Here’s the widely accepted story line about the American economy: Back in the good old days — the 1940s through the mid-1960s — anyone willing to do a good day’s work could land a job in a factory or manufacturing plant. These blue-collar jobs paid fairly well, provided decent benefits and the hundreds of paychecks that such plants turned out each week sustained small towns and cities across much of the Northeast and upper Midwest.
But when unions pushed too hard for higher wages and too generous health insurance and vacation benefits, the tide turned. Throw in overly strict environmental laws, and it was suddenly much cheaper to import running shoes, car tires, calculators and dinner plates from third-world factories where good wages, working conditions and pollution laws were optional.
The transformation from a nation that made things for itself and the world into one that provided services spelled doom for the U.S. economy.
That’s how the story of the decline of the U.S. economy is often told. But the truth is more complicated.
Robert Reich, labor secretary under President Clinton, writes that our image of manufacturing jobs is wrong. “I recently toured a U.S. factory containing two employees and 400 computerized robots. The two live people sat in front of computer screens and instructed the robots.” But this change is not unique to the U.S., he writes.
Even before the 2008 crash, Mr. Reich notes, 22 million manufacturing jobs disappeared from 20 large economies in the period from 1995 to 2002. The U.S. lost about 11 percent of manufacturing jobs, while Japan lost 16 percent, Brazil lost 20 percent and China lost 15 percent. In the U.S., the manufacturing sector provides 9 percent of American jobs.
But the kicker is that manufacturing productivity is up in these economies. We in Maine should know this, as we watch the paper industry bleed jobs but produce more product than ever before. It’s a trend that shouldn’t produce hand-wringing or celebrating, but rather a reassessment of strategy.
Mr. Reich makes an analogy with agriculture. At the start of the 20th century, 30 percent of American adults worked on farms. Today, fewer than 5 percent do.
“That doesn’t mean the U.S. failed at agriculture,” he concludes. In fact, the nation generates far more agricultural yields than 100 years ago using new technology, innovation in fertilizers and crop management and economies of scale.
Americans should stop pining for the days when millions “stood along assembly lines and continuously bolted, fit, soldered or clamped what went by,” Mr. Reich writes. “Those days are over.” The real culprit? Knowledge.
Creative thinking produced the software and electronic devices that changed our job market. Elevator and telephone operators, gas station attendants, bank tellers and travel agents have all been replaced, to varying degrees, by new technologies.
Still, the manufacturing sector should not be written off. In fact, more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs have been added in the U.S. in the last two years. But as David Wessel of the Wall Street Journal recently noted, even if factory jobs doubled, they wouldn’t erase the job losses from the 2007 to 2009 period.
One more caveat: small and large businesses can make an effort to purchase American-made products. ABC News recently profiled a home builder in Bozeman, Mont., who is committed to using only American-made materials. The materials he uses hail from 33 states. He said that if every builder in the country committed to using just 5 percent more American-made materials, 220,000 jobs would be created.
Protectionist policies and trying to recreate the past are not sound approaches to boosting our economy, even though they appeal to angry voters. Understanding what’s actually happening is the best first step.



The culprit isn’t knowledge. The culprit is concentration of wealth. We’ve all played the board game Monopoly before. It’s fun and all, but we know how the game ends and how an individual wins. I find it pretty hilarious that we have individuals sitting on hundreds of millions, but somehow we’re going to blame the hard working Americans for simply wanting to paid decently.
Yup, when one person ends up with all the money, the board goes flying, the name calling begins, and the fights start. Then Mom has to step in and separate the kids. Too bad in the real world there is no “Mom”. Watch for a blood bath.
??? So we should intentionally remain less productive?
The more money you have doesn’t mean you’re more productive. That’s ridiculous.
The Captains of Industry have exported those productivity gains. There’s another culprit.
And 99% of that “other culprit” are laws that allowed it to happen, intentionally making goods from other countries cheaper.
I was interpreting your response in light of the article, which discusses the loss of manufacturing jobs. Because of technology and cheaper labor options, the number of jobs has decreased. Like it or not, this equals an increase in productivity (which is defined as output divided by input).
The point of the article, which I agree with, is that people need to stop pining for the days of jobs that have been marginalized by more productive means of manufacture (cheaper labor, fancy robots). Times have changed and workers need to learn new skills that add value and are relevant TODAY, not 50 years ago. Adapt or die: it’s just a fact of life.
Not sure how “concentration of wealth” affects the loss of manufacturing jobs. 50 years ago we have rich people, but still had those jobs…
We have never seen a concentration of wealth like this before. Never. Obviously there were rich people before, but not this rich.
OK, fine we have more rich people now. I’m not sure how that is responsive to the point of the article.
Do you also blame bad weather on wage inequality?
Blame Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Len Bosack and Al Gore.
Life is sooo simple, isn’t it.
Humor escapes you doesn’t it.
Liberals and progressives have their sense of humor surgically removed by their Marxist professors.
I say we blame the Knights Templar. They are the ones that started “modern” banking after all. Or better yet, lets blame the kids, their little hands are perfect for getting into the machinery to fix it, how dare they decide not to work 50 hours a week in unsafe conditions! I see your humor…
My statement was in reference to the editorial. Perhaps you need to reread it?
I suppose one could say, “you can never go home”.
We also need to look back with a realistic and less rose colored tint. Those manufacturing jobs had hidden costs in pollution and health issues that can never be calculated, but we all continue to pay for. Mercury is finally becoming the lead of our generation and is being eliminated, but the effects will last along time. What cost do we apply to the species that have died as a result of human population growth? So were the good old days really that good?
Old money, old power and the status quo, are not interested in moving forward. It wants everything to stay the same. Oil doesn’t want anyone developing solar or wind.
The problem we have is that corporations dictate to our government what is good for the people and this is just no way to run a country. It stifles development and innovation. Why innovate when you know that the whole government is in the pocket of industries that will make that innovation hard to accomplish.
What is the purpose of the United States of America? Are we only a grist mill for large corporate entities? What goal to we share as a country? What cause to we Americans have to get out of bed in the morning for? These shoudl be important questions. People need a purpose ion life, and right now I see most Americans working to feed some corporation profits…. take our banking system…
Once upon a time, banks existed to take in money from the community and reinvest those funds back into the community to facilitate growth. Now it seems that banks are about taking our savings and investing it the stock market to benefit the stock holders of the bank. How did we allow this to happen…… the whole point of a bank was the reinvestment into community. This concept was abandoned for Greed….. there is MORE money to be made down the road, so that is where the money goes, because it is about money only… the moral compass is no longer part of how we do business in this country.
The USA will not recover until the common man sees that he is more than a pawn in some game of profit at all costs. If the only reason this country exists is profit, profit that most are not allowed to participate in, well I think we should all be able to see where this ends. The same place it has every other time in history when power and wealth concentrate into the hands of too few.
Our economic engine is broken and putting wheels back on it isn’t going to work. If we do not come up with a new Government for the People, not for the corporation I do not see us moving forward. People need more than a dollar to motivate them, especially when those dollars are just feeding those that are already holding most of the wealth.
I am not sure what time period you meant when you said…
Once upon a time, banks existed to take in money from the community and
reinvest those funds back into the community to facilitate growth. ~~~~Jason
…but outside of credit unions that has not happened since the advent of the Federal Reserve.
Bankings best kept secret, Banks loan from an electronic account from the Federal Reserve. They have marketed themselves as community banks to make you feel all warm and fuzzy about them. But again, they do not take the money from depositors and give to borrowers. They get their authority from their Federal Reserve accounts.
http://rogueeconomistrants.blogspot.com/2011/08/banks-dont-lend-reserves-its-bank-loans.html
other things to consider: Fractional Reserve banking
What I meant is that once upon a time we looked at banks as a cornerstone of the financial well being of the community in which the bank was located…. that the original idea was to have an establishment that helped the community as its focus, Vs helping the stockholders and paying generous salaries.. and true.. the credit union is now filling that role… so .. uhm, why do we need banks?
I am still not certain what time period you are referring to. As far as I know banks have always made sure they make a profit and they do that first before any other consideration.
That is why they put their money into more secure investments first. Lately that has been US Treasuries over small business. The government has borrowed so much money that there is a lot of debt to “buy”.
The by product of all this buying of debt is that less secure loans like small business don’t get loaned to and it gets harder for them to survive. If you believe that banks should loan to small business the first thing that needs to happen is for the government to stop borrowing.
A little bit of banking lure that may help.
For a bank: Peoples deposits are a liability that must be paid back by the bank.
Loans are an asset because presumably people must pay the bank back. This liability asset-swap is so different than how most people operate it may lead to confusion by some on how banks operate.
You sound like Ron Paul. Very up-to-date 19th century.
Talk to any banker, better yet read my links. What I have said does not relate to Ron Paul at all. It is real 21st century banking. It sounds as if you are merely out to pick a fight on a subject you know little about.
Wow! I thought for a minute there that someone else has infiltrated the editorial staff. Then you mentioned Robert Reich.
You have a lot of enemies don’t you. Stereotypic labels which lead you to put the blinders on and not even further examine the message. Shoot the messenger even before he sticks his head out of the foxhole. Am I stereotyping? Prove me wrong.
I’ve listened to Robert Reich for many years now. He’s an intelligent man, but he is also so partisan that he stifles his own intelligence by not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I think he knows that the real truth would hurt his left wing buddies, so he remains quiet on certain issues in order to cover some of his own tracks.
By the way, considering the left leaning beliefs and attitudes of the BDN editorial staff, the fact that they added Reich’s opinion solidifies the truth of the first three paragraphs.
If it’s not a hyper-partisan smear, you don’t consider it to be “the truth.” Your idea of what’s truthful is pretty laughable.
At least I have an idea of what’s truthful.
Other than to take a shot a Reich, is there a particular problem you have with what he is quoted as saying in this article? What truth did he leave out and where did he lie?
The real problem with the beliefs held in the first three paragraphs is that those that choose to believe it fail to acknowledge what the world looked like after the war. Japan, Germany and most of Europe were rebuilding their countries from destruction. America was the only country really manufacturing and exporting goods. We had no competition, to speak of.
As these countries recovered, we opened our borders to their goods and our businesses invested in their and other economies looking to spread our influence globally. What really tipped the scale was the normalizing of relations with China. It’s been an unlevel playing field ever since.
Unions and a lack of any real competition made this country strong and built a thriving middle class. A reduction of the former and an increase of the latter is what changed the fabric of this country.
The first three paragraphs are true. What Reich attempts to do is debunk them. He fails.
I don’t think he really tries to debunk them, but point out that there are forces at play. I think both are actually true.
Reich is a smart man. In this case, as with most thing he comments or writes on, he is discussing forces at play. Trouble is, he cherry picks particular points in order to push his left wing outlook while leaving out many other forces in play in an attempt to debunk the actual truth. He’s always done this. He used to go on Fox from time to time, but the moderators there cornered him a couple of times, and he hasn’t been on lately. In other words, when faced with the facts and the whole truth, his house usually crumbles.
Where government has really failed is public education. We transfer billions upon billions of dollars annually to the over 65 segment of the population all the while skimping and cutting education and basically throwing the kids under the bus. We have our priorities mixed up, thanks to a senior lobby second in power to big labor.
Big labor? All 7% of them? It is time to stop hiding from the scary union monster under your bed. Private union membership is the lowest it has ever been, and so are the wages. Coincidence? I don’t think so. The 6 Walton heirs are now worth $93 billion, or 93,000 million. Their average under employee earns a whopping $13,600 a year, or half the federal poverty level. Please explain how this is big labor’s fault?
7% is a big number when you take into account the huge sums of money that unions pour into the political process. And you conveniently leave out the public unions. Traditionally the unions also delivered the majority of votes from their members to the democratic party as well as large numbers of unpaid workers for political campaigns.
7% is a big number? lol. Big corporate America and the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans out spend organized labor by an astronomical amount. You tell me one organization in Washington who is fighting for the working men and women of America, other than unions. Just one. Or are the working men and women not deserving of having at least one lone friend in Washington?
If you think the big unions really give a bleep about the working men and women of America then you are delusional. Stop listening to the rhetoric and pay attention to the results.
And your rhetoric/propaganda is any more worth listening to?
Who does give a bleep about the working men and women of America then? Rhetoric? Are you kidding me? Unions are the sole reason every stinking one of us isn’t working in sweat shops for a dollar an hour. Do you own a history book? Do you know that this country was founded by members of the world’s oldest union, the BROTHERHOOD of Masons? Please, if you are going to throw in with the Koch brothers, you are going to have to do better than that. I will again ask you. Who else gives a rat’s fat behind about the working men and women of America? Who else?
——————————
You can continue living in the past where unions actually paid an important role in this country and did care about and do something for the working men and women. Those days ended decades ago.
Your history is correct. But that is just what it is. HISTORY.
I’m sorry. Did you miss my question? Who else gives a rat’s fat behind about the working men and women of America? Do they have any friends in Washington, other than organized labor? Owning a history book is the same as owning a crystal ball. Anyone can see what the future holds, just look at the past. History is the answer to all our problems.
——————————
It appears the obvious escapes you.
NO ONE in Washington is a friend or really “gives a rat’s fat behind about the working men and women of America”.
You need to read more history books. And get some of the older ones, ones written before progressive historians started rewriting and interpreting history from an ideological perspective. Read the original sources. It becomes enlightening how most “historians” from both ends of the political spectrum have colored or outright distorted history.
Still no answer to my question. An “I don’t know” would do it, but I don’t think you say that very much. By the way, in this country we are all “the government”, like it or not. So if “governmentistheproblem”, then we are all the problem. Any solutions to the problems to offer?
——————————
How much of:
“NO ONE in Washington is a friend or really “gives a rat’s fat behind about the working men and women of America”.”
did you not read. Or maybe comprehending is the problem.
Nice circular logic on the next part. Of course it depends on the original premise being correct. And since your premise is false so is your logic. GIGO
Nice attempt at an ad-hominem attack. LOL
Still no answer to my original question? Is it really that awkward? Who would stand up for the working men and women of America, other than organized labor? Who?
The point is, buddy, that unions really aren’t “standing up” for the “working men and women of America” anymore. It’s a ruse. A trick. Smoke and mirrors. They’ve become corrupted, keeping union members docile with nice paychecks in exchange for votes “for the party”. And all of the union political excrement you see in literature these days is clearly the same excrement Marx would approve of. Wake up, you’re being used!
Ron Paul, just sayin’.
Certainly not the unions.
You are a wrong to believe unions are working for the working men and women in this country. You forget to define what is a working man or woman and you forget that unions only fight for union members, they could care less about the rest of the country so lets not stick them on any pedestals. They call non-union workers scabs, remember? And would you please define what a working man/woman is? Is it the people that pack the lunch pail and go to work from 8 to 4.30 or is it the young professional who goes to work at 5am and stays until 10pm? Are you saying that most people that go to work are not the working men and women or just exactly what are you talking about and please, be specific.
You know. People who get their hands dirty. Plumbers, carpenters, mechanics, welders, pipe fitters, boiler men, truckers, warehouse workers, etc.. Pretty much everyone who does not wear a suit to work. They are only called “scabs” when they cross a picket line and try to take food off of the table of a union brother or sister, period. And the young professional that you mentioned working 17 hours a day will not keep up that pace for long and he will be burned out and replaced without prejudice by big corporate America. As a reward for his or her loyalty. Specific enough?
Back to the good old days? Those days vanished a long time ago. Dwelling in the (and not learning from it) will get us nowhere.
Perhaps you should learn about and learn from the history of progressives, socialism, and Marxism.
The average working person has a 401k plan that they will be lucky to get a few thousand bucks a year from to supplement social security that no one in my age bracket will ever live long enough to recover what they put in much less realize a minimal return. Union members have their 401k plans and defined benefit pension plans with annual income guarantees for life. All paid for on the backs of the taxpayer. Please explain how this is Walmarts fault?
We were talking about private unions, right? The Waltons have $93 billion, their average employee makes a whopping $13, 600 a year, or HALF the federal poverty level. Some people just don’t have a conscience, period.
——————————
I agree: we’re so tied up in paying for entitlements and propping up failing industries that we’re losing sight of what will make us more competitive in the future.
Reich is 100% correct and his agriculture analogy is spot on. We moved on from buggy whip manufacture…”pining” for the days of rosie the riverter does nothing to help us move forward.
The world changes: adapt or die!
Not often I agree with that arrogant man but this time he has it right. I don’t understanding this “pining for the old days” that never really existed to begin with.
Oh, really?
Maybe your “old days” are merely a reflection of your ignorance of they events of that period.
The good ole’ days weren’t always good……
and tomorrow ain’t as bad as it seems…
~~~~Billy Joel
The “good old days” were pretty good for me. and Billy Joel as philosopher doesn’t make it.
It’s at least worth a smile isn’t it?
Arrogant, yes, but isn’t he a professor at Harvard. Anyway, I might not agree with his conclusions all the time, but I have to admit he understands macroeconomics, and communicates it well.
UC Berkley He is so certain of his positions that anyone that disputes him in a public forum he ridicules. I have seen him do it to their faces on C Span and again on CNBC to several different economists. That defines arrogant to me.
I began my working life as a textile worker in Lawrence Massachusetts. Far from standing on a line and adding bolts to a product, I watched the looms make hospital sheets, occasionally cutting off the slag and pulling wrinkles so the loom did not jam. I had a companion worker who did the same on the other side of the loom.
Make no mistake, this was more than a job. We workers played together, had our Friday beers at the same place, Discussed family problems and attended weddings christenings, and funerals.
We were also extremely proud of the product. Forty years later, I still have pure American cotton Essex Mills bedsheets which show no signs of wear. The forman on our line once quipped; “If prisons start using foreign bed sheets there won’t be any more prison breaks because only Essex sheets can support the weight of a two hundred pound prisoner attempting to escape via sheet-out-the-window route.”
It was a great life. I would be there still if government policies, fuel costs, and a sociatial lack of appreciation for good quality had not moved my mill to South Carolina, and then five years after that, to India.
Yesterday you advised us to let our teenagers sleep. today you tell us there is no reason for them to awake…..ever!
South Carolina workers make shoddier products than Massachusetts workers?
I’m pretty sure it’s just cheaper labor…
Actually the mill in South Carolina did not make broadloom 100% cotton sheets. It was a polyester product produced there. The mill in India uses Indian cotton which is inferior to US cotton.
Have you ever used American cotton sheets? There is nothing like them, particularly on those cold winter, or hot summer nights.
Well, that’s fine then, so I suppose you are right about the declining demand for quality. But it is what it is: you can’t control the market. People would rather spend less on cheap sheets and more on something else…
No. The truth is pretty simple. Pretty much what the first three paragraphs state. Big government is the enemy of our prosperity and our economy.
When we normalized relations with China and opened up trade, we put the dagger in our own heart. It was big government intervention in other countries that became the enemy of our prosperity and our economy.
Nafta? Shipping all manufacturing jobs overseas? Hello!
NAFTA is trade agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico and has nothing to do with jobs going to China, India, and southeast Asia.
Im well aware, thanks.
they weren’t meant to be taken together. Hence the two sentences.