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?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The US Recovery
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by DOR View PostIf 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.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 PostDOR, 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
-
Originally posted by DOR View PostPercent 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%
.
(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 10sLast edited by JRT; 13 Apr 17,, 18:02..
.
.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DOR View PostSingle year data can be cherry picking, which is why I used decade averages.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 PostAnother 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
Really?Trust me?
I'm an economist!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Monash View PostWhat 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?"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 PostWhat 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?
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2016...paign=fredblog
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors.../#41d98dda578d
Comment
-
-
-
Originally posted by Doktor View PostYes, what's so hard to figure out?
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
Comment