NAFFFFFTA

[Resume]

Regarding the highlighted....

No, it's transformational. The amount of labour required to manufacture things is orders of magnitude lower than 40 years ago.

U.S. manufacturing output is at an all time high.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/265c...o-taking-us-factory-jobs-blame-robots-instead

But research shows that the automation of U.S. factories is a much bigger factor than foreign trade in the loss of factory jobs. A study at Ball State University's Center for Business and Economic Research last year found that trade accounted for just 13 percent of America's lost factory jobs. The vast majority of the lost jobs — 88 percent — were taken by robots and other homegrown factors that reduce factories' need for human labor.

"We're making more with fewer people," says Howard Shatz, a senior economist at the Rand Corp. think tank.

General Motors, for instance, now employs barely a third of the 600,000 workers it had in the 1970s. Yet it churns out more cars and trucks than ever.

Or look at production of steel and other primary metals. Since 1997, the United States has lost 265,000 jobs in the production of primary metals — a 42 percent plunge — at a time when such production in the U.S. has surged 38 percent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/...-killer-is-not-china-its-automation.html?_r=0

Donald J. Trump told workers like Ms. Johnson that he would bring back their jobs by clamping down on trade, offshoring and immigration. But economists say the bigger threat to their jobs has been something else: automation.

“Over the long haul, clearly automation’s been much more important — it’s not even close,” said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard who studies labor and technological change.

 

[Aepervius]

And yet more jobs exist now then at any other time in history. And while wages have stagnated, innovation has improved the wealth of all of us (the Phone I am on now). What wealth percentile would you need to be in to give up this life for living in 1982 or 94?

Let me set aside that having an iphone while a technical progress tells us nothing about wealth. As wealth you have to count the tangible and intangible which can be sold or used for good exchange. e.g. car, house, investment. At the same age as my parents, I have an ihpone, a big tv and a big frdge. So what ? I have no wealth compared to what they had at the same age : an individual home that they bought when they were 40.

ETA: yes I would go back to 1982 tech to have the same wealth as them , as that would lower my stress and my future perspective much better than having 2016 tech WILL.

Do not confuse our technological richness with real wealth. We have far less wealth than baby boomer had, inflation kept the same. I find it irritating that people mistake progress with economical wealth. You can be extremely poor in an very technologically advanced society.

That aside : more jobs exists , but wage stagnated , but the reality is that a lot of the new job are not that well paid or very precarious, and many are part job, but more importantly blue collar job are going away forever :
http://www.prb.org/pdf08/63.2uslabor.pdf

scroll to the blue collar/service job distribution it shrunk from 30% in 1950 to a bit less than 12% roughly (eye measurement not precise). Page 7 figure 5. Service exploded. ETAETA : to that shrinkage compare the rise of goods produced (excluding service). As resume linked automation did a lot of thing. but not produce new job except maybe temporary in transportation of the goods .

To boot a lot of the service industry stuff and most of the transportation could be lost in the next 20 or 30 years as automation reach the point of being done without folk. That is a big problem.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Irrelevant



..which will benefit the Germans immensely




Regarding the highlighted....

No, it's transformational. The amount of labour required to manufacture things is orders of magnitude lower than 40 years ago.

U.S. manufacturing output is at an all time high.

Mini Coopers oh geez, yeah BMW that's right. Dang those Germans, if they're not dropping poison candy they're buying up the coolest car companies in the UK. But you'll still have all those Brits making them in the UK though. And that's a good thing.

US mfg is high, but our GDP growth is still less than it needs to be. Job creation should spike under Trump. His version of supply side should create more jobs than Reagan's 16+ million net. I would be happy to see a return of at least 7% GDP growth.
Chris B.

 

[Garrison]

Job creation should spike under Trump. His version of supply side should create more jobs than Reagan's 16+ million net.
Chris B.

And what jobs will they be? As has been pointed out to you repeatedly the vast majority of those jobs that have gone disappeared because of automation and increased productivity. Even if every factory that moved overseas came back they would create far fewer jobs than were lost when they originally relocated. So far Trump's policy seems to consist of little more than massive bribes to keep factories in the USA (factories you note, not any guarantees they won't eliminate jobs through automation and increased efficiency) and short term jobs on projects like Keystone XL.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Let me set aside that having an iphone while a technical progress tells us nothing about wealth. As wealth you have to count the tangible and intangible which can be sold or used for good exchange. e.g. car, house, investment. At the same age as my parents, I have an ihpone, a big tv and a big frdge. So what ? I have no wealth compared to what they had at the same age : an individual home that they bought when they were 40.

ETA: yes I would go back to 1982 tech to have the same wealth as them , as that would lower my stress and my future perspective much better than having 2016 tech WILL.

My phone and car outweigh so much of that.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

And what jobs will they be? As has been pointed out to you repeatedly the vast majority of those jobs that have gone disappeared because of automation and increased productivity. Even if every factory that moved overseas came back they would create far fewer jobs than were lost when they originally relocated. So far Trump's policy seems to consist of little more than massive bribes to keep factories in the USA (factories you note, not any guarantees they won't eliminate jobs through automation and increased efficiency) and short term jobs on projects like Keystone XL.

No, that just doesn't work. A factory returning to the US will create jobs. There are many other industries that have been created and left since Reagan's admin.
So the job numbers would increase.

It seems the counter argument is to leave the factories overseas because it won't create jobs in the US to bring them back? Is that like the shifting demographics thing?
Chris B.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That aside : more jobs exists , but wage stagnated , but the reality is that a lot of the new job are not that well paid or very precarious, and many are part job, but more importantly blue collar job are going away forever :
http://www.prb.org/pdf08/63.2uslabor.pdf

scroll to the blue collar/service job distribution it shrunk from 30% in 1950 to a bit less than 12% roughly (eye measurement not precise). Page 7 figure 5. Service exploded. ETAETA : to that shrinkage compare the rise of goods produced (excluding service). As resume linked automation did a lot of thing. but not produce new job except maybe temporary in transportation of the goods .

To boot a lot of the service industry stuff and most of the transportation could be lost in the next 20 or 30 years as automation reach the point of being done without folk. That is a big problem.

I omitted that because I simply don't find it an interesting subject.

 

[fagin]

No, that just doesn't work. A factory returning to the US will create jobs. There are many other industries that have been created and left since Reagan's admin.
So the job numbers would increase.

It seems the counter argument is to leave the factories overseas because it won't create jobs in the US to bring them back? Is that like the shifting demographics thing?
Chris B.

At what cost per job?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Protectionism always goes two ways: if the US wants to support one of its sectors, other countries will protect some of theirs.
That means that growing jobs in competitive industries in the US will come at the expense of the most lucrative industries like Pharma and Software.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

At what cost per job?

I would suppose that the initial cost would be less than the increases seen in revenue over the lifetime of the worker. Increased revenue for the worker reflects directly to increased tax revenue as well. Rather than paying an unemployed worker to be unemployed and providing them with Government based social programs, it would be much cheaper to let them work and pay taxes, buy their own food etc.
Chris B.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I would suppose that the initial cost would be less than the increases seen in revenue over the lifetime of the worker. Increased revenue for the worker reflects directly to increased tax revenue as well. Rather than paying an unemployed worker to be unemployed and providing them with Government based social programs, it would be much cheaper to let them work and pay taxes, buy their own food etc.
Chris B.

Tax revenue is not a benefit. That is just a transfer. A job is actually a cost. If I can produce a car with a magic wand or employing someone for 8 hours, the magic wand is all benefit while the latter is the benefit of the car minus the labor.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Protectionism is a tax on the consumer to help uncompetitive businesses carry on being uncompetitive.

The real life situation is a lot more complex than DJT and his supporters seem to believe too. Many of the businesses that have relocated their factories to Asia have their largest markets in Asia as well. Compared to the likes of China and India, the American market is tiny. Apple could happily survive never selling another iPhone in the US, but at the same time it's also feeling the pressure from Samsung, a non US based Company. If Apple had to return its manufacturing to the US, then not only will their phones be more expensive to produce, leading to them being more expensive in the marketplace, but they'll have to add in shipping and other costs to get them into the marketplaces that they are battling to try and win, but they'll be against competition that is already winning and doesn't have those extra costs. Rather than returning its manufacturing to the US and face those extra costs, it would likely be better for Apple to simply drop its US distribution and concentrate on its gains in Europe and on trying to out match Samsung in China.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Protectionism is a tax on the consumer to help uncompetitive businesses carry on being uncompetitive.

The real life situation is a lot more complex than DJT and his supporters seem to believe too. Many of the businesses that have relocated their factories to Asia have their largest markets in Asia as well. Compared to the likes of China and India, the American market is tiny. Apple could happily survive never selling another iPhone in the US, but at the same time it's also feeling the pressure from Samsung, a non US based Company. If Apple had to return its manufacturing to the US, then not only will their phones be more expensive to produce, leading to them being more expensive in the marketplace, but they'll have to add in shipping and other costs to get them into the marketplaces that they are battling to try and win, but they'll be against competition that is already winning and doesn't have those extra costs. Rather than returning its manufacturing to the US and face those extra costs, it would likely be better for Apple to simply drop its US distribution and concentrate on its gains in Europe and on trying to out match Samsung in China.

Good example. The more likely outcome is that Apple makes phones in the US for the US market that cost twice as much and continues to make phones in Asia for the ROW. Keep both markets and the only loser is the US customer.

 

[The Don]

Good example. The more likely outcome is that Apple makes phones in the US for the US market that cost twice as much and continues to make phones in Asia for the ROW. Keep both markets and the only loser is the US customer.

....and if that happens then there'll be a healthy market in smuggled phones..

 

[Andy_Ross]

I realize that a stronger US work force may not go well for the UK, but at least the bust of Winston Churchill is back in the Oval Office.

Don't be concerned, Trump will work with the UK on trade deals to reward the Brexit folks. I expect to see more minis on the roads here.

And yes, that was my experience with a robot at SKF-USA. I fully realize automation tends to replace a few workers, yet closing down a factory and moving that factory elsewhere replaces them all. The Liberal argument worked for several years in the US, until we saw what had happened as a result. So, that is no longer the direction we will move. It's not personal, it's just business.

Chris B.

Mini are owned by BMW so profits to Germany. There won't be an increase in jobs at Mini after Brexit. Why wiuld people in the USA start buying more Minis?
I thought Trumps plan was America First, why would he give the UK a breqk to export German owned cars to the USA more favourably than any other foreign manufacturer?

 

[Spindrift]

Mini are owned by BMW so profits to Germany. There won't be an increase in jobs at Mini after Brexit. Why wiuld people in the USA start buying more Minis?
I thought Trumps plan was America First, why would he give the UK a breqk to export German owned cars to the USA more favourably than any other foreign manufacturer?

Mini employs 4000 people in the UK for assembly, that's it. Many of the parts are built elsewhere and those manufacturers employ a lot more people. If Mini disappeared other countries would be affected a lot more than the UK.

 

[Garrison]

No, that just doesn't work. A factory returning to the US will create jobs. There are many other industries that have been created and left since Reagan's admin.
So the job numbers would increase.

Well if we go with what I actually wrote rather than your creative rewriting, I said any returns would be substantially less than the jobs originally lost as a US plants would be more heavily automated. Only the low labour costs in other parts of the world have prevented those plants adopting higher levels of automation.

It seems the counter argument is to leave the factories overseas because it won't create jobs in the US to bring them back? Is that like the shifting demographics thing?
Chris B.

No its like the automation thing, in that you don't understand how this would work either. The point is that even if production is repatriated only a fraction of the previous jobs would be restored. Those old plants are long gone and aren't just sitting around waiting to be reopened.

 

[Garrison]

Mini are owned by BMW so profits to Germany. There won't be an increase in jobs at Mini after Brexit. Why wiuld people in the USA start buying more Minis?
I thought Trumps plan was America First, why would he give the UK a breqk to export German owned cars to the USA more favourably than any other foreign manufacturer?

Especially when he's threatening German car companies over cars they make in Mexico and export to the US. Maybe foreign made goods are okay if the people making them are Caucasian?

 

[The Don]

Especially when he's threatening German car companies over cars they make in Mexico and export to the US. Maybe foreign made goods are okay if the people making them are Caucasian?

There certainly seems to be more of a whiff of that kind of thing in the UK with the "Take control of our borders !" message

I haven't heard criticism of the number of Australians, New Zealanders, (white) South Africans or Americans "coming over here". It seems that the problems start if you speak with the wrong accent (Eastern Europeans) or are dark-complected

 

[The Don]

US mfg is high, but our GDP growth is still less than it needs to be.

I thought manufacturing was on its knees, at least that's what you were recently implying - have you changed your tune or moved the goalposts ?

Job creation should spike under Trump. His version of supply side should create more jobs than Reagan's 16+ million net.

Why do you want him to do so much worse than Obama ? Under his administration more than 25 million have been added to the non-farm seasonally adjusted payroll number:

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=CE_cesbref1

To get this straight, Reagan adding 16 million jobs was a great victory and a vindication for Reaganomics and Trump adding 16 million would be a great performance.

OTOH Obama adding 25 million is a damning indictment of his "terrible" economic policies which are "destroying the economy"

I would be happy to see a return of at least 7% GDP growth.
Chris B.

And I'd like to see a return of a full head of luxuriant hair but like 7% growth in a developed economy, that's a fantasy that isn't going to happen.