231–240 of 265 posts
"For every $1.00 spent in manufacturing, another $1.81 is added to the economy. That is the highest multiplier effect of any economic sector. In addition, for every one worker in manufacturing, there are another four employees hired elsewhere. (Source: NAM calculations using IMPLAN.) - See more at: http://www.nam.org/Newsroom/Top-20-Facts-About-Manufacturing...
http://www.nam.org/Newsroom/Top-20-Facts-About-Manufacturing...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then again, software is one of the few industries where you can do quite well without a formal degree or license. This makes it unusually open to the uncredentialed, if not the unskilled.
Define "unskilled". I would say that even if software developer does not have a degree he or she still needs to be quite smart. Now imagine typical blue collar worker having IQ below 100, who dropped from high school (as they often do) learning advanced technical concepts like network protocols, dozen of JS frameworks, not to mention higher order functions and macros. That's the issue with technical advancements: the…
Agreed. That's what I meant by "if not the unskilled"
From an earlier comment, but this is why: "For every $1.00 spent in manufacturing, another $1.81 is added to the economy. That is the highest multiplier effect of any economic sector. In addition, for every one worker in manufacturing, there are another four employees hired elsewhere. (Source: NAM calculations using IMPLAN.) - See more at: http://www.nam.org/Newsroom/Top-20-Facts-About-Manufacturing... http://www.nam…
And if that's the case, would we still get the 81 cents in additional value if, due to global competition, we were able to import those same goods at 50 cents?
Or am I overthinking this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, the macroeconomic benefits of manufacturing don't necessarily require people to be employed in manufacturing, do they? "Macroeconomic benefits" as usually measured by aggregate output measures, clearly not. Distributional benefits, OTOH... well, not a strong requirement. But... > As long as some of this wealth is captured for the people, then standard of living can increase. The challenge is establishing t…
That resistance is strong, but not universally or globally. It's not the kind of social innovation likely to come from America. But that doesn't mean it's a doomed prospect at the outset.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very much a common reality among working-class families of nearly any ethnic background in the USA. I have plenty of friends and some non-intermediate family members that have reported that their friends and family actively discouraged continuing their education after highschool for one reason or another. In some cases, reasons like "you'll earn more working an honest trade", and "college debt is a scam" are giv…
My anecdotes are the opposite. Usually the parents had a job they hated (manufacturing or service sector), and encouraged their kids to attend college.
My roommate hired him to refinish his deck (He owns the house), and every time my father showed up for work and I was working from home, he was thrilled.
My mother is barely literate, never really attended high school. She always read to me, encouraged me to read, and always made money available to buy books. The only things she cared about was me taking education seriously and not saddling myself down with kids too young (which might have backfired because neither I, or my brothers, have any interest in having children, which makes her sad).
I guess I'm just saying: Have another anecdote to add to your collection. But I'd also say, don't think the GP is wrong. Both attitudes exist obviously.
Last week's NYT article on free trade was pretty good: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/business/economy/more-weal... This is the bottom line on American manufacturing: > From 2000 to 2010, the United States lost some 5.6 million manufacturing jobs, by the government’s calculation. Only 13 percent of those job losses can be explained by trade, according to an analysis by the Center for Business and Economic Research…
>However, I suspect that most politicians who talk about a manufacturing revival understand that it won't really happen. The thought that maybe some of them don't understand that is what scares me the most.
Last week's NYT article on free trade was pretty good: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/business/economy/more-weal... This is the bottom line on American manufacturing: > From 2000 to 2010, the United States lost some 5.6 million manufacturing jobs, by the government’s calculation. Only 13 percent of those job losses can be explained by trade, according to an analysis by the Center for Business and Economic Research…
That study is bullshit. It's probably more the opposite - ~15% job losses caused by automation and 85% caused by trade policy. You only have to look at their opinions on "right to work" laws to see whose side they're batting for (not employees). Automation is simply being used as a scapegoat and a political justification for keeping trade policies that export jobs in place. >Manufacturing has a powerful political res…
You need to back up statements like this. Contradicting actual evidence with figures pulled from your ass isn't going to fly here.
> Why Are Politicians So Obsessed with Manufacturing? Because when the shit comes to shove and the global economy takes a nosedive or your previous friendly third world manufactures give you the finger, having a "service industry" is worth nothing, but being able to produce the actual shit your businesses design and sell/export, matters. Of course for the US this might be less so, because they can always force, by di…
But the article even points out that these jobs are not being moved overseas, they are being automated away. Thus, it will be an American manufacture giving you the finger.
> but being able to produce the actual shit your businesses design and sell/export, matters.
Good thing we are producing more "shit" than ever before in history.
> From an economic perspective, however, there can be no revival of American manufacturing, because there has been no collapse. Because of automation, there are far fewer jobs in factories. But the value of stuff made in America reached a record high in the first quarter of 2016, even after adjusting for inflation. The present moment, in other words, is the most productive in the nation’s history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Manufacturing also provides jobs for both high and low skill workers. As such can be seen as more valuable to a community than say, a software company that only hires engineers and a CS center in a different state. Manufacturing was one of the best roads for a low skill worker to earn good money and move up the rung economically - something that only seems to be getting harder as time goes on.
I've seen many people work their way up within IT from help desk to sysadmin to ops to management to CIO. Some successfully transition into development. Manufacturing doesn't have the monopoly on on-the-job skill-driven mobility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may seem to be getting harder, but in reality it's not. Rank based measures of mobility are stable. Since income inequality is up, absolute mobility has also increased. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/chettyetalAERPP2014.pdf
No, the result of increased wealth inequality, even if you maintained the same level of social mobility, will worsen not improve situation. The description of a rise in absolute mobility would be a misunderstanding of the issue. If that is too theoretic, consider the analogy of a lottery where one group of children win automatically and an other group has say a 10% chance of winning during their life. Increasing the…
Yes. If I had a 1% chance of being the CEO and having my income go from $100k to $1M, my expected payoff was $900k x 1% = $9k. If my income stays at $100k but the CEO income goes to $10M, and my odds of being the CEO stay at 1%, my expected payoff is $9.9M x 1% = 99k.
My situation has not been worsened and has a possibility of being improved.
You seem to think it somehow makes me worse off if my CEO makes more money. Can you explain? Note that I'm not a person prone to envy.