Skip to comments.Here's How Many Manufacturing Jobs We've Lost Since Obama Took Office
Posted on 12/02/2016 10:30:27 AM PST by Kaslin
As the media begins to draw a pretty picture about the November jobs report, namely that unemployment has dropped to 4.6 percent, its lowest level in nine years, they are unlikely to tell you the other part of the story. The labor force participation rate continues to decline and is stuck at a rate we haven't seen since February 1978, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
It gets worse. Last month, we lost 4,000 manufacturing jobs, offering more damage to the already 301,000 we've lost since President Obama took office. The Republican National Committee says that is going to change under President-elect Donald Trump, who has already brought 1,000 of those manufacturing jobs back.
The 4,000 manufacturing jobs that disappeared last month come on top of the over 300,000 that have been lost under President Obama, more proof that President-elect Donald Trumps efforts to stand up for the American worker is the commitment our country needs right now, said RNC Co-Chair Sharon Day in a statement on Friday. This election showed that millions of Americans dont trust Democrats to create good jobs and opportunity, and President-elect Trumps determination to save 1,000 jobs in Indiana is just a preview of his agenda of prosperity for all. Even before taking office, President-elect Trump has proven that protecting and creating jobs will be among his highest priorities as president, and Americans who have spent years struggling under President Obama can look forward to a brighter future for themselves and their families.
Just for giggles, here's a flashback of Obama mocking Trump for needing a miracle to keep Carrier jobs in the U.S.
There is always a very different story than what is put out by the deceptive media.
They need to lose all those jobs to create a massive welfare state
...fundamentally changing America
I wish Trump would “reset” the way our unemployment numbers are calculated. No more manipulation of the numbers by reducing the labor participation rate. Let’s move away from the Obama spin and use real numbers.
Do it early so that people are aware of the change so that it won’t be blamed on Trump years later for the higher numbers.
Every factory job supports one service level job.
There are a number of sources cited within this article. One startling point that jumps out to me is that the U.S. has lost more than 7 million factory jobs since 1979, yet U.S. factory production has more than doubled in that period.
Or more, but thanks for mentioning that. Ecomonomist generally say the multiplier is in the range of 3 to 5 jobs. This is the ripple effect of salaries paid to manufacturing workers that is then spent several times over in the local economy, buying groceries, making car and home payments, buying insurance and haircuts, etc. When these jobs are lost, the impact on the local economy is thus much greater than just the factory worker, and these costs fall on communities that have limited power to address them.
Here is an info graphic that I hope everyone can take a minute to look at, as this is really important for us to understand and support at the local level as well:
>>>There is always a very different story than what is put out by the deceptive media.
That’s right. There were 4.5MM manufacturing jobs lost during W’s eight years.
The way I read the link, the figure is 1.4 million - and 3.5 million under his predecessor. The Uniparty has never given a cr@p about the American working man.
Fundamentally changing America as we know her.
It’s all part of his “destroy America” agenda — one of the many nails he has driven in America’s coffin.
No fan of this guy but:
The economy is bad, no two ways about it.
Regulations drive manufacturers out of US.
But, many jobs are automated for many reasons, not all of them bad.
Americans are the most productive workers in the world. Productivity many times translates into fewer labor jobs. This is good as it mens lower prices for consumers.
If it is simply about people working, I am reminded of an engineer on a consulting job in China. They were building a dam but were moving massive amounts of material with shovels and baskets. The engineer noted that the job could be more efficiently done with dozers and such. The supervisors said, “But all of these people would be out of work.” The engineer thought a minute and responded. “Get them spoons.”
My point is, this is, in some respects, an apples and oranges comparison.
Exactly right. Check the info I posted (#8) and you’ll see why the democrats could care less about manufacturing job losses or faked unemployment data — it just means that many more people end up turning to the government as the last resort to support their families. Sure they go from having a decent paying job to being on the dole and barely getting by, but boy are they ever grateful to the Federal Government for those wonderful programs that were there when they needed help...
Remember the depression era pics of people in soup lines or selling apples on the corner? People are not forced to those extremese today because of the EBT card. And which party wants more of that? And which batch of meanies wants to cut or take it away?
The link in Post #7 indicates that U.S. manufacturing employment peaked in 1979. This means that:
1. U.S. manufacturing jobs declined under Ronald Reagan.
2. U.S. manufacturing jobs declined under George H. W. Bush.
3. U.S. manufacturing jobs declined under Bill Clinton.
4. U.S. manufacturing jobs declined under George W. Bush.
I'm starting to see a trend here. I think it's safe to predict the following:
5. U.S. manufacturing jobs will decline under Donald Trump.
Not just large quantities of raw materials, and sub-assy’s,but; packaging, corrugated, pallets,banding,shrink wrap. Business forms,computers,mfg lubricants, mfg cleaning solutions. E-coating,plating, painting, welding wire, gas for welding, laser cutting,plasma cutting,tool&die services, inserts for maching/turning,use of accounting firms, lawyers, labor lawyers, mfg software,accounting software,etc,etc.
Sure the business is the engine that drives the multiplier, the worker is just a convenient way to communicate about it.
A better way of thinking about local economies that I use with my consulting clients is to “follow the money”.
Traditionally the primary sector of the economy was agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining, because oftentimes the output of those endeavors exceeded the local demand, and the surplus was exported (to the extent that transportation systems allowed.
When manufacturing came along, it provided another means by which a community could generate a net inflow of cash, over and above it’s own consumption. And because manufacturing could be done almost anywhere, it enabled many communities to achieve prosperity that otherwsie wasn’t possible because they lacked the natural resources (such as fertile ground, ore deposits, etc).
So if you look at a community and ask “where does the money come from”, you instantly see the importance of manufacturing in many of them, as it is or has become the primary means of export, and thus the primary means through which new outside cash flows in. Take it away and the local economy must shrink to the point where local consumption and local demand are equal, which is to say, a subsistence economy.
The multiplier effect really doesn’t matter whether the jobs in a community are in manufacturing or in any other industry that generates a net influx of new outside cash into the community (for example, a call center or healthcare center, except for the difference in wages). To the extent that manufacturers can get suppliers to co-located and thus bring their jobs and mulitplier to a community, the better the economy is.
Even tourism, which only produces intangibles (i.e. “experiences”) is equally effective as a net cash importer. But it lacks the durability of manufacturing - just look at the impact of a gas price hike or infectious disease can have almost instantly on tourism.
Manufacturing is good, but any economic activity that exceeds local demand and thus results in a net cash inflow is essential.
To the extent that manufacturers can get suppliers to co-located and thus bring their jobs and multiplier to a community, the better the economy is.
I'm coming across a number of cases where manufacturers do not want suppliers to be located nearby. One particular case involved an auto manufacturer that opened a new plant in the U.S. and writes a provision in their suppliers' contracts that prohibits a supplier from locating a facility within X miles of the main plant.
They do this so they don't have to deal with a scenario where the auto manufacturer and the suppliers end up competing for the same pool of labor.
The things you learn when you see how business work ...
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.