Posted on 12/31/2001 11:42:06 AM PST by Rockinfreakapotamus
MISSION:
The purpose of this Crafted with Pride in U.S.A. educational campaign is to inform American consumers about the importance of domestic manufacturing to the long-term well being of the United States of America and its people. HISTORY:
The Crafted with Pride in U.S.A. Council was formed in April 1984 to strengthen the competitive position of the U.S. textile and apparel industry. for an entire history of the council. ADDRESS:
Crafted With Pride in USA Council, Inc.
P.O. Box 65326
Washington, DC 20035-5326
Telephone: 202-775-0658
eMail: cwp@craftedwithpride.org
The items listed below automatically launch using Adobe® Acrobat® Reader®. If you do not already have Adobe® Acrobat® Reader®, click here to download it for free.
US Job Growth In Crisis Job Losses in Most Manufacturing Industries Have Spread to Services.
US Trade Debt US Debt in Billions of Dollars, 1960-2001
% of US Labor Force Engaged in Manufacturing With Fewer US Manufacturing Jobs than in 1964, Has Manufacturing's Share Reached Rock Bottom?
Job Growth and Decline by State Job Growth and Decline by State: Slowdown Spreading Outward From Manufacturing.
US Trade US Trade Losses Remain Near Last Year's $450 Billion Annual Pace
US Economy Components of the US Economy: Gross Domestic Product
1.22 Million Jobs Lost Job losses are widespread lead by Electronics in last 12 months.
Is "Leveling the Playing Field" the Issue? Article 6, November 2001: How does America advance the interest of its workers and its companies in a world filled with low-wage workers, productive over capacity, and shrinking demand.
Are We Tearing America's Economic Tapestry? Article 7, November 2001: The American economy is akin to an intricate tapestry and when one strand breaks the linked threads are weakened.
Does Steel Matter? Article 8, November 2001: America is the world's largest steel consumer. And its demand is growing.
Article 9 ?? (missing from website)
Who Makes U.S. Trade Policy? Article 10, November 2001: Congress must fulfill its Constitutional obligation to regulate trade.
Can We Stop the Great Job-Giveaway? Article 11, December 2001: Congress shall regulate commerce with foreign nations. [NOTE: The link to this article is bad and the CWP Council has been duly notified via email]
What Do American Voters Think About Fast Track? Article 12, December 2001: By a 47-33 percent margin, voters believe that Congress should use normal legislative procedures, not fast track, to consider trade agreements.
Should U.S. Trade Policies Promote the Environmental Ruin of Other Nations? Article 13, December 2001: American voters overwhelmingly say no to U.S. trade policies that encourage global environmental ruin.
Polling Questions & Results December 3, 2001: Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates, National Voter Survey
How about a 'Made in the USA' label becoming harder to find on shoes as plants close
How about a Manufacturing's slide hits 13th month: Reports fuel fears of `deflationary recession'
What are the rules regarding statements of origin for manufactured goods?
During the past year, America lost more than 1.1 million manufacturing jobs.
Every core sector of manufacturing was touched - industrial machinery, autos, electronics, steel, and textiles, among others - and these losses were experienced in all parts of America.
Today, manufacturing employment in the United States stands at the same level it did in 1964.
Some of these job losses were caused by the current recession. Improved technology also displaced some of these workers.
Yet, many workers lost their jobs because domestic factories have shifted their operations to low-wage, nonregulation countries. In other industries, foreign producers have seized market share from U.S. producers.
Does the loss of these jobs matter?
Yes, it matters. But as long as the liberal, bed-wetting, "save the toads and snail-darters" left have their way, industry will continue to die in the USA.
The US manufacturing industry has been regulated to death. It is no longer economically feasible to open and operate a manufacturing plant of any great size because the wages that the unions will demand the workers be paid, the taxes the company will have to pay to the government for the privilege of operating in the US and the fees incurred for the clean-up of the pollution that is inevitably a by-product of industry makes it impossible to produce a product that the general consuming public can afford.
Whenever conservatives try to fund corporations to keep them up and running, the left screams "FOUL" and starts dredging up the "starving" masses of lazy welfare mammas and their offspring that could use the money.
We've gotten what we deserve for being so stupid, so "PC" and so easily pushed around by a bunch of whining cry-babies.
"It is no longer economically feasible to open and operate a manufacturing plant of any great size because the wages that the unions will demand the workers be paid, the taxes the company will have to pay to the government for the privilege of operating in the US and the fees incurred for the clean-up of the pollution that is inevitably a by-product of industry makes it impossible to produce a product that the general consuming public can afford."
Nicely put, I should think.
As anyone can see, this problem's an exremely complicated one.
A problem I haven't clue #1 as to how it should be, or could be solved.
...not as long as the aforementioned forces above rule the day, I don't.
:sidebar: Free trade threads get more people screaming around here than the religious threads. Considering the economic globalization plan commonly known as "free trade" has all been in the works since the end of WWII, I'd say the enemy has done a durn good job thus far...
Precisely. One would expect that unemployment would have increased in lockstep with the loss of manufacturing jobs if it were as harmful as has been claimed. Yet, excepting the very last few months, unemployment has been historically low for the last few years. Apparently, the out-of-work textile makers are having little trouble finding new work in most cases.
The transition away from a manufacturing economy here in the U.S. is a done deal. I'll say it again - it's a done deal. This economy is a service economy, and we're all the better for it.
People have this notion of service industries as being burger-flipping jobs. They are - the low end of the service sector. But insurance is a service industry. Banking is a service industry. Telecommunications is a service industry. Increasingly, software is a service industry.
What's likely to make this country wealthier - selling the world shirts and shoes, or insurance and software?
But, of course, we don't live in that world - we have to direct resources where they will be used most efficiently and productively. And at the end of the day, that's what free markets do - allocate resources to their most productive use.
It's all about comparative advantage - autarky (trying to do everything yourself in the name of self-sufficiency) is hugely inefficient when compared to trade in good and services. It seems totally counterintuitive, but it's true - concentrate on producing the things that you have a comparative advantage in (even if you don't have an absolute advantage), trade for the other things with folks that have some comparative advantage in those other things, and you all get richer thereby.
It's true for you as an individual, if you think about it - you could produce everything you need to live, and thereby be completely self-sufficient. You know, growing your own vegetables, hunting for your own meat, making your own weapons to hunt with, making your own tools to garden with, building your own shelter with materials and tools you gathered yourself, et cetera, et cetera. But you, naturally, don't do that - you recognize, whether consciously or not, the value inherent in concentrating on producing the things you're good at producing. That is, doing whatever you do for a living, and trading for the things you're not so good at doing.
After all, consider me - I'm terrible with plants. They seem to turn brown just by being in my presence. If I had to be self-sufficient and grow my own vegetables, I'd be starving in very short order. I'm just not very good at it, and it's wasteful and inefficient for me to try - my labor would be better directed to doing something else. So, instead, I let the people who are good at it do it for me, and trade with them to get vegetables. This frees up my time, so that I can produce things where I have some comparative advantage. It's good for me, and it's good for the farmers - everybody's happy, and everybody gets richer than they otherwise would.
And it's the same for nations as it is for individuals. Comparative advantage isn't called Ricardo's Law just out of economists' arrogance - it's a mathematical certainty. Nations producing the things they have a comparative advantage in, and trading for the rest makes everyone richer than the alternative. And that's the point to making things anymore, isn't it? ;)
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.