Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not all manufacturing jobs vanished due to imports. Automation destroyed a lot of them as well.
While manufacturing outputs have soared since 1995, manufacturing jobs have declined since then in all of the world's twelve largest manufacturing economies. US losses have been about average for the group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55
How about laws against automatic pin setting in bowling and bringing back attended elevators?
Think of all the white-glove manufacturing jobs that were lost when we went to those new-fangled "self-service" elevators. So many people who cleaned and repaired those gloves went on UI benefits at the same time.
The same thing produced more cheaply is better by definition. ...
As for trade...
Both exports and imports support U.S. jobs. But many Americans believe that exports are good, imports are bad, the trade account is the scoreboard, the trade deficit means the United States is losing at trade, and it is losing because our trade partners cheat. Many point to the trade deficit as the obvious explanation for the much exaggerated death of U.S. manufacturing. According to polling data, Americans are generally skeptical about trade and its impact on jobs, manufacturing, and the U.S. economy. And why shouldn’t they be? After all, the public is barraged routinely with misleading or simplistic coverage of trade issues by a media that is too often heavy on cliché, innuendo, and regurgitated conventional wisdom, and lacking in substance and analysis.
-- Daniel Ikenson, CATO Institute ...
Pvande55 and RedGuard57, I’m with Pub-911 and the Cato Institute regarding the topic of automation.
Automation reduces products per unit costs and/or improves their quality. Automation has always been and will continue to be to USA’s net economic benefit.
Pub-911, Cato is usually wrong regarding economic issues. Imports create extremely insignificant numbers of jobs in the USA and statistically they create no USA jobs but they certainly reduce USA’s GDP and net numbers of jobs.
When production of goods is relocated beyond our borders, we lose more than our chronic trade deficits of goods; we lose the production of all USA enterprises that were devoted to supporting the displaced production. I do not believe those statistics have or could be reasonably calculated and thus attributed to USA’s annual negative balances of global trade, (i.e. our chronic annual trade deficits).
There’s no economic differences for any types of goods after they’ve left their producers’ shipping platforms and are being handled by USA labor.
Distributors profit from selling domestic or foreign produced vehicles; the gas pump jokey is unconcerned, the mechanic will likely charge you more for foreign vehicle’s OEM parts; but none of these situations are economically dependent upon where the goods were produced.
Last edited by toosie; 12-22-2016 at 07:36 PM..
Reason: Please stop signing your posts!
Pub-911, Cato is usually wrong regarding economic issues.
Thanks to many years spent as an economist, I am able to do the judging of CATO's work all by myself. They are often wrong in fact, but not in this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Imports create extremely insignificant numbers of jobs in the USA and statistically they create no USA jobs but they certainly reduce USA’s GDP and net numbers of jobs.
The Heritage Foundation -- an even more often wrong right-wing think tank -- is in sharp disagreement with you on the matter, and with good reason...
It is a common misperception that importing goods to America comes at the cost of American jobs. In fact, imports contribute to job creation on a large scale. The increased economic activity associated with every stage of the import process helps support millions of jobs in the U.S. This Heritage Foundation analysis shows that over half a million American jobs are supported by imports of clothes and toys from China alone. These jobs are in fields such as transportation, wholesale, retail, construction, and finance. Understanding the positive role of imports with respect to jobs, in addition to their other benefits, is critical to adopting the correct trade policy and thus to bolstering the economy.Conventional wisdom says that exports are beneficial and imports are harmful. Conventional wisdom is wrong. A key element of this misperception is the mistaken idea that imports into a country cost jobs there. In fact, imports contribute to job creation.
Thanks to many years spent as an economist, I am able to do the judging of CATO's work all by myself. They are often wrong in fact, but not in this case.
The Heritage Foundation -- an even more often wrong right-wing think tank -- is in sharp disagreement with you on the matter, and with good reason...
It is a common misperception that importing goods to America comes at the cost of American jobs. In fact, imports contribute to job creation on a large scale. The increased economic activity associated with every stage of the import process helps support millions of jobs in the U.S. This Heritage Foundation analysis shows that over half a million American jobs are supported by imports of clothes and toys from China alone. These jobs are in fields such as transportation, wholesale, retail, construction, and finance. Understanding the positive role of imports with respect to jobs, in addition to their other benefits, is critical to adopting the correct trade policy and thus to bolstering the economy.Conventional wisdom says that exports are beneficial and imports are harmful. Conventional wisdom is wrong. A key element of this misperception is the mistaken idea that imports into a country cost jobs there. In fact, imports contribute to job creation.
Pub-911, the entire economic differences between similar domestic and imported goods occur prior to the domestic goods reaching their producer’s shipping dock or prior to the foreign produced goods being substantially under the importing nation’s jurisdiction and handled by their labor.
I’ve posted some familiar examples of these economic similarities that explain why trade deficits cannot be net beneficial to their nation's economy.
On the contrary, because USA’s chronic annual trade deficits are a drag upon our GDP and numbers of jobs, they are thus net detrimental to USA’s economy.
Regarding the Heritage Foundation’s contention, how did they conclude that trade deficits are not net detrimental to USA’s economy? They cannot logically do so. They instead preach only the benefits of global trade while refraining from mentioning the net detrimental effects due to annual trade deficits.
You and the Heritage Foundation you quote are proponents of USA’s participating in global trade. I share that opinion. The proposed Import Certificate policy is not opposed to global trade but it’s much less tolerant of its nation experiencing annual trade deficits of goods.
If USA adopts the Import Certificate policy it will increase our annual GDPs and our numbers of jobs more than otherwise. After foreign nations’ early reactions to USA’s new policy, USA’s volume of global trade will more likely increase more than otherwise. But regardless of economic condition within any particular year, the Import Certificate policy would be to our nation’s net benefit every year.
Last edited by toosie; 12-22-2016 at 08:32 PM..
Reason: Stop using respectfully as signature
Yes to tariffs! It's the only way we can compete in our own country.
We need a tariff on crude oil. We are currently allowing the Saudi's and the OPEC cartel to sell at a loss to purposely put our own oil companies out of business. We need to get on the road to energy independence by reducing oil imports (implementing a tariff) so our own markets can compete.
OPEC's loss is our gain - cheap gas. Basically you are asking us, the American public, to subsidize jobs in the US oil industry by paying more for gas. The same can be said of any attempt to "protect" American jobs. Protecting jobs is really subsidization by everyone else who has to pay high prices.
Rather than trying to recapture something that is not really ours to begin with, we need to use our strengths - infrastructure, human capital, financial capital and world class universities that have a strong history of innovation.
Trump's message of bringing back manufacturing jobs is not only a fantasy, it is not a strategy for the US to build a lasting and strong economy. Times are a' changing and we need to move forward or we are in danger of becoming a has-been, whining on the sidelines while the world moves on.
The big problem (and the reason for Trump's victory) is that the jobs that were supposed to replace the dying manufacturing and mining jobs have not been created fast enough and/or are not accessible to the displaced workers. That there are jobs for nurses in Columbus doesn't help the former steelworker in Youngstown or coal miner in WV.
The big problem (and the reason for Trump's victory) is that the jobs that were supposed to replace the dying manufacturing and mining jobs have not been created fast enough and/or are not accessible to the displaced workers. That there are jobs for nurses in Columbus doesn't help the former steelworker in Youngstown or coal miner in WV.
Coal and steel are industries that were wiped out as employment generators in the 1980's. People waiting for those jobs to "come back" are going to be a long time disappointed.
As things go some manufacturing can come back regardless, some surviving manufacturing jobs in my area pay less than Wall Mart, many fast food places pay better hourly wages too and one doesnt need to inhale plastic carcinogens while placing a patty on a bun. Manufacturers adapted and tapped into the reservoir of the truly desperate and marginally employable people having no chance with Wall Marts and McDs.
USA production is not just manufacturing. USA has, does and can in the future produce more than just manufactured goods.
The proposed unilateral trade policy described by Wikipedia’s “import Certificates” article is not appropriate for a nation that would not otherwise suffer annual trade deficits. It’s not applicable to service products, or intellectual property, or legal rights or real-estate.
On the other hand, it does not discriminate among foreign nations or among enterprises within any nation. If you consider importing or exporting as a single global trading industry, it does not discriminate among industries.
Although I do believe that the trade policy would be most advantageous to production of manufacturing goods in the USA, it is no less amiable to agricultural, ranching, lumber, or any other tangible goods that is, or can in the future be produced in the USA.
If USA would adopt this substantially market driven unilateral policy for our global trade, it would increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise while eliminating or almost eliminating our chronic annual trade deficits of goods. It will also usually subsidize the prices of our exported goods and due to it being substantially market driven, it cannot prevent the importation of any item for which there’s an effective USA demand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
