Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Great Jobs Switch: Why the Loss of Manufacturing Jobs is Good for America.
The Economist ^ | 9/29/2005 | Economist Magazine Editorial

Posted on 09/30/2005 11:54:00 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

The Great jobs switch

Sep 29th 2005

The fall in manufacturing employment in developed economies is a sign of economic progress, not decline

THAT employment in manufacturing, once the engine of growth, is in a long, slow decline in the rich world is a familiar notion. That it is on its way to being virtually wiped out is not. Yet calculations by The Economist suggest that manufacturing now accounts for less than 10% of total jobs in America. Other rich countries are moving in that direction, too, with Britain close behind America, followed by France and Japan, with Germany and Italy lagging behind (see article).

Shrinking employment in any sector sounds like bad news. It isn't. Manufacturing jobs disappear because economies are healthy, not sick.

The decline of manufacturing in rich countries is a more complex story than the piles of Chinese-made goods in shops suggest. Manufacturing output continues to expand in most developed countries—in America, by almost 4% a year on average since 1991. Despite the rise in Chinese exports, America is still the world's biggest manufacturer, producing about twice as much, measured by value, as China.

The continued growth in manufacturing output shows that the fall in jobs has not been caused by mass substitution of Chinese goods for locally made ones. It has happened because rich-world companies have replaced workers with new technology to boost productivity and shifted production from labour-intensive products such as textiles to higher-tech, higher value-added, sectors such as pharmaceuticals. Within firms, low-skilled jobs have moved offshore. Higher-value R&D, design and marketing have stayed at home.

All that is good. Faster productivity growth means higher average incomes. Low rates of unemployment in the countries which have shifted furthest away from manufacturing suggest that most laid-off workers have found new jobs. And consumers have benefited from cheap Chinese imports.

Yet there is a residual belief that making things you can drop on your toe is superior to working in accounting or hairdressing. Manufacturing jobs, it is often said, are better than the Mcjobs typical in the service sector. Yet working conditions in services are often pleasanter and safer than on an assembly line, and average wages in the fastest-growing sectors, such as finance, professional and business services, education and health, are higher than in manufacturing.

A second worry is that services are harder to export, so if developed economies make fewer goods, how will they pay for imports? But rich countries already increasingly pay their way in the world by exporting services. America has a huge trade deficit not because it is not exporting enough, but because American consumers are spending too much.

A new concern is that it is no longer just dirty blue-collar jobs that are being sucked offshore. Poor countries now have easier access to first-world technology. Combined with low wages, it is argued, they can make everything—including high-tech goods—more cheaply. But that's only partly true. China's comparative advantage is in labour-intensive industries; and a basic principle of economics, proven time and again, is that even if a country can make everything more cheaply, it will still gain from specialising in goods in which it has a comparative advantage. Developed economies' comparative advantage is in knowledge-intensive activities, because they have so much skilled labour. For years to come, China will be more likely to assemble the best computers than to design them.

Employment in rich countries will have to shift towards higher skilled jobs to maintain economic growth. Countries that prevent this shift taking place risk being left behind. Rather than block it, governments need to try to ameliorate the pains which change inflicts by, for example, retraining or temporarily helping those workers who lose their jobs.

People always resist change, yet sustained growth relies on a continuous shift in resources to more efficient use. In 1820, for example, 70% of American workers were in agriculture; today 2% are. If all those workers had remained tilling the land, America would now be a lot poorer


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: jobs; loss; manufacturing; switch; unemployment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-147 next last
<<<< Employment in rich countries will have to shift towards higher skilled jobs to maintain economic growth. Countries that prevent this shift taking place risk being left behind. Rather than block it, governments need to try to ameliorate the pains which change inflicts by, for example, retraining or temporarily helping those workers who lose their jobs. >>>>

Hmmm... If 10 programmers lose their jobs to 50 programmers in India and the Philippines, Maybe we can re-train all 10 to be project managers ??? But who are they going to manage ?

And if you happen to be in your 50's (10 years off from retirement age) and lost your software programming position, I wonder what course you should take to "retrain" yourself...

1 posted on 09/30/2005 11:54:03 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

And for those without the ability or means to go to college, a blue collar job that can actually support a family, as much of the older manufacturing jobs could, is now increasingly rare.

I've personally wondered if more manufacturing will come back onshore as the cost of transporting goods back and forth across the oceans increases, because of the cost of oil....


2 posted on 09/30/2005 11:57:07 AM PDT by LizardQueen (The world is not out to get you, except in the sense that the world is out to get everyone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Higher-value R&D, design and marketing have stayed at home.

No, they have moved to China and India too. Ask Google, GE, and Microsoft.

No cheers, unfortunately.

Full Disclosure: Much of the third world is rife with other problems such as cronyism, pretending to work, and horrible quality and processes. So if you can't provide a solution, there's good money to be made in QA, cleaning up after them.

3 posted on 09/30/2005 11:57:30 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

I love these stories trying to convince us that bad things are actually good, that up is white, that black is thursday!

I bet the author of this piece cannot even balance his own checkbook.


4 posted on 09/30/2005 11:57:30 AM PDT by trubluolyguy (I am conservative. That is NOT the same thing as Republican. Don't place party over principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

An excellent example of the worth of economists.


5 posted on 09/30/2005 11:57:48 AM PDT by thegreatbeast (Quid lucrum istic mihi est?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
And if you happen to be in your 50's (10 years off from retirement age) and lost your software programming position, I wonder what course you should take to "retrain" yourself...

You hit it. No one within ten years of retirement should have to ask themselves could they be laid off. By this time they should be an indespensible leader in what they do because they have 40 years or so of experience and training behind them. In fact when they do retire, their company should offer to take them back with improvements to their working conditions and salary.

If you are within ten years of retirement and the above does not describe you, get some more training fast, you are not likely to have your position for long.

6 posted on 09/30/2005 11:58:48 AM PDT by KC_for_Freedom (Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Pure bullcrap. There are only 3 fundamental ways to create wealth. (not money) Mining/oil drilling, Agriculture/logging/fishing, Manufacturing. All the rest is merely paper snuffling or shuffling paper banknotes from one pocket to another.

A nation that turns away from these 3 key economic activities will be a nation in decline....and we are in a long term ecomomic decline for sure...
7 posted on 09/30/2005 12:01:24 PM PDT by aspiring.hillbilly (!...The Confederate States of America rises again...!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

" In 1820, for example, 70% of American workers were in agriculture; today 2% are. If all those workers had remained tilling the land, America would now be a lot poorer"

DUH.......you mean in 1820, they were farming and not building Corvettes and computers??


8 posted on 09/30/2005 12:01:56 PM PDT by calrighty (`Nobody)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

What the economist did not mention is, how nice those people are who taking these manufacturing jobs off our hands. They are nice enough to lend back to us all the money we are sending out of the country for the production of these goods that we stilll need and use but do not manufacture here.


9 posted on 09/30/2005 12:02:21 PM PDT by Biblebelter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Higher-value R&D, design and marketing have stayed at home.

No, they have moved to China and India too. Ask Google, GE, and Microsoft.


I would argue that the "high value" R&D jobs are still here. The low-value "here is an architecture, spend the next three weeks in a cubicle grinding it out" jobs are moving overseas.

The kicker, is that quality is so terrible on much of that stuff, the big companies are going to start realizing that the lower labor costs are offset and overwhelmed by support and warranty costs.
10 posted on 09/30/2005 12:03:25 PM PDT by Paloma_55 (Which part of "Common Sense" do you not understand???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

It's amazing what a bunch of whiners there in this thread.

"Stop the economy, I want to get off!"


11 posted on 09/30/2005 12:06:54 PM PDT by Moral Hazard ("Now therefore kill every male among the little ones" - Numbers 31:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
... rich-world companies have replaced workers with new technology to boost productivity

So true, and now one person can do the work of ten, thanks to automation. Whether that's an entirely positive thing depends if you're the one remaining worker or the nine laid off. I know it's a positive thing to upper management.

12 posted on 09/30/2005 12:07:32 PM PDT by Sender (Team Infidel USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_for_Freedom
No one within ten years of retirement should have to ask themselves could they be laid off. By this time they should be an indespensible leader in what they do because they have 40 years or so of experience and training behind them. In fact when they do retire, their company should offer to take them back with improvements to their working conditions and salary.

I know that there is a growing trend for corporations -- largely in highly complex technology or health fields -- to establish programs that entice older or retired experts back to work.

They are not well publicized, and there are discrimination laws that need to change before this practice can become widespread.

Business need the older, more experienced talent, and many have an interest in keeping the organizational wisdom that these workers often own almost exclusively.

13 posted on 09/30/2005 12:08:42 PM PDT by Maceman (Fake But Accurate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KC_for_Freedom

I think unemployment is caused by an entrepreneurship deficit. And, it is apparent in IT, where men like my brother worked as a high paid systems analyst in several countries while Indian entrepreneurs built companies in Silicon valley and then wanted to and have hired Indians. By contrast, my son is a young programmer and says that his associates take a dim view of outsourcing. Nobody is owed a job, obviously. Jobs are created by people who start and run businesses.


14 posted on 09/30/2005 12:11:04 PM PDT by ClaireSolt (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy
If you can find any indication that Americans are worse off today than they were 25, 50, 75, or 100 years ago, please enlighten us.

What the author of this article doesn't mention is that the primary factor in the "loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs" has nothing to do with outsourcing, labor costs, automation, productivity, etc.

The single biggest reason for all of these "lost jobs" has been the manner in which these jobs are counted. U.S. employment by economic sector has traditionally been listed according to the NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) classification of the employer, not the type of employment. General Motors, for example, is considered an auto manufacturer -- so all of their employees at any given location were classified as "manufacturing employees" regardless of their job function.

So if General Motors decided one day to lay off all their accountants and hire an outside accounting firm instead, these accounting jobs were magically transformed from "manufacturing" to "service" jobs -- even if the accounting firm hired all of the former GM accountants to do the work.

15 posted on 09/30/2005 12:11:04 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Jeez... what a bunch of closet libs, what a bunch of union sympathizers!!!!

Conservative Economics 101:

1. In order for an economy to function properly, those who can produce a better product for less money need to be doing it.

2. While governments can subsidize goods by protecting it from competition, or giving tax breaks or keeping the exchange rate low, this policy isn't sustainable. Remember Japan, who did all of the above? Their economy boom is soooooo 80's (and hasn't been seen since).

3. There is a difference between a job being obsoleted due to technology changes and being outsourced. This author talks about both, and the rants confuse the two. Some auto jobs went to Mexico and Korea, but most were phased out as technologies made robots cheaper, and new cars last longer.

4. There are some jobs that we don't want. Tech support jobs are outsourced to India, but as in the USA they are wretched jobs (I did it for one year and know first-hand) and the Indian recruiters can't fill those spots either. Have you ever been yelled at by a person with a Ph.D who can't figure out how to connect their mouse? I have.

5. There is a difference between having to change jobs, or careers, and being consigned to the economic dustheap. In the case of programmers, everyone knows that the demand for programmers goes through boom and bust cycles. It might be scarier for a 50 year old to retrain and relocate, but this is the reality of many professions.

6. All of you closet commies who say things like "no one in their 50's should have to worry about losing their job" should remember that France, Spain, and Portugal have such labor laws... and those aren't exactly the economies that we're worried about. Cuba and North Korea also have economies where people don't have to worry about life after 50 either.


16 posted on 09/30/2005 12:11:57 PM PDT by TWohlford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Americans are EVIL, BAD and LAZY, therefor, castration of American industrial strength is GOOD!
17 posted on 09/30/2005 12:13:34 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

"And if you happen to be in your 50's (10 years off from retirement age) and lost your software programming position, I wonder what course you should take to "retrain" yourself..."


Never make yourself dependent upon a stranger for employment...


18 posted on 09/30/2005 12:14:00 PM PDT by dakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
"...Maybe we can re-train all 10 to be project managers ??? But who are they going to manage?..."
Once at a company I worked at a guy's title was "manager of project management" - we called him MPM, and figured that his next career step would be MPMPM... So, your 10 retrained project managers will be managing each other, with one of them becoming a boss over the rest of the bunch, and another - his deputy.
19 posted on 09/30/2005 12:14:10 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

mark to read later


20 posted on 09/30/2005 12:14:25 PM PDT by RobFromGa (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran-- what are we waiting for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-147 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson