151–160 of 235 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So while it's understandable the state of manufacturing is of concern to presidential candidates, those who say they can bring back lost jobs in the sector either don't know what they are talking about, or are being disingenuous. Or both, in case of the current president-elect.
How can you be disingenuous if you don't know what you're talking about?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe most countries import massive amounts of food, including the U.S. It's much more efficient: Let those who can produce the food most efficiently do that, and you produce whatever you do most efficiently, then you trade. It's called 'comparative advantage' in economics. Trade is necessary for the wealth of modern economies. Self-sufficiency is North Korea's approach.
The US is most definitely a net food exporter and it has been that way for a long time. "U.S. agricultural exports have been larger than U.S. agricultural imports since 1960, generating a surplus in U.S. agricultural trade." https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/international-markets-trade/...
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/international-markets-trade/...
Net imports is a different question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1500 jobs + the peripheral jobs (as a another commentator pointed out) could be a boon for many of the small counties* in which these plants are located. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Toyota_manufacturing_f...
It won't be 1500 forever. Automation hasn't stopped, or slowed, it just keeps increasing And a lot of those peripheral jobs being talked about are also in line to be automated away.
I haven't been myself but my wife is a process engineer and had to go to China to install and train people on a new machine so this is only second hand... But one of the reasons China is so good at manufacturing is because everything is in one place (or at least clusters)... need 10,000 of an Integrated Circuit? The company that makes it is literally down the street. Need some raw materials? That's down the other str…
> Although I hope it is true. I don't know if being a manufacturing powerhouse is actually all that exciting anymore. There aren't really that many jobs in manufacturing anymore. Some of Toyota's modern car plants employ a meager 1500 people which is about and order of magnitude decrease from what car plants used to employ. This las election was frustrating for this very reason everybody assumes getting manufacturing…
"It's natural to look at the phenomenon of declining manufacturing employment as a political failure that can be rectified. But the fact that China has lost more manufacturing jobs than the U.S. over the past 20 years is a strong indication that playing hardball with the Chinese isn't going to do anything to increase employment in the United States. Rather than a political failure, the decline of manufacturing employment is a natural economic process that many industries, like agriculture, have gone through in past eras. As sectors become better at what they do, they often require fewer people to get the work done."
Additionally, manufacturing is often an environmentally unfriendly process, so there are going to be some big added costs for the government and an increase in the importance of adequate regulation and enforcement. Given that the majority of the added revenue these manufacturers will generate is going to go into companies and individuals that are, on average, very good at hiding profits, the IRS is going to have to be very sharp indeed if the U.S. is to actually benefit from this. It's not going to be like it was in the seventies when a much higher share of gross revenue went to unionized workers who dutifully paid their taxes in full.
On the bright side, more Americans are going to find out what living next to a modern chip fab plant is like. This may cause them to actually reduce the frequency with which they buy new phones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is why salary as a percentage of GDP is at an all time low.
That's a dramatic exaggeration. It's at a low post 1960s (an era which produced a temporary fake high because the rest of the developed world had been blown up, so the US took over half of all global manufacturing, a boon for working-class wages). Go take a look at what labor pulled in per hour in 1890.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but since China is the manufacturing hub for so much of the world, its local surrounding galaxy of expertise, supply chain, and related resources will exceed the size of such a galaxy built only in the US — especially if the US efforts are by dint of tariffs and related policies, and not economics.
The US was a larger manufacturing nation than China as recently as five years ago. Cutting the US corporate income tax rate nearly in half and lightening economic regulations, will do wonders for boosting US manufacturing. Given China's $3.x trillion in manufacturing is heavily tilted toward low cost, low value manufacturing, it's not going to be surprising to see their global share of manufacturing shrink in the nex…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vehicles are a consumable, not an investment. Land is generally not, because most uses increase its value.
Yes, but I'm talking about housing rather than land. Most housing suffers from use and age. (Note where I conceded the point about some land having value due to location or such)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It won't be 1500 forever. Automation hasn't stopped, or slowed, it just keeps increasing And a lot of those peripheral jobs being talked about are also in line to be automated away.
The biggest cost gains have probably been realized, especially given the reduction in long term obligations (pension, healthcare, weakened union position). I could see another round or two of automation, but at some point it's not worth investing in.