 |
|
| Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
What is the future of manufacturing?
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 04:37:41 -0400, Gary R Coffman
wrote: On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 00:22:33 -0000, (Ron Bean) wrote: "Ed Huntress" writes: I hesitate to stir this hash up, because it gets complicated in a hurry... I understand, but I'm not sure we have a choice. This may not be the right forum for it, but I also need to find a new career, and so far I haven't heard of one that's not scheduled to shrink. (I'm open to suggestions.) Ok. The biggest growth field over the next 20 years is going to be in the medical field, particularly any job which deals with geriatrics. Medical technicians, physician's assistants, pharmacists, nurses, etc, are all going to be in high demand. Gary I agree. Gunner "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" -- Ben Franklin |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message news  "Peter Reilley" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message . net... "bg" wrote in message om... But the best way for us to "break out" of this cycle is to innovate. we did it with IT in the 90's. Now we just need to find that next engine of growth and innovate. I would nominate energy as being the best all around possibility, with the greatest potential. Cheap energy independence would affect every single industry in the country and the world. Only we would be the masters of a a new technology. The possibilities are limitless. And what if another IT doesn't come along? And why would we have an exclusive on new energy technology? That is always the question! What will we do if we cannot make buggy whips? There is no guarantee that we will have a lock on any new technology. What can give us the edge is to have a society that is receptive to change. And what would you like to change to? Our edge now is in financial innovation. Are you ready to re-train to become an arbitrageur? g Probably not, I am no good with money. ;-) Our receptiveness to change doesn't seem to be doing much for manufacturing. If you take a very broad view, and consider "change" to be any economic activity that responds to opportunities in the markets, you probably have a point. But that generally means change *away from* implementing manufacturing capability in the United States. If you happened to read my first article on the subject, "The China Conundrum," you noticed that I broke economic interests in manufacturing into six categories. The people in the top categories think that things are just fine. Those are the people who have no personal interest in keeping manufacturing in the US from going to pot. The people in the bottom categories are people like you, me, and nearly everyone else involved directly with manufacturing. Of course I mean change that responds to economic demands. I disagree that it must mean a shift away from manufacturing. It will probably mean a shift away from the type of manufacturing that anybody can do because; anybody can do it. The type of knowledge intensive manufacturing that we excel in is the future of manufacturing in the US. That is not to say that we won't have competition in that area, we will. What I am saying is that it is our best hope and that is where we should be. The type of manufacturing that depended on cranking the cranks on the old Bridgeport is dead and we should make no effort to protect it. The type of manufacturing based on new materials, new processes, software, nano-technology, etc is the future. The problem is that many in this industry don't even think of some of those things as manufacturing. If you think of manufacturing as only the cutting of metal, then manufacturing is dead. The attitude that we must protect industries where we were successful is fatal. Japan is no better example. Japan is an example of something, but the problems that stem from protecting industries probably isn't it. That was a source of trouble but probably not the trouble that's put them into the financial bind they're in now. The problem in Japan is the mindset that says that "we must protect our industries". This probably really means "lets protect our buddies" at the big corporations. Now it has degenerated into "lets not loose face" and "I know that we need to restructure, but you do it first". The solution, as we so painfully know, is periodic restructuring of the economy. We have experienced these "blood on the floor" situations many times in the past. They are not pleasant and not fair but they are necessary. New technology favors no one. The ones that will win are those that are willing to embrace it. The Chinese are embracing it big-time. Or, we should say, the foreign multinationals who are investing in China's manufacturing are embracing it big-time. China certainly does have a labor cost advantage. If it is cost and not knowledge that is the deciding factor on the location of a certain industry then the US is probably not the ideal location. This is a factor that we cannot change and we should not attempt to. Interestingly; there are low tech industries that will not move overseas. Boat anchors and gasoline containers for example. They are too low value per weight or low value per volume to ship very far. These products are even regional in the US. No California boar anchors are shipped to Boston. There are some industries that cannot move overseas no matter what. Technology has become a commodity on world markets. IT may be the last big example in which one county had an edge. The reason we had an edge in IT for so long is that Europe made a big mistake, protecting their emerging IT market with quotas. And Japan made another mistake, with "industrial planning," putting huge government support behind particular chip technologies, which quickly became obsolete. Technology is not a commodity. Existing technologies become commodities. How can new technologies be commodities? We don't even know what they are. They're commodities because the multinationals that invest in their implementation can now do so anywhere they choose. And where they choose is the countries with the lowest wages and with sufficient infrastructure to function. If the decision is based on the cost of labor and not the skill and knowledge of the labor force then it will go overseas. It is a simple choice. If the government attempts to thwart the economic forces behind that decision the advantage gained will be temporary but the damage done will be permanent. China and India have learned from those mistakes of others and are not likely to make them again. We don't know if China and India have learned from other's mistakes, they have not had the opportunity to make their own mistakes. Oh, yes, they've already avoided many of Japan's mistakes. They're making some of their own, and some of them look larger than the mistakes the Japanese made. It's quite right that we don't know yet what the long term outcome will be. In interesting observation on Chinese industry; Generals in the Chinese Army run major industries for their own benefit! These generals have a lot of political power both because of their position in the military and due to their personal wealth. That has got to be a formula for getting into a "protect our industry" mode of thinking. That and the old Communist thinking about "protect the worker" seem to be almost a guarantee for stagnation. In the meantime, though, how long are you willing to hold your breath to find out? China is ten times larger than Japan, with many times the manufacturing capability and with a FAR heavier weight of unemployment and underemployed peasantry that are holding wages down. They probably will be able to undercut us in manufacturing costs for at least another two to three decades. Unlike Japan, they have the full assistance and compliance of the world's largest corporations in doing so. They aren't competing with Motorola, Ford, and General Motors. The competition coming from China IS Motorola, Ford, and General Motors. I love the Keynes quote "In the end we are all dead". If you are cranking the cranks of a Bridgeport, you are dead. Unless, of course, you are making anchors. If you are at the cutting edge then you are probably OK. And China's manufacturing isn't the only example of the new reality we're facing. There's also India, which is now able to perform many of our financial and computer services perfectly well from halfway around the world, in the blink of an eye. That's innovation for you, eh? India is quite different from China. It has a very different history from China. Both China and India have pressing social problems that must be solved before they will be world beaters. There are no comforting answers here. Only time will tell. Who would have thought that Japan would self-distruct? Some economists, as far back as 1980, realized that their industrial policy was going to cause them trouble if they didn't drop it when it got in the way. But many of those people thought the Japanese were smart enough and quick enough to recognize it, and that they'd get rid of it when the time was right. In general, those economists had the right idea, but the problem cropped up in a different place than many thought it would. Some say the Japanese lost their edge when they succumbed to world pressure to let the yet float upward in value. Most believe, however, that the problem stemmed from the same cultural factors that led them to follow the authority of MITI and their penchant for respecting authority without question. The result was a financial system they couldn't fix because they couldn't acknowledge the enormity of their mistakes. They couldn't fix their problems fast enough, and they piled up. I remember reading an article refuting the thesis that says that the Japanese will fix their problems and be a powerhouse once again. The article said that countries that fall in a slump do not always come out of it. History has a long list of examples; Roman empire, Venice, British empire, etc. The point is that things don't always get better, things don't always turn around. One US tool company manager who traveled to China early this year was struck by seeing more advanced EDMs and molding presses on plant floors than the ones that are used by US industry. The linear-motor Sodicks and long rows of German presses knocked him out. The Chinese can implement new technology fast enough to make your head spin. And U.S. companies that invest there tend to put in better technology than that which they have in their North American plants. Shanghai-GM's new engine line, which is now starting to make the complete engines for the 2004 Chevy Equinox SUV (to be installed in Canada, and then shipped to the US), probably is the most advanced engine manufacturing line in the world. It's hard to imagine an innovation on which we would have an exclusive for very long. No one is given a free ride. It is very damaging to expect one. If we concentrate on using governmental protection for industries where we have had past success, we will surely miss the boat for the next new thing. Indeed, the "next new thing" has been our savior many times in the past. I recognize your feeling here, Pete, but I believe your faith in "the next new thing" is misplaced. The point is that the next new thing is unlikely to be ours, or anyone else's, salvation. Technology doesn't take a decade to cross borders today. It doesn't take a few years. In fact, you may find, as in the case of the new Shanghai-GM engine line, it winds up being implemented in the low-wage country before it's implemented in the country that invented it. The "next new thing" is not guaranteed to be out salvation, of course. What will be our salvation is to be the best place to develop and manufacture the "next new thing". One disadvantage to using China or most other low wage countries to manufacture the "next new thing" is the absence of intellectual property protection. Where that is not an issue, and wages is an issue, China cannot be beat. That's because we've been so successful in breaking down the barriers to capital flow. The multinationals have gotten what they really wanted most of all: the ability to implement new technologies anywhere they want to, wherever the wages and other costs are lowest. And what they don't own, they'll buy from the low-wage countries. What gives people weak knees it that it is awfully hard to see where the next one is coming from. What makes some of us cautious is the recognition that we're relying on yesterday's solutions to a new kind of problem, one that we've never seen before. Fasten your seat belts, we are in for a rough ride! Perhaps it is useful to have these arguments because we get delayed in doing anything too damaging. The arguments have to be made to Congress and the administration. Our trade policies have to be based on a fuller recognition of what's happening in manufacturing. And we have to be more transparent about our trade policies. If you read the policy journals, such as _Foreign Affairs_, you get the feeling that the whole trade agenda is something that's being cooked up behind closed doors, with no public access to the real planning or negotiations. None of these arguments are new. I just hope that we don't follow the protectionist course, it will surely be our doom. The traditional forms of protectionism, which are punitive tariffs and quotas, subsidies, and non-trade exclusionary barriers, are usually a bad thing, based on their history. Not always, but usually. Trade barriers helped Japan wrench itself from peasantry to world manufacturing dominance in less than 30 years, so you have to be cautious when you impugn protectionism as an absolute. You are correct that protectionism can work for insignificant players in their efforts to get their foot in the door of international trade. As a policy, it will not work for full fledged members of the international trade community. Japan is having a hard time making the transition. I would love to borrow a few hundred billion Yen at 0% interest and invest it in US government bonds at a few % interest. ;-) However, we do need something more than relying on blind faith in "innovation." If you read the assertions of our Commerce Dept., you realize that, if they believe what they're saying, they're off in the ozone somewhere, paying attention to the things that they like and ignoring the things they don't. And I do believe that they believe what they're saying. "Blind faith in innovation" is all that we have. America, more than anyone else, has "blind faith in the future". What are you suggesting? 5 year plans? Our US Trade Representative is another matter. The people who are making policy at that level are smart, subtle, and sophisticated. But they have an agenda that isn't well understood by most of us. For example, after decades of pushing for a unified world market through the WTO, they've now broken ranks with most of the developed world and they're pursuing regional trade blocks, such as NAFTA, and bilateral trade deals. It's all based on an agenda that we don't fully understand, because they don't talk very openly about it. We'll be writing more about it in _Machining_. Stay tuned. -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) I do get Machining and have read your articles. My concern is that this whole thing degenerates into protectionism. I fully understand that the reality if international trade is not clean in the theoretical sense. There is a lot of "you scratch my back and I will scratch your back". That is just human nature. That is, no doubt, the origin of a lot of US trade policy. The danger it that it can go too far. Pete. |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
|
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
"Peter Reilley" wrote in message
... "Blind faith in innovation" is all that we have. America, more than anyone else, has "blind faith in the future". What are you suggesting? 5 year plans? The end to blind faith, and the beginning of rationality in international trade. After he left his position, after a decade of pushing "free trade" and NAFTA, Mickey Kantor, the former U.S. Trade Representative, finally told it like it is and said "there is no free trade." After roughly nine months of intensive study and interviews with many experts, it's obvious to me that he's right. There is no question of whether there will be protectionism. We, and every other country in the world, are in it up to our ears. The only question is what kind there will be, and whether it will further our interests or impale us on a sword of mindless ideology. I'm not falling on any swords, and I'm not buying the free-trade crap from the ideologues. As for what I'm suggesting, it's whatever will enable our economy to maintain its strength and our society to maintain its middle-class, democratic core. I'll consider all practical suggestions. -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
Don't forget hydroelectric dams that block fish breeding grounds, and flood
5000 years of history... We could never have built there latest dam project in the US. Vince jim rozen wrote: In article , Ed Huntress says... Regarding energy, what is it you're thinking about? Fusion? Solar? What? What is it that we could innovate that wouldn't show up in China before you've turned your back? Maybe the energy costs in China are lower than here, because they run everything on soft coal with no polution controls? Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
I have been following this thread with interest.
I have had 2 question for a long time that I have never seen the answer to. 1.) How many foreign man years of labor goes into products consumed by Americans? 2.) How many man years of American labor goes into products shipped over seas? and for completeness, I should ask 3.) How many man years of American labor goes into products consumed by Americans? I have a feeling that the imbalance would be scary, and that an augment could be made that the world is really working for America. I could be an elitist and say so what? But I'm not. What scars me is that we will forget how to do things ourselves. At some point factory workers in Chine will have unions, and better pay, and then better pay then Americans, and the world will stop shipping to the US, and start shipping to China where the consumer has money. It seems to me Germany understands the new world better then us. They make cars in South America, but the engines and transmissions are still made in German. They protest there technology, and send over seas the simple stuff (assembly). From what I have read in this thread, if the US companies are setting up state of the art engine factories in China, then we are hosed. Vince P.S. Has anyone ever seen data for my 3 questions? |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
Ed Huntress wrote: I understand, but I'm not sure we have a choice. This may not be the right forum for it, but I also need to find a new career, and so far I haven't heard of one that's not scheduled to shrink. (I'm open to suggestions.) Healthcare services look good. You can go to the US Dept. of Labor website and look at their jobs forecasts. Take them with a big grain of salt, however. They don't know where the economy is going any better than anyone else does. I did some research on the outlook for jobs included in NOC Code 7231 (Machinists and Machining and Tooling Inspectors) a couple of weeks ago for some paperwork I had to fill out. For my area I came up with the following: --In P.E.I., the employment outlook for this occupation is good. --Current initiatives within various industries such as shipbuilding, aviation, farm machinery servicing and manufacturing are expected to create new opportunities. --Approximately 10 percent of machinists are self-employed; therefore, self-employment may be considered an employment option. --Some additional opportunities may result from retirements. I had info for Nova Scotia too, but I can't find it right now. Outlook for there was similiar though. The sources I used said all outlooks were short-term, up until about 2007. Here I was thinking I'll be doing ok when I start my apprenticeship. Not having to do the job search thing too often. I was totally blindsided by this thread.  Maybe we're getting some of your jobs up here. Starting wages for machinists are pretty low here. Last year the shop I was deburring at hired a guy who just graduated from a machining course and they paid him less than I was making deburring. And I was making less than 10 bucks an hour. Guaranteed if I was still there he'd be making more than me now though.  Guess we're still not as cheap as China though.chem |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
In article , Gary R Coffman says...
Ok. The biggest growth field over the next 20 years is going to be in the medical field, particularly any job which deals with geriatrics. Medical technicians, physician's assistants, pharmacists, nurses, etc, are all going to be in high demand. LOL. Not just geriatrics. The medical field in general is not going to suffer the 'ship it overseas to china or india' problem that software and other engineering disciplines are starting to see. What are they going to do, ship the *patients* overseas? No. The nurses will still have to be in the US. Time to go get my RN. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
"Vince Iorio" wrote in message
... I have been following this thread with interest. I have had 2 question for a long time that I have never seen the answer to. 1.) How many foreign man years of labor goes into products consumed by Americans? 2.) How many man years of American labor goes into products shipped over seas? and for completeness, I should ask 3.) How many man years of American labor goes into products consumed by Americans? I have a feeling that the imbalance would be scary, and that an augment could be made that the world is really working for America. That's one way to describe the argument made by Milton Friedman, our Commerce Dept., the Cato Institute, and many economists who take a conservative view of free trade. What scars me is that we will forget how to do things ourselves. At some point factory workers in Chine will have unions, and better pay, and then better pay then Americans, and the world will stop shipping to the US, and start shipping to China where the consumer has money. In the long run. g Trade, like most economic activity, is a mixture of win-win (economic growth) and win-lose (zero-sum) transactions. The free-trade ideologues are macroeconomists who pay no real attention to micro issues, where there are many more zero-sum transactions, in which somebody gets hurt badly so someone else can get ahead. What has the argument fired up today is that the zero-sum games appear to be showing up at the macro level. The Cato Institute looks backwards, and says there is no evidence of economic losses from trade because the figures being used are overwhelmed by the recession. People like me aren't looking backwards, we're looking ahead, and considering the effects of, for example, $30B/yr. worth of car parts that will be imported by just two car companies within the next seven years. P.S. Has anyone ever seen data for my 3 questions? I've never seen figures compiled that way, but you could roughly derive it from existing trade figures. It would be a lot of work. -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
"Ed Huntress" writes: (I'm open to suggestions.) Healthcare services look good. I see it demographically, but I'm wondering who's going to pay for it. If that's our only viable industry, we're in trouble. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I have the right personality to be dealing with patients directly (not that I'm unfriendly, but I think it would drive me nuts after a while). But I also know that job satisfaction typically depends on who you work for rather than what business you're in (organizational psychology is a fascinating topic-- I wish I could figure out how to make a living at it). Driving an economy with exports is something that you do from a position of economic weakness. If you have a very strong economy, you may do better by importing more than you export. Will we still have a strong economy in 10 years? This is a very contentious and complex issue. If you want to know the theoretical basis on which our economy operates, a good place to start is with a 23-year-old book titled _Free To Choose_, written by Nobel-prize-winning economist Milton Friedman. It's an easy read, written for the layman. There is one short chapter about trade. In one sitting, you'll see what lies behind the thinking of the free-trade ideologues. You may be very surprised; most people are. It's interesting that you'd recommend this, because he's usually portrayed as the most rabid ultra-free-trade zealot on the planet (ie, someone who thinks theory is more valid than reality). There's an interesting book called "Turbo Capitalism" by Edward Luttwak (published in 1999, so slightly out of date now, but it has a brief section on China that matches what you've been writing). He points out that deregulated economies are very efficient but also highly unstable. His conclusion seems to be that we'll have plenty of jobs, but most of them won't pay much (but you'll be free to work 80 hrs/wk to make up for it-- this is called "progress"). He also talks about the various social implications-- he was born in Transylvania and went to school in Italy and England, so he brings a non-US perspective to it. You have to dig deep into international finance and capital flows to really get it. Otherwise, you're a victim of the editorialists and partisan economists who argue all the time about it. Like a lot of people who write about this subject, I'm struggling with that part of the equation. It's very tough. You're doing a pretty good job so far. BTW if you hear NPR's "Marketplace" program, I just heard an ad for a segment tonight about how people see their economic future. |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 00:25:44 GMT, Joe Kultgen wrote:
Nope. We don't presently have the materials technology to build a "Beanstalk". We don't have the technology for an escape speed catapult. But we don't *need* one to make space a paying proposition! All we need is to get the govt. completely out of the commercial launch business. Actually, it looks like we do now have the materials technology to build a beanstalk. Researchers have now made carbon nanotube structures up to 5 feet long (limited only by their tabletop equipment) with the requisite tensile strength. It is just straightforward engineering development from there to the lengths needed for a beanstalk. Getting government out of the launch business doesn't somehow change the rocket equation. The mass ratio needed to reach orbit ultimately determines the cost to orbit by rocket, and that's only a function of the gravity well. The equation tells us best case cost is still a couple of orders of magnitude too high for commercial exploitation of space. Gary |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
Retirement wasn't a big factor in the numbers I was looking at. It was
only supposed to create a few openings a year. They were looking more at expansions and stuff like that to create new jobs. It wasn't just based on existing jobs becoming available. But the numbers I was looking at were only for this region, and like I said, the (relatively) cheap labour may be drawing employers here. If you follow the numbers, we may be way off from everywhere else. But OTOH, we've had a few layoffs in the aerospace industry here lately - IIRC, one of the guys who got laid off at ATI (owned by Vector) is around this newsgroup somewhere. Vector moved another shop here from out west (Helipro) but I think they're on the road to a shutdown. Not many employees left there, but the didn't have a whole lot here to begin with anyway. There's a shop in Charlottetown that has cut out overtime because there's not enough work to go around. But on the positive side, the shop I worked at seems to be hiring someone new every couple of months, and they've started running the shop 24/7. So... I have no idea where things are headed here... That said, I still know I'd rather be a machinist than a deburrer. chem Ron Bean wrote: chem writes: Here I was thinking I'll be doing ok when I start my apprenticeship. Not having to do the job search thing too often. I was totally blindsided by this thread. Before the China thing became obvious, people were saying there would be some opportunities due to the large number of older workers retiring, even though the total number of jobs was declining. That's probably what the numbers you saw were based on. |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message .net... "Peter Reilley" wrote in message ... "Blind faith in innovation" is all that we have. America, more than anyone else, has "blind faith in the future". What are you suggesting? 5 year plans? The end to blind faith, and the beginning of rationality in international trade. After he left his position, after a decade of pushing "free trade" and NAFTA, Mickey Kantor, the former U.S. Trade Representative, finally told it like it is and said "there is no free trade." After roughly nine months of intensive study and interviews with many experts, it's obvious to me that he's right. Of course there is no "free trade" in the pure ideological sense. In the same way there is no "pure freedom" of "perfect democracy" in the ideological sense. We live in a world of imperfect solutions. In world trade as in politics and sausage; you should not look too closely at the ingredients. Now that we have established the obvious, lets talk the reality. If our trade policies serve to protect the guy cranking the Bridgeport then we are doomed. We must recognize those technologies that have matured, the ones that anyone can do, and let them go overseas. They are heading over there anyway and to stop them with trade barriers hurts us more then it helps us in the long term. There is no question of whether there will be protectionism. We, and every other country in the world, are in it up to our ears. The only question is what kind there will be, and whether it will further our interests or impale us on a sword of mindless ideology. Therein lies the conundrum. I'm not falling on any swords, and I'm not buying the free-trade crap from the ideologues. As for what I'm suggesting, it's whatever will enable our economy to maintain its strength and our society to maintain its middle-class, democratic core. I'll consider all practical suggestions. -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) Ideologies are for university professors and think tank gurus. However, if our trade policies serve to protect the current industries at the expense of the future industries then we all will loose. The reality is that the current industries have the political power to have themselves protected. New industries, often 2 guys in a garage, have little political power. The ideology that says that everyone should compete in the marketplace is useful here. It is an ideology that has served us well and serves to counterbalance the strong economic forces for protectionism. So far America has dodged the protectionist bullet. Often the Europeans are more protectionist than America. They don't have as strong a commitment to the that competitive ideology. However, we have had some close calls. The auto manufacturers and their unions would love to have a lot more protectionism for their industry. That is also true of the steel and textile industries. Those industries now fall into the category of "anybody can do it". The auto industry probably does not belong in that category, yet. A world in which America develops new technology which, after a time, move to more efficient locations is a very good position for America to be in. This is a competition where we have been very successful in the past. If we stop the race there are surely others that will be happy to take the lead. Pete. |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message .net... "Vince Iorio" wrote in message ... I have been following this thread with interest. I have had 2 question for a long time that I have never seen the answer to. 1.) How many foreign man years of labor goes into products consumed by Americans? 2.) How many man years of American labor goes into products shipped over seas? and for completeness, I should ask 3.) How many man years of American labor goes into products consumed by Americans? I have a feeling that the imbalance would be scary, and that an augment could be made that the world is really working for America. That's one way to describe the argument made by Milton Friedman, our Commerce Dept., the Cato Institute, and many economists who take a conservative view of free trade. What scars me is that we will forget how to do things ourselves. At some point factory workers in Chine will have unions, and better pay, and then better pay then Americans, and the world will stop shipping to the US, and start shipping to China where the consumer has money. In the long run. g Trade, like most economic activity, is a mixture of win-win (economic growth) and win-lose (zero-sum) transactions. The free-trade ideologues are macroeconomists who pay no real attention to micro issues, where there are many more zero-sum transactions, in which somebody gets hurt badly so someone else can get ahead. What has the argument fired up today is that the zero-sum games appear to be showing up at the macro level. The Cato Institute looks backwards, and says there is no evidence of economic losses from trade because the figures being used are overwhelmed by the recession. People like me aren't looking backwards, we're looking ahead, and considering the effects of, for example, $30B/yr. worth of car parts that will be imported by just two car companies within the next seven years. P.S. Has anyone ever seen data for my 3 questions? I've never seen figures compiled that way, but you could roughly derive it from existing trade figures. It would be a lot of work. -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) Trade means that there are no win-lose transactions. A deal defined as a willing buyer coming to agreement with a willing seller. Where is the win-lose? A win-lose deal must entail fraud or force. Get the military involved and you surely have a win-lose situation. Often it is a lose-lose situation. ;-) Pete. |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
"Ron Bean" wrote in message
... "Ed Huntress" writes: (I'm open to suggestions.) Healthcare services look good. I see it demographically, but I'm wondering who's going to pay for it. If that's our only viable industry, we're in trouble. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I have the right personality to be dealing with patients directly (not that I'm unfriendly, but I think it would drive me nuts after a while). But I also know that job satisfaction typically depends on who you work for rather than what business you're in (organizational psychology is a fascinating topic-- I wish I could figure out how to make a living at it). "Human resources." In a big company, it presents a lot of opportunities. Driving an economy with exports is something that you do from a position of economic weakness. If you have a very strong economy, you may do better by importing more than you export. Will we still have a strong economy in 10 years? I think so, but if my long-term economic predictions were reliable, I'd be rich. I'm not. g I'm just trying to point out the differences between the ideologies we're being fed and the realities, to focus attention on the "displacements" that free-trade economists dust off so easily, but which translate into serious ups and downs in human lives. Also, I'm alarmed about how little political and economic leaders understand about the dynamics of manufacturing. It makes me deeply suspicious that their "big picture" economic views are based on reality. They do love their theories. This is a very contentious and complex issue. If you want to know the theoretical basis on which our economy operates, a good place to start is with a 23-year-old book titled _Free To Choose_, written by Nobel-prize-winning economist Milton Friedman. It's an easy read, written for the layman. There is one short chapter about trade. In one sitting, you'll see what lies behind the thinking of the free-trade ideologues. You may be very surprised; most people are. It's interesting that you'd recommend this, because he's usually portrayed as the most rabid ultra-free-trade zealot on the planet (ie, someone who thinks theory is more valid than reality). He may be, but he's also the respected economist who popularized the theories that became Reaganomics. And we've been living under that theory ever since, without interruption. There's an interesting book called "Turbo Capitalism" by Edward Luttwak (published in 1999, so slightly out of date now, but it has a brief section on China that matches what you've been writing). He points out that deregulated economies are very efficient but also highly unstable. His conclusion seems to be that we'll have plenty of jobs, but most of them won't pay much (but you'll be free to work 80 hrs/wk to make up for it-- this is called "progress"). I've heard of it but I haven't read it. There's a lot to read, but I'll keep my eye out for it. BTW if you hear NPR's "Marketplace" program, I just heard an ad for a segment tonight about how people see their economic future. I just turned it on and it's about other topics here. Too bad. Maybe tomorrow. -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
|
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
"bg" wrote in message
om... As you say, China's best manufacturing companies now have some of the world's best technology. So the "innovation" argument is a dead-flat loser. IT wasnt a loser. It was pure American innovation, with everyone else jumping on the bandwagon. Back to manufacturing. IT has had profound effects on metalworking manufacturing. Now, who is making the CNCs and the machine tools that they control? Who is making the computer components? How long did the U.S. "innovation" remain a winner for us, in terms of trade? Not very long. I watched it disappear in the '70s. That's the point. It doesn't matter where these things are invented anymore. What matters, in terms of trade, is where they're put to use. To the extent that IT is a productivity booster for manufacturing, the benefit follows the manufacturing itself. And manufacturing in the U.S. is in decline, once you adjust for the booms and busts. Bio tech boom in the late 80's/early 90's wasnt a loser. We put the money up here for research in both fields and have been all the better for it. Again, you're getting pretty far afield from manufacturing. If you're saying that we'd may as well kiss manufacturing goodbye and focus on other things, there are a lot of economists who agree with you. But even biotech is vulnerable to the low-wage exodus. Do a search on Google for "biotech industry" and you'll find that very few of the hits have anything to do with the US. The whole world has jumped on that bandwagon. Expect the Indians to be very, very good at it within a few years. Innovations used to provide long-term benefits because they tended to be implemented where they were created. No more. Technology is a commodity. Innovation isn't what it used to be, in economic terms. Regarding energy, what is it you're thinking about? Fusion? Solar? What? What is it that we could innovate that wouldn't show up in China before you've turned your back? That is not my job, man. I cant say which type of energy is best to invest in. Maybe they should be investing in all of them, including Hydrogen, magnetics, etc. My argument was simply stating that "energy" and investment in it, would show the greatest ROI, when comparing it to any other industry. If that is not the case, then Maybe someone could come up with something better. I am listening with an open mind. No one has shown any economic benefit to alternative energy -- except maybe Iceland, and that's still a question mark. It's a social/political thing, not an economic thing. I watched half a billion dollars go into the Tokomak at Princeton three decades ago (in fact, I helped make thousands of parts that went into it). I have yet to see an economic benefit. It made a lot of people feel good, though. Here's the question you have to ask yourself: Who has the capital to implement these things, and where is it in their interest to implement them? The first answer is, large multinationals. The second answer is, where it will be most profitable for them. And the answer to that is China. Who has the capital to implement these things? Great question. especially since we just saw Fiberoptic infrastructure investment put many a company 6 ft under. The only realistic answer is the good ole US Of A. Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam can start by issuing bonds for the project. Which project? Does somebody out there know something about alternative energy that they aren't telling us? BTW, I made my living off of alternative energy for several years. Besides being part owner of a shop that supplied parts for Forrestal's Tokomak, I did materials-application research for MITI. Among my projects were ocean-thermal energy generation (I machined the heat exchangers and made the final assembly of the prototype OTE cell that used thermoelectric cells to generate power -- it was a fun toy g) and a research paper on fluorescent enhancement of solar cells, based on research done at MIT. It's been a terrific way to keep a lot of PhD's off the street and a bunch of government money floating around the research labs. It's been a lousy way to produce electric power. -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
In article , Joe Kultgen wrote:
So, how much fuel/mass can you save if you build a catapult good for a couple hundred feet per second of initial acceleration? Enough that your orbiter can carry the empty external tank into LEO where it can be recycled as construction materials? This SF ebook covers several variants of that theory: http://www.netassetsbook.com/ See also Victor Koman's "Kings of the High Frontier" http://www.amazon. com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0966566203/qid=1060401222/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-3402717-7 752729 |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message . net...
"bg" wrote in message om... As you say, China's best manufacturing companies now have some of the world's best technology. So the "innovation" argument is a dead-flat loser. IT wasnt a loser. It was pure American innovation, with everyone else jumping on the bandwagon. Back to manufacturing. IT has had profound effects on metalworking manufacturing. Now, who is making the CNCs and the machine tools that they control? Who is making the computer components? How long did the U.S. "innovation" remain a winner for us, in terms of trade? Not very long. I watched it disappear in the '70s. That's the point. It doesn't matter where these things are invented anymore. What matters, in terms of trade, is where they're put to use. To the extent that IT is a productivity booster for manufacturing, the benefit follows the manufacturing itself. And manufacturing in the U.S. is in decline, once you adjust for the booms and busts. I disagree. What you are saying is that we do not benefit from innovation, because in many cases other countries use that same innovation or also benefit from that technology. That is far from the truth. Innovation has driven economic engines in the USA since our inception. Electricity, Automotive, Aircraft, Medicine/medical technology, Biotechnology, and IT are just a few innovations that have driven the USA economy in different time periods over the last 140 years. They became engines for growth, that were actually able to take the rest of our economy on its back and keep things moving forward. It is those engines that drive prosperity forward. without those innovations and the growth engines that result, we would be a far cry from where we are now. Have things changed? Sure they have. But that doesnt mean that we should lay down and become unproductive in research and development. That would be a grave mistake. Bio tech boom in the late 80's/early 90's wasnt a loser. We put the money up here for research in both fields and have been all the better for it. Again, you're getting pretty far afield from manufacturing. If you're saying that we'd may as well kiss manufacturing goodbye and focus on other things, there are a lot of economists who agree with you. I'm far from saying that. And I dont believe I am getting that far from MFG. The issue is the same. Bio tech drove our economic growth for a number of years. It was big enough to actually go that far. Innovation in other energy sources has much greater potential. But even biotech is vulnerable to the low-wage exodus. Do a search on Google for "biotech industry" and you'll find that very few of the hits have anything to do with the US. The whole world has jumped on that bandwagon. Expect the Indians to be very, very good at it within a few years. They will need to do research. Of course they wont come close to the USA for at least 50 years in this measure. We research and innovate along with Euros in this filed. I am not familiar with anyone in India coming out with the latest breakthrough medicines based on DNA protein analysis. Innovations used to provide long-term benefits because they tended to be implemented where they were created. No more. Technology is a commodity. Innovation isn't what it used to be, in economic terms. Innovation still providees long term benefit. What do you think Texas Instruments is doing in Dallas? You think they dont benefit from the research and innovation going on there? Sure they do. They still profit from it. Intel is still profiting from their technology years after innovation. And they are still moving forward. Regarding energy, what is it you're thinking about? Fusion? Solar? What? What is it that we could innovate that wouldn't show up in China before you've turned your back? That is not my job, man. I cant say which type of energy is best to invest in. Maybe they should be investing in all of them, including Hydrogen, magnetics, etc. My argument was simply stating that "energy" and investment in it, would show the greatest ROI, when comparing it to any other industry. If that is not the case, then Maybe someone could come up with something better. I am listening with an open mind. No one has shown any economic benefit to alternative energy -- except maybe Iceland, and that's still a question mark. Does that mean that we should give up and realize our global dependence on oil will never change. Humanity would not allow that, because it is human nature to strive for something better. I'm talking about replacing oil. It is easy to see the economic benefit.It is endless, if it is cheap and environmentally sound. What will it take? A project the size and scope of the manhattan project. Anything less is ****ing in the wind. Sure there are maany little projects out there. But they are not coordinated, not focused, and certainly underfunded. It's a social/political thing, not an economic thing. I watched half a billion dollars go into the Tokomak at Princeton three decades ago (in fact, I helped make thousands of parts that went into it). I have yet to see an economic benefit. It made a lot of people feel good, though. Here's the question you have to ask yourself: Who has the capital to implement these things, and where is it in their interest to implement them? The first answer is, large multinationals. The second answer is, where it will be most profitable for them. And the answer to that is China. Who has the capital to implement these things? Great question. especially since we just saw Fiberoptic infrastructure investment put many a company 6 ft under. The only realistic answer is the good ole US Of A. Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam can start by issuing bonds for the project. Which project? Does somebody out there know something about alternative energy that they aren't telling us? Again. Its not my job to determine which project. Let them get scientists in the same room for 6 months and then determine which projects are best to invest resources. BTW, I made my living off of alternative energy for several years. Besides being part owner of a shop that supplied parts for Forrestal's Tokomak, I did materials-application research for MITI. Among my projects were ocean-thermal energy generation (I machined the heat exchangers and made the final assembly of the prototype OTE cell that used thermoelectric cells to generate power -- it was a fun toy g) and a research paper on fluorescent enhancement of solar cells, based on research done at MIT. It's been a terrific way to keep a lot of PhD's off the street and a bunch of government money floating around the research labs. It's been a lousy way to produce electric power. I agree that such projects have in many cases been a waste of time and resources. However, what I am describing in scale is far beyond anything we have seen in our history. No one detail, issue or industry can prove to be more productive than to find a serious alternative to using oil for energy, and have that technology in place and operational within 10 years. bg |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
"bg" wrote in message
om... That's the point. It doesn't matter where these things are invented anymore. What matters, in terms of trade, is where they're put to use. To the extent that IT is a productivity booster for manufacturing, the benefit follows the manufacturing itself. And manufacturing in the U.S. is in decline, once you adjust for the booms and busts. I disagree. What you are saying is that we do not benefit from innovation, because in many cases other countries use that same innovation or also benefit from that technology. That is far from the truth. No, I didn't say we don't benefit from innovation. I said that relying on innovation to compete with 80-cent/hr. wage rates is an artifact of the past. It doesn't work as a general method for competing with low-wage countries, now that our free-trade policies are having success in breaking down the barriers for capital flow. A multinational will take that innovation and implement it in the lowest-wage country that it can. That's why, for example, Shanghai-GM now has one of the most advanced engine lines in the world, which, starting next month, will be shipping complete engines to Canada for installation in the 2004 Chevy Equinox SUV -- which then will be shipped to the US. And so on. Innovation has driven economic engines in the USA since our inception. Electricity, Automotive, Aircraft, Medicine/medical technology, Biotechnology, and IT are just a few innovations that have driven the USA economy in different time periods over the last 140 years. They became engines for growth, that were actually able to take the rest of our economy on its back and keep things moving forward. It is those engines that drive prosperity forward. without those innovations and the growth engines that result, we would be a far cry from where we are now. That's true, but it's also history. Have things changed? Sure they have. But that doesn't mean that we should lay down and become unproductive in research and development. That would be a grave mistake. Of course it would. It would be an even bigger mistake to believe that innovation in product design and manufacturing technology will protect us from low wage rates employed by world-galloping multinationals. It isn't the answer anymore. Like tax breaks, it's a small contributing factor at best. That is, unless you want to open up the discussion and include innovations in hedge funds, bond creation, electronic securities trading and split-second arbitrage. We're very good at those, and, given that they have a half-life of a few months, we probably can keep innovating financial instruments and keep the money flowing our way for quite a while. At least, until the Indians get the hang of it. Bio tech boom in the late 80's/early 90's wasn't a loser. We put the money up here for research in both fields and have been all the better for it. Again, you're getting pretty far afield from manufacturing. If you're saying that we'd may as well kiss manufacturing goodbye and focus on other things, there are a lot of economists who agree with you. I'm far from saying that. And I dot believe I am getting that far from MFG. The issue is the same. Bio tech drove our economic growth for a number of years. It was big enough to actually go that far. Even after two decades of development, total employment in the US biotech sector, according to the Dept. of Labor, is 191,000. In contrast, over just the last 3 years we've lost 2,600,000 manufacturing jobs. Biotech certainly is a growth area, it's exciting, and it's sexy. It has consequences well beyond its employment figures. But, as I've said, if you search on "biotechnology" on the major search engines, a US source typically doesn't come up until page 2 or 3. The fact is that biotech innovation is proceeding all over the world, and I see no reason that it won't follow the same pattern as other technologies that require high levels of education: its center of gravity will wind up wherever the required educational skills are concentrated...in combination with low wages. As for it being so big it was "driving our economic growth for a number of years," I'd like to see your numbers on that. Innovation in other energy sources has much greater potential. Please, tell us about one. With the relevant numbers, please. They will need to do research. Of course they wont come close to the USA for at least 50 years in this measure. Why do you say 50 years? Do you know what percentage of science and engineering graduate students in US universities are from India? Are you aware that fewer of them are staying in the US after they graduate, now that they have emerging opportunities in their own country? Innovations used to provide long-term benefits because they tended to be implemented where they were created. No more. Technology is a commodity. Innovation isn't what it used to be, in economic terms. Innovation still provides long term benefit. What do you think Texas Instruments is doing in Dallas? You think they dot benefit from the research and innovation going on there? Sure they do. They still profit from it. Intel is still profiting from their technology years after innovation. And they are still moving forward. Look at where they're moving their manufacturing operations. The bottom line on all of this is that the sources and rates of innovation have little connection today to the economic benefits from those innovations. For that, follow the capital flow. Where the capital goes so goes the employment, the machine purchases, and the value-added that accrues to the local economy in the form of employment income and savings, wherever that may be. That's the way it looks if you're examining national economies. If you're looking for investment opportunities, the picture looks very different. For that, you want the company you're investing in to chase the lowest wages and other costs, no matter where they may be in the world. And that's our problem. We're still doing quite well in attracting capital, but don't count on it as a given. Our coming deficits are a big threat to attracting more of it at such low rates as we've enjoyed for the last decade. Good luck on the alternative energy, BTW. I fought that battle, and now it's your turn. -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message . net...
"bg" wrote in message om... That's the point. It doesn't matter where these things are invented anymore. What matters, in terms of trade, is where they're put to use. To the extent that IT is a productivity booster for manufacturing, the benefit follows the manufacturing itself. And manufacturing in the U.S. is in decline, once you adjust for the booms and busts. I disagree. What you are saying is that we do not benefit from innovation, because in many cases other countries use that same innovation or also benefit from that technology. That is far from the truth. No, I didn't say we don't benefit from innovation. I said that relying on innovation to compete with 80-cent/hr. wage rates is an artifact of the past. It doesn't work as a general method for competing with low-wage countries, now that our free-trade policies are having success in breaking down the barriers for capital flow. A multinational will take that innovation and implement it in the lowest-wage country that it can. That's why, for example, Shanghai-GM now has one of the most advanced engine lines in the world, which, starting next month, will be shipping complete engines to Canada for installation in the 2004 Chevy Equinox SUV -- which then will be shipped to the US. And so on. I agree that innovation will not totally protect us. it is not the be-all, answer-all. we will definitely lose most mfg to other competing economies. Anyone who thinks different is deceiving themselves. Lets face it, when you have satellites being produced and launched in China, what technology cannot be produced their effectively? But American companies do benefit from innovation. Whether it lasts 10 years or 50 years, there is still benefit. Intel still benefits from their technology. They can produce the chips cheaper in China, and they do. But the corporation still benefits and so do all of the workers (including mfg) in the USA from the China operations. They benefit, because they still have jobs. without the profit from the China business, the workers in the USA would lose their jobs completely. Intel gives the China operations the ability to produce, but innovation and high tech production in the USA is what drives the company. Innovation has driven economic engines in the USA since our inception. Electricity, Automotive, Aircraft, Medicine/medical technology, Biotechnology, and IT are just a few innovations that have driven the USA economy in different time periods over the last 140 years. They became engines for growth, that were actually able to take the rest of our economy on its back and keep things moving forward. It is those engines that drive prosperity forward. without those innovations and the growth engines that result, we would be a far cry from where we are now. That's true, but it's also history. we are still benefitting from those innovations. Millions are. Have things changed? Sure they have. But that doesn't mean that we should lay down and become unproductive in research and development. That would be a grave mistake. Of course it would. It would be an even bigger mistake to believe that innovation in product design and manufacturing technology will protect us from low wage rates employed by world-galloping multinationals. It isn't the answer anymore. Like tax breaks, it's a small contributing factor at best. That is, unless you want to open up the discussion and include innovations in hedge funds, bond creation, electronic securities trading and split-second arbitrage. We're very good at those, and, given that they have a half-life of a few months, we probably can keep innovating financial instruments and keep the money flowing our way for quite a while. At least, until the Indians get the hang of it. Innovating military hardware. While I believe it may not be really productive. it is for those companies that produce. We have been innovating since our birth and just look at all of the recent innovation in the past 10 years. I'm not really talking about financial instruments. However, we do seem to be very creative in that area, dont we? Someone will always find a way to get everyones money. when you are paid to think about it for 24 hours a day, I can guarantee they will get good at it. What about cellular/wireless technology? With our innovation, American companies license that technology and still receive benefit from their innovation. They continue to innovate here, produce the highest tech here and license there (everywhere). Just think of CDMA for example. Bio tech boom in the late 80's/early 90's wasn't a loser. We put the money up here for research in both fields and have been all the better for it. Again, you're getting pretty far afield from manufacturing. If you're saying that we'd may as well kiss manufacturing goodbye and focus on other things, there are a lot of economists who agree with you. I'm far from saying that. And I dot believe I am getting that far from MFG. The issue is the same. Bio tech drove our economic growth for a number of years. It was big enough to actually go that far. Even after two decades of development, total employment in the US biotech sector, according to the Dept. of Labor, is 191,000. In contrast, over just the last 3 years we've lost 2,600,000 manufacturing jobs. Biotech certainly is a growth area, it's exciting, and it's sexy. It has consequences well beyond its employment figures. But, as I've said, if you search on "biotechnology" on the major search engines, a US source typically doesn't come up until page 2 or 3. The fact is that biotech innovation is proceeding all over the world, and I see no reason that it won't follow the same pattern as other technologies that require high levels of education: its center of gravity will wind up wherever the required educational skills are concentrated...in combination with low wages. As for it being so big it was "driving our economic growth for a number of years," I'd like to see your numbers on that. Do you remember the bio-techs driving our stock market for a number of years? They may not be the largest of industries, but innovation there became a driving force for our financial markets, that brought along pharmaceuticals as well. Innovation in other energy sources has much greater potential. Please, tell us about one. With the relevant numbers, please. I still think you are misinterpreting my statement. I am not coming down on one type of energy or another. I havent a clue as to which would be more useful. But by investing in research on a very, very serious level, we can determine which would be most productive and follow through on it. The numbers say this at the very least: If you were able to develop an energy source that frees us from the dependence on oil, is cheaper than oil, is environmentally safe, and is easily reproduceable, you have eliminated a huge crutch from the hands of our economy. This will help benefit mfg and every other industry in the USA. We can then of course license that same technology to others. In the meatime, we can continue to improve on that initial innovation and licensing more. They will need to do research. Of course they wont come close to the USA for at least 50 years in this measure. Why do you say 50 years? Do you know what percentage of science and engineering graduate students in US universities are from India? Are you aware that fewer of them are staying in the US after they graduate, now that they have emerging opportunities in their own country? Judging from the way India is run, it will probably be more like 100 years. They are not organized and far from the level of China today as an economic force. While they do produce a good number of engineering students, medical students, and scientists, they have brain drain problems, economic problems that are immense, lousy government administration of their economy, and population problems that stem from cultural and governmental mismanagement. Maybe when they can first feed all of their people, they can then begin to realize the beneift of investing in research and technology. Innovations used to provide long-term benefits because they tended to be implemented where they were created. No more. Technology is a commodity. Innovation isn't what it used to be, in economic terms. Innovation still provides long term benefit. What do you think Texas Instruments is doing in Dallas? You think they dot benefit from the research and innovation going on there? Sure they do. They still profit from it. Intel is still profiting from their technology years after innovation. And they are still moving forward. Look at where they're moving their manufacturing operations. They just announced new MFG facilities to be built in Texas that will be unrivaled. It will become their command post for innovation, research and production of the latest technology. The bottom line on all of this is that the sources and rates of innovation have little connection today to the economic benefits from those innovations. For that, follow the capital flow. Where the capital goes so goes the employment, the machine purchases, and the value-added that accrues to the local economy in the form of employment income and savings, wherever that may be. I disagree wholeheartedly. Source of innovation is exactly where the benefit goes. Even in cases where there is no mfg benefit, there is till benefit to be had in the innovating country. You still need service people, marketing, administrative personnel, all of whom earn a living and pay taxes. Do you think Motorola USA does not benefit from having their largest factory in Tianjin, China? Of course they do. Without the profit from those China operations, I can assure you of USA layoffs. while we will not necessarily always benefit from the mfg of that innovation, we can still benefit from the innovation in all other aspects. That's the way it looks if you're examining national economies. If you're looking for investment opportunities, the picture looks very different. For that, you want the company you're investing in to chase the lowest wages and other costs, no matter where they may be in the world. And that's our problem. We're still doing quite well in attracting capital, but don't count on it as a given. Our coming deficits are a big threat to attracting more of it at such low rates as we've enjoyed for the last decade. I agree. Though I dont think we are doing well in attracting real capital. In the USA, with our current deficits, we are borrowing at a tremendous rate. I also believe these deficits are an immense threat. Unfortunately many politicos dont seem to realize this. It took the greatest economic expansion in our history to eliminate our last deficit, not debt. I guess they are banking they can do the same thing again. Well I can assure you it doesnt have a chance in hell without innovation. Good luck on the alternative energy, BTW. I fought that battle, and now it's your turn. I dont want to come off like a green. I am not. I am looking at it from a purely economical standpoint. Hopefully, we can at least get something going in the near term. It's not looking very pretty. bg |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
"Ed Huntress" writes: No, I didn't say we don't benefit from innovation. I said that relying on innovation to compete with 80-cent/hr. wage rates is an artifact of the past. It doesn't work as a general method for competing with low-wage countries, now that our free-trade policies are having success in breaking down the barriers for capital flow. Is the effect of a capital-flow deficit different from a balance-of-trade-deficit? Less capital would seem to mean fewer jobs, *unless* we can create jobs that are less capital-intensive than the ones we're losing (including the capital spent on education & training). This seems to be what you're implying when you mention jobs in the financial sector. Back in 1987 Tom Peters wrote a book that argued (among other things) that moving manufacturing overseas meant giving up an important source of innovation, because a lot of it comes from interactions between the design guys and the production guys, which is difficult if they're on different continents. Of course you can always move the design people overseas as well. Then all that's left for us to do is consume the result-- unless too many of us are unemployed (oops). The service sector is said to be doing well, but it's hard to increase productivity when services have to be rendered in person. And all wealth comes from productivity. |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
It also gives up independence and freedoms.
Shipping manufacturing jobs overseas does what when that country or group of countries decides not to send our stuff out or back... e.g. They control now. When War breaks out - what politics take play ? This was a poor plan if it was ever planned. I think we were sold down the river myself. NAFTA was one thing, China et. al. is another. Martin -- Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn @ home at Lion's Lair with our computer NRA LOH, NRA Life NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
"jim rozen" wrote in message
... In article , Ed Huntress says... No, I didn't say we don't benefit from innovation. I said that relying on innovation to compete with 80-cent/hr. wage rates is an artifact of the past. It doesn't work as a general method for competing with low-wage countries, now that our free-trade policies are having success in breaking down the barriers for capital flow. A multinational will take that innovation and implement it in the lowest-wage country that it can. That's why, for example, Shanghai-GM now has one of the most advanced engine lines in the world, which, starting next month, will be shipping complete engines to Canada for installation in the 2004 Chevy Equinox SUV -- which then will be shipped to the US. And so on. Hmm. OK I'll bite here. If one follows this out to the ultimate end, the implication is there will not be anyone left in the US who can afford to buy a car, at some point in the future. Because they're all unemployed, yes. Firstly, never follow these trends to the "ultimate end." There are always counterforces in an economy. That's why economics is about as predictable as the weather. Our manufacturing isn't going to disappear. The problem is that , as an economic institution, it may wind up crippled and unable to contribute its powerful leveraging ability to our economy. And then it will be irrelevent, even if it provides some jobs. If you go back and look at the Friedman book I mentioned earlier in the thread, you'll see that the basic free-trade theory says that two things happen. First, when you're running a big trade deficit, you're getting a lot of goods from other countries at cheap prices, and you're effectively paying for them with fewer goods at high prices. That looks like a good deal. However, it doesn't account for jobs lost, nor for the effect of having some other country pile up your currency in their foreign-currency reserves. This isn't a case of straight barter; the answer to this latter question is too complex to deal with here. (Isn't your wife an economist or something? You need her help from here on. g) Secondly, the theory says that currency values will adjust to re-establish parity. In other words, the value of the dollar will drop and the Chinese yuan will rise. But that isn't happening. Part of the reason is that China doesn't allow currency exchange at other than the official rate. The rate is pegged, in other words. The larger reason is that the US dollar is overvalued anyway, and the yuan is undervalued anyway, because of several things we're both doing intentionally. It's all a big farce, and it's very complex to discuss. So the market for Chevy SUVs is sure to turn to sh%t in the US at that point. So either a) the management of Chevy knows this and is basically just running a ponzi scheme (ie can they sell enough SUVs to allow the managment there to retire and cash out their stock options), or b) The managment at Chevy is smart because they know the market in the US does not matter, it's really the global market that counts, or c) there's gonna be somebody left to buy a car when the dust settles, it's not sure to be all gloom and doom. All three of the above. Sounds crazy but the real question is, if all the employment in the US goes away, where's the market for all the goods that are being produced overseas? If Chevy can't sell a car then they sure don't need engines, even if made on the best manufacturing line in the world, at cut rate labor rates, in china. The US has 287 million people, mature markets, and nearly flat population growth. China has 1.4 billion people, hungry and rapidly growing markets, and so much room for material growth that population growth won't matter for decades, in terms of market potential. In the short run, the US market is the important one because we have the money to buy all that stuff, and the Chinese have much less money. As for the longer run, you can draw your own conclusions. ...Do you know what percentage of science and engineering graduate students in US universities are from India? Are you aware that fewer of them are staying in the US after they graduate, now that they have emerging opportunities in their own country? Well this is certainly true. I guess it's a sort of feather in our cap that they *do* arrive at our shores to attend our universities. Even if they depart after the degree/grad school/post-doc. Maybe time for some limits on how much of that goes on.... That's unwise. You don't want to *restrict* India's growth, or China's. You want them to grow as rapidly as possible. You also want our economy to grow, but not at their expense. That would be counterproductive for us. All of the hash will settle when a tool & die maker in China is making $40,000/year. If markets were truly free, that would happen quickly, the theory says. But the theory wasn't written to account for economies with 800 million hungry peasants who will take a manufacturing job at almost any wage -- when there just aren't enough jobs to go around. The problem is that their capabilities are growing, and our manufacturing is taking the hit for it, without the attendant and necessary rapid growth in China's wages. That's why I led off my last China article with the quote from John Meynard Keynes: "In the long run, we're all dead." Look at where they're moving their manufacturing operations. How about their research division? It would be interesting if all of those went overseas as well. Some are, some aren't. Microsoft has a big one in China. Lots of r&d is starting up in India, but it's not being financed with foreign capital the way it is in China. The bottom line on all of this is that the sources and rates of innovation have little connection today to the economic benefits from those innovations. For that, follow the capital flow. Where the capital goes so goes the employment, the machine purchases, and the value-added that accrues to the local economy in the form of employment income and savings, wherever that may be. Follow the money, eh? That's invariably a good maxim. Companies do whatever they can to keep the profit going. It's always been that way. But then the US government has historically regulated companies of all types. For example, Japanese auto makers do maintain plants in the US and I was under the impression that was not only because of the favorable (by comparison to Japan) labor rates, but also because the US government placed tarrifs or other regulation on whole cars imported from japan. Yes, plus they wanted to tie their costs to the prevailing costs and market prices in the host countries. They started to do it when the yen was rising sharply in value, and it's paid off for them -- for their multinationals, at least. Whether it's really done anything good for the Japanese people as a whole is another question. Maybe it's time that the govenment placed similar regulation in effect on US companies who want to do all their manufacturing off-shore, and import finished goods or sub-assemblies only. Ie an import tarrif as though the foreign arm of a US owned company were in fact foreign-owned. In other words, something like, "Hey, Stanley Tool Works. You do all your manufacturing overseas. All you have is five percent of your workforce in offices in the US, so we're going to apply import duties of such and such an amount to 95 percent of the value of goods that you bring into the US." There is a tax bill in the House now that would give tax relief to U.S. companies that do their manufacturing in the U.S. I doubt if it will pass, because the RNC is married to conservative free-trade theory. US companies are making big money by shipping jobs overseas. Maybe it's time to force the *entire* company out as well, and then re-asses what should happen when they import their goods. Seems like they're getting a free ride somehow. You're just an ol' radical, Jim. g There is no "free trade," and pretending that there is will do some structural damage to our economy and our society as a whole, now that we have enormous trading partners, like China and India, that are both relatively poor and technologically capable. At the same time, conventional protectionist measures won't solve anything in the long run, or even in the medium run. What we need is some new ideas. -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
"Ron Bean" wrote in message
... "Ed Huntress" writes: Note, however, that China's domestic car market is now a few million vehicles and it's growing at the rate of 60% per year. Do you know anything about the motorcycle market in China? The reason I ask is that in many countries people buy motorcycles before they can afford cars. I don't know much, except that they make a lot of small ones, and making them was a big state-run enterprise a few years ago. I'll bet you could find the numbers with some research effort on Google. Harley Davidson has been complaining about their rules for motorcycles-- I don't know if it's all motorcycles or just certain categories. There's apparently an underground market for them (smuggled in from other countries), but they can't sell them directly. It's big ones in the cities. It appears that it isn't really a big deal to them, except that they decided they didn't want a bunch of overbearing hogs on their city streets. I hear that they're likely to relax the restriction for PR purposes. You're likely to see more of that. They're following the Japanese pattern, which is to give trade concessions where it doesn't really matter to them but where they feel they can gain some positive public relations by doing so. -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
"Ed Huntress" writes: Firstly, never follow these trends to the "ultimate end." There are always counterforces in an economy. That's why economics is about as predictable as the weather. You don't want to *restrict* India's growth, or China's. You want them to grow as rapidly as possible. Also, in a petroleum-based economy, there's the question of how fast we can pump oil out of the ground when 1.4 billion Chinese suddenly want as much of it as we do. This is offset by increases in efficiency every time the price goes up, and reduced efficiency every time the price goes down (SUVs). Until recently China's economy was mostly coal-based, just because they have a lot of it (I don't know if that's still true). They were still using steam locomotives just because they burn coal instead of oil. I don't know about India. We also have a lot of coal, but we have a bad history with coal miners' unions (apparently they don't like getting killed on the job). There is no "free trade," and pretending that there is will do some structural damage to our economy and our society as a whole, now that we have enormous trading partners, like China and India, that are both relatively poor and technologically capable. At the same time, conventional protectionist measures won't solve anything in the long run, or even in the medium run. What we need is some new ideas. But conventional free trade measures won't help us either. New ideas are in short supply. The idea of limiting imports to the amount of exports is not traditional protectionism, because it doesn't target specific products. The problem is that it doesn't guarantee that we'll have anything to export. But it might limit or slow down the damage-- ie, if we're going to get hit, we might at least soften the blow, until someone comes up with a better idea. It reminds me of the "opium wars", when England was smuggling opium into China to balance their tea imports. The problem was that England didn't have any legal products that China wanted to import (but you can always create a market for drugs). The other option for England would have been to stop importing tea from China (which they eventually did, after they learned how to grow it in India). Certain Central American countries are doing the same thing to us with Cocaine, and it's keeping their economies alive. Winning the "drug war" would mean bankrupting several other countries. BTW some people claim that this wouldn't work if only poor people used cocaine, because there wouldn't be enough cash flow. |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
In article , Ron Bean says...
Also, in a petroleum-based economy, there's the question of how fast we can pump oil out of the ground when 1.4 billion Chinese suddenly want as much of it as we do. I think it was Gary Coffman who made the interesting point that China gets about 1/3 of its oil from Iraq. Maybe 'ol GWB isn't so crazy after all. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
Ed Huntress wrote:
Do you know anything about the motorcycle market in China? The reason I ask is that in many countries people buy motorcycles before they can afford cars. I don't know much, except that they make a lot of small ones, and making them was a big state-run enterprise a few years ago. I'll bet you could find the numbers with some research effort on Google. Read a blurb a year or so ago in a motorcycle mag about China's emerging motorcycle manufacturing efforts. As in mold making, their stated goal was a fairly significant portion of the global market. The picture that accompanied the article showed a bike that probably would sell well there, but sure wouldn't fly over here. Motorcycles are generally an enthusiast product, and the near death of the econo-bike market in favor of sport bikes, cruisers, and touring bikes (all higher dollar status machines) shows that bikers shop performance and/or image first. The Japanese are smart and how many decades did it take them to figure out that a proper cruiser was more than goofy handlebars and a sissy bar? The big 4 from Japan had to establish design centers here in the US before really getting a grasp on what the US market wants, at least in the street bike arena. I think it will be decades before they really penetrate the US market with bikes designed in country. Jon |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
In article , Jon Anderson says...
The big 4 from Japan had to establish design centers here in the US before really getting a grasp on what the US market wants, at least in the street bike arena. Ummm. Not quite. How do you explain the fact that Honda basically put every british motorbike company out of business, and all but one of the US ones, during the 60s? Maybe they were short on styling, but they sure understood engineering. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
"bg" wrote in message
om... The bottom line on all of this is that the sources and rates of innovation have little connection today to the economic benefits from those innovations. For that, follow the capital flow. Where the capital goes so goes the employment, the machine purchases, and the value-added that accrues to the local economy in the form of employment income and savings, wherever that may be. I disagree wholeheartedly. Source of innovation is exactly where the benefit goes. Even in cases where there is no mfg benefit, there is till benefit to be had in the innovating country. You still need service people, marketing, administrative personnel, all of whom earn a living and pay taxes. Do you think Motorola USA does not benefit from having their largest factory in Tianjin, China? Of course they do. Without the profit from those China operations, I can assure you of USA layoffs. Bg, you need to put some numbers on these opinions of yours and start evaluating which ideas are real and which are a delusion. There is only one reason there are so many opinions about the issue: most people don't make the effort to track down the quantitative values that lie behind them, which would replace their opinions with facts. Popular discussions about it quickly turn into a bunch of qualitative mush because nobody knows what's significant and what's not. When you examine the numbers behind conventional ideas about what we should do, you find that most of them are 5% solutions to a 95% problem. They are palliatives, grasped by politicians who are looking for any scapegoats they can find to avoid facing the real problem. And the real problem is this: You can't compete with a country that makes decent products with a wage rate of 80 cents/hour. No way. It's the definition of "competition" that has to be examined. And the public has to be made aware of the underlying ideas behind our trade policies. If we saw them in the light of day, we may decide we don't particularly like their objectives. -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
"Ron Bean" wrote in message
... "Ed Huntress" writes: No, I didn't say we don't benefit from innovation. I said that relying on innovation to compete with 80-cent/hr. wage rates is an artifact of the past. It doesn't work as a general method for competing with low-wage countries, now that our free-trade policies are having success in breaking down the barriers for capital flow. Is the effect of a capital-flow deficit different from a balance-of-trade-deficit? Yes, much different. But don't ask me to explain how. That's an entire course in economics. Less capital would seem to mean fewer jobs, *unless* we can create jobs that are less capital-intensive than the ones we're losing (including the capital spent on education & training). This seems to be what you're implying when you mention jobs in the financial sector. Jobs in the financial sector depend on having access to, or control of, vast amounts of capital. It isn't the same thing as an investment in plant or equipment but you don't have financial jobs unless you're sitting on a mountain of capital. Back in 1987 Tom Peters wrote a book that argued (among other things) that moving manufacturing overseas meant giving up an important source of innovation, because a lot of it comes from interactions between the design guys and the production guys, which is difficult if they're on different continents. Yes, and I believe that still holds. We are in danger of losing the *source* of innovation in manufacturing. Of course you can always move the design people overseas as well. Then all that's left for us to do is consume the result-- unless too many of us are unemployed (oops). Yup. The service sector is said to be doing well, but it's hard to increase productivity when services have to be rendered in person. In dollar terms, the service jobs that count the most are the ones that can be delivered electronically from halfway around the world. Thus, the movement of financial and even some legal service jobs to India. And all wealth comes from productivity. Be very wary of that old bromide. Productivity has little meaning outside of its importance in competition. The direct effect of a 5% increase in productivity is almost unmeasurable in terms of its effect on our lives -- or on the accumulation of wealth. But it can make the difference between profit and bankrupcy for a corporation. Ed Huntress |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 03:39:37 -0400, Gary R Coffman
wrote: On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 02:54:03 -0000, Akston wrote: And if anyone thinks that economic considerations did not play a major role in the U.S.A.s recent foreign adventuring, I have some nice beachfront property in Nevada to sell you. It is worth noting that Rome was not a great manufacturing power, but they did rule the known world. That position brought the citizens of Rome great wealth by controlling the flow of natural resources and the delivery of goods and services. Gary And swift justice on a end of a short pointy sword. One of the reasons that west is so much more expensive is the cost incurred by various insurance driven pressures. All thanks to a bloated legal system that serves its interest primarily. -- Regards, Boris Mohar Got Knock? - see: Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs http://www3.sympatico.ca/borism/ Aurora, Ontario |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
jim rozen wrote:
Ummm. Not quite. How do you explain the fact that Honda basically put every british motorbike company out of business, and all but one of the US ones, during the 60s? Sorry, I meant to reference their pathetic initial attempts to produce cruisers, not the overall streetbike market. Pull back bars and teardrop tanks on an inline 4 cylinder do not make a cruiser, at least not in the HD image they were after. You don't see many of those bikes on the road today. Took them a while to figure out what the real attraction to cruisers was. Big inch V-twin engines and that deep throaty rumble. Overall however, yes they nearly killed most of the competition. The bar has been raised so high today for quality, in terms of power, reliability, handling, braking, etc. that shabby products, or even mediocre products, will not fly in this country. Going to be hard to break into that. Doable, but not easy nor cheap, nor will it happen overnight. Ducati is a prime example of what China lacks. The bikes have huge appeal even in the face of frequent service requirements and owners sometimes having to wait weeks for parts. They look and sound good and win races. Italian mystique goes a long way here. Chinese mystique in the performance motorcycle arena is a long ways off.... I mention performance bikes here instead of cruisers as the Chinese bike I saw in the article was a sport bike. Jon |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
On 9 Aug 2003 15:58:42 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Ed Huntress says... No, I didn't say we don't benefit from innovation. I said that relying on innovation to compete with 80-cent/hr. wage rates is an artifact of the past. It doesn't work as a general method for competing with low-wage countries, now that our free-trade policies are having success in breaking down the barriers for capital flow. A multinational will take that innovation and implement it in the lowest-wage country that it can. That's why, for example, Shanghai-GM now has one of the most advanced engine lines in the world, which, starting next month, will be shipping complete engines to Canada for installation in the 2004 Chevy Equinox SUV -- which then will be shipped to the US. And so on. Hmm. OK I'll bite here. If one follows this out to the ultimate end, the implication is there will not be anyone left in the US who can afford to buy a car, at some point in the future. Because they're all unemployed, yes. They'd only all be unemployed if you made the assumption that they're all employed in manufacturing now. But that's an unwarranted assumption. In fact, less than 8% of the US workforce is employed in manufacturing now. The US economy is not primarily a manufacturing economy, and it hasn't been one for at least 50 years. Even then that was just a blip caused by war time production requirements. Over the course of the last century, the primary occupation of the US work force has moved from agriculture to service jobs, with a short period of domination by manufacturing centered during and just after WWII. Gary |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
Gary R Coffman writes: On 9 Aug 2003 15:58:42 -0700, jim rozen wrote: Hmm. OK I'll bite here. If one follows this out to the ultimate end, the implication is there will not be anyone left in the US who can afford to buy a car, at some point in the future. Because they're all unemployed, yes. They'd only all be unemployed if you made the assumption that they're all employed in manufacturing now. But that's an unwarranted assumption. In fact, less than 8% of the US workforce is employed in manufacturing now. I think the question is what happens if there's a sudden 8% jump in our unemployment rate (or whatever the number is). The US economy is not primarily a manufacturing economy, and it hasn't been one for at least 50 years. Even then that was just a blip caused by war time production requirements. Over the course of the last century, the primary occupation of the US work force has moved from agriculture to service jobs, with a short period of domination by manufacturing centered during and just after WWII. That's interesting, are you saying the shift to a service economy happened *before* WWII? So all that stuff about manufacturing in the 50s and 60s was just window dressing? (Or is that what you mean by "and just after"? Meaning the shift happened around 1950?) |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
In article , Ron Bean says...
They'd only all be unemployed if you made the assumption that they're all employed in manufacturing now. But that's an unwarranted assumption. In fact, less than 8% of the US workforce is employed in manufacturing now. I think the question is what happens if there's a sudden 8% jump in our unemployment rate (or whatever the number is). I always believed the tale that manufacturing jobs are pretty highly leveraged, that the 8% in manufacture actually generate much more than that in serivce jobs, like a factor of two or three. So what if (playing 'what if') the 8% unemployement increase really winds up being 24% increase? Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message . net...
"bg" wrote in message om... The bottom line on all of this is that the sources and rates of innovation have little connection today to the economic benefits from those innovations. For that, follow the capital flow. Where the capital goes so goes the employment, the machine purchases, and the value-added that accrues to the local economy in the form of employment income and savings, wherever that may be. I disagree wholeheartedly. Source of innovation is exactly where the benefit goes. Even in cases where there is no mfg benefit, there is till benefit to be had in the innovating country. You still need service people, marketing, administrative personnel, all of whom earn a living and pay taxes. Do you think Motorola USA does not benefit from having their largest factory in Tianjin, China? Of course they do. Without the profit from those China operations, I can assure you of USA layoffs. Bg, you need to put some numbers on these opinions of yours and start evaluating which ideas are real and which are a delusion. There is only one reason there are so many opinions about the issue: most people don't make the effort to track down the quantitative values that lie behind them, which would replace their opinions with facts. Popular discussions about it quickly turn into a bunch of qualitative mush because nobody knows what's significant and what's not. What are you saying Ed? I am giving you examples. I cant also give you the formulas and do the complete research myself. (No one has paid me yet). I can give you more examples if you choose, but i dont see it necessary. I am not saying our MFG base will not suffer. They are and will continue to suffer. But the best medicine is for greater innovation. Innovation is our advantage at this moment in time. we need to take advantage of that in ways that go beyond our current methods. The industry I speak of, energy is just in my opinion, the best candidate for an all out effort, the likes of which have not been seen since the Manhattan project. But many other industries currently are also representative of our innovation. I have not even mentioned Nanotechnology, which is receiving huge amounts of money for research and development. It is a viable, tangible technology, that has few visible limits at the moment. It would take generations for countries like India to catch up to that research. Just because eventually they will catch up someday, does not detract from the benefits the USA will receive from it. At the moment, no one is coming close to the USA in this field, which has the potential to employs a large amount of mfg workers in the USA. When you examine the numbers behind conventional ideas about what we should do, you find that most of them are 5% solutions to a 95% problem. They are palliatives, grasped by politicians who are looking for any scapegoats they can find to avoid facing the real problem. And the real problem is this: You can't compete with a country that makes decent products with a wage rate of 80 cents/hour. No way. It's the definition of "competition" that has to be examined. And the public has to be made aware of the underlying ideas behind our trade policies. If we saw them in the light of day, we may decide we don't particularly like their objectives. I personally dont have a problem with the current objectives the way they stand now. It is cyclical. The countries who beneft today will eventually raise their standard of living to the point where it is cheaper to MFG somewhere else. Though with China's size, she has a great advantage over the rest of the world for decades to come. But it will happen. It is already beginning. Have you seen the golf courses, country clubs, Mercedes', real estate values in China lately? It is just slow moving, because of the sheer numbers involved. No, we cannot compete in mfg the same items as a country with $.80/hr wages. But we can have a mfg base that produces items that represent the latest in innovation and design. Business must learn to transform itself and adapt. If it does not adapt, it will perish, and maybe rightly so. |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:59:23 -0400, Tom Quackenbush wrote:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 18:37:45 -0400, Gary R Coffman wrote: SNIP They'd only all be unemployed if you made the assumption that they're all employed in manufacturing now. But that's an unwarranted assumption. In fact, less than 8% of the US workforce is employed in manufacturing now. The US economy is not primarily a manufacturing economy, and it hasn't been one for at least 50 years. Even then that was just a blip caused by war time production requirements. Over the course of the last century, the primary occupation of the US work force has moved from agriculture to service jobs, with a short period of domination by manufacturing centered during and just after WWII. Gary Hmm. Interesting stat. One (this one, anyway) tends to think of the US economy in terms of steel mills, car manufacturing, etc. What you say has the ring of truth, but I'll ask anyway: Do you have any cites? To be more precise (I'm pretty sure you DO have cites), would you post cites? http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/states/00000.html Total US civilian labor force is 141,815,000. Total manufacturing employment is 17,698,000 or about 12.5% of the total work force (13.4% of nonfarm employment). That's a little higher than I'd recalled. The largest segment is the service segment at 65.2%. Note that government employment (nonmilitary) at 15.8% is larger than manufacturing. Gary |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the future of manufacturing?
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
