Software Is Hiring, But Manufacturing Is Bleeding

Nerval's Lobster writes: Which tech segment added the most jobs in August? According to new data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, tech consulting gained 7,000 positions in August, (Dice link) below July's gains of 11,100, but enough to set it ahead of data processing, hosting, and related services (which added 1,600 jobs) and computer and electronic-product manufacturing (which lost 1,800 jobs). The latest numbers reflect some longtime trends: The rise of cloud services and infrastructure has contributed to slackening demand for PCs and other hardware, eroding manufacturing jobs. At the same time, increased appetite for everything from Web developers to information-systems managers has kept employers adding positions in other technology segments. If that didn't make things difficult enough for manufacturing folks, the rise of automation has cut down on the number of manufacturing jobs available worldwide, contributing to continuing pressure on the segment as a whole, despite all the noise about bringing those jobs back to the U.S.

Comments

Re:Digitial Economy

[LoyalOpposition]

Or deluded and capitalist and claiming it's possible for companies to grow by 10% every year forever ...

You're laboring under a number of misconceptions. What those misconceptions are depends strongly by what you meant when you said the above. For example, I don't believe anyone has claimed that it's possible for companies to grow 10% every year forever. Let's assume, however, that you merely meant that proponents of capitalism claim that growth is better with capitalism than it is with socialism, and that the rest was hyperbole. (I compare it to socialism because that appears to be what you were responding to in 0123456's post.) If so, then capitalism's proponents are right to make that claim. Heritage Foundation makes an annual survey of the economic freedom of the various nations. Insofar as you can claim that economic freedom equates to capitalism (not too great a stretch, I hope), then following the link will show their finding that increasing capitalism correlates with increasing GDP per capita, with increasing economic growth, with reduced poverty intensity, with greater health, with greater education, and with a better environment.

As a lesser matter, I should mention that you're equating companies with capitalism, whereas capitalism can exist in the complete absence of companies. Wikipedia has this to say about capitalism: "Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labour and, in some situations, competitive markets. In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which they exchange assets, goods, and services." Notice the complete lack of the word "companies" or with its concept. I'm not saying that capitalisms can't have companies. Rather I'm saying that it's an independent concept. In fact, if you consider a continuum from economic freedom to a command economy, then companies are a step in the direction of command economies. Companies are a way to limit the risks taken by one party to a transaction (typically the seller) by increasing the risk to society. This is frequently called "socializing the risks," and for good reason.

or that somehow giving tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations makes everyone else's lives better ...

It depends strongly on the tax break. If you tax profits at the rate of 91%, then you eliminate many more business opportunities than you would if you taxed them at 27%. To give you an example, suppose that a particular opportunity costs $100,000 to risk. Perhaps a new pick-and-place machine for a surface mount printed circuit board line. Suppose further that the opportunity has a 50% chance of profiting $500,000 if it's successful, and a 50% chance of losing the entire $100,000. At 91% tax you have a 50% chance of losing $100,000, and a 50% chance of gaining (1-0.91)$500,000 = $45,000, for an expected loss of $5,000. You shouldn't take the risk. However, at 27% tax you have a 50% chance of losing $100,000, and a 50% chance of gaining (1-0.27)$500,000 = $365,000, for an expected gain of $315,000. Any risk with an expected loss shouldn't be undertaken, which means society doesn't benefit from the undertaking of that risk, offset somewhat by the possibility of the loss of the pick-and-place machine in a losing venture.

On the other hand, any number of other tax breaks, such as giving a guaranteed loan to someone that can't otherwise convince venture capitalists to invest, you would be right about.

Sorry, but in its current incarnation capitalism relies on just as much delusional fantasy and bullshit as communism ever did.

I'm not sure why we've changed the topic from socialism to communism, but...econ