OH and off shoring had nothing to do with it.
OH and off shoring had nothing to do with it.
Why is manufacturing employment down? As I said, it's because of increased productivity. Better machinery, more capital investment per worker, and so on. Offshoring doesn't begin to explain the decrease in manufacturing employment, but it's a good narrative to get the voters upset, and never mind the truth of the matter..
In any sensibly run country, greater manufacturing productivity would be welcomed. It would mean lower prices for domestic consumers, and greater competitiveness in foreign trade. Unfortunately, our country doesn't work that way.
That if the factories were still here instead of being offshored there would be more jobs is one of those things that sounds self-evident but isn't. For many of those companies, the choice was between going offshore or going bankrupt. Either way, the jobs were going to be lost.
We are not being murdered by companies going offshore. We are committing suicide by driving companies offshore. Case in point: The Carrier company decision to transfer production from a plant in Indiana to a plant in Mexico. The news media noted that the Indiana plant was unionized. Now what kind of politicians did the union support with money from the members' dues? What kind of politicians did the union urge the members to vote for? What kind of politicians did the members vote for? Do you even have to think hard to answer those questions? You know full well they supported and voted for politicians whose policies are simply watered-down Marxism. The people whose investments made the Indiana jobs possible, that paid for the machines and the roof over them, are eeeevil people who should be punished -- part of the infamous one percent.
Today's Wall Street Journal noted that Nabisco was closing the world's largest bakery in Chicago and transferring production to a plant in Salinas, Mexico. The article noted that Nabisco had asked the unions for concessions equal to the savings it would achieve by shifting production. The union refused, threatened to strike, and brought in an official from the Bernie Sanders campaign (remember what I said about watered-down Marxism?) to speak at the press conference at which they threatened a strike.
The Journal also noted that Ford was closing plants near Chicago and building an engine plant in Mexico. The Journal pointed out that Illinois has among the nation's highest property and corporate taxes. Do you suppose that there just might be a connection between those taxes and Ford's decision to move from where they're not wanted to a place where they are wanted?
Nor is it only American manufacturers moving to Mexico. Among others, BMW, Honda and Volkswagen are also building plants in Mexico. Part of the reason is that Mexico has free trade agreements with 45 countries; the US has such agreements with only 20 countries. Exports from Mexico can easily enter far more countries that can exports from the US.
You want more jobs in the US? Fine. Then quit flogging this false narrative of "offshoring" being the problem, and start doing something about what's driving companies offshore. Getting the story right would be a good start.