|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 1, 2007 8:16:35 GMT -6
The FACT is that manufacturing has lost jobs and plants and continues to do so. Never claimed there weren’t, more leftwing red herrings. Mr Lib it is you sir who show your lack of knowledge and experience on this matter not I. Your posting on economics proves your ignroance. given the choice between what I see with my own eyes That proves it.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 1, 2007 8:32:44 GMT -6
"I don't think there's any shortage either."
This article says nothing about whether they were skilled or unskilled labor. Nobody is claiming a shortage of unskilled labor, only skilled labor.
Second it says nothing about whether it is a net loss or gain of manufacturing job, or unemployment in the areas.
There were mass layoffs all through the 90's, averaging 3 million a year, but there was still a net gain of jobs.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 1, 2007 16:03:16 GMT -6
Second it says nothing about whether it is a net loss or gain of manufacturing job, or unemployment in the areas. There were mass layoffs all through the 90's, averaging 3 million a year, but there was still a net gain of jobs. "but there was still a net gain of jobs."Libslayer, that's the whole point. There was a net gain of manufacturing jobs in the 90's, and there's been a net loss of manufacturing jobs since 2000. Over a 3 million-job loss, to be more specific. In contrast, from December 1992 through December 2000, there was a 2.3 million-job gain. In fact, from December 1992 through December 1997, manufacturing jobs increased by 7.7 million. All of this can be seen from the chart below from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Some might refer to this as "creative destruction." But there's nothing "creative" about it. It's simply "destruction" only. Destruction of American manufacturing jobs.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 1, 2007 16:05:50 GMT -6
"Libslayer, that's the whole point. There was a net gain of manufacturing jobs in the 90's, and there's been a net loss of manufacturing jobs since 2000."
I didn't say there was, I said there was a net gain of jobs, the unsilled jobs continued to decline and people left those jobs and moved into other lines of work because of the increased jobs in other areas.
My point was, that only showing how many jobs were lost does not tell the WHOLE story.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 1, 2007 16:24:03 GMT -6
"Libslayer, that's the whole point. There was a net gain of manufacturing jobs in the 90's, and there's been a net loss of manufacturing jobs since 2000." I didn't say there was, I said there was a net gain of jobs, the unskilled jobs continued to decline and people left those jobs and moved into other lines of work because of the increased jobs in other areas. I see the point you're trying to make. However, you're implying that the manufacturing jobs that were lost are "unskilled," and that the non-manufacturing jobs that replaced them are "skilled," or at least more skilled. Is that what you meant? Certainly. That's the reason to compare total job creation (especially service industry jobs) with manufacturing job loss. And almost the entire growth in jobs has been in either service-related fields or in home construction. And the big loser continues to be manufacturing jobs. Most people wouldn't consider it a step up the "skills" ladder to replace manufacturing jobs with home construction & service jobs. Replacing an ironworker or a computer technician with a real estate agent, a dry wall hanger, or a sales clerk seems like a step down on the "skills" ladder.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 1, 2007 16:50:48 GMT -6
I see the point you're trying to make. However, you're implying that the manufacturing jobs that were lost are "unskilled," and that the non-manufacturing jobs that replaced them are "skilled," or at least more skilled. Is that what you meant? . No that is not what I mean. I will summarize what I have been saying. 1. Unskilled manufacturing jobs have been disappearing from the US for decades 2. Unskilled manufacturing jobs have been disappearing from all over the world 3. Unskilled manufacturing jobs are disappearing because of automation, not outsourcing 4. Unskilled jobs are increasing (though not in numbers to replace the lost unskilled) 5. Throughout the 90’s there were huge layoffs, averaging about 3 million per year, a great deal of them unskilled manufacturing. 6. But job creation in other industries more than made up for those job losses 7. Throughout the 90’s skilled manufacturing jobs increased. 8. There is a shortage of skilled labor, and it appears to be world wide. To only look at the jobs lost, as in those manufacturing jobs lost in the midwest in the posted article does not tell the whole picture just as the massive layoffs in the 90’s didn’t tell the whole picture then. "Most people wouldn't consider it a step up the "skills" ladder to replace manufacturing jobs with home construction & service jobs. Replacing an ironworker or a computer technician with a real estate agent, a dry wall hanger, or a sales clerk seems like a step down on the "skills" ladder. " Those aren’t the jobs being lost, it is the unskilled laborer, they guy that puts bolt A on screw B is having his job lost to automation. The skilled laborer, like those you listed are in short supply.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 1, 2007 16:55:29 GMT -6
Again with the personal attacks Lib. You got nothing. Reality trumps BS any day of the week - again I'll believe what I actually see before some internet troll's BS.
Again A's in 200 and 300 level economics from a nationally top ranked Big Ten Business school hardly counts as "ignorance" of economics, anyone can tell you economics is not an easy subject - many many folks don't make it thru the first time, let alone get a good grade. I never said I was an economist. I'll put my knowledge and experience of manufacturing and the manufacturing marketplace up against nearly anyone anytime.
You can yammer on all you like - I'll just pass over your worthless comments from now on as they are completely lacking any credibility on manufacturing related subjects.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 1, 2007 17:11:25 GMT -6
Your posting on economics proves your ignroance. Libslayer, You've hit your maximum limit on personal insults and comments. You are welcome to post arguments, links, and commentary on this board. You can disagree with anything and everything posted here, and post accordingly. You are not welcome, however, to constantly insult other members by calling them "ignorant" or "wackos". I've been extremely tolerant up to this point with you about personal comments. You have now exhausted that tolerance. If you continue to make personal insults about members, you'll be banned. I'd really rather not ban you. I'd prefer that you simply ceased posting personal insults about other members. But the choice is yours. Continue the insults and you won't be posting here anymore. unlawflcombatnt
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 1, 2007 17:12:47 GMT -6
"You've hit your maximum limit on personal insults and comments. "
I only respond in kind.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 1, 2007 17:25:46 GMT -6
Again with the personal attacks Lib. . You got nothing. Reality trumps BS any day of the week - again I'll believe what I actually see before some internet troll's BS. . Yes and I have posted fact after fact that proves you wrong, you haven't presented any evidence that there isn't a shortage of skilled workers. Again A's in 200 and 300 level economics . As did I, 2 years of college economics. And I have posted quote/link after quote/link from economist that proves you wrong.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 1, 2007 17:28:45 GMT -6
Again with the personal attacks Lib. . I have only responded in kind.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 1, 2007 19:06:16 GMT -6
Todays manufacturing jobs are not your great grandfathers putting a nut on a bolt assembly line job (not that they ever really were that simple) they have been evolving to be ever more specialized and complex for at least the last 50 years and even more so in the the last two decades. Nearly every manufacturing job today requires a certain skill level and specialized training.
When a plant closes these skilled and semi skilled workers become surplus, along with their office white collar counterparts. There are fewer and fewer plants to absorb these surplus workers, and those that remain are on borrowed time if policies are not changed. There is no demand in any big way for skilled and semi skilled manufacturing workers. This is the reality of manufacturing today, no matter how many whiny "employers" respond to some non scientific "survey". And because of a lack of demand and because of the grim looking future you have less and less students pursuing manufacturing technology as a career.
If my eyes say the sky is blue, I don't care how many times you say the sky is pink, or how many "experts" you can find that say the sky is pink, the sky is still blue.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 1, 2007 19:31:00 GMT -6
Todays manufacturing jobs are not your great grandfathers putting a nut on a bolt assembly line job (not that they ever really were that simple) they have been evolving to be ever more specialized and complex for at least the last 50 years and even more so in the the last two decades. That is exactly what the jobs that the US has been losing are, unskilled. " And because of a lack of demand and because of the grim looking future you have less and less students pursuing manufacturing technology as a career." You do understand that US manufacturing exports have been setting records for several years now.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 2, 2007 5:29:17 GMT -6
Hello - record trade deficits. Not according to the information i see on a regular basis. Of what industries do you speak? Closed and downsized facilities that can't meet US demand are hardly in a position to export in any meaningful way. Manufacuring index is contracting, therefore so is output.
At least you are finally admitting the demand for manufacturing workers, skilled or otherwise is non existant.
To humor you, there are two industries the US leads in exports - aerospace and agriculture. Any export numbers will be influenced strongly by these two products - agriculture on shear volume, aerospace due to high cost products. The numbers for consumer products and other industrial products continue to decline.
But these are also two industries we are rapidly losing our edge on - Agriculture to Canada, South America and Russia. Aerospace- Brazil, Canada, Europe and China. Expor numbers last year were stronly influenced by the big Chinese Boeing order - but what the numbers don't show is the large amount of chinese supplied componentry going in to those Boeings.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 2, 2007 8:18:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 2, 2007 8:57:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 2, 2007 16:42:26 GMT -6
Hello. Record IMPORTSActually, 3rd quarter 2000 exports were $201 billion, not $199 billion. (It was the 4th quarter which was $199 billion.) US Imports3rd qtr 2000.....$312Billion 2nd qtr 2005.....$409billion In the time period described, imports increased $97 billion, while exports only increased only $25 billion. (using the actual 2000 3rd quarter number of $201 billion.) Thus imports increased $72 billion more than exports during this period. Clearly imports are increasing much faster than exports, which is why our trade balance is worsening. It also means that progressively more American production demand is being satisfied by foreign production, and less by domestic production. Which means American labor is being replaced with foreign labor, in satisfying the production demand of American consumers. Since reduced demand decreases both price and quantity demanded, it reduces American employment AND wages. I'm don't know why you stopped at the 2nd quarter of 2005 with your analysis. I'll extend it to the latest numbers, from 3rd quarter 2006. US Exports3rd qtr 2000.....$199Billion 3rd qtr 2006.....$266billion $266billion - $199billion = +$67 billion increase in ExportsUS Imports3rd qtr 2000.....$312Billion 2rd qtr 2006.....$479billion $479billion - $312billion = +$167 billion increase in ImportsBetween the 3rd quarter of 2000 and the 3rd quarter of 2006, imports increased $100 billion more than exports, which means the trade deficit has worsened by an annualized $400 billion per year. Based on the recent GDP estimate, our 2006 trade deficit was $762 billion. Ah. Now I see why you stopped at 3rd quarter 2005. By that time, the difference was only $72 billion. Now it's a whopping $100 billion. It has been going on month after month. Yes indeed. The trade deficit has been getting worse month after month. And the outsourcing of jobs has been getting worse month after month.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Feb 3, 2007 10:28:59 GMT -6
"Hello. Record IMPORTS"
Which does not change the FACT that we have been having record EXPORTS.
|
|