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…
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.
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.)
When you meet someone who says economics is a zero-sum game, please, repeat what you said to them.
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?
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, and the most common measure of inflation, the Consumer Price Index.
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 as its source. In fact, below the graph, your cite says
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, GDP and its breakdown at constant 2005 prices in US Dollars and Percentage Distribution (Shares) of GDP. 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 (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.
The number of manufacturing jobs in America has hovered between 10 and 20 million since 1940 (pdf, see page 4), and has stayed within that range throughout the recession (chart from here). As a percentage of total employment, manufacturing employment has been steadily declining since 1944 (see also, page 6 of the previous pdf). Decreasing employment in manufacturing is caused primarily by the skyrocketing efficiency of the manufacturing process.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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…
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:
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.
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.
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.
***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.*
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.
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. *
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.
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???
