forbes.com
US Manufacturing Job Decline: Automation and Outsourcing Override Presidential Impact
This article analyzes the changes in US manufacturing jobs under the Trump and Biden administrations, revealing a long-term decline driven by automation and outsourcing, and showing that the impact of administrations on job numbers is less significant than broader economic forces.
- How have outsourcing and automation affected the number of manufacturing jobs in the US, and what role did environmental regulations play?
- Manufacturing job numbers in the U.S. have been significantly impacted by outsourcing, automation, and a shift towards higher-profit manufacturing sectors. The peak of 19,553,000 manufacturing jobs in June 1970 has not been reached since, due to factors such as the offshoring of low-margin manufacturing to countries with less stringent environmental regulations and cheaper labor. Automation has also reduced the number of employees required for manufacturing.
- What is the overall impact of both the Trump and Biden administrations on US manufacturing job numbers, considering broader economic trends?
- The Trump and Biden administrations both oversaw periods of manufacturing job growth and decline, reflecting broader economic cycles rather than solely presidential policies. Trump's term saw a net loss of 188,000 manufacturing jobs between 2019 and 2021, while Biden's saw a net loss of 13,000 in his third year. These fluctuations are largely attributed to cyclical economic trends.
- What are the long-term prospects for manufacturing employment in the US, considering the current trends of outsourcing and automation, and how should future policy address this?
- The long-term trend shows a continuous decline in the need for manufacturing employees, regardless of specific presidential administrations. While cyclical fluctuations are expected, the underlying factors of outsourcing and automation will likely prevent a return to the high employment numbers of the past. Future policy discussions must acknowledge the structural changes within the manufacturing industry rather than focusing on short-term job creation targets.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the discussion around the limitations of attributing manufacturing job changes solely to presidential actions. The use of data and historical context helps to mitigate potential bias, while the headline or introduction (not provided) could potentially shape the reader's initial understanding. Further investigation of the headline and introduction is needed for a conclusive analysis.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the impact of presidential administrations on manufacturing jobs, but omits discussion of other significant factors influencing job growth or decline, such as technological advancements, global economic shifts, and consumer demand. While acknowledging the limitations of space, the lack of context around these issues could limit the reader's ability to form a complete understanding of the complexities involved.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the decline in US manufacturing jobs despite policy changes, indicating challenges in achieving decent work and economic growth in this sector. The outsourcing of manufacturing to countries with lower labor costs and less stringent environmental regulations has contributed to job losses in the US. Automation has also reduced the number of employees needed in manufacturing, further impacting employment numbers.