Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktThis 2006 paper claimed that American manufacturing retained its world lead and 20%+ of global manufacturing from c. 1980 to 2005. It claimed job loss in the sector was entirely due to mechanization.
Cited within the paper is a Fed Reserve of Cleveland abstract, but its conclusions differ.
http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/Commentary/2006/0101.pdf
I would like to see the data broken out between defense and non-defense manufacturing output. An analysis, over time, of the portion of output generated by S&P 500 and non-S&P 500 companies might show concentrations in manufacturing, like the trend in agribusiness away from the diminishing family farm component.
Some of you have access to, and often deal with, data that would tend to confirm or deny the premise of the 2006 paper. Your thoughts are welcome.
*****************************
NoVAH, what do you think of the passing off of the minimum standards for coverage under ACA to the states? Upside? Downside?
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
The first link seems to have limited availability. I am not able to view it.
LikeLike
Not sure this helps Mark, but this breaks out defense and space spending 2005 and 2011
LikeLike
Here's another one that links to a UN source.
LikeLike
TMW, thanks. That confirms the US as 20%+ of global mfg. It also confirms our productivity per worker, which is related to mechanization, but that UN Report says we are way more productive than anyone else but we do not have way more mechanization. That says good hard workers, to me.Still wonder how much of our mfg is defense related. The article you sent is probably the best thing out there – makes defense mfg 3%. But does that 3% allow Boeing, say, to be competitive on civilian air frames?Great stuff, TMW.MsJS, I will try another way to link.
LikeLike
MsJS, by typing the title of the article into Google I found it on line. Should have done that first.https://www.uschina.org/public/documents/2006/09/us-manufacturing.pdf
LikeLike
The Fed keeps track of industrial production data. This page might have what you are looking for:http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/current/
LikeLike
Thanx, Brent.This is soo much better than PL.I ventured there last night. The comments are often alternate universe – and if jnc or john [or I] offer a fact with a link it seems to disturb the "nest".
LikeLike
I didn't realize TMW linked to the Fed as well.Here is historical production data going back to 97 with pretty good granularity:http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/g17tab1.txtAerospace / Defense is about 2%Computer and electronic product saw the biggest losses as the semi industry moved from Silicon Valley to Taiwan and computer assembly became the value-added equivalent of ditch digging.Mining looks like the biggest increase, which makes sense as commodity prices rallied over that time period.I'm sure if you dig around, you can get data going back to 1980. As the China paper points out, most of the Chinese manufacturing growth has come at the expense of Japan, which makes sense. Japan went from low-value added manufacturing to high value added manufacturing in the 80s as China and Taiwan were more price competitive on the low end and Japan dealt with an exchange rate of 300 yen to the dollar.The US made the transition to high value added manufacturing a bit sooner than Japan, but the adjustment was still going on in the 80s. I don't know how the value added from technology is counted. While Qualcomm and Corning don't make cell phones, they receive a royalty for GSM technology and LCD technolgy. Is that counted somehow? I don't know.Also, is a Hyundai plant in Alabama "American?" Does it matter where the company is domiciled (of for that matter who the stockholders are?)BTW, I only go to PL anymore when I want to find out how "the Left" views an issue.
LikeLike
Brent…tks for inlcuding LIBOR in your morning report. I think it is worthwhile to keep an eye on.
LikeLike