7,231,000 Lost Jobs: Manufacturing Employment Down 37% From 1979 Peak

Cybercast News Service ^ | May 12, 2015 | 1:23 PM EDT | Terence P. Jeffrey

[Olog-hai]

The number of jobs in manufacturing has declined by 7,231,000—or 37 percent—since employment in manufacturing peaked in the United States in 1979, according to data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The real median household income of Americans who have completed high school—but have not attained a higher degree—also peaked in the 1970s and has declined since then.

In fact, according to the Census Bureau (Tables H-13 and H-14), the real median household income of an American householder who has completed four years of high school peaked in 1973 at $56,395 in constant 2013 dollars. By 2013, it was down to $40,701. That is a drop of $15,694—or 27.8 percent. …

[1rudeboy]

Blame Reagan.

[central_va]

Cowboy I think you are woefully informed. I think I went over this with you before..So tell me what is the percent of the manufacturing workforce that is in or represented by a union? If you can’t answer that question then you should STHU until you are educated in this matter.

[tcrlaf]

“We can thank NAFTA , the WTO and free trade..”

Only a very small part of the equation.
The CEO’s have been telling us for 25 years what the problem really is, but so many still don’t get it.
See my post above.

[Gritty]

Hey, that's OK. The number of government jobs is up and tens of millions more are covered by food stamps so what's the problem? Besides, it's a lot less effort working a part time job than a full time one and one gets lots of free government subsidies to boot.

All we need to do is print more money and everybody will be happy-happy-happy!

[ChicagahAl]

what is the percent of the manufacturing workforce that is in or represented by a union?

Those are the jobs that went overseas.

You are like the Libs who ask: "Well, if the crime rate is down; why are there so many people in prison?"

Jobs went overseas and union membership declined.

See if you can connect the dots.

[central_va]

I'll make a simple multiple choice question:

What is the percent of the manufacturing work force in the USA that is unionized?:

1. 10%
2. 20%
3. 30%
4. 40%

[Soul of the South]

“Jobs went overseas and union membership declined.”

Manufacturing in the right to work states of the southeast was also devastated by the free trade agreements of the past 25 years. Very few of those factories employed union workers.

[nutmeg]

bookmark

[Enlightened1]

In the meanwhile Obama and the Republicans are working hard tonrch what is left with the Trans Pacific Partnership (aka TPP)

[ChicagahAl]

I'll make a simple multiple choice question:

LOL.

I'll try to make my answer as simple as possible; since you didn't get my simple analogy of more-criminals-in-prison = less crime.

Less than 10%.

Now, here's the part you don't get: Where did all the union jobs go?

Most went to other countries. Some companies closed and won't be replaced anytime soon.

Here are a couple of interesting links for you, if you care to do some homework on the subject:

“A huge part of the union membership loss can be traced to the jobs shifted inshore to Mexico and offshore to China,” said Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of labor education research at Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations.a>

National Labor Relations Board Overreach Against Boeing Imperils Jobs and Investment Hans A. von Spakovsky James Sherk Legal Memorandum, No. 66 The Heritage Foundation May 11, 2011 "Because they invest less, unionized companies often become less competitive. As a result, these companies create fewer jobs. Research shows that unionized firms shed jobs more frequently and expand less frequently than non-union firms do. ... This is not a coincidence: Unions directly cause these job losses. Employment falls between 5 percent and 10 percent when unions organize a company. ... Going forward, jobs in unionized firms shrink (or grow more slowly) by three to four percentage points a year than they do in non-union firms. ... In the long term, unionized jobs disappear. Such economic decline is the exact effect that unionization has had on the manufacturing sector. ... Non-union manufacturing businesses employed as many workers in 2010 as they did in 1975. However, unionized manufacturing employment fell by 79 percent during the same period. In the aggregate, only unionized manufacturing jobs have disappeared from the economy."

But, your continuously-absurd questioning about the % of unionized manufacturing jobs, completely misses the point. Unions don't just do damage to companies that are currently unionized; they commit terrorism against companies and employees that are non-union; even in RTW states. Who wants to deal with that, if you have other options?

Additionally, labor unions are not the only problem. Federal Government Regulations (especially, but not exclusively) the EPA have caused many companies to offshore, and many new companies to start up overseas.

The Lawsuit Industry^tm is another driver of offshoring.

And certainly, Affirmative Action (which also dove-tails with Labor Unions and Trial Lawyers) is another nail in the US Job Coffin.

[expat_panama]

And that’s the crux of the matter.

The anti-business climate may be the crux, but it does not matter if doom'n'gloomers pretend that America's lost manufacturing and incomes.

This bogus article says fewer people work in manufacturing (true) and that means most people's real incomes are down (not true).  That bit about incomes of "householders who have completed high school" is a smoke screen because back on the Planet Earth most Americans not only finished high school but have also gone on to some form of trade-school/college.   Census numbers show real median household incomes increased as employees left manufacturing, peaked decades later, and are still thousands of dollars higher than they were in '79.

[ChicagahAl]

Manufacturing in the right to work states of the southeast was also devastated by the free trade agreements Anti-Business Government-Policies of the past 25 years

US Manufacturing Jobs actually increased in the years after NAFTA.

Government Regulations (EPA, etc.), Business-Busting Lawsuits and Race-Based Politics have all played a role in killing American jobs, as well. See my post above regarding the effects of unions in RTW states.

Plus, we shouldn't overlook John Holdren's (Obama's Science Czar) comment that the goal is to "De-develop America".

De-develop America?

I think I hear the sound of more jobs leaving.

[entropy12]

As far as I know, it does not matter how little you worked,
there is basic amount of social security every one gets. My mother-in-law immigrated to USA at age 70, and receives social security even though she never worked in US.

[Soul of the South]

“US Manufacturing Jobs actually increased in the years after NAFTA.”

The first two years after NAFTA, manufacturing hours worked did increase in the USA. Then growth flattened. Factories, and jobs, don’t leave immediately when a trade bill is passed. It takes years for supply chains to be reconfigured. Better to look at the impact over a decade or two.

There are a number of studies suggesting NAFTA lead to a significant loss of jobs in the USA over the past two decades as well as widening trade deficits. I’ve seen no studies suggesting the net economic impact of NAFTA on the US has been positive in the 20 years since the bill passed.

Here is a study assessing the first decade of NAFTA on the jobs and the US economy: http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/

More data circa 2010: http://epi.3cdn.net/fdade52b876e04793b_7fm6ivz2y.pdf
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/manufacturing-trade-after-nafta

The legacy of NAFTA is job losses and huge trade deficits for the USA. Mexico benefited greatly as did Canada.

Interesting that the pro NAFTA studies herald “increased trade” and “minimal impact” on US jobs. They also focus on total US employment and make no effort to assess the actual jobs by sector of the economy gained or lost to trade with Mexico and Canada. The pro NAFTA studies are woefully inadequate in making a quantitative case the USA is better off, because the detailed economic data doesn’t support that conclusion.

[RayChuang88]

A huge change since the 1970’s is the increased used of computer-controlled machines. What used to take an army of workers to assemble an automobile or even do underground coal mining now takes 1/3 the number of workers, thanks to robots that can do repetitive or dangerous work. As such, in the industrialized world, birth rates are rapidly falling, and even the more advanced Muslim countries—normally known for high birth rates—are seeing rapid falls in this statistic.

[Olog-hai]

That’s not a cause.

[central_va]

You’re fighting yesterdays war.

[RayChuang88]

Remember 125 years ago it used to take a huge number of people to do farming? Nowadays, thanks to the likes of John Deere, they grow a huge amount of food on a tiny fraction of the farmers that used to be around. That same mechanization and automation is why you’re seeing a lot less manufacturing jobs, especially with the increased used in robotic machines since the late 1970’s.

[Olog-hai]

Factory/automated farming is an idea from the Communist Manifesto.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
   
   
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
   
   
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. …

So in the ten planks, there is forced relocation, enslavement by the state, destruction of family farming (which fed the USA during WWII), mechanizing of farming to the point of it being an industry rather than agriculture, centralizing of farming (subsidized) et al, all of which has happened here.

[RayChuang88]

Regardless of what Karl Marx said, once the steam engine got smaller and smaller so they could power tractors, mechanized farming was coming anyway because it allowed a huge leap forward in agricultural output on a per acre/hectare basis. What happened in the Ukraine between 1928 and 1934 with its massive famine was more a political decision than a technological decision.