That would explain why union memberships have been falling for years.

 

This may be a sarcastic comment, but there is probably some truth in that post. I would say the bigger factor is the recession and our changing economy. There are 35% fewer manufacturing workers today than there were in 2000.

This may be a sarcastic comment, but there is probably some truth in that post. I would say the bigger factor is the recession and our changing economy. There are 35% fewer manufacturing workers today than there were in 2000.

 

I think you are right in most respects. There is the possibility of a "chicken and the egg" here. Companies and their workers now have to be flexible and act fast. Large volumes of manufacturing requiring little flexibility are getting outsourced to low-cost-countries. Unions and businesses that work together to meet these requirements are keeping their volumes. Those that do not are losing their volume of work and their labor requirements.

I think you are right in most respects. There is the possibility of a "chicken and the egg" here. Companies and their workers now have to be flexible and act fast. Large volumes of manufacturing requiring little flexibility are getting outsourced to low-cost-countries. Unions and businesses that work together to meet these requirements are keeping their volumes. Those that do not are losing their volume of work and their labor requirements.

 

Generalization.

 

Almost all of the textile and manufacturing jobs in our area were Non Union!

 

The majority of manufacturing jobs are gone not because they priced themselves out of the market but because they can not compete with poverty wages paid in another nation.

Generalization.

 

Almost all of the textile and manufacturing jobs in our area were Non Union!

 

The majority of manufacturing jobs are gone not because they priced themselves out of the market but because they can not compete with poverty wages paid in another nation.

 

Even more the jobs are gone because of technology/robotics. The US has fewer workers but is still the #1 manufacturing economy in the world, yes ... even above China. But the gap is narrowing.

Even more the jobs are gone because of technology/robotics. The US has fewer workers but is still the #1 manufacturing economy in the world, yes ... even above China. But the gap is narrowing.

 

It's a combo, no doubt but the reality is that manufacturing made the middle class of America. Now that this skill is shrinking, what will happen to the middle class? Honest question, no buckshot intended. :thumb:

It's a combo, no doubt but the reality is that manufacturing made the middle class of America. Now that this skill is shrinking, what will happen to the middle class? Honest question, no buckshot intended. :thumb:

 

Oh, the middle class still exists. But it is sitting at a desk, not on the factory floor. The difference is many of those middle class people sitting at desks think they are the upper class because they get to go to a Christmas party with the real upper class.

Oh, the middle class still exists. But it is sitting at a desk, not on the factory floor. The difference is many of those middle class people sitting at desks think they are the upper class because they get to go to a Christmas party with the real upper class.

 

My point is that it's not the numbers it was before because good manufacturing jobs put people in the lower middle class. Now those jobs are gone and the people and generations that manned them have not got the ability or skill set to do anything else, for some even new education and training can't help an old furniture guy.

Even more the jobs are gone because of technology/robotics. The US has fewer workers but is still the #1 manufacturing economy in the world, yes ... even above China. But the gap is narrowing.

Technology and robotics need software and hardware that comes from human labor. No evidence to support that technology, overall, destroys jobs. History shows that innovation will create more jobs.... all the way from the invention of the cotton gin to email....those inventions have created jobs, not destroyed them

Technology and robotics need software and hardware that comes from human labor. No evidence to support that technology, overall, destroys jobs. History shows that innovation will create more jobs.... all the way from the invention of the cotton gin to email....those inventions have created jobs, not destroyed them

 

That logic doesn't fly. If before robotics it took 15 people to build a car and now only takes three, seems to me that 12 jobs were eliminated. Those 12 jobs certainly aren't being shifted to computer operators.

That logic doesn't fly. If before robotics it took 15 people to build a car and now only takes three, seems to me that 12 jobs were eliminated. Those 12 jobs certainly aren't being shifted to computer operators.

 

Who builds the hardware for the robots? Who builds the software? Who builds the buildings that is used to build the hardware and software?

 

With production being quicker, more products are being sold, they will meed more workers. More workers and more money for the company means they will be able to upgrade their buildings and equipment -- which means more jobs. It will not only be in computers but engineer work, construction, money management, and so on.

 

Like I said, just because your eyes see those jobs going away, it doesn't mean in the overall economy that jobs were lost. They were gained, as was capital.

Edited December 9, 201213 yr by marvel

Who builds the hardware for the robots? Who builds the software? Who builds the buildings that is used to build the hardware and software?

 

With production being quicker, more products are being sold, they will meed more workers. More workers and more money for the company means they will be able to upgrade their buildings and equipment -- which means more jobs. It will not only be in computers but engineer work, construction, money management, and so on.

 

Like I said, just because your eyes see those jobs going away, it doesn't mean in the overall economy that jobs were lost. They were gained, as was capital.

 

 

In an ideal world I see your point. But the truth is that generations of mill workers are out of jobs and many, many of them do not have the skill set (and for some education/mind set) to build Hi-Tech items for the robotics/computer industry.

Who builds the hardware for the robots? Who builds the software? Who builds the buildings that is used to build the hardware and software?

 

With production being quicker, more products are being sold, they will meed more workers. More workers and more money for the company means they will be able to upgrade their buildings and equipment -- which means more jobs. It will not only be in computers but engineer work, construction, money management, and so on.

 

Like I said, just because your eyes see those jobs going away, it doesn't mean in the overall economy that jobs were lost. They were gained, as was capital.

 

The cost of the product is reduced by these Effencies and folks buy more product.

good for everyone.

It's a combo, no doubt but the reality is that manufacturing made the middle class of America. Now that this skill is shrinking, what will happen to the middle class? Honest question, no buckshot intended. :thumb:

 

I think it is a good question. Part of the flexibility I referred to (and yes I generalized) is not only labor flexibility but training flexibility. Even if the actual assembly, machining, casting of parts occurs in a low-cost-country, then there are logistics opportunities created. However, to an earlier post, we are losing jobs because of rock-bottom labor costs in some developing countries. However, in the manufacturing life I live, we have been able to bring back some jobs from China because we found that our link between design, quality, assembly and logistics for many of our custom products proved out to be more cost effective domestically. The key there is the technical expertise, especially design engineering and technical support. We DO need to put more people through engineering and technical educations as we are at risk of losing the technical advantages we have enjoyed.

I think it is a good question. Part of the flexibility I referred to (and yes I generalized) is not only labor flexibility but training flexibility. Even if the actual assembly, machining, casting of parts occurs in a low-cost-country, then there are logistics opportunities created. However, to an earlier post, we are losing jobs because of rock-bottom labor costs in some developing countries. However, in the manufacturing life I live, we have been able to bring back some jobs from China because we found that our link between design, quality, assembly and logistics for many of our custom products proved out to be more cost effective domestically. The key there is the technical expertise, especially design engineering and technical support. We DO need to put more people through engineering and technical educations as we are at risk of losing the technical advantages we have enjoyed.

 

Unfortunately, we are rapidly making higher education something either only the already-wealthy can afford, or you have to go into tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loan debt to get it.

Unfortunately, we are rapidly making higher education something either only the already-wealthy can afford, or you have to go into tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loan debt to get it.

 

The cost vs. value of higher education is certainly under strain.

 

The starting salary of an entry level engineering job is not much different than it was in 1985 (mid $30s). But the cost of obtaining a 4 year degree is probably 3 times higher if not more.