Comments on: U.S. Still a Manufacturing Super Power

By: MBT shoes

MBT shoes — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 02:13:00 +0000

Hi. Just letting you know that I enjoyed your site.
dee.

By: mbt shoes

mbt shoes — Mon, 10 May 2010 05:47:35 +0000

DO you like it?

By: thales

thales — Thu, 22 May 2008 12:53:18 +0000

I remember a brief public debate around 1965, regarding concerns about “automation”, a word you don't hear much anymore, and its socioeconomic impact. It may be time to revive this debate, as one of the most important public policy issues. My career in several Fortune 500 companies has led me to believe that production line workers should earn more, but only if they accept part of the enterprise's risk. If they have more of an “ownership” stake in the results, then they have an incentive to participate in making the enterprise more productive. The old wage-earning model becomes more and more inappropriate, as even the lowest-level employees in an organization need to be educated and on the ball. The days when a farmer could punch into the local cotton mill just to earn a few extra dollars is gone here in the USA, at least in the manufacturing sector, because the basic job requirements have escalated in step with the methods used to increase productivity.
The “lack of imagination” I've observed is more resident in the finance sector than the engineering, scientific, and entrepreneurial talent I've dealt with. Capitol is no longer the “weak leg” of the economic system, compared to land and labor. I think stronger financial system reforms, to encourage long-term investment cycles and discourage speculation, are what is required now. The world is awash in capitol, and it's the fervent rush to make a “quick” buck effortlessly that is dangerous, and might topple the whole system if the rules of the game aren't changed soon.

By: agoodstart

agoodstart — Wed, 21 May 2008 07:31:22 +0000

The brevity of this article leaves much to the reader's imagination in order to reach the author's conclusion. If only economics were this simple…but it isn't. To state flatly that “When…manufacturing productivity grows”, the identified CAUSE, “…its manufacturing employement invariably shrinks”, the identified EFFECT, is just a little too easy. Money tends to flow to where it can earn the most. This article is assigning only one of many possible causes to this effect. Indeed it is likely a combination of causes (i.e. safety of investment, easy credit, lack of accountability for bad decisions, etc.) that cause the money to move. In this case the money goes somewhere else rather than reinvest in manufacturing jobs here. I tend to 'believe' that it is a lack of imagination in the private sector that creates the outflow of money. Unfortunately this lack of imagination is supported by give-backs, incentives, pandering, and politics at all levels of society.

But this IS the game, isn't it?

Sadly, even this commentary is too limited in scope. The subject is far too broad to be covered by one swipe of the brush. I know at least some of my limitations…and I'll never pretend to know all the answers. But I will keep playing the game.

By: thales

thales — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I remember a brief public debate around 1965, regarding concerns about “automation”, a word you don’t hear much anymore, and its socioeconomic impact. It may be time to revive this debate, as one of the most important public policy issues. My career in several Fortune 500 companies has led me to believe that production line workers should earn more, but only if they accept part of the enterprise’s risk. If they have more of an “ownership” stake in the results, then they have an incentive to participate in making the enterprise more productive. The old wage-earning model becomes more and more inappropriate, as even the lowest-level employees in an organization need to be educated and on the ball. The days when a farmer could punch into the local cotton mill just to earn a few extra dollars is gone here in the USA, at least in the manufacturing sector, because the basic job requirements have escalated in step with the methods used to increase productivity.
The “lack of imagination” I’ve observed is more resident in the finance sector than the engineering, scientific, and entrepreneurial talent I’ve dealt with. Capitol is no longer the “weak leg” of the economic system, compared to land and labor. I think stronger financial system reforms, to encourage long-term investment cycles and discourage speculation, are what is required now. The world is awash in capitol, and it’s the fervent rush to make a “quick” buck effortlessly that is dangerous, and might topple the whole system if the rules of the game aren’t changed soon.

By: agoodstart

agoodstart — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

The brevity of this article leaves much to the reader’s imagination in order to reach the author’s conclusion. If only economics were this simple…but it isn’t. To state flatly that “When…manufacturing productivity grows”, the identified CAUSE, “…its manufacturing employement invariably shrinks”, the identified EFFECT, is just a little too easy. Money tends to flow to where it can earn the most. This article is assigning only one of many possible causes to this effect. Indeed it is likely a combination of causes (i.e. safety of investment, easy credit, lack of accountability for bad decisions, etc.) that cause the money to move. In this case the money goes somewhere else rather than reinvest in manufacturing jobs here. I tend to ‘believe’ that it is a lack of imagination in the private sector that creates the outflow of money. Unfortunately this lack of imagination is supported by give-backs, incentives, pandering, and politics at all levels of society.

But this IS the game, isn’t it?

Sadly, even this commentary is too limited in scope. The subject is far too broad to be covered by one swipe of the brush. I know at least some of my limitations…and I’ll never pretend to know all the answers. But I will keep playing the game.