Moving beyond manufacturing

[WATU2]

Should we accept that those jobs are gone and move on? Maybe Bush was right.

Http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/b...e-of-a-return-to-manufacturing-greatness.html

 

[TUMe]

Two things I find wrong with this post .

1. If Bush said that then he was wrong but I believe that the idea that we have to create jobs in service industries predates Bush and goes back into the Clinton era as well .

2. Going away from manufacturing jobs is a perfect way to ensure that the gap in income remains wide . Manufacturing jobs have traditionally provided good paying jobs for people with skills and work experience that does not come only from educational backgrounds . There was a time when a person who is hard-working could go to work in manufacturing and advance in skill and pay . We bought into the idea that we could have a service economy . We see the results .

 

[astonmartin708]

Two things I find wrong with this post .

1. If Bush said that then he was wrong but I believe that the idea that we have to create jobs in service industries predates Bush and goes back into the Clinton era as well .

2. Going away from manufacturing jobs is a perfect way to ensure that the gap in income remains wide . Manufacturing jobs have traditionally provided good paying jobs for people with skills and work experience that does not come only from educational backgrounds . There was a time when a person who is hard-working could go to work in manufacturing and advance in skill and pay . We bought into the idea that we could have a service economy . We see the results .

I agree with your assessment, but I'll add that the fact that the manufacturing jobs were moderately paying is actually part of the problem.... in the age of globalization and mass communication it's so much easier for companies to move the manufacturing jobs overseas where materials and labor is considerably cheaper. I don't think there was a conscious effort on the part of the American people to replace manufacturing with service industry... it was more an effort to replace manufacturing with ANYTHING.

Then we started waging war on unions, the organizations that our ancestors fought (figuratively and sometimes literally) to establish. What little voice the people had in the manufacturing industry was effectively silenced.

We have to do something about allowing companies to dodge taxes and dodge paying wages to American workers yet still participating in the American marketplace. Unfortunately any action on that front is likely to receive backlash from the corporate / industrial community and could create a sudden rise in prices to the American consumer. The only way to bring back manufacturing might be to force Americans to work for much lower wages than what they are used to, which is another problem entirely.

 

[lawpoke87]

We've been losing manufacturing jobs since 1960. We pass trade agreements and follow policies which encourage the move of these jobs across our borders and overseas then wonder what's happened to these middle class jobs. China joining the World Trade Organization obviously further accelerated these losses. Bottom line...these jobs aren't coming back as long as our current trade agreements and tax policies are in place and neither party has shown any willingness to make the changes necessary to materially alter the same. The gravity of this issue is just now coming to light due to the decline in median income which we've seen since 2008.

 

[TUMe]

I might say that by manufacturing I also include heavy industry which manufactures things like steel, cement, oil and all sorts of downstream products . Many of these industries paid more than a moderate wage .

 

[WATU2]

Bush on jobs

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/feb/10/nation/na-bushecon10

 

[lawpoke87]

Bush on jobs

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/feb/10/nation/na-bushecon10

Election year garbage. I'm not sure anyone truly believed that line. Hell....Kerry was campaigning to give corporations incentives to keep jobs on U.S. soil shortly after he voted for NAFTA which gave incentives to ship those very same jobs across the border. Unfortunately, politicians are reactionary rather than visionary.

Obama campaigned on bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. but has done little to nothing to bring that about. In fact, there are less manufacturing jobs today than the day he took office. Source...Bureau of Labor Statistics Politicians talk a good game but the proof is in their actions and big business controls both parties.

 

[URedskin54]

As I suspected, the service industry jobs don't pay less than manufacturing jobs on average. I don't know the median salary stats though. Perhaps service sector salaries are top heavy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...ay-less-than-manufacturing-ones/#49cf0eb138c1

 

[WATU2]

“We do have a strong belief in self-determination and agency, even when our expectations fly in the face of reality.”

 

[WATU2]

Election year garbage.

Yes, Dubya thought it was great in 2004.

 

[lawpoke87]

Yes, Dubya thought it was great in 2004.

Yep....as did Clinton and Gore in 1993 when they spearheaded the passage of NAFTA. Lots of politicians from both sides have been wrong on trade and living wage jobs.

 

[astonmartin708]

Yep....as did Clinton and Gore in 1993 when they spearheaded the passage of NAFTA. Lots of politicians from both sides have been wrong on trade and living wage jobs.

They're not 'wrong'. They're just not on the side of the American people. They're on the side of American / international industry. More and more those two interests are diverging from each other.

 

[WATU2]

They're not 'wrong'. They're just not on the side of the American people. They're on the side of American / international industry. More and more those two interests are diverging from each other.

To be fair, in both college and graduate school Free Trade and comparative advantage were taught as the gospel truth of modern economic theory. NAFTA and other free trade agreements are the result. Great in theory, but there was no discussion of the effects that destroying unions, creating truly international corporations with decreasing ties to their 'home' countries, and the growing influence of corporate dollars in the political process. In Bush's business school he was taught how to maximize profits for the firm, not the country, but the assumption was if it was good for a country's corporations, it was necessarily good for the country. An assumption that needs some review, particularly when the link between a corporation and its host country is lost.

In 2004 when jobs were clearly being sent overseas, even subsidized, Bush was just parroting what he had taught was good for the firm and therefore good for the country. Unions were just recalcitrant and dumb.

 

[lawpoke87]

Aside from the obvious reason, why are some fixated on Bush here? We've been steadily losing manufacturing jobs for the last 40 plus years. Want to point fingers then look at those behind the NAFTA push. Look at those who supported the addition of China to the World Trade Organization. Look at the tax treatment given to corporations who move production facilities overseas. Look at Obamacare which has increased the employer cost of healthcare. Lots of things which have contributed to the loss of good paying jobs. Obama has been largely MIA in this discussion despite suffering the largest drop in median income during his watch in modern times.

Who exactly is on the side of small business and those who work at those companies? Trade pacts help the large corporations while making it practically impossible for small businesses to compete. Yet, our leaders continue to support and pass trade agreements harmful to those suffering the most under this economy.

 

[WATU2]

Aside from the obvious reason, why are some fixated on Bush here? We've been steadily losing manufacturing jobs for the last 40 plus years.

Bush's quote is interesting because he claimed moving US manufacturing jobs overseas as good for the economy and supported policies encouraging that movement. I recall posting about it when he said it. Response from this board: crickets.

 

[lawpoke87]

Wish I would have been on the board back then. While he likely was saying that to defend his record in an election year it is as wrong today as it was then. Sad that in the almost 8 years since his presidency (or in the 20 years prior) nothing has changed as far as policies and the direction of jobs overseas.

Some sobering statistics:

Home ownership rates are now at the third lowest in history.

Obama is the first President EVER to never have a single year of GDP growth of 3% or over....and he had eight years to achieve the same. Obama is on pace for an average 1.55% growth rate. In the history of the U.S. only Herbert Hoover (-5.65%), Andrew Johnson (-0.70%) and Theodore Roosevelt (1.41%) had a worst performance.

We are economically and financially in trouble. The Fed is out of bullets. Wages are down and the middle class is shrinking. Entitlement programs are unsustainable at current levels and pensions across the country are woefully underfunded.

 

[astonmartin708]

Wish I would have been on the board back then. While he likely was saying that to defend his record in an election year it is as wrong today as it was then. Sad that in the almost 8 years since his presidency (or in the 20 years prior) nothing has changed as far as policies and the direction of jobs overseas.

Some sobering statistics:

Home ownership rates are now at the third lowest in history.

Obama is the first President EVER to never have a single year of GDP growth of 3% or over....and he had eight years to achieve the same. Obama is on pace for an average 1.55% growth rate. In the history of the U.S. only Herbert Hoover (-5.65%), Andrew Johnson (-0.70%) and Theodore Roosevelt (1.41%) had a worst performance.

We are economically and financially in trouble. The Fed is out of bullets. Wages are down and the middle class is shrinking. Entitlement programs are unsustainable at current levels and pensions across the country are woefully underfunded.

Those numbers are quite true and no one is happy about them. I would say that Obama came into office with a massive, massive, MASSIVE task in front of him. Not only did he have the after effects of multiple wars to deal with, he also had the largest economic crisis since the depression to deal with at the same time. I'm not saying his administration did a bang-up job. But they played pretty well with the hand they were dealt. They practiced relative moderation in foreign policy, trying to not involve us in more costly conflicts. The Fed was used to stabilize a collapsed economy and while we're not showing tremendous growth, we also haven't shown tremendous regression either. Overall, Obama will have left the US in a better state economically than it was in when he entered office. After the disaster that was the Bush II presidency, that's a bargain.

 

[lawpoke87]

Really?

History tells us we should expect robust growth coming out of a depression with even modest leadership from the Administrative branch. Since you mentioned the great depression I'll mention that we had double digit economic growth every year for the next decade. To be the first President with no GDP growth above 3% coming out of a economic crisis is astounding not to mention the first "recovery" where median income actually decreases. Obama's economic numbers are historically bad. We're almost $10T more in debt, have shown almost no growth, median wages have dropped, the Fed is out of ammunition, welfare is up as is poverty and our entitlements are in worse shape. We may be in better shape than we were in 2009 but considering all the above factors including the huge amount of added debt and position of the Fed we are certainly in much worse shape than one would expect seven years after the housing crisis. You can't pass laws which financially hurt small businesses then be surprised when they aren't expanding or paying their employees. I knew Obama had no business experience coming in but I figured his advisors would make up for that deficiency. He chose to listen to intellectuals who like him had little to none real life experience instead of taking the advice of main street. It cost the country in the end.

Labeling someone a success by comparing to Bush is like saying he's the second dumbest guy in the class. As for foreign policy, I would argue it's been a disaster as well. We dismissed ISIS (JV squad) and allowed them to grow and become a major force in the middle east. We sought regime change in Libya and Syria both of which have resulted in failures. Again....saying I'm not the worst of all time is far from an endorsement.

 

[WATU2]

Those numbers are quite true and no one is happy about them.

Obama had to rely on the Fed because there was zero support for capital spending from Congress which would have replaced some Fed support, created jobs, and improved our infrastructure. Instead of focusing on restoring the economy, the Republican Congress focused on ensuring that Obama was a one term president. No one party or person has a lock on the best ideas, so when one party opts out, we all lose.

Poke claims we over focus on Bush (hard to do given what he did), while he over focuses on Obama who had to deal with the disaster Bush left behind and had to fight the Republican non-cooperation strategy that placed political goals ahead of national recovery. Which left Obama with the Fed instead of a full range of tools.

 

[astonmartin708]

Obama had to rely on the Fed because there was zero support for capital spending from Congress which would have replaced some Fed support, created jobs, and improved our infrastructure. Instead of focusing on restoring the economy, the Republican Congress focused on ensuring that Obama was a one term president. No one party or person has a lock on the best ideas, so when one party opts out, we all lose.

During his first term, Obama and the Dems had control of both houses of Congress.

 

[WATU2]

Obama is on pace for an average 1.55% growth rate. In the history of the U.S. only Herbert Hoover (-5.65%), Andrew Johnson (-0.70%) and Theodore Roosevelt (1.41%) had a worst performance.

Interestingly....all Republicans..... Hoover was big balanced budget guy.

Agree we are running out of bullets in part because the normal range of tools that the government uses to stimulate the economy have been cut off. In particular infrastructure spending to support private investment. Couple that with about zero progress in Too Big to Fail, and things look dicey. But given our political climate, it's a miracle things aren't worse.

 

[lawpoke87]

[QUOTE="WATU2, post: 138204, member: 22"]Obama had to rely on the Fed because there was zero support for capital spending from Congress which would have replaced some Fed support, created jobs, and improved our infrastructure. Instead of focusing on restoring the economy, the Republican Congress focused on ensuring that Obama was a one term president. No one party or person has a lock on the best ideas, so when one party opts out, we all lose.

Poke claims we over focus on Bush (hard to do given what he did), while he over focuses on Obama who had to deal with the disaster Bush left behind and had to fight the Republican non-cooperation strategy that placed political goals ahead of national recovery. Which left Obama with the Fed instead of a full range of tools.[/QUOTE]

HUH? Obama had a Democratic House and Senate when he was dealing with the economic crisis. He had the votes to pass any legislature he proposed.

I over focus on the man who has been in charge of this country and it's economy for the last seven years? How is it possible to over focus on a man whose been President for the last seven plus years? Time to stop the excuses and after seven years take responsibilities for your presidency and those awful numbers.

 

[astonmartin708]

HUH? Obama had a Democratic House and Senate when he was dealing with the economic crisis. He had the votes to pass any legislature he proposed.

I over focus on the man who has been in charge of this country and it's economy for the last seven years? How is it possible to over focus on a man whose been President for the last seven plus years? Time to stop the excuses and after seven years take responsibilities for your presidency and those awful numbers.

Well... if we're going to say that those terrible numbers make him a bad president... maybe we should start scrubbing Teddy's face off of Mount Rushmore.

 

[WATU2]

During his first term, Obama and the Dems had control of both houses of Congress.

Democrats had a 'filibuster' proof Senate for max 72 calendar days. Ted Kennedy's brain cancer, Al Franken contested election, and Arlen Specter's late switch from Republican to Democratic caucus reduced days with 60 Democratic Senators to about 10% of the two year session. And that's counting Bernie and Lieberman. Lieberman endorsed McCain in 2008 and did not run as a Dem for the Senate. The idea that Democrats had control of Congress for two full years and could pass anything they wanted is, to put it kindly, "misinformed".

 

[TUMe]

If no president could do anything when he didn't have a filibuster proof Congress then very little could have ever been done. What the president has to do is compromise. Compromise is a dirty word to both liberals and extreme conservatives, but that is what has to happen. Obama started every argument with "if you pass that I will veto it."

 

[WATU2]

I over focus on the man who has been in charge of this country and it's economy for the last seven years? How is it possible to over focus on a man whose been President for the last seven plus years? Time to stop the excuses and after seven years take responsibilities for your presidency and those awful numbers.

Couldn't agree more!

As long as we apply the same criteria to Bush whose record is far, far worse and who did have control of Congress for a lot longer than his successor and whose mistakes the US is still trying to clean up.

 

[lawpoke87]

Dens had a 59-41 majority in the Senate as well as a large majority in the House. By definition, that is control of Congress. They passed his largest two initiates in the $1T stimulus and the ACA. Neither of which did what they promised.

A President owns and is judged by his record. Those numbers don't lie. Blaming past Presidents or Congress may give his supporters solice but in the end he will be viewed based on 1.55% GDP growth and the messes in Libya, Syria, and Isis. Pretty simple...you can't go $9T in debt and have growth below 2%.

 

[lawpoke87]

Couldn't agree more!

As long as we apply the same criteria to Bush whose record is far, far worse and who did have control of Congress for a lot longer than his successor and whose mistakes the US is still trying to clean up.

How many times do I have to state that Bush was one of the worst Presidents in the history of our union. You're preaching to the choir here. That said, one must reach a point where they take responsibility for their actions and quit blaming others for their failures. I believe seven years is plenty of time to succeed or fail on ones own merits Like Bush, the world will be cleaning up Obama's mishandling of Isis for years to come and well as dealing with the huge amount of added debt.

 

[astonmartin708]

Dens had a 59-41 majority in the Senate as well as a large majority in the House. By definition, that is control of Congress. They passed his largest two initiates in the $1T stimulus and the ACA. Neither of which did what they promised.

A President owns and is judged by his record. Those numbers don't lie. Blaming past Presidents or Congress may give his supporters solice but in the end he will be viewed based on 1.55% GDP growth and the messes in Libya, Syria, and Isis. Pretty simple...you can't go $9T in debt and have growth below 2%.

$9T in stimulus bought us out of a repeat of the great depression. Yes, we have stagnant growth... but it's better than having bread lines on the streets.

Libya was a mess, but it was a small mess... Syria & ISIS were results of the US incursion into Iraq, where we never should have been in the first place. The fact that we were there had nothing to do with Obama. It's not like we could have just stayed there indefinitely.

 

[WATU2]

$9T in stimulus bought us out of a repeat of the great depression. Yes, we have stagnant growth... but it's better than having bread lines on the streets.

Libya was a mess, but it was a small mess... Syria & ISIS were results of the US incursion into Iraq, where we never should have been in the first place. The fact that we were there had nothing to do with Obama. It's not like we could have just stayed there indefinitely.

Well said. My favorite management writer was Robert Townsend who turned Avis around from near bankruptcy into the #2 car rental agency. You know the "We Try Harder" button guy. His book UP The Organization is a classic. OK I'm dating myself. One of his key concepts was that a CEO makes the correct decision about 1/3 the time, even a very good one. What separates a good CEO from a bad CEO is not sticking with the bad decisions when it is clear they are bad. Unfortunately in our politics, admitting to a mistake is equivalent to taking political cyanide: you can't ever be wrong. (Sort of like this board?)

Even worse our politics make it hard to openly admit mistakes particularly when running for office. One way I distinguish Presidents is whether they kept making the same mistakes and whether or not they learned from those they made. I see some big differences there.

 

[lawpoke87]

$9T in stimulus bought us out of a repeat of the great depression. Yes, we have stagnant growth... but it's better than having bread lines on the streets.

Libya was a mess, but it was a small mess... Syria & ISIS were results of the US incursion into Iraq, where we never should have been in the first place. The fact that we were there had nothing to do with Obama. It's not like we could have just stayed there indefinitely.

This is inaccurate on so many levels yet there are intelligent posters agreeing with it...come one guys. The stimulus wasn't $9T for starters. The money spent did little to stimulate the economy. Libya is not a small mess. It's a breeding ground for terrorist without a strong central government to maintain order and we have no plan in sight to improve things there. We ignored and dismissed Isis and allowed it to take the oil rich oil field in Syria. Syria was the result of our military efforts to destabilize and overthrow Assad.

 

[URedskin54]

Interestingly....all Republicans..... Hoover was big balanced budget guy.

It's a couple of small points. but this bothers me when Hoover is invoked. Hoover was a progressive like Teddy Rooseveldt, another republican before him. He did want a balanced budget, but he actually increased spending significantly and raised taxes on the rich. FDR called him "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history" while campaigning against him. Also went full protectionism with smoot-Hawley, which was just super for the economy(not). The idea of him as a do-nothing during the depression is a myth.

 

[astonmartin708]

This is inaccurate on so many levels yet there are intelligent posters agreeing with it...come one guys. The stimulus wasn't $9T for starters. The money spent did little to stimulate the economy. Libya is not a small mess. It's a breeding ground for terrorist without a strong central government to maintain order and we have no plan in sight to improve things there. We ignored and dismissed Isis and allowed it to take the oil rich oil field in Syria. Syria was the result of our military efforts to destabilize and overthrow Assad.

The money spent certainly buoyed the economy. Saying it didn't do anything is just dumb. If the stimulus hadn't been passed its very likely that the unemployment rate would have remained much worse than it is today.

Syria and ISIS wouldn't have been as much of a problem if we hadn't destabilized the region in the first place. Libya isn't a good deal, but it wasn't the U.S. that decided there would be multiple revolutions across the Middle East during Obama's tenure. The Arab Spring was something we couldn't do much about. Also, they're not our country what say should we have when a populous tries to overthrow a dictator like Gadafi? We are hamstrung by our support for democracy... We can't support dictators even though they may be the only thing holding the country together.

I wouldn't say Obama's foreign policy blunders were any worse than a guy like Reagan with Iran Contra.

 

[URedskin54]

There's also a couple of economic papers out there that suggest that ending unemployment benefits extensions in 2014 was the major driver in reducing unemployment

http://c0.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/w20884.pdf

 

[astonmartin708]

There's also a couple of economic papers out there that suggest that ending unemployment benefits extensions in 2014 was the major driver in reducing unemployment

http://c0.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/w20884.pdf

I'm not sure if that's true or not, but you have to think that even if that was the reason people went back to work, there still had to be job openings for them to go back to. There was a reason tons of people were laid off in 08 and 09. It's not like there was just mass apathy and no one wanted to work. People lost their jobs.

 

[URedskin54]

I'm not near well-versed enough on the complexities of economics, but I believe their theory is that the prolonged unemployment benefits represented an artificial boost in wages, so when it was discontinued it actually spurred new openings and hiring. No idea how sound that is. They, and the people who disagree with them as well, know the mechanisms behind it much better than I do.

 

[lawpoke87]

Obama not only supplied Syrian Rebels with billions in arms but put boots on the ground their to train and coordinate those rebels with the express mission to destabilize and overthrow the current Syrian government. We further sat ideally by while Isis became a well financed and run organization in the very area where we were training and supplying a military force. Our inactions are the reason they are the organization they are today.

We can argue round and round about the effect of the stimulus. Name me another period in American history where coming out of a recession/depression where GDP failed to grow at a rate of at least 3% in in the seven years following the downturn? Again...borrowing $9T and showing a 1.55% GDP is an historically bad performance.

 

[astonmartin708]

Obama not only supplied Syrian Rebels with billions in arms but put boots on the ground their to train and coordinate those rebels with the express mission to destabilize and overthrow the current Syrian government. We further sat ideally by while Isis became a well financed and run organization in the very area where we were training and supplying a military force. Our inactions are the reason they are the organization they are today.

We can argue round and round about the effect of the stimulus. Name me another period in American history where coming out of a recession/depression where GDP failed to grow at a rate of at least 3% in in the seven years following the downturn? Again...borrowing $9T and showing a 1.55% GDP is an historically bad performance.

I'm really glad you're an expert not only in Middle East affairs of an administration with which you had no part, but also in the same administration's economic policies! If you only had a billion dollars you could get a spray tan, insult some minorities and run for president! Hahaha

 

[lawpoke87]

Happy to enlightened you . No hard feelings. While our politics may differ we are all TU grads and fans who support the University first and foremost. We also all want basically the same thing: A stable country and economy which gives its citizens an opportunity to make a living wage as well as an environment which values freedoms and civil liberties for all.

 

[WATU2]

It's a couple of small points. but this bothers me when Hoover is invoked. Hoover was a progressive like Teddy Rooseveldt, another republican before him. He did want a balanced budget, but he actually increased spending significantly and raised taxes on the rich. FDR called him "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history" while campaigning against him. Also went full protectionism with smoot-Hawley, which was just super for the economy(not). The idea of him as a do-nothing during the depression is a myth.

Darn, I hate it when someone actually does his homework. Mea culpa. Hoover made mistakes too and was pro-balanced budgets, but you are right. He wasn't Calvin Coolidge.