US to lose role as top manufacturer - by 2020 [Archive]

View Full Version : US to lose role as top manufacturer - by 2020

Thinker

05-24-2007, 06:50 AM

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/25c8a88e-0958-11dc-a349-000b5df10621.html

US to lose role as top manufacturer
By Peter Marsh
Published: May 23 2007 22:12 | Last updated: May 23 2007 22:12

China will gradually take over the role of the US as the world’s largest manufacturer but will do this only by 2020, with the US’s position in the global league table of manufacturers remaining surprisingly strong, according to an authoritative economic study.

Global Insight, a Washington-based economics consultancy, forecasts that the US will keep its share of global manufacturing output above 20 per cent at least until 2024 goes against the widespread feeling, at least in the US, that the country is losing ground rapidly.

“If you told most people in the US that the country was still the biggest manufacturer and is likely to remain so for some time, they would say you were lying,” said Jim Womack, chairman of the US-based Lean Enterprise Institute, a research group. “There’s a lot of negative feeling in the US [about manufacturing] and this leaves people thinking the country is doing worse than it really is.”

According Global Insight’s forecasts, the US share of global manufacturing output will fall to 22.2 per cent by 2020 from 25.5 per cent last year. By 2020, China’s share would overtake that of the US for the first time. It will rise to 22.4 per cent, from 12.1 per cent in 2006.

As a result of rapid economic growth, China has quickly climbed the league table of global manufacturers.

In 1995, the country accounted for just 4.6 per cent of world output of manufactured goods, compared to 24 per cent in that year for the US.

In 2006, Japan was the second biggest manufacturer in the world with a share of 13.9 per cent. However, this share is likely to fall steeply by 2024 at which point Japan’s share will be just 8.6 per cent, the study says.

Western Europe, like the US, will maintain a fairly high share of total output, according to the projections.

Its share of the global total – which was 31.2 per cent in 1995 and 26.1 per cent last year – is expected to fall to 19 per cent in 2024, a drop that is less dramatic than might be expected.

Prem Premakumar, senior economist at Global Insight, said that manufacturing growth in China was likely to slow in the coming years as the economy matured.

Also, manufacturers in the historically high-cost regions such as the US and western Europe were likely to become more competitive, either by adopting new manufacturing ideas and coming up with innovative products, or by being more aggressive on wage costs.

Auggie Tantillo, director of the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, an industry group, said most people in the US would find the Global Insight data surprising, on account of concerns triggered by job losses in manufacturing in the US and the country’s rising trade deficit – mainly linked to a deficit on manufactured goods.

“I am not sure the figures truly measure the degree to which manufacturing output from China has been growing – and how cheap much of the production from China really is,” says Mr Tantillo.

He said the growth in the US’s trade deficit – which reached $764bn (£387bn; €568bn) last year, of which $233bn was the deficit with China – was a “cause for significant concern” because it showed US-based manufacturers were unable to meet domestic demand by such a large amount.

On the other hand, Anand Sharma, chief executive of TBM Consulting, a US manufacturing consultant, said the Global Insight data reflected the progress many US companies had made in many “niche” fields of manufacturing such as specialist machinery and components – as opposed to commodities such as textiles.

“People tend to focus on the factories closing at one end of town and forget to look at the expansion plans elsewhere,” he said.

An example of a US manufacturer that has been quietly expanding in recent years – while maintaining most of its production in the US – is Sealy, a North Carolina based company which is the world’s biggest maker of mattresses. In recent years it increased its sales steadily to about $1.6bn a year, while keeping its US workforce fairly constant at 4,200.

Jim Hirshorn, vice-president for finance and research and development at Sealy, said the company continued to find it economic to have 20 of its 21 global plants in the US because labour costs were a relatively small part of production costs, while a stream of innovative products kept the company competitive.

Phantasm

06-02-2007, 05:20 AM

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/25c8a88e-0958-11dc-a349-000b5df10621.html
...

“If you told most people in the US that the country was still the biggest manufacturer and is likely to remain so for some time, they would say you were lying,” said Jim Womack, chairman of the US-based Lean Enterprise Institute, a research group. “There’s a lot of negative feeling in the US [about manufacturing] and this leaves people thinking the country is doing worse than it really is.”
...

Funny how the plethora of economists and analysts who issue reports from these “think tanks” love to spoon feed us this B.S. all the time. Sure, we are still the biggest manufacturer... but we are only a shadow of our former industrial glory.

And what exactly are we manufacturing? Low ticket consumer products mainly. Steal, Auto, and most aircraft manufacturing has been reduced or moved overseas. What legitimate manufacturing jobs do remain are being occupied by our friends from over the border.

Our market has shifted mostly from manufacturing to a “service based” economy and our lower standard of living across the board is proof of this. Add this bad news to the problem of overgrown, runaway government and we have one helluva problem.

We can't even maintain a legitimate space program anymore.

:(

Thinker

06-02-2007, 06:58 AM

Funny how the plethora of economists and analysts who issue reports from these “think tanks” love to spoon feed us this B.S. all the time. Sure, we are still the biggest manufacturer... but we are only a shadow of our former industrial glory.

And what exactly are we manufacturing? Low ticket consumer products mainly. Steal, Auto, and most aircraft manufacturing has been reduced or moved overseas. What legitimate manufacturing jobs do remain are being occupied by our friends from over the border.

Our market has shifted mostly from manufacturing to a “service based” economy and our lower standard of living across the board is proof of this. Add this bad news to the problem of overgrown, runaway government and we have one helluva problem.

We can't even maintain a legitimate space program anymore.

:(
This is so untrue it isn't funny.

If you want to know what America is still manufacturing, start browsing here to get an idea (http://www.mootsf.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9&page=134).

Here is a chart of US manufacturing output, going all the way back to 1919:

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/3716/manufacturingoutputgs2.jpg

Data source (http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/charter.exe/frbg17/b00004_ipsa+1919+2006+0+0+0+290+545++0).

Transition from an industrial-based economy to a service-based economy is a sign of progress, not regress.

The space program has nothing to do with American manufacturing capabilities. It is a political decision not to more actively pursue a space program, not a technical or economic one.

Warka

06-02-2007, 07:46 AM

Transition from an industrial-based economy to a service-based economy is a sign of progress, not regress.

A statement meaning absolutely nothing when progress and regress aren't defined.

SlagMaster

06-02-2007, 08:56 AM

Thinker

06-03-2007, 02:08 AM

Any economy that is to sustain itself must be based on manufacturing.
Which relates to adding value to something that can add value to
something else.

The Service Industry can only be a peripheral part of any viable society.
Banks, Law Offices, Dry Cleaners, and the likes of McDonnalds will not
get it done.

A Service Based Economy is like leaches feeding on leaches,
of course if your a big strong leach you might do well,
that is until the other die off.
This is false.

There is no inherent value in a manufactured product, any more than there is an inherent value in a service. What's more, value can be added to services just as much as it can be added to manufactured products: If you take out a loan from a bank to expand your business, the money from the bank has enabled you to add value to your business. This, frankly, is more of a value-adding transaction than, say, manufacturing a washing machine for a consumer, which is an end-state whose only additional "value" added is the cleaning of some clothes.

Furthermore, a manufactured product exists solely to provide a service: Automobiles exist to provide a service (getting from one point to another), computers exist to provide a service (communications, information processing, etc.), a washing machine exists to provide a service (getting your clothes clean), and so on for every other manufactured product. Therefore, providing services is the more fundamental economic activity than is manufacturing products.

This is why economies which become increasingly service-oriented are actually the more "advanced" ones: Economies centered around services are actually geared more towards the fundamental human economic activity (providing a service) than are ones centered around manufacturing goods. Goods exist only to provide services. If your economy is centered around making goods rather than using them, it is at a sub-optimal state.

SlagMaster

06-03-2007, 06:23 AM

Thinker

06-03-2007, 06:55 AM

I am sure many would be unclear which you are referencing as This is false.
The above or below post.

The tertiary sector of industry is one of the three main industrial categories of a developed economy, the others being the secondary industry (manufacturing), and primary industry (extraction such as mining, agriculture and fishing). Services are defined in conventional economic literature as "intangible goods". According to some economists, the service sector tends to be wealth consuming, whereas manufacturing is wealth producing.
Sir Keith Joseph in his lecture Monetarism IS Not Enough, contrasted wealth producing sectors in an economy such as manufacturing with the service sector which tends to be a wealth consuming sector. He contended that an economy declines as its wealth producing sector begins to shrink.

Next time you quote Wikipedia or answers.com, you might want to cite and link your source.

The "some" economists who say that services aren't wealth-producing are wrong. A physical good has no more intrinsic value than does a service - both have no intrinsic value at all, their value is derived solely from supply and demand in the marketplace. If a nation does nothing but manufacture widgets (as you think a nation should do), but no one wants to buy these widgets, those widgets are worthless, and that nation's economy has produced no wealth.

On the contrary, a nation's economy could be solely dedicated to banking, but as long as their was plenty of demand for loans from that nation's banks, the loans would have value, and wealth would be created.

So now when I am driving myself in my own car it is part of the Service
Sector. Maybe I will take a Wealth Consuming Cab to make that TRUE.
Actually, yes that is true. The fact that you can substitute a manufactured good (your own car) with a service (taking a taxi) proves that the ultimate purpose of the car is to provide a service. You don't buy a car just for the sake of buying a car, you buy it to provide you a service.

No, A washing machine exists so I don't have to waste money at
the Dry Cleaners, a Service Sector.

No, you either "waste money" by buying a washing machine, or you "waste money" at the dry cleaners. Both will clean your clothes - that is, provide the exact same service. Hence, as I said, the ultimate purpose of a manufactured good is to provide a service. You don't buy a washing machine to "provide you wealth" and you just sit there and look at it, you buy it to provide you a service - clean your clothes. The fact that this is interchangeable with a paid service - going to the dry cleaners - proves that the ultimate utility of the manufactured product is to provide a service.

SlagMaster

06-03-2007, 07:03 AM

Why would I want to, any fool can find it, you are more that proof of that...

If buying a washing machine that pays for its self in
two years and lasts 15 is a waste of money.

What ever..

Don't need your convoluted recursive logic.

Warka

06-03-2007, 07:12 AM

Why would I want to, any fool can find it.

If buying a washing machine that pays for its self in
two years and lasts 15 is a waste of money.

What ever..

Don't need your convoluted recursive logic.

Understand that Thinker is an economist and thus will debate as one. For instance, he won't discuss the greater meaning of words such as progress or regress outside of the realm of finance or economy when he uses them. He's not interested in discussing what's good for people or looking at bigger pictures and such but rather what is viewed as good (or progress, as it were) when it comes to economic models only. It tends to make for very dry and banal conversation.

Thinker

06-03-2007, 07:42 AM

Understand that Thinker is an economist and thus will debate as one. For instance, he won't discuss the greater meaning of words such as progress or regress outside of the realm of finance or economy when he uses them. He's not interested in discussing what's good for people or looking at bigger pictures and such but rather what is viewed as good (or progress, as it were) when it comes to economic models only. It tends to make for very dry and banal conversation.
When I said "progress" and "regress" I was responding to Phantasm's assertion in post #2 that going from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based one was a "bad" thing:

Our market has shifted mostly from manufacturing to a “service based” economy and our lower standard of living across the board is proof of this.

Going from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based one isn't a "bad" thing, it is actually the sign of an advanced economy. Hence, I used the word "progress."

If you want to discuss what is "good" for people, then - OK, let's do that: Why is a manufacturing-based economy a "good" one for the people and service-based economy a "bad" one for the people? In this thread here (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24471) several articles describe how The American People increasingly don't want to do industrial jobs anymore - hence, manufacturing jobs were going begging. Judging by that, I would say that a service-based economy is exactly what The American People want, since those are the kinds of jobs they want. If that's what they want, then why would it be "bad?"

Warka

06-03-2007, 08:09 AM

If you want to discuss what is "good" for people, then - OK, let's do that: Why is a manufacturing-based economy a "good" one for the people and service-based economy a "bad" one for the people? In this thread here (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24471) several articles describe how The American People increasingly don't want to do industrial jobs anymore - hence, manufacturing jobs were going begging. Judging by that, I would say that a service-based economy is exactly what The American People want, since those are the kinds of jobs they want. If that's what they want, then why would it be "bad?"

A manufacturing-based economy is preferable to a service-based economy simply because it is provides for a higher standard of living for a larger percentage of the population and is therefore more sustainable. Americans, on the whole, were living damn well for nearly half a century after WWII when the country really hit its stride with manufacturing compared to today. Can anyone point to a large country with a service-based ecomomy that is currently more successful than those in transition or with largely manufacturing-based economies? Let's see...Japan? Nope, they're manufacturing-based and kicking our ass. China? Nope, same thing. Russia? They don't know what they're doing right now but they're still more involved with manufacturing than services and improving somewhat. India? They're service-based yet can hardly be considered a successful nation. Mexico? Increasingly turning to manufacturing and improving. Canada? Manufacturing-based and doing well.

Where are the large great nations who've completed the transition from manufacturing to service-based economies and enjoying success because of this?

As for "what Americans want" and whether whatever it is they want is good or bad, that's an entirely different discussion. I can almost tell from your statements on this that you probably also buy into the nonsense about how "immigrants do jobs Americans won't do" and I really don't feel like dancing to any variations of that particularly lame song this late tonight.

Thinker

06-03-2007, 08:34 AM

A manufacturing-based economy is preferable to a service-based economy simply because it is provides for a higher standard of living for a larger percentage of the population and is therefore more sustainable.
Wrong. Nations which have higher percentages of GDP devoted to services are richer nations, not poorer ones. Start browsing the countries in the CIA World Factbook and see for yourself:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html

Americans, on the whole, were living damn well for nearly half a century after WWII when the country really hit its stride with manufacturing compared to today. Can anyone point to a large country with a service-based ecomomy that is currently more successful than those in transition or with largely manufacturing-based economies? Let's see...Japan? Nope, they're manufacturing-based and kicking our ass.

Wrong. Japan's economy is 73.1% service-oriented:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html

China? Nope, same thing.
Well you're right about this one, but it makes you wrong. China's economy *is* more manufacturing-oriented, but - precisely for that reason - they're poorer than the US:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html
^
agriculture: 11.9%
industry: 48.1%
services: 40%

The percentage of their economy dedicated to services has been growing, not shrinking, I might add.

Russia? They don't know what they're doing right now but they're still more involved with manufacturing than services and improving somewhat.
Russia's largest economic sector is services, not manufacturing:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html
^
agriculture: 5.3%
industry: 36.6%
services: 58.2%

Not coincidentally, their GDP per capita is larger than China's. But since the portion of their economy devoted to services is lower than the US's (the US is at 78.6% (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html)), that is why they are poorer than the US.

India? They're service-based yet can hardly be considered a successful nation.
But they are getting more and more successful (http://www.mootsf.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4941) - warning, don't click on that if you have a dialup. India's economy has been growing at, like 9% a year for the past few years. That's about as successful as you can get.

Mexico? Increasingly turning to manufacturing and improving.

Wrong again. Mexico's economy is dominated by services:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html
^
agriculture: 18%
industry: 24%
services: 58%

Canada? Manufacturing-based and doing well.
El-wrong-o once again.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html
^
agriculture: 2.3%
industry: 29.2%
services: 68.5%

Where are the large great nations who've completed the transition from manufacturing to service-based economies and enjoying success because of this?
Hmm, let's see . . . Canada, the US, Asutralia, Japan, Taiwan, the UK, Germany, Korea, Spain, Sweden, Norway . . . in fact, every single developed nation in the world. And even some developing nations.

As for "what Americans want" and whether whatever it is they want is good or bad, that's an entirely different discussion. I can almost tell from your statements on this that you probably also buy into the nonsense about how "immigrants do jobs Americans won't do" and I really don't feel like dancing to any variations of that particularly lame song this late tonight.
Well Pracownik, all I can say is, have fun trying trying to convince some guys who want a career as a Photoshop artist to work in a factory instead. Good luck!

SlagMaster

06-03-2007, 08:40 AM

Thimker, is a wate of time it can never be wrong.
You rationalize ever point to an insipid end; an as far
as being an economist, that is a joke.
Thinker you project nothing but BS.
You dont know the difference between a Gama distribution
and a unweighted aggregated index.
( I can see you searching the web now. )
You project a know it all demeanor that leaves
nothing for you to learn from someone else.
Well if you want to be all that, then start being all that.

Regards- SM

Thinker

06-03-2007, 08:50 AM

Here's a little exercise you can do. At this link is a rank-ordering of nations listed by GDP per capita. Look at all the high-ranked ones, and look at the percentage of their economies dedicated to services and industry. Then look at the middle, and then the low, ranked ones and do the same:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

You will find that, in general, the richer the nation, the greater the percentage of its economy is dedicated to services. Poor nations tend to have economies dominated by agriculture and industry, though sometimes services are also significant. There are actually very few nations where industry makes up more than 50% of its economy. Developed nations tend to have service percentages around 60-90% and the rest various combinations of industry and agriculture. Middle income nations have figures similar to the ones I showed for Mexico and Russia above. Poor nations typically have agricultural sectors of 30-50% of the economy, and the rest divided up between industry and services.

Thinker

06-03-2007, 08:51 AM

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman

06-03-2007, 11:29 AM

Warka

06-03-2007, 03:55 PM

An article from 5 years ago that makes some salient points.

No Light at the End of the Tunnel
By David Friedman, New America Foundation
Los Angeles Times | June 15, 2002

If the U.S. economy is growing at anything like the 5.6% annual clip reported last quarter, why are U.S. stock markets sagging and economic confidence still shaky? Corporate accounting skulduggery and fear of terrorist attacks are commonly cited reasons. But the real problem is more fundamental: Nobody seems to know how the economy will generate new and sustained wealth. Currently, the most bureaucratic and least productive sectors--government, health-care, social and education services--are driving the economy, while entrepreneurial industries and manufacturing languish. In the absence of at least a plausible fantasy about the "next big thing" that will ignite the private economy, many investors are understandably uncertain about what the public sector's accelerating expansion means for our economic future.

During the 1980s and early 1990s, the U.S. economy transformed itself from an aging, uncompetitive has-been into a beehive of industrial ingenuity as large companies split up into more entrepreneurial units. After the recession in the early 1990s, the Internet and the newly emergent "digital age" reinvigorated the industrial transformation. To be sure, new-economy hype and Wall Street excess eventually masked the nation's more fundamental economic development. For years, however, U.S. entrepreneurial creativity and highly effective industrial reorganization were the engines of wealth creation. From 1994 to 1998, nearly 12 million jobs were created. About 4.6 million of them were in goods-producing sectors--manufacturing, construction, business services and trade. Government, health-care, social and education services added just 2.4 million jobs. Virtually none of these trends, nor any newer, more promising ones, can be discerned in today's economy. Over the last four years, wealth-producing manufacturing, business services, construction and trade industries steadily declined, losing more than 700,000 jobs. Manufacturing employment alone fell by 11%, the sector's second-worst decline since 1939. Business services, which produced 2.3 million jobs from 1994 to 1998, rose by only 800,000 from 1998 to 2002, roughly matching the expansion in education, social services and health care.

But wealth-consuming sectors--government, state-supported social and education services, health care--grew even more rapidly from 1998 to 2002 despite the most recent recession. These sectors added more than by 3.2 million jobs, one-third more than from 1994 to 1998, and constituted 60% of U.S. total employment growth. If growth in retail employment is factored in, an astonishing 80% of total U.S. job growth since 1998 has been in wealth-consuming sectors, compared with just 35% from 1994 to 1998.

These trends show few signs of abating. In the last quarter, government and related services added 220,000 jobs, while manufacturing, construction and business services shed 300,000. So that first-quarter report of 5.6% annual growth is a bit misleading. Aside from the fact that such reports tend to magnify any one quarter's performance, the nation's seemingly robust growth mainly reflected the continuing expansion of public and closely aligned sectors.

All this undercuts more hopeful interpretations of some recent economic developments. The U.S. manufacturing decline, for example, is often downplayed as natural. As countries mature, goes the argument, they shift from making widgets to designing software. This change may inconvenience workers in the doomed sectors, but, over time, they will find more rewarding jobs and benefit from cheap, high-quality imports or products churned out by automated factories.

Such beliefs were plausible in 1994-1998, when business-service employment was booming. As millions of jobs in technically demanding work--programming computers, setting up communications systems, for example--were created, business services offset slower growth or job losses in manufacturing. Economists even debated whether such services should be reclassified to reflect their productive role in the economy.

But when manufacturing went into a tailspin in the later 1990s, the business-service growth that powered the healthiest phases of the decade's boom slowed too. Rather than supplant manufacturing, business-service enterprises depended on healthy factories, which, after all, were among their biggest clients.

Worse still, service-sector expansion began shifting from the private to the public. In 1994-98, engineering, management, film and business services, all of which are private-sector wealth-producing activities, accounted for more than half of the growth in U.S. service employment. During the next four years, however, they generated just one-third of total service growth. Personal services, such as cutting hair, grew more rapidly instead.

It's hard to imagine how service-sector expansion can play a role in wealth creation if growth in, say, manicurists exceeds that of engineers. Currently, growth in service jobs appears to be increasingly dependent on government spending, a connection not normally correlated with sustainable wealth creation.

The economy is also suffering from nervousness about the public sector's fiscal solvency. The dramatic expansion of state and local government jobs and functions over the last few years has already produced billions of dollars of red ink. The federal budget may soon follow suit, depending on its response to last year's terrorist attacks.

Government pump-priming during economic slowdowns is hardly new. But the current government spending spree is unusual in both its scope and longevity. Most states, like California, did little to limit spending even when the stock-market bubble that was financing their budgets had clearly popped. And they continue to create hundreds of thousands of government jobs, most of which are subject to stringent civil-service protections and strong representation by public-employee unions. Today's public-sector expansion may be permanent.

Government planners hope that the private economy will soon recover, allowing tax revenues to rise and pay for all this public expansion. But what if it doesn't? What if continued public spending, and possibly large-scale deficits, slow the recovery?

There are plenty of examples of public spending burdens crippling highflying economies. Japan's high-growth period, for example, was once the envy of the world but stalled in the early 1990s when the nation's real estate bubble abruptly burst. The Japanese government repeatedly tried to spend its way into a recovery, but only succeeded in amassing a huge public deficit. Remarkably enough, some analysts now worry that Japan, like Argentina and Russia, might even default on its debt.

No one has suggested that the U.S. economy is heading toward anything like a similar fiscal meltdown. Yet neither has anyone painted a picture of how growth in the public sector shall lead us into a new era of sustained prosperity when the manufacturing economy is rapidly declining.

Most of the potential new sources of economic vitality seem longshots, at best. Biotechnology, for example, seems years from making a significant commercial impact. Older, once-appealing theories of economic expansion are even less compelling. Few, for example, still openly tout, let alone believe in, the wild-eyed claims once made about digital-age prosperity.

Until U.S. economic growth is more balanced and its emerging public finance challenge more manageable, it's likely that our economic prospects will fail to fire investors' and consumers' enthusiasm. An expanding public sector may be necessary at a time of global terrorism. We'll soon learn whether it also can choke off the economic development necessary for sustained prosperity. http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2002/no_light_at_the_end_of_the_tunnel

Thinker, please tell us why a nation of Photoshop artists is better than a nation of factory workers.

Phantasm

06-03-2007, 06:43 PM

...
Going from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based one isn't a "bad" thing, it is actually the sign of an advanced economy. Hence, I used the word "progress."
..."

The major problem with a service based economy is that it eliminates the wealth of the middle class and widens the gap between rich and poor.

You economists love to site GNP numbers, play with models and then put a conditional of ceteris parabus on the end of the argument.

Unfortunately, all of your rosy projections aren't observable in the real world.

...
There is no inherent value in a manufactured product, any more than there is an inherent value in a service.
...

Spoken like a true economist.

...
Understand that Thinker is an economist and thus will debate as one.
...

:)

...
A Service Based Economy is like leaches feeding on leaches,
of course if your a big strong leach you might do well,
that is until the other die off.

That... is exactly the point.

A manufacturing-based economy is preferable to a service-based economy simply because it is provides for a higher standard of living for a larger percentage of the population and is therefore more sustainable.
...

:thanks:

Phantasm

06-03-2007, 07:04 PM

Notice China is homogenous and is not Capitalist to the point of grinding down society to its destruction, its market socialist. That is why it will outperform the perverted and degerenate style of modern America.

If China is so great FDR123123, why do they depend on our "perverted and degerenate style of modern America" to feed their economy?

:rofl:

Thinker

06-03-2007, 09:43 PM

An article from 5 years ago that makes some salient points.

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2002/no_light_at_the_end_of_the_tunnel

Gee, that was 5 years ago, when we were in a recession. :rolleyes:

I refer you once again to the chart on American manufacturing output I posted earlier:

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/3716/manufacturingoutputgs2.jpg

Thinker, please tell us why a nation of Photoshop artists is better than a nation of factory workers.
Because:
1) Photoshop artists can make as much money as factory workers, and,
2) Because more people want to have careers such as Photoshop artists than work in factories. It is "better" for the nation to have a lot of happy people doing careers they want to do rather than being forced into careers they dislike.

Kriger

06-04-2007, 08:09 AM

From the U.S. Department of Labor, Projected: Occupations with the largest job declines, 2004 to 2014:

http://www.bls.gov/emp/emptab4.htm

Compared to Projected: Occupations with the largest job growth, 2004 to 2014:

http://www.bls.gov/emp/emptab3.htm

From what I am understanding is that despite the fact that industrial manufacturing quotas are on the rise in the U.S., manufacturers are not hiring new employees. This is why employment in factories is on the decline. It is not due to decreasing production quotas, it is due to factories not hiring workers for production purposes.

This is just a quick look. I am not sure why the factories are not hiring in response to increased production quotas. This would take further investigation for which I have not yet had the time.

Thinker

06-04-2007, 08:20 AM

From the U.S. Department of Labor, Projected: Occupations with the largest job declines, 2004 to 2014:

http://www.bls.gov/emp/emptab4.htm
Most of those *aren't* industrial or manufacturing jobs, it should be noted.

Compared to Projected: Occupations with the largest job growth, 2004 to 2014:

http://www.bls.gov/emp/emptab3.htm

From what I am understanding is that despite the fact that industrial manufacturing quotas are on the rise in the U.S., manufacturers are not hiring new employees. This is why employment in factories is on the decline. It is not due to decreasing production quotas, it is due to factories not hiring workers for production purposes.

This is just a quick look. I am not sure why the factories are not hiring in response to increased production quotas. This would take further investigation for which I have not yet had the time.
The reason for this is because American manufacturers are creating more output, using fewer people.

Again, here is a chart of American manufacturing output, going all the way back to 1919. Except during recessions, it has generally risen.

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/3716/manufacturingoutputgs2.jpg

This next chart, however, shows employment in American manufacturing (only going back to 1939 - data on this before 1939 did not exist).

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/851/manufacturingemploymenttt7.jpg

As I said, while output has increased, employment has declined since about 1980. This increased productivity is due to increased mechanization, improved production processes, etc.

Kriger

06-04-2007, 08:29 AM

Thinker

06-04-2007, 08:35 AM

And so, while manufacturers are increasing production quotas, they are decreasing workers to meet these quotas.

Aside from profit margins, why would they be so interested in keeping manufacturing a semi-viable industry in the US? From their point of view, it is far less expensive and more profitable to establish production overseas.

I am sure they are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
Because, in many cases, it isn't less expensive and more profitable to establish production overseas.

In this post in MSF here (http://www.mootsf.org/forums/showpost.php?p=48&postcount=2) I posted an article which is the best summary I've seen yet of the current state of American manufacturing. Here's a highlight from it:

"We need fewer and fewer workers for the same amount of production," says Dean Maki, chief economist at Barclays Capital. "That drives the perception of the declining manufacturing sector."

Yet some economists say the manufacturing sector is quietly adjusting to a demanding environment by shifting to higher-end products that might not be on many consumers' shopping lists.

In studies on plant shutdowns in manufacturing in the 1980's and 1990's, J. Bradford Jensen of the Institute for International Economics, Andrew Andrew Bernard of Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business and Peter Schott of the Yale School of Management found global competition has been hardest on U.S. companies that depend on low-skill workers. Mr. Jensen says these workers tend to be in industries, such as apparel, furniture or leather manufacturing, that produce consumer products recognizable in stores.

Survivors, by contrast, have tended to be in "capital intensive" industries that rely on expensive machinery and skilled workers to operate them. These capital-intensive industries tend to produce business equipment that can't be tossed into a shopping cart at Wal-Mart, such as industrial machines, bulldozers or airplanes. "Most people don't buy these things," Mr. Jensen says.
In other words, American manufacturing is going "upscale," increasingly making high-value-added products while lower-value stuff gets made in China or Mexico or other 3rd World nations.

Kriger

06-04-2007, 08:58 AM

Warka

06-04-2007, 03:20 PM

So highly skilled workers are still in demand for the manufacturing industry in the US? Are there training schools/apprenticeships available for those interested in high skilled manufacturing occupations? In short, are the manufacturers anticipating a shortage as their skilled workers age and retire?

Yes, yes and yes! And this has been the case for some time now. When I browse the employment listings around here where I live (Detroit area, a manufacturing center if there ever was one), there are more openings for skilled tradesmen and engineers of various kinds than anything else. The problem is, as Thinker pointed out earlier, younger people today aren't interested in pursuing careers in manufacturing, even if it pays well (and it does), when they can sit on their asses and get paid to be Photoshop artists and other such nonsense. So you get guys like me, a bit older and interested in remaining in the manufacturing industry, forced to go back to school to get degrees to remain competitive.

20-odd years ago a guy could drop out of high school and walk into a machine shop and get a good job running a lathe with a decent shot at being able to retire doing so. Today, manufacturing technology has increased so much that a degree or a lengthy apprenticeship is almost a requirement to get the same entry-level jobs. This technology has quickly outpaced the training most school systems are able to provide. It's a huge problem manufacturers have been publicly discussing for years now. Fortunately, many schools are stepping up and implementing training programs for those interested in pursuing careers in these fields. Unless we want all of these industries moving overseas we have to get younger people away from the video games and iPods, thinking they're going to find viable work in some McMTV.com career, and interested in manufacturing careers instead. The schools need to return to vocational training, ditch the bullshit fashion industry classes and reinstate industrial arts shop classes. Guys like me aren't going to be around forever, carrying the ball, while a younger generation sits lazily at home trying to make a million bucks on their mothers' computers.

Thinker

06-04-2007, 09:44 PM

Thinker

06-04-2007, 09:52 PM

Fortunately, the message that skilled industrial workers and other trades are in demand *might* be starting to be heard by the students themselves.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1012/p01s03-usec.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1012/csmimg/p11a.jpg

from the October 12, 2006 edition
Suddenly, vocational training back in vogue
Enrollment soars in 'career technical ed,' as demand grows for workers with specific skills.
By Daniel B. Wood | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

LOS ANGELES – Six years ago, as his 11th-grade classmates struggled with the college-application ritual, Toby Hughes tried to envision his future.

A Georgia honors student with a 1350 SAT score, he knew he wanted to go into computer science, so he went to local computer companies and asked what they wanted in an employee. "They told me I would be more marketable if I had practical technical training as opposed to theoretical academic training," says Mr. Hughes.

He began taking specialized computer-networking classes while still in high school, landed a $52,000 job after graduating, and now, at 24, makes well past that.

Similar scenarios are repeating so often that the world of career technical training - once known somewhat disparagingly as "vocational training" - is experiencing a renaissance in America. Enrollment in technical education soared by 57 percent - from 9.6 million students in 1999 to 15.1 million in 2004, the US Department of Education reported to Congress.

There's every indication that interest is continuing to rise, as families struggle ever harder to afford the traditional college education and as demand grows for skilled US workers in fields such as aviation mechanics, computer technology, electronics, global positioning, and trades ranging from culinary arts to construction.

"American career technical education is being redefined because the needs of the evolving US and world economies are changing," says Darrell Luzzo, incoming president of the National Career Development Association. "Educators at all levels are recognizing that the world's employers increasingly need skill sets that the conventional four-year college degree doesn't give."

The once-standard offerings of technical education - wood shop, metal shop, machining - don't cut it in today's economy either.

"We are redefining almost everything that has to do with the intersection of new technology and the global economy," says Mark Whitlock, CEO of Central Educational Center in Newnan, Ga., a charter school. "The economy is changing and therefore education has to continue to change."

Fields of study today are likely to include more forward-looking careers: crime forensics, composite-plastic fuselage design, robotics, nanotechnology, radiological diagnostics, 3-D animation, and the burgeoning field of "industrial maintenance technology" (keeping the high-tech systems in a modern industrial building up and running).

"When a light-sensor toilet doesn't function anymore, who ya gonna call? Not a regular plumber," says Bill Murphy, recruiter for the McMurry Regional Training Center in Casper, Wyo. "You need someone who knows how to program computers."

Employer demand for such technical skills is prompting some states - including North Carolina and Florida, perennial leaders in education reform and experimentation - to revive or reinvent their tech-ed programs. California, home to 1 in 9 US students, sank $100 million into new technical education programs in its 2006 budget. And in August, President Bush signed legislation renewing the Carl Perkins Vocational and Technical Training Act, boosting to $1.3 billion the amount states will get next fiscal year for career technical education in high schools and community colleges.

"High schools, community colleges, universities, parents, and employers are all beginning to realize that ... to be competitive, our educational system needs more than academic theory," says Jan Bray, executive director of the Association for Career and Technical Education. "They are realizing there needs to be more relevance to the workplace, to what students are interested in and to what the changing economy needs."

Training with a specific job in mind

One result of that quest for workplace relevance is a rise in partnerships among community/technical colleges, high schools, and employers.

A case in point is the pairing of RF MicroDevices in Greensboro, N.C., with local Guilford Technical Community College. RFMD has developed several programs to help train student operators for his "water fab" facilities, which turn out integrated computer circuits.

"There's no place else around here where someone can learn the skills necessary to perform efficiently in our facility," says Ralph Knupp of RFMD. "Someone who graduates with a bachelor of arts would not arrive bringing the specific experience we need. So vocational training is critical for us to maintain our manufacturing strength in Greensboro."

North Carolina, which has seen its textile and furniture industries contract dramatically in the face of foreign competition, has relied heavily on its community college system, founded in 1958, to redevelop and retrain displaced workers.

"We did a major study with industry and found that for two-thirds of all bio-tech jobs in this state, no four-year degree was necessary," says Martin Lancaster, president of the North Carolina Community College system.

California revives a defunct program

In California, meanwhile, the renewed interest in tech ed follows a 25-year decline in such instruction. About three-quarters of high school technical programs were dismantled, and the number of such high school courses dwindled from 40,000 to 24,000 in that time.

But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) supports targeted vocational education, based on European models from his childhood. The governor is touring the state in support of a November ballot proposition that will provide $10 billion in bond money to overcrowded schools, including 170 community colleges.

"The renaissance of career technical training is absolutely confirmed in California," says Brice Harris, chancellor of Los Rios Community College District in Sacramento. Fall enrollment there is up 5,000 from last year, a 6 percent jump.

Companies clamoring for specific skills are driving much of the tech-ed rebirth, analysts say.

"Industry has been complaining about shortages of skilled labor they need, so they have been sharing that with college administrations, counselors, and technical advisers," says Trent Munsey, CEO of Skills USA California, a state and national organization that connects students, educators, industries, and businesses. "They have been screaming for trained people [coming] out of the school system as it is ... and enticing people back to the trades."

The disconnect between employers and American education remains a serious problem, say some observers.

"America still has way too many parents and students reflexively applying to four-year colleges on the old adage that in the long run, that is how to get to the top," says Peg Hendershot, director of Career Vision, a Chicago-based career consulting service.

More than 90 percent of US high school seniors say they plan to attend college, and about 70 percent of high school graduates actually do go to college within two years, according to the Education Trust.

"Many more have been going to college without really knowing why and finding out they don't acquire the skills they need to get a job," says Ms. Hendershot. "Now the conversation has started over how to create shorter, alternative pathways."

Phantasm

06-06-2007, 04:29 PM

...
from the October 12, 2006 edition
Suddenly, vocational training back in vogue
Enrollment soars in 'career technical ed,' as demand grows for workers with specific skills.
By Daniel B. Wood | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

LOS ANGELES – Six years ago, as his 11th-grade classmates struggled with the college-application ritual, Toby Hughes tried to envision his future.

A Georgia honors student with a 1350 SAT score, he knew he wanted to go into computer science, so he went to local computer companies and asked what they wanted in an employee. "They told me I would be more marketable if I had practical technical training as opposed to theoretical academic training," says Mr. Hughes.

He began taking specialized computer-networking classes while still in high school, landed a $52,000 job after graduating, and now, at 24, makes well past that.
...

This is an isolated case. If you glance through the L.A. Times today you won't even find half a page of manufacturing job listings. The Western United States has lost the manufacturing vitality that it once had. Back in the 1970's we had pages and pages of manufacturing jobs listed. This is not the case today.

The training sector companies here in Los Angeles like ITT Technical Institute and DeVry actually make a lot of money training people for jobs that don't even exist when the students graduate.

Nice try Thinker.

:rolleyes:

Kamandi

06-06-2007, 07:10 PM

Given the prevalence of online job recruitment these days, job listings in newspaper Help Wanted sections aren't a valid means to gauge employment availability.

Warka

06-06-2007, 07:25 PM

Given the prevalence of online job recruitment these days, job listings in newspaper Help Wanted sections aren't a valid means to gauge employment availability.

For traditional blue-collar manufacturing positions, what we are discussing here, they are.

Kamandi

06-06-2007, 07:41 PM

Warka

06-06-2007, 07:53 PM

Jobs of that nature can be found through numerous online sites. Take NYC JobZone, for example. http://www.nycjobzone.com/

It's cheaper for bottom-line driven concerns than print ads are; and most people have Internet access these days.

NYC can hardly be considered a traditional manufacturing center whereas industrial manufacturers are the leading employers. I would suggest browsing instead job listing sites for cities such as Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, etc. For these cities you'll find many more manufacturing position opportunities listed in newspapers (or online versions of those newspapers) than you will at general employment web sites. It's no secret that sites such as Monster and others like it serve as portals for what tend to be white-collar positions. The last 3 positions I've held with 2 major steelmakers and one automaker were found via local newspapers and/or word-of-mouth. None of the positions were listed at any general employment web sites.

Kamandi

06-06-2007, 08:40 PM

NYC can hardly be considered a traditional manufacturing center whereas industrial manufacturers are the leading employers.
While it's true that Manhattan is not, Brooklyn and increasingly Staten Island certainly are.

Thinker

06-07-2007, 01:06 AM

Warka

06-07-2007, 01:31 AM

This is an isolated case. If you glance through the L.A. Times today you won't even find half a page of manufacturing job listings. The Western United States has lost the manufacturing vitality that it once had. Back in the 1970's we had pages and pages of manufacturing jobs listed. This is not the case today.

The training sector companies here in Los Angeles like ITT Technical Institute and DeVry actually make a lot of money training people for jobs that don't even exist when the students graduate.

Nice try Thinker.

:rolleyes:

These guys are right, Phantasm. There's no real lack of manufacturing positions today- what's lacking is qualified personnel to fill those jobs. Like I said earlier, it's not like in the past where a guy could go from machine shop to machine shop with no experience getting jobs one after another running manual lathes and whatnot. Employers today want you to have a solid background, CNC experience more than likely, perhaps some schooling or apprenticeship training, etc. The technology of machine tools has increased so much that the skills required involve things like programming, drafting, CAD/CAM and other subjects that the average machinist of yesteryear had no knowledge of. Trust me, I've been there myself- I remember getting jobs as a machinist where the only thing asked of me was whether I knew how to read blueprints and mics or not. Today, you're not only expected to know how to read the blueprints and mics, they want you to be able to create your own blueprints, but also transfer that information into the machining center's computer, be able to reference all the speeds and feeds for a huge variety of materials, know everything about the tooling, when it has to be cycled/changed, fully understand metrology beyond just reading mics, etc. It's a whole 'nuther ballgame today and I welcome the challenge myself and look forward to learning all this stuff. The old days are gone and you either have to get with the program or forget about having a career in the industry. The good thing about all this is once you have got the training you can pretty much name your price when it comes to finding work- manufacturers are that desperate for skilled machinists today.

Phantasm

06-07-2007, 03:53 PM

These guys are right, Phantasm. There's no real lack of manufacturing positions today- what's lacking is qualified personnel to fill those jobs.
...

OK... maybe I'm looking at this from the wrong perspective. But if there is an abundance of manufacturing jobs with a shortage of qualified people to fill the jobs... we are in big trouble.

Who is going to train our people for these jobs?

The Los Angeles Unified School District?

:rofl:

Most of our students are barely able to graduate and they certainly don't possess the English, math, or CAD/CAM skills necessary to fill the positions you describe.

Thinker

06-08-2007, 12:48 AM

OK... maybe I'm looking at this from the wrong perspective. But if there is an abundance of manufacturing jobs with a shortage of qualified people to fill the jobs... we are in big trouble.

Who is going to train our people for these jobs?

The Los Angeles Unified School District?

:rofl:

Most of our students are barely able to graduate and they certainly don't possess the English, math, or CAD/CAM skills necessary to fill the positions you describe.
I saw this article when it came out in the print edition last fall.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1012/p01s03-usec.html
^
It might be hard to tell from this small pic, but sorry to say, there wasn't a single White person in this photo. They were all Latinos and Asians:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1012/csmimg/p11a.jpg

Phantasm

06-08-2007, 02:43 AM

...
Employer demand for such technical skills is prompting some states - including North Carolina and Florida, perennial leaders in education reform and experimentation - to revive or reinvent their tech-ed programs. California, home to 1 in 9 US students, sank $100 million into new technical education programs in its 2006 budget. And in August, President Bush signed legislation renewing the Carl Perkins Vocational and Technical Training Act, boosting to $1.3 billion the amount states will get next fiscal year for career technical education in high schools and community colleges.
...
It's a nice thought...

but I know from experience that only a fraction of that money will make it into vocational training here in Los Angeles.

Most of the funds will be gobbled-up by the bureaucracy for other projects.

:cool: