Mash His Cute Little Nose
We're Looking For a Little Yellow
Donate Monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each New Monthly Donor
Posted on 11/04/2011 10:00:54 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen
According to the Feral government's Bureau of Labor Statistics (where were you then ?) ** 1979 ** was the peak of U.S. manufacturing jobs, at 19.426 million.
Looking at year-over-year changes from 1961 to 2010, a pattern emerges. During the 1960's when unions were at the peak of their power and started to really firm up the support they were given by U.S. regulation and government, every year saw more U.S. manufacturing jobs. But alas, when unions really got in bed with the government, that actually wound up sealing their fate.
During the time span covering the Nixon and Ford administrations, government overreach in terms of regulation started to grow at an increasing rate and the process of offshoring began during these administrations of the Republican establishment; the result was a small net loss in manufacturing jobs as big business struggled to cut costs.
During the four years of the Carter administration, the results were - oddly enough - pleasing for manufacturing workers, in terms of how many jobs there were:
Increase/(decrease) over prior year:
1977___3.63% 1978___4.21% 1979___2.61% 1980__(3.57)%
But the ever-expanding powers of the Presidency and the Federal government in creating regulations, combined with the tendency to not help booster private-sector union jobs during Republican administrations was setting up for an increasing wave of manufacturing jobs being offshored. When manufacturing was done inside the U.S., the advancements in automations was also setting up for the scaling back of the manufacturing workforce. Obviously when unions became very powerful inside the U.S., it made financial sense to make large capital expenditures on automation equipment and spend less on employees that were becoming increasingly expensive to deal with, not so much in their net pay but in basically every other sense.
During the following 8 years of the Reagan administration, there was a net loss of almost 1 million manufacturing jobs. With all the headwinds of high cost and regulation facing manufacturing jobs and less of a government "buddy" to boost the interests of private-sector unions. In order to keep manufacturing jobs inside the U.S., private-sector unions had become reliant on government help - and the impossible proposition of stemming the tide of innovation.
During the George H.W. Bush administration, manufacturing jobs saw declines in 3 out of 4 years, with a net loss of yet nearly another million, to a total of less than 17 million for the first time since 1975 - and 1965 before that.
The tech boom of the 1990's took hold - increasing demand for manufactured goods - during the Clinton administration, which was again favorable to unions as well, and manufacturing jobs had another "local maximum" at 17.56 million in 1998, the last year there was a year-over year increase.
Since then, there was a decrease every year, all through the George W. Bush administration and up until 2010 of the Obama administration. With regulation increasing every year on manufacturing operations, benefits and other non-net-pay employee costs rising, big business manufacturing operations have retreated en masse overseas, with the government "buddy" that unions had come to rely on unable to stem the tide, since big corporations have enough lobbying power to balance out that of unions when it comes to outsourcing.
Manufacturing jobs as of 2010 stand at just 11.524 million, a cumulative net decrease of over 23% from the 15.011 million of 1961.
A decrease of 3.487 million jobs in 50 years, with, of course, many of them being non-union. Simply not being in a union did not save one's job. Also, having one's own non-union, small manufacturing business was also no guarantee that sales would not disappear due to outsourcing, eventually forcing the closure of the business. The baby and the bathwater were thrown out by businesses (the big fish) seeking economic freedom, ironically, outside of the freest nation in history.
Union workers who loyally vote for Democratic party union surrogates might want to consider what the next 50 years will bring when they vote in 2012. Politicians can't force jobs to stay here, but economics can. Economics that spans many aspects that all contribute to the economic situation: education (NOT having needless and ubiquitous college diplomas), marketing, regulation, development, viability, work ethic, morals, politics, arithmetic, management philosophy, capital formation, etc. The nation that can efficiently produce it's own goods at a high level of quality is a reflection of it's citizens who have been left to their own devices and therefore naturally become diligent and astute.
can you put this into a graph/chart? would make it easier to digest.
The gist of the story is that my initial job counted as "manufacturing employment," and the second did not . . . thus showing a decline in manufacturing jobs at that manufacturer.
I posted the above merely to show that "manufacturing job" can be an amorphous quantity.
Oops - that was wrong !
Here’s the real raw data...
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
The rise of real automation making high wage high value added jobs being done by fewer and fewer people.
Low wage (relatively speaking) low value added jobs sent to third world countries.
Manufacturing jobs will be to the 21st Century what Agricultural Jobs were to the 20th. In 1900 30% of the population worked in Agriculture by 2000 less than 3% worked on farms.
Oh, for God’s sake. Stop blaming others for our own problems. 1979? LOL
That is true, but for the past several years, China has had a net loss of manufacturing jobs. These jobs are being lost primarily due to automation and technology imporvements, not because they are being outsources (which they are). Many of the outsourced jobs have returned due to the difficulties of having working with other 3rd world countries.
One of the reasons that so much American heavy industry went out of business and overseas is precisely because of the union power and high number of manufacturing jobs. More precisely, the high number of people employed in manufacturing vs. the amount of work being done.
I hear folks often complain that they are doing the work of three people. Thirty five years ago, it was the other way around. Three people were doing the job of one.
The union rules in place in the plants my friends worked in ended up with them performing maybe two hours of actual work in a shift. For this they were paid $20+ per hour. What’s that now in inflation-adjusted wages? $50-$60 an hour? And they were shocked (shocked!) when the mills closed down.
Absolutely true. I can tell you that from personal experience, growing up in a heavily industrialized river town and my father in the industrial supply business. Some of the wages at the time were absurd and considered good money today, and their productivity was crap.
When Carter did the Russian grain embargo followed by Volcker clamping down on the money supply and the resulting recession, the whole union made illusion collapsed. The Japs were already on the prowl by then and everything just evaporated. Hence the Rust Belt. 4,000 jobs in my county alone have been lost since then.
True!
From 1997 to 2005 China lost 16 million manufacturing jobs while the US lost only 2 million.
My point is that through Lean practices (faster and cheaper) and 6 Sigma processes (center the mean and reduce variation) manufacturing jobs will continue to disappear worldwide over the next century.
The goal is to be the country that understands the the future of manufacturing and conducts its policies accordingly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.