No, Manufacturing jobs won't revive the economy

[OsO]

Thing is most of the economic profession does not agree with you, whether on the left or right. The only people who cling to this stuff are the fringe anti-international trade left and the Pat Buchanan types on the right. Manufacturing has been in great shape for quite some time now in terms of total output,but it is less dependent on labor not just in the United States but around the globe. The protectionism angle you are pushing is not going to solve the employment problems, people always want to get pissed off at international firms, workers, and trade when unemployment is high but enjoy low prices and new products when things are going well...espousing protectionist rhetoric is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction at this point in time.

i can find just as many professionals in economics that agree with my perspective. there are many debates within academic disciplines, so that's nothing new.

also, youre inferring that im stating manufacturing is a panacea, but im not. its just one of many things that needs to be corrected as any solution we put in place must be multi-faceted. of course education is an issue, of course government corruption is an issue, of course corporate greed is an issue... but that does not discount the fact outsourcing production to foreign countries is also an issue.

honestly i dont even know what there is to argue about. any product produced IN the united states BY an american is an additional benefit to our economy. whether that product sells domestically or internationally, it is a benefit to the american economy. thats a fact.

the actual manufacturing of the product-the act of taking a raw material and creating a finished product, is by far the most lucrative part of the production process. this is also a fact.

so if you outsource the most valuable part of the process, thats a bad thing. and right now we outsource a lot. we even outsource government functions lol... really absorb that. every job being outsourced to another country could be more of a benefit to us if the job were brought back to american soil.

im sure our manufacturing levels are high simply because we're the US and we're an economic powerhouse. but we are also outsourcing at a high level, which is not beneficial for our economy. and now its getting to the point where we are largely outsourcing technology production, which is really, really bad for our economic prospects. part of it is lack of education and not enough qualified americans to take jobs, the other part is the lax government regulations on corporations.

we outsource way too much, period. all those jobs we outsource could go one of the 20 million americans who need a job. this is elementary and all these are facts, so what are you really talking about.

 

[Serious]

Not sure if anyone posted this yet:

Of the 55 million openings, 24 million are projected to be new positions, with the balance coming from retirements of older workers. Among the fastest-growing sectors will be healthcare, community services, and science- and technology-related fields.

U.S. Economy To Add 55 Million New Jobs By 2020, But You'll Need a College Degree - At Work - WSJ

nearly half of the new jobs will require a background in science(health care / engineering )or finance...


@theworldismine13 how will this play out with the new immigration legislation...

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

i can find just as many professionals in economics that agree with my perspective.

Link 'em.

 

[ogc163]

i can find just as many professionals in economics that agree with my perspective. there are many debates within academic disciplines, so that's nothing new.

also, youre inferring that im stating manufacturing is a panacea, but im not. its just one of many things that needs to be corrected as any solution we put in place must be multi-faceted. of course education is an issue, of course government corruption is an issue, of course corporate greed is an issue... but that does not discount the fact outsourcing production to foreign countries is also an issue.

honestly i dont even know what there is to argue about. any product produced IN the united states BY an american is an additional benefit to our economy. whether that product sells domestically or internationally, it is a benefit to the american economy. thats a fact.

the actual manufacturing of the product-the act of taking a raw material and creating a finished product, is by far the most lucrative part of the production process. this is also a fact.

so if you outsource the most valuable part of the process, thats a bad thing. and right now we outsource a lot. we even outsource government functions lol... really absorb that. every job being outsourced to another country could be more of a benefit to us if the job were brought back to american soil.

im sure our manufacturing levels are high simply because we're the US and we're an economic powerhouse. but we are also outsourcing at a high level, which is not beneficial for our economy. and now its getting to the point where we are largely outsourcing technology production, which is really, really bad for our economic prospects. part of it is lack of education and not enough qualified americans to take jobs, the other part is the lax government regulations on corporations.

we outsource way too much, period. all those jobs we outsource could go one of the 20 million americans who need a job. this is elementary and all these are facts, so what are you really talking about.

No you cannot, economist who agree with you are a very small minority and yet you continue to act as if mercantilist/protectionism is a part of the mainstream discussion when that hasn't been the case for about a century now. Here is a survey of economist look at the first section "International Propositions" http://hercules.gcsu.edu/~cclark/Survey of Republicans, Democrats, and Economists.pdf

In terms of outsourcing that are several issues with what you are arguing...

1. Companies don't produce mainly with national gdp in mind, that is not what they care about. If they feel it makes financial sense to outsource then they will.

2. If you disallow American companies to outsource, what about foreign companies that set up shop here in the United States? Would you be ok if all international firms decided they would take your advice and only manufactured in their home countries?

3. Our output is high because American companies have become more efficient not because we are a "powerhouse".

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

@LeyeT seriously, why do you speak so stridently and self-assuredly about macroeconomics without studying it at all? Do you read any articles, journals, or blogs from any economists or tried to familiarize yourself with the major schools of economic thought at all?

You can't just try to intuit your way to conclusions about macroeconomics and think you have it all figured out. It's complex stuff.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

$10/hr would be decent if not for expensive housing and healthcare. If homes were ~$100K instead of $200K 2 people making $10/hr could get by. It wouldn't be glamorous but it would be manageable. The cost side of the equation is a huge part of the problem.

 

[OsO]

No you cannot, economist who agree with you are a very small minority and yet you continue to act as if mercantilist/protectionism is a part of the mainstream discussion when that hasn't been the case for about a century now.

i never said the bold.

ill try and be more clear: Manufacturing is an important part of ANY economy. manufacturing in this context meaning the production of all goods to sell.

Throughout recorded history, the ability of a country to produce goods to sell domestically and internationally has been correlated with economic success.

when we outsource a part of the production process to a foreign country, we also outsource the value created during that process.

but in our case the corporations have gone so ham even the foreign countries are getting pennies on the sales transactions compared to what the company CEOs are getting.

like i said before the only ones eating in our current scenario are the corporations, and of course our quasi-facist government who is largely made up of corporate shareholders, the same corporations they are supposed to be regulating.... nice

so outsourcing decreases a country's economic value, we agree on this principle yes? pretty straightforward.

now think about the wealth we are losing as a country due to all the outsourcing we do. i dont know the annual total number in dollars but im sure it's astronomical.

now combine that with the 20+ million people unemployed or underemployed currently in the united states, and we CLEARLY have a need for an increase in our production of goods, a la manufacturing and other forms of production. we are leaving a lot of money on the table and big business is exploiting the shyt out of that.

no credible economist would refute anything i just said. this is my argument and it's not really even my argument it's just common sense.

In terms of outsourcing that are several issues with what you are arguing...

1. Companies don't produce mainly with national gdp in mind, that is not what they care about. If they feel it makes financial sense to outsource then they will.

i dont blame companies for pursuing their bottom line, that's business and they're doing what they're supposed to do.

it's the lack of government regulation, and even pro-corporatist regulation that is the real issue, because it's specifically the governments job to stop shyt like this from happening.

2. If you disallow American companies to outsource, what about foreign companies that set up shop here in the United States? Would you be ok if all international firms decided they would take your advice and only manufactured in their home countries?

balance bro, balance. im not saying dont outsource anything because that's another extreme that is also no good. trading one extreme for another is no bueno.

as you stated we are a part of a global economy and so in that arena there must be some give and take because we certainly want to buy and sell to other countries.

but we need a better balance. we need to outsource more strategically and certainly bring some of these jobs back to put a dent in this unemployment.

and we certainly need to protect some sectors more than others. technology for one because thats the wave of right now and even moreso the wave of the future. we need to be EXTRA militant around our technology policies, but right now india and china is eating off us... buffet style.

3. Our output is high because American companies have become more efficient not because we are a "powerhouse".

some american companies have become more efficient, some have not. there's no benefit to generalizing. i'll try to stop generalizing as well.

 

[OsO]

$10/hr would be decent if not for expensive housing and healthcare. If homes were ~$100K instead of $200K 2 people making $10/hr could get by. It wouldn't be glamorous but it would be manageable. The cost side of the equation is a huge part of the problem.

we still have the 100k homes in a lot of places. two people making $10-$12 hour can do way better in the midwest than in manhattan feel me. there are literally millions of capable people who would jump for $10-$12 hour, and could live off it if they lived smart.

and that is infinitely better than the millions we currently have living in poverty.

saying no to manufacturing is saying no to the production of goods, which is saying no to jobs.

 

[King Poetic]

this country is done

$10 an hour and people have rent, car notes, college loans and other expenses.. then u'll have the government say u make to much get welfare

but these CEO'S like at my company get there 6 million dollar bonuses

 

[Serious]

this country is done

$10 an hour and people have rent, car notes, college loans and other expenses.. then u'll have the government say u make to much get welfare

but these CEO'S like at my company get there 6 million dollar bonuses

I mean to ignore the that fact that American CEO's are in incredibly overpaid compared to their international peers and people who worker under them is historical.

Yep it's preferably cool to forcing people to try and barely make ends meet off $10 an hour, through vigorious budgeting, meanwhile CEO's can get their ace hood on.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djE-BLrdDDc"]Ace Hood - Bugatti (Explicit) ft. Future, Rick Ross - YouTube[/ame]

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

I mean to ignore the that fact that American CEO's are in incredibly overpaid compared to their international peers and people who worker under them is historical.

Yep it's preferably cool to forcing people to try and barely make ends meet off $10 an hour, through vigorious budgeting, meanwhile CEO's can get their ace hood on.

Ace Hood - Bugatti (Explicit) ft. Future, Rick Ross - YouTube

If you redistributed CEO pay to the employees at many of these companies the employees would not be seeing huge pay bumps. A full time McDonalds cashier (which doesn't even exist but let's stay on topic) would get about $8,000 more a year... and still be eligible for things like food stamps and Medicare depending on how many people are in their household

Plus the one time pay bump wouldn't address the (red herring) issue of lower socioeconomic mobility everyone seems to be complaining about. Nor would, again, it address the myriad of skyrocketing basic needs costs people are facing. What good is 1 $8,000 raise when healthcare costs are growing at 10% annually indefinitely? nikkas need to stop looking at the next man's plate, CEO pay is far from any kind of priority in issues facing Americans... it's just a proxy for jealousy

 

[ogc163]

i never said the bold.

You are putting forward merchantilist/protectionist arguments littered with vague inputs about "balance" and then stated "i can find just as many economic professionals who agree with my perspective" and then I proceeded to link to a survey that shows that your views are shared with a tiny minority among economists.

when we outsource a part of the production process to a foreign country, we also outsource the value created during that process.

There is no inherent value in the production process of anything, the value comes from what/how much people on the market are willing to buy of a given product. You can build a 1000 new Super Nintendos in a factory in Iowa if they don't sell on the marketplace then the time and money used in the production process was a waste.

so outsourcing decreases a country's economic value, we agree on this principle yes? pretty straightforward.

No we do not agree on this, outsourcing is done across the globe and allows for countries to benefit from having expertise/comparative advantage in a variety of fields.

no credible economist would refute anything i just said. this is my argument and it's not really even my argument it's just common sense.

It is not common sense, it is man on the street outdated protectionist economics. Here is one economist who does not agree with you...

and we certainly need to protect some sectors more than others. technology for one because thats the wave of right now and even moreso the wave of the future. we need to be EXTRA militant around our technology policies, but right now india and china is eating off us... buffet style.

What is always interesting to me is that pro-protectionist want to rally against corporatism but then are eager to protect "some sectors" which often means leads to large domestic firms benefiting against less connected domestic/foreign medium and small sized firms. This whole nonsense about people eating off us was around 20 years ago but back then it was Japan and now look at them. They have been stuck in a rut for about two decades now and all of a sudden protectionist don't bring them up anymore.

some american companies have become more efficient, some have not. there's no benefit to generalizing. i'll try to stop generalizing as well.

I have provided links and surveys, you have not provided citations of any sort and yet you continue to talk about how your arguments are "common sense" and how " no credible economist would refute anything I just said". I would like to see what economist influence you...please just name a couple of them.

 

[Aufheben]

nikkas need to stop looking at the next man's plate, CEO pay is far from any kind of priority in issues facing Americans... it's just a proxy for jealousy

This is retarded. Nobody is suggesting redistributing CEO pay to workers. The extreme wealth inequality between executives and their workers is a very important issue to note when discussing the economics in America.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

This is retarded. Nobody is suggesting redistributing CEO pay to workers. The extreme wealth inequality between executives and their workers is a very important issue to note when discussing the economics in America.

If nobody is suggesting that then how come whenever worker pay is discussed CEO pay comes up

And income inequality is just one piece of wealth inequality... but people seem to think all there is to the issue is income inequality. Healthcare, housing, higher education costs are way more of an issue affecting wealth inequality than CEO pay, but somehow CEO pay comes up in these discussions first

There seems to be a disconnect between what you are saying and what actually is

 

[Aufheben]

If nobody is suggesting that then how come whenever worker pay is discussed CEO pay comes up

Because outrageous CEO pay is one of the most clear and obvious forms of the growing wealth inequality issues in America?

Bottom line, the increases in executive pay and decreases worker pay are well worth talking about in any discussion about America's economics.