sense.

The manufacturing jobs we retain are the high tech manufacturning jobs, which is good.

Um, Mitsubishi makes cars where I live and they start at $17/hour. $17/hour is an excellent wage here. I know its not flipping burgers, but I think making cars still qualifies as manufacturing. I don't have the "My Pet Goat Economic Dictionary" handy.

$17/hour is barely enough to even live on. It equates to about $33,000 BEFORE taxes. $17/hour, whether you like it or not, is low paying.

Depends on where you live. In California and in most major cities, that is true, but around here, $33K goes a long way. New 3000sq ft homes can be had for <$200,000...decent condos for $100K-$120K... and we're only 90 minutes from Chicago.

People raise families around here on $30K... its totally doable.

And if you go into the rural Southeast, where all the textile and furniture plants used to be, $10/hr is a living wage.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Engineer
That's the key. Just where is the $700 billion flowing in from? Obviously, it isn't from us selling something to them. Are we borrowing from them (budget deficit) to fuel our own purchasing power? (yes to a certain extent). Are we going deeper and deeper into personal debt to buy those foreign made items? yes. Just exactly where is the money coming from that you suggest is flowing back in to cover this $700 billion yearly deficit. I suggest that part is actually from borrowing and printing money, creating inflation that actually harm part of the cheap items that we wanted to begin with.

We have things that other nations want, namely our currency.

Your example above (of yourself) doesn't have a negative outflow for outsourcing as you stated yourself that you make $90 per hour more. by doing it yourself. Are you suggesting that the US makes more by outsourcing?

I'm suggesting everyone makes more money by outsourcing, if they're smart. If you're not self employeed, then you work for someone. Let's say that person needed an engineer, so they hire you. They could have gone to school and study to be an engineer, but they didn't. It was cheaper to outsource, you, to do the job. They could market your services for less than they are making. Both parties profit.

More money going outside the country = making more? (unless MORE is flowing in as you suggested but have yet to show me how or what that entails).

Flows always have to be equal. When they are not, the market will adjust to make them equal.

If what you're suggesting is true, our country would have imploded years ago due to our trade deficit. While people complain about it, it hasn't hindered our growth or position in the world. Hence, it is irrelevent.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: dirtboy
I for one don't care much about a decline in manufacturing. Most manufacturing jobs a low pay, low skilled work. Perfect for other countries that have a significantly lower wage and an uneducated workforce.

Why should we manufacture something when we can have someone else do it for us for a quarter of the price. Makes no sense.

The manufacturing jobs we retain are the high tech manufacturning jobs, which is good.

Um, Mitsubishi makes cars where I live and they start at $17/hour. $17/hour is an excellent wage here. I know its not flipping burgers, but I think making cars still qualifies as manufacturing. I don't have the "My Pet Goat Economic Dictionary" handy.

$17/hour is barely enough to even live on. It equates to about $33,000 BEFORE taxes. $17/hour, whether you like it or not, is low paying.

Depends on where you live. In California and in most major cities, that is true, but around here, $33K goes a long way. New 3000sq ft homes can be had for <$200,000...decent condos for $100K-$120K... and we're only 90 minutes from Chicago.

People raise families around here on $30K... its totally doable.

And if you go into the rural Southeast, where all the textile and furniture plants used to be, $10/hr is a living wage.

Very true, I was only thinking of where I lived when I said that. Here, $17/hour is barely enough to go get you to and from your job, a roof over your head, and food, let alone any other expenses you might have.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
Geez...you're really pushing it now.

First, it's an Op/Ed article.

Second, it only says the average expansion rate since 1991 is 4%. What it doesn't state is how that expansion is distributed over the last 14 years. Was most of it in the early 90s? Mid 90s? Last 5 years? When was it?

For the last several years manufacturing output has been growing quite well.

In what states?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
Geez...you're really pushing it now.

First, it's an Op/Ed article.

Second, it only says the average expansion rate since 1991 is 4%. What it doesn't state is how that expansion is distributed over the last 14 years. Was most of it in the early 90s? Mid 90s? Last 5 years? When was it?

For the last several years manufacturing output has been growing quite well.

In what states?

Not sure of what states, but "overall", it has grown. 4.5 million fewer jobs but more overall production.

 

[Zebo]

You guys live in a barrario world. Every dollar we pay out foreigners for goods is a dollar that must come back...they come back and buy our companies and put us/finance in debt because they sure as sh1t anit buying nothing from us as nationalistic as they are (props). Massive transfer of wealth is going on and you guys have binders on. Meanwhile the USA has levels of poverty that rival the third world, I'm sure those people would love a "low paid" manufacturing job.

Course the is no solution but draconian protectionism which I'm not sure we are ready for yet. I feel sorry for you kids graduating college today.. well the US army is hiring. ( paid of course in Chinese lent dollars)

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Zebo
You guys live in a barrario world. Every dollar we pay out foreigners for goods is a dollar that must come back...they come back and buy our companies and put us/finance in debt because they sure as sh1t anit buying nothing from us as nationalistic as they are (props). Massive transfer of wealth is going on and you guys have binders on. Meanwhile the USA has levels of poverty that rival the third world, I'm sure those people would love a "low paid" manufacturing job.

Course the is no solution but draconian protectionism which I'm not sure we are ready for yet. I feel sorry for you kids graduating college today.. well the US army is hiring. ( paid of course in Chinese lent dollars)

:thumbsup:

Eventually, we will learn to be more like the Chinese and the Europeans and put love of country and our fellow Americans ahead of the false gods of free trade and capitalism.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: dirtboy
I for one don't care much about a decline in manufacturing. Most manufacturing jobs a low pay, low skilled work. Perfect for other countries that have a significantly lower wage and an uneducated workforce.

Why should we manufacture something when we can have someone else do it for us for a quarter of the price. Makes no sense.

The manufacturing jobs we retain are the high tech manufacturning jobs, which is good.

Um, Mitsubishi makes cars where I live and they start at $17/hour. $17/hour is an excellent wage here. I know its not flipping burgers, but I think making cars still qualifies as manufacturing. I don't have the "My Pet Goat Economic Dictionary" handy.

$17/hour is barely enough to even live on. It equates to about $33,000 BEFORE taxes. $17/hour, whether you like it or not, is low paying.

Depends on where you live. In California and in most major cities, that is true, but around here, $33K goes a long way. New 3000sq ft homes can be had for <$200,000...decent condos for $100K-$120K... and we're only 90 minutes from Chicago.

People raise families around here on $30K... its totally doable.

And if you go into the rural Southeast, where all the textile and furniture plants used to be, $10/hr is a living wage.

Very true, I was only thinking of where I lived when I said that. Here, $17/hour is barely enough to go get you to and from your job, a roof over your head, and food, let alone any other expenses you might have.

It's still $10hr considered top pay down here in Louisiana.

This is what you and the Republicans on here say is great wages and ever increasing. 😕

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
Geez...you're really pushing it now.

First, it's an Op/Ed article.

Second, it only says the average expansion rate since 1991 is 4%. What it doesn't state is how that expansion is distributed over the last 14 years. Was most of it in the early 90s? Mid 90s? Last 5 years? When was it?

For the last several years manufacturing output has been growing quite well.

In what states?

Over most of the US.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It's still $10hr considered top pay down here in Louisiana.

This is what you and the Republicans on here say is great wages and ever increasing. 😕

Welcome to the thread Captain Hypocrite. Weren't you complaining in another thread about the potential loss of Walmart jobs? Yes, yes you were... must be all those high paying jobs that might be lost that keeps you up at night.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Zebo
You guys live in a barrario world. Every dollar we pay out foreigners for goods is a dollar that must come back...they come back and buy our companies and put us/finance in debt because they sure as sh1t anit buying nothing from us as nationalistic as they are (props). Massive transfer of wealth is going on and you guys have binders on. Meanwhile the USA has levels of poverty that rival the third world, I'm sure those people would love a "low paid" manufacturing job.

Course the is no solution but draconian protectionism which I'm not sure we are ready for yet. I feel sorry for you kids graduating college today.. well the US army is hiring. ( paid of course in Chinese lent dollars)

You realize we are creating more wealth than we are giving away by buying foreign goods, right?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: dirtboy
I for one don't care much about a decline in manufacturing. Most manufacturing jobs a low pay, low skilled work. Perfect for other countries that have a significantly lower wage and an uneducated workforce.

Why should we manufacture something when we can have someone else do it for us for a quarter of the price. Makes no sense.

The manufacturing jobs we retain are the high tech manufacturning jobs, which is good.

Um, Mitsubishi makes cars where I live and they start at $17/hour. $17/hour is an excellent wage here. I know its not flipping burgers, but I think making cars still qualifies as manufacturing. I don't have the "My Pet Goat Economic Dictionary" handy.

$17/hour is barely enough to even live on. It equates to about $33,000 BEFORE taxes. $17/hour, whether you like it or not, is low paying.

Depends on where you live. In California and in most major cities, that is true, but around here, $33K goes a long way. New 3000sq ft homes can be had for <$200,000...decent condos for $100K-$120K... and we're only 90 minutes from Chicago.

People raise families around here on $30K... its totally doable.

And if you go into the rural Southeast, where all the textile and furniture plants used to be, $10/hr is a living wage.

Very true, I was only thinking of where I lived when I said that. Here, $17/hour is barely enough to go get you to and from your job, a roof over your head, and food, let alone any other expenses you might have.

It's still $10hr considered top pay down here in Louisiana.

This is what you and the Republicans on here say is great wages and ever increasing. 😕

I said $10/hour is great wages? Did you even READ MY POST? I said even $17/hr isn't enough to live on, let alone $10. Learn to read before you put words into people's mouth, holy christ.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: dirtboy
I for one don't care much about a decline in manufacturing. Most manufacturing jobs a low pay, low skilled work. Perfect for other countries that have a significantly lower wage and an uneducated workforce.

Why should we manufacture something when we can have someone else do it for us for a quarter of the price. Makes no sense.

The manufacturing jobs we retain are the high tech manufacturning jobs, which is good.

Um, Mitsubishi makes cars where I live and they start at $17/hour. $17/hour is an excellent wage here. I know its not flipping burgers, but I think making cars still qualifies as manufacturing. I don't have the "My Pet Goat Economic Dictionary" handy.

$17/hour is barely enough to even live on. It equates to about $33,000 BEFORE taxes. $17/hour, whether you like it or not, is low paying.

Depends on where you live. In California and in most major cities, that is true, but around here, $33K goes a long way. New 3000sq ft homes can be had for <$200,000...decent condos for $100K-$120K... and we're only 90 minutes from Chicago.

People raise families around here on $30K... its totally doable.

And if you go into the rural Southeast, where all the textile and furniture plants used to be, $10/hr is a living wage.

Very true, I was only thinking of where I lived when I said that. Here, $17/hour is barely enough to go get you to and from your job, a roof over your head, and food, let alone any other expenses you might have.

It's still $10hr considered top pay down here in Louisiana.

This is what you and the Republicans on here say is great wages and ever increasing. 😕

I said $10/hour is great wages? Did you even READ MY POST? I said even $17/hr isn't enough to live on, let alone $10. Learn to read before you put words into people's mouth, holy christ.

Before the election Republicans in here claimed $10hr is plenty enough, now you guys say $17 is not even enough.

What a pieces of work.

 

[glenn1]

It all depends on what you consider "in decline." Yes, manufacturing by employment figures and percentage of GDP has decreased. But what has remained or replaced previous manufacturing work has gone further up the value chain. To me it's not necessarily a bad thing if the Pillowtex textile plant in North Carolina decides to board up and go to Bangaladesh, because along will come a company like Trex to open a third plant in Olive Branch, MS which uses waste plastic (like bags and soda bottles) and wood fibers to make wood composite decking. Or a company like Headwaters gets an order to build 2 coal gassifier and Fischer-Tropsch plants in Outer Mongolia. In both cases the manufacturing involved creates much more value to the American economy than the older style.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
Geez...you're really pushing it now.

First, it's an Op/Ed article.

Second, it only says the average expansion rate since 1991 is 4%. What it doesn't state is how that expansion is distributed over the last 14 years. Was most of it in the early 90s? Mid 90s? Last 5 years? When was it?

For the last several years manufacturing output has been growing quite well.

In what states?

Over most of the US.

Do you plan on providing proof of this sometime this decade?