# Is the US in decline? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 12, 2010, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905 "2010-12-12T17:49:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905/161 "2011-01-09T02:51:23Z")
Again, this does not show that manufacturing has shrunk in the US (it hasn’t)…it merely shows that as a percentage of our total GDP (which has risen quite a bit since 1980) it has shrunk. Why you and others think this meaningful is beyond me. You do realize that there has been explosive growth in industries that didn’t even exist or were fledgling industries at that time, right? For example what percentage of total GDP do you suppose the computer industry made then? What about IT? Cell phones? Telco services? How about bio tech? Etc etc. The growth of other industries does not mean the shrinkage of others…unless you are interested in trying to trick people with meaningless stats to forward a political agenda. I haven’t read thru your cite completely but I suspect that may be what’s going on there… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905/162 "2011-01-09T06:25:59Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Except the problem with the cite you give above, is that it talks about relative percentages, not absolute amounts. In a little over one generation, manufacturing jobs have shrunk as a percentage of the economy. Much of the increase in manufacturing is the result of improved productivity. Manufacturing jobs represented 20% of all jobs in 1980, they now represent less than 10%. In a little over a generation our population has had to acclimate to an economy with half the number of manufacturing jobs. That’s a large transition over a relatively short period of time. Some say Americans are not adapting quickly enough. I think its a testament to Americans that we have adapted as well as we have. Doesn’t the trade imbalance bother you at all? ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905/163 "2011-01-09T07:15:50Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > And here we have it in a nutshell. The only possible way a sweatshop worker in China can make a dollar is if he grabs that dollar out of the hands of an American worker. There’s only so much money in the world, and if one person gets more money that means everyone else has to lose money. The global economy is a zero sum game. So when a Chinese peasant gets a job in a factory, it means somewhere else some other poor schmuck gets fired from his factory job. Show me what jobs we’ve gained as a result of sending jobs overseas. Explain how much they pay, compared to the jobs we sent overseas. Can you do that? Nobody’s saying economics is a zero-sum game… at least not as long as you have the fractional reserve ponzi sch-er, banking system, constantly conjuring $9 out of every $1 lent out. With all that hocus-pocus going on it’s clearly a plus-sum game - but the plus is all going to the corporations and investors. It’s a _negative_ sum game for the workers. Please cite where I said economics is a zero-sum game, as opposed to a game where the profits are going to the upper 1% and not the working class. (See: Trickle-down.) > [@](#): > > What I can’t understand, is how do people who believe in zero-sum economics explain the economic growth of the past couple hundred years. When you meet someone who says economics is a zero-sum game, please, repeat what you said to them. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905/164 "2011-01-09T13:56:26Z")
> [@The\_Amazing\_Hanna](#): > > Obviously, measuring output in absolute terms is just plain silly, so please don’t throw a tantrum when people fail to agree. > > It’s like Dr Evil and the “One. MILLION. Dollars.” thing. One dollar in the past isn’t the same as one dollar now, for reasons I’m sure you understand. > > The manufacturing share of the GDP has [shrunk](http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2010/06/28/manufacturing-output-as-a-percent-of-gdp-by-country/) quite dramatically - 21% in 1980, 13% in 2008. The US share of world manufacturing has shrunk from 31% to 24% - not as dramatic, but still a pretty big chunk. That’s not “growing”. That’s decline. That’s ridiculous. The only measure that matters when considering if something is growing is if it’s bigger than before. If you want to say that the US manufacturing has shrunk as a percentage of GDP or whatever, fine. But that isn’t what posters are doing in this thread. They are saying that U.S. manufacturing has shrunk or that the U.S. has lost manufacturing. The only logical conclusion to draw from those statements is that the size of U.S. manufacturing is smaller than it was before. For comparison: If your Kid grows from 5’ to 5’ 4", but his classmates grew on average from 4’11" to 5’6", would you say your kid has shrunk? If your neighbor gets a bigger raise than you, would you say that your salary has shrunk or that you have lost money? Of course you wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905/165 "2011-01-09T20:58:19Z")
> [@The\_Amazing\_Hanna](#): > > Obviously, measuring output in absolute terms is just plain silly, so please don’t throw a tantrum when people fail to agree. > > It’s like Dr Evil and the “One. MILLION. Dollars.” thing. One dollar in the past isn’t the same as one dollar now, for reasons I’m sure you understand. Perhaps you don’t correctly understand how inflation works. Inflation measures the average increase in the price of common consumer goods over time. It does not measure the increase in the GDP over time. Wikipedia has articles on [inflation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation), and the most common measure of inflation, the [Consumer Price Index](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Price_Index). > [@](#): > > The manufacturing share of the GDP has [shrunk](http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2010/06/28/manufacturing-output-as-a-percent-of-gdp-by-country/) quite dramatically - 21% in 1980, 13% in 2008. The US share of world manufacturing has shrunk from 31% to 24% - not as dramatic, but still a pretty big chunk. That’s not “growing”. That’s decline. Other posters have handled the mathematical theory about why going from 21% to 13% does not necessarily mean that manufacturing output is shrinking. Let’s deal with some actual numbers. The cite you gave (you did read the article, didn’t you?) cites [UN data](http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/dnllist.asp) as its source. In fact, below the graph, your cite says > [@](#): > > The manufacturing share of the USA economy dropped from 21% in 1980 to 18% in 1990, 16% in 2000 and 13% in 2008. Still as previous posts show\*\* the USA manufacturing output has grown substantially\*\*: over 300% since 1980, and 175% since 1990. [My emphasis] You can examine several pieces of UN data yourself (I did, but I’m getting different percentage growth figures–details below). The most important ones seem to be (links to Excel documents): [GDP and its breakdown at current prices in US Dollars](http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/dnltransfer.asp?fID=2), [GDP and its breakdown at constant 2005 prices in US Dollars](http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/dnltransfer.asp?fID=6) and [Percentage Distribution (Shares) of GDP](http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/dnltransfer.asp?fID=16). A quick digression on economics terminology: the phrase “current prices,” or the word “nominal,” mean that inflation has not been taken into account. I.e., dollar amounts listed for a year are given in terms of the dollar’s value in that year. Use of the word “real,” or the phrase “constant 2005 prices,” indicate that the effect of inflation has been taken out of the data–in this case, all dollar values are given in terms of 2005 dollar. I’m confused about one thing with this data, and maybe someone can clear it up for me. Looking over the data on Shares of GDP, and GDP breakdown in current prices, it’s clear that the data point in the former come from dividing each component of GDP by the Total Value Added category. For example, to get the percentage of manufacturing in 1980, you would divide the manufacturing value added in 1980 ($584039116951.039) by the total value added in 1980 ($2749179127010.18), to get the percentage (21.244%). However, taking the same ratio using data in constant 2005 dollars results in a different value ($818172572064 / $6140208541869 = 0.13324). Can someone explain this? I thought ratios of prices were identical, whether adjusted for inflation or not. Regarding the percentage growth figures, I looked at manufacturing data in constant dollars. I found that real manufacturing output (as measured in the constant dollars data above) increase 106% from 1980 to 2008, and 61% from 1990 to 2008. The Federal Reserve also publishes data on manufacturing output, the years [1980 to 2010 can be seen in this chart](http://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Chart.aspx?rel=G17&series=1987a0705bd49d0a1186720281b215a2&lastObs=&from=01/01/1980&to=12/31/2010&filetype=spreadsheetml&label=include&layout=seriescolumn&pp=Format) (click on “max” below the graph to see all years). The growth figures I found are much closer to the Federal Reserve data (111% and 71%, respectively) than was cited in the Curious Cat blog post. The point of all this is, yes, manufacturing output has increased substantially, is currently increasing, and in all likelihood will continue to grow in the future. The fact that it has shrunk as a percentage of GDP means only that **other industries are growing even faster**. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > In a little over one generation, manufacturing jobs have shrunk as a percentage of the economy. Much of the increase in manufacturing is the result of improved productivity. Manufacturing jobs represented 20% of all jobs in 1980, they now represent less than 10%. In a little over a generation our population has had to acclimate to an economy with half the number of manufacturing jobs. That’s a large transition over a relatively short period of time. Some say Americans are not adapting quickly enough. I think its a testament to Americans that we have adapted as well as we have. The number of manufacturing jobs in America has hovered between 10 and 20 million [since 1940](http://www.invisibleheart.com/Iheart/TradeDeficitJobs.pdf) (pdf, see page 4), and has stayed within that range [throughout the recession](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SfRnBcxE0OI/AAAAAAAAJ2M/M57wLGupbgw/s1600-h/mfg1.bmp) (chart from [here](http://seekingalpha.com/article/133188-u-s-manufacturing-more-output-with-fewer-workers)). As a percentage of total employment, manufacturing employment has been steadily declining [since 1944](http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-manufacturing-employment-as-a-percentage-of-total-non-farm-payrolls-2010-8) (see also, page 6 of the previous pdf). Decreasing employment in manufacturing is caused primarily by the skyrocketing efficiency of the manufacturing process. > [@](#): > > Doesn’t the trade imbalance bother you at all? No, not really. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905/166 "2011-01-10T00:40:35Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > In a little over one generation, manufacturing jobs have shrunk as a percentage of the economy. Much of the increase in manufacturing is the result of improved productivity. Manufacturing jobs represented 20% of all jobs in 1980, they now represent less than 10%. Don’t ask what has replaced those jobs. You’ll make someone’s head explode.. and it won’t be yours or mine… ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905/167 "2011-01-10T01:54:41Z")
> **[Economist: 'The Age Of American Predominance Is Over'](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/economists-it-doesnt-look_n_806420)** > > Economist: 'The Age Of American Predominance Is Over' To get back to the point, the US is in decline. This article is about a group of economists who have come to accept it. The US will have to come to terms with our being a much less powerful country in the world. US prominence is ending. As this board shows, many are having trouble facing it. These economists think we should prepare for the unrest that will come when we try to affix the blame to those who we can be convinced are responsible. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905/168 "2011-01-10T02:15:12Z")
From **gonzomax** ’s link: > [@](#): > > In the long run, the United States must face up to inevitably being overtaken by China as the world’s largest economy. I honestly don’t see why people are worried about this. We’ll just join that list of all the other hell-hole countries that don’t have the world’s largest economy. Countries like Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, etc. > [@](#): > > “The rise of developing Asia is going to accompany slower world economic growth,” [Dale Jorgenson, Harvard economist] said. Given that “developing Asia” represents 1/3 of the world’s population,n how could their growth possibly lead to a slower average world economic growth? ---
**Author:** ![randy054](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/54ee81/32.png) [@randy054](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randy054)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905/169 "2011-01-10T03:01:22Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The entire market has expanded in overall size. That means when you talk about the total amount of money in manufacturing going up. ,you have to correct for inflation and increased prices. But American jobs , corporations and companies involved in the industrial base are shrinking in a growing world economy. It is a smaller proportion of our GNP. That is troubling to many. > I understand when you are young and looking into your future, it is difficult to face a new world which America is not the manufacturing and technological leader anymore. But that decision has been made. We will not be. Workers will work harder and make less money in the future. The bedrock unemployed will expand including many who felt pretty secure in their education and chosen profession. It will be a new world and it wont be pretty for a long time. > China ,India and some Asian countries will lead the new world until they start to demand too much .then it will be moved away from them. **The world is run by international corporations with no debt or sense of loyalty to any country**. The only measure of success is profit. We seem to like it that way. > This is not like the agricultural revolution. This is more like the monopolists of the early 20th century whose greed put them in conflict with the government . Trustbusting was the answer then. that wont happen again. They can move anywhere they want. They control the governments and police. They have won. That would fit right inline with some hedgefunders and CEO’s as well. Here are some that admit it: A very informative article by the way I recommend all to read please > **[The Rise of the New Global Elite](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-rise-of-the-new-global-elite/308343/)** > > F. Scott Fitzgerald was right when he declared the rich different from you and me. But today’s super-rich are also different from yesterday’s: more hardworking and meritocratic, but less connected to the nations that granted them opportunity—and the... **The Rise of the New Global Elite** > [@](#): > > The U.S.-based CEO of one of the world’s largest hedge funds told me that his firm’s investment committee often discusses the question of who wins and who loses in today’s economy. In a recent internal debate, he said, one of his senior colleagues had argued that the hollowing-out of the American middle class didn’t really matter. “His point was that if the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile means one American drops out of the middle class, that’s not such a bad trade,” the CEO recalled." Treason much? If he was a really benevolent Globalist, he would be pushing for regulations and pollution controls in China, which would help the people, and raise the wage differential higher between us and them than it is. The reality is he wants to stuff his pockets with more money and screw everyone else. > [@](#): > > “I heard a similar sentiment from the Taiwanese-born, 30-something CFO of a U.S. Internet company. A gentle, unpretentious man who went from public school to Harvard, he’s nonetheless not terribly sympathetic to the complaints of the American middle class. “We demand a higher paycheck than the rest of the world,” he told me. “So if you’re going to demand 10 times the paycheck, you need to deliver 10 times the value. It sounds harsh, but maybe people in the middle class > need to decide to take a pay ,cut.”” So, how about this joker take not a 10x pay-cut, but a 100x pay-cut to match that of the hedge-funder CEO’S overseas So, since clearly, their allegiance is not with this country, but as a globalist, where ever they can make money, at the expense of Americans, I say kick them out of this country. We should also cease all military spending since, it is they that benefit the most from having a base in every country to keep it safe for their financial pursuits. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905/170 "2011-01-10T03:33:17Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [Economists: It Doesn't Look Good For U.S. Economy In Next Decade | HuffPost Impact](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/economists-it-doesnt-look_n_806420.html) > To get back to the point, the US is in decline. This article is about a group of economists who have come to accept it. The US will have to come to terms with our being a much less powerful country in the world. US prominence is ending. As this board shows, many are having trouble facing it. > These economists think we should prepare for the unrest that will come when we try to affix the blame to those who we can be convinced are responsible. You never answered my question about whether or not you believe that the size of US manufacturing has been growing. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905/171 "2011-01-10T05:26:53Z")
[QUOTE=Le Jacquelope] Don’t ask what has replaced those jobs. You’ll make someone’s head explode.. and it won’t be yours or mine… [/QUOTE] What will really blow both of your minds is that 100 years ago agriculture represented over 90% of direct or indirect jobs in the US and today it’s under 1%…we’re doomed! Mass starvation! OMG!! Shame this point keeps flying over your head… [QUOTE=gonzomax] To get back to the point, the US is in decline. This article is about a group of economists who have come to accept it. The US will have to come to terms with our being a much less powerful country in the world. US prominence is ending. As this board shows, many are having trouble facing it. [/QUOTE] It’s a pretty standard liberal piece of horseshit, but I have to ask…did you actually read it? Because it’s not saying what you seem to think it’s saying…i.e. it’s not talking about the US being in decline, and doesn’t predict that the US will be overtaken by the Chinese until: > [@](#): > > On the other hand, there is the race with China and the dynamic Asian economies, including India. Most estimates put the size of the Chinese economy on par with the United States by the early 2020s, said Dale Jorgenson, also of Harvard. So…‘Most estimates’ say that China will be on par with the US by the 2020’s. I think that should be taken with a huge grain of salt, but even assuming that it’s spot on and nothing happens between now and then to derail the Chinese Juggernaut, they are talking about 9 years from now the Chinese will be on par with the US. That doesn’t exactly indicate a US decline unless you assume that there is a single sized pie for the world, and any increase by China has to be matched by a decline for the US. The gist of this entire article is a lament for increased government spending on stimulus and predictions that the US economy won’t recover FROM THE CURRENT RECESSION for the next 10 years. While these assertions may or may not be valid, neither indicate that the US is in decline, and no where does the article indicate what you claim it indicates. > [@](#): > > Nothing proceeds in a straight line, he said, and there are many pitfalls along the way even for dynamic Asian economies. > > “I would say the age of American dominance may be nearing an end. But America as the biggest mover will be in place for a long time,” he said. The ‘age of American dominance’ MAY be nearing an end, this guy claims, but then goes on to acknowledge that, well, maybe not, and regardless we will continue to be the ‘biggest mover’ (whatever that means) ‘for a long time’. Seriously, it’s bad enough to link to HuffandStuff as if it’s gospel (I don’t mind, since I read it myself and it’s better than your Bumblebee sites), but at least READ THE FREAKING ARTICLES WITH AN EYE TO UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY SAYING! Sheesh. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905/172 "2011-01-10T08:50:40Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [Economists: It Doesn't Look Good For U.S. Economy In Next Decade | HuffPost Impact](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/economists-it-doesnt-look_n_806420.html) > To get back to the point, the US is in decline. This article is about a group of economists who have come to accept it. The US will have to come to terms with our being a much less powerful country in the world. US prominence is ending. As this board shows, many are having trouble facing it. > These economists think we should prepare for the unrest that will come when we try to affix the blame to those who we can be convinced are responsible. Forget U.S. prominence. I could give a rat’s ass if America is the most powerful country around. What matters is the fact that the middle class is disappearing in this country, with more people going into the ranks of the poor than going into the ranks of the rich. We’re descending toward a plutocracy, all thanks to globalism. THAT is real decline. ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905/173 "2011-01-10T10:19:20Z")
From [The Economic Policy Institute](http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/china_trade_and_jobs-responding_to_myths_and_critics/): \*\*\*Productivity growth—The scoundrel’s last refuge \*\* The USCBC and others have tried to blame manufacturing job loss on productivity growth. But this canard simply does not stand up to close scrutiny. Employment growth in any economic sector is essentially the difference between growth in output and productivity (output per hour). Output growth, all else equal, spurs employment while productivity growth dampens it. The Figure below illustrates why manufacturing employment has fallen so rapidly over the last three years. Between 1989 and 2000, manufacturing output and productivity growth averaged, respectively, 3.5% and 3.8% per year. As a result, the two largely offset one another and manufacturing employment was relatively stable, as shown in the figure. Between 2000 and 2007 (the last business cycle peak), manufacturing productivity growth actually declined slightly, relative to the previous decade, falling 3.7% per year. Output growth, however, cratered, and has averaged only 0.5% per year in this period. Employment fell 3.1% per year as a result. In short, it is slow growth in manufacturing output—not an acceleration in productivity—that makes 2000-07 different from the previous decade and explains the steep fall in manufacturing employment in that period. Overall, 3.5 million manufacturing jobs were lost between December 2000 and December 2007. An additional 2.5 million manufacturing jobs were lost through December 2009 due to the collapse in output associated with the great recession.\* ---
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905/174 "2011-01-10T10:47:33Z")
Not only in decline but at least as far as the American people are concerned obsolete as well. Salon had a great article about this a short time ago. > [@](#): > > In every industrial democracy since the end of World War II, there has been a social contract between the few and the many. In return for receiving a disproportionate amount of the gains from economic growth in a capitalist economy, the rich paid a disproportionate percentage of the taxes needed for public goods and a safety net for the majority. > [@](#): > > The offshoring of industrial production means that many American investors and corporate managers no longer need an American workforce in order to prosper. They can enjoy their stream of profits from factories in China while shutting down factories in the U.S. And if Chinese workers have the impertinence to demand higher wages, American corporations can find low-wage labor in other countries. > **[Are the American people obsolete? - Salon.com](https://www.salon.com/2010/07/27/american_people_obsolete/)** > > The richest few don't need the rest of us as markets, soldiers or police anymore. Maybe we should all emigrate How very sad and absolutely true, I don’t know what can stop it, are we just to sit around helpless as the middle class just disappears. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905/175 "2011-01-10T11:11:42Z")
Has any American in this thread who thinks the US is in decline actually visited other countries? The non-American “decliners”, have you visited the US? I’m not being snarky, I’m genuinely curious. For all the USA’s visible problems it also has so much going for it in terms of wealth, culture, geography and human potential that is pretty much unrivalled by any other extant nation-state. Many new migrants to the US seem to see this more clearly than a lot of native born Americans. The larger Asian nations are growing in power and influence but from a low level and it could be many, many years before the US is eclipsed in terms of its aggregate economic, cultural, and political power. Also, hoping that material and other forms of progress continue on their upward trajectory, by the time the US has declined it will still be far more developed than it currently stands. The average British citizen probably now has a quality of life much in excess of that of all but the élité at the height of their empire. ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905/176 "2011-01-10T11:30:47Z")
Except that Treasury Secretary Geithner says in his [letter to Congress](http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/letter.aspx) _I am writing in response to your request for an estimate by the Treasury Department of when the statutory debt limit will be reached, and for a description of the consequences of default by the United States._ … \*As you know, in February of 2010 Congress passed legislation to increase the debt limit to $14.29 trillion. As of this writing, the outstanding debt that is subject to the limit stands at $13.95 trillion, leaving approximately $335 billion of “headroom” beneath the current limit. Because of the inherent uncertainty associated with tax receipts and refunds during the spring tax filing season, as well as other variable factors, it is not possible at this point to predict with precision the date by which the debt limit will be reached. However, the Treasury Department now estimates that the debt limit will be reached as early as March 31, 2011, and most likely sometime between that date and May 16, 2011. \* So the only thing that can stop the US Government defaulting on its debts is to borrow more money. But don’t worry it’s not his fault or party partisan: \*The national debt is the total amount of money borrowed in order to fulfill the requirements imposed by past Congresses and under past presidencies, during periods when both Republicans and Democrats were in control of different branches of government. These are legal obligations, incurred under the laws of the United States. Responsibility for creating the debt is bipartisan, and responsibility for meeting the Nation’s obligations must be shared by both parties. \* ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2011, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905/177 "2011-01-10T14:40:59Z")
> [@randy054](#): > > Treason much? No. I recommend perusing a dictionary. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905/178 "2011-01-11T05:18:42Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [Economists: It Doesn't Look Good For U.S. Economy In Next Decade | HuffPost Impact](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/economists-it-doesnt-look_n_806420.html) > To get back to the point, the US is in decline. This article is about a group of economists who have come to accept it. The US will have to come to terms with our being a much less powerful country in the world. US prominence is ending. As this board shows, many are having trouble facing it. > These economists think we should prepare for the unrest that will come when we try to affix the blame to those who we can be convinced are responsible. That the US was in decline was spotted 20 years ago by economist Yuji Aida. Aida noted the demographic changes and the poor record of the coming majority in terms of running high tech industrial economies. [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-04-16/news/9102030765\_1\_ethnic-industrial-blacks-and-hispanics](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-04-16/news/9102030765_1_ethnic-industrial-blacks-and-hispanics) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905/179 "2011-01-11T05:32:28Z")
I didn’t even need to see your post to know it would be about darkies ruining the country. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905/180 "2011-01-11T21:12:31Z")
> [@Icerigger](#): > > How very sad and absolutely true, I don’t know what can stop it, are we just to sit around helpless as the middle class just disappears. Oh but the middle class isn’t disappearing. Wait, it is disappearing. Er, so what? Who needs the middle class? Ever see a country with a growing middle class? Like China for instance! They’re poor! They’re so poor! Do you want to a growing middle class instead of a shrinking one if the tradeoff is that you’re all poor??? \ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-in-decline/563905.md?page=10)