4 ms·

> The point is, look at those numbers sans semiconductors and you see a pretty scary decline in manufacturing output. Not at all: https://www.nam.org/state-man

> The point is, look at those numbers sans semiconductors and you see a pretty scary decline in manufacturing output. Not at all: https://www.nam.org/state-manufacturing-data/2019-united-states-manufacturing-facts/ https://www.nam.org/state-manufacturing-data/2019-united-sta... Semiconductor manufacturing is a component of the second-largest US manufacturing bucket in 2017, and was only #8 of the top 10 manufacturing buckets for job growth in 2018. It is certainly an important sector for economic and strategic reasons, but you are significantly overstating its importance.

throwawaygh 6y ago
> manufacturing buckets for job growth in 2018... It is certainly an important sector for economic and strategic reasons, but you are significantly overstating its importance. But I'm not talking about jobs, at all. The US needs a robust manufacturing sector so that it remains economically competitive. Figuring out how to translate that economic competitiveness into material benefits for individuals is a separate problem. Confusing the two is itself a risk to our economic competitiveness. (To make this point is a somewhat hyperbolic way: if the goal is jobs, build a canal through the center of the country. Using spoons.) Also, I think the manufacturing output numbers alone miss something important from my original post. Losing semiconductor manufacturing as a core competency also threatens the most profitable and important components of the US services sector.
- vonmoltke 6y ago
  > But I'm not talking about jobs, at all. The US needs a robust manufacturing sector so that it remains economically competitive. Figuring out how to translate that economic competitiveness into material benefits for individuals is a separate problem. Confusing the two is itself a risk to our economic competitiveness. (To make this point is a somewhat hyperbolic way: if the goal is jobs, build a canal through the center of the country. Using spoons.) Why, then, did you ignore the other chart I pointed out that specifically dealt with the economic value? > Also, I think the manufacturing output numbers alone miss something important from my original post. Losing semiconductor manufacturing as a core competency also threatens the most profitable and important components of the US services sector. I agree that losing this competency would be damaging. I disagree that it represents a threat. The threat is the continued consolidation of certain types of semiconductor manufacturing into an ever-shrinking pool of companies. While it would be slightly better if that pool were partly concentrated in the US, the size and diversity of that pool is a much bigger issue than where its members are located.
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    > Why, then, did you ignore the other chart I pointed out that specifically dealt with the economic value? The only other chart lists "Computer and electronic products" as the second-largest manufacturing sector, which seems to confirm my assertion that semiconductors have been an important source of growth. It's the second largest category and has had annualized real growth rates 2x+ the rest US manufacturing for decades. I don't see any breakdown of semiconductors/not-semiconductors for that category, and this is a 2017 snapshot as opposed to longitudinal data, so it's hard to say anything more specific using the data you linked to. > The threat is the continued consolidation of certain types of semiconductor manufacturing into an ever-shrinking pool of companies. While it would be slightly better if that pool were partly concentrated in the US, the size and diversity of that pool is a much bigger issue than where its members are located. Sure, I agree. (Caveat of course that geopolitical diversity matters too. N separate SOEs would increase diversity in a way that wouldn't be particularly helpful to the USA, for example.) In any case, this is actually something I more-or-less agree with, and hence the last sentence of my original post.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    The US doesn’t need to competency in commodity manufacturing that’s not going to increase our standard of living. Things get offshored when we have better investments to make with our people and capital here.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      The US will not be in the dominant position where it can have such incredibly advantageous trade relationships that it can increase standard of living using only services forever. It also causes a huge vulnerability.
      - valuearb 6y ago
        Free trade has only worked for 240 years, let me know when managed trade works once.

throwawaygh 6y ago

> manufacturing buckets for job growth in 2018... It is certainly an important sector for economic and strategic reasons, but you are significantly overstating its importance. But I'm not talking about jobs, at all. The US needs a robust manufacturing sector so that it remains economically competitive. Figuring out how to translate that economic competitiveness into material benefits for individuals is a separate problem. Confusing the two is itself a risk to our economic competitiveness. (To make this point is a somewhat hyperbolic way: if the goal is jobs, build a canal through the center of the country. Using spoons.) Also, I think the manufacturing output numbers alone miss something important from my original post. Losing semiconductor manufacturing as a core competency also threatens the most profitable and important components of the US services sector.

vonmoltke 6y ago
> But I'm not talking about jobs, at all. The US needs a robust manufacturing sector so that it remains economically competitive. Figuring out how to translate that economic competitiveness into material benefits for individuals is a separate problem. Confusing the two is itself a risk to our economic competitiveness. (To make this point is a somewhat hyperbolic way: if the goal is jobs, build a canal through the center of the country. Using spoons.) Why, then, did you ignore the other chart I pointed out that specifically dealt with the economic value? > Also, I think the manufacturing output numbers alone miss something important from my original post. Losing semiconductor manufacturing as a core competency also threatens the most profitable and important components of the US services sector. I agree that losing this competency would be damaging. I disagree that it represents a threat. The threat is the continued consolidation of certain types of semiconductor manufacturing into an ever-shrinking pool of companies. While it would be slightly better if that pool were partly concentrated in the US, the size and diversity of that pool is a much bigger issue than where its members are located.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  > Why, then, did you ignore the other chart I pointed out that specifically dealt with the economic value? The only other chart lists "Computer and electronic products" as the second-largest manufacturing sector, which seems to confirm my assertion that semiconductors have been an important source of growth. It's the second largest category and has had annualized real growth rates 2x+ the rest US manufacturing for decades. I don't see any breakdown of semiconductors/not-semiconductors for that category, and this is a 2017 snapshot as opposed to longitudinal data, so it's hard to say anything more specific using the data you linked to. > The threat is the continued consolidation of certain types of semiconductor manufacturing into an ever-shrinking pool of companies. While it would be slightly better if that pool were partly concentrated in the US, the size and diversity of that pool is a much bigger issue than where its members are located. Sure, I agree. (Caveat of course that geopolitical diversity matters too. N separate SOEs would increase diversity in a way that wouldn't be particularly helpful to the USA, for example.) In any case, this is actually something I more-or-less agree with, and hence the last sentence of my original post.
- valuearb 6y ago
  The US doesn’t need to competency in commodity manufacturing that’s not going to increase our standard of living. Things get offshored when we have better investments to make with our people and capital here.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    The US will not be in the dominant position where it can have such incredibly advantageous trade relationships that it can increase standard of living using only services forever. It also causes a huge vulnerability.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      Free trade has only worked for 240 years, let me know when managed trade works once.