3 ms·

I wasn't aware of these facts: --[T]here can be no revival of American manufacturing, because there has been no collapse. Because of automation, there are far

I wasn't aware of these facts: --[T]here can be no revival of American manufacturing, because there has been no collapse. Because of automation, there are far fewer jobs in factories. But the value of stuff made in America reached a record high in the first quarter of 2016, even after adjusting for inflation. --[T]here were 64,000 steelworkers in America last year, and 820,000 home health aides.... Soon, we will be living in the United States of Home Health Aides, yet the candidates keep talking about steelworkers. Given the opportunity, I think I'd vote for McKinsey, Bain, or BCG to manage the executive branch instead of our current Presidential candidates.

drewrv 10y ago
That was basically Mitt Romney's whole pitch.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
serge2k 10y ago
> I think I'd vote for McKinsey, Bain, or BCG to manage the executive branch instead of our current Presidential candidates Why not just give them whatever money they ask for and be done with it?
- Uhhrrr 10y ago
  This is true for most companies that hire those consulting companies as well.
Animats 10y ago
Here's the US table of employment by category.[1] (I keep mentioning this table in discussions of employment.) 14% of the workforce makes all the stuff. That's manufacturing, mining, construction, and agriculture. 14%. US manufacturing employment peaked in 1979. Manufacturing output is at peak now. That 14% number was about 50% in 1950, and maybe 90% in 1900. That's how much things have changed. As for imports, China's government has decided that it is going to reduce its imports from the rest of the world. This is part of the "China 2025" program announced by Li Keqiang in 2015.[2] The US may have to reduce its imports from China to keep up. At most, though, this will add a few percent to manufacturing employment. [1] http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm [2] http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/922394.shtml http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/922394.shtml
- jcranmer 10y ago
  Manufacturing employment can't be 90% in 1900--agricultural employment certainly would have dominated. The 50% of 1950 also seems high. According to <https://www.minnpost.com/macro-micro-minnesota/2012/02/history-lessons-understanding-decline-manufacturing> https://www.minnpost.com/macro-micro-minnesota/2012/02/histo..., manufacturing employment peaked at about 35% in 1950s. In 1900, it was around 25%, with services about 33% and the rest in agriculture. That graph has services employment always outpacing manufacturing (which meshes with my knowledge of US history) and manufacturing only outpacing agriculture around the 1910s, 1920s (which also meshes with my knowledge of US history--agriculture was very labor intensive prior to mechanization).
  - Animats 10y ago
    I meant agriculture, mining, construction, and manufacturing - the making of physical stuff. All that is only about 14% today. Not sure what the Minn Post's definition of "industry" is. (Correct MinnPost link: https://www.minnpost.com/macro-micro-minnesota/2012/02/history-lessons-understanding-decline-manufacturing https://www.minnpost.com/macro-micro-minnesota/2012/02/histo...)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

drewrv 10y ago

That was basically Mitt Romney's whole pitch.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

serge2k 10y ago

> I think I'd vote for McKinsey, Bain, or BCG to manage the executive branch instead of our current Presidential candidates Why not just give them whatever money they ask for and be done with it?

Uhhrrr 10y ago
This is true for most companies that hire those consulting companies as well.

Animats 10y ago

Here's the US table of employment by category.[1] (I keep mentioning this table in discussions of employment.) 14% of the workforce makes all the stuff. That's manufacturing, mining, construction, and agriculture. 14%. US manufacturing employment peaked in 1979. Manufacturing output is at peak now. That 14% number was about 50% in 1950, and maybe 90% in 1900. That's how much things have changed. As for imports, China's government has decided that it is going to reduce its imports from the rest of the world. This is part of the "China 2025" program announced by Li Keqiang in 2015.[2] The US may have to reduce its imports from China to keep up. At most, though, this will add a few percent to manufacturing employment. [1] http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm [2] http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/922394.shtml http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/922394.shtml

jcranmer 10y ago
Manufacturing employment can't be 90% in 1900--agricultural employment certainly would have dominated. The 50% of 1950 also seems high. According to <https://www.minnpost.com/macro-micro-minnesota/2012/02/history-lessons-understanding-decline-manufacturing> https://www.minnpost.com/macro-micro-minnesota/2012/02/histo..., manufacturing employment peaked at about 35% in 1950s. In 1900, it was around 25%, with services about 33% and the rest in agriculture. That graph has services employment always outpacing manufacturing (which meshes with my knowledge of US history) and manufacturing only outpacing agriculture around the 1910s, 1920s (which also meshes with my knowledge of US history--agriculture was very labor intensive prior to mechanization).
- Animats 10y ago
  I meant agriculture, mining, construction, and manufacturing - the making of physical stuff. All that is only about 14% today. Not sure what the Minn Post's definition of "industry" is. (Correct MinnPost link: https://www.minnpost.com/macro-micro-minnesota/2012/02/history-lessons-understanding-decline-manufacturing https://www.minnpost.com/macro-micro-minnesota/2012/02/histo...)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]