8 ms·

While manufacturing may comeback to US, the employment in Manufacturing sector may not increase as much due to automation.

maxxxxx 10y ago
We really need economic indicators that reflect conditions for most people, not just the top few. Indicators that are often used in the news like rising GDP, house prices and manufacturing output are pretty useless if only a few get benefits from them.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  We should also start treating rising housing prices as a policy failure.
  - bandrami 10y ago
    Unfortunately we taught a generation that housing was an investment platform rather than something you primarily get utility out of.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      That's been a common belief for several generations, not something that was taught to one recent generation alone.
      - mywittyname 10y ago
        I disagree. Previous generations valued housing for its utility: it's a place to live. The land would be seen as an investment if it was used for farming. Gen-X came of age at a time where housing was viewed as an investment to make money on. The idea of buying a house with the promise of selling it later to make a profit is very modern. My great-grandparents and grandparents all owned one house and lived it in for the majority/entirety of their lives, so the value of he house was inconsequential to them. My parents and their siblings have mostly owned multiple houses. They never moved for pragmatic reasons, like relocating for a job. Instead, they took to the modern notion of "starter homes", where a family continues to move up to a better house by "using the profits" from the sale of their previous home.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Gen-X came of age at a time where housing was viewed as an investment to make money on. Yes, because the idea was established when the leading edge of the Boomer generation was young adults and became dominant fairly quickly. So, it's been a common belief for three generations that have reached adulthold. Hence, my statement in GP.
        JBlue42 10y ago
        Ugh, "starter homes". Someone saying that about their most recent purchase usually tells me all I need to know about them. American over-idealism at its finest.
  - travmatt 10y ago
    I've never heard that argument before but that sounds interesting - can you link me towards more writing on it?
  - wil421 10y ago
    What about inflation? Why would anyone buy land if it was guaranteed to depreciate. I'd be better off renting from someone else losing money.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Lots of people buy vehicles that depreciate like mad because they believe the total value of the purchase exceeds the total cost. I'm not necessarily saying that prices should have significant downward trajectory. Of course desirable locations will command a premium over time and so on. But as a society we probably shouldn't be excited that housing sometimes goes up substantially, even as the stock deteriorates.
      - ams6110 10y ago
        Vehicles are a consumable, not an investment. Land is generally not, because most uses increase its value.
        maxerickson 10y ago
        Yes, but I'm talking about housing rather than land. Most housing suffers from use and age. (Note where I conceded the point about some land having value due to location or such)
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > I'd be better off renting from someone else losing money. No, you wouldn't, because if the rental market wouldn't support recovering the full costs to the owner, no one would bother owning land and renting it. Whatever costs fall on land owners will, inevitably, be fully (and then some, usually) distributed to renters of the land.
      - 10y ago
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    since it's usually a policy goal supported by the voting public, I don't see how it's a policy failure. Now, the fact that it is a policy goal with that kind of support may be a failure on a more fundamental level, but that's a different issue.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      What I wrote is perfectly compatible with your pedantry. "We should also start"... Obviously I didn't go on and on about it, but it is implied there that attitudes would need to change.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        You seem to have read a "No, we shouldn't, because..." into my post that wasn't there. My point was directly that it is, in fact, not a policy failure in the usual sense since it is working both as policy makers and voters intend, and, on a deeper level, that --given that people who, in fact, benefit from housing price appreciation are overrepresented among those who actually vote -- changing this is likely to require either changing who actually votes or getting people to vote against their own financial interests.
        maxerickson 10y ago
        I simply didn't state that it is a policy failure. I said We should also start treating rising housing prices as a policy failure. It's a prescription for what society should do, not an assessment of whether current policy aligns with voter wishes. In the comment I replied to initially, rising prices are treated as a measure of economic success. Treating them as a policy failure would contrast with that current attitude...
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        Yes, and, as I said in GP, I'm not arguing against your point, I'm pointing out the practical difficulty in realizing the goal you have set out.
  - jimlawruk 10y ago
    The physical house will typically depreciate with regular use. It is the value of the "location" that can fluctuate wildly in recent years. The policy failure is allowing location values to to become so disparate and sometimes hard to predict.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  I always thought we should have several averages: Full data, cut off 1% at each end, 5% at each end, and 10% at each end. I think we'd get much more out of the A-1 or A-5 than the raw average. (Of course, the real answer -- like with the weather -- is that you need to use distribution information, not a single value.)
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > We really need economic indicators that reflect conditions for most people, not just the top few. We have economic indicators that do that, such as median income and various distributional measures. They don't tend to get covered as much in the news because most of the people with power and influence don't like people paying attention to the stories they tell. But the same government agencies that publish the headline figures publish my more useful ones for assessing how most people are experiencing the economy.
- memracom 10y ago
  The people who make money by moving plants offshore, are also behind the design of the economic indicators, knowing that if you can control what is measured then you are in charge of the conversation, and therefore in charge of the politics. That is what American oligarchs have been doing for the past 5 decades, distorting the entire system from top to bottom so that nobody can figure out what is going on. It's the same behavior of a pickpocket or a con artist.
  - ecnal 10y ago
    You heard it here first, everyone: economic indicators are actually just a plot by the manufacturing sector. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/ Can you take a look and help me pick which of those 421,000 pieces of time-series data are the conspiracy ones so that I know not to look at them any more?
  - lftl 10y ago
    Do you have any source or evidence even hinting at any of this or is it just standard conspiracy theory fare?
bbctol 10y ago
I've been finding this graph: https://tropicsofmeta.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/2007-real-manufacturing-output-and-employment-from-cleveland-fed2.gif https://tropicsofmeta.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/2007-real-... very helpful (y-axis is percentages of GDP and workforce.) Manufacturing never left the US, in terms of output, it's just that jobs did.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Which is why salary as a percentage of GDP is at an all time low.
  - adventured 10y ago
    That's a dramatic exaggeration. It's at a low post 1960s (an era which produced a temporary fake high because the rest of the developed world had been blown up, so the US took over half of all global manufacturing, a boon for working-class wages). Go take a look at what labor pulled in per hour in 1890.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      The labour cost as a percentage of GDP?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- rrggrr 10y ago
  This chart is almost worthless as a measure of US Manufacturing capacity or production. Why? Because sizable orders to a handful of companies (eg. Boeing, GE, Lockheed, etc.) offsets and distorts the disappearance of thousands of medium and small manufacturers over the past two decades. Its tempting to attribute the associated job losses to automation, but one look at this table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_manufacturing_companies_by_revenue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_manufacturing_... and its clear millions of similar jobs have shifted overseas.
igravious 10y ago
And due to other increases in productivity.

maxxxxx 10y ago

We really need economic indicators that reflect conditions for most people, not just the top few. Indicators that are often used in the news like rising GDP, house prices and manufacturing output are pretty useless if only a few get benefits from them.

maxerickson 10y ago
We should also start treating rising housing prices as a policy failure.
- bandrami 10y ago
  Unfortunately we taught a generation that housing was an investment platform rather than something you primarily get utility out of.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    That's been a common belief for several generations, not something that was taught to one recent generation alone.
    - mywittyname 10y ago
      I disagree. Previous generations valued housing for its utility: it's a place to live. The land would be seen as an investment if it was used for farming. Gen-X came of age at a time where housing was viewed as an investment to make money on. The idea of buying a house with the promise of selling it later to make a profit is very modern. My great-grandparents and grandparents all owned one house and lived it in for the majority/entirety of their lives, so the value of he house was inconsequential to them. My parents and their siblings have mostly owned multiple houses. They never moved for pragmatic reasons, like relocating for a job. Instead, they took to the modern notion of "starter homes", where a family continues to move up to a better house by "using the profits" from the sale of their previous home.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Gen-X came of age at a time where housing was viewed as an investment to make money on. Yes, because the idea was established when the leading edge of the Boomer generation was young adults and became dominant fairly quickly. So, it's been a common belief for three generations that have reached adulthold. Hence, my statement in GP.
      - JBlue42 10y ago
        Ugh, "starter homes". Someone saying that about their most recent purchase usually tells me all I need to know about them. American over-idealism at its finest.
- travmatt 10y ago
  I've never heard that argument before but that sounds interesting - can you link me towards more writing on it?
- wil421 10y ago
  What about inflation? Why would anyone buy land if it was guaranteed to depreciate. I'd be better off renting from someone else losing money.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Lots of people buy vehicles that depreciate like mad because they believe the total value of the purchase exceeds the total cost. I'm not necessarily saying that prices should have significant downward trajectory. Of course desirable locations will command a premium over time and so on. But as a society we probably shouldn't be excited that housing sometimes goes up substantially, even as the stock deteriorates.
    - ams6110 10y ago
      Vehicles are a consumable, not an investment. Land is generally not, because most uses increase its value.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Yes, but I'm talking about housing rather than land. Most housing suffers from use and age. (Note where I conceded the point about some land having value due to location or such)
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > I'd be better off renting from someone else losing money. No, you wouldn't, because if the rental market wouldn't support recovering the full costs to the owner, no one would bother owning land and renting it. Whatever costs fall on land owners will, inevitably, be fully (and then some, usually) distributed to renters of the land.
    - 10y ago
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  since it's usually a policy goal supported by the voting public, I don't see how it's a policy failure. Now, the fact that it is a policy goal with that kind of support may be a failure on a more fundamental level, but that's a different issue.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    What I wrote is perfectly compatible with your pedantry. "We should also start"... Obviously I didn't go on and on about it, but it is implied there that attitudes would need to change.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      You seem to have read a "No, we shouldn't, because..." into my post that wasn't there. My point was directly that it is, in fact, not a policy failure in the usual sense since it is working both as policy makers and voters intend, and, on a deeper level, that --given that people who, in fact, benefit from housing price appreciation are overrepresented among those who actually vote -- changing this is likely to require either changing who actually votes or getting people to vote against their own financial interests.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        I simply didn't state that it is a policy failure. I said We should also start treating rising housing prices as a policy failure. It's a prescription for what society should do, not an assessment of whether current policy aligns with voter wishes. In the comment I replied to initially, rising prices are treated as a measure of economic success. Treating them as a policy failure would contrast with that current attitude...
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        Yes, and, as I said in GP, I'm not arguing against your point, I'm pointing out the practical difficulty in realizing the goal you have set out.
- jimlawruk 10y ago
  The physical house will typically depreciate with regular use. It is the value of the "location" that can fluctuate wildly in recent years. The policy failure is allowing location values to to become so disparate and sometimes hard to predict.
SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
I always thought we should have several averages: Full data, cut off 1% at each end, 5% at each end, and 10% at each end. I think we'd get much more out of the A-1 or A-5 than the raw average. (Of course, the real answer -- like with the weather -- is that you need to use distribution information, not a single value.)
dragonwriter 10y ago
> We really need economic indicators that reflect conditions for most people, not just the top few. We have economic indicators that do that, such as median income and various distributional measures. They don't tend to get covered as much in the news because most of the people with power and influence don't like people paying attention to the stories they tell. But the same government agencies that publish the headline figures publish my more useful ones for assessing how most people are experiencing the economy.
memracom 10y ago
The people who make money by moving plants offshore, are also behind the design of the economic indicators, knowing that if you can control what is measured then you are in charge of the conversation, and therefore in charge of the politics. That is what American oligarchs have been doing for the past 5 decades, distorting the entire system from top to bottom so that nobody can figure out what is going on. It's the same behavior of a pickpocket or a con artist.
- ecnal 10y ago
  You heard it here first, everyone: economic indicators are actually just a plot by the manufacturing sector. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/ Can you take a look and help me pick which of those 421,000 pieces of time-series data are the conspiracy ones so that I know not to look at them any more?
- lftl 10y ago
  Do you have any source or evidence even hinting at any of this or is it just standard conspiracy theory fare?

bbctol 10y ago

I've been finding this graph: https://tropicsofmeta.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/2007-real-manufacturing-output-and-employment-from-cleveland-fed2.gif https://tropicsofmeta.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/2007-real-... very helpful (y-axis is percentages of GDP and workforce.) Manufacturing never left the US, in terms of output, it's just that jobs did.

ThomPete 10y ago
Which is why salary as a percentage of GDP is at an all time low.
- adventured 10y ago
  That's a dramatic exaggeration. It's at a low post 1960s (an era which produced a temporary fake high because the rest of the developed world had been blown up, so the US took over half of all global manufacturing, a boon for working-class wages). Go take a look at what labor pulled in per hour in 1890.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    The labour cost as a percentage of GDP?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rrggrr 10y ago
This chart is almost worthless as a measure of US Manufacturing capacity or production. Why? Because sizable orders to a handful of companies (eg. Boeing, GE, Lockheed, etc.) offsets and distorts the disappearance of thousands of medium and small manufacturers over the past two decades. Its tempting to attribute the associated job losses to automation, but one look at this table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_manufacturing_companies_by_revenue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_manufacturing_... and its clear millions of similar jobs have shifted overseas.

igravious 10y ago

And due to other increases in productivity.