I am by no means an export on manufacturing, nor international trade, economics, or virtually anything relevant to manufacturing. Just a layman here.
Observationally I fear there is a lack of nuance in discussing "bringing back manufacturing" (really re-expanding) to the U.S.
I fear the lack of nuance is due to bias based on not liking the guy in the red tie or the other guy that's in a blue tie so there's just blinders about whether or not a particular policy will achieve a particular stated goal.
The next thing I see is it just lumping manufacturing all into one bucket.
Take manufacturing smartphones. Because the U.S. doesn't assemble iPhones the U.S. appears to be bad at manufacturing? No, I think it's just not good at assembling iPhones.
Just looking at numbers, sure the U.S. steel production is dwarfed by China but globally it's still a major producer. And there's no discussion of quality.
Look at oil & gas. I'm pretty sure the U.S. both produces the raw material and refined product at a significant amount globally.
Plastic manufacturing. I toured a bottle manufacturing plant last summer. It's primary a customer was Limited Brands (Victoria Secret)
It built molds. It upgraded factory equipment roughly every 8 years (increasing production & reducing labor costs). Why was it able to manufacturer bottles in the U.S. even it's selling at a higher price? Because it's primary customer was essentially down the street. That is, apparently the cost to not import across the globe more than offset the cost to manufacture here.
I understand that's just an example and I'm trusting the information from that company was reliable.
But first I think we need to be honest about how much manufacturing is here and what type. Then discuss which policies are likely to achieve goals we may have in mind.
I think there's merit to manufacturing semiconductors and batteries here. But we need to also be aware that while manufacturing may bring jobs, an increasing amount of labor will be automated.
Yes, there's little nuance. I see so many people saying it will be hard to bring back manufacturing jobs, or "we can't go back to the 50s," and then they just stop as if that settles the argument. The implication, which they never say out loud, is that we shouldn't even try, just accept things as they are. Just be the Big Consumer until someday the rest of the world doesn't want our dollars anymore, and then what?
Seems much better to look seriously at the manufacturing we still have (as you say, it's considerable), where we can expand on that, and where we're lacking and need to rebuild.
We also need to look at what manufacturing we want. That is why the military needs keep coming up - in case of war we are unlikely to be able to get things from China so we better have a different source (though the source need not be in the US - Canada should be just as good so long as we can keep Canada our friends - same with the EU).
Once the military needs are met, I don't care what we make, just that we need good jobs for people who are not able to handle more complex jobs.
> just that we need good jobs for people who are not able to handle more complex jobs
If manufacturing becomes more efficient at using labor from automation that seems like that would lower the number of available jobs wouldn't it?
Unless consumption grows with the increase in output so that more factories are needed to meet the demand?
If you need 1000 cars and automation takes it down to 10 people from 100 people before, where are those 90 other people to get jobs?
Unless you grow the need for cars to 10000.
Simplification I know, but I am confused at how manufacturing is supposed to endlessly support a large "less-complex task" labor supply while simultaneously providing a good standard of living?
for starters we need to make lots of different things.
we also need education reform so that those people get the education needed to do more complex tasks insteade of droping out. What this looks like I don't really know.
Observationally I fear there is a lack of nuance in discussing "bringing back manufacturing" (really re-expanding) to the U.S.
I fear the lack of nuance is due to bias based on not liking the guy in the red tie or the other guy that's in a blue tie so there's just blinders about whether or not a particular policy will achieve a particular stated goal.
The next thing I see is it just lumping manufacturing all into one bucket.
Take manufacturing smartphones. Because the U.S. doesn't assemble iPhones the U.S. appears to be bad at manufacturing? No, I think it's just not good at assembling iPhones.
Just looking at numbers, sure the U.S. steel production is dwarfed by China but globally it's still a major producer. And there's no discussion of quality.
Look at oil & gas. I'm pretty sure the U.S. both produces the raw material and refined product at a significant amount globally.
Plastic manufacturing. I toured a bottle manufacturing plant last summer. It's primary a customer was Limited Brands (Victoria Secret)
It built molds. It upgraded factory equipment roughly every 8 years (increasing production & reducing labor costs). Why was it able to manufacturer bottles in the U.S. even it's selling at a higher price? Because it's primary customer was essentially down the street. That is, apparently the cost to not import across the globe more than offset the cost to manufacture here.
I understand that's just an example and I'm trusting the information from that company was reliable.
But first I think we need to be honest about how much manufacturing is here and what type. Then discuss which policies are likely to achieve goals we may have in mind.
I think there's merit to manufacturing semiconductors and batteries here. But we need to also be aware that while manufacturing may bring jobs, an increasing amount of labor will be automated.