General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsZero Manufacturing Jobs Added. Zero.
Zero Manufacturing Jobs Added. Zero.
Saturday, 04 May 2013 13:22
By Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future | Op-Ed
President Obama set a goal of 1 million new manufacturing jobs in his second term. Last month we added zero. Not one. Nada. Zip. We did add low-wage jobs, though. Maybe we can talk about a national manufacturing strategy now?
A Million Manufacturing Jobs?
In the 2012 campaign President Obama set a goal of creating 1 million new manufacturing jobs. (This goal comes after the country lost 5.5 million manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2009.) Manufacturing jobs bring money into the economy. Manufacturing jobs also bring along with them many jobs in other sectors that support manufacturing, from the supply chain to the maintenance to the marketing and sales of the goods. This is what the President understood when he set this goal.
But with the March jobs numbers out this morning the economy has created a total of only 39,000 manufacturing jobs this year zero in March. That leaves the country with 961,000 manufacturing jobs to go in the time remaining.
Perhaps this dearth of new manufacturing jobs has something to do with the economic stagnation we see around us?
Job Report Summary
While the jobs report was not too bad overall, it was terrible for manufacturing. Job growth for January and February was revised up by 114,000, so average job growth for the last three months was 212,000. But job gains were largely in low-wage sectors with zero gained in manufacturing. Employment services, restaurant employees and the retail sector accounted for more than half of April job growth. Health care added 19,000 jobs. ....................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/16172-zero-manufacturing-jobs-added-zero
xchrom
(108,903 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)You frequently hear about the "manufacturing revolution" in America, but more and more it looks like bunk.
Neil Irwin (via Ryan McArthy) in today's Washington Post has a great line regarding the jobs report:
Now, job creation is entirely confined to the services sector: Manufacturing had no net change in employment, construction lost 6,000 jobs, and even mining and logging was a net negative.
In this chart, the blue bars are the total monthly change in job creation and the red bars are the change in manufacturing jobs. As you can see, manufacturing saw weakening in both of the last months, and in some recent months there was even negative job creation in the sector.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/manufacturing-job-creation-vs-total-job-creation-2013-5#ixzz2SQDguiiI
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)When Bush destroyed our Manufacturing Sector with his Bush Tax Cuts
bvar22
(39,909 posts)You have to go back to 1992 to find out what destroyed our manufacturing sector.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Bush's Tax Cuts shipped whole factories to China
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)And those don't work as job creators. Unless those jobs are gardeners, maids, art dealers, or high end foreign car dealerships. No manufacturing. Generally they act as job exporting subsidies instead.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)the part I heard was a lady saying to her friend..(paraphrasing)
"...The day after each of my brothers graduated high school, our Dad took them to work with him at the plant (didn't catch where or what it was) , and they had a good union job...two of them worked there during college and the other stayed on. Dad retired with a good pension after 30 years there..and then they shut it all down...".
This is how "work" used to be for many "middle classers".. It was a conveyor.
The belt is broken..
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)That's why social mobility is collapsing.
In some cases, the conveyor belt is rolling backward now.
I know college costs have gone through the roof, but part of the reason why students are ending up with so much college debt is that other employment opportunities are lacking, or very poorly paid. Working your way through college used to be an option, and for most students, it's now a total impossibility.
Furthermore, even if we sent everyone to college on the government dime, there wouldn't be jobs for them when they graduated. About 50% of college grads are working in jobs for which a college degree isn't even a prerequisite, and the prerequisite in many jobs for a college degree is really overblown - it's just a cheap way for HR to throw out apps without having to screen the applicants.
We have an ever more serious problem in the US, and we will have to generate good jobs to redress the situation. We have no plan to do that now.
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)I have a B.S. in Natural Resources Conservation; working in a job utilizing very little of my degree.
The past ten years (or more) have seen drastic cuts in environmental conservation efforts which led to a gutting of positions in which I could utilize my degree effectively.
Even when positions were to open up, and sometimes they still do, I keep an eye on them, I have been at my current employer for so long that I would be taking a drastic cut in pay.
Years ago I joined the Army which paid for a large portion of my education, a route that nowdays I higbly discourage younger kids to do. So fortunately I am not saddled with loan debts.
I worry for our 15 year old daughter. While we gladly encourage her to peruse her dreams through future education, her options are even more reduced now than when I entered the job market wide-eyed and optimistic...
RandiFan1290
(6,232 posts)JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)We added 165,000 last month and are celebrating as it we won the unemployment war, with the stock market shooting to record highs.
But part time jobs increased by 441,000 that same month. That means we lost 276,000 full time jobs.
The work week shrank by .2 hours. For 155,238,000 workers, that's the equivalent of cutting 776,000 full time jobs.
That, people, is not a recovering economy.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)Sweeping up at a hair salon is a "job"
Cleaning motel rooms is a "job"
Low wage, part-time service jobs (formerly knows as teen-summer/after school jobs...or "pin money" jobs for bored housewives) are NOT the solution to unemployment.
Jobs that can support a family are the ones that should be counted.
I would like to see jobs of under 40 hours and without benefits EXCLUDED from the reporting data.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)Jobs that can't cover basic living expenses, that have little or no job security and benefits, these aren't going to fix our economic problems or improve the massive increases in inequality we have seen recently. In fact, these types of jobs will serve to embed this inequality even deeper.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)among more workers. In many cases it's redistribution of the same work at less total pay.
The reality hidden underneath the statistics is even worse than it appears.
The people at the top of the policy structure don't understand what is happening at all. They don't even realize that it is happening.
And then to see a budget like the president's be issued - which seems to feel the problem is too much money being spent on SS and Medicare, both of which were slated for very real and significant cuts - almost seems maddening.
Also, increasing immigration in these circumstances is the stupidest thing anyone could ever do.
LooseWilly
(4,477 posts)Because... "immigration reform legislation" isn't "increasing immigration", it is, largely, a set of measures to bring those who have already immigrated out into the open, so that employers can't use immigration status against them in order to use them against the rest of the work force in order to drive down wages.
If anything, the situation that you rightly describe requires immigration reform as a step in the solution so that workers are not so easily played against each other by those who'd like to reduce the total pay amongst the lot of us even lower...
progree
(10,907 posts)Last edited Mon May 6, 2013, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)
[font color = blue]JayhawkSD>We added 165,000 last month and are celebrating as it we won the unemployment war, with the stock market shooting to record highs.
But part time jobs increased by 441,000 that same month. That means we lost 276,000 full time jobs. <[/font]
Where do you get these numbers? The 165,000 came from the establishment survey of businesses (top row of http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm or http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm ) while the 441,000 part time jobs came from the household survey (the sum of "Part time for economic reasons" and "Part time for non-economic reasons" http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm
The two surveys often don't agree with each other month to month -- often there are big differences between the two. Also, especially with the household survey, the components are extremely highly volatile from month to month. Just to give you an idea, the seasonally adjusted data for "Part time for economic reasons" http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12032194
is this:
Part time for economic reasons, Seasonally Adjusted: monthly changes:
[font face = courier new]
..... Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jn Jl Aug Sept Oct. Nov. Dec.
2012: 52 -93 -463 232 220 94 35 -202 564 -321 -148 -220
2013: 55 15 -350 278[/font]
I don't know how to get the data series for total part time, or I'd show that. I highlighted the "Part time for economic reasons" because these are the ones who want full time work and are available for it, i.e. the "involuntary part-time", according to the BLS.
Obviously, the wild oscillations month to month are mostly data noise, as nobody with at least a room temperature IQ really believes that number of part time workers wanting full time work really jumps up and down like that.
One of the favorite tactics of the righties is to prey on people who don't know about the volatility of some of these component statistics and to pick the worst components of the month to highlight, and this month it is the part time jobs.
As stated above, the part time jobs from March to April increased by 441,000, according to the household survey.
Contrast that with the previous month -- going from February to March, for example, the part time jobs fell by 513,000 (350,000 for economic reasons and 163,000 for non-economic reasons http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm), but our good friends on the right had nothing to say about that.
Also, "Employed" fell by 206,000 from February to March, supposedly meaning that full time jobs went up by 307,000 -- +307,000 full time MINUS 513,000 part time EQUALS -206,000 total.
Actually, I don't think the sum of part time plus full time = total employment or total jobs either -- thanks to workers holding multiple jobs.
But hey, our good friends on the right won't let complications like that get in the way of a good story -- anything to trash the economy and get a Republican Senate in 2014.
ON EDIT - I forgot to note that over the past year (April'13/April'12) part-time jobs increased only 60,000, while "Employed" increased 1,645,000 (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm ). So this also doesn't support the meme that most / all the job gains are part-time, let alone that part-time jobs are replacing full time jobs.
[font color = blue]JayhawkSD>The work week shrank by .2 hours. For 155,238,000 workers, that's the equivalent of cutting 776,000 full time jobs.<[/font]
I could comment on the hours too -- same story -- high volatility from month to month (e.g. it went up 0.1 hours from Feb. to March). But looking at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm , over the past year, from April 2012 to April 2013, it went from 34.5 hours to 34.4 hours, so that is a reason to be disturbed.
votesparks
(1,288 posts)would be a good start to re-invent manufacturing in America. As long as using cheap labor abroad is incentivized, it's not coming back. I live in Dayton, Ohio, and this city looks like Chernobyl. So many empty buildings its hard to contemplate.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)and Canada we would have a trade surplus with them. Something tells me we would be importing their oil with or without NAFTA.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)have a factory in our homes.
jsr
(7,712 posts)leftstreet
(36,108 posts)Instant Bootstrap access to the elite class
KansDem
(28,498 posts)If the One Percenters can print money whenever they want (or need it), why can't the rest of us?
Sounds fair...
progressoid
(49,990 posts)And we're in a recovery right?
dotymed
(5,610 posts)Since retiring, I have watched my Union fight and lose it's war against slavery. They had 3 (once flourishing) states merge under them. Recently, all four Indianapolis Carpenters Unions were disbanded and united under a new, single, local. This happened after we took on the other carpenters Unions in 3 states.. We are losing (have lost) our war for earning a living wage, for some dignity and respect at work. Probably our pensions too, the wealthy come first.
I don't know what else to say...
Orrex
(63,212 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Obama signed another "free trade agreement" and he said it would mke the manufacturing sector boom.
He would never lie to us little people.
jsr
(7,712 posts)at some point in the distant future in a nearby galaxy.
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)of unpaid androids fighting for our...ah...
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)Just not in the US!
sorefeet
(1,241 posts)help. Companies expect an American to do the work of two or three people. Fucking everywhere I go I have to wait in a line longer and longer as time goes on. You wait for ever on the telephone put on hold. The fucking auto parts store the grocery store MCDONALDS FAST FOOD. No we don't have manufacturing jobs and we are shorthanded in the slave labor too, because the fat cats have to have insane PROFITS.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)Major fortune 500 company I work at -we have tons of work, *expected* 15-20% overtime and not a word on hiring anyone.
NYtoBush-Drop Dead
(490 posts)Not when you can get the crap made in China, India, or Mexico. Forget it. Time to teach our children how to read and do math.
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)Blanks
(4,835 posts)At least then they will be able to eat.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Blanks
(4,835 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)That won't do any good when they are forced to compete with 3rd World Slave labor for those jobs.
NYtoBush-Drop Dead
(490 posts)they might want to learn science... so the high paying jobs are not going to the highly educated from other countries.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...do you estimate can be employed in those jobs?
...what percentage of our Working Class Population are born with the necessary capabilities
to:
a)Obtain the necessary education
b)Successfully battle their way into one of those few, VERY competative slots?
Are you aware that there is a Race to the Bottom in those occupations being fueled by the current H1B Visa scam to drive those wages and benefits down to 3rd World levels?
Your argument is based on the Randian Myth that anyone can John Galt their way to the top. All they have to do is just learn some math & science.
LooseWilly
(4,477 posts)India has a booming tech and pharmaceuticals industry... why do you think that is?
China designs & builds prototypes for companies like Apple based on the specs that they are given... the prototypes are inspected by American (hired) engineers, and then go into production (in China). (Maybe you should add "inspections" to your list of courses.)
As for the "high paying jobs" that you're trying to prevent going to other countries... I think you're missing the point... it's not that they're going to other countries... it's that the employers no longer want them to be "high paying"... that's why they're going to other countries... because they're not as high paying that way... and that's really the whole ever-loving point... the only point, in fact.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)especially when people are DYING too make that garbage for our 1%
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)That came off as pretty classist. Do you think all blue collar workers are illiterate?
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Trite by the standards of of even a decade ago. It reads like a summation of the canards the third-wayers and repub trot out; and have trotted out for ages to get us to accept their "There is no there way" mantra.
pampango
(24,692 posts)BOG PERSON
(2,916 posts)Social commentators are often at pains to comprehend violent opposition to machines. This isnt just a bad understanding of history; even nineteenth-century thinkers, who could see the changes firsthand, were perplexed by the resistance. From the perspective of bourgeois writers, who saw in history a providential march of progress, opposition to new technology seemed irrational. Andrew Ure, the scientist whose Philosophy of Manufactures provided Marx with much of his information on new machines, chastised the silk weavers who opposed new loom technology. Even though he acknowledged that the Jacquard punch card eliminated entire professions and sent pay rates through the floor, Ure treated the weavers defiance threatening the inventor and smashing his machine in the public square as a myopic response to a wondrous and inevitable technological advancement. David Ricardo, while sympathetic to immiserated workers, was ambivalent about whether mechanization could be stopped. The expert consensus seemed to be that machines, love them or hate them, were the future.
We risk reproducing these blind spots in our own day, when we should be much more skeptical of claims to technological progress. After all, automation isnt an inevitable result of capitalism. If the workforce is pliant enough and surplus value extraction high enough, a very low level of machinery will be deployed. This is the case with so-called artisanal mining in Africa, where individuals (often children) with meager tools hop into pits to scrape out minerals by hand. Automation has proven unprofitable enough that grocery stores are replacing self-checkouts with old-fashioned human beings again.
While intellectuals debate the merits and demerits of automation, workers have been quicker to make up their minds. Marx documents how in the seventeenth century, machines like looms and mills were often banned because their introduction caused such social upheaval that it spooked those in power (in one case, the inventor of a mechanized loom was assassinated by nervous authorities). By the nineteenth century, once capital had gained the upper hand, workers repeatedly assaulted the machines that had become instruments of violence against them. When destruction wasnt on the table, workers quit in droves. The introduction of the assembly line in 1913 caused mass desertion in plants owned by Henry Ford, who had to scramble to deal with an astonishing 380 percent employee turnover rate. Waves of worker revolts in the 1960s and 1970s struck at the instruments of production. In 1975, a gang of pressmen at the Washington Post held their foreman hostage while they meticulously destroyed and burned the computerized press that had just made them obsolete.
Historys most notorious machine-breakers were the Luddites. Though their name is now synonymous with any misguided opposition to new technology, their legacy deserves better. The Luddites revolted against the degradation and acceleration of work: they understood immediately that their survival was at stake. They wrote their own manifestos, arguing that supposedly neutral technological change was in fact political, shaped by the imperatives of management control. When these arguments fell upon impassive ears, they picked up hammers and went Ludding.
jacobinmag.com/2013/04/the-rise-of-the-machines/
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Except for that, manufacturing is never coming back
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Is this really all you have left to cling to? Oh, how the bitter have fallen!
Don't forget to scream about Obama killing Social Security, too.
marmar
(77,080 posts)...... including some that President Obama himself has proposed. But all you can get from it is, "the haters". Mon dieu. Do you have ANYTHING to contribute to the dialogue other than strident bloviation and ad-hominems?
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)But now you are a "hater" and "bitter", I think you know the answer to your question about any constructive comments. The "hater" nonsense sounds like middle school kids going at it on the school yard, very trite, and sophomoric.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)they're like children with their fingers in their ears going LALALALALALALA
Occulus
(20,599 posts)For quite a few people, apparently.
Marr
(20,317 posts)numbers like 'number of jobs added'. Suddenly it's a-ok with a lot of people. Just another talking point to post and repost.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Occulus
(20,599 posts)Ugggh.
"PROpaganda makes SENSE."
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)byeya
(2,842 posts)was made there - 6 plants - because of the availablity of local lumber for flooring and furniture and a trained and skillful workforce. There were two mirror factories in Galax and several textile mills. Workers from the city and 3 counties depended on this work.
Brazil has(had?) a law which forbade the exportation of raw logs. In other words, the local wood had to be made into something. The USA would benefit from such a law.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)We need import tariffs or some disincentive for companies to chase 10 cents per hour labor.
SamKnause
(13,106 posts)President Obama did not march with the unions in Wisconsin or Michigan.
I guess he couldn't find his walking shoes.
I noticed President Maduro marched with the unions and labor on May Day.
Obama signed Free Trade Deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama.
Wait until he signs the Trans Pacific Trade Deal.
It has been compared to NAFTA on steroids.
Aviation Pro
(12,167 posts)...the biotech industry has added 1.6 million jobs with a job multiplier of 5 million. Of course, it takes more than the ability to throw steel to do these jobs, which is why the 1950s paradigm of Dad slugging it out in the smelters with good union backing after high school is as much of a liberal fallacy as the conservative vision of returning to the good old days of slavery.
Here's one reference to biotech manufacturing: http://www.biotech-now.org/public-policy/2013/04/governors-share-best-practices-on-bringing-biotech-jobs-to-their-states
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)Blanks
(4,835 posts)There has been a lot of mechanization also. The biggest problem IMHO is that people are waiting for jobs to fall from the sky.
We need small entrepreneurial ventures that create businesses in agriculture. There is no reason why we can't produce more food for local consumption and get rid of these subsidies for big agriculture. We all still need to eat every day, there's no reason we can't capture some of that money locally.
These jobs that fall from the sky are the jobs that suck.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)the removal of grain stores -- the financial sector, in the interest of increasing volatility and bigger profits for those who arbitrage it.
and as two guys made more money last year than the bottom 20% of the population combined, and the top 10% take nearly 1/2 of all income in the US, I wonder how what kind of capital you think the other 90% are going to use to create their own fucking jobs.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)And wanting to eliminate subsidies for big agriculture.
It's a matter of giving money to companies that don't need it so that we can get a cheaper Big Mac, or supporting local agricultural production so that we are not dependant on a huge transportation infrastructure in order for people to eat.
40 years ago there were a lot of small businesses involved in agriculture. I think we took a wrong turn somewhere. I'd like to look at returning to that model.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)things that increase price volatility increase their bottom lines.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)We shouldn't change anything. Just let things get better on their own.
That seems to be working.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)You oppose evaluating the agriculture price support program, but you don't see how that seems like you are recommending maintaining the current system.
Seems to follow to me. You are opposed to change. Being opposed to change is equal to wanting the system to remain the same. What is it that you are having trouble following?
It seems pretty straight forward to me.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)bhikkhu
(10,716 posts)I doubt it. For the most part, the gains in manufacturing during Obama's first term were invisible, as they didn't fit in with the negative drumbeat on both the left and the right that seems to drive media narratives.
In any case, in spite of the "lost month" of manufacturing jobs non-creation, Obama has a pretty solid record there overall.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Why do we love that particular sector, especially given that its wages are declining so fast?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Service Sector and administrative jobs do NOT create wealth (Value Added).
Wall Street makes MONEY, but creates no wealth.
Creating WEALTH (Value Added) IS Magic,
and creating Value Added Wealth is what produced the biggest, wealthiest, and most Upwardly Mobile Working Class the World had ever seen.
Sad, but we have thrown that all away.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You're stuck in an Adam Smith view of the world.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Mistaken, but not alone, which is unfortunate for the Working Class in our country.
Money does NOT equal Wealth.
Wealth IS created when a raw material is mixed with labor,
and there is a measurable improvement in the state of that raw material.
Service and Administrative Jobs are necessary to assist the Wealth Creators (LABOR),
but by themselves they create no WEALTH.
If a society marginalizes the Wealth Creators (LABOR) and attempts to exist solely on Service & Administrative jobs(Corporate Management, Wall Street, Investmant Banks, etc), then you WILL see exactly what we have in the USA today.
Corporate Profits Hit Record High While Worker Wages Hit Record Low
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/03/1270541/corporate-profits-wages-record/?mobile=nc
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Interesting.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)and through their sweat, labor, talent, and passion create a valuable addition to our nation..
Teachers manufacture our most valuable product.
They SHOULD be compensated much MORE for the valuable service they provide.
Why don't you show us how much the For Profit Health Insurance Industry has contributed to the WEALTH of our nation?
The Health Insurance Industry:
*manufactures NOTHING
*Produces NO Value Added Wealth
*Keeps NO Inventory
*Provides NO useful service
What has this soon to be heavily subsidized from the public treasury
Industry contributed to the WEALTH of our nation?
This parasitic industry and their incestuousness 1st Cousin on Wall Street HAS produced many very RICH owners and managers, but they haven't created any wealth.
In fact, they have parasitically sucked wealth OUT of our nation.
Investment Banks CAN assist the Wealth Creators,
and are valuable in THAT service, but they don't directly create WEALTH.
The people who created the WEALTH of this country had dirt under their fingernails,
from the slaves of the 17th century to the sweat drenched mechanic in the garage that repairs your auto.
THEY are our most valuable resource, and deserve protection and compensation,
not the elite parasites of the 1%.
Money =/= Wealth
Marr
(20,317 posts)Manufacturing creates wealth. Money and wealth are two different things.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Look at Australia some time.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)the basis of its favorable balance of trade, and for mass prosperity.
Small country, lots of natural resources like petroleum? You're golden -or you would be if it weren't for the likely presence of an oligarchical family based political system or military govt.
Maybe you're a tiny island or a wee principality like Monaco or Lichtenstein. You can become an "international banking center" -- in plain speech, a tax hideaway for disloyal rich fucks and organized crime racketeers from all over the world. Your per capita income will be sweet, since there are so few of you and so many billions and even trillions of foreign capital stashed in the bank vaults of your discreet little country. If you're sufficiently large like Switzerland and nicely situated geographically, you can even become like a "bedroom community" for the well to do of surrounding countries.
Large country? You better learn to make stuff other countries need and want to buy.
Agriculture, in the modern age, can no long act as the engine of mass employment for you.
World's only remaining military superpower? You can force other countries to use your currency, which artificially magnifies your people's purchasing power. You can do this for a while anyway. But the progressive atrophy of anything in your real economy of finished goods that isn't military related, together with the hypertrophy of the finance sector and its shell games, will doom the majority of your country to the ravages of increasing wealth polarization, disinvestment in civilian infrastructure, wage stagnation, endemic crime, and a long term loss of skills needed to compete in the global manufacturing arena. No enemy will do you in: your county's strength will crumble from within and your military and economic empire will collapse from the weight its own accumulated rot. Keep it up, complacent fuckheads, and see what happens to you.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Your strange view condemns half the countries in the world to poverty.
Check out the trade numbers for Australia. It's been a broadly prosperous service economy for half a century.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)<...>
While the jobs report was not too bad overall, it was terrible for manufacturing. Job growth for January and February was revised up by 114,000, so average job growth for the last three months was 212,000. But job gains were largely in low-wage sectors with zero gained in manufacturing. Employment services, restaurant employees and the retail sector accounted for more than half of April job growth. Health care added 19,000 jobs.
The sequester started to hit, with 8,000 jobs lost in the federal government (3,500 of those from the Postal Service.) State and local governments lost 3,000 jobs, which means 224,000 jobs lost over the last year. Construction lost 6,000 jobs, apparently from public projects.
...a good month for manufacturing. Still, it's possible to reach the President's four-year goal.
Manufacturing job creation was revived in the President's first term.
By FLOYD NORRIS
For the first time in many years, manufacturing stands out as an area of strength in the American economy.
When the Labor Department reports December employment numbers on Friday, it is expected that manufacturing companies will have added jobs in two consecutive years. Until last year, there had not been a single year when manufacturing employment rose since 1997.
And this week the Institute for Supply Management, which has been surveying American manufacturers since 1948, reported that its employment index for December was 55.1, the highest reading since June. Any number above 50 indicates that more companies say they are hiring than say they are reducing employment.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/business/us-manufacturing-is-a-bright-spot-for-the-economy.html?_r=1&hp
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002125381
As for a strategy, the President outlined one earlier this year.
Fact Sheet: The Presidents Plan to Make America a Magnet for Jobs by Investing in Manufacturing
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/13/fact-sheet-president-s-plan-make-america-magnet-jobs-investing-manufactu
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)Free Bernanke Buxx for everybody* !
(*everybody who qualifies for net negative interest rates at the Fed window)
WillyT
(72,631 posts)MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)DallasNE
(7,403 posts)So is "March" just a typo or is this data from a month ago? Because they talk about revisions to January and February I suspect this is data from a month ago, otherwise they would be taking about revisions to February and March.
progree
(10,907 posts)[font color = blue]OP's excerpt of TruthOut.org article>> But with the March jobs numbers out this morning the economy has created a total of only 39,000 manufacturing jobs this year zero in March.
While the jobs report was not too bad overall, it was terrible for manufacturing. Job growth for January and February was revised up by 114,000, so average job growth for the last three months was 212,000. << [/font]
[font color = red]DallasNE#68>The Latest Reporting Period Is April
So is "March" just a typo or is this data from a month ago? Because they talk about revisions to January and February I suspect this is data from a month ago, otherwise they would be taking about revisions to February and March.<< [/font]
The "March" is a typo (or fuckup), it should be "April". The "January and February" should be "February and March" (another, err, typo). With these changes, all the numbers in the excerpt above matches the jobs report that included April that came out Friday, May 3. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Good catch!
Here's some stuff on manufacturing --
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm Manufacturing employment was unchanged in April.
Manufacturing: 6th row: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm Feb, Mar, Apr: +23, +2, +0 (thousands)
19th row http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm
Up only 70,000 since April 2012, one year ago. (Apr'13/Apr'12)
Up only 149,000 since January 2012, 15 months ago. (Apr'13/Jan'12)
Jan.2012: 11,841, Apr.2012: 11,920, Apr.2013: 11,990.
Series Id: CES3000000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Manufacturing, Industry: Manufacturing,
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
1 MONTH CHANGE
Notice that the 1-month change figures began improving in 2/09 - the month following Obama's inauguration. Though it took a year to turn positive. Also interesing -- the "plus" area in the Obama era is better than the "plus" area in the Bush era.
More: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001
To see the 1-month change at the above link, click on "More Formatting Options" at the upper right and then on the page that appears, be sure both the "Original Data Value" and "1-Month Net Change" boxes are checked. Don't forget to check the "include graphs" checkbox. You might also want to set the period from January 2000 to present to see the last year of the Clinton administration through April 2013. Then click "Retrieve Data".
Happiness is finally figuring out how to find the BLS Series Numbers (it's kind of tedious, but do-able)
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)I see errors relative to "to/too", "there/their/they're", etc. all of the time but those kind of errors never mean anything because simple grammatical errors don't alter the point being made. This was a different kettle of fish because of the confusion it caused as the "typo's" as a group all pointed in the direction of last months data and why would anybody do that on the very day a new set of numbers came out. For some reason it hit me like a brick on first reading too. I even went to the BLS site later and couldn't be sure because the March number on manufacturing was only 2,000 and that number could have been part of the upward adjustment for March, meaning the original March number could easily have been zero. At that point, I just threw my hands in the air.
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)What does this chart indicate?
Also, there are a new generation of robots being released that are cheap, smart, and getting installed in a factory near you.
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)with all the talk about outsourcing and insourcing and visas, the real sleeper in the mainstream is automation.
Actually steady improvements in automation should be expected and even in leaps and bounds, but while that is taking place, there is little talk or consideration of how we distribute wealth when robots and other forms of non-human manufacturing, (and eventually services, etc.) reach a certain threshold.
There are many ideas about technocracy and resource-based economies along with National dividends, negative income taxes, etc. There would be an equitable model to work from where everyone would share in the profit of production, in that case.
In the current climate, we are seeing the exact opposite when technology is bringing us to a critical point. Are we going to sit back and watch an inevitable form of economic genocide, (increasing homelessness, illness, mortality, etc.) solve the problems this creates? Either we adapt economically to the facts of automation as a significant facet of future life, or watch millions of people eventually be scrapped by attrition.
The whole idea of "work" and the concept of a "job" is in transition out of necessity and we are hearing the repetition of biased, outdated and dis-empowering rhetoric that is more about preserving a power-structure and an increasingly archaic Status Quo. In that sense, we can't really afford the direction the wealthy are going and our lives and our children's future is riding on a swift transition based on the reality of what is actually happening.
Response to marmar (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts).
FreeJoe
(1,039 posts)Our manufacturing output grows almost every year. What isn't growing is manufacturing employment. We're getting more and more effecient and making more with fewer people.
The same thing happened 100 years ago with farm employment. At one time, farming was overwhelming the largest sector for employment. Our farming operations got much more efficient. Our farming output increased while employment in the sector practically collapsed.
The future for labor is not a return to low skilled assembly line work. Those jobs are disappearing and will never come back. The future is in performing tasks that a computer or robot can't do.
BOG PERSON
(2,916 posts)we're all going to be au-pairs and dog walkers
progree
(10,907 posts)FreeJoe
(1,039 posts)and artists, and computer programmers, and musicians, and masseuses, and accountants, and auditors, and engineers, and ..... the list goes on and on.
I'm sure that there were people worried about the loss of farm jobs as that industry changed. The answer is not to cling to inefficient was of creating things just because they are labor intensive and we are laborers.
progree
(10,907 posts)Thanks to DallasNE in #68 for pointing this out.
Please see #95 for more details ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022801053#post95 )
#95 also has a graph (from Jan 2000 to present) and link to Bureau of Labor Statistic's manufacturing employment series.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Who the fuck is Dave Johnson, anyway?
progree
(10,907 posts)783,000 non-farm payroll jobs were created in the 4 months January through April (196,000 / month average)
Jan - April monthly net job creation figures (thousands) : 148 332 138 165 . Total: 783. Average: 196
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
The OP was talking about manufacturing jobs -- a total of 39,000 created in the 4 months January through April ( 9,750 / month average)
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001
Jan - April monthly net manufacturing job creation figures (thousands) : 14 23 2 0 . Total: 39. Average: 10
Series Id: CES3000000001
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Manufacturing, Industry: Manufacturing,
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
1 MONTH CHANGE
(The 1-month change figures began improving in 2/09 - the month following Obama's inauguration. Though it took a year to turn positive. Also interesing -- the "plus" area in the Obama era is better than the "plus" area in the Bush era.)
Back to non-farm payroll jobs -- 6.154 million net new jobs have been created in the last 38 months -- that's 162,000 jobs / month average.
G.W. Bush's entire 8 year record: 1.083 million net new jobs (11,281 jobs / month average)
More, including more comparisons of the Bush and Obama records: http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439#post1