1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'll be nice. Just because it's raining. But really, you gotta stop calling me a liar.
"In decline" doesn't mean we're still not at or near the top. You're talking about trends and predictions. I want the data you're using to calculate these trends.
Article published Apr 22, 2007
Unbuilding a future: 3.2m manufacturing jobs gone since ’00
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Three weeks ago, Dawn Zimmer became a statistic.
Laid off from her job assembling trucks at Freightliner’s plant in Portland, Ore., she and 800 of her colleagues joined a long line of U.S. manufacturing workers who have lost jobs in recent years. A total of 3.2 million – one in six factory jobs – have disappeared since the start of 2000.
Many people believe those jobs will never come back.
“They are building a multimillion-dollar plant in Mexico and they are going to build the Freightliners down there. They came in and videotaped us at work so they could train the Mexican workers,” said Zimmer, 55, who had worked at Freightliner since 1994.
That’s the issue for American workers. Many of their jobs are moving overseas, to Mexico and China and elsewhere.
Just ask Tom Riegel.
He worked for 27 years making Pennsylvania House furniture at a factory in Lewisburg, Pa., until the plant shut down in December 2004. The production was moved to a plant in China, which kept making the furniture under the Pennsylvania House label for shipment back to the United States.
Rigel, 48, who has had health problems, hasn’t worked since he lost his job running a molding machine. He says his prospects aren’t good given the number of other furniture plants in the area that have suffered layoffs.
“It started with just a few pieces of furniture made in China. Then it snowballed,” he said. “Manufacturing was built on the back of the American worker and then boom – one day your job is gone.”
Even though manufacturing jobs have been declining, the country is enjoying the lowest average unemployment rates of the past four decades. The reason: the growth in the service industries – everything from hotel chambermaids to skilled heart surgeons.
Eighty-four percent of Americans in the labor force are employed in service jobs, up from 81 percent in 2000. The sector has added 8.78 million jobs since the beginning of 2000.
Although these workers have been largely sheltered from the global forces that have hit manufacturing, that could change as satellites and fiber optic cable drive down the cost of long-distance communication. Today it is call centers in India and the Philippines but tomorrow many more U.S. jobs could move off shore.
Some economists say the United States is experiencing a normal economic evolution from farms to factories and now to service jobs.
“Every advanced economy has seen its employment in agriculture and manufacturing decline relative to services, and America is no exception,” said Daniel Griswold, an economist at the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank.
But others note that the loss in manufacturing jobs has been accelerating in recent years as the trade deficit has grown and America imports more and more products that used to be made here.
“It is pretty crystal clear to our members that when their plant closes down, they know where their jobs are going,” said Thea Lee, policy director at the AFL-CIO.
Princeton economist Alan Blinder, who was vice chairman of the Federal Reserve during the Clinton administration, says the number of jobs at risk of being shipped out of the country could reach 40 million over the next 10 to 20 years. That would be one out of every three service sector jobs that could be at risk.
Those lost manufacturing jobs are fueling an intense debate over globalization – the increasing connection of the United States and other economies.
That debate will play out in Congress over the coming months as the Bush administration tries to muster the votes needed to pursue its free-trade policies.
Opponents will seek increased protections for American workers against unfair trade practices and push such proposals as wage insurance and better job training for the victims of globalization.
Democrats, who took control of both the House and Senate in last year’s elections, believe up to one-third of those lost manufacturing jobs are the direct result of America’s soaring trade deficits, which have hit new records for five straight years.
Last year’s deficit was $765.3 billion – that is, the U.S. imported $765.3 billion more in goods and services than it exported. The imbalance with China hit an all-time high for a single country at $232.5 billion.
In 1943 and 1944, with factories working overtime to build the ships, tanks and planes needed to fight World War II, manufacturing accounted for four out of 10 jobs in the U.S. That was the peak; manufacturing has been declining ever since. Manufacturing now accounts for one job in 10 in the nonfarm work force.
Over the past 16 years, manufacturing has declined as a percentage of the work force in 48 of the 50 states. Nevada’s percentage stayed the same and only North Dakota saw an increase.
The declines have been particularly painful in the industrial Midwest and rural South, which have been battered by competition from China.
“China has just exploded on the global scene since 2002. Every economy on the planet has lost jobs to China,” says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, an economic forecasting company.
A Moody’s analysis found 16 percent of the nation’s 379 metropolitan areas are in recession, reflecting primarily the troubles in manufacturing. There have been heavy job losses in a variety of industries from textiles and apparel to paper and furniture.
Critics contend China uses a variety of unfair trade practices from widespread copyright piracy of American products to keeping its currency undervalued by as much as 40 percent to make Chinese goods cheaper in comparison with U.S. products.
On April 9, the Bush administration, responding to growing political pressure, announced the latest in a string of tough actions against China. It filed trade cases with the World Trade Organization accusing China of erecting unfair barriers to the sale of U.S.-made movies, music and books and rampant copyright piracy.
But Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and other Bush administration officials argue that despite the yawning U.S.-China trade gap, President Bush’s free trade policies are paying off in new markets that have helped U.S. exports boom.
While manufacturing jobs have declined, manufacturing output has been rising. The difference is increased productivity, which means it takes fewer workers to make more goods.
“We are evolving to a point that we are manufacturing things that are not easy to manufacture. That require skills. We believe that is our future. And those are the manufacturing jobs that pay the most,” Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said in an interview.
High-tech industries, where the U.S. is still seen as having the edge, include pharmaceuticals, medical devices and airplanes.
But even high-tech industries are facing pressure from imports. The U.S. Business and Industry Council, which represents small- and medium-sized manufacturing companies, found that between 1997 and 2005, 110 of the 114 U.S. industries it studied had lost ground to imports in the U.S. market. That was the case even in such sectors as computers and telecommunications hardware.
Just the threat of moving high-paying white collar jobs such as computer programmers and graphic designers offshore will likely add to pressures on Congress to erect barriers to global competition, which many economists believe would do more damage than good.
“It is easy to see this turning into some kind of protectionist force which would be harmful,” Blinder said in an interview. “We need to turn the debate in a constructive direction – how do you prepare the work force of the future and compensate the losers?”
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070422/BUSINESS/204220363/-1/XML07
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessAustralia experienced its evolution at the beginning of the 80's as the political mantra of the leveling playing field meant that within 10 years after having dismantled our tariff wall that had protected Australia's local manufacturing industries against goods produced cheaply on the sub continent and s.e. asia we saw our manufacturing industries decimated by the rise of our northern neighbor China.
Some economists say the United States is experiencing a normal economic evolution from farms to factories and now to service jobs.
Democrats, who took control of both the House and Senate in last year’s elections, believe up to one-third of those lost manufacturing jobs are the direct result of America’s soaring trade deficits, which have hit new records for five straight years.
It seems America is now catching up to the pain we endured during the 90's when interest rates went double digit, a lot of the working/ middle classes had to give up their dream of owning their own home and the greatest growth industry that was being actively promoted was tourism. This amongst other financial manoeuvrings gave rise to a famous comment by the nations Prime Minister calling us a banana republic.
Luckily for us we had our medicine when we did because now that China is really ramping up, their need for our resources plus an agile economy that can be configured to damp out external cycles very effectively has put us in a position where the economic fate of our nation is no longer in the hands of just one powerful friend or relationship. This means we can weather finacial crises a lot better than most. Having a minuscule economy relative to the size of the US does of course help, but the small size could also have proved an extreme liability if we had gotten our analysis of all the trends wrong and we would have been swamped by the economic activity that has been steadily increasing in China.
If this trend of heavy trading deficits have now become the norm, then if Australia's experience is anything to go by then you have a devalued currency to still look forward to as this seems one way to guarantee foreigners coming to your shores as tourists and capitalising on your growing services industries.
Unfortunately it will also spell the death knell of America's place in the world, because if that strategy is seen as the only short to medium term way out of your current financial free-fall and credit crises, then what devaluing your dollar will do is not only make you an attractive destination, it will also make your exports cheaper for the world to afford, it will make foreign goods/imports more expensive which will be great for shoring up some of your stronger local industries, but the one great downside is that your overall debt will increase purely as a function of your dollar being worth less. As they say --> TAANSTAFL.
Originally posted by CliffLandinsame old Clinton bullwash ...
Nice, the classic "if you don't like it then leave". Don't you think it would be better for him to try and effect change than just up and leaving? Sam, I'm guessing you are from Texas, aren't you? I wish I could have seen you during the Clinton era, so I could have said, "If you don't like it, then leave. Go someplace where they don't have economic stability and governmental surplus of cash."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble#Thinning_the_herd
Thinning the herd
The technology-heavy NASDAQ Composite index peaked at 5,048 in March 2000, reflecting the high point of the dot-com bubble.Over 1999 and early 2000, the Federal Reserve had increased interest rates six times, and the runaway economy was beginning to lose speed. The dot-com bubble burst, numerically, on March 10, 2000, when the technology heavy NASDAQ Composite index[6] peaked at 5,048.62 (intra-day peak 5,132.52), more than double its value just a year before. The NASDAQ fell slightly after that, but this was attributed to correction by most market analysts; the actual reversal and subsequent bear market may have been triggered by the adverse findings of fact in the United States v. Microsoft case which was being heard in federal court. The findings, which declared Microsoft a monopoly, were widely expected in the weeks before their release on April 3.
One possible cause for the collapse of the NASDAQ (and all dotcoms) were massive, multi-billion dollar sell orders for major bellwether high tech stocks (Cisco, IBM, Dell, etc.) that happened by chance to be processed simultaneously on the Monday morning following the March 10 weekend. This selling resulted in the NASDAQ opening roughly four percentage points lower on Monday March 13 from 5,038 to 4,879—the greatest percentage 'pre-market' selloff for the entire year.
The massive initial batch of sell orders processed on Monday, March 13 triggered a chain reaction of selling that fed on itself as investors, funds, and institutions liquidated positions. In just three days the NASDAQ had lost nearly nine percent, falling from roughly 5,050 on March 10 to 4,580 on March 15.
Another reason may have been accelerated business spending in preparation for the Y2K switchover. Once New Year had passed without incident, businesses found themselves with all the equipment they needed for some time, and business spending quickly declined. This correlates quite closely to the peak of U.S. stock markets. The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000 (closed at 11,722.98, with an intra-day peak of 11,750.28 and theoretical[7] peak of 11,908.50)[8] and the broader S&P 500 on March 24, 2000 (closed at 1,527.46, with an intra-day peak of 1,553.11);[9] while, even more dramatically the UK's FTSE 100 Index peaked at 6,950.60 on the last day of trading in 1999 (December 30). Hiring freezes, layoffs, and consolidations followed in several industries, especially in the dot-com sector.
The bursting of the bubble may also have been related to the poor results of Internet retailers following the 1999 Christmas season. This was the first unequivocal and public evidence that the "Get Big Fast" Internet strategy was flawed for most companies. These retailers' results were made public in March when annual and quarterly reports of public firms were released.
By 2001 the bubble was deflating at full speed. A majority of the dot-coms ceased trading after burning through their venture capital, many having never made a net profit. Investors often jokingly referred to these failed dot-coms as either "dot-bombs" or "dot-compost".
Originally posted by AThousandYounghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Economy#Imports_and_exports
One of my 8th grade students told me this. I told him he was wrong. I said we make the advanced items, and we let other countries do the simple manufacturing of consumer goods because we've moved on to the advanced stuff. I said we make computers...umm....weapons...
What else do we make in the USA?
Scientific devices like gas chromatographs maybe?
The United States is the most significant nation in the world when it comes to international trade. For decades, it has led the world in imports while simultaneously remaining as one of the top three exporters of the world.
As the major epicenter of world trade, the United States enjoys leverage that many other nations do not. For one, since it is the world's leading consumer, it is the number one customer of companies all around the world. Many businesses compete for a share of the United States market. In addition, the United States occasionally uses its economic leverage to impose economic sanctions in different regions of the world. USA is the top export market for almost 60 trading nations worldwide.
Since it is the world's leading importer, there are many U.S. dollars in circulation all around the planet. The stable U.S. economy and fairly sound monetary policy has led to faith in the U.S. dollar as the world's most stable currency.
In order to fund the national debt (also known as public debt), the United States relies on selling U.S. treasury bonds to people both inside and outside the country, and in recent times the latter have become increasingly important. Much of the money generated for the treasury bonds came from U.S. dollars which were used to purchase imports in the United States.
Originally posted by zeeblebot"By 2001 the bubble was deflating at full speed. "
same old Clinton bullwash ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble#Thinning_the_herd
Thinning the herd
The technology-heavy NASDAQ Composite index peaked at 5,048 in March 2000, reflecting the high point of the dot-com bubble.Over 1999 and early 2000, the Federal Reserve had increased interest rates six times, and the runaway economy was b ...[text shortened]... ten jokingly referred to these failed dot-coms as either "dot-bombs" or "dot-compost".
Bush took office on JANUARY 20, 2001. "By 2001" means on or before JANUARY 1, 2001.
Originally posted by uzlessPersonal tearjerker anecdotes, changes in numbers of jobs, how much money's invested in Mexico, more of the same, stats comparing US to the US at a different time...
I'll be nice. Just because it's raining. But really, you gotta stop calling me a liar.
Article published Apr 22, 2007
Unbuilding a future: 3.2m manufacturing jobs gone since ’00
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Three weeks ago, Dawn Zimmer became a statistic.
Laid off from her job assembling trucks at Freightliner’s ...[text shortened]... http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070422/BUSINESS/204220363/-1/XML07
Every advanced economy has seen its employment in agriculture and manufacturing decline relative to services
Agriculture is the #1 US export.
Politics, jobs, deficits, US compared to WWII US, discussion of how parts of the US are hit harder, more talk of job losses, more politics...
manufacturing output has been rising...“We are evolving to a point that we are manufacturing things that are not easy to manufacture. That require skills.
Skills like scientific education perhaps, because we manufacture advanced technology?
High-tech industries, where the U.S. is still seen as having the edge
More talk about jobs, compensating losers...
Not a terribly informative piece. The hard facts it did offer support my comments that the US exports high tech items that require an educated workforce to produce.
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotSO are you saying that concerns over y2k led many to be oversupplied with stock, the dot com boom bust and then a conservative government came in and changed the fundamentals in the economy offering relief to the big end of town which did nothing to reverse the slide. An already overheated economy was then further adrenalised by tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy so that instead of cooling things down a little Bush further drove demand sending the economy even further into the red. In some ways the shock of 911 was a godsend in that it allowed markets to rapidly correct, but because of the very real threat of danger everyone stood as one and shouldered the wheel without much complaint.
"By 2001 the bubble was deflating at full speed. "
Bush took office on JANUARY 20, 2001. "By 2001" means on or before JANUARY 1, 2001.
So then, 7 more years of Bush after 911, ran the economy even down further by not showing fiscal restraint and building up capacity within the economy, so that now we find the financial system riddled with so many holes, its as creaky as an old exhausted coal mine that has been mined to exhaustion, with every shored up floor that collapses setting up the potential for another floor to topple.
Originally posted by zeeblebotYeah, I know, I read it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Economy#Imports_and_exports
The United States is the most significant nation in the world when it comes to international trade. For decades, it has led the world in imports while simultaneously remaining as one of the top three exporters of the world.
As the major epicenter of world trade, the United States enjoys le ...[text shortened]... easury bonds came from U.S. dollars which were used to purchase imports in the United States.
So...we're significant. We lead the world, are one of the top three. We're a major epicenter and leading consumer. We are top export market for bla bla bla...
But WHAT GOODS ARE WE MANUFACTURING AND EXPORTING!?
Originally posted by uzlessI don't WANT to compare it over time. I want absolute values, not relative to another time, and I want to compare it with other countries - not the same country at another time!
that is just stats for 2006...it doesn't compare it over time. you do notice the service industry is no. 2 though. (stats over time will show this rising)
Originally posted by kmax87burble burble burble.
SO are you saying that concerns over y2k led many to be oversupplied with stock, the dot com boom bust and then a conservative government came in and changed the fundamentals in the economy offering relief to the big end of town which did nothing to reverse the slide. An already overheated economy was then further adrenalised by tax cuts for corporations and ...[text shortened]... with every shored up floor that collapses setting up the potential for another floor to topple.