I mean, can a country as large as the US be really competitive without manufacturing? I just can't see how services and virtual stuff like FB alone can be essential.
I mean, can a country as large as the US be really competitive without manufacturing? I just can't see how services and virtual stuff like FB alone can be essential.
If you're talking about high end manufacturing like cars, planes, specialized steel or similar we still do tons of that in the US. In inflation adjusted dollar amounts we produce more than ever, it just doesn't take very many people to do those things anymore. Robots do most of the jobs people used to do in that kind of manufacturing.
Ship building has been killed largely by the low cost of over land transit since the highway system was built and government protectionism vis-a-vis the Jones act which allowed ship builders in the US to become uncompetitive. But realistically we never had a special advantage in ship building, beyond build a bunch of naval vessels really quickly.
> I mean, can a country as large as the US be really competitive without manufacturing?
We do manufacture a lot of things, just very few people work in manufacturing. We're also a world leader in agriculture. Services are fine, and very lucrative. One of our chief exports is education, which is a service.
My understanding is that a family can afford middle-class life with a single blue-collar job with the US has a prosperous manufacturing industry.
> If you're talking about high end manufacturing like cars, planes, specialized steel or similar we still do tons of that in the US.
I thought the market share was declining. The US used to have more than 68% of market share in manufacturing in the world back in 2001 or 2002, but now it is about 40%? It can't be that only low-end manufacturing that is gone, right?
You’re referring to a slice of the whole pie globally, However the pie is much larger now. Every industrial nation other than the US was basically leveled in WWII so we had a huge slice from the jump.
The perception of US manufacturing decline is widespread. My guess is that this perception is due to a number of factors. Other sectors of the US economy have grown more, so manufacturing now represents a smaller share. And also as productivity increases, fewer people are required to produce the same amount of output - so manufacturing workers make up a smaller share of the workforce than they did in the past. Both of these facts mean that manufacturing has less visibility in the US than it had. Finally, as poorer parts of the rest of the world have grown - the US's share of global manufacturing is smaller.
And by the way, there is absolutely no problem finding someone who will sell you a pair of US made shoes for $300 (or more) if that's what you want. There's a long list of US manufacturers who make high end boots and shoes.
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/share/widget?end=2019&indicators=...
saying US manufacturing hasn't declined is like saying IBM hasn't declined in stature compared to decades past. IBM technically has more revenue than they did in the past, but they aren't considered a technology leader anymore and very few are impressed by them, many see them as a dying company
And I don't subscribe to a zero-sum view. Just because other historically poorer countries have grown economically doesn't hurt Americans (the opposite) or their way of life or standard of living. And just because other sectors of the US economy (like tourism for example) have grown more rapidly doesn't mean that US manufacturing is harmed - and certainly doesn't mean Americans are worse off in any absolute sense.
Worrying about loss of stature is highly subjective and is more about feelings/pride/emotions/etc.
The US has gone from 40% of global GDP in the 60s to less than 20%, they've lost relative power when it comes to global issues as a result of that.
Looking at a table of US GDP by sector, what rebalancing are you suggesting would increase the ability of US to project power globally? For more Americans and US capital to be involved in manufacturing, some other sector will have to shrink. And manufacturing is already the fourth biggest sector.
The U.S. has invested trillions of dollars building an infrastructure that has led its citizens to being some of the best-educated and most-productive in the world. Those citizens are capable of doing higher-value work. Should they do that low-value work when it can be easily and eagerly performed by other countries where the populace hasn't benefitted from such an infrastructure investment? Thereby raising the standard of living for all the parties involved? That's the economists' argument. Moreover the late 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries taught us that focusing on the nation-state leads to widespread warfare. Better to have those nation-states in economic cooperation that leads to peace than economic competition that leads to war.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying you need to really think through why and how we got here when considering our next steps. You're going to need to address how doing what we did before won't lead to the same problems we experienced before. I suspect you're not going to be able to do that, but I'm willing to be shown to be wrong.
Remember what you said: some of the population is capable of doing such things, but a relatively large portion of the population are doing gig work. The distinction isn't "why take the highly skilled segment of the workforce and retrain them," but instead "why not take the 'low-skilled' portion and upskill them." Ultimately we know the answer, but your framing was off.
I think it has taught us the opposite? Pre WWI, the world was already very integrated and globalized, to the point that many pundits said that a large war is impossible, because it would hurt businesses everywhere too much. And yet it happened.
I just did a quick search on the topic and found this link: https://www.history.com/news/queen-victoria-grandchildren-ma...
Well, we saw how that turned out!
Citation, please (and yeah, I see you using weasel words.)
This assumes that everyone can do the higher-value work per their standards, right? US is probably the most educated country in the world, while in the meantime we still have millions adults[1] who don't have college degree. We still have millions of kids who struggle with basic algebra. And per my interaction with kids and college students in the past many years, I have to conclude that not everyone can or like to take on "high-end" jobs. In any class except those magnetic schools, you can see the bottom 20% or more students are hopeless in learning STEM or sophisticated writing. However, they may get decent jobs if there are other demand in the market.
[1]Between 2011 and 2021, the percentage of people age 25 and older who had completed a bachelor's degree or higher increased by 7.5 percentage points from 30.4% to 37.9%. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/educatio....
The answer to both of these questions is "yes". I've worked in education and am very familiar with homeless communities and their issues. It's very obvious that in some locations (like the Bay Area) there simply isn't enough low-complexity work for the bottom 10-15%, people for whom "dishwasher" is a complex job. Technology has just been slowly eating away at those jobs for a century and replacements have not come in as fast the jobs are disappearing.
But US-made stuff, on the whole, is also better quality and longer-lasting than Chinese.
But I don't know if that makes me disagree with you or not given the price of a lot of sneakers these days...
Like what? You can buy all the raw materials for 10 - 15 dollars (way less in bulk) and a single person can make a pair in under an hour with minimal training.
Manufacturing things in the US doesn't have to be vastly more expensive.
The greatest revolution right now is the ability to do small scale manufacturing. Now the issue is that most of the equipment IS still being made in China. That's because manufacturing in China is small scale. Even on a large scale it is still just a lot of people together doing small scale manufacturing.
They don't have the crazy advanced automated processes like you see in the stereotypical american factory with lots of parts whizzing down automated assembly lines. They just have thousands of people putting things together by hand or with modest equipment.
If not now, then soon as the technology matures.
If you have a feeling the US is in decline, it's because it is. The situation is much worse than most Americans realize. There is no hope for either Democrats or Republicans to fix anything here. I recommend to all my friends that they emigrate if they can.
....that's not how NATO works. God, I wish Trump's lies didn't have so much staying power.
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+nato+funding+fact+chec...
Where are you recommending they go?
I suspect that this would just help keep the same returns for the shareholders and executives.
Shoes may be more expensive, but not $200 more expensive (if we take that on average they cost $100 now) if made in the US. Even for a single worker spending four hours in a pair of shoes, this accounts for $50 extra per hour, or around $100,000 per year.
The reverse is true: nothing stops production from coming back except corporate/investor greed.
Seems anti-capitalist to me.
This is key though, it presupposes everyone can buy fewer pairs. There are probably a lot of people who get by on one pair of sneakers - particularly children, who are going to grow out of them anyway. These are the people that will suffer if $300 shoes become commonplace.
I assume that the increase of income will compensate the increase of price. Or I certainly hope so.
Some has come back but it's robots and automation. No one is getting jobs back.
Employment is a dying legacy.
Charlie Munger has a pretty good take on it and how many economists and our own government officials are in complete denial about it:
>Now let’s follow and second and third order consequences: You are more prosperous than you would have been if you hadn’t traded with China in terms of average well-being in the United States, right? Ricardo proved it. But which nation is going to be growing faster in economic terms? It’s obviously China. They’re absorbing all the modern technology of the world through this great facilitator in free trade, and, like the Asian Tigers have proved, they will get ahead fast. Look at Hong Kong. Look at Taiwan. Look at early Japan. So, you start in a place where you’ve got a weak nation of backward peasants, a billion and a quarter of them, and in the end they’re going to be a much bigger, stronger nation than you are, maybe even having more and better atomic bombs. Well, Ricardo did not prove that that’s a wonderful outcome for the former leading nation. He didn’t try to determine second order and higher order effects.
>If you try and talk like this to an economics professor, and I’ve done this three times, they shrink in horror and offense because they don’t like this kind of talk. It really gums up this nice discipline of theirs, which is so much simpler when you ignore second and third order consequences.
>The best answer I ever got on that subject – in three tries – was from George Schultz. [Schultz was an MIT economics professor before becoming Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of State.] He said, “Charlie, the way I figure it is if we stop trading with China, the other advanced nations will do it anyway, and we wouldn’t stop the ascent of China compared to us, and we’d lose the Ricardo- diagnosed advantages of trade.” Which is obviously correct. And I said, “Well George, you’ve just invented a new form of the tragedy of the commons. You’re locked in this system and you can’t fix it. You’re going to go to a tragic hell in a handbasket, if going to hell involves being once the great leader of the world and finally going to the shallows in terms of leadership.” And he said, “Charlie, I do not want to think about this.” I think he’s wise. He’s even older than I am, and maybe I should learn from him.
Basically our leaders know we are in a horrible position and are counting on dying before the full consequences of their actions take effect.
it's funny how HN says outsourcing manufacturing is fine and has no negative consequences while going into a fury at the suggestion that software engineering can/should be outsourced. Both result in short term gains but long term negatives
> But which nation is going to be growing faster in economic terms?
well, likely both. because of trade and specialization. when the US offshored shoemaking people did not just went to the beach and called it a day. both capital and labor got reallocated for better returns. (yes, not everyone moved to the service industry, unfortunately not everybody was able or willing to change to different jobs/sectors.)
> maybe even having more and better atomic bombs
even one is plenty.
> If you try and talk like this to an economics professor, and I’ve done this three times, they shrink in horror and offense because they don’t like this kind of talk. It really gums up this nice discipline of theirs, which is so much simpler when you ignore second and third order consequences.
was it at a xenophobic libertarian economists party?
anyway regarding higher order effects and long-term strategy and American "interests":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKVQDUQR8I4&t=117s
and https://reason.com/2022/06/07/globalization-is-alive-well-an...
your response to the argument that economists are wrong is to post more stuff from economists that don't look at 2nd order effects? China doesn't practice anything resembling free trade and as a result they are dominating naïve Western economies
the biggest problem is people who worship "free trade" as a religion while smarter nations use it as a tool to bash them in the head
I'm completely in favor of levying customs on China for anticompetitive practices. (Eg. favoring state-owned enterprises against other market participants.)
The point that the free trade zealots make - correctly IMHO - is that despite all the problems with the freeness of trade the trade part in itself got us so so so much prosperity.
> they are dominating naïve Western economies
Okay, that's a very vague claim. Dominating how? Their GDP growth is bigger? (Which is completely expected, it's much easier to catch up.) They stole a lot of tech? (Western companies knew all the risks when they entered into these partnerships, plus if they feel their IP is misused they can - and do - sue both inside and outside China, I guess with largely predictable outcomes.)
"When you are a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." This is faulty reasoning that probably makes sense to an engineer because, well, engineers usually make stuff.