Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (52861)	3/10/2008 5:29:51 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 542213

Left for dead, manufacturing cries out for workers A large and important sector of the state's economy is struggling to lure young workers despite the promise of high salaries and other incentives. By DEE DePASS, Star Tribune Last update: March 9, 2008 - 3:59 PM Manufacturing is far from dead, but too many young people think they've already seen the obituary. That's the word from Gov. Tim Pawlenty and companies across the state who met late last week at a series of roundtables to brainstorm about how to attract and prepare reluctant young workers to what in many cases remains a high-paying field. The governor, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) and MnSCU hosted roundtables in Rochester, Brainerd and South St. Paul to discuss potential solutions to the widespread problem. Manufacturers told Pawlenty that they have jobs to offer, but can't find skilled workers or students interested in training. Many young adults are passing up career opportunities with extensive training and salaries that begin at $50,000 a year, they said. "It's frustrating," Pawlenty said at hydrant maker Waterous Co. in South St. Paul. "People have the mistaken impression that manufacturing's a dead industry and that we are not making anything in America anymore. That's not true. Thirteen percent of all the jobs in Minnesota are manufacturing. ... It remains a really important part of our economy." Another myth plaguing the industry is that all manufacturing is "old, dark and dirty," officials said. In contrast, most manufacturing is now done in modern facilities that use robotics and computers. "This is not your mother or father's manufacturing industry. This is not only about pulling the lever on a machine anymore," Pawlenty said. Still, many parents dissuade children from heading to technical colleges and factory jobs... startribune.com

To: TimF who wrote (52861)	3/11/2008 1:18:30 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542213

I think you have that one backwards. It is kind of hard to find the exact numbers, but roughly speaking: 1) US trade deficit in manufactured goods for 2007: $679B 2) US GDP 2007: $13.5T 3) US manufacturing sector fraction of GDP (2007): 12.1% so about $1.63T. So our manufactured goods trade deficit amounts to about .679/1.63 = 42% of our gross internal manufacturing. I can't find a historical graph of just the manufactured goods trade deficit, but I suspect this has largely developed in the last 15 years, with much of it happening in the last decade. Of course I have no way (and neither does anyone else) of saying how much of that 42% COULD have been snagged by domestic manufacturers, as clearly some of it is increased consumption as a result of products which customers want at a price they find attractive. But what I CAN say is that the magnitude of our imbalance in manufactured goods is sizeable compared to out internal manufacturing, so it is at least reasonable that this has had a significant impact on domestic manufacturing employment. If anything, I would say that domestic productivity improvements in manufacturing might well have had the opposite effect of what you claim, namely I suspect it has contributed to stemming the loss of even more manufacturing jobs, because it has allowed US manufacturers to remain more competitive. Both the volume of US manufactured goods, and the number of domestic manufacturing workers would have shrunk even more if our productivity had not advanced as much as it did. But like most economic notions, nobody can really make attribution of any of this with any degree of accuracy. So everyone is free to handwave, and claim that their views are vital for electing the next President. LOL! Over the decades productivity growth in manufacturing has been higher. Also even though both manufacturing and services, in the Us have increased output, the increased output of services has been higher. No sure what you mean. The service sector has grown larger, even with lower productivity growth? Yes, that is true. But that reflects the fact that we don't import services like we import manufactured goods. Hence service has been more insulated from free trade. That is changing, but to what degree remains to be seen. People do go to other countries for health care for example, but it is small relative to the total industry. Some things like support centers are an obvious one that has done well. But the fraction of trade imbalance in services compared to the domestic service market is not like the case for manufacturing. And I would argue, that is reflected in the employment trends seen so far. No assurances for the future however. The more salient point however, is to ask what the productivity of your average teacher has done over the decades. That is an example of one area where productivity has lagged greatly. I'd argue that Police, Fireman, etc are in the same boat. And it is an increasing problem. Look at the inflation rate in college tuition, and you'll understand the problem. Again, it might change in the future (perhaps college education will be all net based with massive unemployment of college Profs) but so far not. A large part of it goes to large agribusiness companies not to family farms. And on the whole the farm subsidies might contribute to the consolidation of farming and thus hurt the small family farm that is trying to stay independent. Big or small, it does not matter. It depends on what you grow. There have been changes to push for more direct aid for noncommodity crops more typical of many small farms (fruits, nuts, veggies). Welfare is Welfare.