Manufacturing Jobs On Decline Around the World (ampproject.org)

Reader Koreantoast writes: The New York Times posted an interesting thought piece (paywalled, this link could help) on the changing nature of manufacturing globally and the impact it has on modern politics and economic development. Although manufacturing productivity has jumped tremendously over the last several decades, the overall global pool of manufacturing jobs is shrinking as automation and new industrial technologies has increased the production and supply of manufactured goods with fewer people at a rate faster than global demand can absorb. The analogy is the agricultural revolution of the last several centuries where greater amounts of food are being produced by fewer and fewer farmers, displacing many of them. How will industrialized nations manage the growing number of displaced, blue collar labor? Bigger impact globally is that the shrinking pool of manufacturing jobs globally is closing the traditional route of export-oriented manufacturing economy that many nations, particularly in East Asia, were able to use to lift their nations out of poverty. What happens to those nations that missed the boat?"The likelihood that we will get a manufacturing recovery is close to nil," Professor Stiglitz said. "We are more likely to have a smaller share of a shrinking pie."

Comments

Only one way

[fustakrakich]

You have to start giving stuff away.

Re:Only one way

[MightyMartian]

No, you begin looking at a living wage. After all, whether it's machines building the goods or people, the manufacturer, distributor and retailer are all being taxed, and those taxes should still go to support the society at large.

Re:Only one way

[ArmoredDragon]

Some stuff practically is given away already, for example, promotional merchandise (i.e. t-shirts, usb drives.)

I think the only thing that will truly go away is menial jobs. Farming was the original menial job for thousands of years, and it got replaced by factory work only a century ago (and before any hair splitters descend on that, note I'm referring to the general migration away from farm work and towards factory work, not necessarily when factories first came around.) If factory work goes away and is replaced with something else, then not much has changed in the grand scheme of things.

It also occurs to me that the service industry is outgrowing everything else. The service industry includes not only white collar work, but plenty of blue collar jobs such as plumbing, hvac, construction, etc. In fact, if automation really does take over, then the service industry will be all that remains, only in the case of factories, the line workers are replaced by people servicing the automated systems. Furthermore, the breadth and depth of services continues to grow.

Going back to my first sentence, when promotional merchandise is given away, what are they almost always trying to promote? A service.

Re:Only one way

[mspohr]

You start looking at a universal basic income.
If their are not enough jobs, you need to ensure that everyone can afford food, housing and health care even if they don't have a job.

Re:Only one way

[PopeRatzo]

You start looking at a universal basic income.
If their are not enough jobs, you need to ensure that everyone can afford food, housing and health care even if they don't have a job.

+1 Insightful.

If you don't want to live in the equivalent of a third world country, where most people are dirt poor and living on the street and a very few are fabulously wealthy, you better start learning to live with a vastly expanded welfare state.

Re:Only one way

[MightyMartian]

Well, with most Libertarians being grumpy aging men, I'd say the time for a basic living wage is likely to become a reality. I know they'll talk about the theft of "their" money (as if, somehow, they don't have some debt to the societies in which they live), and they'll continue to ruin conservative parties the world over for a few more years, but there's just simply no way to jive increased mechanization with supporting the populace that doesn't involve making sure the necessities are covered to allow people to pursue their fortunes in other ways.

Who knows, maybe Roddenberry's view of the future isn't as farfetched as even I thought a few years ago.

Re:Only one way

[rahvin112]

Every time in the past that they mechanized a factory (think the robots that replaced welders on the auto assembly lines) they traded 10 rotten low pay jobs for one to two very good high payed job servicing the robot, another Electrician slot and a few other higher paid jobs Keeping the robots going.

Maybe they will make Robot's that can service other Robots some day but that time isn't here and the technicians that do that work are very high paid because the work is complex and the knowledge required extensive. There is no question that the number of people involved in assembling a single car is way down from the early days but the positions that replaced those jobs are higher paid, higher skill and often jobs computers (robots) can't do.

Re:Only one way

[fyngyrz]

Well, with most Libertarians being grumpy aging men

Guilty.

But the only parts of libertarian thought I consider valuable are the bits that say no one has any justification in interfering with the personal and consensual choices of others with regard to non-macroeconomic and non-contractual behaviors. The rest is, as far as I'm concerned, bunk.

All for Basic Income. Furthermore, I see it as inevitable. The various attempts at analysis in the context of the type of economy we have now are, IMHO, missing the core issue by a very wide margin: when goods are available without your labor, you will not be laboring. Basic Income looks squarely at this inevitability and suggests a means to address it.

Underneath it all, there is a quickly eroding relationship between work and a happy life. Used to be you had to sweep the hearth with a broom. You had to make the broom, too. And there was every reason to look upon this as both worthy and fulfilling. Because it was necessary. Then others, much more efficiently, made the broom. Then came vacuum cleaners. Then came the Roomba and brethren. This is the path. This is not the end of the path. Trying to consider the issue as if the path stops here breaks any analysis at the starting line. The same thing will apply, and in the same ways, to truck driving, serving food, maid/butler roles, manufacturing, farming... the path will go on until there is no material need left to automate.

I do not, and I suspect few others do either, regret the loss of having to sweep the floor. I will not regret not having to clean the catbox, not having to mow the lawn, not having to shop, etc. There will be no existential crisis in my home due to increasing automation of labor. There will be no guilt when I employ my wholly-machine-made-widgetry, although if the capitalist-fixated manage to derail Basic Income and all suitable stand-ins for that economic functionality, I will certainly feel bad for the people they have screwed out of a very bright future.

I'm pro-personal and consensual choice, and wish to hell there was a decent formal mechanism to determine "informed" to back those concepts up. The future, indeed, seems to me to call loudly and obviously for shades. But that doesn't mean I'm not grumpy. Oh, I'm damn grumpy. :)

Re:Only one way

[Sir_Eptishous]

The really stunning thing is that there are many here on /., actually I would say a majority, who "can't see the forest for the trees" when it comes to where labor and jobs are going.
They are going away...

It will be a few decades, perhaps 30 to 50 years, when human labor of any kind will be almost completely replaced by, as Ford summarizes, "robots".
Who will pay taxes?
Who will decide who gets a UBI?
How will society deal with millions of unemployed?
How will human society over time come to terms to becoming, in effect, the "pets" of a larger machine state that cares for us?
How will the rules of robot warfare be worked out?
Who will maintain policies on what robots can and can't do?
How much decision making of all sorts will be given over to algorithms and "AI"?
etc, etc...

Re:Only one way

[gweihir]

Very, very insightful. I really like the example about the broom having been had to be made by its user. Of course, I still like to make things that I could just buy, and enjoy the pleasure afterwards. As to capitalists, I think the alternatives are a reasonable basic income you can actually live off decently, or a hellish welfare-state where nobody has enough to life and everybody has too much do die and personal freedoms are essentially gone.

Re: Only one way

[mspohr]

The greatest advance for the US economy and expansion of the middle class was in the 50s and 60s when the top income tax bracket was 90%. That was pretty effective in putting a limit on income and providing government with sufficient funds for infrastructure, etc.

Re:Only one way

[MightyMartian]

The US is a lot more adaptable than even many of its citizens give it credit for. When it was founded, the Industrial Revolution had barely begun, and large swathes of its population were still involved in agrarian or home manufacturing, much as their ancestors had been for thousands of years. By the middle of the 19th century, even in the midst of a brutal civil war, the US was competing with the Old World powers in innovation (the Civil War proved, as wars so often do, to be a boon for technological innovation). By WWII, the US was the pre-eminent world power, and despite all the claims of its waning, the US still remains one of the great economic power houses.

In reality, it has ever been thus. Every generation has its struggles, not just with itself, but with the previous generation, and the transition always leads to moments of revolution. The Baby Boomers may be trying to hang on to their power, and the wealth they accrued, but sooner or later they're going to walk off into the sunset. The Millennials have different priorities, just as the Baby Boomers did in their time.

Re:Only one way

[fyngyrz]

Of course, I still like to make things that I could just buy, and enjoy the pleasure afterwards.

Of course. And the less you have to do, the more you can choose to do.

It'll require many to change their mindset, but I think it's an attractive enough prospect that it won't be a horrifying undertaking for most.

There's the 1% and those who aspire to be like them; but I like to think most people are more interested in being happy and healthy than in excess for its own sake.

That may just be a case of un-called for optimism, though.

Re:Only one way

[gcswt]

With a basic income, you'll eventually get to a situation where too few people actually run the machine of society. That makes society extremely unstable in the long run. In the short term, it will feel okay and seem okay, but it will only take one of many possible calamities to tear down such a society into nothing. What we are seeing in this "information age" is that brains are more valuable than brawn. A basic income makes sense only if coupled with mandatory education. Paying people simply for existing is an economic and cultural time bomb. Those who are able did not commit some form of "Original Sin" to those that are unable. Money spent needs to be an investment for the economics to make any sense.

Re:Only one way

[quintessencesluglord]

Adding-

In politics, there are no perfect answers. It is a question of compromise, and plotting the what seems to be the best path towards ideals from the numerous paths available.

While the "libertarian" argument against BI seems to consist of mostly taxes are theft (unless they support things I support) and an over-reliance on the government, which leads to increased government power.

For BI, if everyone is essentially getting the same, that reduces government power, as they lose the authority to pick winners and losers from the public trust. Can't pander to certain groups for increased benefits (such is commonly done with the elderly). Can't promise any increases unless it goes to everyone. That is a very libertarian argument at reducing the influence of government (plus getting rid of entire agencies that oversee the various programs. You've just reduced the size of government tremendously).

With regards to taxation, while overall taxes will probably increase, since the bulk of taxes goes directly to the population, that leaves little room for government largesse in terms of subsidies, pet programs, and other attempts to curry favor. The money simply isn't there.

I invite libertarians to look carefully at cost/benefit of BI in terms of overall goals, and especially means to achieve those goals through other means (it's not like libertarianism has caught fire with the public at large). If there is a better way forward, I'd certainly like to hear it.

Re:Only one way

[Grishnakh]

Well, with most Libertarians being grumpy aging men, I'd say the time for a basic living wage is likely to become a reality.

Really?

I thought a bunch of them were 20-somethings who think they're smarter than everyone else. Plus some middle-aged ones who never outgrew that mentality and their love of Ayn Rand.

I'll go ahead and admit I followed this philosophy when I was around 18. Luckily, I got wiser and more mature as I aged.

Re:Only one way

[fustakrakich]

Who controls the British Crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do, we do...

Re: Only one way

[Richard Dick Head]

You bring up the 50s and 60s and conveniently forget to mention top tax brackets were still sky high throughout the 70s and early 80s, and that certainly didn't help us then. The top tax bracket was 70% until 1982.

The prosperity of the 50s and 60s happened despite the high taxes and inflationary fed policy, which created a fair amount or resource misallocation, started the steady march of offshoring capital that continues today, and led to the dismal long slide until '83.

The whole "blame the rich" thing is totally misplaced bile and is populist fodder to focus the sub-100-IQ crowd on political issues. If someone makes 100x the income you do, they do not consume 100x the resources. A Maserati has the same basic amount of raw materials as a Camry. A Coach purse is essentially the same as a generic Kmart leather bag. They just tend to misallocate their resources, spending $500 for something that should be $50. Since they are never going to be meaningfully productive anyway, its actually better that way, because competing with the rich on the same playing field for resources sucks...ask anybody who lives LA or NYC.

The real problem is misallocated resouces in the broader economy. If house prices are inflating in an insane way, regular people who would otherwise be meaningfully productive, are spending their time doing $5k of repairs to a house and flipping it at a $20k profit, taking much more capital out of the market than the the value they supply. If the fed is pumping money and the stock market has nowhere to go but up, average people will invest their money in these fiat paper resources instead of investing in their own personal infrastructure, such as starting a new business or tackling a potentially profitable project.

When everyone is taking out more capital than the value they're providing (toxic capital flows), the house of cards collapses and you get a recession. Sure you can pump money into the balloon to keep it going, but it needs to come crashing down somehow. These people flipping houses need to lose their arse, and then move on to something more productive. The people "investing" in paper stock ticker need to lose their arse and invest their money into actual infrastructure that will build our economy later.

The reason we're stagnant and not growing is because the fed pumped, the government bailed out, and saved the parasites and their toxic capital flows, and they're still not moving on to building something real. We'll continue to have plunge after plunge with no meaningful recovery until we accept the necessary pain that comes at the bottom of the market cycle to clear the toxic actors out of the system.

A new generation...

[fishscene]

Maybe we'll have a new wave/generation of explorers who push the boundaries and find new and interesting things for people to throw money at, both here on Earth and among other planets.

Re:A new generation...

[phantomfive]

In practice, we'll have jobs that seem more and more useless. For example, eventually people might pay each other to clip their nails.

It will recover

[Billly Gates]

As the free market will adjust by lower prices which in turn mean more people can now spend money on more products and it will equalize again as long as we do not do anything about it like government interference.

Also, the world population is increasing at an alarming rate! As poorer countries prosper these new kids will turn into adults and buy more products fullfilling the demand again. Globalization is doing amazing things in China and it is now starting to return the favor of money flowing in the other direction

Re:It will recover

[__aaclcg7560]

Also, the world population is increasing at an alarming rate!

The population will peak in 2050 at 9B people and then start declining as old people outnumbers young people and population growth becomes slower.

http://www.cgdev.org/page/global-demographic-trends

Re:It will recover

[Tablizer]

As the free market will adjust by lower prices which in turn mean more people can now spend money on more products and it will equalize again as long as we do not do anything about it like government interference.

The lower manufacturing price likely won't offset the loss of spending money caused by not having a job. Even now, typically less than half the price of manufactured goods is manufacturing itself. If factory bots were 100% efficient, the cost of goods would thus drop to half of what they are now at best, but incomes would be dropping to roughly 1/8 of current salaries.

Something doesn't add up about your theory. The savings is failing to trickle-down to rank and file consumers for some reason. A pipe is clogged somewhere.

Don't make buggy whips in a Car world

[gurps_npc]

It's pretty obvious that most jobs will no longer be in manufacturing, just as most jobs are no longer in agriculture.

This does not in any way affect total jobs available, nor does it affect total good jobs available.

In a post agricultural world, we moved into manufacturing. In a post manufacturing world, we move into services. This is obvious, as it has already begun.

Services include poor jobs - cleaning, blue collar jobs - installing, good blue collar jobs - repair, and white collar jobs - inventing.

Re:Don't make buggy whips in a Car world

[Kjella]

Services include poor jobs - cleaning, blue collar jobs - installing, good blue collar jobs - repair, and white collar jobs - inventing.

Repair is a good job? I've only seen decline as mass production and miniaturization has turned everything from clothes to household gadgets to computers and cell phones turn into things you throw away when they break. Only fixed installations and big ticket items tend to get repaired. And while a few older items were built like a tank a lot of the industrial work and QC also used to be manual and not very consistent, sure the cheapest plastic crap is still flimsy but if you go back to the store and swap for another one it'll be just like the first one. So either you have something that works or you want something else entirely not to have it repaired. And it's something of a negative feedback loop, with so few repairs the volume of parts, availability of tools and skills and so you rather make your product cheaper and harder to repair.

Republican solution

[Anonymous Coward]

More tariffs, higher walls, less predicable diplomacy. Then America will be great again!

From the Diamond Age

[Dr_Barnowl]

There are only two industries. This has always been true....There is the industry of things, and the industry of entertainment....After people have everything they need to live, everything else is entertainment. Everything.

Re:From the Diamond Age

[Tablizer]

That is the BEST sociological explanation of Trump's popularity I have seen yet.

Re:obviously

[PopeRatzo]

The black people who worked in the factories are now out yelling about how black lives matter.

And white people who worked in the factories are collecting disability and hanging around Trump rallies.

Re:Transition to post-employment economy

[Anonymous Coward]

It might be that, or it might be the people who have the most sociopathic/psychopathic traits that take hold, either in government, or just in general. For example, A basic income for people in the US is just not going to happen, and it might be the case that existing programs are cut due to political ideologies. So, even though the pie gets smaller, more people have to reach for a piece in the US in order to survive as other means peter out, or wind up resorting to crime to survive.

What is likely going to happen as manufacturing goes away, will be more police and MRAPs on the street, higher food prices, and a lower quality of life, getting ever lower as Malthus and the Iron Law of Wages tightens its grip.

The only reason why the US and Europe are not serfdoms right now, dates back to the Black Plague and nobles having too few backs to lash/break to get what they want. Now, with populations back up, it is easy to keep control, and technology has made revolution and guerilla warfare impossible as the ultimate counterbalance to repression.

The other alternative

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Is another big, yet limited war. I feel that many "conservatives" would rather have a non-nuclear WWIII that whittles down the population, destroys manufacturing plants, and forces us all to "rebuild" (and thus raise employment) than ever give anything like a universal income. To the neocons and their ilk, this is a far more preferable and "natural" way of human society than raising taxes and providing UI. Plus, this would give the surviving 1% a chance to swoop in and buy up half-destroyed factories, valuable properties, and implement whatever "post-war reconstruction" paradign they have currently sitting in the wings.

That's exactly what happened

[rsilvergun]

when the industrial revolution started causing mass unemployment. One problem though, it took 50-100 years for science to catch up and make that revolution to happen. In the meantime there were decades of completely unnecessary war, death and misery. An entire generation lost to it really.

That's where the Luddites came from. Believe it or not that word is more than just a slur. They weren't just a bunch of fuddy duddies, they were real people facing a real problems that were beyond the current technical means for anyone to solve. It could have been solved with social means, but we didn't do that. Now that we're facing down the same problem are we going to do the same thing all over?

Re:Why?

[mspohr]

The person working a "crushing 9-5 job" is just as much a victim of neoliberalism as those who can't get a job.
There is plenty of money. The problem is that the very rich have it all (top 1% own about 50% of all resources). You won't run out of money taxing the rich.
George Monbiot says it well:
"Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.
We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.
Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers."

Socialism has a different world view. We form societies, governments to take care of each other; not to out-compete and crush our fellow man.

Re:When everyone has what eveyone else has

[PopeRatzo]

Envy eats the soul. It's a bad thing.

Re:Socialism

[Tablizer]

"We are only semi-barbarians now" is not a strong selling point