Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The US Recovery

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DOR, are you saying that the free trade agreements with the likes of China has not affected the US manufacturing industry because the wages are still good?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DOR View Post
      If a worker is looking for work but unable to find any; working part-time while seeking full-time employment; or discouraged <for economic reasons> from looking for work; then she may be included in the U-6 data ... but, only as of January, 1994.

      The dead, retired, retrained and anyone at all prior to January, 1994, cannot be included in any U-6 data.
      So, it's those 0's that someone asked where they go, right?
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
        DOR, are you saying that the free trade agreements with the likes of China has not affected the US manufacturing industry because the wages are still good?

        What happened to the US economy is that it evolved from lower value-added activities such as metal bashing
        into higher ones, such as IT, professional services and finance.

        Percent share of American manufacturing employment in the total nonfarm payroll:
        1950s: 30.4%
        1960s: 27.4% three percentage points less, and no China (or Japan) causation.
        1970s: 23.0% …4.4 points less. The beginnings of a Japan impact might, possibly, be identified. Or, not.
        1980s: 18.5% …4.5 points less
        1990s: 14.8% … 3.7 points less.
        2000s: 10.9% …3.9 points less. Notice that the decreases are getting smaller as China becomes a player.
        2010s: 8.8% … 2.1 points less.

        If the average nearly 4 percentage points decline per decade had carried through to this decade, manufacturing employment would have averaged 9.6 million in 2001-16, rather than the actual 12 million.


        To put it more simply, not a single American job was lost when a Taiwanese factory moved production from Taiwan to China.
        Or, a Taiwan company moved its production from Thailand to China.
        Or a Korean company moved from Korea to China. Or, from Indonesia to China.
        Or a Hong Kong, Singaporean, German, British or Italian company moved their production from anywhere outside the US, to China.

        What happened is that the imports previously recorded as coming from all those other countries were now recorded as coming from China.

        Final point: 55% of China’s exports are by foreign-invested companies; and half of those are from Hong Kong and Taiwan.

        Not America.

        ADD: the US does not have a free trade agreement with China.
        Trust me?
        I'm an economist!

        Comment


        • Notice that the decreases are getting smaller as China becomes a player.

          It just can't shrink faster, and you see them as a percentage points, but, but...

          1960 -9,87%
          1970 -16,06%
          1980 -19,57%
          1990 -20,00%
          2000 -26,35%
          2010 -19,27%

          *Dok knows how to make statistics make his case, too*

          ADD: the US does not have a free trade agreement with China.

          Below follows a list of products and their respective duty rate in the United States:

          Wristwatches: 9.8% + US$1.53 per unit
          Tablet PC: 0%
          Solar Panels: 0%
          T Shirts: 16.5%
          Electric Bikes: 0%
          LED Bulb Lights: 3.9%
          Peanuts: 131.8%

          So, unless you import peanuts, not much of a pain.
          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

          Comment


          • Single year data can be cherry picking, which is why I used decade averages.
            Trust me?
            I'm an economist!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DOR View Post
              Percent share of American manufacturing employment in the total nonfarm payroll:
              1950s: 30.4%
              1960s: 27.4%
              1970s: 23.0%
              1980s: 18.5%
              1990s: 14.8%
              2000s: 10.9%
              2010s: 8.8%
              .
              Another view of your numbers:
              (50s-60s)/50s = (30.4-27.4)/30.4 = 9.9% decline in share, 50s to 60s
              (60s-70s)/60s = (27.4-23.0)/27.4 = 16.1% decline in share, 60s to 70s
              (70s-80s)/70s = (23.0-18.5)/23.0 = 19.6% decline in share, 70s to 80s
              (80s-90s)/80s = (18.5-14.8)/18.5 = 20.0% decline in share, 80s to 90s
              (90s-00s)/90s = (14.8-10.9)/14.8 = 26.4% decline in share, 90s to 00s
              (00s-10s)/00s = (10.9-8.8)/10.9 = 19.3% decline in share, 00s to 10s
              Last edited by JRT; 13 Apr 17,, 18:02.
              .
              .
              .

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                Single year data can be cherry picking, which is why I used decade averages.
                I used your periods, too, just instead to compare with 1950s data, I went more on decade, by decade comparison
                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                Comment


                • What I find interesting are the exorbitant levels of tariff (and non-tariff) protection given to the agricultural sector by the US government as opposed to the levels provided to the manufacturing sector. Why do the rural and agricultural lobbies in the US continue have so much influence in Washington when in terms of its total its share of national employment and its contribution to GDP manufacturing is (or was) so much more important?
                  If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JRT View Post
                    Another view of your numbers:
                    (50s-60s)/50s = (30.4-27.4)/30.4 = 9.9% decline in share, 50s to 60s
                    (60s-70s)/60s = (27.4-23.0)/27.4 = 16.1% decline in share, 60s to 70s
                    (70s-80s)/70s = (23.0-18.5)/23.0 = 19.6% decline in share, 70s to 80s
                    (80s-90s)/80s = (18.5-14.8)/18.5 = 20.0% decline in share, 80s to 90s
                    (90s-00s)/90s = (14.8-10.9)/14.8 = 26.4% decline in share, 90s to 00s
                    (00s-10s)/00s = (10.9-8.8)/10.9 = 19.3% decline in share, 00s to 10s
                    The percent change in a percentage?
                    Really?
                    Trust me?
                    I'm an economist!

                    Comment


                    • Yes, what's so hard to figure out?
                      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Monash View Post
                        What I find interesting are the exorbitant levels of tariff (and non-tariff) protection given to the agricultural sector by the US government as opposed to the levels provided to the manufacturing sector. Why do the rural and agricultural lobbies in the US continue have so much influence in Washington when in terms of its total its share of national employment and its contribution to GDP manufacturing is (or was) so much more important?
                        Good Q. Sugar is a good example. You'd think Coca-Cola and Hershey's would push back on that insanity.
                        "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Monash View Post
                          What I find interesting are the exorbitant levels of tariff (and non-tariff) protection given to the agricultural sector by the US government as opposed to the levels provided to the manufacturing sector. Why do the rural and agricultural lobbies in the US continue have so much influence in Washington when in terms of its total its share of national employment and its contribution to GDP manufacturing is (or was) so much more important?
                          No need for it. Manufacturing output is at a all time high. Its automaton thats killing jobs, not China and Mexico

                          https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2016...paign=fredblog

                          https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors.../#41d98dda578d

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
                            Good Q. Sugar is a good example. You'd think Coca-Cola and Hershey's would push back on that insanity.
                            Why? Coke switched from sugar to High Fructose Corn Syrup over 30 years ago.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                              Why? Coke switched from sugar to High Fructose Corn Syrup over 30 years ago.
                              To no sugar
                              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                                Yes, what's so hard to figure out?
                                So, which gives the more accurate view: a 1% change in the inflation rate, or a one percentage point change?
                                Is a change from 3% inflation to 3.03% as significant as a change from 3% to 4%?

                                There's a reason why you don't see useful information expressed as a percent change in the percent.
                                Trust me?
                                I'm an economist!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X