Replies

My point: You insult western free market enterprises by equating them to Mao-era, Communist-owned worthless "enterprises".

The series missed the fundamental truth that trade has been a key ingredient in the acceleration of worker productivity and rising living standards in the United States in the last decade. During much of the 1990s, when imports and trade deficits were both rising rapidly, so too were domestic employment, manufacturing output, and real wages. Between 1994 and 2000, civilian employment in the U.S. economy rose by a net 12 million and the unemployment rate fell from 6 percent to 4 percent. During that same period, U.S. manufacturing output rose by 40 percent while the volume of imported manufactured goods doubled during that same period. Meanwhile, real compensation rose for American families up and down the income scale.

MoneyLine Series Misses the Story on Trade and Jobs

While Mr. Uchitelle first began whining about manufacturing being "downsized," it actually grew by 5.3 percent a year from 1992 through 2000. Manufacturing then fell 4.1 percent in 2001 (the bottom of his "trend") but rose at a 6.1 percent pace during the first three quarters of last year. What has been unusual about U.S. manufacturing was not the inevitable recession in 2001 but the unusually long and strong expansion for the preceding eight years. About half of the unusually strong gains came from the manufacture of high-tech equipment, which is a lot more valuable than T-shirts.

The cyclical ups and downs of manufacturing are international, by the way, not national. Manufacturing started falling in August 2000 in Japan and Korea, followed by the United States a month later. When manufacturing falls, so do imports.

Increases in productivity from improved machinery and skills are the reason manufacturing employment falls most of the time, as it does in farming, even when output is growing briskly. From 1990 to 2000, manufacturing employment fell by 0.4 percent a year in the U.S., by 1.8 percent a year in Japan and by 2.5 percent a year in Germany.

Manufacturing Myths

Skip Navigation Links		Latest Numbers
	U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics
	Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

	www.bls.gov	Search \| A-Z Index
BLS Home \| Programs & Surveys \| Get Detailed Statistics \| Glossary \| What's New \| Find It! In DOL

	Change Output Options:	From:		To:
	include graphs NEW!

Data extracted on: January 4, 2006 (10:45:31 AM)

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Series Id: CES3000000001 Seasonally Adjusted Super Sector: Manufacturing Industry: Manufacturing NAICS Code: N/A Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
1990	17796	17896	17870	17845	17796	17774	17704	17647	17610	17574	17428	17395
1991	17329	17214	17141	17093	17069	17042	17016	17025	17011	16997	16960	16916
1992	16839	16831	16805	16830	16834	16825	16822	16782	16762	16750	16758	16768
1993	16790	16806	16795	16771	16766	16742	16742	16741	16768	16778	16800	16815
1994	16853	16862	16896	16932	16962	17011	17027	17082	17114	17144	17187	17218
1995	17259	17264	17263	17278	17260	17250	17218	17241	17246	17215	17207	17230
1996	17206	17229	17192	17204	17221	17226	17222	17255	17253	17268	17276	17285
1997	17298	17316	17339	17351	17362	17387	17387	17451	17466	17513	17555	17587
1998	17621	17627	17637	17636	17624	17607	17421	17564	17558	17512	17466	17449
1999	17426	17394	17368	17342	17333	17294	17319	17288	17281	17275	17283	17277
2000	17285	17285	17302	17299	17276	17297	17325	17287	17232	17215	17204	17181


Frequently Asked Questions \| Freedom of Information Act \| Customer Survey Privacy & Security Statement \| Linking to Our Site \| Accessibility

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Postal Square Building
2 Massachusetts Ave., NE
Washington, DC 20212-0001

Phone: (202) 691-5200
Fax-on-demand: (202) 691-6325
Data questions: blsdata_staff@bls.gov
Technical (web) questions: webmaster@bls.gov
Other comments: feedback@bls.gov

I guess the huge increase in American manufacturing output during the 1990s was caused by the huge increase in manufacturing workers? Hmmmm...we actually had fewer workers making more stuff? Maybe we closed our Communist-owned worthless "enterprises" while more efficient enterprises were created? I hope you're not feeling too dizzy from this "spin".

Thank you for the information -- you'll get no argument from me about productivity increases.

I do not know how to state it any other way but I'll try:

Arguing that China too has eliminated inefficient operations thus they have gone (are going) through the same process as we is B.S.

They could not possibly have done (be doing) so. They are simply eliminating worthless Communist-style people's "enterprises" by the thousands until revolution became a real threat.

Meanwhile they are joining the real world with state of the art western technology purchased mostly by our useful idiots' FDI. Red China is getting a lot of our manufacturing sector. We are sending technology, wealth and jobs to them.

Some brush aside the fact that American jobs are being transferred to Red China.

"How can that be so?" they ask. "Look China cut millions of manufacturing jobs, we can't be sending our jobs there, they don't need them."

Red China is in a kind of transition. It is NOT the same as free enterprise advancements in a free nation. There, I said it another way.

But glad you pointed out that "During that same period (1994 and 2000), U.S. manufacturing output rose by 40 percent"

That's another argument some use such as CATO's Reynolds. How can we be losing jobs to China if manufacturing's portion of GDP has remained basically unchanged for decades? he asked. Productivity increases explain the job losses.

Magic is a better explanation. The Clinton's numbers keepers introduced hedonics. See post #71 (not mine). I am desperately looking for someone who can prove that the manufacturing portion of the GDP is NOT grossly overstated by hedonics. Thanks.