US Manufacturing's Steep Decline Calls for New Trade Policies

TradeAlert.org ^ | Thursday, September 11, 2003 | William R. Hawkins

[Puddleglum]

When Americans are willing to accept a lower standard of living, a more pronounced caste system, fewer medical benefits, a less certain future as retirees, a dirtier environment, a more hazardous workplace, fewer lawsuits, then the manufacturing jobs will come back. I am all for rolling back burdensome regulation, and for turning out more engineering from our universities, but if the benchmark for attracting manufacturing jobs is to become more like India in all these ways, that's going to be tough for the USA to accept - and remain the USA.

IMHO, American business is going to glut on this cheap labor like an alcoholic choosing between name-brand beer and some third-world import that somehow made it to the shelves. Business will glut and glut on the knock-off beer, get one hell of an infection, find itself on a gurney needing life support, then ask Uncle Sam (you and me) to foot its medical bill, promising to change its ways from here on out. "I never knew it would make my whole body (country, consumer market) sick. I was just looking for a short-term buzz/stock price and salary boost."

End of rant.

[A. Pole]

Defenders of transnational corporations are responding to this crisis of confidence with new arguments meant to distract the public from blaming global managers for the "jobless recovery" in the United States. The current fad is to cite higher productivity for the loss of 2.7 million manufacturing jobs during the last three years.

"meant to distract"! They treat us like small children.

[A. Pole]

Columbia Economics professor R. Glenn Hubbard, who until last March was chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, argues, "[...] The decline in manufacturing employment resembles that in agriculture in the last century, in which robust productivity growth characterized American performance, and millions of workers exited agriculture for other segments of the economy".

What are those "segments"?

[ARCADIA]

They treat us like small children.

You can not distract those that are feeling the effects, or those who are attuned to the economy. But, it works wonders on most population, because they want to belive that their little chunk of the American pie is still nicely secure.

[Mortimer Snavely]

Not only NAFTA but East Asia.

[A. Pole]

Throw some cash and training at Johnny Lunchpail to teach him how to program in Java.

What are you talking about?!

[A. Pole]

Mr. Hawkins thinks that increasing productivity is evil

Have you read the article?

[A. Pole]

A quick keyword search through the US constitution for "common good" produces zero results.

The actual phrase is a little different, that is why you failed to find it. Instead of doing the keyword search, READ the Constitution.

[A. Pole]

Military secrets being sold by the Clintons for campaign contributions to the Chicoms and a tax hike.

Now the military technology is being outsourced to China for free as a part of free trade.

[JohnSmithee]

"Then why stop at erecting trade barriers at the national level. We can really raise our standard of living by preventing trades between individual states...or for that matter by different counties within a single state."

Not really. Trade barriers would only make sense if you are importing far more than you are exporting. Also, states generally do not have the size to compete with national industries, and thus barriers at the state level will mostly be counterproductive.

[Eva]

Here's the answer to your post, Economic Fascism

[Willie Green]

Willie, How do you manage to stay on the list after posting such a factually true but very anti-Bush proposition?

All my criticism is based on legitimate issues for which I also present factual evidence.
And as a true conservative, I do not participate in the blatantly false and hateful smears and Anti-American propaganda put forth by the marxist liberal 'Rats.

[RaceBannon]

Can anybody say tax hikes and more regulations that will send more jobs offshore.

If you are against these from Kerry/Dean/Gore/Hillary/gephart, why arent you against them when they are GWB's?

[A. Pole]

Willie, How do you manage to stay on the list after posting such a factually true but very anti-Bush proposition?

You priorities are confused. It is Bush who should serve the country (to be pro-American)and not the other way around (to be pro-Bush).

[RaceBannon]

Wow, who's cutting the cheese in here? If you are looking for the cradle of socialism, I suggest you look over your shoulder. Trade unions and other protectionists are the people advocating government interference in the economy

Looks like you holding the knife, friend...

Why FREE TRADE was never the answer.

[janetgreen]

His pathetic performance is deserving of far harsher condemnation than anything that I post on this forum.

That bears repeating! Domestically, Bush has been a great disappointment to America, he only listens to foreigners.

[RockyMtnMan]

Higher productivity basically means you do more work for the same pay because your co-workers just got canned.

[ninenot]

There's one hell of a difference between sound social policy and "unfettered capitalism." The union movement, over the last 25 years, has 'grown' away from its roots, which was essentially a sound social policy.

They will have to fix that, you are correct.

But in the meantime, LaBush & Co could be backing off on enviro crap, HR regulations (like ERISA,) and working a bit harder to reduce liability costs (read: stuffing the ambulance-chasers back into Hell where they came from.)

The problem, you see, is more than just "Union Stuff." I am well-acquainted with a multitude of NON-union manufacturing entities that can no longer compete with RedChina, our enemy.

Yes, the union movement needs to take a hard look at what it has endorsed and wrought. But the Administration MUST take a hard look at its priorities.

Wars are not fought only with bullets...

[ninenot]

*** PRODUCTIVITY IS INCREASING ***

If you are referring to the most recent series on this, you undoubtedly know that the AMAZING gain in productivity is quite temporary: it's a result of increased sales (from inventory of finished goods,) accomplished with nobody on the shop floor actually producing those goods.

Over the longer term, the productivity gains (usually in the 2% range) are a good thing, as you state.

But the question here is a bit more challenging than that.

The concern rises from the permanent loss of manufacturing skills and capabilities--e.g., in the tool-and-die/stamping and machining areas.

You may argue that these segments are cheaper in China, and you are correct.

But the argument should not be solely on price: the argument must take into consideration the strategic requirements of maintaining a defense industry AND maintaining the capability of manufacturing goods ON OUR SHORES.

If you're not old enough to remember--my parents, back in the mid-to-late 1970's would NEVER buy a foreign car. So I asked them why? And their response: Parts.

Oh, yes, you will NOT get parts from overseas when shipping lanes are under attack. You will NOT get parts from overseas if the country which produces them is in active hostilities--even if it's not engaged in such with the USA.

Still don't care about the erosion of industry because you saved $2K in your manufactured-goods purchases this year?