4 ms·

I wonder what those graphs would look like when normalized by the growth in total GDP over time. (I took 're-industrialize' to mean as a percentage of output).

by pohl 16y ago

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Why wonder when you can use the search box? http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDPC96 http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDPC96 They both increased by about 6.5x from 1950 to 2007. Of course, I'm also not sure why the growth of non-industrial sectors of the economy is a bad thing, or represents a decline at all. I've learned a bit of martial arts over the past year or two - does that mean I need to "re-computerize" my skillset?
- pohl 16y ago
  I'm no economist, but I believe the concern over manufacturing continuing to shrink as a percentage of U.S. economic activity comes from the question of whether the segments that are replacing it are things that bring money into the national economy. Do service sector jobs represent exportable economic activity? Are the sectors that replace manufacturing easily outsourced? I think the issue is a little too complex than for a single rising trend-line to put us at ease.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    ...whether the segments that are replacing it... No sector has "replaced" manufacturing. Some sectors of the economy may have grown faster, but manufacturing has also grown. It's much the same with skills. My martial arts skills have grown more quickly than my computer skills recently, but I've become more skilled at both programming and fighting. Our economy provides both manufactured goods and massages - historically it only produced the former. That's a good thing.
    - pohl 16y ago
      No sector has "replaced" manufacturing. That's not true if you think structurally, as a percentage of the whole. The analogy to skills is dubious. A closer parallel might be the time you spend at a given activity. If you become obsessed with your martial arts, and you quit your job without finding a way to make your kata profitable, then you would have need to worry about your finances, yes?
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        That clearly has not occurred, since (let me point this out one more time) we manufacture more now than ever before. But lets run with your time analogy. We became more productive at manufacturing, and we now manufacture more stuff with less human input. Humans have been freed up to perform other useful work (services). It's kind of like me becoming really good at my job, finishing all my work by Tuesday night, getting a pay raise, and then spending Wed-Fri at a second job (e.g., martial arts instructor). Oh noes! I hope this never happens to me!
        pohl 16y ago
        we manufacture more now than ever before I don't understand how you can expect this statement to carry your thesis in isolation. Let's say you earn more money in your job than you ever have before. Does that mean you're running "in the black"? No, because you might have also increased your expenditures out of proportion with your increase in income. It's not enough to observe that manufacturing has increased, for imagine a country with ever-increasing manufacturing but declining exports of manufactured goods. Clearly it's possible for your observation to be true whilst not indicating a strong economy. Again, I'm no economist, but I know enough to distrust one Pollyanna graph when I see one.
  - cdavid 16y ago
    I don't know the situation in the US, but in France, most shrinkage of the industrial sector is due to outsourcing within the same country. For example, car manufacturers did almost everything by themselves 30 years ago in France, and they know depend a lot on "equipementier" (not sure what the right English translation would be - this refers to companies like Faurecia, which make seat, etc...). Those are counted as services, not industries. Yet, they build exactly the same thing. This has been studied extensively in France, I would be surprised if it were not the case in the US as well.
  - eru 16y ago
    Sounds like mercantilism.

I wonder what those graphs would look like when normalized by the growth in total GDP over time. (I took 're-industrialize' to mean as a percentage of output).

by pohl 16y ago

I wonder what those graphs would look like when normalized by the growth in total GDP over time. (I took 're-industrialize' to mean as a percentage of output).

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Why wonder when you can use the search box? http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDPC96 http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDPC96 They both increased by about 6.5x from 1950 to 2007. Of course, I'm also not sure why the growth of non-industrial sectors of the economy is a bad thing, or represents a decline at all. I've learned a bit of martial arts over the past year or two - does that mean I need to "re-computerize" my skillset?

pohl 16y ago
I'm no economist, but I believe the concern over manufacturing continuing to shrink as a percentage of U.S. economic activity comes from the question of whether the segments that are replacing it are things that bring money into the national economy. Do service sector jobs represent exportable economic activity? Are the sectors that replace manufacturing easily outsourced? I think the issue is a little too complex than for a single rising trend-line to put us at ease.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  ...whether the segments that are replacing it... No sector has "replaced" manufacturing. Some sectors of the economy may have grown faster, but manufacturing has also grown. It's much the same with skills. My martial arts skills have grown more quickly than my computer skills recently, but I've become more skilled at both programming and fighting. Our economy provides both manufactured goods and massages - historically it only produced the former. That's a good thing.
  - pohl 16y ago
    No sector has "replaced" manufacturing. That's not true if you think structurally, as a percentage of the whole. The analogy to skills is dubious. A closer parallel might be the time you spend at a given activity. If you become obsessed with your martial arts, and you quit your job without finding a way to make your kata profitable, then you would have need to worry about your finances, yes?
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      That clearly has not occurred, since (let me point this out one more time) we manufacture more now than ever before. But lets run with your time analogy. We became more productive at manufacturing, and we now manufacture more stuff with less human input. Humans have been freed up to perform other useful work (services). It's kind of like me becoming really good at my job, finishing all my work by Tuesday night, getting a pay raise, and then spending Wed-Fri at a second job (e.g., martial arts instructor). Oh noes! I hope this never happens to me!
      - pohl 16y ago
        we manufacture more now than ever before I don't understand how you can expect this statement to carry your thesis in isolation. Let's say you earn more money in your job than you ever have before. Does that mean you're running "in the black"? No, because you might have also increased your expenditures out of proportion with your increase in income. It's not enough to observe that manufacturing has increased, for imagine a country with ever-increasing manufacturing but declining exports of manufactured goods. Clearly it's possible for your observation to be true whilst not indicating a strong economy. Again, I'm no economist, but I know enough to distrust one Pollyanna graph when I see one.
- cdavid 16y ago
  I don't know the situation in the US, but in France, most shrinkage of the industrial sector is due to outsourcing within the same country. For example, car manufacturers did almost everything by themselves 30 years ago in France, and they know depend a lot on "equipementier" (not sure what the right English translation would be - this refers to companies like Faurecia, which make seat, etc...). Those are counted as services, not industries. Yet, they build exactly the same thing. This has been studied extensively in France, I would be surprised if it were not the case in the US as well.
- eru 16y ago
  Sounds like mercantilism.