U.S. manufacturing

[Magox]

Corrected.

Your mindset for business will never be a successful model, ever... See Greece.

[meazza]

We've got to have good relations with China and tap into that growing market. There are all sorts of possibilities that could help create more manufacturing jobs over here. If I were an advisor to the president, I would suggest that we negotiate with them day and night, trying to build strong trade ties between the two. The opportunities are almost endless, and I would make it priority #1, because tapping into that exploding market could help the U.S create a sustained labor market.

 

Protectionist measures is a horrible short-sighted idea, that wouldn't help with our economic cooperation with China. Next thing you know, we will have a trade war with them, and they would slap tariffs right back at us.

 

It would help if we could lower our wages to be more competitive with these other nations, but that will never happen, unions would never go for that. That's too bad.

 

You know the whole !@#$ing point of low skilled labor being exported to less developed economies is that the higher skilled workforce work on other more challenging aspects of the economy, i.e. technology development, etc.

 

The average unskilled laborer couldn't do my job, and that's why I'm paid well for it. If I'm doing a job that's repetitive and could be done much cheaper somewhere else, I'm an overpriced commodity.

 

My parents grew up here in low paying low skilled jobs so that their kids could get an education and be better off, not inherit the same low skilled job.

[Bronc24]

Overseas = Cheap Labor

 

Unions = more expensive labor

 

more expensive labor + Overseas cheaper labor = U.S deterioration of the manufacturing sector

 

 

Plain and simple: the goal of any business is to maximize profit....outsourcing achieves this goal, everybody with capital investment gets paid, normal working folk get screwed and factories close....

 

The bottom line is greed trumps compassion in the American dream.

[bills_fan]

The answer is (ta da): it's cheaper to make stuff in other countries and import them here. That answer includes cheaper labor, less environmental restrictions, import-friendly and export-unfriendly laws, etc.

 

 

Otherwise known in corporate-speak as global wage arbitrage. It is also the reason why we have already had rampant inflation in the US in the last 15 years (in the stock market, price of gas, housing etc.) without the killing wage-price spiral that existed in the 70s. Pay no attention to government calculations of CPI, they exclude the "volatile food and energy" as if noone has to drive or eat and make insane adjustments for housing (google "owner's equivalent rent" or just read this article).

[Simon]

If I were an advisor to the president, I would suggest that we negotiate with them day and night, trying to build strong trade ties between the two.

I knew it. You're Al Gore.

[....lybob]

1. America's total dominance in manufacturing was mainly a result of world war 2 where much of the industry in Europe and Asia was destroyed. So no matter what economic decisions America made the rest of the world was going to increase their share of GWP relative to America.

 

2. In the 1980s three economic preferences won out- 1. free markets over protectionist 2. individual business interests over State interests and 3.competition on lowest wages over competition on productivity or product value.

 

In business there are different ways to compete 1. the quality of the product 2. cost (cost of labor)+ (cost of inputs) x(efficiency of processes)

 

it takes a lot of intelligence to increase the quality of the product, or the efficiency of the process, cost of inputs are generally pretty equal- that leaves labor costs as the easy fix- and even if the American worker is 2 or 3 times as productive he's behind if the foreign labor is getting 1/10 to 1/20 the wage.

 

so business had a incentive for off-shore manufacturing and government did not discourage them if fact they gave tax breaks that made off-shoring even easier and the elimination of different tariffs also encouraged off-shoring.

[ExiledInIllinois]

You know the whole !@#$ing point of low skilled labor being exported to less developed economies is that the higher skilled workforce work on other more challenging aspects of the economy, i.e. technology development, etc.

 

The average unskilled laborer couldn't do my job, and that's why I'm paid well for it. If I'm doing a job that's repetitive and could be done much cheaper somewhere else, I'm an overpriced commodity.

 

My parents grew up here in low paying low skilled jobs so that their kids could get an education and be better off, not inherit the same low skilled job.

 

Total BS.

 

I am glad you think highly of yourself.

[meazza]

Total BS.

 

I am glad you think highly of yourself.

 

You're right. Stagnation is better. That's what makes humanity what it is today, the LACK of !@#$ing growth.

[ExiledInIllinois]

You're right. Stagnation is better. That's what makes humanity what it is today, the LACK of !@#$ing growth.

 

No. Never said that. Stagnation to you and how you view those jobs. I am not here to get into a pissing contest. Sorry I even replied. I will just agree to disagree.

 

Peace meazza.

[OCinBuffalo]

Corrected.

Jesus. F'ing. Christ. Dude, executive compensation? Really? GM's payroll for its assembly plant people is 8.7 billion a year. All it's salaried positions combined don't even add up to 2 billion. Right so let's make changes to the 20%, and ignore the 80%, that's sure to fix GM's labor cost problems.

 

Joe: it helps to have actual #s that back up what you are saying. This guy asked for truth, not distortion and political BS.

 

1. America's total dominance in manufacturing was mainly a result of world war 2 where much of the industry in Europe and Asia was destroyed. So no matter what economic decisions America made the rest of the world was going to increase their share of GWP relative to America.

 

2. In the 1980s three economic preferences won out- 1. free markets over protectionist 2. individual business interests over State interests and 3.competition on lowest wages over competition on productivity or product value.

 

In business there are different ways to compete 1. the quality of the product 2. cost (cost of labor)+ (cost of inputs) x(efficiency of processes)

Yep, right out of the book...those of you who are historically, factually, or educationally challenged...please take note -> this is how you set up premises properly. It also helps when they are true.

it takes a lot of intelligence to increase the quality of the product¹, or the efficiency of the process², cost of inputs are generally pretty equal- that leaves labor costs as the easy fix- and even if the American worker is 2 or 3 times as productive he's behind if the foreign labor is getting 1/10 to 1/20 the wage.

1. Yes it does. But this is the key...

2. Efficiency of the process largely depends on the skill set of your labor force.

 

The real difference is: India and China have lots and lots of people, but most are poorly educated. So what kinds of processes are they good at? "Brute Force" or the breaking down of a process to its most simplest parts and then assigning that massive amount of tasks over massive amounts of low-paid labor. Anybody who is familiar with Microsoft Tech Support has seen this in action

 

But in all seriousness, we can't beat China/India/etc. at their game. They have too many people and their standard of living expectations are simply too low. So, you don't fight their battle on their ground. That's how we lose. Get it? Labor unions/manufacturing people are you hearing me? Wake the f up.

 

Instead, we leverage our strengths. Yes our workers are better and yes they are more educated. So, we make our workers operate at a higher level, overseeing multiple processes. Becuase we will need less workers, we can afford to pay them middle class wages. The added benefit of less workers is: less management. You keep your R/D and applied people and even hire more if necessary, so that they can keep improving the processes. If the goal is to keep manufacturing here, then this is what needs to happen, like it or not.

 

The problem is: labor unions make their $$$ on # of workers, not on quality....which is the exact opposite of how they were intended to operate when they were founded. Labor unions will have to get back to their roots or they have to be removed from the equation.

 

When all is said and done, we will be able to produce competitive manufactured goods here, if we use our heads. If we keep trying to pretend its the 50-60's and the rest of the world's factories are still f'ed up from WWII, we are screwed. It's time for REAL change that we can really see working, never mind believe in. It's also time to get the 80-year-olds off the boards of the Empire Zones in NYS, but that is another story.

so business had a incentive for off-shore manufacturing and government did not discourage them if fact they gave tax breaks that made off-shoring even easier and the elimination of different tariffs also encouraged off-shoring.

Which was an outcome of Foreign Aid/Cold War thinking. The idea was that if we built up the rest of the world's economy, the less likely they would be to turn to Communism, and, the less likely they would be to attack their neighbors. And, it worked as designed. The difference is now: that time is over, and we have to have new solutions for our time.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Plain and simple: the goal of any business is to maximize profit....outsourcing achieves this goal, everybody with capital investment gets paid, normal working folk get screwed and factories close....

 

The bottom line is greed trumps compassion in the American dream.

 

 

Business isn't about "compassion," it's about profit. Note the quotation marks. True compassion has nothing to do with labor compensation.

[finknottle]

So are they any alternatives to losing our manufacturing jobs? Do protectionist policies like tariffs help or hurt? How can we possibly compete against countries where labor is paid ridiculously low wages? Is it a battle that we've already lost,and are we destined to a lower and lower standard of living?

 

Lower standard of living? No. What is needed is the realization that factory work is no longer a middle class occupation. If a person is training to be a laborer, then they will see fewer opportunities and declining standards of living. But programmers, scientists and engineers, accountants, medical professionals and lawyers - their salaries are more than holding their own. As are their industries. Anybody who forgoes real training in the belief that they can get a job in manufacturing has missed the last fifty years of history.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Lower standard of living? No. What is needed is the realization that factory work is no longer a middle class occupation. If a person is training to be a laborer, then they will see fewer opportunities and declining standards of living. But programmers, scientists and engineers, accountants, medical professionals and lawyers - their salaries are more than holding their own. As are their industries. Anybody who forgoes real training in the belief that they can get a job in manufacturing has missed the last fifty years of history.

 

Just what we need more programmers, scientists, and engineers, accountants, medical professions (MAYBE) and lawyers ( )... We will be a whole society of professions or the poor slep making zilch. Sounds like a great society! The haves and the have nots. Isn't this what got us into this mess?

 

I do agree with the training... But what we need are more CPA's opening up candy shops or other bsuinesses!

 

Still we need decent paying jobs for the masses.

[John Adams]

This issue is a bit of a red herring. The US still produces something like 20+% of all manufactured goods in the world. That makes us by far the biggest manufacturer in the world.

[ExiledInIllinois]

This issue is a bit of a red herring. The US still produces something like 20+% of all manufactured goods in the world. That makes us by far the biggest manufacturer in the world.

 

That number should be higher for our own economic stability and health.

[....lybob]

This issue is a bit of a red herring. The US still produces something like 20+% of all manufactured goods in the world. That makes us by far the biggest manufacturer in the world.

 

Two guys making $40,000 a year, one is very happy the other is miserable and angry, what's the difference? one was formerly making $20,000 a year and the other was formerly making $80,000- peoples feelings have about their lives have more to do about their relative position than their absolute position.

[John Adams]

Two guys making $40,000 a year, one is very happy the other is miserable and angry, what's the difference? one was formerly making $20,000 a year and the other was formerly making $80,000- peoples feelings have about their lives have more to do about their relative position than their absolute position.

 

So the complaints aren't "Where has US manufacturing gone" but "Where have all the high salaries for manufacturing jobs" gone? That's an entirely different discussion.

[GG]

This issue is a bit of a red herring. The US still produces something like 20+% of all manufactured goods in the world. That makes us by far the biggest manufacturer in the world.

 

You sure about that? I thought US produced 20% of total global economic output, not just manufacturing. I think its share of manufacturing is lower than that, but still pretty big. But the key points are, the manufacturing jobs that are still here tend to be more specialized, highly skilled. It's ridiculous to fight to keep low wage, low skill manufacturing jobs in the US (most light industry jobs). The goal is to continue improving the standard of living for US workers, not keep them bottled up in the '50s.

[whateverdude]

But, but our service sector will take up the slack......fail

 

But, but out brain power and innervation will create new jobs.......fail in the classroom.

[DrFishfinder]

The answer is (ta da): it's cheaper to make stuff in other countries and import them here. That answer includes cheaper labor, less environmental restrictions, import-friendly and export-unfriendly laws, etc.

Correcto-mundo. Cheaper labor is a given. Other countries are unlikely to play by the same environmental rules that the US does, unless they are forced to.

A)Who is going to force them?

B)What is the "Or Else What?" clause. (abide by the rules, "Or Else XYZ.")

 

In my business, products from overseas are a fraction of the cost of whatever US made products are still available AND are so comparable in quality and functionality that the cost differential is absurd.