CDZ The Jobs Ain't Coming Back

[JimBowie1958]

So you won't say when or if we saw that? Thanks for nothing.

What would you call $4 trillion of QE?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Germany has TWICE the percentage of workers in Manufacturing.

Why can they have TWICE as many manufacturing jobs then we can?

Because they have low wages? NO.

Because they have more productive workers? NO.

Because they have better training, better political leadership and a society that still remembers the value in having a commitment to each other.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you won't say when or if we saw that? Thanks for nothing.

What would you call $4 trillion of QE?

I'd say QE is not an example of "privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class"

 

[JimBowie1958]

So you won't say when or if we saw that? Thanks for nothing.

What would you call $4 trillion of QE?

I'd say QE is not an example of "privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class"

Then you would be wrong. Wall Street banks lost huge amounts of investment capital in equities that ended up worthless because the algorithm that they used to calculate the value of these equities was not meant for such and the mathematical wizz kid repeatedly said so.

Thus the banks were stuck with equities that no one wanted to buy, and they were then WORTHLESS.

But with the QE program the federal reserve, our federal government, bought all of these equities (MBS, CDO, SIV) at FACE VALUE THAT THE BANKS ORIGINALLY PAID FOR THEM; NO DISCOUNT.

That is a GIFT, not a purchase. If you needed money and wanted to sell me your old car you wouldnt expect me to pay you the price you paid for it on the dealers lot, but that is exactly what the federal reserve did. And so it was EXACTLY SOCIALIZED LOSSES FOR THE TOO BIG TO FAIL BANKS.

Dont try to blow smoke, mmmk?

 

[Indeependent]

Back in the day when production activities surpassed in importance design, distribution and marketing, sure assembly line jobs paid quite nicely. Going forward, they will not.

Back in the day we in the USA built consumer products that were desired around the world.

Now we build and sell armament. Biggest armament dealer in the world. And because so many people want those guns, those factory workers make real good money.

So there is the difference. If, when we invent the next greatest thing that everyone needs (home fuel cells) or clean coal technology we could see a rebirth of assembly line work for some segments.

But I agree, millions of decent paying factory jobs are a thing of the past in all likelihood.

The one segment of the manufacturing industry that we ignore at real peril is letting our ability in the tool and die industry collapse.
We were the leader for years. No more. Not even close. Bad mistake.

Germany has TWICE the percentage of workers in Manufacturing.

Why can they have TWICE as many manufacturing jobs then we can?

Because they have low wages? NO.

Because they have more productive workers? NO.

Back in the day when production activities surpassed in importance design, distribution and marketing, sure assembly line jobs paid quite nicely. Going forward, they will not.

Back in the day we in the USA built consumer products that were desired around the world.

Now we build and sell armament. Biggest armament dealer in the world. And because so many people want those guns, those factory workers make real good money.

So there is the difference. If, when we invent the next greatest thing that everyone needs (home fuel cells) or clean coal technology we could see a rebirth of assembly line work for some segments.

But I agree, millions of decent paying factory jobs are a thing of the past in all likelihood.

The one segment of the manufacturing industry that we ignore at real peril is letting our ability in the tool and die industry collapse.
We were the leader for years. No more. Not even close. Bad mistake.

Germany has TWICE the percentage of workers in Manufacturing.

Why can they have TWICE as many manufacturing jobs then we can?

Because they have low wages? NO.

Because they have more productive workers? NO.

Because they have a better school system for preparing for a career.

Is that why no US Corporation will use a German H1-B in IT?
Try better.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Is that why no US Corporation will use a German H1-B in IT?
Try better.

It is because the American Brahmin Oligarchy wants the Middle Class in this country to be desperate, and to hate the brown skinned immigrants so they can just liquidate all their property here when they run them off. If they have white skin the rest of the nation might feel sympathetic to them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you won't say when or if we saw that? Thanks for nothing.

What would you call $4 trillion of QE?

I'd say QE is not an example of "privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class"

Then you would be wrong. Wall Street banks lost huge amounts of investment capital in equities that ended up worthless because the algorithm that they used to calculate the value of these equities was not meant for such and the mathematical wizz kid repeatedly said so.

Thus the banks were stuck with equities that no one wanted to buy, and they were then WORTHLESS.

But with the QE program the federal reserve, our federal government, bought all of these equities (MBS, CDO, SIV) at FACE VALUE THAT THE BANKS ORIGINALLY PAID FOR THEM; NO DISCOUNT.

That is a GIFT, not a purchase. If you needed money and wanted to sell me your old car you wouldnt expect me to pay you the price you paid for it on the dealers lot, but that is exactly what the federal reserve did. And so it was EXACTLY SOCIALIZED LOSSES FOR THE TOO BIG TO FAIL BANKS.

Dont try to blow smoke, mmmk?

Wall Street banks lost huge amounts of investment capital in equities

Yeah, they lost lots of money. The trigger was bonds though, not equities.

But with the QE program the federal reserve, our federal government, bought all of these equities (MBS, CDO, SIV) at FACE VALUE THAT THE BANKS ORIGINALLY PAID FOR THEM; NO DISCOUNT.

First of all, the Fed bought bonds, not equities. They didn't buy any CDOs. And an SIV is not an equity or a bond.

The Fed didn't buy any private label MBS, the ones that had the massive defaults/losses.
They bought the good ones, the guaranteed ones, the ones that have traded over par the entire time.

And so it was EXACTLY SOCIALIZED LOSSES FOR THE TOO BIG TO FAIL BANKS.

If that were the case, show me the losses the Fed suffered from the purchases.

 

[Indeependent]

So you won't say when or if we saw that? Thanks for nothing.

What would you call $4 trillion of QE?

I'd say QE is not an example of "privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class"

Then you would be wrong. Wall Street banks lost huge amounts of investment capital in equities that ended up worthless because the algorithm that they used to calculate the value of these equities was not meant for such and the mathematical wizz kid repeatedly said so.

Thus the banks were stuck with equities that no one wanted to buy, and they were then WORTHLESS.

But with the QE program the federal reserve, our federal government, bought all of these equities (MBS, CDO, SIV) at FACE VALUE THAT THE BANKS ORIGINALLY PAID FOR THEM; NO DISCOUNT.

That is a GIFT, not a purchase. If you needed money and wanted to sell me your old car you wouldnt expect me to pay you the price you paid for it on the dealers lot, but that is exactly what the federal reserve did. And so it was EXACTLY SOCIALIZED LOSSES FOR THE TOO BIG TO FAIL BANKS.

Dont try to blow smoke, mmmk?

Wall Street banks lost huge amounts of investment capital in equities

Yeah, they lost lots of money. The trigger was bonds though, not equities.

But with the QE program the federal reserve, our federal government, bought all of these equities (MBS, CDO, SIV) at FACE VALUE THAT THE BANKS ORIGINALLY PAID FOR THEM; NO DISCOUNT.

First of all, the Fed bought bonds, not equities. They didn't buy any CDOs. And an SIV is not an equity or a bond.

The Fed didn't buy any private label MBS, the ones that had the massive defaults/losses.
They bought the good ones, the guaranteed ones, the ones that have traded over par the entire time.

And so it was EXACTLY SOCIALIZED LOSSES FOR THE TOO BIG TO FAIL BANKS.

If that were the case, show me the losses the Fed suffered from the purchases.

Ain't that the beauty of it?
Financial Firms PROVED they could make money and pay it back in a TIMELY manner without playing games.
Of course that was AFTER they caused the crash and millions lost their jobs and homes.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If that were the case, show me the losses the Fed suffered from the purchases.

The losses are the money used to buy the equities, dude.

 

[320 Years of History]

Back in the day when production activities surpassed in importance design, distribution and marketing, sure assembly line jobs paid quite nicely. Going forward, they will not.

Back in the day we in the USA built consumer products that were desired around the world.

Now we build and sell armament. Biggest armament dealer in the world. And because so many people want those guns, those factory workers make real good money.

So there is the difference. If, when we invent the next greatest thing that everyone needs (home fuel cells) or clean coal technology we could see a rebirth of assembly line work for some segments.

But I agree, millions of decent paying factory jobs are a thing of the past in all likelihood.

The one segment of the manufacturing industry that we ignore at real peril is letting our ability in the tool and die industry collapse. We were the leader for years. No more. Not even close. Bad mistake.

[Some of my graphs/charts pasted as attachments instead of as images. Sorry for that; I don't know why that happened.]

One observation about your remarks above: you've opted to discuss the consumer goods (CG) industry and the durable goods (DG) industry. While economics principles -- micro and macro -- operate the same in both of them, the business cycles of the two are vastly different and the consumer profiles extant in the two are highly diverse as well as overlapping. For instance:

• Production --> Sale:
  • CG: goods produced in anticipation of consumer demand, except for large institutional buys of consumer goods, which are produced in response to specific demand. (E.g., the army places an order for new uniforms and boots; prison system needs new prisoner garments, etc.)
  • DG: goods produced in response to demand, except for durable goods that are largely consumer goods rather than industrial/institutional goods. (E.g., stoves are consumer durable goods, except when they are restaurant stoves, which have vastly higher BTU capabilities than do household stoves/ovens. Cars are also consumer goods that are also durable goods.)
• Consumer Behavior: here the customer type is more relevant than the goods type (CG or DG)
  • Individuals as consumers --> Emotional as well as rational factors drive buying decisions, but very often willing to allow the emotional considerations control the decision making process, even though doing so costs more.
    • Willing to use price as an indicator of substance/quality.
    • Willing to rely on "feel good" marketing messages.
    • Willing to rely on advice of non-experts and "circumstantial" experts.
    • Prefer not to make objective critical analysis and evaluations of the product(s) under consideration.
    • Willing to be induced to buy. (buy on impulse)
    • Next to impossible to predict their behavior when price factors are removed. (In other words, the value proposition is often irrelevant when price isn't a limiting factor.)
  • Institutional buyers as consumers --> Rational decision makers, but willing to buy based on emotion when it won't cost more.
    • Usually experts re: the product(s) they are tasked with buying on behalf of a business or government.
    • Have clearly defined buying reasons, product requirements, and financial objectives.
    • Respond to objective marketing messages.
    • Unwilling to be induced to buy. (don't buy on impulse)
    • Predictable buying behavior, with or without price as a limiting factor.

This overlap of the products' buyer profiles combined with the dissimilarity in buyer behavior makes high level generalizations about the nature of the industry all but impossible to make accurately. The factors above aren't even the "tip of the iceberg" of things that confound trying to evaluate consumer goods and durable goods industries, and few of the things that do are easily accounted for in econometric or business modeling, and they simply cannot be accounted for in casual discussions such as the ones here...not even by folks like me who'll will or who have spent some time reading critical studies about them and understanding them for the sake of making a living. (Yes, even with my so-called long posts, I have limits on how much effort I'm going to put into posting on a public forum.)

Therein lies the difficulty I have with the comments in your post. Plenty of what you said is so, but there's little that suggests that much if any of it is causal or controlling in whether jobs will or won't come back. At best, the observations you've noted are indicative of what types of jobs won't come back and which ones might or will.

Red:
We could still do, but not when the labor cost of producing them drives the selling price so high that the maker can't make enough profit to meet their financial needs and expectations.

There was a time -- nearly the whole of the first half of the 20th century -- when the U.S. was the nation that had the capacity and ability to produce the goods consumers outside the U.S. demanded, but that capacity wasn't unique so much as it was unaffected by the bombs blowing up the factories of combatting nations and by the men who'd work in the factories being the people fighting in the wars. That was a time when the U.S. was the lowest cost producer, but it was also the only viable producer, and during that era, we enjoyed all those "good jobs" that folks continue to want.

Sidebar:

Believe it or not, world wars that play out everywhere except within one's own borders tends to have a huge impact on the productivity of a massive nation like the U.S. that has the infrastructure and population size to meet the demand of the warring states. I'm not going to go so far as to say the U.S. actively catalyzes conflict and tension around the world, but I will say that the presence of it was a major factor in the U.S. being able to enjoy the economic advantages it did until the era of limited warfare that we have seen since the last score of 20th century years to the present.

That reality isn't lost on the controllers of policy, and that is isn't allows them to countenance a degree of what might be thought of as "controlled tension" as a tool for implementing and sustaining economic protectionism, most notably for what some folks call the "military industrial complex," but in reality that covers pretty much everything that is and can be manufactured that isn't a pure consumer good.​

End of sidebar.

Attachment Source: IW US 50 Database (Aggregated by NAICS codes)

Just looking at the list above it's not hard to see the challenge of generalizing about consumer goods manufacturing vs. non-consumer goods manufacturing. Factors like industry consolidation play into it. Almost every illustrative company noted above plays in consumer and industrial goods markets. In this information age, even the idea of durable goods is somewhat outdated because of obsolescence. My 1980s era brick phone theoretically still works so it counts as a durable good, but it's obsolete, so I won't use it, but categorically, the processes that produced it are the same ones used to produce any other durable goods.

Why have I noted all that stuff? To try to show some of the elements -- historical, geographical, political, and economic -- that all funnel down to the final controlling factor of whether goods manufacturing jobs can/will or cannot/won't come back to the U.S: profitability, which is financial factor. Short of a major distraction coming about, so long as producers gain more profit using capital instead of labor to produce their goods, one can all but forget about the jobs coming back. (The sort of major distraction/intervention that will change that is something on a scale that literally makes it impossible to use capital instead of labor...things like asteroid strikes or WWII and no other nation being able to provide the "stuff" the combatants demand.) Like it or not, ours is a time of relative peace and in such times, the financial dimension controls all the others.

Blue:
See sidebar above.

We are largest arms selling nation on the planet, but that's largely because the bulk of the purchases in that industry comes from foreign and U.S. government purchases. Small arms production has a consumer goods component, but that's not where the "big money" is in that industry, not in terms of exports and not overall. Look at the companies at the link. I don't think any of them is a small arms producer, although one of them is an ammunition producer. Look at the chart below. The topic of the chart isn't relevant, but look at who's doing the buying and ask yourself whether the buyers are buying small arms or national defense weaponry. (See also: The US Is Replacing Boots On The Ground With Record Weapons Sales )

(Click the image to access its source.)




Green (ideas continuing from "blue"):
More to your point, however, the consumer segment of that industry -- small arms -- finds the vast majority not in foreign gun sales, but in domestic gun sales. In other words, it's not foreigners who are keeping gun (small arms) industry workers employed. That fact is further borne out by a DoD report on employment in the defense industry: Defense-Related Employment of Skilled Labor: An Introduction to LDEPPS .

As go production line jobs -- the unskilled labor jobs that used to be "good jobs" -- I don't think there's much hope there seeing as contractors have taken to using the lowest paid workers available -- prisoners -- to perform that work.

(Click here to access the source of the chart/attachment that follows. Chart title: Economic Contribution of Arms and Ammunition Industries, 2011.)

I looked quickly to find the source of that data. In doing so, I found a more current (2014) version from the NSSF, which, FWIW, has an interest in presenting the rosy side of the industry. Looking at the economic contribution chart in their report (page 4), one finds the overall average wage was ~$44k/year in 2014 for folks directly employed in that industry. (Induced demand and production resulting from it boosts the overall industry average wage to ~$52K/year, which is still below median per capita income.) Call me crazy, but looking at per capita incomes, I would hardly call that a "good paying job." Sure, it's good paying for someone with no salable and highly demanded skills and in comparison with other jobs for which they may qualify, but "good paying" in and of itself, not at all. Maybe I'm more demanding than some folks, but my idea of "good paying" means the job pays at or above the median per capita wage.


Lastly, even the most casual look at the small arms manufacturing industry will show that there's not much to gain from trying to export them in peacetime as lots of nations have lower labor costs and a domestic small arms industry.

Pink:
Given the ever increasingly sophisticated means and modes of production automation, that "next big thing" would have to be something that is economically inefficient (less profitable) to produce using capital instead of labor. Thinking of tangible goods, I'm hard pressed to imagine any that would meet that criterion, let alone do so for decades. The rate of technological advancement would have to slow dramatically to make that happen.

Purple:
Interesting segment, machine tool manufacturing. A key thing about that industry segment is that it's 100% ETO production, ATO production and MTO production. (If it's not 100%, it's near enough as makes no difference.) That is seen in how closely correlated are production (supply) and consumption (demand).



Source: The 2015 World Machine Tool Survey

Even with the machine tool industry, however, the issue for U.S. producers isn't an unwillingness to use U.S. workers, but rather the lack of skilled U.S. workers to meet their demand. The labor demand in that industry isn't for assembly line workers; it's for skilled workers.

Like other manufacturers, tool and die firms express concern about a looming skills shortage. Older workers, who are likely to have learned their trade mainly on the job, often do not have the skills needed in a highly computerized environment. A recent Washington Post profile on manufacturing showed the issue at hand:

“You don’t see anyone advertising for just tool and die maker anymore,” said Tom Whitmore, 59, a tool and die maker who was laid off in 2009 after 33 years at a nearby auto parts maker. “​

They want CNC skills. For most of them, I can’t apply.”

The required level of skills is in evidence in a recent advertisement placed by Richardson Electronics, Ltd. in Lafox, IL, which sought an employee who could “design, construct, alter, and repair a wide variety of tools, dies, jigs, fixtures and gauges to very close tolerances.

You will participate with a team in the development of new products, perform difficult tool room operations...."The job, paying up to $26 an hour, requires 8-10 years of experience, proof of an apprenticeship, and “considerable ingenuity in building specialized complex tooling.”​

NTMA surveys show that 95% of tool and die members have openings, even with relatively high U.S. unemployment rates.40 A recent survey-based report by Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute, which is associated with the National Association of Manufacturers, found that 74% of respondents were particularly concerned about the supply of skilled production workers, a category that includes tool and die makers. More than half of respondents said skills shortages are affecting their level of production and about a third said they compromise quality and productivity.​

I see folks on USMB griping about H1-B workers, as though those folks are threats to American workers' ability to get jobs in the U.S. Time and time again, however, I look into the claims these USMB members make and find out they don't hold water, that there're just the perceptions folks have. I can only surmise that they have those perceptions because at they aren't willing to consider that the issue is their lacking in skills not that someone is aiming to "take" their job or that someone doesn't want to hire Americans.

The problem is multifaceted:

• Too damn many Americans would rather bitch and moan than obtain the skills that employers seek from workers.
• Too damn many Americans want to do what American employers have no need for them to do.
• The "writing has been on the wall" for over 20 years, and too damn many Americans simply refuse to read it.

Yes, there are lots of people who are unemployed or under employed, but it doesn't have to be that way if those folks would embrace the American enterprising spirit of "get up off your duff, do something that serves yours and others interests (in this case the employer's job filling interest) and get with the program instead of fighting the program." What too damn many Americans won't and don't do is say to themselves, "I need to get my sorry ass up and get the skills that are in demand so that I can get that job instead of forcing the employer to seek them from foreign workers."

For some folks it may be too late. Those folks just missed the boat for whatever reason, but the reason was of their making, IMO, and not that foreign worker's. (Obviously there are exceptions at the individual level, but I'm writing of what I've observed and seen documented by credible research (not editorials) into folks' expressed behavior and thoughts at a class level.) Of folks for whom the "ship has sailed without them," the best thing I can offer is that they at least read "the writing on the wall" to their kids so their kids at least don't make the same mistakes, not the least of which is not "reading the writing on the wall."

One'd think that by now Americans would have figured out that nobody is indispensable and that whether one gets on board or not, the train's still leaving. John Green, in The Fault in Our Stars, wrote, "Do the thing you're good at. Not many people are lucky enough to be so good at something.” It seems to me that more and more what Americans have become increasingly good at is complaining and finding fault in everything except themselves. That alone -- before and after considering all the fancy economics and whatnot -- does not bode well for the resurgence of manufacturing jobs in the U.S.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Interesting segment, machine tool manufacturing.

Yes it is. A manufacturer can not build his or her product, no matter what, without a tool and die person building the tooling, dies, jigs, fixtures, special machines or molds. No matter what method is used to determine when to make a product, it won't get built without tool and die workers.

I grew up in Dayton Oh. At one time in the top three of machining centers in the country. My tool and die experience started in the machine shop of my high school. It was supplemented by the NCR Corporation. My actual apprenticeship was served at Wright Patterson AFB. I graduated HS in 1971. I finished my apprenticeship in 1974.y

Three little things I would point out that existed then vs. today.

High schools with full machine shops.
Private company, public school partnerships to train workers.
Availability of apprenticeships.

Almost sounds like Germany doesn't it?


I no longer hear about such concentrated efforts to train for highly skilled, good wage paying jobs in industry. Why?

 

[Wilbur Right]

What too damn many Americans won't and don't do is say to themselves, "I need to get my sorry ass up and get the skills that are in demand so that I can get that job instead of forcing the employer to seek them from foreign workers."

The group you mentioned above. They can't read above maybe a fifth grade level.

You ever look at the literacy rates in this country?

What would you suggest for this huge number of people who struggle to read and comprehend? I volunteer as a reading tutor. This is real problem for the country. Lack of literacy.

What do we do with these people?

 

[Wilbur Right]

Short of a major distraction coming about, so long as producers gain more profit using capital instead of labor to produce their goods, one can all but forget about the jobs coming back.

Would it be a major enough event if American consumers in mass, decided that IF a product doesn't say Made in America, it won't be bought?

Would lack of demand for a product cause a manufacture to change the way they do business?

If that lack of demand was from manufacturing overseas.

Be interesting to find out.

Supply and demand still exist as market forces. Right?

 

[Wilbur Right]

seems to me that more and more what Americans have become increasingly good at is complaining and finding fault in everything except themselves. That alone -- before and after considering all the fancy economics and whatnot -- does not bode well for the resurgence of manufacturing jobs in the U.S.

What you described above is not good for America. Let alone manufacturing jobs.

 

[320 Years of History]

What too damn many Americans won't and don't do is say to themselves, "I need to get my sorry ass up and get the skills that are in demand so that I can get that job instead of forcing the employer to seek them from foreign workers."

The group you mentioned above. They can't read above maybe a fifth grade level.

You ever look at the literacy rates in this country?

What would you suggest for this huge number of people who struggle to read and comprehend? I volunteer as a reading tutor. This is real problem for the country. Lack of literacy.

What do we do with these people?

I have.

Literacy - Country Comparison & United States - Literacy - Historical Data Graphs per Year

Are you seriously arguing or implying that the 1% away from 100% literacy is causal to anything we're discussing in this thread?

 

[320 Years of History]

Would it be a major enough event if American consumers in mass, decided that IF a product doesn't say Made in America, it won't be bought?

Most likely not now. The U.S. is no longer a growth market, it's a mature market. If good producers are forced to choose between no profit and profits taken from countries that will buy their products, they'll choose the latter.

Supply and demand still exist as market forces. Right?

They most definitely do. The supply goes where the demand is.

 

[320 Years of History]

seems to me that more and more what Americans have become increasingly good at is complaining and finding fault in everything except themselves. That alone -- before and after considering all the fancy economics and whatnot -- does not bode well for the resurgence of manufacturing jobs in the U.S.

What you described above is not good for America. Let alone manufacturing jobs.

And the thing to do about it if one is a worker is to get the skills needed to perform the jobs America has to offer. Look at that job listing cited in the study I referenced. Sure the employer is a manufacturer, but the job it has to give isn't an assembly line posting; it's an intellectual capital job, not a physical labor job. Surely you don't think that companies need swarms of engineers and designers as they needed assemblers years ago?

 

[Correll]

Back in the day when production activities surpassed in importance design, distribution and marketing, sure assembly line jobs paid quite nicely. Going forward, they will not.

Back in the day we in the USA built consumer products that were desired around the world.

Now we build and sell armament. Biggest armament dealer in the world. And because so many people want those guns, those factory workers make real good money.

So there is the difference. If, when we invent the next greatest thing that everyone needs (home fuel cells) or clean coal technology we could see a rebirth of assembly line work for some segments.

But I agree, millions of decent paying factory jobs are a thing of the past in all likelihood.

The one segment of the manufacturing industry that we ignore at real peril is letting our ability in the tool and die industry collapse.
We were the leader for years. No more. Not even close. Bad mistake.

Germany has TWICE the percentage of workers in Manufacturing.

Why can they have TWICE as many manufacturing jobs then we can?

Because they have low wages? NO.

Because they have more productive workers? NO.

Back in the day when production activities surpassed in importance design, distribution and marketing, sure assembly line jobs paid quite nicely. Going forward, they will not.

Back in the day we in the USA built consumer products that were desired around the world.

Now we build and sell armament. Biggest armament dealer in the world. And because so many people want those guns, those factory workers make real good money.

So there is the difference. If, when we invent the next greatest thing that everyone needs (home fuel cells) or clean coal technology we could see a rebirth of assembly line work for some segments.

But I agree, millions of decent paying factory jobs are a thing of the past in all likelihood.

The one segment of the manufacturing industry that we ignore at real peril is letting our ability in the tool and die industry collapse.
We were the leader for years. No more. Not even close. Bad mistake.

Germany has TWICE the percentage of workers in Manufacturing.

Why can they have TWICE as many manufacturing jobs then we can?

Because they have low wages? NO.

Because they have more productive workers? NO.

Because they have a better school system for preparing for a career.

That's the bumper sticker answer.

Our education system has plenty of problems, but their are plenty of good schools that turn out very productive workers.

Level of GDP per capita and productivity

 

[Correll]

Germany has TWICE the percentage of workers in Manufacturing.

Why can they have TWICE as many manufacturing jobs then we can?

Twice the percentage in manufacturing is not the same as twice as many manufacturing jobs.

Aside from that, the Germans view manufacturing differently seems to me. Their kids are.brought up to believe that manufacturing is a viable, desirable career path. Different relationship between government and labor and manufacturer.
More specific training for industry. Etc.

As Germany is a much smaller country than the US, that is why I compared percentages, not absolute numbers.

And cultural expectations, I'm sure is part of it.

But Trade POlicy I'm certain is too.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If that were the case, show me the losses the Fed suffered from the purchases.

The losses are the money used to buy the equities, dude.

They bought bonds, dude.
And the reason why you can't show losses caused by buying shit at par is because they didn't buy shit.
They bought high quality bonds, at the market price, and have made huge profits doing so.
Tough to do if your fantasy had been what happened.