Can US Manufacturing Survive?

[kyzr]

US Manufacturing used to be 28% of the US economy, and now its about 12% and dropping. Manuacturing creates wealth, the "service economy" is a hoax created by Wall Street to justify moving jobs overseas. I also blame unions in addition to Wall Street for killing industries like the automotive industry. Its a tough problem, but if we're ever going to get the unemploymemnt rate down, the unwashed masses need jobs, and I don't think that picking produce will pay the bills.

Manufacturing continues to shrink as a percentage of U.S. economic activity. | North America > United States from AllBusiness.com

So the poll question is "can US manufacturing survive & how?"

 

[eagleseven]

No, it cannot.

Every single manufacturing job in the US can be moved to China, and China would still have serious unemployment problems. We are completely outclassed by Asia's and Africa's low labor costs.

If you cannot find a way to make a living that cannot be performed by poor Asian or African workers, you will be as poor as an Asian or African worker.

 

[Cuyo]

I picked "It will take a lot of government help" because it's closest to the way I feel, but doesn't exactly hit it on the head. A sudden and sustain spike in the price of oil would bring some of it back as the transportation costs begin to outweigh the difference in payroll. For cheap crap like toys and gadgets sold by Billy Mays (RIP), it may take a little longer. But for things like cars and steel products, the transportation expense could outweigh the benefit rather quickly if oil were to triple... Which it inevitably will.

 

[Toro]

100 years ago, agriculture was nearly half the US economy. Today it is 3%.

They said the same thing about farming a century ago.

 

[kyzr]

100 years ago, agriculture was nearly half the US economy. Today it is 3%.

They said the same thing about farming a century ago.

Not quite. Look at the farm produce produced and you'll see thet the crop yields have grown due to modernization. Not a valid comparison. There were no PCs back then, no auto industry etc.

the key to me is "creating wealth" such that the trade balance is "in balance" or in your favor. Otherwise, the producer/creators end up with all the wealth.

 

[uscitizen]

100 years ago, agriculture was nearly half the US economy. Today it is 3%.

They said the same thing about farming a century ago.

And we now import virtually as much foodstuffs as we export.

Exports were actually in the negative range a few years ago until the administration "massaged" the numbers a bit.

 

[eagleseven]

Not quite. Look at the farm produce produced and you'll see thet the crop yields have grown due to modernization. Not a valid comparison. There were no PCs back then, no auto industry etc.

So shall it be with manufacturing, in the long run.

Industrial yields are growing due to robotics, just as agriculture yields grew due to mechanization and chemistry.

the key to me is "creating wealth" such that the trade balance is "in balance" or in your favor. Otherwise, the producer/creators end up with all the wealth.

One can create wealth without manufacturing products...and trade balances are fundamentally individual, not national.

---

Do you spend more than you earn, thus going into debt? If so, you are importing more than you are exporting.

Do you spend less than you earn, thus saving money? If so, you are exporting more than you are importing.

---

National trade figures are simply an amalgamation of millions of individual trade balances.

 

[uscitizen]

National trade figures are simply an amalgamation of millions of individual trade balances.


True but knowing that does not make the trade imbalance any better.

 

[eagleseven]

National trade figures are simply an amalgamation of millions of individual trade balances.

True but knowing that does not make the trade imbalance any better.

Knowing that makes you realize that a national trade balance has no direct effect upon your life. It is an effect, not a cause.

A trade imbalance can be caused by many different things...in our case, it is the result of our entire population spending more than it can earn.

 

[kyzr]

National trade figures are simply an amalgamation of millions of individual trade balances.

True but knowing that does not make the trade imbalance any better.

Knowing that makes you realize that a national trade balance has no direct effect upon your life. It is an effect, not a cause.

A trade imbalance can be caused by many different things...in our case, it is the result of our entire population spending more than it can earn.

Not exactly. If we all bought US manufcatured goods instead of foreign made goods what happens to your argument? Why don't politicians make tax breaks for creating US manufacturing jobs?

 

[topspin]

Yes it can and will. Thanks for the comedy, hoax. Lofl

 

[eagleseven]

Not exactly. If we all bought US manufcatured goods instead of foreign made goods what happens to your argument?

We would not be able to purchase more goods than we produce, and thus we would, in aggregate, never go into debt.

Remember, that for every person taking on debt, someone is saving money somewhere. The net debt load for any closed economy is always zero (in inflation-adjusted currency).

Why don't politicians make tax breaks for creating US manufacturing jobs?

Because the government cannot afford to give a company a $35000 tax break per year for every manufacturing job in the US (as a Chinese worker costs about $5000 per year, vs $40000 for an American worker).

Where will the government get $35000 per year, per worker?

 

[uscitizen]

National trade figures are simply an amalgamation of millions of individual trade balances.

True but knowing that does not make the trade imbalance any better.

Knowing that makes you realize that a national trade balance has no direct effect upon your life. It is an effect, not a cause.

A trade imbalance can be caused by many different things...in our case, it is the result of our entire population spending more than it can earn.

The effect can cause one to lose their job when their employer moves his manufacturing offshore.
Which is what this thread is pretty much about.

 

[Toro]

100 years ago, agriculture was nearly half the US economy. Today it is 3%.

They said the same thing about farming a century ago.

Not quite. Look at the farm produce produced and you'll see thet the crop yields have grown due to modernization. Not a valid comparison. There were no PCs back then, no auto industry etc.

the key to me is "creating wealth" such that the trade balance is "in balance" or in your favor. Otherwise, the producer/creators end up with all the wealth.

You've just contradicted your OP but you don't realize it.

There is nothing magical in making things. What matters is the technological advancement which creates things.

All economic wealth creation comes from one thing and one thing only - innovation. Innovation is what brings about technological advancement and specialization. Technological advancement and specialization lowers costs and increases productivity. It allows us to create more with less. It is that innovation which creates wealth, not manufacturing. Wealth is created in the mind.

Manufacturing is merely a process in a continuum of progress. It is a certain embodiment of technology. But we are moving away from that embodiment to value-creation being embedded in digital applications. We have moved from an agrarian economy to a manufacturing economy to a knowledge-based economy. Freezing ourselves in time and halting the declining relevance of manufacturing is a value-destroying initiative as it diverts resources to preserving an antiquated method of output from cutting-edge technologies.

 

[william the wie]

Actually the US is still the world's largest manufacturer. Automation accounts for almost all of the job losses in manufacturing. Outsourcing is a much bigger threat to services than manufacturing jobs. Non-innovative jobs will be automated and/or outsourced out of existence. This will include such hot areas as education and medicine.

 

[syrenn]

So long as we have unions, America doesn't stand a chance in the world market.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Nobody is going to pay a demanding union worker $20.00 an hour or more to make a widgit that can be made overseas for $1.50 an hour or less. This is especially true if the widgit is only worth $2.00 or $3.00 to start with. Do the math. I believe the problem is sort of twofold. Demanding union workers and businesses trying to make a buck. Each one is about as greedy as the other.

 

[Mr Natural]

So long as we have unions, America doesn't stand a chance in the world market.

Look, another "Prosperity through lower wages" con$ervative.

Bravo!

 

[eagleseven]

The effect can cause one to lose their job when their employer moves his manufacturing offshore.

No, the trade balance is negative because companies are moving factories off-shore.

You lose your job before the national trade balance changes...by the time it is adjusted, the damage has already been done.

---

The cause of companies moving off-shore is the lower labor prices in China and India.

 

[eagleseven]

Look, another "Prosperity through lower wages" con$ervative.

Bravo!

Better than a "Poverty through Protectionism" union bo$$.

Huzzah!