6 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - 411111111111111 6y ago
      it worked because the cards were heavily stacked toward the US and other first world countries. as the developing world improves their standard of living, so does the same decrease for people in the developed world, because these developing nations are no longer dependent on the developed one's. It was always just a question of time with globalization in effect. personally, i think that this is a good thing though. we in the developed world have been living unsustainable lives for generations, living off of the developing nations. though thats most definitely not the only reason why everything has been getting harder for the working population. automation, higher efficiency, extreme concentration of wealth and more do their part in the current situation as well.
      - valuearb 6y ago
        Our standard of living continues to increase along with the developing world, and free trade deserves much of the credit.
        6y ago

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.
  - 411111111111111 6y ago
    it worked because the cards were heavily stacked toward the US and other first world countries. as the developing world improves their standard of living, so does the same decrease for people in the developed world, because these developing nations are no longer dependent on the developed one's. It was always just a question of time with globalization in effect. personally, i think that this is a good thing though. we in the developed world have been living unsustainable lives for generations, living off of the developing nations. though thats most definitely not the only reason why everything has been getting harder for the working population. automation, higher efficiency, extreme concentration of wealth and more do their part in the current situation as well.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      Our standard of living continues to increase along with the developing world, and free trade deserves much of the credit.
      - 6y ago