Children with legos don't have much impact on the economy I'm afraid.

I work at a small manufacturing company. We have put on 5 new people in the last two months.

/anecdotal

US manufacturing taken by itself is still the 7th biggest economy in the world.

On Again: Children with legos don't have much impact on the economy I'm afraid.

The US produces 21% of global manufactured products.

We just automate it so much that it's not as large of a workforce as many would expect.

Also works at a manufacturing plant, we've added several hundred jobs back to the facility since 2009 and more are on the way.

/Anyone know how to weld, looking for work and don't mind relocating?
//seriously
///email in profile if you want contact information on the job(s)

My boss is in India right now bringing our equipment BACK after a failed attempt to manufacture there. The Indians we hired were dimwits, liars and thieves.
To be fair, my boss was in charge of going to India so no surprise that failed. :)

Still sent a lot of business to China though. :(

We almost closed in '09; now we have a new Swedish owner and things are looking up! Haven't hired too many permanent workers, but we've added a half dozen temps at least.

If you get the right gig, Manufacturing is a pretty decent career, just make sure a robot can't do your job.

Do fast food jobs still count as "manufacturing jobs" in this country?

The GDP of the U.S. is almost three times that of number 2 China. And higher than China(2), Japan(3) and Germany(4) combined. That aint all from people working at Wal-Mart.

Work robots, work! Good news: Technology will reduce your workweek. Bad news: You now get 0 hours/week as dem robots dun took yer jorb.

EighthDay: On Again: Children with legos don't have much impact on the economy I'm afraid.

The US produces 21% of global manufactured products.

We just automate it so much that it's not as large of a workforce as many would expect.

Yeah but we don't really "produce" most of the goods here we just sell them from american companies and thus they are american goods. Our mainland production is still pretty low as a percentage of our total jobs compared to even 20 years ago.

We're still the worlds largest manufacturer.

We've increased efficiency so we employ fewer people. But that kinda works out as I doubt many of the people lamenting the loss of 1950s style manufacturing jobs would want to go back to a 1950s standard of living.

/100 people to build 1 car a day or 10 people to build 10 cars a day? One employs lot's of people and prices cars out of most peoples budgets the other makes lot's of money and provides you with a cheap car. Take your pick.

Kazrath: EighthDay: On Again: Children with legos don't have much impact on the economy I'm afraid.

The US produces 21% of global manufactured products.

We just automate it so much that it's not as large of a workforce as many would expect.

Yeah but we don't really "produce" most of the goods here we just sell them from american companies and thus they are american goods. Our mainland production is still pretty low as a percentage of our total jobs compared to even 20 years ago.

Er no.

And you're measuring the wrong thing. In manufacturing (domestic, not just sold here) we're still ahead.

We employ fewer people because our factories are more efficient than they were 20 years ago.

Consider: when we started out 80-90% of Americans would fit in to the agricultural sector. Now about 2 or 3% do.

Do you suppose 2012 America is producing more or less food than American in the 1800s?

watson.t.hamster: I doubt many of the people lamenting the loss of 1950s style manufacturing jobs would want to go back to a 1950s standard of living.

Yeah it was terrible when a high school drop out could get a factory job that would allow him to buy a house, a car and support a family.

Good call genius.

Kazrath: Our mainland production is still pretty low as a percentage of our total jobs compared to even 20 years ago.

This is not a 20 year trend. It is not a 40 year trend. It is a *70* year trend, simply the thrust of history:



(that chart is manufacturing employment as a percentage of all employment in the US)

Anyone who thinks that is going to somehow reverse course is out of their gourd. The numbers seem to suggest that *China* has lost manufacturing jobs over the last 20 years! Manufacturing is simply becoming much less labor intensive as automation increases per worker output. We are steadily transitioning to an economy where machines do the manufacturing and people do other things. It is inevitable, so deal with it.

Bob16: watson.t.hamster: I doubt many of the people lamenting the loss of 1950s style manufacturing jobs would want to go back to a 1950s standard of living.

Yeah it was terrible when a high school drop out could get a factory job that would allow him to buy a house, a car and support a family.

Good call genius.

I find it strange that five years ago the right had 50s nostalgia, and now the left has it.

Blame robots for manufacturing job losses, not China.


(note that these figures are inflation-adjusted)

Link (new window)

That is, at least until the recent recession, the value of goods built in the US consistantly went up, with the number of people needed to build said goods went down. The answer for this is automation and other productivity increases.

But, what about all the Made in China crap? Well, the standard of living of Americans also went up over that period of time-meaning the amount of imports increased as well. The population also increased. So, more imported goods and more domestically produced goods.

There is *plenty* of manufacturing going on in the US. By robots.

EighthDay: On Again: Children with legos don't have much impact on the economy I'm afraid.

The US produces 21% of global manufactured products.

We just automate it so much that it's not as large of a workforce as many would expect.

Pretty much THIS. Anything we can't automate get sent to China.

Bob16:

Oh in case I wasn't clear in my last post: 1950 middle class would be well below the poverty line today.

So if you want to drop out of high school and live below the poverty line that is a very achievable goal.

EighthDay: On Again: Children with legos don't have much impact on the economy I'm afraid.

The US produces 21% of global manufactured products.

We just automate it so much that it's not as large of a workforce as many would expect.

There is growing scuttlebutt that the "economic downturn" turned into a convenient excuse many businesses needed to lay millions of people and replace them with automation. The fact that unemployment has been this high in the face of steady (but slow) economic growth is a sign that those workers are likely going to be permanently displaced from the labor pool unless they can retrain at a much higher level.

watson.t.hamster: Bob16:

Oh in case I wasn't clear in my last post: 1950 middle class would be well below the poverty line today.

So if you want to drop out of high school and live below the poverty line that is a very achievable goal.

So you're saying life today is better than it was in 1950? Because you have no real evidence to back this up. Making 18k a year in todays dollars in 1950 got you a house, a car, a steady job, education for your children, and enough left over to be a consumer in the market.

Today what does 30k a year for a family get you?

I think you should stop arguing, for your own sake.

watson.t.hamster:
Do you suppose 2012 America is producing more or less food than American in the 1800s?

Far less. Most food is grown overseas. Just like most production is from overseas. It just happens to be by American companies, and the end result gets sold in America. But wages are at all time lows, jobs are at all time lows, and the only people making money from American manufacturing are executives and stock holders. There is no middle class with a disposable income anymore and that's what is making the American economy doomed to any real growth or future.

watson.t.hamster: Bob16:

Oh in case I wasn't clear in my last post: 1950 middle class would be well below the poverty line today.

So if you want to drop out of high school and live below the poverty line that is a very achievable goal.

Not adjusted for inflation you submental simpleton. Plus the median household data is all skewed because 1970s we shifted from a single earner household system to a duo when women entered to workforce and help supplemented household income.

Adjusted for inflation, middle class families made about 18k in todays dollars in 1950

Today with 2 working in a household it's 30k. Making 30k is not middle class living. watson t hamster is an idiot, as usual. Foot in mouth syndrome is a common occurrence with right wingers trying to explain their beliefs online.

LindLTaylor: The GDP of the U.S. is almost three times that of number 2 China. And higher than China(2), Japan(3) and Germany(4) combined. That aint all from people working at Wal-Mart.

This.

The derpmitter is a tard.

A big, fat stinking tard.

/Cheers!

And since the top 10% income earners own all the wealth, guess who benefits from a high GDP?

As someone who justifies capital improvements based on labor savings, I feel it's my duty to inform you that the number of people working in an industry does not indicate its health but often quite the opposite. It indicates that their systems are insufficient for their throughput needs.

There's a sheet metal plant starting up in Iowa right now that has one operator over ~27 tower-fed laser cutting devices followed by automated bending operations and assembly. It will be running every hour of every day. His sole purpose is to watch just in case while the automation makes its owners considerably richer. After the initial investment pays for itself within a year, there's very little their competition can do to stay competitive while paying many more laborers.

I love automation dearly, but it will shrink our capitalist system. It will be a system for those with the skills to participate at that level and we won't have a need for "general hourly folks." When generalized automation becomes incredibly simple, cheap, and accommodating to implement, it may even take over the few service jobs where others in society take refuge. Let's face it, the mechanical slave will get chosen over a wage slave over and over again. They're easier to orchestrate, lower cost, no safety concerns, no personnel issues, and you don't even have to keep the heat and lights on in many climates. Hell, even our sales systems are becoming automated with our customers' ERP systems finding their needs and simply telling our ERP system that it wants to purchase an item for a certain price.

Capitalism is fine if you're a part of it. It's more profitable for your company if you're not.

intelligent comment below: watson.t.hamster: Bob16:

Oh in case I wasn't clear in my last post: 1950 middle class would be well below the poverty line today.

So if you want to drop out of high school and live below the poverty line that is a very achievable goal.

So you're saying life today is better than it was in 1950? Because you have no real evidence to back this up. Making 18k a year in todays dollars in 1950 got you a house, a car, a steady job, education for your children, and enough left over to be a consumer in the market.

Today what does 30k a year for a family get you?

I think you should stop arguing, for your own sake.

Whatever you do don't do the slightest research or bother to educate yourself before post.

And above all absolutely do not click on the link I provided (links now) proving exactly what I said from a variety of impartial sources. That would be just the worst.

/it's like you people think you've discovered inflation and no one else is aware of the concept. Yes a dollar buys you less today than it did in 1950. Good boy, here's a treat. But after adjusting for that they still made less.

intelligent comment below: watson.t.hamster:
Do you suppose 2012 America is producing more or less food than American in the 1800s?

Far less. Most food is grown overseas. Just like most production is from overseas. It just happens to be by American companies, and the end result gets sold in America. But wages are at all time lows, jobs are at all time lows, and the only people making money from American manufacturing are executives and stock holders. There is no middle class with a disposable income anymore and that's what is making the American economy doomed to any real growth or future.

The US, in 2012, produces less food than the US in the 1800s.

That's a pretty weak troll, even for you.

Dracolich: I love automation dearly, but it will shrink our capitalist system.

The scary part will be if we reach labor post-scarcity before reaching material post-scarcity. Then the option of "working for a living" will be unavailable, so what do we do with all these people?

AFAIK mainstream economics can't deal with that situation; it's always assumed that human want will expand to fill enough production capacity to sustain a reasonable amount of employment.

Hard-core redistribution would probably be the *least* radical option.

Gaseous Anomaly: Dracolich: I love automation dearly, but it will shrink our capitalist system.

The scary part will be if we reach labor post-scarcity before reaching material post-scarcity. Then the option of "working for a living" will be unavailable, so what do we do with all these people?

AFAIK mainstream economics can't deal with that situation; it's always assumed that human want will expand to fill enough production capacity to sustain a reasonable amount of employment.

Hard-core redistribution would probably be the *least* radical option.

We can compensate somewhat by A) reducing the work week, B) reducing the cost of living/increasing wages so more people can afford not to work, C) encouraging more people to get out of the economy on the one end by staying in school longer and on the other end by retiring sooner (meaning more money for education and social security) and D) expanding services like police, teachers, postal workers, border guards, etc. Things that make our lives better and can't really be automated.

Some of the slack will of course be picked up by the creation of new industries and a further shift towards an information based economy. But automation will as you say likely end up displacing more jobs than are created by other advancements.

watson.t.hamster: intelligent comment below: watson.t.hamster:
Do you suppose 2012 America is producing more or less food than American in the 1800s?

Far less. Most food is grown overseas. Just like most production is from overseas. It just happens to be by American companies, and the end result gets sold in America. But wages are at all time lows, jobs are at all time lows, and the only people making money from American manufacturing are executives and stock holders. There is no middle class with a disposable income anymore and that's what is making the American economy doomed to any real growth or future.

The US, in 2012, produces less food than the US in the 1800s.

That's a pretty weak troll, even for you.

The US is a net food exporter, and always has been (at least in the past hundred years or so).

intelligent comment below: watson.t.hamster: Bob16:

Oh in case I wasn't clear in my last post: 1950 middle class would be well below the poverty line today.

So if you want to drop out of high school and live below the poverty line that is a very achievable goal.

So you're saying life today is better than it was in 1950? Because you have no real evidence to back this up. Making 18k a year in todays dollars in 1950 got you a house, a car, a steady job, education for your children, and enough left over to be a consumer in the market.

Today what does 30k a year for a family get you?

I think you should stop arguing, for your own sake.

You are going to need a citation for that. You mention "a car", so let's start with that. Adjusting for inflation, $18k today was almost exactly $2k in 1950. I found a site that says that cheapest Chevy in 1950 (a 1950 Styleline Special Business Coupe with no back seat) cost $1,329 (or about $12k today). The cheapest Chevy (a Chevy Sonic) sold today costs $13,865 (although it has a back seat, airbags, etc.). Also they are releasing a smaller car called the Chevy Spark next year which will cost under $12k, not to mention that a $5k used car would be more reliabile than a 1950 Chevy was (and safer, and faster, and more comfortable, and have more features, and...).

Housing costs outside major cities are just as reasonable now as in 1950 (this is a harder thing to search). They also have indoor plumbing (not universal in 1950) and electricity (not universal in 1950) and air conditioning (unheard of in 1950) and are, in general, much larger. Sure, a mansion in Beverly Hills costs millions of dollars, but a 3 or 4 bedroom, 2 bath house in Kansas or Arizona or Georgia somewhere can be found for $100k.

As for education, 2 years at a community college and 2 years at a local state school will cost you about as much as that Chevy Sonic (total).

Geotpf: intelligent comment below: watson.t.hamster: Bob16:

Oh in case I wasn't clear in my last post: 1950 middle class would be well below the poverty line today.

So if you want to drop out of high school and live below the poverty line that is a very achievable goal.

So you're saying life today is better than it was in 1950? Because you have no real evidence to back this up. Making 18k a year in todays dollars in 1950 got you a house, a car, a steady job, education for your children, and enough left over to be a consumer in the market.

Today what does 30k a year for a family get you?

I think you should stop arguing, for your own sake.

You are going to need a citation for that. You mention "a car", so let's start with that. Adjusting for inflation, $18k today was almost exactly $2k in 1950. I found a site that says that cheapest Chevy in 1950 (a 1950 Styleline Special Business Coupe with no back seat) cost $1,329 (or about $12k today). The cheapest Chevy (a Chevy Sonic) sold today costs $13,865 (although it has a back seat, airbags, etc.). Also they are releasing a smaller car called the Chevy Spark next year which will cost under $12k, not to mention that a $5k used car would be more reliabile than a 1950 Chevy was (and safer, and faster, and more comfortable, and have more features, and...).

Housing costs outside major cities are just as reasonable now as in 1950 (this is a harder thing to search). They also have indoor plumbing (not universal in 1950) and electricity (not universal in 1950) and air conditioning (unheard of in 1950) and are, in general, much larger. Sure, a mansion in Beverly Hills costs millions of dollars, but a 3 or 4 bedroom, 2 bath house in Kansas or Arizona or Georgia somewhere can be found for $100k.

As for education, 2 years at a community college and 2 years at a local state school will cost you about as much as that Chevy Sonic (total).

He doesn't care about facts. I've noticed that.

I posted multiple sources all proving this same thing and he comes back with "nu uh because I said so!"

watson.t.hamster:
Whatever you do don't do the slightest research or bother to educate yourself before post.

And above all absolutely do not click on the link I provided (links now) proving exactly what I said from a variety of impartial sources. That would be just the worst.

/it's like you people think you've discovered inflation and no one else is aware of the concept. Yes a dollar buys you less today than it did in 1950. Good boy, here's a treat. But after adjusting for that they still made less.


Are you serious? I compared your idea of "poor" in 1950 middle class America to middle class America today.

I gave the exact average income from both eras, I compared how one could live on their income, and asked you which was better? If you say today instead of 1950 you are a liar.

"making less" doesn't mean a damn thing when you can buy more on your wages. You completely failed the most obvious basic idea of economic theory.

Now go back to your DeVry class.

Geotpf:
You are going to need a citation for that. You mention "a car", so let's start with that. Adjusting for inflation, $18k today was almost exactly $2k in 1950. I found a site that says that cheapest Chevy in 1950 (a 1950 Styleline Special Business Coupe with no back seat) cost $1,329 (or about $12k today). The cheapest Chevy (a Chevy Sonic) sold today costs $13,865 (although it has a back seat, airbags, etc.). Also they are releasing a smaller car called the Chevy Spark next year which will cost under $12k, not to mention that a $5k used car would be more reliabile than a 1950 Chevy was (and safer, and faster, and more comfortable, and have more features, and...).

Housing costs outside major cities are just as reasonable now as in 1950 (this is a harder thing to search). They also have indoor plumbing (not universal in 1950) and electricity (not universal in 1950) and air conditioning (unheard of in 1950) and are, in general, much larger. Sure, a mansion in Beverly Hills costs millions of dollars, but a 3 or 4 bedroom, 2 bath house in Kansas or Arizona or Georgia somewhere can be found for $100k.

As for education, 2 years at a community college and 2 years at a local state school will cost you about as much as that Chevy Sonic (total).

Lets start with the car example: A car that cost 1/3 your yearly salary was a big purchase for sure, but guess what? The government mandated low interest rates, that was a part of the New Deal that, along with paying for the education of veterans, was a huge boost to the economy.

Not to mention 12k for a car will buy you what today? A death trap. With high interest rates since you're poor.

Moving on, housing costs. Housing was cheap, what's the point of bringing up Beverly Hills for? Do you think that helps your argument? There was no such thing as a high cost city. Cities like Los Angeles were sprawling with houses that everyone could afford, and back to my low interest rate example, banks were giving out affordable loans to anyone with a job. And jobs were steady back then, so people could really live the American dream.

Lastly, a community college then a state school? That isn't a path to the American dream, that's a path straight to a low wage job of your choice. Back then you could go to a high quality school, get a degree in anything you want, and find yourself in the high middle class level as an engineer or business executive.

If you are going to say life is better today on a middle class salary of 30k a year for a FAMILY, compared to 1950, then you are about as wrong as can be. So please, stop wasting my time posting this nonsense. I can't believe I have to explain the basics of standard of living to idiots like you and watson.

Geotpf:
The US is a net food exporter, and always has been (at least in the past hundred years or so).

Only in corn and wheat, thanks to heavy government subsidies. Funny how socialism, government protection, is good as long as you benefit, right?

intelligent comment below: watson.t.hamster:
Whatever you do don't do the slightest research or bother to educate yourself before post.

And above all absolutely do not click on the link I provided (links now) proving exactly what I said from a variety of impartial sources. That would be just the worst.

/it's like you people think you've discovered inflation and no one else is aware of the concept. Yes a dollar buys you less today than it did in 1950. Good boy, here's a treat. But after adjusting for that they still made less.


Are you serious? I compared your idea of "poor" in 1950 middle class America to middle class America today.

I gave the exact average income from both eras, I compared how one could live on their income, and asked you which was better? If you say today instead of 1950 you are a liar.

"making less" doesn't mean a damn thing when you can buy more on your wages. You completely failed the most obvious basic idea of economic theory.

Now go back to your DeVry class.

I know you're a troll, possibly suffering from Down's, but do yourself a favor and actually click on the links I provided. (I was being sarcastic saying you shouldn't, FYI).

You made up numbers out of thin air and pretended they were facts. Don't get your "facts" confused with actual facts.

What numbers did I make up?

The average income in 1950 was around 3k a year
adjusted for inflation that's 18k in todays dollars

30k is the median today

And that's with 2 people working in a household, with little chance of health care, benefits, low interest bank loans.

What facts are you going to refute here? Go read for yourself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Ove r _time_-_by_Race_.26_Sex

intelligent comment below: What numbers did I make up?

The average income in 1950 was around 3k a year
adjusted for inflation that's 18k in todays dollars

30k is the median today

And that's with 2 people working in a household, with little chance of health care, benefits, low interest bank loans.

What facts are you going to refute here? Go read for yourself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Ove r _time_-_by_Race_.26_Sex

Your figures are per working person. Plus, my argument is that somebody who made $18k (or $30k) in inflation adjusted dollars did not have as good as a standard of living as you are implying. Quite the contrary.

I forgot to say that the fact that the figures are per working person means that a family with two working people would have an income of $60k-ish.

intelligent comment below: Geotpf:
You are going to need a citation for that. You mention "a car", so let's start with that. Adjusting for inflation, $18k today was almost exactly $2k in 1950. I found a site that says that cheapest Chevy in 1950 (a 1950 Styleline Special Business Coupe with no back seat) cost $1,329 (or about $12k today). The cheapest Chevy (a Chevy Sonic) sold today costs $13,865 (although it has a back seat, airbags, etc.). Also they are releasing a smaller car called the Chevy Spark next year which will cost under $12k, not to mention that a $5k used car would be more reliabile than a 1950 Chevy was (and safer, and faster, and more comfortable, and have more features, and...).

Housing costs outside major cities are just as reasonable now as in 1950 (this is a harder thing to search). They also have indoor plumbing (not universal in 1950) and electricity (not universal in 1950) and air conditioning (unheard of in 1950) and are, in general, much larger. Sure, a mansion in Beverly Hills costs millions of dollars, but a 3 or 4 bedroom, 2 bath house in Kansas or Arizona or Georgia somewhere can be found for $100k.

As for education, 2 years at a community college and 2 years at a local state school will cost you about as much as that Chevy Sonic (total).

Lets start with the car example: A car that cost 1/3 your yearly salary was a big purchase for sure, but guess what? The government mandated low interest rates, that was a part of the New Deal that, along with paying for the education of veterans, was a huge boost to the economy.

Not to mention 12k for a car will buy you what today? A death trap. With high interest rates since you're poor.

Moving on, housing costs. Housing was cheap, what's the point of bringing up Beverly Hills for? Do you think that helps your argument? There was no such thing as a high cost city. Cities like Los Angeles were sprawling with houses that everyone could afford, and back to my low interest rate example, banks were giving out affordable loans to anyone with a job. And jobs were steady back then, so people could really live the American dream.

Lastly, a community college then a state school? That isn't a path to the American dream, that's a path straight to a low wage job of your choice. Back then you could go to a high quality school, get a degree in anything you want, and find yourself in the high middle class level as an engineer or business executive.

If you are going to say life is better today on a middle class salary of 30k a year for a FAMILY, compared to 1950, then you are about as wrong as can be. So please, stop wasting my time posting this nonsense. I can't believe I have to explain the basics of standard of living to idiots like you and watson.

A $12k car made today is much, much, much safer than that $1,329 1950 Chevy I mentioned, which would be the death trap.

In 1950, people living in high cost cities typically lived in cramped apartments with an entire family in a studio apartment. Cities like LA were new suburbs then, not high cost cities (like NYC then).

Basically, nostalgia is a biatch. Things in "the good old days" weren't really that good.

So now we're comparing the safety of cars? Awesome! What next? You couldn't get the quality hookers and blow you can get today?

The point is your low salary bought you a lot more, included a stable job, low food and energy prices, low education prices, etc. And your 60k ish number is wrong. The best you can do is around 45k a year as a middle class salary, even though that's 2 working in a household at a job that will probably be lost tomorrow once you hit over 45 yrs of age.

Today is not a good day to be anyone but part of the lucky sperm club, born into the top 10% wealth earners. The 1950's were a land of opportunity and rising income and quality of life, today the standards are dropping for everyone except the few. It's the exact opposite of the American prosperity you slept through history class learning about.

Yeah, I miss the 1950's, when women worked in kitchens without dishwashers, in houses without air conditioning, thinking about washing clothes by hand, unable to escape because hubby had the one car (no garage), and worried that her kids will come down with polio.

intelligent comment below: So now we're comparing the safety of cars? Awesome! What next? You couldn't get the quality hookers and blow you can get today?

The point is your low salary bought you a lot more, included a stable job, low food and energy prices, low education prices, etc. And your 60k ish number is wrong. The best you can do is around 45k a year as a middle class salary, even though that's 2 working in a household at a job that will probably be lost tomorrow once you hit over 45 yrs of age.

Today is not a good day to be anyone but part of the lucky sperm club, born into the top 10% wealth earners. The 1950's were a land of opportunity and rising income and quality of life, today the standards are dropping for everyone except the few. It's the exact opposite of the American prosperity you slept through history class learning about.

You are one of the more aggressively ignorant trolls I've seen.

Notice how you can find no sources to back your claims that the standard of living in 1950 was better than today whereas I have found half a dozen that show the opposite?

Do you ever wonder why every single economist who has stated on opinion on the subject disagrees with you?

/go ahead and find one real source that supports your claims. Just one.