Manufacturing declining, no hope for the future

[BostonPirate]

This discussion is deviating on tangents and focusing on a smaller part of a whole.

People often only associate power and wealth by what they can touch or see.

Such explains the movement to return to specie currency, which would be an utter disaster because not all that is wealth can be felt or seen.

I agree with that. Money and metals are no longer interchangeable for monetary values. Fiat currency is well.... valued at what the gov't decrees. That dovetails into the issues with Quantitative easing.. three rounds so far. It's also the problem we have with Chinese currency.

However, the value is set by a gov't, and the most important reason being is a means to raise revenue from the population in an even and equitable way.

I do agree that the use of precious metals as money is a thing of the past. There is not enough metal to go around for all the trade that occurs.

 

[Laufey]

I think it has something to do with stocks, printing money and the banks. Those combined manage to create a bubble far bigger than the actual economy. All of these fields somehow make money out of nothing.

I'm no expert though but this is how I see it. Wish I would have more detailed knowledge but I don't.

I'm always eager to learn more though so please share your thoughts on this.

 

[Kulindahr]

Industry Week, Policy Archive, and a number of others agree that manufacturing is the basis of any economy -- although the latter makes a good case that agriculture counts as well, because it is producing goods, and housing, because it is an "on location" form of manufacturing. It seems to me that all forms of construction have to be counted if housing is, so there's another chunk of the economy to add in. I don't know what portion of the US economy those together make, but it seems to me it has to be substantial. Nor do I know what the parameters are of what counts as manufacturing -- does crushing rock count? what about composting sewage? recycling cardboard and yard waste to make topsoil? Those are all instances of making something useful out of raw materials, but are they included?

Anyone know what the definition is, and what it includes?

 

[DonQuixote]

JockBoy,
I think we have a semantics issue - I may "broad brush" the term manufacturing more than you do.

To me, anything physically produced for use/consumption - more than simply cooked and served up, is part of manufacturing - including Construction - it, like BIG Ship building, is manufacturing of a quantity of one.
No, it's not Hardlines, Autos, electronics, softlines, but it is a tangible, physically produced product.

 

[maxpowr9]

Benvolio sure knows how to derail a thread. If he wants to start a union bashing thread, he can start a topic on his own.

Anyways, I have an online friend that works at Lockheed Martin as an aerospace engineer. Sure he reluctantly admits that he hopes the military complex in the US doesn't die (that would mean he would lose his job) but as long as it doesn't, he will always have a job. Those "ultra-tech" [cause "hi-tech" isn't sophisticated enough] jobs are quite secure too but go unfulfilled due to the high specialized requirements.

Agriculture gets its own section of employment/economy but it technically falls under the umbrella term of manufacturing as it is a good being shipped to market. However, the reason agriculture doesn't get lumped into manufacturing is that it misses out on one part: food is not a durable good.

 

[Kulindahr]

JockBoy,
I think we have a semantics issue - I may "broad brush" the term manufacturing more than you do.

To me, anything physically produced for use/consumption - more than simply cooked and served up, is part of manufacturing - including Construction - it, like BIG Ship building, is manufacturing of a quantity of one.
No, it's not Hardlines, Autos, electronics, softlines, but it is a tangible, physically produced product.

That's what I was driving at above. I'd call crushing rock to make gravel manufacturing.

 

[DonQuixote]

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was interesting last night - touched on Unions -
Wal-Mart, Hostess.

Then, the guests of the night was this no name guy who thinks he's an expert on the economy and tax rates.
What does he know - he's lived in the same house in Omaha that he bought when he got married over 46 years ago.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-november-27-2012-warren-buffett---carol-loomis

 

[Benvolio]

Benvolio sure knows how to derail a thread. If he wants to start a union bashing thread, he can start a topic on his own.

Anyways, I have an online friend that works at Lockheed Martin as an aerospace engineer. Sure he reluctantly admits that he hopes the military complex in the US doesn't die (that would mean he would lose his job) but as long as it doesn't, he will always have a job. Those "ultra-tech" [cause "hi-tech" isn't sophisticated enough] jobs are quite secure too but go unfulfilled due to the high specialized requirements.

Agriculture gets its own section of employment/economy but it technically falls under the umbrella term of manufacturing as it is a good being shipped to market. However, the reason agriculture doesn't get lumped into manufacturing is that it misses out on one part: food is not a durable good.

You want to discuss the decline in manufacturing without discussing unions? What else would you talk about? Excessive government regulation? Or is that also derailing? I think you want to control the direction and content of the discussion by labeling positions you disagree with as "derailing".

 

[Benvolio]

When it comes to unions, conservatives and water cooler Joes NEVER see it as: hey, how come we all aren't getting decent benefits from our employers. They see it as: hey, how come UNION people are getting benefits and I'm not?! And then, lazily, somehow the conclusion is drawn that the union people are getting it out of everyone else's pocket somehow, or at the expense of their benefits, even when one has nothing to do with the other.

Out here in CA when there was the chain of grocery store strikes several years back, I couldn't tell you how many times I heard people say things like "why should THEY get that? I have to pay xx $$ for MY health insurance at work!" As if what Albertsons was paying its stockers and cashiers somehow in any way took from the pot that Northrop or (insert other employer) employees were getting.

What you are missing is that union workers get paid more than they would in a competitive market, and they get it at the expense of consumers. If the two manufacturers of "widgets" get together and agree upon the price they will charge, rather than competing on price, the consumers end up paying more for the things than they would in a market where the manufacturers competed. Unions have exactly the same purpose and effect.

 

[Kulindahr]

You want to discuss the decline in manufacturing without discussing unions? What else would you talk about? Excessive government regulation? Or is that also derailing? I think you want to control the direction and content of the discussion by labeling positions you disagree with as "derailing".

I'm not even sure China has unions.

Anyone?

 

[Kulindahr]

What you are missing is that union workers get paid more than they would in a competitive market, and they get it at the expense of consumers. If the two manufacturers of "widgets" get together and agree upon the price they will charge, rather than competing on price, the consumers end up paying more for the things than they would in a market where the manufacturers competed. Unions have exactly the same purpose and effect.

Your parallel fails: corporations are already an amalgamation of individuals agreeing to do things a certain way. For your comparison to be valid, there would be no corporations, only individuals manufacturing widgets by themselves.

Now, to go back to the original topic -- do you have any evidence that unions have played a part in the severe loss of manufacturing jobs in China?

 

[xbuzzerx]

What you are missing is that union workers get paid more than they would in a competitive market, and they get it at the expense of consumers. If the two manufacturers of "widgets" get together and agree upon the price they will charge, rather than competing on price, the consumers end up paying more for the things than they would in a market where the manufacturers competed. Unions have exactly the same purpose and effect.

Unions are virtually dead and have been rare for decades and the outsourcing continues so you'll have to dig up something more relevant to the last 30 years if you want to defend global economic outsourcing by U.S. companies.

 

[Benvolio]

Unions are virtually dead and have been rare for decades and the outsourcing continues so you'll have to dig up something more relevant to the last 30 years if you want to defend global economic outsourcing by U.S. companies.

Outscourcing is not the only effect. More important is the decline in US manufacturing from foreign competition. The decline in unions resuls from the decline and death of their victims, the unionized businesses.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Outscourcing is not the only effect. More important is the decline in US manufacturing from foreign competition. The decline in unions resuls from the decline and death of their victims, the unionized businesses.

Hey Benvolio-- do you know that some of that competition comes from countries that have nationalized healthcare, so that their workers don't have to unionize and collectively bargain to get their employer to help cover healthcare?

Maybe you should look a little deeper before you assign scapegoats.

 

[DonQuixote]

China is a Communist country, trying to maintain Communism while catering to Capitalists.
The only Union they have is the Army threat to squash them if they fight back against shitty work conditions, growing pollution, etc.

Yes, that's a gross overstatement, but it's probably conservative compared to the only barely relevant comments made by some.

Meanwhile, here's some information on how the US Industry is viewing our current situation.

http://www.mmh.com/article/mapi_eco...cliff_compromi?utm_source=TWIM&utm_medium=NLT
MAPI Economic Forecast: Moderate growth likely pending fiscal cliff compromise
Forecast predicts GDP growth of 1.8% in 2013, 2.8% in 2014, and 3.3% in 2015.
Read What's Related
MAPI comments on durable goods report
Commerce, NRF report annual gains in October retail sales
ELFA’s monthly leasing and finance index shows new business volume up, confidence down
ISM reports continued growth in manufacturing in October
Robots prove their mettle in the warehouse
Manufacturing Skill Standards Council modules to equal college credit

By Modern Materials Handling Staff
November 28, 2012

Major issues still need to be addressed, but presuming the United States gets its fiscal house in some semblance of order, the U.S. economy could be in a transition from sluggish growth to a longer period of moderate growth, according to a new report.

[Quote truncated by moderator] © Copyright 2012 Peerless Media LLC, a division of EH Publishing, Inc

 

[JayHawk]

That is what has been predicted since the collapse ... a recovery between 2014 and 2016. Republicans knew it and figured they could obstruct, blame it on Obama and not have to do much work to regain control and dump money from America into rich off shore bank accounts and the out of control military industrial complex.

We will be chugging along just fine. I hope Obama has no second term curse or it is another contrived situation republicans use to embarrass themselves more than convince america they are worth voting for in 2016. That will result in a Hillary 2016 and Hillary 2020....

 

[bankside]

I'm not even sure China has independent unions free to take positions on issues without obtaining government authorisation first.

Anyone?

I took the liberty of refining your question a bit.

 

[Kulindahr]

I took the liberty of refining your question a bit.

Good amendments.

 

[Benvolio]

That is what has been predicted since the collapse ... a recovery between 2014 and 2016. Republicans knew it and figured they could obstruct, blame it on Obama and not have to do much work to regain control and dump money from America into rich off shore bank accounts and the out of control military industrial complex.

We will be chugging along just fine. I hope Obama has no second term curse or it is another contrived situation republicans use to embarrass themselves more than convince america they are worth voting for in 2016. That will result in a Hillary 2016 and Hillary 2020....

Notice the prediction is predicated upon the US getting its fiscal house in order. THAT is what the Republicans have been working for. Obama's plan to soak the rich and continue to spend a trillion a year deficit ad infinitum does not qualify as getting our fiscal house in order.

 

[Kulindahr]

Notice the prediction is predicated upon the US getting its fiscal house in order. THAT is what the Republicans have been working for. Obama's plan to soak the rich and continue to spend a trillion a year deficit ad infinitum does not qualify as getting our fiscal house in order.

This is so divorced from reality it's beyond lu8dicrous.

All it takes is reading the independent examinations of policies to show that what the Republicans have really been working for is total economic disaster -- that's what the Ryan Plan would have given us -- a job drop of over four million in just the first two years of its implementation. And they've been fighting furiously to keep the deficit high by refusing to let the Bush cuts expire as they were supposed to.

The continued lie that Obama plans to "soak the rich" doesn't fly, never did. Obama's idea of taxes for the rich is LESS THAT RONALD REAGAN'S. Do you get that? Either Ronald Reagan was a rich-hating socialist, or the whole GOP is willingly and knowingly lying about tax rates.

Of course the problem is that there aren't any conservatives in the GOP any more. Conservatives know that if you have a debt to pay, you do everything possible to pay it. Eisenhower knew that, which is why he had very patriotic taxes rates with 90% on the upper bracket. Even Gerald Ford knew that when he got the top rate jacked up over 37% -- Nixon, starting a good solid Republican tradition of borrow-and-kill, had been funding the Vietnam War with IOUs; Ford, much more a conservative, believed that you should pay for things if you're going to do them.

The icing on the cake is that Republicans killed bills that would have reduced regulations on small businesses and generated five million jobs in just two years. So in reality, Boehner and company have been fighting for regulations and against jobs.

Maybe when the GOP becomes an honest party again instead of a batch of liars, they'll deserve to sit at the table.