Politics

kbd512 · Yesterday 17:55:15

RobertDyck,

We're going to start manufacturing more of what Americans need / want, right here in America. Canada is welcome to do the same and I think Canadians should do that, for their own economic benefit. You can continue complaining about President Trump until the cows come home, and no doubt will, but that is the only program America is running right now. President Biden ran the same program, even though more of it was directed at manufacturing that America previously outsourced to Asian countries. That means the past two Democrat and Republican administrations were broadly aligned on how we're handling trade policy going forward, if not the optics of how to present actions taken to the general public. Whether the media sensationalized it, as they did under President Trump, or not, under President Biden, is irrelevant to actions taken. Protectionism is either universally bad, or it's "do as I say, not as I do". If the former were true, then other nations, such as Canada, wouldn't practice it. If the latter is what they're aiming for, then that game is over, because we're not playing it with them anymore.

Globalism is dead. It's not sustainable. America is walking away from globalism because it's proven to be wasteful and ultimately self-destructive. As Peter Zeihan frequently points out, the post-WWII Global Order established by the US was never an economics-based proposition for America, merely a bribe to allied nations to permit America to determine how to fight the Cold War against the Soviets without starting WWIII in the process. That issue was successfully resolved about 35 years ago, without firing a shot. The old Imperial Order would've already fought WWIII. Right about now, we'd probably be using sticks and stones to start fighting WWIV. Thankfully, none of that happened, due in no small part to American military leadership. Whatever their character flaws and personal shortcomings, you're not speaking Russian or glowing in the dark, so our military strategy worked, despite all the real or imagined mistakes we made.

You think we should continue doing what we've been doing, which has been highly detrimental to American families and our national economy, for the purpose of making rich people richer and selling an endless variety of cheap products to people becoming ever-poorer from outsourcing. The issue is that many people are no longer buying it, because they can't afford to, and they're no longer convinced that a bewildering array of meaningless choices are better than a few choices made about things that truly matter. Bread and games hasn't solved any problems. However brilliant or errant our new strategy is, we're attempting to turn a page by re-shoring manufacturing. It's no longer "business as usual". The American electorate has voted out status quo candidates during the past 3 election cycles, including President Trump. There's an object lesson in there somewhere, as it relates to what the majority of Americans think about our present economics problems. The men in this country, especially young men, aren't interested in purchasing more or cheaper trinkets, nor do they view bread and games with favor. They certainly don't care about making rich men richer. A growing number of them want to build something worth having. They'd rather do business with people they know, and they're willing to forego endless variety if that means a better tomorrow. Many of them think the current economic system leaves few realistic paths to family formation, which they do value but see as unrealistically achievable because they cannot give their prospective wives a comfortable middle class lifestyle on a single income. A lot of them are turning back towards traditional religions, which offer something no amount of money / fame / business success ever could- faith in a purpose beyond pure selfishness and hedonism. Radicals either don't understand this or refuse to place any value in it.

At the same time, the political left has had an endless series of identity crises stemming from the fact that they don't have, let alone share, any core values that they actually uphold. They reactively wander between crusades against whatever they've been instructed to hate at the present time. That has caused the working public to part company with liberalism and the Liberal / Globalist Economic Order. Most people aren't built to exist in a "never ending now", because it's exhausting and empty. The left's worldview has all the worst predilections of a dogmatic religion combined with the socially corrosive class warfare of socialism, with none of the other redeeming qualities of the traditional religions. Their religion offers only everlasting bitterness and enmity. They don't believe in any form of non-performative compassion or forgiveness of their neighbors, which alienated large swaths of the American electorate as a result. Their behavior is endlessly punitive in nature for merely voicing disagreement with their beliefs. You'd have to be naive beyond belief, scared beyond reason, or simply lack any introspection to think the mob won't eventually turn on whomever / whatever you represent to them. That doesn't describe most people. You can't remain naiver forever, the strongest fear eventually leads to numbness, and everyone will eventually catch an eyeful of their reflection in the mirror- most won't like what they see.

How else do you provide inter-generational prosperity and social mobility to your own people without locally making the things they use every day?

Calliban · Yesterday 18:03:09

Trump is trying to rebuild the US domestic manufacturing base, as it existed in the 1970s. The problem is that we live in a very different world today to the one he would have known as a young man. The demographics of the workforce are different. The workforce has gotten older throughout the world, but especially in Western countries. Energy is more expensive.

To a great extent, globalisation was an attempt at keeping production costs down by relocating manufacturing to places where energy was cheaper, the workforce was younger and environmental regulations were weak or absent. But there is more to globalisation than just that. Many products cross national borders multiple times before they are finished. Different parts of the manufacturing process require labour at different price points and skill levels. It isn't as simple as saying that a car is made in Mexico or Japan. In the modern manufacturing system individual components may cross national borders multiple times for specific manufacturing processes that just happen to be most efficient in a particular place.

Tariffs risk disrupting trade arrangements that took many years and a lot of dollars to set up. They also ignore the reality of how products are produced in the modern world. Tariffs are a tax on consumers not producers. The additional revenue that the US government is receiving is coming directly from the US consumer, who is now paying higher prices. This is a direct source of inflation that erodes consumer purchasing power. This is on top of the post-COVID inflation that had already eaten into wages. So consumer spending is going to be squeezed on both sides.

Last edited by Calliban (Yesterday 18:12:06)

RobertDyck · Yesterday 18:31:45

Ford is expanding their Oakville Ontario assembly plant so it can assemble F-150 trucks. Vehicle manufacture involves parts moving back and forth across the border many times. Tariffs charged every time. Ford chose to move all manufacturing for F-150 out of the US, so tariffs will only be paid once, when the finished truck enters the US.

So what were you saying about manufacturing moving?

RobertDyck · Yesterday 18:39:32

Moving manufacturing back to the country makes sense, but you have to be strategic. Destroying Canada-US trade does not make sense, is harmful. Move manufacturing from overseas back, don't attack Canada or Mexico.

kbd512 · Yesterday 21:22:39

RobertDyck,

Since, offshoring didn't happen over 4 or even 10 years, reshoring won't be complete inside of 4 or even 10 years, either. Nobody here in America is "attacking" Canada or Mexico. Canada's worst enemy is its leadership, or lack thereof, not America, and certainly not President Trump. He sees Canada as a failing state on the basis of demographics, and Mexico as a state overrun by criminals in addition to poor demographics, neighboring failing states at that, hence his stream of commentary on this topic.

Try taking the point for once, instead of the entire arrow. If President Trump truly did not care about Canada and Canadians, then he would simply sit back and say / do nothing about it, and pretend everything was "fine". It's not fine, though, is it. Canada's demographics are horrific. City busy bodies quit having kids, and nothing we say or do is going to fix that. That's a "you problem". No kids equals no future. Your ideology and ways of doing things die with you. Liberalism and globalism has become a self-correcting problem. People who are so "airy-fairy" that they don't think a future generation is necessary are doomed to historical and cultural irrelevance. Getting upset at me or President Trump for pointing that out, however crudely, doesn't solve the problem.

Prove me wrong. Create some children of your own. Hopefully you'll learn how to value someone beyond yourself in the process. Get some first-hand experience with being "talked-at" instead of "talked-to", when your kids come home from school with ideas put in their heads by dictionary definition crazy people. That's been so much "fun" for me to deal with. The entire process of attempting to raise children with some basic direction and morals has been a very humbling endeavor- one which has made me appreciate my own parents ever-more as the years pass me by. Whatever their mistakes, I could never claim that they did not do the best they knew how. Invest in our collective futures instead of complaining about what went wrong with our past. Pour some of that anxious energy into something more productive than getting overly-upset at whomever is currently in power. That's what long term thinkers do. They don't fixate on one generation of problems because they view the world in terms of multi-generational patterns and dynamics. Today's problem is tomorrow's opportunity, but attitude and perspective truly do matter.

States That Have Lost the Most Manufacturing Jobs Since the Turn of the Century

States That Have Lost the Most Manufacturing Jobs Since the Turn of the Century, by ETQ
After decades of offshoring, the United States is attempting a manufacturing revival. Under the Biden administration, federal programs like the CHIPS and Science Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directed hundreds of billions toward reshoring critical industries. More recently, President Trump’s sweeping tariff agenda has added new pressure to relocate production back to U.S. soil.
Together, these policies aim to rebuild domestic capacity in high-priority sectors such as semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and clean energy. Across the country, companies are pouring money into new factories and expansion projects, with federal leaders frequently touting job creation as a central outcome of this industrial strategy.
But while reshoring may help reverse some losses, it is unlikely to restore manufacturing employment to its former scale. The modern factory floor is leaner and more automated than in decades past. The number of U.S. workers employed in manufacturing has dropped sharply over the last two decades—even as output has continued to grow. To assess the full picture, researchers at ETQ—a quality management platform for the manufacturing sector—analyzed data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), examining how manufacturing jobs have changed nationwide since 2000, which sectors and states were hit hardest, and the disconnect between employment trends and output.
Key Findings
U.S. manufacturing has become more productive but less labor-intensive: Despite a loss of over 4.5 million manufacturing jobs since 2000, real manufacturing GDP grew by 45%, revealing a sharp disconnect between employment and output.
Tech and printing sectors were hit hardest: More than 750,000 computer and electronics manufacturing jobs and over 450,000 printing jobs disappeared between 2000 and 2024.
The industrial Northeast suffered the steepest declines: States like New York, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts lost over 40% of their manufacturing workforces, more than any other region on a relative basis.
Only a handful of industries and states bucked the trend: Food manufacturing and beverage manufacturing were the only sectors to see net job growth. Nevada was the only state where manufacturing jobs grew faster than total private-sector employment.
Automation, not offshoring alone, explains the shift: The majority of states increased their manufacturing GDP while shedding jobs, pointing to rising productivity and a shift toward advanced, less labor-intensive manufacturing.

Source: ETQ analysis of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data
U.S. manufacturing employment has followed a century-long arc—growing rapidly through the early 20th century, peaking in the late 1970s, and declining sharply in the decades that followed. From 1900 to 1945, industrial expansion and wartime production drove strong job growth. The postwar boom pushed manufacturing employment to a record 19.5 million workers in 1979, sustained by high demand and strong unionization.
From 1980 to 2000, U.S. manufacturing employment declined gradually as automation and rising global competition began to reshape industrial production. But between 2000 and 2010, job losses accelerated sharply—driven in large part by China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001 and the ensuing “China Shock,” which triggered a wave of offshoring and plant closures across the U.S.
Since 2010, the sector has seen a modest recovery, but these efforts have not reversed long-term losses. Between 2000 and 2024, the U.S. shed over 4.5 million manufacturing jobs—a 26% decline—despite a 45% increase in real manufacturing GDP, according to the BEA. New technologies, automation, and process efficiencies have enabled producers to do more with fewer workers, underscoring a central tension in the reshoring debate: rebuilding industrial output doesn’t always mean rebuilding employment.
Manufacturing Job Losses by Sector
More than three-quarters of a million U.S. tech manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 2000

Source: ETQ analysis of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data
Not all parts of the manufacturing economy have experienced the same level of job loss. Since 2000, employment in computer and electronic product manufacturing has fallen by 786,000 jobs, a decline of over 43%. Other sectors with substantial losses include printing and related support activities (-452,000), apparel manufacturing (-421,000), and machinery manufacturing (-350,000).
On the other hand, some sectors have remained more resilient. The food manufacturing sector and the beverage and tobacco product manufacturing sector are the only two to report job gains since 2000. These gains reflect increased domestic demand and relative insulation from offshoring, as many food-related manufacturing jobs remain tied to local agricultural supply chains and consumer markets.
States That Lost the Most Manufacturing Jobs
Rust Belt states, along with California and North Carolina, have lost the most manufacturing jobs

Source: ETQ analysis of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data
Manufacturing job losses have been most pronounced in the Northeast and Midwest, where many states were historically tied to heavy industry. When measured by percentage decline, the steepest losses occurred in the Northeast:
New York saw a nearly 45% drop in manufacturing employment between 2000 and 2024, shedding more than 330,000 jobs.
Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Vermont also lost more than 40% of their manufacturing jobs during this period.
The states that reported the most total jobs lost were more geographically diverse, spanning the East Coast, Midwest, and California:
California, the nation’s largest manufacturing state by output, lost nearly 615,000 jobs.
Other major losses occurred in Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Illinois, and Michigan, each of which lost between 290,000 and 340,000 jobs.
Nationally, manufacturing employment fell by 26.5% between 2000 and 2024, even as overall private-sector employment grew by approximately 20%. Nevada stood out as the only state where manufacturing job growth exceeded the rate of overall job growth—driven largely by its expanding advanced manufacturing sector, including battery and electric vehicle production. A handful of other states—Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, and Alaska—also added manufacturing jobs during this period, though their growth trailed behind overall private-sector gains.
The Decoupling of Manufacturing Employment & Output
Manufacturing GDP has grown in all but four states, despite job losses

Source: ETQ analysis of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis data
While most states lost manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2024, nearly all saw gains in manufacturing output. All but four states experienced real, inflation-adjusted growth in manufacturing GDP over the period, highlighting a growing disconnect between employment and production.
As mentioned above, this divergence is driven by structural changes in the sector. New software, automations, and advanced manufacturing processes have reduced the need for manual labor, while high-value industries like pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and aerospace generate substantial output with relatively few workers. As a result, many states have expanded their manufacturing economies without a corresponding increase in jobs—reflecting a broader shift toward capital-intensive, technology-driven production.
This trend is especially evident in states like Oregon, Arizona, Florida, and Texas, all of which more than doubled their manufacturing GDP during this period despite a net decline in manufacturing employment.
Final Thoughts
Reshoring manufacturing is central to U.S. economic and national security policy, but it’s unlikely to restore jobs at historic levels. Advances in automation and high-efficiency production mean that factories can expand output with far fewer workers. As a result, while reshoring may boost domestic manufacturing capacity, it won’t necessarily lead to widespread job growth.
Instead, it is creating demand for high-skilled, technical roles—positions that are increasingly hard to fill. The U.S. is projected to face a shortage of over 2 million skilled manufacturing workers by 2030, with hundreds of thousands of positions already unfilled. Closing this gap will require targeted investment in training and education. The success of reshoring will ultimately depend not just on bringing factories back, but on preparing workers for the jobs they require.
Methodology
Data for this analysis comes from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) GDP by State dataset. Changes were analyzed from 2000 to 2024. Only private-sector employment was included. Changes in GDP were inflation-adjusted using real chained-dollar values. Only states with complete data from both sources were included.

RobertDyck · Yesterday 23:06:59

kbd512, this post makes you sound like a brainwashed MAGA nut. You're more intelligent that this. We've spoken many times, I know you're more intelligent than this.

Canada is not a "failing state", and you know it. Demographics is a serious problem for absolutely every developed country in the world, including the United States. Most developed countries have been compensating with immigration. Trump is obsessed with immigration, treating it as a problem. But the US has a fertility rate of 1.6. I've explained this before, but I'll do it again. You may expect that a married couple must have 2 children to ensure the next generation has the same number of people. But due to child deaths and other technical factors, the average across the country must be 2.1. Since families can have various structures, that's presented as 2.1 babies born per woman during her life. The US is currently at 1.6, which is not sustainable. Canada has a slightly lower fertility rate, but Canada accepts a significant number of immigrants. When Stephen Harper was Prime Minister (2006-2015), he increased immigration. His government emphasized immigration from places that leaned toward conservative values, in an attempt to create more voters for Stephen Harper's party. Justin Trudeau was Prime Minister 2015-2025 (spring of this year). He believed developed countries would have to compete for immigrants, so drastically increased the number of immigrants and actively encouraged mass immigration. He over did it. A lot! Canada doesn't have enough housing for them all, which has driven cost of housing way up. Canada's healthcare system can't handle this population increase either. Too many, too fast. But all these workers have benefited Canada's economy.

Ironically, the "patch" to the problem is actually making the core problem worse. One reason young people are not having babies, is they can't afford a house. Many young people feel they need a house with a yard to raise children. But housing costs are way too high. Bringing in immigrants too fast caused housing costs to skyrocket, which in tern caused people to have even fewer babies.

Canada is not a failing state, and Canada is not accepting a large number of criminals. That is political bullshit from Trump. The US Constitution states tariffs must be passed by Congress. The US did pass a law that states the President can impose tariffs under emergency conditions, to Trump just claimed those emergency conditions do exist. It's bullshit, just an excuse to allow him to impose tariffs.

As for illegal immigrants: there are far more entering Canada from the US than the other way around.

Anyone treating Canada as if it's the same as Mexico is either ignorant, or deliberately repeating political bullshit. Canada has a modern economy, on par with USA.

Trump wants to treat Canada as a vassal state. Canada is no such thing. Canada is an equal, partner, pier.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#3026 Yesterday 17:55:15

Re: Politics

#3027 Yesterday 18:03:09

Re: Politics

#3028 Yesterday 18:31:45

Re: Politics

#3029 Yesterday 18:39:32

Re: Politics

#3030 Yesterday 21:22:39

Re: Politics

#3031 Yesterday 23:06:59

Re: Politics

Board footer