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.
The many thousands who are unemployed in the textile and other low wage jobs in this country are not employable in industry that relies on skilled labor. We have replaced those workers by importing goods from India, China and many countries with much cheaper labor costs. Unfortunately there are no jobs for those thousand who are willing to work but are not skilled enough to find jobs.
Anybody who worked in the fifty's or sixties remembers hard working uneducated people working then but who no longer can find work. Many call them deadbeats and lazy welfare people but unless they have jobs they will have to live off the taxpayers.
Thank the many American owned companies that now outsource their work for cheaper foreign labor, yet they somehow expect Americans to buy their products.
Did our country become the big industrial machine it once was by outsourcing it's manufacturing and labor?
We went from the big industrial North to the Big industrial South to now the big industry from America in China.
Interesting that those charts only go to 2007, the last year of the housing boom and the year of the banking and credit failure. HWat does it look like after that?
But less people making more stuff is also why we have higher unemployment (and underemployment in many areas of the country). We need more manufacturing jobs more than just more manufacturing output.
Those were the only charts that I found that ran back that far to show the total growth over time. FWIW, manufacturing output in 2011 is currently running at 94.2% of its 2007 level. On the chart that would equate to a little over the "bump" shown in 1999 and would be a 108 on the index. So, output has decreased, but not massively.
I don't disagree that we need more manufacturing jobs, but the actual reality of manufacturing in the United States is very different than what is commonly believed. There are demographic shifts as factories move south and west as well as production changes and efficiency gains. Factories that used to employ 15,000+ people can now get by with less than 2,000 at the same level of production.
Protectionists like to blame imported products and globalization but the net effect of those is very small compared to the effects from the other influences on the manufacturing sector. There is certainly opportunity to employ people in the US in manufacturing, but we have long been in a position of shifting worker demographics where the manufacturing sector has taken a smaller and smaller role in the composition of the workforce.
The many thousands who are unemployed in the textile and other low wage jobs in this country are not employable in industry that relies on skilled labor. We have replaced those workers by importing goods from India, China and many countries with much cheaper labor costs. Unfortunately there are no jobs for those thousand who are willing to work but are not skilled enough to find jobs.
Anybody who worked in the fifty's or sixties remembers hard working uneducated people working then but who no longer can find work. Many call them deadbeats and lazy welfare people but unless they have jobs they will have to live off the taxpayers.
Thank the many American owned companies that now outsource their work for cheaper foreign labor, yet they somehow expect Americans to buy their products.
Perhaps the key is reeducating the workers whose industry no longer exists in this country?
Additionally, it isn't necessarily the idea of "cheap" labor that drives companies to offshore in places like China. Labor is far cheaper in many other places, but what the Chinese do is heavily subsidize their industries as well as turn a blind eye to things like pollution. When the Chinese are willing to provide a stable government, invest money in manufacturing and not care one iota about workers rights or more importantly environmental concerns it is very attractive for companies to locate their.
Overall, cheap labor is a fallacy compared to the money saved by limiting liability and being able to ignore plant safety and pollution standards. Chinese workers don't get to sue the company when they are hurt on the job and the Chinese government doesn't care if they turn the Yellow River orange with pollutants. You don't honestly think that companies ship things halfway around the world just because they can save some money on labor?
Quote:
Did our country become the big industrial machine it once was by outsourcing it's manufacturing and labor?
We went from the big industrial North to the Big industrial South to now the big industry from America in China.
The reason I posted the charts was to prove that the United States is still the largest industrial machine on Earth. We produce more today then we ever have. We just produce different things and do it far more efficiently.
It isn't just where they are made but where is the money going, to a US company or a Japanese company.
Ford took no bailout money and is moving plants back to the US. They listened and they are acting. They are building great cars. Support them, support us.
It isn't just where they are made but where is the money going, to a US company or a Japanese company.
Ford took no bailout money and is moving plants back to the US. They listened and they are acting. They are building great cars. Support them, support us.
without that money going overseas all those nice foreign investments in our debt and stock markets most likely wouldnt be taking place further hurting our economy.
think about this: if you found a coin in your pocket from somalia you cant spend that coin here. you can only get someone to take it if they were going to somilia or knew someone going.
well you cant spend a dollar in tokoyo. the only reason anyone takes that dollar is because somewhere at the end of the line someone will eventually buy something from america.
many times its not products, its instead bonds,investments,real estate and other things that dont show up in the trade numbers.
if you ever saw the movie OPM with danny devito its all about the ever changing business landscape and how the best darn buggy whip manufacturer fell right into obsolesence. like kodak and the film industry they had to shift gears to learn new and uncharted ways yet of earning money.
i remember sam kinison saying instead of sending these starving countries food we should send them u-hauls and wagons.
why?????????? as he sifted through a pile of sand on the stage he said see this? this is sand. NOTHING GROWS IN SAND .... you have to load up the wagons and u-hauls and move where the food is.
we have sand in america but we dont live in the desert ,we go where the food is.
in his humor sam hit it on the head,we cant chase ghosts.we cant chase what america did and produced when the rest of the world had nothing to offer. americans need to go to where the food is. thats new skills, creative thinking and new jobs .
"So are you PROUD to be driving a MADE IN AMERICA CAR?"
On my map, Canada and Mexico are both in America...North America.[\quote]
American | Define American at Dictionary.com
A·mer·i·can
əˈmɛrɪkən/ Show Spelled[uh-mer-i-kuhn] Show IPA adjective 1. of or pertaining to the United States of Americaor its inhabitants: anAmericancitizen.
2. of or pertaining to North or South America; of the Western Hemisphere: theAmericancontinents.
3. of or pertaining to the aboriginal Indians of North and South America, usually excluding the Eskimos, regarded as being of Asian ancestry and marked generally by reddish to brownish skin, black hair, dark eyes, and prominent cheekbones.
Most English words have multiple definitions. It's almost always easy to tell, from context, which definition is intended by the author. And in this case it is rather obvious that the OP was using definition 1.
Most English words have multiple definitions. It's almost always easy to tell, from context, which definition is intended by the author. And in this case it is rather obvious that the OP was using definition 1.
Hey, thanks for the lesson...English was one of my three majors, but I must have been sleeping in that day. Still, a thin point by the OP, imo.
Aren't you the same guy that sent me a DM saying that you are tired of my anti-union rants?
lol no way..."brother" wasn't me
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.
ɪ
