5 ms·

> The lack of manufacturing in the US Um > The United States is the world's third largest manufacturer (after the People's Republic of China and the European

> The lack of manufacturing in the US Um > The United States is the world's third largest manufacturer (after the People's Republic of China and the European Union) with a record high real output in Q1 2018 of $2.00 trillion (i.e., adjusted for inflation in 2009 Dollars) well above the 2007 peak before the Great Recession of $1.95 trillion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20is%20the%20world%27s%20third%20largest,peak%20before%20the%20Great%20Recession%20of%20%241.95%20trillion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_St....

iratewizard 5y ago
From your link: the US made up 28% of manufacturing in 2002, dipped steeply, and then rose back to 18%. That's a huge loss of manufacturing. Especially when you consider that the manufacturing activity in China is, in large part, US companies gutting their own operations to save a buck. The short-sighted, "well educated" Harvard MBA bean counters aren't taught in school what comes next. After they gut and globalized, China steals their IP and floods the market with clones under a dozen shadow brands.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ScarletEmerald 5y ago
  The bean counters got their salaries and bonuses. Why should they care what happens next? It seems to me that historically the real controls on our business models were social, not regulatory. And with ethics and conscience removed, we've become a society being slowly devoured by a close relative of paper-clip optimizer AIs, running on distributed and fungible human wetware.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  It never dropped in absolute terms. It’s been on a constant upward trend. As a proportion of global manufacturing it dropped but that’s inevitable with other economies growing if you’re as big a part of the global economy as the US is.
  - iratewizard 5y ago
    Tell that to the rust belt.
truffdog 5y ago
My understanding is that a lot of the US' manufacturing output is an artifact of how agencies do statistical adjustments for improvements in computer chips.
wutbrodo 5y ago
Huh, it's strange that they'd consider the EU a "single" manufacturer for the purposes of that list.
- bruce511 5y ago
  It's helpful to do that because it provides like-with-like comparisons. Functionally the EU operates with zero internal customs etc, free movement of people etc. It also represents a population group of a similar size to the US and China. In the same way, breaking down manufacturing in the US by state, and comparing each state to China is not helpful, so dealing with each European country invidually in the comparison would not be helpful.
  - tatersolid 5y ago
    Shouldn’t Canada and Mexico be combined with the United States based on those criteria? NAFTA is still a thing.
    - bruce511 5y ago
      I thought of that as well. But while there is a mostly free movement of goods, there isn't a free movement of people. Plus from a motivational point of view adding in Mexico and Canada does nothing for those keen to improve the state of US manufacturing. Inside Europe there would be similar reports comparing the individual countries - and I suspect at the US state level there might be studies as well. With the free movement of people though internal competition is less beneficial. (although geographic spread is still desirable.)

iratewizard 5y ago

From your link: the US made up 28% of manufacturing in 2002, dipped steeply, and then rose back to 18%. That's a huge loss of manufacturing. Especially when you consider that the manufacturing activity in China is, in large part, US companies gutting their own operations to save a buck. The short-sighted, "well educated" Harvard MBA bean counters aren't taught in school what comes next. After they gut and globalized, China steals their IP and floods the market with clones under a dozen shadow brands.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ScarletEmerald 5y ago
The bean counters got their salaries and bonuses. Why should they care what happens next? It seems to me that historically the real controls on our business models were social, not regulatory. And with ethics and conscience removed, we've become a society being slowly devoured by a close relative of paper-clip optimizer AIs, running on distributed and fungible human wetware.
barry-cotter 5y ago
It never dropped in absolute terms. It’s been on a constant upward trend. As a proportion of global manufacturing it dropped but that’s inevitable with other economies growing if you’re as big a part of the global economy as the US is.
- iratewizard 5y ago
  Tell that to the rust belt.

truffdog 5y ago

My understanding is that a lot of the US' manufacturing output is an artifact of how agencies do statistical adjustments for improvements in computer chips.

wutbrodo 5y ago

Huh, it's strange that they'd consider the EU a "single" manufacturer for the purposes of that list.

bruce511 5y ago
It's helpful to do that because it provides like-with-like comparisons. Functionally the EU operates with zero internal customs etc, free movement of people etc. It also represents a population group of a similar size to the US and China. In the same way, breaking down manufacturing in the US by state, and comparing each state to China is not helpful, so dealing with each European country invidually in the comparison would not be helpful.
- tatersolid 5y ago
  Shouldn’t Canada and Mexico be combined with the United States based on those criteria? NAFTA is still a thing.
  - bruce511 5y ago
    I thought of that as well. But while there is a mostly free movement of goods, there isn't a free movement of people. Plus from a motivational point of view adding in Mexico and Canada does nothing for those keen to improve the state of US manufacturing. Inside Europe there would be similar reports comparing the individual countries - and I suspect at the US state level there might be studies as well. With the free movement of people though internal competition is less beneficial. (although geographic spread is still desirable.)