• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Manufacturing Wages - the myth

Help Support Ranchers.net:

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
On numerous occasions members of this forum have used the excuse that we are exporting high paying jobs in manufacturing for low paying sevice sector jobs. The most recent member to take this position is OT. I did not expect he had knowledge or the facts to back his statement or he would not have made the statement. Nor did I expect he could or would provide the data required to back his statement. The following data dispells the myth regarding manufacturing job horly earnings versus service sector jobs.

Manufacturing average hourly wage = $16.94 / hr

Service sector average hourly age = $16.65. / hr

Only five groups within the manufacturing sector have an hourly wage greater than the average wage in the service sector.

Seven groups within the service sector have a higher hourly wage than the average hourly manufacturing wage. Two service sector groups have hourly wages that exceed the highest hourly wages paid in manufacturing. Only one service sector group has an hourly avege wage below the lowest average hourly manufacturing wage.

Additionally, the decline in manufacturing jobs is not the result of jobs being exported. Rather, the decline in manufacturing jobs is directly correlated and caused by tremendous advances in productivity in the manufacturing sector. Thus, while manufacturing jobs have declined since the 1970's manufacturing output has soared to record levels. The record their is quite stunning.

What makes the headlines is jobs that are out-sourced while those higher paying jobs that are in-sourced seldom ever make the news and certainly never the headlines.
 
agman said:
On numerous occasions members of this forum have used the excuse that we are exporting high paying jobs in manufacturing for low paying sevice sector jobs. The most recent member to take this position is OT. I did not expect he had knowledge or the facts to back his statement or he would not have made the statement. Nor did I expect he could or would provide the data required to back his statement. The following data dispells the myth regarding manufacturing job horly earnings versus service sector jobs.

Manufacturing average hourly wage = $16.94 / hr

Service sector average hourly age = $16.65. / hr

Only five groups within the manufacturing sector have an hourly wage greater than the average wage in the service sector.

Seven groups within the service sector have a higher hourly wage than the average hourly manufacturing wage. Two service sector groups have hourly wages that exceed the highest hourly wages paid in manufacturing. Only one service sector group has an hourly avege wage below the lowest average hourly manufacturing wage.

Additionally, the decline in manufacturing jobs is not the result of jobs being exported. Rather, the decline in manufacturing jobs is directly correlated and caused by tremendous advances in productivity in the manufacturing sector. Thus, while manufacturing jobs have declined since the 1970's manufacturing output has soared to record levels. The record their is quite stunning.

What makes the headlines is jobs that are out-sourced while those higher paying jobs that are in-sourced seldom ever make the news and certainly never the headlines.

agman, you will note that I have not been one talking about the level of wages. I believe that is less important than the underlying one you are not mentioning. That is that regardless of the wages involved, the job movement has been away from jobs that create tradeable goods and services to jobs that do not.

The Commerce Department has also provided a list of the jobs of the future with the greatest expected demand. Seven out of ten require no training above high school. These do not present a good picture for the future.

The bottom line is that the US MUST produce tradeable goods or services or sell its assets. It has no other choice.

The China currency problem highlights another issue. If currencies are not freely traded then all "free" trade is a sham.
 
ocm said:
agman said:
On numerous occasions members of this forum have used the excuse that we are exporting high paying jobs in manufacturing for low paying sevice sector jobs. The most recent member to take this position is OT. I did not expect he had knowledge or the facts to back his statement or he would not have made the statement. Nor did I expect he could or would provide the data required to back his statement. The following data dispells the myth regarding manufacturing job horly earnings versus service sector jobs.

Manufacturing average hourly wage = $16.94 / hr

Service sector average hourly age = $16.65. / hr

Only five groups within the manufacturing sector have an hourly wage greater than the average wage in the service sector.

Seven groups within the service sector have a higher hourly wage than the average hourly manufacturing wage. Two service sector groups have hourly wages that exceed the highest hourly wages paid in manufacturing. Only one service sector group has an hourly avege wage below the lowest average hourly manufacturing wage.

Additionally, the decline in manufacturing jobs is not the result of jobs being exported. Rather, the decline in manufacturing jobs is directly correlated and caused by tremendous advances in productivity in the manufacturing sector. Thus, while manufacturing jobs have declined since the 1970's manufacturing output has soared to record levels. The record their is quite stunning.

What makes the headlines is jobs that are out-sourced while those higher paying jobs that are in-sourced seldom ever make the news and certainly never the headlines.

agman, you will note that I have not been one talking about the level of wages. I believe that is less important than the underlying one you are not mentioning. That is that regardless of the wages involved, the job movement has been away from jobs that create tradeable goods and services to jobs that do not.

The Commerce Department has also provided a list of the jobs of the future with the greatest expected demand. Seven out of ten require no training above high school. These do not present a good picture for the future.

The bottom line is that the US MUST produce tradeable goods or services or sell its assets. It has no other choice.

The China currency problem highlights another issue. If currencies are not freely traded then all "free" trade is a sham.


OCM did you read the part about Manufacturing output has soared?
 
agman said:
On numerous occasions members of this forum have used the excuse that we are exporting high paying jobs in manufacturing for low paying sevice sector jobs. The most recent member to take this position is OT. I did not expect he had knowledge or the facts to back his statement or he would not have made the statement. Nor did I expect he could or would provide the data required to back his statement. The following data dispells the myth regarding manufacturing job horly earnings versus service sector jobs.

Manufacturing average hourly wage = $16.94 / hr

Service sector average hourly age = $16.65. / hr

Only five groups within the manufacturing sector have an hourly wage greater than the average wage in the service sector.

Seven groups within the service sector have a higher hourly wage than the average hourly manufacturing wage. Two service sector groups have hourly wages that exceed the highest hourly wages paid in manufacturing. Only one service sector group has an hourly avege wage below the lowest average hourly manufacturing wage.

Additionally, the decline in manufacturing jobs is not the result of jobs being exported. Rather, the decline in manufacturing jobs is directly correlated and caused by tremendous advances in productivity in the manufacturing sector. Thus, while manufacturing jobs have declined since the 1970's manufacturing output has soared to record levels. The record their is quite stunning.

What makes the headlines is jobs that are out-sourced while those higher paying jobs that are in-sourced seldom ever make the news and certainly never the headlines.

Maybe you ought to list what is included in the "service" category.
 
Big Muddy rancher said:
ocm said:
agman said:
On numerous occasions members of this forum have used the excuse that we are exporting high paying jobs in manufacturing for low paying sevice sector jobs. The most recent member to take this position is OT. I did not expect he had knowledge or the facts to back his statement or he would not have made the statement. Nor did I expect he could or would provide the data required to back his statement. The following data dispells the myth regarding manufacturing job horly earnings versus service sector jobs.

Manufacturing average hourly wage = $16.94 / hr

Service sector average hourly age = $16.65. / hr

Only five groups within the manufacturing sector have an hourly wage greater than the average wage in the service sector.

Seven groups within the service sector have a higher hourly wage than the average hourly manufacturing wage. Two service sector groups have hourly wages that exceed the highest hourly wages paid in manufacturing. Only one service sector group has an hourly avege wage below the lowest average hourly manufacturing wage.

Additionally, the decline in manufacturing jobs is not the result of jobs being exported. Rather, the decline in manufacturing jobs is directly correlated and caused by tremendous advances in productivity in the manufacturing sector. Thus, while manufacturing jobs have declined since the 1970's manufacturing output has soared to record levels. The record their is quite stunning.

What makes the headlines is jobs that are out-sourced while those higher paying jobs that are in-sourced seldom ever make the news and certainly never the headlines.

agman, you will note that I have not been one talking about the level of wages. I believe that is less important than the underlying one you are not mentioning. That is that regardless of the wages involved, the job movement has been away from jobs that create tradeable goods and services to jobs that do not.

The Commerce Department has also provided a list of the jobs of the future with the greatest expected demand. Seven out of ten require no training above high school. These do not present a good picture for the future.

The bottom line is that the US MUST produce tradeable goods or services or sell its assets. It has no other choice.

The China currency problem highlights another issue. If currencies are not freely traded then all "free" trade is a sham.


OCM did you read the part about Manufacturing output has soared?

Yes, and my question would be why isn't it reflected in our balance of trade? In the context of a trade discussion how much we manufacture is not nearly as relevant as how much we manufacture for export.
 
The bottom line is that the US MUST produce tradeable goods or services
****YES, Of value that the importing nation will consider , to let in at their exclusive country's specs. We have to meet their requirements. Even if it has to be traceable.

or sell its assets.
**** If we can't produce at a certian value to that country's specs then move out to another country or conform to the new specs. If we will not conform to their specs. someone in another country will.

It has no other choice.
****If they want tested beef then so be it, no matter the test. If they want organic then produce it. If that country wants records of production to be shipped with the load then do it. If they want imported GMO free foods,then don't use GMO crops. If they want hormone free beef then don't mix it with implanted beef. If they want bone free meat then thats just what they mean.

We agree OCM!
 
Agman- Could you post a link for your sources of all this information...

One of the reasons I question it is the fact that the average income in Montana is under $11.00 hour (around $24,000 yearly)- and I know Montana is not the lowest state in the union... I'm just wondering where and what all these service jobs are...

OCM- You are correct about the jobs change away from those that produce tradeable goods...Its very apparent to any of the jobs service folks...And most anything involved in Ag is the fastest declining in need and at the lower end for wages...I think the last I saw was that medical and especially geriatrics were the fastest growing/highest income possibilities...

Maybe the neo-cons answer to keeping the employment rate up is to keep borrowing money and expanding government bureaucracy's/and jobs-while fighting one or two foreign wars every year.....Allowing the Halliburtons of the world to provide a lot of good paying service jobs....
 
Oldtimer said:
One of the reasons I question it is the fact that the average income in Montana is under $11.00 hour (around $24,000 yearly)- and I know Montana is not the lowest state in the union... I'm just wondering where and what all these service jobs are...

Therein lies the dig, OT. I see these "manufacturing jobs lost are no big deal" guys spewing out garbage about how great service industry jobs are. What they don't bother listing are how their average ages are arrived at and what the true fallout is.

1) Service industry jobs are generally higher paid in the large city centres. They have to be, otherwise no-one will work them. Your average will be skewed by the few very large city centres you have within the country. So you never see how the smaller centre or smaller state was affected when a manufacturing job pulled out. What left was hundreds of $17/hr jobs, and you are left with a few $7 jobs. Everybody else has to move to the city or go on welfare.

2) Service industry jobs do not create additional cash flow for the nation. Where does the money come from that gets spent in the service industries? From a money tree?

3) 30 cents an hour is massive. Multiply that by the number of man hours per year lost everytime a manufacturing job pulls out of the US.

Rod
 
PORKER said:
****If they want tested beef then so be it, no matter the test. If they want organic then produce it. If that country wants records of production to be shipped with the load then do it. If they want imported GMO free foods,then don't use GMO crops. If they want hormone free beef then don't mix it with implanted beef. If they want bone free meat then thats just what they mean.

What some of these people don't realize is that when the USDA is requiring all exports not to be BSE tested, or not to be GMO free or hormone free, that the USDA is guilty of centralized planning. I thought we lived in a free country. Since when does the government tell us what kind of product we cannot sell? Within certain parameters of national security we should be able to export anything the customer wants.

The approach the USDA has taken in negotiations is as if it is Corporation USA vs Corporation Japan. These are governments!!!, not corporations. Start acting like governments of a free society.
 
What some of these people don't realize is that when the USDA is requiring all exports not to be BSE tested, or not to be GMO free or hormone free, that the USDA is guilty of centralized planning.

So who are the free nations ANYWAY ? Canada, Mexico,Nigeria?USA?India?
 
Where did you get your numbers, Agman?

This was put out by the US govt. but where are the service sector jobs you are talking about?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm

You also need to be aware that there is a big difference between the mean and the median.
 
Agman, please reconcile the numbers in the following article to your point.
Please not the word median in the article.

October 6, 2006
Email this Print this Blog this

Today's latest jobs report only confirms that the Bush economy doesn't work for all hard-working Americans. The economy added only 51,000 jobs in September, according to the Labor Department this morning. The Bush economy has been marked by falling wages and anemic job numbers that don't even keep up with population growth.

"Despite all the election year rhetoric, the facts don't lie; the Bush Economy has failed 80% of Americans, and President Bush just cannot manage America's finances," said Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Stacie Paxton. "Parents can't support their families and build a hopeful future for their children in the Bush Economy that is benefiting only the wealthiest, with lousy job growth, falling wages, millions more uninsured and rising poverty.

"Democrats offer a new direction that includes raising the minimum wage, creating good jobs that stay in America, and promoting tax cuts that help the middle class and not special interests."

A Heckuva Jobs Report

Jobs Report Lower Than Forecasted by 72,000. "U.S. nonfarm payrolls rose by an estimated 51,000 in September, the Labor Department said Friday. The increase in payrolls was lower than the 123,000 rise expected by Wall Street economists surveyed by MarketWatch." [CBS Marketwatch, 10/6/06]

Manufacturing Continuing Its Long Slide. The manufacturing sector lose 19,000 jobs in September, the third straight monthly decline, according to BLS. The nation has lost manufacturing jobs during 57 of the 69 months of the Bush Presidency. The nearly three million manufacturing jobs lost since January 2001 exceed the total lost in the 22 years before Bush took office. [CBS Marketwatch, 10/6/06; BLS]

Americans Not Benefiting From The Bush Economy

Household Income Declined By Nearly $1,300 Under Bush; Wage And Salary Increases Don't Cover Inflation. Although median household income increased by $509 last year, median household income has declined by $1,273 under the Bush Administration. And the failure of wage and salary increases to cover inflation has meant a real reduction of median income between 2000 and 2005 of 2.7 percent for households. [U.S. Census Bureau, 8/29/06; Table A-1; Center for American Progress, 8/29/06]

Full-Time Workers Suffer The Most. The decline in workers' real income was especially pronounced for full-time, year-round workers. For men, median incomes fell by $774 from 2004-2005, and they have seen their incomes drop by $842 during the Bush Administration. For women, median incomes fell by $427 in the last year alone. Incomes in this group fell to their lowest levels since 1997 for men, and lowest level since 2000 for women. [U.S. Census Bureau, 8/30/05; Table A-2; Center for American Progress, 8/29/06]

African Americans And Latino Household Incomes Have Declined by Approximately $2,000 Under Bush. Real median household income decreased between 2004 and 2005 for African Americans by $757. Black households had the lowest median income, at $30,858 - down by $2,772 since Bush took office. Median income for Hispanic households was $35,967 in 2005 -down by $1,631 since Bush took office. [U.S. Census Bureau, 8/29/06; Table A-1]

Increasing Number of African Americans Take Low-Wage Jobs. Blacks were the only race/ethnic group to see a growth in poverty-level wage earners over the 2000-05 period. This growth in low-wage work occurred among both men and women. [EPI State of Working America 2006/2007]

Manufacturing Sector Continues to Flounder; 2.9 Million Manufacturing Jobs Lost Since 2001. About 2.9 million jobs have been lost during the Bush Administration. The long employment slide in this key sector is also evident in the hourly wage trends of blue-collar workers. Despite the fact that manufacturing productivity has soared since 2000, up 29 percent, wage growth has slowed sharply. [EPI, 9/1/06; BLS 10/06]

Median Income For Non-Elderly Households Declined For 5th Consecutive Year. Median income for non-elderly households (those headed by someone under 65) fell again in 2005, declining by $275. Median income for non-elderly households declined for the fifth consecutive year and was $2,000 lower in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001. [CBPP, 9/1/06]

More than 83 percent Of The New Jobs Created Since August 2003 Are In The Service Sector, Which Pays An average Hourly Wage That Is Lower Than The National Average. More than 4.3 million of the jobs created are in the service sector with an average wage that is 34 cents lower than the national average. More than 363,000 of these jobs are temporary jobs. More than 1.2 million of these jobs were in low-paying domestic industries, such as wait staff in restaurants and bars and retail workers. This means that more than 30 percent of the new jobs created are temporary jobs or in low-paying domestic industries. [Democratic Leadership Staff Analysis of BLS Data, 9/06]

People Who Lose Their Jobs Are Unemployed Longer. In September of 2006, 18.2 percent of the 7.1 million unemployed were jobless for at least half-a-year. Historically, when unemployment has been between 4.5 percent and 5.5 percent, the average long-term jobless share has been 11.7 percent; in this recovery, when unemployment has been within those bounds, the long-term jobless rate has been 19.5 percent. [EPI, 9/1/06; BLS 10/06]

Senate GOP Blocked Minimum Wage Vote For 9th Time; Congressional Pay Up $30,000 During Same Period. "The Republican-controlled Senate smothered a proposed election-year increase in the minimum wage Wednesday, rejecting Democratic claims it was past time to boost the $5.15 hourly pay floor that has been in effect for nearly a decade. ... The Senate vote marked the ninth time since 1997 that Democrats there have proposed -- and Republicans have blocked -- an increase in the minimum wage. ... Kennedy also said lawmakers' annual pay has risen by roughly $30,000 since the last increase in the minimum wage." [AP, 6/22/06]

The Record Of Republican Fiscal Mismanagement

Record Surpluses to Record Deficits. Republicans have turned President Clinton's projected 10-year $5.6 billion surplus into a nearly $3 trillion deficit. When this Administration took office, it inherited a projected ten-year surplus (2002-2011) of $5.6 trillion. Based on a realistic estimate of the President's policies, that surplus has now become a $3.3 trillion deficit over the same period of time, a dramatic fiscal reversal of $8.9 trillion. [House Budget Committee, 2/2006]
 
Interesting article Econ. I wonder if Agman's average wages are weighted averages (modes) or just midpoints?

Example: 10 people getting $1 per hour, 1 person gettting $10 per hour. Midpoint is $5.50. True average, or weighted average is $1.82.

Rod
 
Exporting manufacturing jobs seems like a win/win situation,on the surface,big buisness gets cheap labor,no hassles from the "EPA" consumer gets a finished product at reduced cost,the country stays clean no polution,smog etc.
But when you export a mans job,what do you do with him ? retrain him ? at whose expense ? some of these folks have had the same job for years,are'nt good candidates for retraining,but still too young for retirement,some will be retrained ,in the form of some government program . The exporting of jobs in this country are a direct cause of uninsured people,who pays the medical costs for all these uninsured ?there is already serious talk about making insurance mandatory in some states,like one politician said,we make vehicle liability mandatory,we can sure make self insurance mandatory,how do you make a man insure himself /wife and 4 children when he is having trouble buying the bare necessities,I think the cost of exporting jobs is obvious,the tax payer gets the bill ,big buisness gets the money...................good luck
 
HAY MAKER said:
Exporting manufacturing jobs seems like a win/win situation,on the surface,big buisness gets cheap labor,no hassles from the "EPA" consumer gets a finished product at reduced cost,the country stays clean no polution,smog etc.
But when you export a mans job,what do you do with him ? retrain him ? at whose expense ? some of these folks have had the same job for years,are'nt good candidates for retraining,but still too young for retirement,some will be retrained ,in the form of some government program . The exporting of jobs in this country are a direct cause of uninsured people,who pays the medical costs for all these uninsured ?there is already serious talk about making insurance mandatory in some states,like one politician said,we make vehicle liability mandatory,we can sure make self insurance mandatory,how do you make a man insure himself /wife and 4 children when he is having trouble buying the bare necessities,I think the cost of exporting jobs is obvious,the tax payer gets the bill ,big buisness gets the money...................good luck

Not any diferant than the ones that lose there jobs to the illegals that you are so quick to defend :roll:
 
mwj said:
HAY MAKER said:
Exporting manufacturing jobs seems like a win/win situation,on the surface,big buisness gets cheap labor,no hassles from the "EPA" consumer gets a finished product at reduced cost,the country stays clean no polution,smog etc.
But when you export a mans job,what do you do with him ? retrain him ? at whose expense ? some of these folks have had the same job for years,are'nt good candidates for retraining,but still too young for retirement,some will be retrained ,in the form of some government program . The exporting of jobs in this country are a direct cause of uninsured people,who pays the medical costs for all these uninsured ?there is already serious talk about making insurance mandatory in some states,like one politician said,we make vehicle liability mandatory,we can sure make self insurance mandatory,how do you make a man insure himself /wife and 4 children when he is having trouble buying the bare necessities,I think the cost of exporting jobs is obvious,the tax payer gets the bill ,big buisness gets the money...................good luck

Not any diferant than the ones that lose there jobs to the illegals that you are so quick to defend :roll:

When have I ever defended an illeagal ? I am a strong supporter of border control and "legal imigrants" simply because the work they do is something that most US citizens will not.
How do you pay a man $15 an hour to build fence,and expect to pencil cattle,them washington bureacrats and the laws they pass,dont have a clue about TX and what it takes to survive on a ranch,as a matter of fact they have cost me many thousands of dollars in equipment costs to make up for their ignorance...............good luck
 
Here is the real crux of the matter

work they do is something that most US citizens will not.
How do you pay a man $15 an hour to build fence,and expect to pencil cattle,them washington bureacrats and the laws they pass,dont have a clue about TX and what it takes to survive on a ranch,as a matter of fact they have cost me many thousands of dollars in equipment costs to make up for their ignorance

The market says to Haymaker that to get an American to fence it will cost him $15 an hour.

Haymaker makes the choice to hire an illegal as it is cheaper.

Then somehow equipment costs are the fault of the government, but really they are the result of high wages and high costs to manufacture.

If extra equipment is needed to compensate for fewer workers, the real business decision is which is cheaper (more workers or more equipment)?

Every person needs to decide what they can afford to spend, and live within their means. Griping to the gov't to give them more in one breath then whining when the gov't gives someone else more is a bit hypocritical.
 
NO jason here is the "real crux of the matter" I have a couple "LEGALS" that help me when needed,do you practise being a nit wit or does it come natural,you are the only one posting the board,that can be ignorant without struggling to making a job of it,course if you had a lick of sense you would'nt be a packer employee :wink: ..............good luck
 
You claim your help is legal?

You are paying them $15 an hour?

You said you couldn't pencil it at that rate.

Looks like you are making up stories. Either you CAN make it pencil at $15/hour or you are paying illegals less than that rate. How can a legal immigrant live on less than a native born citizen?

The packers pay $11 on average? You accuse them of hiring illegals to get away with that wage. If they need to pay $15, as you claim you can't afford but are paying, where will the extra $4 come from?
 

Latest posts

Top