United States has lost 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000

[FreakinDJ]

As of the end of 2009, less than 12 million Americans worked in manufacturing. The last time less than 12 million Americans were employed in manufacturing was in 1941.


In 1959, manufacturing represented 28 percent of U.S. economic output. In 2008, it represented 11.5 percent.






Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/deindustrialization-factory-closing-2010-9#the-united-states-has-lost-a-whopping-32-percent-of-its-manufacturing-jobs-since-the-year-2000-13#ixzz1iocPOYv7

[Little Star]

1. Ain't globalization great! Ugh!

[AZ Progressive]

66. This is what happens when the politicians embrace snake oil salesmen

Globalization is the greatest con job done to America. We have been making China grow and grow, and now China will overtake the United States in purchasing power GDP by 2016. According to James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank from 1995 to 2005, China and India will constitute 50% of the World GDP by 2050.

[treestar]

2. Why are these the only good jobs?

In the scheme of things, one does not know if the jobs people got instead were better.

Professional unemployment has not even gone down.

What's the obsession with these jobs?

What about nurses, doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. Why is it better to work in a factory?

I think there is a lot more to this issue than meets the eye.

[Union Scribe]

4. Yes, they all became doctors.

Thanks for the fair and balanced view of things.

[FreakinDJ]

5. Treestar - why is poverty in the USA at the highest level since they started keeping records 50 year

ago

And of course when the "Factory jobs goes - so do all the support jobs, sales, real estate, doctors nurses ect ect

[Romulox]

18. Maybe people *like* to live in poverty? Ever think of that? There's a lot more here than meets the

eye...er, I mean, um...

[treestar]

33. Why are all of those jobs impossible without factory jobs?

don't get the obsession. And the US is still the #1 manufacturer anyway.

Does the economy have to be making stuff that ends up in the landfill in order to function?

[Romulox]

79. Again treestar, FACTS. What *actually* happened is key. Not what you imagine *might* happen.

[Zalatix]

95. Because history has said so. What is your problem with people having good paying jobs, anyway?

You always seem to find some way to tell American workers to f$%k off, from one thread to another.

This is getting old. America is no longer buying your argument.

[lazarus]

102. in the good old days

from 1945 to 1980, here's how the economy worked: Labour was used to extract raw materials. Labour was used to process those raw materials. Labour was used to convert the results into finished goods.

Those finished goods were worth substantially more than the raw materials, and labour was, for the most part, well compensated along the way.

This spread wealth throughout the economy, growing a huge middle class with too much power and money for the elites. So they began a campaign to return this country to the gilded age of the late 19th century, moving all the wealth to the top.

They've been very effective, as the middle class is evaporating, real wage growth is in negative territory, and more and more people are living in poverty. Once the 1% have extracted all the wealth, they'll move on to the next region. They're vampire squids, to borrow a term from Matt Taibbi.

[Vincardog]

6. WE really need the smiles back. I can't tell who is kidding any more.

[aquart]

9. Dear, sweet lord.

What determined insularity.

[Ron Obvious]

11. Good jobs

Roughly speaking, manufacturing jobs create wealth while service jobs merely pass it around. We can't survive as a middle-class society by selling each other Big Macs and treating the resulting coronary.

[midnight]

14. That makes alot of sense.....So why don't they get protected?

[Brickbat]

15. By whom?

[midnight]

23. Touche!

[Ron Obvious]

21. Why manufacturing is not protected

Sadly, because our CEOs only care about short-term balance sheet profits (c.f. outsourcing and creating a race to the bottom), and not the long term health of their companies or the health of the societies they live in. That, and we're a plutocracy, not a democracy.

[midnight]

25. Democratic Gov. Doyle of Wisconsin signed into law

that the public schools would be taught about labor.... Hopefully these future workers and managers will learn the respect that seems to be missing from this koch head mentality legislating in our country for the last 20 some years...

[FreakinDJ]

45. Corp Tax Avoidence Schemes play a HUGE role in off shoring manufacturing

Bloomburg had quite a few good articles on the "Nuts and Bolts" of the Corporate Tax Avoidence schemes which all depend on off shore production.

Wall St. finances these huge Multinational Corps whom buy up the smaller manufacturing companies just so they can add them to their portfolio of off shore production

[Blue_Tires]

77. that's been their plan for years in the making

extortion plain and simple...And I think they secretly get a sick pleasure from watching the rest of us fight each other to the death for the table scraps...

"Sure would be a shame if I had to close my factory in Peoria and lay off 2000 people unless the state gives me immense tax breaks/environmental concessions/looser regulation, etc..."

3 years after getting all those things they still close and move overseas...I fear it is only going to get worse

[FreakinDJ]

78. 60% of all Global Trade is "Inter-Corporation" Transfers used for Tax Avoidence

We are thinking too small. Not only do they get to cheat the American Corporate Tax Laws, they also get to cheat the tax laws of the country of origin

Best part is the American Working class get to become jobless in the process

[treestar]

34. Manufacturing what?

Does it make any difference what we manufacture?

Why is it superior to sales, design (manufacturing jobs could not exist without that), advertising, etc?

[Ron Obvious]

47. Who said it's superior? n/t

[treestar]

61. Find a post anywhere accounting for those things as jobs.

The repeated theme is that only the manufacturing jobs matter.

Take this example: I was in a store that sold nothing but Christmas ornaments. Every single thing made in China. Obviously not sold in China (there may be Christians there, but the are persecuted).

Were they designed in China? Unlikely. Therefore, the designers were American and were able to have their designs manufactured at all, because they could not afford it in the US.

I was in Australia last year and noticed they had the brains to mark things "designed in Australia, made in China." Maybe a simple branding like that would help.

[Occulus]

94. "Obviously not sold in China (there may be Christians there, but the are persecuted)"

Google images for "christmas in China" yields many lulz at your statement

[treestar]

37. Reverse snobbery

The person working in a plant does something valuable, while the designer, salesman, etc. and teacher, cop, lawyer, doctor, "just pass wealth around."

[Ron Obvious]

46. Huh?

You're reading something in my post that just isn't there, sorry.

[treestar]

62. That's exactly what you said

Service jobs just pass wealth around. Like that is somehow inferior. Yet someone who works in food service makes a living, so what's wrong with that? The economy has gotten more sophisticated over the years and created more jobs.

[Ron Obvious]

92. Not superior

I certainly didn't mean to imply anything. The fact is that manufacturing (& mining etc.) are important for the health of the overall economy because it creates new wealth for the local economy, whereas service jobs such as banking moves money around that already existed within that economy, and doesn't bring any new money into the system.

It's rather simplified, of course, and there are boundary cases like "intellectual property", but it's broadly true and that's why manufacturing merits special attention. Not because it's inherently a superior form of labour or anything.

Kevin Phillips wrote about the standard path in which empires rise up and go down as they transition to a banking economy in American Theocracy by comparing the paths of the Dutch and British empires in previous centuries to the American empire of today I highly recommend that book

[Occulus]

98. Blue-collar manufacturing workers are more likely to sustain repetitive-motion, muscle, and

joint injuries; such workers are more prone to sports-type injuries than other means of employment.

I've worn a suit and made decisions, stood behind a counter and asked "fries with that?", and printed cardboard bulk boxes in a pet food factory (among other jobs), so I feel I've walked the requisite mile in another man's shoes. Blue collar manufacturing jobs are physically harder, require more strength and stamina, and generally wear a body out faster than other forms of employment, yet are often dismissed (as are workers who hold such jobs) as being somehow "less" or "unworthy of fair treatment" compared to someone whose ass is glued into a chair all day long.

We've been considering manufacturing 'less important' in the US for many years now. What if we behaved differently?

[newspeak]

68. yes, manufacturing jobs create wealth

you got repugs explaining that it was WWII that got us out of depression, not FDR's work programs. Of course, FDR's work programs would have gotten us out, if the repug congress hadn't put a spoke in the wheel. Our manufacturing base went into full throttle when we declared war. So, why hasn't the war in iraq and afghanistan helped the country economically? Because, some manufactured goods, like bullets, are from places like China. We do not have a war profiteering act, to keep big businesses from basically screwing the taxpayers. And some of these businesses are global, not american.

[Ron Obvious]

99. FDR

I'm always amused by those conservatives who tell me that it wasn't the massive government spending by FDR that ended the depression, but WWII.

What is a world war but even greater, even more massive government spending?

[Brickbat]

12. Oh, hell. I'm drinking tonight, so I'll play.

These were good jobs because a person didn't have to go to college to get one, and could still support a family on one. A person with a job like this could afford a small house, a car, two weeks at the lake in the summer and maybe sock a little away for college for the kids, if they were smart and didn't overextend themselves. These jobs were usually union jobs, so there was a pension at retirement. They were stable jobs, so once you got one, you could expect to stick with it throughout your "career."

It was the very basic level an economy should provide for a person, and if a person wanted to do better, THEN a person could go to college and "aim higher" than a job like this one. But if someone didn't want to do that -- and there are many who don't; many would prefer to put in their eight hours, go home, and not have to think about it anymore -- there was a basic level of subsistence that was actually comfortable.

It's called the "middle class," and you might not be familiar with it because it's not around much anymore. That's why people are "obsessed" with these kind of jobs.

[midnight]

27. Very well said....

[treestar]

36. It is nutty to claim there is no middle class

And your first paragraph describes the people I know of. They are teachers, doctors, lawyers, accountants, salespeople, etc.

My grandfathers were blue collar and they did OK, but their kids did better - going into sales, management, nursing, teaching, law - they went to college and it is typical of the American story - the immigrant generation worked in blue collar jobs, and their descendants are professionals.

[Brickbat]

40. Your teacher, doctor, lawyer, accountant and salespeople friends got those jobs without college

degrees? Huh.

That's the point. You could have a life like that without a college degree. The college degree gave you the opportunity to move into the upper class. But if you didn't want to, you still had the opportunity to get a job that could support a family. You used to have a middle-class lifestyle without a college degree.

[treestar]

65. Oh wait a minute, now we're in the Upper Class?

So now we're what, part of the 1%?

The US as a whole is moving up and is lucky one of the wealthiest countries (which does not mean it has not poor and should not have a social safety net).

[Zalatix]

96. Brickbat, there is no reaching Treestar. Look what he has said before:

"Maybe as a nation we should lower our standards so the third world can do better"

Please read this for the whole context.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=52324

[Brickbat]

41. Also, yes, it's certainly "nutty" to claim that there is no middle class.

Which is why I didn't make any such claim.

If there are no blue-collar jobs left, how are our children going to "move up"?

[treestar]

64. How are there "no blue collar jobs left?"

[Romulox]

87. FACTS, treestar. You MUST engage with them to discuss "current events". nt

[1gobluedem]

39. + 1 billion

Excellently put.

[Hippo_Tron]

52. There's a lot of other factors that allowed for that economy, though...

The main one being that the rest of the world's manufacturing capacity had been largely wiped out in World War II, making the United States the only game in town. Health care costs weren't the massive clusterfuck that they were back then, either. Furthermore, unions were just plain stronger in all aspects then. While they never gained the foothold in the service sector that they did in the manufacturing sector, there's no guarantee that any new manufacturing jobs would be unionized.

And also, not for nothing, but the economic picture looked a little different if you weren't white and male back then.

So while I agree that the type of job security and lifestyle that people had back then was great, I'm not 100% sure that manufacturing is really the reason why that existed.

Also I want to add that while I agree with you about how it's ideal to be able to have a middle class lifestyle without a college degree, I don't think that's entirely about manufacturing. I think a lot of that has to do with so many people going to colleges that employers demand college degrees for jobs that don't really need them.

[Romulox]

17. Reality matters, treestar. These jobs *could* be replaced with something better, BUT THEY HAVEN'T

BEEN, to this point.

Reality, treestar. Engage with it!

[Elwood P Dowd]

24. You obviously know nothing about the domino effect.

When the factories close and move offshore, it's not just manufacturing jobs that are lost. The service and support jobs for them moves offshore also. With the factories gone, the local areas have fewer workers buying goods and services or paying taxes. Retail shops close, doctors move out of town, services businesses close, and the local governments have less revenue forcing them to layoff workers. The loss of 1,000 factory workers often can eventually lead to the loss of 1,000 other jobs. It's a race to the bottom, and it's not strictly just manufacturing. With a larger supply of people searching for jobs, there is less demand for good wages. People once working for $15-20 an hour in manufacturing are now forced to accept $10.00 an hour service or retail jobs without any benefits. And on and on and on it goes until we reach the point we're at now.

[treestar]

35. Hasn't happened though

We're still working. We still were before the manufacturing jobs moved to China.

We're at a higher level and thus lucky. Before China, it was generational. For example my grandfathers were working in manufacturing, blue collar jobs. My parents' generation worked as teacher, doctors, lawyers, salesmen, other professions. Their blue collar parents were still able to send them to college. We too all went to college.

This could be happening to the US as a whole. We are the most advanced economy. We're getting those higher education requiring jobs.

In China, etc., they aren't and those from that country who want those jobs migrate here.

[FreakinDJ]

42. That simply is Not True

Actually there are more Americans living in Poverty NOW then at any time since records began 50 years ago

[treestar]

63. They might want to buy the cheaper Chinese products then

In fact, that could be why they sell.

The solution is their getting jobs, not worrying about making sure the Chinese get none.

It's the unemployment rate that matters here anyway. No one argues that the Chinese or other third world people having jobs increases poverty in the US. The argument seems to be that it ups unemployment in the US.

[Elwood P Dowd]

44. Wrong again!

The REAL unemployment rate is almost double the fake numbers we get from the government. Also, wages for medium income and the working poor are lower than they were 20 years ago when adjusted for real world inflation. The govt CPI numbers are a joke because they don't include energy and food prices, plus they have added tons of substitution tricks to mask real world inflation. Millions of Americans that were once middle class are falling into poverty. Food Stamps are at record levels. The race to the bottom you embrace shows no signs of slowing down.

[Romulox]

80. FACTS, treestar. What *actually* is happening, not your imagination: "This could be happening..."

[Zalatix]

97. How do you explain the fact that we've replaced high paying manufacturing jobs with low paying crap?

Or just flat out rampant unemployment?

Seriously, nobody is buying this free trade crap anymore. Look around you. America is starting to see through this nonsense. Wake up!

[bhikkhu]

50. So all the new manufacturing jobs should have a reverse-domino effect

Even better, as we go into an election year!

[girl gone mad]

26. Short answer?

Nurses, doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. don't engage in the type of economic activity which increases our nation's overall wealth. Their work amounts to passing the same money back and forth within the economy, with no net increase in financial assets.

When a manufacturer takes raw materials and builds a finished good which we can sell to a foreign nation, they increase the amount of wealth in the economy.

The problem with relying on a service-based economy and subsequently running a trade deficit is that in order to achieve our desired level of economic growth, we've adopted a really destructive dependence on financial debt and asset bubbles, which amounts to a giant Ponzi scheme.

There are other problems with our heavy reliance on foreign manufacturing. We are losing our ability to make the things we need and want. I suggest you read up on why German manufacturers are so reluctant to shift production overseas. What the Germans understand is that innovation follows production. I want to keep this short so I will leave it at that.

[maggiesfarmer]

60. I think you have a point.

no, I don't think that every factor worker who lost their job became a doctor.

I think that manufacturing skills became a commodity service over the last several decades. Technology and modern training techniques have contributed to this -- most manufacturing jobs require at most a few weeks of training to produce a near-fully efficient entry level worker. When a service becomes a commodity, the cost drops as buyers perceive all services being essentially the same and go with the lower price. Unless Asian, African, etc... wages rise to the point where the shipping and overhead tilts the scales, those low cost countries will continue to sell the most manufacturing services.

I'm in favor of programs which help countries without infrastructure raise standards of living. I think China has the resources to raise the standard but their gov't chooses not to. regardless, I'm getting way off topic here. the point I'm getting at is that I don't see this changing in our generation to the point where US manufacturing labor will be able to compete with those countries. The US will retain a certain percentage of manufacturing work on critical items requiring highly skilled processes, but that's not going to be a major source of employment.

The solution seems to me to require a huge component of education, where we teach skills that are likely to have value for the next generation. Skills that are not easily outsourced.

[AZ Progressive]

67. You don't need to get into deep debt to do them

So many people have gotten themselves into $50,000 to $100,000+ in debt just to be able to afford to get a degree. Not to mention that many college degree jobs require you to take on higher levels of stress than working in a manufacturing job.

In the movie: Capitalism, a Love Story, Alvarado Bakery (which primarily makes organic bread) was shown as an example of a worker co-op, where the employees share in the decision making and the profits, and a regular factory worker there makes more than $65,000 a year on average.

Longshoremen make $80,000 to $120,000 a year, because they are unionized, and can come home and worry about other things. Not so for lawyers, doctors, nurses, etc... who work way more than 40 hours a week (yes doctors and lawyers may make more but how much time did it take to get their degree, how much in student loans did they have to pay, and what good is making a lot of money if you have to suffer a lot of stress and don't have the time to enjoy it?)

[Blue_Tires]

85. If you want to know why manufacturing jobs are so important

Take a look at the German economy

[Romulox]

89. "Rosie the Wall Mart Clerk" nt

[w8liftinglady]

93. my uncle is a good example.

IQ around 90. has worked in manufacturing for 38 years in Ct (union). Was able to send all his kids to college.THIS is why I am pro-labor.
I am a nurse.There's waiting lists and qualifications like nobody's business to get into nursing school...then you are looking at at least four years of college...to be a NURSE!...To be an MD,we're talking at least 10 years of college.I love my beautician like nobody's business,but I can't picture her in college. My partner is a teacher,and they are being laid off bigtime.
Now,imagine yourself,with an aptitude for mechanics or art trying to get through four years of college...(and 40K)...while trying to support a family...It's SO easy.

[onehandle]

3. Shut up and get back to work. Here are your scripts:

Welcome to Walmart.

Would you like fries with that?

Buddy, can you spare a dime?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

7. That's OLD news. THIS WEEK's news

is upbeat:

The manufacturing sector has turned around and has been contributing to economic growth for the past two years.

From http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2012/01/06/interesting-facts-from-todays-employment-report/

"The manufacturing sector added 225000 jobs in 2011, following an increase of 109000 factory jobs in 2010, bringing manufacturing employment to 11.79 million ..."

[ProSense]

16. Yes,

it's turning around:

Manufacturing Is Surprising Bright Spot in U.S. Economy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002125381


In 2010, manufacturing added jobs for the first time since 1997.

[Bonobo]

30. Yeah that tends to happen when your currency is worth shit.

All sorts of people can afford to buy US stuff when the dollar is worth shit.

The only real downside is that the dollar is worth shit.

[ProSense]

32. No doubt

"Yeah that tends to happen when your currency is worth shit."

...that's part of it, but the rebounding auto industry is also a huge contributor.

<...>

And then there’s the matter of the auto industry, which probably would have imploded if President Obama hadn’t stepped in to rescue General Motors and Chrysler. For those companies would almost surely have gone into liquidation, closing all their factories. And this liquidation would have undermined the rest of America’s auto industry, as essential suppliers went under, too. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were at stake.

Yet Mr. Obama was fiercely denounced for taking action. One Republican congressman declared the auto rescue part of the administration’s “war on capitalism.” Another insisted that when government gets involved in a company, “the disaster that follows is predictable.” Not so much, it turns out.

So while we still have a deeply troubled economy, one piece of good news is that Americans are, once again, starting to actually make things. And we’re doing that thanks, in large part, to the fact that the Fed and the Obama administration ignored very bad advice from right-wingers — ideologues who still, in the face of all the evidence, claim to know something about creating prosperity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/opinion/20krugman.html

[AZ Progressive]

69. Do we need more proof that Republicans hate America?

"Yet Mr. Obama was fiercely denounced for taking action. One Republican congressman declared the auto rescue part of the administration’s “war on capitalism.” Another insisted that when government gets involved in a company, “the disaster that follows is predictable.” Not so much, it turns out."

When you say that saving more than a hundred thousand American jobs is a bad thing, you must hate America.

[progressoid]

71. At 1980's wages.

Yippee!

[pampango]

8. Every developed country has seen manufacturing decline. Several have it worse than the US.

"One interesting tidbit: While Americans sometimes complain that the country doesn’t “make” anything anymore — a sentiment related to manufacturing’s long-term slide in this country — they should know that declines in manufacturing jobs are common in the rest of the developed world, too:

In the United States (the red line), manufacturing as a share of total employment has fallen 15.5 percentage points in recent decades, from 26.4 percent of jobs in 1970 to 10.9 percent in 2008. In some other countries the decline has been even steeper. In Britain, for example, the share of employment held by manufacturing has fallen 21.9 percentage points in the last few decades, from 33.9 percent in 1971 to 12 percent in 2008.

There are several generally accepted explanations for these trends. They include productivity growth and new technologies; the rise of the service-sector economy; and the shift of manufacturing jobs to areas of the world where labor is cheaper."

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/manufacturing-around-the-world

[Romulox]

20. And our gilded-age leve inequality, childhood poverty, worst social mobility in the developed world?

Entirely inevitable, and eminently explainable, I'm sure.

[pampango]

83. Are caused by slashing the safety net, eliminating progressive taxes, weakening unions and

deregulating corporations and the financial industry. We've been through this before.

Progressive countries with very equitable distributions of income, much lower poverty rates and much better social mobility have experienced the same decline in manufacturing employment. What progressive countries do differently to achieve these benefits is higher/more progressive taxation, strong safety nets, empowered unions and effective corporate regulation.

[Romulox]

86. Nonsense. You have no proof for that whatever. It's just a convenient excuse. nt

[pampango]

101. No proof of what?

"And our gilded-age leve inequality, childhood poverty, worst social mobility in the developed world?"

"Are caused by slashing the safety net, eliminating progressive taxes, weakening unions and deregulating corporations and the financial industry. We've been through this before.

Progressive countries with very equitable distributions of income, much lower poverty rates and much better social mobility have experienced the same decline in manufacturing employment. What progressive countries do differently to achieve these benefits is higher/more progressive taxation, strong safety nets, empowered unions and effective corporate regulation."

Do you want proof that slashing our safety net, cutting taxes for the rich, weakening our unions and deregulating corporations has led to "our gilded-age level inequality, childhood poverty, worst social mobility in the developed world"? Or that the progressive countries in Europe, Canada, Australia and others (which have higher/progressive taxation, stronger unions, better safety nets and better regulations) have much more equitable distributions of income, lower levels of poverty and improved social mobility?

[midnight]

28. I wonder if they all went to China or India?

[bhikkhu]

49. Your graph stops before Obama's policies turned manufacturing around

...since February 2010 we have had 302k new manufacturing jobs created. As turning around the long decline of US manufacturing has been one of the big goals of the administration, its only fair to give him a little credit for a part of the economy that is doing increasingly well.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

53. Great news! Is this the result of the Free Trade Agreements with South Korea, Columbia, and Panama?

You know, the Free Trade Agreements negotiated by Bush in 2007 and ultimately submitted to Congress by Obama.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-robertson/obamas-free-trade-sleight_b_993403.html

Some think that 25 million Americans are looking for full-time work.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-robertson/obamas-free-trade-sleight_b_993403.html

Who knew that supporting more Free Trade Agreements would lead to the creation of 302k new manufacturing jobs? Such jobs really exist, right?

[bhikkhu]

58. Its more the result of monetary policies, and good trade policies

Monetary policies - "strong dollar" or "weak dollar" - have a big impact on how expensive imports are here relative to domestic manufactures, and how expensive US exports are elsewhere versus another country's own goods. Things were out of balance for a long time, and policies generally encouraged the destruction of US manufactures, and that's where the numbers and the general fear of trade comes from.

On the other hand, good policies lead to good results, as we see currently, moving in a better direction.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

59. It's more likely the result of unreliable reporting and propaganda. It's inherently incredible.

[bhikkhu]

70. So, in spite of the data, you believe there are no new manufacturing jobs

...US exports haven't risen to a record level this year ( http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/business/economy/us-exports-rise-to-record-as-trade-deficit-shrinks.html ), trade deficits haven't shrunk, and anyone who says otherwise is just making crap up.

Which leads to the next question - if you basically believe the whole republican line about the economy and Obama's policies, who are you going to vote for to make things better?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

72. Increased exports does not mean that manufacturing jobs are being added in a signifigant way.

Even if true, it can otherwise mean that items that would otherwise be sold in this country are being exported to foreigners who can afford them.

Even the article that you linked to included the following:
"The report suggested that companies were not significantly increasing layoffs, despite weak economic growth."

"WEAK ECONOMIC GROWTH" are the words used in that article.

[bhikkhu]

73. 300,000 jobs added in manufacturing is significant

...particularly if you look at that in the context of decades of job losses in that sector. And it speaks well for Obama's trade policies that we have both added jobs in manufacturing and increased exports to record levels:



We do have what they call "weak economic growth", but it is growth nevertheless. If you look at the pre-2008 predictions of what high oil prices would do to the economy, the consensus was that they would inevitably cause recession and cut down growth. That was to be the same for any country, and of course for any president. If you would concede - as many people do now - that high energy prices are here to stay, then 1-2% growth begins to look more like a goal to aspire to. Perhaps some day down the road the media will stop calling it "weak" and start calling it simply what it is - "positive growth", the opposite of economic decline.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

74. His trade policies? = "Free Trade" with South Korea, Columbia, and Panama.

Let's break out the Champagne.

There's no doubt that the 1% who support him are.

[bhikkhu]

75. Again, the effects of trade vary with the monetary policy and trade agreement behind it

"Free trade" doesn't exist - what there are is trade agreements, which both parties negotiate and agree to. The fear of trade that many people have comes from the results of decades of "strong dollar" policy, which makes imports much cheaper than domestic production here, and our exports much more expensive than domestic production there.

Obama has packaged well-negotiated trade agreements and policies with a more balanced monetary policy, and the result is that we have increased manufactured good exports, increased manufacturing jobs, and reduced the trade deficit (somewhat). When you scoff at the notion that we could benefit from trade, you repeat the results of past presidents and ignore the results of this president. Several hundred thousand people in the US with new jobs created by the growth in exports and manufacturing here would disagree.

[pampango]

76. You understand that our trade with "free trade" countries is much more equal than with

the rest of the world?

We have "free trade" with 17 countries. In 2010 our total trade with the those 17 countries was $1.115 trillion. We had a deficit of $71.1 billion (6.5% of the total). Exports were 47% of the total and imports were 53%.

In 2010 our total trade with the rest of the world was $2.108 trillion. We had a deficit of $574.8 billion (27.2% of the total). Exports were 37% and imports were 63%.

[Romulox]

82. You understand what a "deficit" is, yes? It means more came in then went out, irrespective of "free

trade" status.

Basic stuff, pampango.

[pampango]

84. And smaller deficits are better than bigger deficits.

It makes little sense to prefer "regular" trade with its larger deficits to "free trade" with its much smaller trade deficits.

Sorry. It has been a busy day.

[Romulox]

90. They're still UNSUSTAINABLE, pampango. Do you have any background in economics?

I should think not.

[Romulox]

81. Um, pampango? Not much of a "discusser", are you? You avoided my questions like the plague!

[2Design]

10. 32% of 10% left by 2000 is still alot - the damage was done and continued and continues

[Initech]

13. And CEO to worker pay is 475:1. Capitalism - the ultimate ponzi scheme.

[Romulox]

19. Remember: we MUST re-elect the signor of the "free trade" with Korea deal. MUST! nt

[Brickbat]

22. Just think of what might happen if we DON'T!!11!

[airplaneman]

31. Its really quite simple

Countries that produce more goods and services than they consume are creating wealth. Todays exampes are Brazil, India, China, Russia. Yesterdays example was the USA. We have outsourced our production to the point we consume 30% more goods and services than we produce and this is the very definiton of "The destruction of wealth". Brazil has done an amazing job pulling huge numbers of their population out of poverty. GE moved factories to Brazil that pay $4.00 per hour instead of $25.00 here as a typical example. China would not be exploding into the 21st century without our help or our demise. We have created gaping holes in our infrastructure due to the inability to produce things ourselves. One day China will say these factories are on our soil and are ours, not yours, just like the arabs did with oil in the 70's. All this has been done in the name of short term profits for CEO's and shareholders. On top of this we have not been very bright as a society in stoping this change. It is my hope OWS is the beginning of the real change. If not we are headed to Egypt style revolt in our lifetime.
-Airplane

[G_j]

38. but, but... Wallmart has jobs!

There are low paying retail jobs out there selling stuff made in China!

[barbtries]

43. gwbush

yes, the very worst president ever.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

54. Agreed, but after Bush negotiated the Free Trade Agreements with South Korea, Columbia, and Panama,

in 2007, who recently submitted them to Congress?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-robertson/obamas-free-trade-sleight_b_993403.html

[bhikkhu]

48. Under Obama, since 2/2010, we have had a net gain of 302k manufacturing jobs

...which is a significant increase, given the long history of decline. Its only fair to give the president a little current credit, as this has been one of his big goals, and the long trend has been reversed, for now.

Always be a little leery about how the numbers are selected before drawing conclusions; in the OP's data selection, you would think we are still on the same historic trend and nothing is changed, so perhaps we need someone different at the helm (knowing well how the other side selects and interprets data - we have to be a little smarter).

[AnotherMcIntosh]

55. Who made up the chart?

[bhikkhu]

57. The data is originally from the Bureau of Labor Statistics

...the graph is from data360.org , which gives http://www.gerdaumarketupdate.com/storage/marketplace/2011/dec/... as direct source material. It all derives from the BLS reports, which are public information and easily accessed.

[Douglas Carpenter]

51. just wait a little longer - all the benefits of NAFTA and GATT and all the other free trade deals

will soon kick in.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

56. Sooner or later, the top politicians are going to run out of countries to free-trade with.

[Romulox]

88. So. Do DU's "free traders" *really* not know about unemployment, underemployment, inequality,

childhood poverty, and all the other destruction that their neoliberal economics have wrought?

Because the "how do we know there aren't good jobs?" schtick, deployed above, is pathetic!

[FreakinDJ]

91. The 1%'s THEFT of the Economy

They have turned a once thriving economy for all into a Wealth Transferring Machine that ONLY benifits the 1%

[Quantess]

100. Wow what a nutty discussion in this thread.

Some of you DUers have the patience of a saint, so to speak.