Op-Ed Globalization isn't killing factory jobs. Trade is actually why manufacturing is up 40%.

Los Angeles Times ^ | August 1, 2016 | Daniel Griswold

[expat_panama]

Foreign trade took a beating at both major party conventions, with speakers blaming free-trade agreements for all but wiping out U.S. manufacturing and eliminating millions of middle-class jobs. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have promised to renegotiate or abandon trade agreements with key U.S. trading partners such as Mexico and Canada. That would be a colossal mistake.

The number of manufacturing jobs in the United States has indeed been in a long decline since the late 1970s...

American factories and American workers are making a greater volume of stuff than eve...

...America’s 21st century manufacturing sector is dominated by petroleum refining, pharmaceuticals, plastics, fabricated metals, machinery, computers and other electronics, motor vehicles and other transportation equipment, and aircraft and aerospace equipment.

We produce more manufacturing value with fewer employees...

The political anger about lost manufacturing jobs should be aimed at technology, not trade.

The political anger about lost manufacturing jobs should be aimed at technology...

...globalization and trade agreements have made a huge contribution to the ongoing success of American manufacturing...

...more than half of what Americans import each year is not for consumption but for production...

Like technology, globalization has allowed American manufacturing workers to “trade up” to more challenging and better-paying work...

...millions of U.S. jobs are eliminated each year by technology and changing consumer tastes, only to be replaced by new jobs that are being created by the same dynamic forces.

The right response to anxieties about trade is to invest more in education, retraining and enhanced labor mobility, not to pick trade fights with other nations that would put in jeopardy the success of America’s modern, competitive manufacturing sector.

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you're trying to tell me building 100 planes makes them cheaper than building 1000 planes, you're confirming your idiocy.

Imagine how cheap they'd be if Boeing only built one.....

[central_va]

Demand is not dictated by the cost of production. They are not the only AC manufacturer. Let me help you. If China canceled 400 orders Boeing would have over capacity of production. This would cause Boeing to either lower there price, reduce profit margins, or close down some production. It would not cause a price increase. That would be suicidal. If an airline is deciding on new equipment it comes down to a few pennies on the dollar to make a decision. It isn’t a massive cost reduction just enough to make them choose Boeing.

[Toddsterpatriot]

If China canceled 400 orders Boeing would have over capacity of production.

Let me help you. If Boeing had to pay for their new aircraft plant with 100 planes, instead of 500 planes, would their fixed cost per plane be higher or lower?