Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Job-Killing Labor Costs and the Manufacturing Sector
Mises Institute ^ | January 20, 2011 | Christopher Westley

Posted on 01/20/2011 7:59:37 PM PST by sickoflibs

If there is one issue that pops up again and again in my conversations about economics with interested noneconomists, it is manufacturing.

There's a genuine concern about the state of manufacturing in the United States, and I am not sure of the reason why. It could be that there is an inchoate sense that manufacturing is dying here, given that so many of our popular-consumption goods seem to be made overseas. Then there is the issue of the trade deficit, which is generally reported on in the mainstream media in a manner that is irresponsible, uninformed, or both.

Personally, I am quite proud of the US manufacturing sector, which still leads the world in manufacturing output. It will surprise some readers to learn that, after an initial decline in manufacturing during the outset of the 2008 recession, manufacturing output in the United States has increased for 17 consecutive months. According to a recent report by the Institute for Supply Management (described by Yahoo Finance),

[ISM's] index of manufacturing activity rose to 57 in December [2010] from 56.6 in the previous month. Any reading over 50 indicates growth. The latest is well above the recession's low of 32.5, hit in December 2008. But it's below the reading of 60.4 in April, the highest level since June 2004.

So the United States has been producing wealth at an increasing rate since the low point of the most recent recession. This has been the norm, not the exception, for decades. In an open letter to protectionist Senator Sharrod Brown of Ohio, economist Donald Boudreax noted, "Just before the current downturn — in 2008 — inflation-adjusted manufacturing output in the U.S. was 13 percent higher than it was in 2000, 52 percent higher than in 1990, 84 percent higher than in 1980, and 133 percent higher than in 1970."

Despite the postwar resurgence in global output and competition, US manufacturing output has remained steady at 21 percent of the world's output. Needless to say, reports of the death of US manufacturing are greatly exaggerated.

But what makes me proud of this sector isn't its aggregate output. Rather, it has to do with its output given the constraints placed on it by the federal government. These constraints have the effect of increasing the cost of capital and labor, which become especially serious when these costs grow relative to those of international competitors. How ironic are the actions of so-called progressives who champion positive interventions in the workforce meant to help the average worker but that actually harm these workers in the long run.

The important question is, why do increases in manufacturing output tend not to lead to increases in manufacturing hiring? When considering this question in class, I like to show students a video clip of the scene in the movie "Back to the Future" when the protagonist, Marty McFly, is transported to the 1950s. There, he drives his car into what was then a typical service station. Several well-dressed men run out to greet him, pump his gas, check his oil, and wash his windshield. To modern generations accustomed to self-service gas stations, such employment seems bizarre.

The message for my students, however, is that such jobs, once a ubiquitous portion of the labor market, were eventually priced out of existence by government interventions. Increases in the minimum-wage, increases in payroll taxes, and other attempts to coerce employers to act in ways others find virtuous often forced employers to cut back elsewhere.

If the cost of labor increases, someone has to pay for it. Laborers may pay in the form of decreased work opportunities, investors may pay in the form of decreased returns on capital, or consumers may pay in the form of higher prices required by increased costs. Society in general pays if simply because we have less wealth and higher costs than would otherwise have been the case.

In the case of the gas stations, we see an effort on the part of service-station owners to organize their operations in ways that make them less labor-intensive than they otherwise would have been. The result is that entry-level workers who might earn income, as well as other valuable workplace skills, must find other uses of their time.

We no longer see certain occupations anymore because of such workplace interventions. For most of us, elevator operators are an amusing curiosity seen mostly in black-and-white movies. Many fast-food restaurants now make customers pour their own drinks in an effort to reduce labor costs. The growth of the temp-worker industry reflects the desire by firms to hire workers without the increased regulatory burden of labor, which is then taken on by the temp agencies themselves.

What impresses me are the heroic efforts of unsung individuals and firms to maintain productivity in spite of such interventions. This is especially shown in the US manufacturing sector. To illustrate this phenomenon, consider the graph below.

This chart shows that while manufacturing employment fell significantly during the most recent recession — which is to be expected as firms correct from the years of malinvestment that characterized the unsustainable boom — the recent "official" recovery has been characterized by at best tepid growth in manufacturing employment.

What is more, recent gains in manufacturing output have occurred amid months of falling manufacturing employment.

It is significant that meager increases in manufacturing employment that occurred near the beginning of 2010 disappeared once states began implementing federal health-care "reform," which created added employer costs and uncertainty. Until issues associated with these costs get sorted out, manufacturing employment seems to have been paying for it.

"Reports of the death of US manufacturing are greatly exaggerated."But employment decline in manufacturing is no recent phenomenon, and many economists, including Boudreaux, argue that because US manufacturing output leads the world (albeit with reduced labor inputs) this is not an issue that should be of great concern. I beg to differ, if only on the basis of allocative efficiency. It is one thing if electronic manufacturing moves to Asia because Asians have comparative advantages in their production, but quite another if it moves to Asia because of artificial costs placed on domestic producers.

Similar logic applies to the growth of the service sector in the United States. It is one thing if this sector has grown because of some genuine comparative advantages of US workers in providing service output, but it is quite another if this sector's growth has occurred because workers are forced into it in numbers higher than they otherwise would have been due to artificial costs placed on manufacturing labor.

Does this explain much of the growth of the service sector in the United States? If so, we are witnessing a malinvestment of labor inputs, favoring service over manufacturing, that has been forced on resource markets — and an inevitable change in the character, if not the quality, of national output.

While we laud US manufacturing dominance, the state of manufacturing employment is an issue that should be of great concern to those of us who study the effects of economic interventionism. It is obvious that current levels of manufacturing output could be achieved with higher levels of labor input than we see today.

Unemployed workers in the United States should be up in arms over any legislation that increases the cost of labor. (Employed workers should be up in arms as well, to the extent that they face less job security and lower wages due to such legislation.) Despite the laudable efforts of manufacturing firms to maintain levels of output with increased cost, labor has paid the price with higher levels of unemployment.

Congress conceded as much, if only implicitly, when it allowed for a reduction of payroll taxes in the tax-overhaul bill it passed this past December. Such actions must be expanded and made permanent for the United States to retain its manufacturing competitiveness in the 21st century.

In the end, the depletion of manufacturing employment merely reflects the law of demand in that, by increasing the cost of manufacturing labor, employers have demanded less of it while whole manufacturing sectors have moved overseas. Meanwhile, unemployed manufacturing workers collect unemployment compensation while their former managers work overtime to replace their manufacturing output with higher levels of capital.

These outcomes would hardly surprise Ludwig von Mises, who wrote, "State interference in economic life, which calls itself 'economic policy,' has done nothing but destroy economic life. Prohibitions and regulations have by their general obstructive tendency fostered the growth of the spirit of wastefulness."[1]

I would only add that a serious discussion about some of the costs of intervention in the manufacturing sector, as well as the overall economy, is long overdue. Bring it on.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: economy; jobs; labor; schifflist
The Peter Schiff/Austrian Economics ping. (Washington Bankrupting our Nation by Spending your past, present and future money!)

If you realize both parties in Washington think that our money is theirs and you trust them to do the wrong thing, this list is for you.

If you think there is a Santa Claus who is going to get elected in Washington and cut your taxes, spend a few trillion and that will jump-start the economy, this list is not for you.

You can read past posts by clicking on : schifflist , I try to tag all relevant threads with the keyword : schifflist.

Ping list pinged by sickoflibs.

To join the ping list: FReepmail sickoflibs with the subject line add Schifflist.

(Stop getting pings by sending the subject line drop Schifflist.)

The Austrian School’s Commandments plus :From : link

1) You cannot spend your way out of a recession
2) You cannot regulate the economy into oblivion and expect it to function
3) You cannot tax people and businesses to the point of near slavery and expect them to keep producing
4) You cannot create an abundance of money out of thin air without making all that paper worthless
5) The government cannot make up for rising unemployment by just hiring all the out of work people to be bureaucrats or send them unemployment checks forever
6) You cannot live beyond your means indefinitely
7) The economy must actually produce something others are willing to buy
8) Every government bureaucrat should keep the following motto in mind when attempting to influence the economy: “First, do no harm!”
9) Central bank-supported fractional reserve banking is an economically distorting, ethically questionable activity. In particular, no government should ever do anything to save any bank from the full consequences of a bank run, no matter what the short-term consequences.
10) Gold is God’s money.

Add mine:

1) Businesses don't hire workers just because of demand for products or services, they hire because it makes them money. Sorry to have to state the obvious.
2) Government spending without taxing is still redistribution
3) Taking one man's money and giving it to another is not a job.
4) Paul Krugman and Bernake have been wrong about everything, as well as the other best and brightest Keynesian's who have been fixing our economy for over a decade.
5) Republicans in the minority (esp out of the White House) act like Republicans, in the majority they act like Democrats .

1 posted on 01/20/2011 7:59:38 PM PST by sickoflibs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Harrius Magnus; mojitojoe; Pelham; mom2twinsn2; LongLiveTheRepublic; ConservativeOrBust; ...
The Peter Schiff/Austrian Economics ping. (Washington Bankrupting our Nation by Spending your past, present and future money!)

Think about this. Liberals claim that raising the minimum wage and mandating forced benefits on employers making labor more expensive will stimulate the economy by putting money in workers pockets so they spend it, Then they claim that devaluing the dollar making us cost less (paying us less by devalued currency) will make us more competitive and create more jobs.

2 posted on 01/20/2011 8:21:45 PM PST by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Did you know that Americans can’t build or register ships in the U.S.? Been going on for years. Too many regulations. Notice that most cruise ships are Liberian registry. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2001/06/11/304620/index.htm

Way to go, Libtards! You’ve regulated America out of an entire industry.


3 posted on 01/20/2011 9:28:08 PM PST by TruthHound ("He who does not punish evil commands it to be done." --Leonardo da Vinci)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

This piece is a near-complete load of twaddle.

Want to know why manufacturing employment has been going down?

It isn’t because wages are too high in the US.

It is because the US has been exporting manufacturing to China. And why do they keep going to China?

No. It has to do with currency pegs and absurdly low wages for the Chinese labor force.

How low?

$0.95/hour for urban manufacturing workers, $0.41/hour for rural manufacturing workers, as of 2002.

The BLS estimates Chinese labor costs are 3% of what US manufacturing labor costs are.

OK, so you say that US workers are overpaid. That’s nice. Now, how do you think Mexican workers, or Brazilian workers are paid? Too much?

Well, the total labor costs for Mexico or Brazil are about four times what they are in China. Are manufacturing employees in Mexico making out like bandits?

Didn’t think so.

The free trade advocates who think that the US can compete with China based on nothing but cutting regulations, unions and comp packages are simply full of crap. None of that will address the effective subsidy that China gives their manufacturing sector with a currency peg, and there is no way that manufacturing wages in the US will ever come close to those in the PRC.

http://www.bls.gov/fls/chinareport.pdf


4 posted on 01/20/2011 11:31:15 PM PST by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

This piece is a near-complete load of twaddle.

Want to know why manufacturing employment has been going down?

It isn’t because wages are too high in the US.

It is because the US has been exporting manufacturing to China. And why do they keep going to China?

No. It has to do with currency pegs and absurdly low wages for the Chinese labor force.

How low?

$0.95/hour for urban manufacturing workers, $0.41/hour for rural manufacturing workers, as of 2002.

The BLS estimates Chinese labor costs are 3% of what US manufacturing labor costs are.

OK, so you say that US workers are overpaid. That’s nice. Now, how do you think Mexican workers, or Brazilian workers are paid? Too much?

Well, the total labor costs for Mexico or Brazil are about four times what they are in China. Are manufacturing employees in Mexico making out like bandits?

Didn’t think so.

The free trade advocates who think that the US can compete with China based on nothing but cutting regulations, unions and comp packages are simply full of crap. None of that will address the effective subsidy that China gives their manufacturing sector with a currency peg, and there is no way that manufacturing wages in the US will ever come close to those in the PRC.

http://www.bls.gov/fls/chinareport.pdf


5 posted on 01/20/2011 11:33:46 PM PST by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Government regulations? What government regulations? All levels of government are about to default and drop most of their regulatory enforcement employees. The problem with that for free traitorous favored constituents is that their politically correct anti-domestic-competition and family busting regulatory enforcement will go right out the window, too. Globalist big shots, meet the groups of new, small businessmen in all American locales. Coming to a county or neighborhood near you (without local governments and HOAs—de facto governments—further empowered by ill-gotten revenues).


6 posted on 01/21/2011 12:45:05 AM PST by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt), NG, '89-' 96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Whatever the US is still manufacturing in force, I’d like to see a list of it. (Farming doesn’t count.) It sure doesn’t seem to show up in households where most of the doodads are now “made in China.”


7 posted on 01/21/2011 12:49:25 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Made in China actually means Assembled in China. I believe someone examined an iphone and discovered hardware and software were manufactured all over the world (including USA) for final assembly in China. Made in anywhere does not really mean anything anymore in the global market. One of the biggest costs to hiring manufacturing workers in the country is the FICA taxes. Since the Democrats will never support SS privitization the best way to level the playing field is to junk the payroll tax and just have a national sales tax which would in effect act as an import tax on non-US products.


8 posted on 01/21/2011 1:15:30 AM PST by DHerion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

“It is because the US has been exporting manufacturing to China.”

If that were true, then we would expect to see a corresponding decline in US manufacturing output. Unfortunately for your argument, US manufacturing output has more than doubled since 1975.

See data here:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/gvp.htm

The increase in US worker productivity in manufacturing has led to a corresponding decline in the number of manufacturing jobs.

See data here:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/gvp.htm

US manufacturing is simply going through the same progression that US farming went through.

See data here:
http://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm

In the 1700s, farm jobs accounted for over 90% of all jobs; today — thanks to better technology leading to far higher productivity per farmer — farm jobs account for less than 3% — that’s a lot of lost farm jobs. However, the US didn’t “export its farm jobs” abroad; it developed tractors and chemical fertilizers and other productivity-enhancing technologies, so that it doesn’t need 90% of its jobs to be in farming — it can produce more than those original 90% of all jobs with a mere 3% of all jobs. We are all better off because of increased farmer productivity, just as we are all better off with increased manufacturer productivity.


9 posted on 01/21/2011 1:39:04 AM PST by GoodDay (Palin for POTUS 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
Keynesian's(sic) who have been fixing our economy for over a decade.

They have been "fixing" the economy since FDR. They just get more influential and effective as the government gets more and more powerful and makes for itself more and more leverage on economic interaction. Swapping them for "monetarists" is no improvement, either. Monetarists tend to call for less statist outcomes but their methods are just as statist as those of the Keynesians. They ARE Keynesians in their perception of what makes an economy work. Monetarists like to think they promote the free market but they still believe the "free market" can/should only work if there are experts at the controls behind the scenes, manipulating and tweaking so that outcomes will look like the Free Market."

10 posted on 01/21/2011 2:53:06 AM PST by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Keynesians.


11 posted on 01/21/2011 2:53:26 AM PST by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot; SAJ; 1rudeboy; Mase
"...the US manufacturing sector, which still leads the world in manufacturing output. ...manufacturing output in the United States has increased for 17 consecutive months."

We already know this but still it's so nice to hear it again.   The focus of the piece is jobs though, and Westley does a better job than most in bringing us to the fact that factory jobs aren't being stolen by cheap foreigners, they're being stolen by cheap capital.

12 posted on 01/21/2011 3:02:20 AM PST by expat_panama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

Low wages in China are not low when output per dollar of input is considered. Productiveness of those low wage workers would be less than that of American high paid workers if the tax and regulation burden were equal. Remove all the excess regulatory and tax costs and American workers are more productive- produce more gain for their employers- in the US than in China or anywhere else. Tax and regulatory costs are not amenable to employers’ attempts to reduce costs per unit of output. Employee costs are. In order to remain competitive when tax costs are high and rising and unavoidable and regulatory costs are high and rising and unavoidable, then labor costs must be reduced. Automation is one response and offshoring is another. Our tax and regulation regime is what makes offshore labor relatively more productive than domestic. The prospect of the tremendous new costs that are coming-some already arrived- is a huge new incentive to send manufacturing offshore.

Offshoring does not occur because offshore labor cost is less per hour than American labor cost or because it is less per unit of product(it is not). It is because labor cost PLUS regulatory and tax costs is higher per unit of output in the US than it is offshore.


13 posted on 01/21/2011 3:09:02 AM PST by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
5) Republicans in the minority (esp out of the White House) act like Republicans, in the majority they act like Democrats .

And yet you're on FR shilling for who-knows-which RINO Free Traitor, and against the only conservative, pro-American, real Free Enterprize, potential candidate on the horizon (that would be Sarah Palin).

14 posted on 01/21/2011 3:18:29 AM PST by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoodDay

The Market does, in fact, work. The freer it is the better it works. Really, the only restrictions to that are a Judeo-Christian framework and stable and uniform laws(arguably most likely in a JC framework). There is no other basic framework for society wherein if two make an agreement to perform certain acts for their mutual benefit there is a reasonable expectation that those acts will be carried out. All other systems are less conducive to such mutual trust with the least conducive being Islam. Chinese business historically could become huge corporations but there were certain limits on them that still pertain to some extent. They were all family businesses and still are except that the government/army have substituted for family to a large extent. In countries with significant Christian presence, Korea being the prime example, there are economic “miracles” when the corruption and inefficiency of autocracy are successfully replaced with rule of law and stable government.


15 posted on 01/21/2011 3:27:07 AM PST by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GoodDay

Small detail: Making frozen pizza for home cooking is considered’manufacturing’ now.


16 posted on 01/21/2011 3:44:24 AM PST by investigateworld (Buy Ammo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

The article mentioned the elevator operators.... the only place I have seen them lately, in DC, where our royalty ruling class live - I assume our goobermint offishuls aren’t smart enough to operate elevators, they can’t figure out how to get to their floor! LOL


17 posted on 01/21/2011 4:23:32 AM PST by buffyt (Abortion is the ultimate CHILD ABUSE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn; calcowgirl; pissant
RE :”And yet you're on FR shilling for who-knows-which RINO Free Traitor, and against the only conservative, pro-American, real Free Enterprize, potential candidate on the horizon (that would be Sarah Palin).

AHHH, you missed the heated argument I got into with pissant the other day when he made a critical comment of Palin over Abortion and the US constitution and I told him Palin was right (she agreed with me anyway) and he was wrong.

To: shibumi; calcowgirl by pissant critical of Palin on abortion/constitution#13

Response to: pissant; calcowgirl by sickoflibs on US constituion and Palin #36

Response to pissant by sickoflibs on US constitution and Palin #40

The problem you have with me is I don't drink the Koolaid, if you claim something you better have proof, same with any potential candidate.

You made a claim the other day that Palin didnt need to do real interviews (to be elected president) because she had written on every possible issue in detail and you were an expert at her writings. When I called you out ON some specific examples you were shocked that I would call your bluff. I wouldnt tolerate such nonsense over any blindly worshipped icon no matter who it was.

18 posted on 01/21/2011 5:02:08 AM PST by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
BINGO! ‘Off shoring does not occur because offshore labor cost is less per hour than American labor cost or because it is less per unit of product(it is not). It is because labor cost PLUS regulatory and tax costs is higher per unit of output in the US than it is offshore’.
IMO, initially off shoring was mostly a response to large labor content mfg, shoes, garments etc....but currently US Mfg has been forced to offshore for several reasons the most significant being the cost added by government, taxes, regulatory, litigation, etc. Bad government is a problem and even more so if bad government becomes increasingly predatory like what we've had for several decades.
19 posted on 01/21/2011 5:59:37 AM PST by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: investigateworld
Small detail: Making frozen pizza for home cooking is considered’manufacturing’ now.

So is brewing beer. Do you think we drill for it?

20 posted on 01/21/2011 7:08:07 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Can you post that nifty chart of what the U.S. manufactures? Please be sure to include food & beverages.


21 posted on 01/21/2011 7:12:51 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Do you think we drill for it....

If we had too,yes.

Pizza and beer are consumables, necessities - yes.....

But to lump them in with steel and jet engines?

That's disingenuous.

22 posted on 01/21/2011 7:14:37 AM PST by investigateworld (Buy Ammo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: investigateworld
No, it only seems disingenuous, and is usually promoted by someone trying to make you scared enough to buy gold, or some sundry financial newsletter.

The categories can be broken-out into durable and non-durable goods. Please remember that those two terms have a specific meaning in the field of economics.

23 posted on 01/21/2011 7:22:04 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

This one?

24 posted on 01/21/2011 7:22:35 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

No, the one from Census . . . or is that one only for manufactured export goods? (You could post it anyway for reference).


25 posted on 01/21/2011 7:24:33 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

That was exports.


26 posted on 01/21/2011 7:25:46 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
U.S. Exports to World Total by 5-digit End-Use Code
2005-2009
(In thousands of dollars)

Additional information

End-Use Code Value 2005 Value 2006 Value 2007 Value 2008 Value 2009
(00000) Wheat 4,416,027 4,256,669 8,450,461 11,445,584 5,515,311
(00010) Rice 1,337,714 1,337,293 1,471,002 2,311,533 2,274,187
(00100) Soybeans 6,626,555 7,288,375 10,443,447 16,031,502 16,905,202
(00110) Oilseeds, food oils 1,190,935 1,329,691 2,034,425 3,190,447 2,525,373
(00200) Corn 5,824,420 8,226,378 11,209,235 14,611,992 9,680,733
(00210) Sorghum, barley, oats 628,355 707,276 1,226,515 1,487,777 728,478
(00220) Animal feeds, n.e.c. 3,387,722 3,813,842 4,567,605 5,931,953 6,350,471
(00300) Meat, poultry, etc. 7,206,280 7,830,539 9,803,526 13,473,914 12,056,081
(00310) Dairy products and eggs 1,299,418 1,491,901 2,452,990 3,245,250 1,880,555
(00320) Fruits, frozen juices 4,996,914 5,565,404 6,204,632 7,147,122 6,888,310
(00330) Vegetables 3,509,842 3,852,542 4,320,698 5,091,865 4,942,980
(00340) Nuts 3,043,642 3,226,764 3,449,396 3,898,846 4,183,367
(00350) Bakery products 2,696,155 2,997,266 3,458,496 3,972,302 4,057,777
(00360) Other foods 5,872,533 6,585,524 7,282,239 8,312,435 8,116,537
(00370) Wine and related products 912,592 1,098,847 1,217,621 1,299,056 1,273,536
(01000) Fish and shellfish 4,207,720 4,350,747 4,374,738 4,373,778 4,088,512
(01010) Alcoholic beverages, excluding wine 821,174 958,548 1,176,751 1,280,937 1,169,517
(01020) Nonagricultural foods, etc. 977,358 1,044,775 1,120,494 1,242,933 1,270,889
(10000) Cotton, raw 3,933,122 4,516,513 4,590,808 4,814,406 3,368,670
(10100) Tobacco, unmanufactured 983,722 1,134,076 1,201,464 1,231,004 1,133,193
(10120) Hides and skins 1,787,883 2,055,688 2,182,541 2,066,608 1,465,990
(10130) Agric. industry-unmanufactured 1,401,808 1,578,557 2,126,111 3,270,157 2,781,143
(10140) Agric. farming-unmanufactured 1,833,043 1,848,596 2,082,180 2,470,796 2,358,184
(10150) Agriculture-manufactured, other 1,651,371 1,733,912 1,917,364 2,219,799 2,087,976
(11010) Metallurgical grade coal 2,385,524 2,563,510 2,937,949 5,810,995 4,455,228
(11020) Coal and fuels, other 1,329,221 1,337,047 1,676,376 2,793,453 2,066,459
(11100) Crude oil 551,652 567,086 751,092 1,031,499 972,228
(11110) Fuel oil 6,932,607 12,060,896 15,573,765 34,894,056 23,670,220
(11120) Petroleum products, other 14,104,621 17,316,831 19,325,281 27,995,137 21,731,464
(11130) Natural gas liquids 1,075,494 1,623,363 2,107,542 3,260,336 2,803,344
(11200) Gas-natural 3,109,833 2,241,159 3,163,501 4,892,249 3,286,064
(11300) Nuclear fuel materials 1,619,190 1,827,382 2,430,288 2,177,672 2,283,340
(11400) Electric energy 1,046,509 1,036,051 991,907 1,263,886 561,929
(12000) Steelmaking materials 5,991,623 6,801,742 9,882,359 14,193,933 8,548,322
(12100) Iron and steel mill products 6,917,987 7,280,901 8,857,734 11,471,121 7,063,152
(12110) Iron and steel products, other 4,351,229 5,161,823 5,779,523 7,264,146 5,412,567
(12200) Aluminum and alumina 5,191,121 7,293,397 8,029,016 8,569,567 5,691,779
(12210) Copper 2,356,484 4,701,430 5,378,672 6,125,726 4,085,511
(12260) Nonmonetary gold 5,548,806 8,783,018 13,307,357 18,689,079 13,932,512
(12270) Precious metals, other 3,175,711 7,041,535 8,438,360 10,564,281 8,007,692
(12290) Nonferrous metals, other 4,523,315 6,601,440 8,060,264 7,765,131 5,825,561
(12300) Finished metal shapes 11,405,809 13,941,026 15,288,523 16,918,626 13,091,337
(12420) Pulpwood and woodpulp 5,272,294 5,907,916 7,112,556 7,940,832 6,848,862
(12430) Newsprint 9,862,581 10,567,425 11,543,605 12,462,794 10,759,362
(12500) Plastic materials 24,793,298 27,923,880 29,118,286 31,639,545 25,543,801
(12510) Chemicals-fertilizers 5,197,329 5,299,442 6,292,134 10,760,304 7,034,570
(12530) Chemicals-inorganic 5,880,332 6,660,376 7,014,514 8,356,994 6,018,503
(12540) Chemicals-organic 23,377,062 27,124,997 31,622,940 33,351,324 24,602,598
(12550) Chemicals-other 16,721,139 18,518,081 20,421,169 23,176,664 20,785,260
(12600) Cotton fiber cloth 3,232,897 3,131,450 2,857,846 2,777,619 2,115,630
(12620) Manmade cloth 5,686,350 5,772,104 5,872,791 6,046,710 4,743,467
(12630) Hair, waste materials 483,543 552,491 606,774 617,950 488,015
(12640) Finished textile supplies 2,377,417 2,539,263 2,467,721 2,440,976 2,072,266
(12650) Leather and furs 1,095,540 1,051,872 1,150,922 935,118 568,783
(12700) Synthetic rubber-primary 2,694,877 3,188,402 3,609,603 3,763,748 2,792,362
(12720) Nonmetallic minerals 488,854 605,025 581,999 825,002 481,209
(12750) Industrial rubber products 2,585,845 2,929,954 3,249,079 3,372,866 2,864,700
(12760) Mineral supplies-manufactured 3,751,497 4,513,271 4,932,509 4,994,114 4,027,656
(12765) Tapes, audio and visual 2,014,146 1,796,091 584,404 505,783 696,209
(12770) Other industrial supplies 14,793,038 16,415,191 19,854,838 20,443,435 17,932,452
(13100) Logs and lumber 4,332,968 4,604,286 4,730,702 4,417,280 3,523,549
(13110) Wood supplies, manufactured 1,074,196 1,221,734 1,279,670 1,399,805 1,014,437
(13200) Glass-plate, sheet, etc. 1,141,029 1,279,408 1,475,229 1,628,697 1,344,362
(13210) Shingles, molding, wallboard 2,637,272 3,022,113 3,413,712 3,875,079 3,341,640
(13220) Nontextile floor tiles 377,329 415,826 462,505 498,880 425,461
(20000) Generators, accessories 7,613,908 9,467,357 10,415,345 12,125,075 10,296,288
(20005) Electric apparatus 25,674,197 29,809,799 30,884,798 30,835,619 26,062,564
(21000) Drilling & oilfield equipment 8,153,668 10,779,975 12,611,364 15,064,587 11,467,010
(21010) Specialized mining 634,938 838,723 1,059,037 1,436,270 1,123,268
(21030) Excavating machinery 8,812,827 9,870,857 12,790,982 15,079,628 9,810,299
(21040) Nonfarm tractors and parts 1,382,445 1,859,599 2,102,594 3,410,665 2,048,417
(21100) Industrial engines 14,934,258 15,976,883 19,147,306 21,848,649 21,916,203
(21110) Food, tobacco machinery 2,064,865 2,193,266 2,610,392 3,055,859 2,722,159
(21120) Metalworking machine tools 7,663,288 9,497,605 6,715,081 7,442,813 5,298,367
(21130) Textile, sewing machines 1,247,851 1,273,208 1,384,618 1,323,294 965,597
(21140) Wood, glass, plastic 3,645,557 3,628,075 3,510,729 4,139,420 3,414,628
(21150) Pulp and paper machinery 2,718,324 2,852,539 2,701,033 2,955,993 2,311,204
(21160) Measuring, testing, control instruments 16,720,633 19,151,971 20,629,956 20,984,430 16,939,642
(21170) Materials handling equipment 8,162,312 9,919,919 11,985,740 14,728,350 9,722,423
(21180) Industrial machines, other 28,295,944 32,697,001 38,364,090 38,138,302 30,876,273
(21190) Photo, service industry machinery 7,492,107 8,192,305 9,191,558 9,846,793 7,888,360
(21200) Agricultural machinery, equipment 5,144,124 5,312,437 6,268,756 8,297,054 6,253,057
(21300) Computers 10,206,187 11,470,423 13,535,351 14,560,866 12,314,744
(21301) Computer accessories 35,330,167 36,109,996 29,403,993 29,336,861 25,402,179
(21320) Semiconductors 47,221,556 52,429,936 50,444,550 50,603,102 37,487,996
(21400) Telecommunications equipment 25,666,771 28,930,842 31,424,350 32,865,982 28,683,134
(21500) Business machines and equipment 2,335,954 2,702,010 5,392,134 4,246,641 2,973,575
(21600) Laboratory testing instruments 6,665,275 7,280,227 8,128,335 9,011,278 8,693,696
(21610) Medicinal equipment 20,364,358 22,702,165 23,825,242 27,023,260 26,879,276
(22090) Civilian aircraft, engines, equipment, and parts 55,888,616 64,502,981 73,019,297 73,998,632 74,755,438
(22100) Railway transportation equipment 2,345,207 2,939,640 3,013,878 3,430,978 2,500,782
(22200) Vessels, excluding scrap 64,957 51,701 108,920 88,165 22,016
(22210) Commercial vessels, other 230,358 222,441 293,268 372,734 395,242
(22220) Marine engines, parts 976,964 1,127,719 1,267,760 1,450,095 1,188,961
(22300) Spacecraft, excluding military 37,955 26,879 30,336 26,555 48,362
(30000) Passenger cars, new and used 30,492,691 33,977,613 43,743,138 49,568,671 27,501,371
(30100) Trucks, buses and special purpose vehicles 13,477,345 15,104,176 17,033,187 15,753,472 12,472,506
(30200) Engines and engine parts (carburetors, pistons, ri 11,324,368 12,197,079 13,222,680 12,860,797 8,775,176
(30210) Bodies and chassis for passenger cars 58,449 58,906 187,253 193,100 65,257
(30220) Automotive tires and tubes 2,403,281 2,487,460 2,733,607 3,076,308 2,768,978
(30230) Other parts and accessories of vehicles 40,916,620 43,336,184 44,330,344 39,850,620 30,131,644
(40000) Apparel, household goods - textile 5,311,955 5,199,401 4,744,950 4,913,001 4,767,587
(40030) Apparel,household goods-nontextile 1,672,191 1,839,910 1,953,582 2,232,846 2,117,895
(40050) Sports apparel and gear 485,324 588,789 565,214 607,659 520,298
(40100) Pharmaceutical preparations 27,618,757 30,919,365 35,164,635 40,422,158 46,122,661
(40110) Books, printed matter 4,820,801 5,205,957 5,586,630 5,808,117 5,183,642
(40120) Toiletries and cosmetics 5,975,099 6,760,241 7,615,193 8,715,182 8,436,427
(40130) Tobacco, manufactured 1,340,630 1,362,074 1,157,107 858,340 533,247
(40140) Writing and art supplies 5,623,401 5,835,270 6,182,716 6,743,648 5,942,634
(41000) Furniture, household goods, etc. 2,885,663 3,209,952 3,591,487 4,045,732 3,221,439
(41010) Glassware, chinaware 405,241 433,268 493,571 521,438 395,705
(41020) Cookware, cutlery, tools 771,945 871,885 1,003,808 1,029,246 840,518
(41030) Household appliances 6,050,859 6,636,064 6,940,036 7,376,021 5,919,684
(41040) Rugs 906,070 1,008,340 1,023,943 1,090,418 849,025
(41050) Other household goods 12,428,236 14,078,144 15,458,272 17,020,468 16,629,750
(41110) Pleasure boats and motors 2,480,770 2,784,741 3,149,061 3,423,537 2,050,067
(41120) Toys/games/sporting goods 7,564,206 9,044,514 11,288,684 11,615,803 9,839,225
(41140) Musical instruments 1,058,999 1,066,449 2,110,834 2,182,878 2,108,088
(41200) TV's, VCR's, etc. 3,639,449 3,867,843 3,858,229 3,747,936 3,904,324
(41210) Stereo equipment, etc. 2,213,713 2,460,028 2,469,801 2,272,000 1,786,163
(41220) Records, tapes, and disks 3,640,005 3,543,387 4,962,046 5,135,017 4,035,140
(41300) Numismatic coins 67,805 155,242 244,792 321,107 282,087
(41310) Jewelry, etc 4,727,493 6,150,140 6,974,894 7,189,366 6,807,589
(41320) Artwork, antiques, stamps, etc. 4,778,136 5,952,850 7,497,948 8,448,043 6,861,140
(42000) Nursery stock, etc. 341,782 388,513 422,700 444,337 405,493
(42100) Gem diamonds 8,906,873 9,986,079 12,328,131 15,250,311 10,483,995
(50000) Military aircraft, complete 2,417,217 4,464,053 4,174,989 4,580,069 2,381,208
(50010) Aircraft launching gear, parachutes, etc. 305,808 344,801 329,905 393,594 452,002
(50020) Engines and turbines for military aircraft 1,566,406 1,643,263 1,780,258 1,772,342 1,912,519
(50030) Military trucks, armored vehicles, etc. 920,345 845,650 1,031,680 926,068 1,012,332
(50040) Military ships and boats 0 5,170 23,310 8,624 0
(50050) Tanks, artillery, missiles, rockets, guns and ammu 2,037,040 2,714,832 2,935,530 2,881,743 3,121,615
(50060) Military apparel and footwear 668,594 693,126 654,518 540,713 434,997
(50070) Parts for military-type goods 4,919,362 5,917,827 5,963,682 5,490,903 5,481,298
(60000) Minimum value shipments 18,800,866 21,595,289 24,277,382 27,830,906 22,610,420
(60010) Miscellaneous domestic exports and special transac 5,328,568 5,365,184 6,128,446 6,237,098 5,799,825
(60040) Undocumented exports to Canada 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 901,081,813 1,025,967,497 1,148,198,722 1,287,441,997 1,056,042,963

27 posted on 01/21/2011 7:30:07 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck; Toddsterpatriot

Thanks, T. Please see #27 above. It is only for manufactured exports, but provides a decent snapshot.


28 posted on 01/21/2011 7:35:45 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Actually all exports, not just manufactured.


29 posted on 01/21/2011 7:38:08 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
You made a claim the other day that Palin didnt need to do real interviews (to be elected president)

I made no such claim that "Palin didn't need to do real interviews".

She surely doesn't owe you such an interview, but she has written two books, 297 articles, and has made over a hundred speeches, for which I provided links, and you still did not bother to read or watch.

30 posted on 01/21/2011 7:38:26 AM PST by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; ex-Texan
First off, I'm not a gold bug, we are beyond that stage. Bullets and beans are the only things now on my shopping list.

I predicted,YEARS ago that our insane free trade policies would cause us to elect a socialist/communist President of the USA.

"Oh no", replied the Free Traders, "Home ownership has never been higher thanks to free trade ",they cried.

31 posted on 01/21/2011 7:38:32 AM PST by investigateworld (Buy Ammo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

A friend of mine works in a American factory. Their Chinese factory makes the same product which goes out to the market with a 70% failure rate. If their US factory would ever rise to a 3% failure rate then they would be standing in front of corporate explaining why they should still have their jobs. The Chinese government makes that 70% waste possible.


32 posted on 01/21/2011 7:41:35 AM PST by Hillarys Gate Cult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: investigateworld

Still spreading that lie? LOL!


33 posted on 01/21/2011 7:47:01 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: investigateworld

Home ownership? Was that in NAFTA, or is it simply a WTO thing?


34 posted on 01/21/2011 7:48:48 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

I remember lots of talk when things were going well. I remember lots of laughs anticipating how people would react when things started not to go well. But I never anticipated that the reaction would be to blame people for saying things are going well when they were going well, because things went not well in the future.


35 posted on 01/21/2011 8:00:19 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn
RE :” I made no such claim that “Palin didn't need to do real interviews”. She surely doesn't owe you such an interview,...”

Jeeze, you take BOTH sides of the argument in the same paragraph.

If she decides to run for president she will have to give up her current role and take on another one including giving real interviews. There is nothing wrong with what she is doing now, just your unrealistic expectations. She is doing a service now attacking Democrats.

THIS IS THE REPLY THAT STARTED IT FOR REFERENCE:

Palin Fans like her, fans believe in her, they love watching her nailing Democrats and Obama, But fans have a grip on reality.

Palin-bot’s are driven by emotion. When asked questions about her being anointed president without a campaign they go on the attack. Everything is ‘circle the wagons’ to them. They want Sarah to stay mysterious, to hide her real positions from the left, and right, because they fear that they will keep her from being president. Their deepest fear is she may not run, so they endlessly look for others to blame for saying she shouldn't run, so they can vent on them. They think she can win a general election on Facebook and Hannity while everyone else has to be vetted by those NOT trying to get them elected. They are completely delusional. They are not headed for a happy ending.

36 posted on 01/21/2011 8:17:18 AM PST by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GoodDay

I don’t see anywhere in the Fed’s notes that this data is adjusted for either the PPI or CPI-U inflation during that period.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/Releases/G17/ip_notes.htm

Simply throwing up a “gross value of products” during the timeframe of 1975 to now (encompassing two periods of significant producer price increases) doesn’t impress me much. Never has. This is one of the favorite stats of those who keep trying to explain away the declining capacity utilization, the decline in establishments, employment and the systemic trade imbalance.

As for the productivity argument: Manufacturing productivity is soaring right now. Has been since the downturn began getting real bad in late 2008.

I suppose it is then your argument that what will really benefit the US economy and the manufacturing sectors especially is another recession just like 2007 to 2009, right? Hell, if the recession pushed manufacturing output measured by GVP per employee to $300K, another recession might put it over $400K, right?


37 posted on 01/21/2011 9:46:31 AM PST by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

Weeding out all the bad items would be a challenge with most of the raw output being bad. I wonder what the respective reliability of the ultimate shipments are.


38 posted on 01/21/2011 6:00:04 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: investigateworld

“Small detail: Making frozen pizza for home cooking is considered’manufacturing’ now.”

So? Don’t be such a snob. These are also considered manufacturing jobs:

2007 NAICS DEFINITION

31 Manufacturing
311 Food Manufacturing
3111 Animal Food Manufacturing
31111 Animal Food Manufacturing
311111 Dog and Cat Food Manufacturing
311119 Other Animal Food Manufacturing
3112 Grain and Oilseed Milling
31121 Flour Milling and Malt Manufacturing
311211 Flour Milling
311212 Rice Milling
311213 Malt Manufacturing
31122 Starch and Vegetable Fats and Oils Manufacturing
311221 Wet Corn Milling
311222 Soybean Processing
311223 Other Oilseed Processing
311225 Fats and Oils Refining and Blending
31123 Breakfast Cereal Manufacturing
311230 Breakfast Cereal Manufacturing
3113 Sugar and Confectionery Product Manufacturing
31131 Sugar Manufacturing
311311 Sugarcane Mills
311312 Cane Sugar Refining
311313 Beet Sugar Manufacturing
31132 Chocolate and Confectionery Manufacturing from Cacao Beans
311320 Chocolate and Confectionery Manufacturing from Cacao Beans
31133 Confectionery Manufacturing from Purchased Chocolate
311330 Confectionery Manufacturing from Purchased Chocolate
31134 Nonchocolate Confectionery Manufacturing
311340 Nonchocolate Confectionery Manufacturing
3114 Fruit and Vegetable Preserving and Specialty Food Manufacturing
31141 Frozen Food Manufacturing
311411 Frozen Fruit, Juice, and Vegetable Manufacturing
311412 Frozen Specialty Food Manufacturing
31142 Fruit and Vegetable Canning, Pickling, and Drying
311421 Fruit and Vegetable Canning
311422 Specialty Canning
311423 Dried and Dehydrated Food Manufacturing
3115 Dairy Product Manufacturing
31151 Dairy Product (except Frozen) Manufacturing
311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing
311512 Creamery Butter Manufacturing
311513 Cheese Manufacturing
311514 Dry, Condensed, and Evaporated Dairy Product Manufacturing
31152 Ice Cream and Frozen Dessert Manufacturing
311520 Ice Cream and Frozen Dessert Manufacturing
etc., etc.

For a complete list, see:
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?chart_code=31&search=2007


39 posted on 01/22/2011 2:31:25 AM PST by GoodDay (Palin for POTUS 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

“Simply throwing up a “gross value of products” during the timeframe of 1975 to now (encompassing two periods of significant producer price increases) doesn’t impress me much. Never has.”

That’s probably because you’re a knucklehead when it comes to economics, which is why you engage in unnecessary scare-mongering about China. That’s OK. I understand.

The Fed numbers don’t use prices. As the Fed itself explains in its own notes, the productivity numbers are based on figures from trade organizations that count physical units of a good, as well as things like number of man-hours. Prices — inflated or not — don’t enter into it.

See:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/ip_notes.htm

“Source data. On a monthly basis, the individual indexes of industrial production are constructed from two main types of source data: (1) output measured in physical units and (2) data on inputs to the production process, from which output is inferred. Data on physical products, such as tons of steel or barrels of oil, are typically obtained from private trade associations and from government agencies . . .”


40 posted on 01/22/2011 2:43:22 AM PST by GoodDay (Palin for POTUS 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: NVDave
"The free trade advocates who think that the US can compete with China based on nothing but cutting regulations, unions and comp packages are simply full of crap."

Those who insult have already lost the argument.

41 posted on 01/22/2011 8:46:16 AM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson