U.S. manufacturing jobs fading away fast

Yahoo/USA Today ^ | Fri Dec 13, 7:48 AM ET | Barbara Hagenbaugh

[RLK]

Thanks (not!) for two terms of the First Felon! Peronista idiots!

----------------------------

Right. George Bush did't have anything to do with his not being elected. It's everybody else's fault. Put up some more duds and blame the world for not supporting them.

[dtel]

You will need to right click on my latest posts on this subject and highlight the text, then look on your keyboard in the very upper right hand corner and push that little button.
This will enable sarcasm mode on your PC and my text will start flashing a neon sign that says "Eat at Joe's, Eat at Joe's" over and over.
You're welcome.

[general_re]

It is not your choice to put someone else through medical school and it is not your choice to engineer society so that they cannot open up their own donut shop or maybe a Dunken Donut franchise. You realize you are speaking as someone who thinks he can decide how to engineer our society?

LOL. I think not. What I'm saying is get the government out of the business of trying to pick winners and losers, and get them out of the business of propping up uncompetitive industries at my expense. It's precisely because you can't engineer society and the free market better than the free market can that we need to get them out of the business of trying. If you want to make tennis shoes, be my guest. Don't come crying and looking for special protection when you discover that you can't charge what Malaysian tennis shoe makers are charging - that's the way the free market works. If you can't compete on your own, get out and quit looking for handouts to prop you up. You've lost - go find something that you can compete in.

American society is not based on making the cheapest shoes. We have expenses and expectations in our society. We dont use slave labor. We dont have sweat shops filled with children. We have restrictions on dumping toxic waste in the oceans.

That changes over time. With Western-style capitalism comes Western-style values and mores. If you prefer buying from companies that maintain some minimal standards for their workers, or for their local environment, then by all means, vote with your dollars. That's what those anti-sweatshop campaigns on the college campuses are designed to do - get you to vote with your wallet. If they can't make any money because people are uncomfortable buying shoes made by slaves, they'll stop using slaves. That's how it works.

Heeh, the WTO doesnt level the playing field for the American worker or most small businesses. The WTO does not even begin to meet up with the expectation that Americans have for a free society.

The WTO isn't intended to make a free society, except maybe as a one-off. It makes for free trade - what you do with that free trade is up to you. Take a look at the cases the US has brought before the WTO sometime - you might be surprised at the sorts of businesses that are finding overseas opportunities as a result of it.

With the communists now able to point nuclear warheads at America it looks like we are the ones taking the poison pill.

They won't shoot unless we provoke them. They can't afford it - they need us as much as we need them. Right now, there are millions of Chinese making what is, by Chinese standards, a pretty decent living manufacturing stuff for us. How will their government explain things to them when their jobs all evaporate along with Los Angeles? How will they make things right for the millions of unemployed and pissed-off citizens they will face if they destroy us?

They won't attack us, any more than we'll attack them - we're both making too much money off of each other to do something stupid. Attacking us is suicidal for them, and they're quite smart enough to know it.

China is going to have to take one hell of a poison pill to make up for the massive failure of "free trade" at this point. The WTO wont change a thing and you know it.

And yet, the fact remains, we are richer now in real terms than we ever have been before. What failure?

[RnMomof7]

That's right. Except that trade barriers and tariffs, which is where these arguments invariably lead, are pure redistributional economics. I'm paying more for a hammer than I otherwise would because the hammer makers think it's "unfair" to charge what Chinese hammer makers charge

So you can save a buck you sell your nations middle class...

[BJungNan]

If, as you say, the reason that tech jobs are being moved overseas is OSHA then you should be able to provide info to support what you said.

Excuse me, but (1) my original post was not not limited to just tech jobs and I did not say OSHA was the only reason jobs are moving overseas. I cited OSHA as one example. You limited the discussion to tech jobs and I obliged. (2) What I posted shows that the tech industry is just as affected by OSHA regulation (overregulation in the case of paperwork reporting) as are other industries. I did support my position.

Did you see my point that 80% of OSHA fines are issued for paperwork-only violations not actual workplace safety issues and that five of the top 10 infractions have to do with paperwork?

Can I ask, are you familiar with such things as a hazardous substance survey or a Material Safety Data Sheet? From the last comment in your post it would seem you think these to types of documents are limited only to the very hazardous chemicals found in a high tech clean room and waffer chip manufacturing operations.

[dtel]

"How will they make things right for the millions of unemployed and pissed-off citizens they will face if they destroy us?"

How are you so sure they will be pissed off?
Did your Chinese penpal tell you something to this effect?
Or is this just speculation on your part?
Wait, don't we have McDonalds in China?
Whew, now that problem is averted, can't we all just join hands and sing a nice, soulful round of "Cumbaya"?

[PuNcH]

That's right. Except that trade barriers and tariffs, which is where these arguments invariably lead, are pure redistributional economics.

No it is natural to protect our society. Restricting Americans while opening up our society to slave labor is pure redistributional economics.

I'm paying more for a hammer than I otherwise would because the hammer makers think it's "unfair" to charge what Chinese hammer makers charge. Frankly, I don't care. Make me a product worth buying, at a price worth paying, and I'll buy it.

I noticed you kinda tried to scoot around the little problem of slave labor and child sweat shops and a country that has a common term for work death and still runs communist gulags. Yah it is unfair that American society should be opened up to this and FORCED to compete against this while we still have our own society to maintain.

But nobody has the right to use the law to rob me by making me pay more than I otherwise would have to. That's a handout in my book, and the fact that it makes the hammer makers feel all warm and fuzzy doesn't change the fact that they expect to finance their lifestyle at my expense.

But I guess it is ok to use the law to rob America's industry. While we are forced to contribute to our society evidently others are not. Why shouldnt we make use of slave labor inside our country since it is acceptable outside? According to you our society is of no significance anyway.

[nanny]

As long as you have a steady supply of dollars, you'll be fine. As long as the nation keeps making money with which to buy stuff, we'll be fine

AH, that's the rub. How can I always have a steady supply of dollars when I send more out than I receive? You see, sooner, or later - it catches up to you.

That's right. Except that trade barriers and tariffs, which is where these arguments invariably lead, are pure redistributional economics

First off, I said nothing about tariffs. I would only want the government to impose tariffs against a country that imposes tariffs on our products l- nothing more and nothing less. So forget tariffs. Not in my discussion.

Now I am talking about our federal government financing the exportation of jobs to other countries. That is not right and it is as destructive, if not more, than tariffs.

Now we once made hammers worth having at a good price - then someone decided they could make more money importing hammers cheaper and since they were 'cheap' as in quality, you would have to buy and buy - therefore built in repeat customers. Now most people do not have the foresight to realize they can pay $10 for a hammer that will last or they can pay 4$ for a hammer they will have to replace every 2 or 3 years. And if they buy the $10 hammer, their neighbor will have a job and will contribute to the overall standard of living of the entire country - the $4 does nothing but make some other country better and some importer richer. Now the maker of the good hammer is out of a job or is selling those cheap hammers at WalMart and the rest of us are picking up the slack and sending his kids to school and to college, etc. Also, if we have to keep buying cheap hammers, hammers is all we have. If we buy good products that last, then we can buy more products later. That's not warm and fuzzy, that is pure economics - not just immediate gratification economics.

I repeat if what you do for a living does not help pay for the costs of what we have in this country - you are getting a handout. YOu are getting welfare. YOu are living off the work of others. That is worse than a handout - a handout is voluntary - what you are getting is being taken forcibly from other working people.

you should look up David Ricardo and the Law of Comparative Advantage sometime.

WEll, the problem here is I have had the advantage of not reading anyone law of whatever. I have the advantage of seeing things in terms of common sense and what is good for America and its people. I don't need someone to interpret that for me. You see you cannot spend more than you make - just won't work. I learned that one I was about 5 years old. Oh, it will for some forever - because the government will always be there to take it away from the ones who do have some left. But soon even those won't have any money left, and where will you be?

They need us as much as we need them. Why would they screw up a system that's making us both rich?

This is not intended as an insult -" And there are fairies in the bottom of my garden and the moon is made of blue cheese."

I repeat everyone in the world is not just interested in making money - they want money for what it will accomplish for them. It will help spread their idealogy and bring them more power. And believe me, they won't always 'need' what we might have left - especially the way things are going.

[desertcry]

Although Kodak never had unions, they paid high wages and great.... What you said is indeed true, Kodak did not have unions because they paid high wages and great benifits, thus preventing the union organizers from getting in. So indirectly the unions drove kodak to pay wages which were too high to stay in business. This is the same thing IBM did, and slowly IBM had to migrate their manufacturing to somewhere else, or sell their production lines, because they were unprofitable. As for Fujii being directly subsidized by the Japanese Govt. , I have some doubt about that. I think Fujii won over Kodak, because the cost of Capital in Japan was so much lower than in the USA, they were able to out invest Kodak in modernizing it's manufacturing lines, thereby reducing the cost of their production. This however, I think costs the Japanese Banks big time, most of them are in bad shape.

[PuNcH]

What I'm saying is get the government out of the business of trying to pick winners and losers, and get them out of the business of propping up uncompetitive industries at my expense.

If we opened up slavery in the US those same businesses would be made uncompetitive to anyone who didnt use slavery. So to simply say that the businesses are uncompetitive is a self assuming argument on your part. Why should someone be made a slave and be forced to make you a "cheaper" product at their expense?

It's precisely because you can't engineer society and the free market better than the free market can that we need to get them out of the business of trying.

The free market alone does not create or protect our society and to say that it does is a rejection of our constitutional form of govt. Do you realize that laws against slavery or toxic dumping are special protections in the world of the free market?

If you prefer buying from companies that maintain some minimal standards for their workers, or for their local environment, then by all means, vote with your dollars. That's what those anti-sweatshop campaigns on the college campuses are designed to do - get you to vote with your wallet. If they can't make any money because people are uncomfortable buying shoes made by slaves, they'll stop using slaves. That's how it works.

Rights are not dependant on or protected by votes or the market system. Is the slave going to vote with his dollars too? And as is naturally the case all too often, what if the stupid mob of peoples votes with their dollars for slavery?

The WTO isn't intended to make a free society, except maybe as a one-off. It makes for free trade -

No in fact the WTO is not creating free trade.

[desertcry]

Protection the Govt. provides.... Indeed, there is very strong coupling between the democrats and the Unions as we all know.

[PuNcH]

China is going to have to take one hell of a poison pill to make up for the massive failure of "free trade" at this point. The WTO wont change a thing and you know it.

And yet, the fact remains, we are richer now in real terms than we ever have been before. What failure?

When communist china went from being stuck in the 1950's to a modern nuclear power by looting and stealing from America. That failure.

[desertcry]

I don't know the answer to your questions. Maybe those who want to keep Manufacturing of commodities in the USA knows.

[desertcry]

Thanks.

[koax]

thanks for the intelligent reply.

ok, so we buy our designed robos from china. can't we make textiles and furniture here? it would provide employment to aa and ba and employees to manage.

it would save transportation costs.

and, gosh! think how environmentally friendly! (/s)

[PuNcH]

I don't know the answer to your questions. Maybe those who feel they've lost a job picking cotton to a slave knows.

[dtel]

"ok, so we buy our designed robos from china. can't we make textiles and furniture here? it would provide employment to aa and ba and employees to manage.

Ah, but that is the rub grasshopper.
Why bring em back here when they are already there, bring em back here, you have to pay John or Jane Doe ten bucks an hour to oversee them. Plus medical, unemployment, ad infinitum.
Leave em over there and you pay two bucks an hour with housing, meals and medical care thrown in.
While transportation costs inflict a little damage to the bottom line, if there is no tariff to level this imbalance in labor costs, what is the incentive to put up with the political BS here?

[primeval patriot]

See, in the new economy everyone is an executive or a pencil pushing geek. No need to wear those dungarees, break out the Armani, you're an insurance salesman now.

Yep, everyone is going to get an MBA or Law Degree. It'll be fantastic.

And hey, if you can't manage that, the air-conditioned splendor of a $6.50 an hour cashier's job at the Wal-Mart beckons.

Besides, Americans don't want to get sweaty anymore and make twenty bucks an hour running a lathe.

[dtel]

"Besides, Americans don't want to get sweaty anymore and make twenty bucks an hour running a lathe."

Lathes are so passe, these days.
I mean they are so big and dirty and all, and what do we do about all those nasty old metal shavings. Yep let the dinks do those jobs.
We'll sell em insurance. Let's see two bucks an hour, twenty dollars a day, doesn't sound much of a revenue stream, good thing there are so many of them, we'll make it up in volume. ;^)

[jayef]

Laughable and illogical. Everyone of your claims is based on a complete lack of understanding of economics.

You do nothing to refute the first claim, but offer your own experience as proof. Not the remotest bit scientific.

Your answer to the second claim is untrue. People are counted as unemployed if they are currently looking for work and do not have it. You offer no proof that a greater number of people have left the labor force. You can can go to the BLS website just like I did to find answers to your questions.

Finally, laws of equilibrium? What does that have to do with economics? You foist one of the greatest leftist fallacies on us when you see the global economy as a zero sum game. I assure you that wealth is indeed created and not pushed around the world like sand.