I'm not particularly pro-union either. But, the article's author attempts to distinguish between two things: U.S. manufacturing output (its productivity in ter

I'm not particularly pro-union either. But, the article's author attempts to distinguish between two things: U.S. manufacturing output (its productivity in terms of the value of goods made); and, the absolute number of manufacturing jobs. By doing so, he's trying to counter some of the popular perception that "U.S. manufacturing is gone." We are still a manufacturing powerhouse, but we are no longer adding manufacturing jobs. In fact we can make the same or greater amount of goods (by value) with the same amount or fewer manufacturing employees. So the perception is that U.S. manufacturing is in decline, because the number of manufacturing jobs stagnated from the 1950s to the 2000s. But those are only absolute numbers. The real story is that by the 1970s already U.S. manufacturing was perceived as being in decline. I'm speculating that we could understand the provenance of that perception by looking at two more graphs: percentage of workforce in manufacturing, and percentage of workforce in (industrial) unions. Why do these two graphs serve as good indicators of the nation-wide perception of manufacturing decline? The first because the relative share of jobs held in manufacturing is just as important as the absolute numbers in terms of social weight, clout, and awareness. The union chart more specifically would show the decline in political-economic clout held by people in the manufacturing sector, most precipitously (I would speculate) in the 1980s. Without fresh members, closed shops, local chapters, and substantial union bloc voting, the socio-political place of unions in the day-to-day fabric of American life begins to fade into the background. So, whatever one's politics toward organized labor (present or historical), I think such a chart would be illustrative of why there is a popular perception that "U.S. manufacturing is gone."