
Why manufacturing jobs aren't coming back to the U.S - smaili
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/30/iphone-factory-observer-why-trump-cant-bring-manufacturing-jobs-back.html
======
alva
It is interesting seeing how hard this assertion is being pushed in some area
for political purposes. Especially as it counters another message coming from
the same groups. I am not sure how the two can be reconciled. (note: I am
neither advocating or criticising the below)

1\. We need mass immigration to keep up growth

2\. Robots and AI are coming to take our jobs, so get used to it.

Many in politics, think-tanks and media sphere seem to be pushing both quite
heavily, especially 2. Both are being memed into public consciousness, but by
who and for what purpose I don't know.

I have not thought it all through, but surely if you are expecting higher
unemployment supported by a welfare state you would want a smaller population?
Both present a (perceived or real) threat in the minds of the working class
and a somewhat contradictory message. It is easy to adopt a conspiratorial
mindset on this in the belief that the public are being groomed for mass
unemployment and to accept further exacerbated social inequality.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Many in politics, think-tanks and media sphere seem to be pushing both quite
> heavily

Can you please provide prominent examples where the same actor is pushing both
narratives?

~~~
alva
> Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and the Economy

[https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/12/20/artific...](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/12/20/artificial-
intelligence-automation-and-economy)

Summary: AI and automation will "disrupt" millions of low paying jobs

> The economic benefits of fixing our broken immigration system

[https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/doc...](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/report.pdf)

Summary: More humans means higher GDP and larger labor force

edit: Tons of examples in ${Your_Favourite_Newspaper}. A lot seem to just push
out government and think-tank pieces from upstream.

~~~
nostrademons
There's no contradiction if you don't assume that the skill level of the
workforce is fixed. The first paper cited concludes that the government should
invest heavily on better education & training and should ensure that there is
a pathway to retraining with these new technologies. The second paper suggests
that immigration is needed to bring more highly-skilled and highly-educated
workers to the U.S. Both of them center around the need to increase the
overall education & skill level of the U.S. workforce.

If you have no desire to learn new things, then yes, you will be in a world of
hurt in the new economy. If you do, there are abundant opportunities for you.

~~~
alva
> The second paper suggests that immigration is needed to bring more highly-
> skilled and highly-educated workers to the U.S.

That aspect is indeed covered, however you will notice is a small constituent
of what was proposed. Much of the bill is focused on the increased labor
participation for low-skilled work (also includes protection for the skilled
US jobs, countering that original point) as well as the increased GDP expected
due to more people to provide loans to etc. Also, put it in context of the
distribution of skill level in the jobs filled by immigration.

Any of these papers can be quoted to support either side tbh, it can be quite
hard to decipher and see the bigger picture.

------
DaggerDagger
China's middle class will rise out of their oligarchy in the next 100 years
and then you will have the largest cultural middle class cluster the world has
ever seen. Then all that cheapo labor will come from somewhere else. I
personally think this is irrelevant, the US doesn't need any more toxic waste
dumps (a.k.a factories).

The truth is MFG is not what the US needs to be doing, the US needs to be
working on automation and permanent systems design related to agriculture.

F __* making some future recycling nightmare in the form of a fashion
accessory and telecom unit, we need to be figuring out how to actually feed
people on a massive scale without dumping phosphate and nitrates and plastics
into the ocean, we need to figure out how to avoid the massive and
unsustainable aforementioned supplies of chemical inputs required to sustain
the BS process that is modern plow and sow automated factory farming. We need
to shift the global food diet away from beef and other carbon nightmares and
into more localized food sourcing.

This is going to require robots, and entirely new disciplines combining
agriculture, industrial/agricultural/robotic engineering, and systems design.

Do you think anybody is going to give a shit about the iPhone 12 when half of
the world is eating itself alive in the Water Wars of 2030? I doubt we will be
as extravagant in our tastes when that new world order arrives.

tl;dr who gives a shit we have bigger fish to fry (or none really because they
all died in toxic algae blooms)

~~~
douche
The Malthusians don't have a great track record. Every time someone predicts
that we're going to run out of food and starve to death, we just get more
efficient at producing it, with greater yields on less acreage, with less
labor.

There is so much under-utilized, fertile agricultural land it's not funny.
We're still paying people not to grow crops on it.

~~~
contingencies
Also don't forget that 40% or some horrifically large proportion of food
produced is wasted. That's a great deal of scope for slack.

Gratuitous plug: We hope to increase distribution and preparation efficiency @
[http://8-food.com/](http://8-food.com/)

~~~
DaggerDagger
Agree agree. Misuse of resources is the key problem. New systems required.

------
foobiekr
~"even if they come back, it will be robots" \- it fascinates me that people
trying to make the case that the jobs will never come back rely on this line.
They leave off the other half, which is that _manufacturing_ can come back,
with some jobs, just not with as many jobs as before the loop closed.

So, yes, it is basically true, but it is also misleading. The jobs aren't
coming back to China, either, or anywhere else. And this isn't new at all:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT6aphdX0rI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT6aphdX0rI)

~~~
nostrademons
The thing is that _manufacturing_, as a sector, never left:

[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS)

By output, U.S. manufacturing has had a steady upwards trend, interrupted (as
you would expect) by recessions. It's just that the _jobs_ left. The narrative
that manufacturing as a whole went overseas isn't really true; it's more that
labor-intensive manufacturing industries moved overseas, while automated
manufacturing industries (or final assembly plants) sprung up in the U.S.

~~~
WillPostForFood
Manufacturing is so broadly defined at the Fed level it isn't really useful in
this context. Electronics manufacturing left, furniture manufacturing left,
etc.. What didn't leave is the fossil fuel industry, So oil refining, and
fracking related businesses helps keep manufacturing output high in dollar
terms. But manufacturing as people casually think of it (factories making a
product: phones, cars, computers, solar panels) really has left.

~~~
nostrademons
Also still here: defense, aerospace, rocketry, construction, machinery (eg.
Caterpillar). Basically light industry left and most heavy industry stayed,
the output of the latter grew, and now some light industry is coming back (eg.
textiles [1]), but with basically fully-automated factories that employ very
few people.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/business/us-textile-
factor...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/business/us-textile-factories-
return.html?pagewanted=all)

~~~
WillPostForFood
Defense, aerospace, and rocketry are all good examples of industries that are
here due to government and trade policy, not because it is cheaper or easier
to build a tank in the US.

------
kazinator
A remark worth making is that not every manufacturing job can be done by
someone who can write down their name and recite the alphabet. That's just
entry-level assembly work, or some very specific, repetitive task.

Certainly not highly skilled traditional manufacturing jobs, like machining
and the like.

Making almost everything requires skill; certainly making it well. Assembling
certain pieces may be something easy that anyone can be trained to do, but not
necessarily making those pieces.

One reason manufacturing won't come back to a given area is that the people
who know how to do that are retired, or dead, and their grandkids don't know
how to do that sort of work.

It's not just about money.

I don't think labor in China is as cheap as it used to be. Choosing as an
example an entry-level assembling job that requires no skill other than
reciting the alphabet is rather a cherry-picked example. That's not going to
pay well anywhere.

Skilled people aren't going to work for peanuts just because they are located
in China. Or if they are, that won't last for long.

~~~
Pigo
I've worked for a steel manufacturer for a short time, it was an interesting
experience. I liked the idea of doing some lower level coding. Most of the
people who worked in IT had been there for over 30 years. People who'd been
there for 10, were still newbies. The cool aspect of it, was their willingness
to listen to anyone who had innovative ideas, because it often came from
workforce on the line. What scared me, was the lack of anyone under 50. It
felt like there was no investment in a future because they didn't expect one.

------
Overtonwindow
I work in public policy, so I'll just weigh in on that aspect for a moment:
Manufacturing jobs won't be coming back to America because of various
environmental and labor laws.

It started with the unions, and labor laws, and in response companies sought
ways to reduce labor costs. They looked where labor could be had cheaper, with
less restrictions.

Then environmental regulations kicked in and companies sought to reduce those
costs, etc. The results? Manufacturing moved overseas to places like China,
where there are few environmental laws, labor laws, and the cost of both are
way down.

Manufacturing, especially on the scale that can move an economy, will always
be up against those two paradigms: Labor and Environment. In theory, as long
as strong protections exist for those there is zero incentive to large-scale
manufacture in America.

~~~
int_19h
Of course, the government can further intervene by e.g. imposing import
tariffs on products that are manufactured in countries that don't have labor
and/or environment laws that don't match or exceed the baseline provided by
US.

~~~
Overtonwindow
They could, and probably should, but then we run into the possibility of a
zero sum game. First, that is pretty much all of the countries which produce
our consumer goods, and might I add, buy our debt. Second, the CEOs of those
companies are going to get really pissed if their products go up in price. So
they'll retaliate politically, but also pressure the other country to raise
its tariffs on our exports.

Speaking policy only, an option to take is to make it cheaper overall for
companies to manufacture here. Define a set of industries you want back in
America, and reduce or eliminate their corporate income tax based on a certain
number of employees and plants. Then even with the environmental and labor
laws in place, they'll still see it's more economically feasible to return.

------
pvelagal
[https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-
taiwan/peo...](https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-
taiwan/peoples-republic-china)

US exports to China is $116 billion, imports is $485 billion.

Top export categories : aircrafts, electrical & other machinery, soybeans
(never thought $11 billion), vehicles (same as soy beans $11 billion).

I think, improving exports is the best way to create jobs in US.

------
carsongross
If it were true that manufacturing jobs aren't coming back (and it isn't, at
least in the short term) it would still be worth it to move the supply chain
back to the United States. If the future is automation, then lets do that
automation here, get the knock on effects of automation engineering,
automation maintenance and the general innovation we see in production-
oriented (rather than consumption-oriented) economies and then share the
generated wealth via whatever means are politically acceptable. (I favor
public works via debt-free money, but I'm willing to listen to anything.)

Selling our kids into debt slavery and a jobless future is not an option. The
service (really, the consumption) economy is built on a mountain of unpayable
debt. It has to end, but the right is too wedded to free market ideology and
corporate donors, while the left is too wedded to international universalism
and, strangely, mainstream academic economics.

~~~
s73ver
Nobody is saying that we shouldn't still try to get those automated
manufacturing jobs back here. Just that bringing those suppliers back here
isn't going to lead to the awesome manufacturing jobs that once existed, and
we're going to have to do something else to help those who are getting
displaced.

~~~
WillPostForFood
The jobs are even more awesome - higher skill, higher pay. Just that there are
many fewer. Still worth bringing the back.

~~~
s73ver
That's what I said. But I also said that we have a LOT of people who we still
need to do something for, because, as you agreed with me on, there are a lot
fewer jobs.

Let's say the average factory before all this started took 100 people to run
(making numbers easy). Now, after all of this, and the rise of automation, how
many people do you think that factory is going to need? Probably about 10% of
that. And for those people, it's great, and we should try to get more
manufacturing here to encourage that. BUT, we still need to have a plan for
the other 90% of people who aren't going to get those high-paid, high-skilled
jobs. They haven't gone away. They still have families to take care of.

~~~
carsongross
I agree entirely with you on the urgency of figuring out productive jobs for
people with IQs on the left side of the bell curve. Jordan Peterson has a very
good video on this[1]. I would couple this with a concern that we end (or,
dare we dream, reverse) the dysgenic social policies we currently have in
place (IQ is 50-80% heritable).

In the short run, we need to work to move the production chain back to the
united states, and that will generate some manufacturing jobs. I suspect more
than the corporate-interest controlled media will say, but it almost doesn't
matter if we are playing the long game for our kids.

[1] -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjs2gPa5sD0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjs2gPa5sD0)

------
matt_s
Interesting point of view from the labor side. I wonder if there is a bit of
technological curve the US doesn't have as well in design and setup of
manufacturing facilities. let alone the machines that make machines.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
Not really. You can find pretty much any skill you need here. The only real
issues are (a) how much you pay for it and (b) how much of it there is. b
drives a :-)

For a while, there was a fellow on a machining/manufacturing site I frequent
who was getting textile manufacturing business going in LA by automating the
living hell out of it. I believe he had purchased a failed business and
figured out he could make money by automating everything he could and having a
small labor force to do the things that were too difficult/expensive to
automate. Like most people, he stopped posting after all his problems were
solved (about 3 years ago), but it was an interesting read for a few months.

------
nextweek2
I was under the impression that import tax would be used to balance the cost.

A 100% import tax on iPhone imports would force Apple to move production to
the USA.

I don't imagine he has the political clout to make it happen.

~~~
NikolaNovak
I never quite understood how imposing import taxes/tariffs is seen as being
good for your own population / bad for manufacturer.

To my extremely simplistic view:

* If I live in country A

* My government imposes taxes/tariffs on goods imported from country B

= MY cost to purchase said things I want just went up.

Long term, this may or may not have impact on the manufacturer/Country B.

Immediate term, my life sucks a bit more because of my government.

How/Why are masses so enthusiastically responding to all the populist promises
(in USA right now, but around the world in general) to raise taxes on imports
(which still goes in the category of "taxes _I_ pay on things _I_ want to
buy), when they respond so negatively on raising taxes on anything else??

~~~
int_19h
The idea is that because the manufacturer's costs also go up, there's no
longer any reason for them to manufacture abroad, and the same goods are
manufactured in the country instead. So while their prices are higher, the
workers that make them are also paid more (and, perhaps more importantly, are
paid at all, on account of having a job). And furthermore, that money remains
in the economy of the country imposing the tariff. Ideally, the end result is
that more people overall can afford that iPhone, for example, even if the
sticker price is higher.

To what extent this works in practice is another matter. But I would posit
that the notion that's common nowadays that tariffs are _always_ bad is just
as simplistic as wrong as the notion that tariffs can fix all problems. It all
boils down to the specific numbers.

------
mmagin
Not that jobs necessarily should be the end goal.

~~~
s73ver
While people still need to buy food and clothing, and pay rent/mortgages, yes,
they should be.

