I see way toooo much optimism on here regarding our supposedly robust economy. I think too many let their ‘agenda’ get in the way of a realistic appraisal of our economy and it’s real problems.
Definitely not as friendly as it should be and that is a huge factor in our fight to be competetive.
Okay, LongLineRider, what do you think should be done about it?
Also, we need to smash all the Jacquard looms 
Just skimming your article I can see it’s essentially a spin job, mixing half truths with fabrication and playing on the fact that most readers of the article will be ignorant of the complexity.
From your article:
The first part of this is obviously a play on emotion and an appeal to ignorance. Let’s say that they are accurate, and the US has lost 42,400 factories since 2001. So what? I’d guess that the vast majority of them were older, outdated and outmoded factories that simply weren’t competitive anymore. I haven’t read the whole article yet, but does the author make the claim that overall, US manufacturing has declined since 2001? Because if he did that’s an out and out lie…and if he didn’t, then it seems there is something that he’s not telling his audience. I mean, how could we lose over 40k factories and yet our manufacturing output overall increase? How could we lose all those jobs and yet productivity climb?
For the second part, I’d have to say what is his evidence that the US has lost our technical edge? Because iPads are manufactured cheaply in China that means the US has lost it’s technical edge? 
Total horseshit. Wall Street doesn’t create money, for one thing. For another, what is this guys evidence that we have lost ‘A once-robust system of “traditional engineering” – the invention, design, and manufacture of products’?? Again, because iPads and iPhones are manufactured in China does in no way illustrate that we’ve lost our abilities to invent, design or even manufacture products. What it indicates is simply that China has much much lower loaded costs for their labor than the US, so it makes better sense to ship the designs, the plants, and the raw materials over there and then bring the finished goods here, where the market is.
Basic question…if we are so falling apart as this article seems to be trying to say, how do we afford to buy all these goods and services? Oh, that’s right…Wall Street™ manufactures the money that enables us to buy all that stuff. And they do that…why, exactly? How does that make even vague logical sense to you, the reader of that article? If we don’t produce anything, why do goods and services flood into the country? Because the rest of the world loves us and wants to give us stuff, 'cause they all wuft Americans so much?
Yes, we did. So what? Those goods and services can be made more cheaply in other countries, and our labor costs pretty much cost us out of those markets. We could (and do) automate heavily in those fields, but the capital costs of heavy automation still don’t make us as competitive as countries with labor costs well below our minimum wage, so it doesn’t make economic sense for us to continue to try and cling to manufacturing products that we can’t be competitive at. So, we make other, more value added products (such as heavy construction equipment, and highly skilled medical equipment, and a ton of other value add products that allow for our higher base labor costs). In other words we play to our strengths, instead of trying to compete in sectors where we can’t compete unless we put huge tariffs on imported goods and services so as to artificially protect our high labor costs.
Anyway, that’s just the first 3 paragraphs. I’m guessing the rest is going to be much the same…the author is relying on the reader to be ignorant and to have an emotional connection to the huge numbers being thrown around (OMG…40,000 manufacturing plants gone since 2001! We don’t make clothing or TVs anymore!! We are doomed…DOOOOOMMMMMMMEEEDDDD! :eek:)
No, it wouldn’t, because that machine’s cost is going to be amortized over time, and you have one guy at whatever rate to pay.
Smash the machine, and you have 100 guys to pay every single month at a rate no lower than minimum wage.
So you went from recognizing some portion of the machine cost, plus at least $1257 per month for the guy, to paying 125,667 per month straight up for payroll.
I’d almost guarantee that a machine that turns 100 bolts isn’t going to cost over 125k per month for very long, so the machine would pay off fairly fast relative to paying those 100 guys in perpetuity.
Now say you can set up a factory to produce that component and pay 100 Mexicans (or Chinese, or Malays, or whoever) and pay them 16 dollars a day (highest Mexican minimum wage I could find) to turn those bolts, and you’ve just saved yourself almost 78k per month relative to hiring the 100 guys in the US, and at $1600 per day, you’re getting competitive to the machine.
And, at the end of the day, you still only have 100 bolts turned.
That’s basically why companies offshore or automate jobs with a high manual component- you just can’t continue to do them the old labor-intensive way in the US and expect to stay competitive.
All of this reminds me of the mindset of recent years past: it took special effort to get some people to notice/admit/understand that, for example, the housing market had not stopped, that employment was available, that the stock market held value, etc. - the common exchange had it that these things were all dead as doornails, not just reduced below historical highs/norms.
I think the OP is trying to foster the case that the US’s “competitiveness” (an undefined term that humpty-dumpties into any meaning the writer cares to use) is somehow zero. Is it what it used to be? Hard to say - pick your data points. Are other countries “more competitive”? Probably - again, pick your players and data points. I’d bet that the US can’t be shown to be supremely “competitive” since maybe the early 1950s… but it’s all in what the term really means and what the presupposed answer is meant to be.
Read his post again. That was actually his point - that the machine exists because it’s more economically efficient.
To further add to Lemur866’s point, US manufacturing vs manufacturing jobs.
As pointed out repeatedly, it’s only low skill jobs that have left. The manufacturing of goods which require higher levels of skill are still here. An MRI machine is not likely to be made in China or India. In fact, most medical devices are made here. Boeing aircraft are made in the US. Final assembly of most of our automobiles is in the US.
If everything is as rosy as some on here seem to think why is our society experiencing such things as high unemployment, record numbers of people on food stamps, increasing taxation to cover the costs of government and of course our debt crisis?
http://economyincrisis.org/content/american-manufacturing-can-no-longer-compete
Some have it very good today–there is no doubt about that. Those that are in that category create a lot of confusion amongst the American People.
Let us look at some economic facts.
This is cute and all, but what exactly is your point and where are you taking the thread? I’m not the first to ask, and it’s only polite (now that your contentions have been shown to be false) to lay your cards on the table.
Other countries don’t have it as good as us. We just experienced the largest financial meltdown in nearly a century and came out of it better than just about every other developed country on the planet. Other countries experienced even large job losses per capita.
And watch out for your false dichotomies. Nobody said the situation in the US was “rosy” - merely better than you are making it out to be.
Well, fire the one guy, the machine will explode, then you can rehire the 100.
I think you want to make this discussion personal aka: shoot the messenger because you do not like the message. A common problem on message boards.
You are entitled to your ‘opinion’ but personal opinions are easily attacked, however-- I will not go there. I will continue to present facts and statistics. Feel free to disprove any of them if you can.
No, what we want is to know what the message is. Another thing that’s common on message boards is to drip feed a message that’s obviously batshit crazy, by walking people up to it by getting them to agree to a bunch of “obviously true” things, then hitting them with “the next logical step”.
Um, no. I was serious about knowing what your point is.
If you want your “message” to be taken seriously, we need to know what your message is in the first place.
Also, notice that most of your “facts and figures” have been disproved in the thread. Generally, when that happens, one should question one’s sources. It does your argument (whatever it is, because apparently you refuse to give one) no credit when you don’t acknowledge it.
Further, note that you started the thread in “Great Debates”. So far, you haven’t actually, you know, debated. All you’ve done is make suggestive comments and posted a bunch of links and then did exactly what you accused me of (attacking the messenger rather than the message).
So, I’ll ask again that you make a point to be debated. If you’re simply proselytizing about the end times of the US economy, feel free, but at least let us know that’s what you are doing, so we aren’t wasting our time.
This seems to be it: http://economyincrisis.org/issues. Get out of NAFTA and the WTO, start trade wars with everyone, implement a VAT, “Regulate imports to stop toxic food from entering our boarders [sic]”, isolationism, and ending corporate personhood.
Is that it, LongLineRider?
No, but that’s a common defense when participants make posts loaded with assumptions that others are supposed to share without disagreement. Others have said it a little differently, but posting a question that is as much a statement as an inquiry only leads to a discussion if all of the other participants already share the sentiments expressed. This isn’t such a board; if you express ANY topic with an evident bias, you’re going to get pressed for clarity, examined for a hidden agenda and/or dismissed if you try to continue the discussion using only your chosen viewpoint and assumptions.
Define what you mean by “competitive” and show unbiased evidence that the U.S. has fallen on that scale or by that evaluation, and the discussion can move on in some meaningful direction. But your original post is very limited in scope, biased in assumptions and has no basis for leading to a real discussion, so we can either get you to clarify your position or… well, shoot the messenger, I guess.
If you’re looking for a board where you can post whatever thoughts you might have and get nothing but nods and smiles, you’re in the wrong place - especially if you’re trying to claim your thoughts and ideas represent facts.
What contentions have I posted that are false? If you have a problem with Harvard Business School Alumni or any of my other sources explain which and why.
I don’t like doing other people’s homework, but ok.
From this very thread (scroll up), which includes examples showing your reading of Harvard Business Alumni was in error: