flacaltenn
Diamond Member
ShackledNation:
Sounds like you're getting testy here.. I said NOTHING about dictating "more regulations on foreign business" and I definitely didn't refer to "libertarian think tank" notes as BS.
The reason I'm not spewing numbers around is that I'm trying to get a handle on yours. And the ONLY number that's important to me right now for THIS discussion is the size of the American Manufacturing Labor sector.
And you should be more careful in what numbers you consume..
Careful interpretation of this could be that in (say) 1990 -- the number of foreign entity man. jobs was 3Mil and domestic man jobs was 15Mil. If the insourced jobs GREW at 5.5% and the domestic job loss to outsourcing GREW by 1.5% --- the NUMBERS say that (150,000 - 225,000) === a net job loss of 75,000outsourced jobs.. Be aware of the PHRASING of these claims.
But we don't sophisticated numbers to show the job loss in manufacturing sector. All we really need is Fig 1.. What Accounts for the Decline in Manufacturing Employment?
Agreed -- NOT all those losses after 1970s are due to off-shoring. You can literally see the productivity bump for the introduction of computers around 1980 or so.. Accounts for about -4Mill jobs shed and that period from 1980 to 2000 was the LARGEST jump in automation productivity the world has seen. But it's the curve after 2000 that I'm looking at. There are NO MAJOR technological explanations for the rapid decline after 2000 other than off-shoring. MAYBE jobs came back in from foreign entities, but they aren't landing in jobs concerning goods creation or products.
Sorry you don't see the obvious inyourface dangers of a service economy. The author of this thread, Mr. CountryCLub Independent is COMPLETELY correct (it hurts me to admit that) about taxes and regulation having NOTHING to do with competition or business decisions IF YOU ARE IN THE SERVICE BIZ.. Why?
1) You are competing ONLY with the guy across the table at the country club. The 2 of you are EQUALLY hobbled by the same taxation and regulation. It is a completely flat and "fair" playing field.
2) You have the ability to "pass-on" taxation and regulatory costs to your customers.
World class manufacturers have NEITHER of these luxuries. So you should spend a little more time pondering WHICH types of jobs can produce a growing innovative economy. And I'm NOT calling for govt aid/assistance here. I just want the debate on where the capital flows to include a NEWER analysis of salary preservation and job creation.
It's just the opposite of what you THINK I'm saying.. A service economy is the only weed that can grow in a govt micromanaged enviroment that we now have. And when you empty the manufacturing sector, you are downplaying the importance of science, technology, and innovation which are the factors that drive economic GROWTH...
See any diff now between job types???
American consumer electronics is EXTINCT except for a couple buildings in Cupertino Ca that hold the braintrust of Apple and RIMM. Our PC Board Production capacity is goin down the crapper. (that's my business to see these things). Nothing -- not even Apple or RIMM products made on our shores. Go to Best Buy and find me a TV or DVD player or ANY f'in MONITOR with an American name on it. The Japanese DID ace us completely OUT of the biz because of our arrogant "we own the IP" attitude.
[[[BTW: no way I consider "tablets" significant innovation.. They are nothing but laptops without a keyboard. mostly hype and boredom of plentitude.]]]
And what I mean by stimulating the economy at the consumption level is exactly the failed Bush/Obama stimulus theory that if you cut everyone a check to shop -- that you will grow new domestic jobs and industries. You cannot stimulate consumption anymore and expect that factories in Pennsylvania will staff up and grow.. All bottom-up stimulation does is to pump up Asian factories.
Sounds like you're getting testy here.. I said NOTHING about dictating "more regulations on foreign business" and I definitely didn't refer to "libertarian think tank" notes as BS.
The reason I'm not spewing numbers around is that I'm trying to get a handle on yours. And the ONLY number that's important to me right now for THIS discussion is the size of the American Manufacturing Labor sector.
And you should be more careful in what numbers you consume..
Jobs insourced to the US have been growing at 5.5% per year, whereas job loss to outsourcing is only growing at 1.5%
Careful interpretation of this could be that in (say) 1990 -- the number of foreign entity man. jobs was 3Mil and domestic man jobs was 15Mil. If the insourced jobs GREW at 5.5% and the domestic job loss to outsourcing GREW by 1.5% --- the NUMBERS say that (150,000 - 225,000) === a net job loss of 75,000outsourced jobs.. Be aware of the PHRASING of these claims.
But we don't sophisticated numbers to show the job loss in manufacturing sector. All we really need is Fig 1.. What Accounts for the Decline in Manufacturing Employment?
Agreed -- NOT all those losses after 1970s are due to off-shoring. You can literally see the productivity bump for the introduction of computers around 1980 or so.. Accounts for about -4Mill jobs shed and that period from 1980 to 2000 was the LARGEST jump in automation productivity the world has seen. But it's the curve after 2000 that I'm looking at. There are NO MAJOR technological explanations for the rapid decline after 2000 other than off-shoring. MAYBE jobs came back in from foreign entities, but they aren't landing in jobs concerning goods creation or products.
Sorry you don't see the obvious inyourface dangers of a service economy. The author of this thread, Mr. CountryCLub Independent is COMPLETELY correct (it hurts me to admit that) about taxes and regulation having NOTHING to do with competition or business decisions IF YOU ARE IN THE SERVICE BIZ.. Why?
1) You are competing ONLY with the guy across the table at the country club. The 2 of you are EQUALLY hobbled by the same taxation and regulation. It is a completely flat and "fair" playing field.
2) You have the ability to "pass-on" taxation and regulatory costs to your customers.
World class manufacturers have NEITHER of these luxuries. So you should spend a little more time pondering WHICH types of jobs can produce a growing innovative economy. And I'm NOT calling for govt aid/assistance here. I just want the debate on where the capital flows to include a NEWER analysis of salary preservation and job creation.
It's just the opposite of what you THINK I'm saying.. A service economy is the only weed that can grow in a govt micromanaged enviroment that we now have. And when you empty the manufacturing sector, you are downplaying the importance of science, technology, and innovation which are the factors that drive economic GROWTH...
See any diff now between job types???
And what do you mean stimulating the economy at the consumption level? You cannot consume what has not been produced. American consumer electronics are doing fine. Apple is the most successful and valuable country in the entire nation, to list just one.
American consumer electronics is EXTINCT except for a couple buildings in Cupertino Ca that hold the braintrust of Apple and RIMM. Our PC Board Production capacity is goin down the crapper. (that's my business to see these things). Nothing -- not even Apple or RIMM products made on our shores. Go to Best Buy and find me a TV or DVD player or ANY f'in MONITOR with an American name on it. The Japanese DID ace us completely OUT of the biz because of our arrogant "we own the IP" attitude.
[[[BTW: no way I consider "tablets" significant innovation.. They are nothing but laptops without a keyboard. mostly hype and boredom of plentitude.]]]
And what I mean by stimulating the economy at the consumption level is exactly the failed Bush/Obama stimulus theory that if you cut everyone a check to shop -- that you will grow new domestic jobs and industries. You cannot stimulate consumption anymore and expect that factories in Pennsylvania will staff up and grow.. All bottom-up stimulation does is to pump up Asian factories.
Last edited: