Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.

Prediction: The U.S. Will Surpass China as the No. 1 Country for Manufacturing by 2020

posted by janrinok on Sunday January 01 2017, @09:57AM   Printer-friendly
from the place-your-bets-now dept.

Phoenix666 writes:

... if you ask actual manufacturing executives, they're far more bullish on America's future than many of its political leaders. On Thursday, professional services firm Deloitte teamed up with the Council on Competitiveness to release its 2016 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index, showing that the United States is the second most competitive manufacturing economy after China. What's more, global manufacturing executives predict that by 2020, the United States will be the most competitive manufacturing economy in the world.

So why has the United States been shooting up the ranks? Long gone are the days when cheap labor was the most important input for manufacturers. Total manufacturing employment in China peaked during the 1990s and has been falling ever since. And as manufacturing continues to reduce the number of workers needed, the important ingredients to success in the sector are whether advanced technologies and materials are available, and whether or not intellectual property protections are strong. The United States beats out China on both of these scores.

This is not to say that anxiety over the decline of manufacturing employment is misguided. While it's good that manufacturing firms think that the United States is a great place to do business, their success in America will not have the same impact, in terms of providing a huge number of well-paying jobs, as they did a half-century ago.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Prediction: The U.S. Will Surpass China as the No. 1 Country for Manufacturing by 2020 | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 48 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Sunday January 01 2017, @05:18PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 01 2017, @05:18PM (#448179) Journal

    See how this stupid nihilism works?

    I sure do. The real question is do you understand? The cynicism is justified. Too bad you can't see that.

    You, like the OP, have only mouthed empty criticisms in service of your personal biases.

    I, for example, made three observations which you have yet to refute.

    First, why would predicting shifts in world manufacturing be in the expert areas of business analysts? Let's keep in mind that the job description is analysis of business processes. Sure, an awareness of global economic trends is useful. But what puts them in a better position to understand such global trends than any other knowledgeable business professional?

    Why is that a deadline? It was a prediction.

    I used a different word for a reason. Deal with it. 2020 is not far away and China isn't growing slower than the US right now.

    Again says who? Because companies like Deloitte are right there at the top of the list of "globalists."

    The provincial viewpoint is right there in the story. They only surveyed US analysts. Being a "globalist", even when that is true, doesn't magically give you a better viewpoint.

    There is no justification here, just excuses for an utter lack of intellectual rigor.

    You've done nothing but whine. Maybe it's time to practice what you preach?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=1, Touché=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   3  

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 01 2017, @05:29PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 01 2017, @05:29PM (#448182)

    > I, for example, made three observations which you have yet to refute.

    No. You made three unsupported declarations.
    Not just unsupported, but obviously false.
    The burden is on you to support them.

    >> Why is that a deadline? It was a prediction.
    >
    > I used a different word for a reason. Deal with it.

    And what was that reason? Because from what I read you used an unjustifiably loaded to term to rationalizing dismissing an argument rather than engage with the argument itself.

    All I'm getting from you is that you are far too enamored of your own ignorance.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 01 2017, @08:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 01 2017, @08:34PM (#448234)

    Its more than a little ironic that the person who demands an unattainable level of proof for climate change is content with relying on nothing more than innuendo and ad hominem fallacy when it comes to supporting their own beliefs.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2017, @01:09AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2017, @01:09AM (#448323)

      Indeed, two sides of the same coin.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 02 2017, @02:59AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 02 2017, @02:59AM (#448358) Journal

      who demands an unattainable level of proof for climate change

      I originally wasn't going to respond. But could you please link to a post where I've done this? Surely, I deserve a chance to defend myself against this accusation.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2017, @06:09AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2017, @06:09AM (#448408)

        Every post you've ever made on the topic.
        Defend yourself all you want It won't amount to anything more than public masturbation.
        Insane people don't know they are insane.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 03 2017, @02:07AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 03 2017, @02:07AM (#448732) Journal
          Huh, so no actual complaint I see.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @04:34AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @04:34AM (#448779)

            Nope. No actual value in trying to debate with an idiot.
            Something you can't see because you are the idiot.

            You don't argue in good faith. After while people give up trying.
            Instead they decide to simply return the favor.

            You have only yourself to blame.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 03 2017, @07:43AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 03 2017, @07:43AM (#448813) Journal
              And now we have this tiresome projection. You have yet to provide even a little evidence for your accusations which for those who are paying attention is a classic symptom of not arguing in good faith. Your problems are not mine.

              I'll note here that I actually retracted what I wrote at the beginning of this thread. It was wrong. But I'll note in my defense that there have been a number of AC posts that have been remarkably unhelpful and vague. Merely stating why I was wrong (or for that matter why the original poster was in error) would have cleanly ended this idiotic thread and it would have taken less effort than this back and forth childishness.

              Seriously, learn to argue rather than waste the time of your would-be readers. Arguing is not merely asserting things as you do in your post above. Even when I was in the wrong, I provided reasoning beyond mere assertion even though it was in error.