Goodbye Middle Class

[Spyder7]

What Tempest's pretty graphs fail to capture:

Quote:

Of all the leading manufacturing countries, the one that is growing the fastest economically is China. China's GDP grew by 22.59% in 2007, which was among the greatest GDP growth out of any country, made all the more impressive by China's huge size (over 1.1 billion people). The leaders of China wish to reclaim China's position as the world's #1 manufacturer by 2020, and have engaged in an ambitious industrialization program to do so. Because much of China is still unindustrialized, China has considerable room for improvement, while the leader of manufacturing countries, the United States, is already completely industrialized


http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-top-manufacturing-countries.htm

And another graph that takes a bigger picture, but aims squarely at looking at manufacturing jobs (the more relevant detail that pertains to this thread):

http://www.norcalblogs.com/bored/2010/06/china-to-pass-us-in-manufacturing-output.php

The part I see as the most consequential, is the huge drop from 2000 onward where the slope of the graph goes near vertically downward.

-Spyder

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
The reason people in this country make more money is because they are more productive. They put out more goods and services per person than anyone else on the planet.


Really ?

Got a link for that ?

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
The part I see as the most consequential, is the huge drop from 2000 onward where the slope of the graph goes near vertically downward.


The question is why?.

http://www.scdigest.com/assets/newsViews/08-06-12-2.php

Quote:
In the 1987 to 2007 period, manufacturing value added output has increased by 123% while employment has fallen by 21%. This suggests an overall productivity increase of 181% for the manufacturing sector, and it would have been greater if the data had gone back to 1978. So where in manufacturing were productivity gains greatest? Probably in electronics and computers.

http://econintersect.com/wordpress/?p=6237

Machines doing most of the work, reducing the need for people.

Do you want our economy to be less efficient to save "jobs"?

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Tempest
The reason people in this country make more money is because they are more productive. They put out more goods and services per person than anyone else on the planet.


Really ?

Got a link for that ?


http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17420

More here but it's a "bias" source:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...ng-productivity

 

[ZZman]

Yes, increased productivity usually means more machines and less people or jobs.

Would we really work in a sweatshop 7 days a week 10-12 hours a day for low wages or even decent wages?

I doubt it.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Tempest
The reason people in this country make more money is because they are more productive. They put out more goods and services per person than anyone else on the planet.


Really ?

Got a link for that ?


http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17420

More here but it's a "bias" source:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...ng-productivity


They don't state what you stated.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Our share of output has dropped by 5%, while loosing more than 5% of our manufacturing jobs, all the while increasing actual output. China has gained ~17% share. To say that employment has dropped because of China simply doesn't add up as there is no correlation. These graphs show that China simply has ADDED to global output, not taken from the US.


Your statement already is the valid argument. Dropping share and losing jobs when someone else gaining share and jobs. When both sides productivity gain via efficiency improvements are factored in, we lost some and they gain some.


Quote:
Quote:
The cheap labor was locked up in agricultural until they are open to employment in other sectors (i.e. manufacturing).

How were their markets "opened" to other sectors?


Based on 2nd hand information from my family members used to work there. You are "assigned" a job when you graduate and you work there for life, and cannot quit and find another job elsewhere. So, once they let the capitalist factories started people gradually started quitting their old job and start working elsewhere as they like. Farming to manufacturing is the biggest career change.

 

[Mr Nice]

Quote:
Would we really work in a sweatshop 7 days a week 10-12 hours a day for low wages or even decent wages?


Heck no, but people in China would be more than happy to do so.

 

[expat]

Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Quote:
Would we really work in a sweatshop 7 days a week 10-12 hours a day for low wages or even decent wages?


Heck no, but people in China would be more than happy to do so.





But it does seem the U.S. is on the way there, working longer hours for less!

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Our share of output has dropped by 5%, while loosing more than 5% of our manufacturing jobs, all the while increasing actual output. China has gained ~17% share. To say that employment has dropped because of China simply doesn't add up as there is no correlation. These graphs show that China simply has ADDED to global output, not taken from the US.



So as mentioned before... Where are the resources to keep this going coming from? Many industrially relevant raw materials have less than 100 yrs available supply left. Should we just turn our backyards into strip mines for the purpose of this "growth"?

Unfortunately the greatest backfire will be the "coming up" of three billion people. Much of he growth is due to just that. But again, more people and cash (funny money really) chasing dwindling resources does not spell good things...

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
So as mentioned before... Where are the resources to keep this going coming from? Many industrially relevant raw materials have less than 100 yrs available supply left. Should we just turn our backyards into strip mines for the purpose of this "growth"?

Unfortunately the greatest backfire will be the "coming up" of three billion people. Much of he growth is due to just that. But again, more people and cash (funny money really) chasing dwindling resources does not spell good things...


I wouldn't worry too much about the resource. Like Tempest said supply and demand and profit with new approaches would take care of that. We no longer use sperm whale oil and algae / bacteria fuel seems to be ready before we will run out of oil.

But before things become equilibrium, buckle up for the ride because the road to Tempest's Utopia is a roller coaster on an unpaved road with broken suspensions.

 

[JHZR2]

Yes but the difference is that resources will simply NOT exist. The alternative will be sticks and thatch and mud, as that is about all that can truly be available. Sounds like reverting to third world to me. We will be at the point where the rabbits are overpopulated and start to die off.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
So, once they let the capitalist factories started people gradually started quitting their old job and start working elsewhere as they like. Farming to manufacturing is the biggest career change.

And they are getting paid more for their productivity.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: expat
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Quote:
Would we really work in a sweatshop 7 days a week 10-12 hours a day for low wages or even decent wages?


Heck no, but people in China would be more than happy to do so.





But it does seem the U.S. is on the way there, working longer hours for less!

We have a lot more competition now than we used to. India and China intentionally cut off their markets from the world for decades. Now that both of these countries have opened their markets, they are able to compete in the global market for resources. We had better improve our productivity and business environment or we will indeed suffer.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

They don't state what you stated.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html


Has nothing to do with productivity. Many factors involved there including transfer payments and the like. Qatar is an oil giant for its size. Luxemburg moves lots of money through its banks so the PPP is greatly exaggerated, etc...

 

[Shannow]

I thought that you were arguing the GDP from the other side of the coin the other day.

And as you've previously informed, me, that's why they call it oil "production", in spite of my arguments that it's "extraction"...of a finite resource.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
I thought that you were arguing the GDP from the other side of the coin the other day.

Ah, got it. As I stated then, it is a very simple measure of productivity, and a very different measure from the ones in the links above.

Production vs extraction seems like semantics to me. If it is still in the ground, it does you no good, no matter what you call it.

 

[Volvo_ST1]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Production vs extraction seems like semantics to me.


Production is defined as bringing something into existence or as manufacturing it. Extraction is defined as removing something. Within the context of fossil fuel, there can be no oil production and manufacturing (refining, cracking etc) without oil extraction.

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
I thought that you were arguing the GDP from the other side of the coin the other day.

Ah, got it. As I stated then, it is a very simple measure of productivity, and a very different measure from the ones in the links above.

Production vs extraction seems like semantics to me. If it is still in the ground, it does you no good, no matter what you call it.


You throw the "productivity" term around so often that I'd like to see a real, meaningful definition of it from you.

What would be even better, if you took into account that the US, being fully developed, faces an inherent barrier to further productivity gains that China, which being still in the developing stage, faces no such barrier and its logical - from my reasoning - to extrapolate that its China that will make the large gains in productivity, while the US has already made them and is now well beyond the point of consequent diminishing returns.

When you factor together China's population together with its still developing economy (meaning they are nowhere near realizing their full potential as the US already has), and the fact that its the fastest growing economy in the world already and poised to occupy the #1 spot by 2020 (and the Chinese government has stated that this is their national priority), I can't see how an argument can be constructed - taking all of this into account - that will illustrate just how supposed gains in US productivity are the supposed savior you so often claim them to be.

And that's taking into account your usual caveats about the need for deregulation and lower taxes. It just doesn't add up from my POV.

-Spyder