A guy at work said that we don't have any engineers because we have no manufacturing. He said that we many assemble things here but there's no need for an engineer to do that. He said that's why less people are majoring in science or engineering. They know they'll be unemployeed.Is it true that we have a shortage of engineers because we have no manufacturing?
This question depends entirely on where it is you are asking from. Also, manufacturing or assembling things 'here' has no bearing on engineers because doing this neither requires more or less engineers. For example, in the US we produce so few engineers because we either outsource or ship a lot of engineers here which makes for a lot of competition and lower wages, and we'd rather be the boss than the worker anyway.Is it true that we have a shortage of engineers because we have no manufacturing?
Manufacturing output in the US has been growing only very slowly for years. The manufacturing labor has gone way down as productivity has increased. There are still many design and manufacturing jobs, the US allows a number of engineers in each year to help keep engineering wages down. Fewer US citizens major in science or engineering because people aren't interested in it. Also, many do perceive law, medicine, etc. to be more lucrative.
I've heard that too.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Is it true that the Libs chased all the manufacturing jobs to China?
By making it impossible to US factories to compete by shackling them with envirnmental laws and unions?Is it true that the Libs chased all the manufacturing jobs to China?
Sounds reasonable to me.
The environmental laws make it impossible for companies to improve production without spending massive amounts of money. Since the Party of Gore is the Party of Treehuggers, I'd blame liberals for that.
Unions...don't even get me started on that particular blight on American society.Is it true that the Libs chased all the manufacturing jobs to China?
it is the fault of both parties that all of the good paying manufacturing jobs are moving overseas. They are all beholding to big business and free traders. That is who our government represents, not the people. Until we vote ALL of these traitors out of office,this will never change.
Yes.
Yeah, and they chased them out of California too. Get a grip, it is all about corporate greed.
A long time ago, a diplomat by the name of Henry Kissinger went to China at the behest of his president Richard Nixon. This paved the way for the mess we now have.
Republicans - both of them.
You not being truthful, My family owns a manufacturing firm and we are democrats, unions are formed by the people and the government does environmental laws. Your wrong on both courts. How long were or has republicans been in power since Reagan, then there was bush, Clinton, then bush again we had during that time 12yrs of republican rule in the congress. So why didn't they do something. They have done nothing for small business we fair better under Dems if you had a small business. Republicans are for big business and no changes why didn't they do something if that was why the jobs left.
We sold the patents to China on TVs and big Items thats the reason. Who did that? REPUBLICAN GREED
No. Quite the opposite. It was the Republican cons. They own all the big businesses in the US and would make a far greater profit by using the slave labor in Communist China to produce their products . They can make a product in China for 25 cents and sell it for $25 here in the US. You do the math. Get it?
An amazingly simplistic understanding of modern technology, manufacturing, and liberalsim. No, liberalsim did not chase manufacturing jobs to China. Actually, America produces more goods that any other nation on earth.
Well, Slick Willy signed the NAFTA agreement that helped make it all possible. Sounds right to me.
You wanna bring back slavery too while you're at it?
The way to bring those manufacturing jobs back is for the government to take over the corporations that moved them to China in the first place.
Yes, if not for unions, U.S. workers might be making 15 cents/hour too.
I find it odd that you consevatives argue time and again that U.S. workers get paid too much.
Clearly you know nothing about this. The jobs went to China because manufacturers would rather pay $10 a week for 60 hours than the wages Americans need to live.
You forgot about greed in general. The jobs moved overseas also because it is much cheaper to manufacture and labor is cheaper which raises the profit margin.
Yes.
Another monumentally ignorant right wing idiot .
Listen up you slandering fool :
IT IS THE DEMOCRACTS THAT HAVE OPPOSED MOST OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS AND IT HAS BEEN THE DEMOCRATS THAT HAVE FOUGHT AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT ENCOURAGES JOBS GOING OFF-SHORE.
Do you realize exactly how stupid and ignorant you are by posting this drivel of yours ??
By far the major reasons companies take jobs off-shore are the incredibly low labour rates off-shore AND NOT ANY COSTS RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS .
You are soooo ignorant and in your abominable ignorance you spew your lies here that other idiots will just repeat ad nauseum.
Now go get a brain transplant or more precisely ,go get a brain period.
Sounds reasonable to me.
The environmental laws make it impossible for companies to improve production without spending massive amounts of money. Since the Party of Gore is the Party of Treehuggers, I'd blame liberals for that.
Unions...don't even get me started on that particular blight on American society.Is it true that the Libs chased all the manufacturing jobs to China?
it is the fault of both parties that all of the good paying manufacturing jobs are moving overseas. They are all beholding to big business and free traders. That is who our government represents, not the people. Until we vote ALL of these traitors out of office,this will never change.
Yes.
Yeah, and they chased them out of California too. Get a grip, it is all about corporate greed.
A long time ago, a diplomat by the name of Henry Kissinger went to China at the behest of his president Richard Nixon. This paved the way for the mess we now have.
Republicans - both of them.
You not being truthful, My family owns a manufacturing firm and we are democrats, unions are formed by the people and the government does environmental laws. Your wrong on both courts. How long were or has republicans been in power since Reagan, then there was bush, Clinton, then bush again we had during that time 12yrs of republican rule in the congress. So why didn't they do something. They have done nothing for small business we fair better under Dems if you had a small business. Republicans are for big business and no changes why didn't they do something if that was why the jobs left.
We sold the patents to China on TVs and big Items thats the reason. Who did that? REPUBLICAN GREED
No. Quite the opposite. It was the Republican cons. They own all the big businesses in the US and would make a far greater profit by using the slave labor in Communist China to produce their products . They can make a product in China for 25 cents and sell it for $25 here in the US. You do the math. Get it?
An amazingly simplistic understanding of modern technology, manufacturing, and liberalsim. No, liberalsim did not chase manufacturing jobs to China. Actually, America produces more goods that any other nation on earth.
Well, Slick Willy signed the NAFTA agreement that helped make it all possible. Sounds right to me.
You wanna bring back slavery too while you're at it?
The way to bring those manufacturing jobs back is for the government to take over the corporations that moved them to China in the first place.
Yes, if not for unions, U.S. workers might be making 15 cents/hour too.
I find it odd that you consevatives argue time and again that U.S. workers get paid too much.
Clearly you know nothing about this. The jobs went to China because manufacturers would rather pay $10 a week for 60 hours than the wages Americans need to live.
You forgot about greed in general. The jobs moved overseas also because it is much cheaper to manufacture and labor is cheaper which raises the profit margin.
Yes.
Another monumentally ignorant right wing idiot .
Listen up you slandering fool :
IT IS THE DEMOCRACTS THAT HAVE OPPOSED MOST OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS AND IT HAS BEEN THE DEMOCRATS THAT HAVE FOUGHT AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT ENCOURAGES JOBS GOING OFF-SHORE.
Do you realize exactly how stupid and ignorant you are by posting this drivel of yours ??
By far the major reasons companies take jobs off-shore are the incredibly low labour rates off-shore AND NOT ANY COSTS RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS .
You are soooo ignorant and in your abominable ignorance you spew your lies here that other idiots will just repeat ad nauseum.
Now go get a brain transplant or more precisely ,go get a brain period.
Is it true that recycling glass uses more energy than manufacturing new glass?
No, that is not true. Recycling glass only requires 40% of the energy of making new glass. This isn't as good as recycling aluminum but it's still much better than making new glass. I would imagine that the actual physical process of making both types of glass is the same. However, the energy savings most likely result from the energy not spent on mining new raw materials.Is it true that recycling glass uses more energy than manufacturing new glass?
No, not usually, but it depends on the location of the glass source and its proximity to the recycling facility. Unfortunately where I live, it would cost more to ship glass to a recycling facility than is economically viable, thus we regretfully can't recycle glass.Is it true that recycling glass uses more energy than manufacturing new glass?
Yes because the melting point of glass is higher than the melting point of glass silicates.
idk, but i think it cost more to recycle everything than to make it new; the point is to re-use the same resources, rather than use them up
i dunno
even if it does, it's still good to recycle because then there's less rubbish, yeh?
NO, not even close.
NOtvs
No, not usually, but it depends on the location of the glass source and its proximity to the recycling facility. Unfortunately where I live, it would cost more to ship glass to a recycling facility than is economically viable, thus we regretfully can't recycle glass.Is it true that recycling glass uses more energy than manufacturing new glass?
Yes because the melting point of glass is higher than the melting point of glass silicates.
idk, but i think it cost more to recycle everything than to make it new; the point is to re-use the same resources, rather than use them up
i dunno
even if it does, it's still good to recycle because then there's less rubbish, yeh?
NO, not even close.
NO
Is it true that the British used to ban manufacturing in the USA?
and other colonies of theirs like India...so that they the raw materials had to be shipped back to britain and manufactured there?...so that they could create jobs at home in their own land?Is it true that the British used to ban manufacturing in the USA?
No, but the British did put tight controls on colonial trade and at one point required goods to be shipped to England before being shipped to another country. Mercantilism faded over the course of the 18th century, at the end of which England was the first and only truly industrialized nation in the world. They were pretty big on free trade at that point and were considered the ';workshop of the world';. What you're talking about sounds like a mix of these two points in history.Is it true that the British used to ban manufacturing in the USA?
Yes, it whas called ';Mercantilism'; and it failed, like all protectionist economic policies have failed through all history.
Free trade is competitive but it insures the most opportunity and prosperity to the largest number of civilians.
We seem to have to learn that over and over again because we elect politicians who can't read history books.
No, but the British did put tight controls on colonial trade and at one point required goods to be shipped to England before being shipped to another country. Mercantilism faded over the course of the 18th century, at the end of which England was the first and only truly industrialized nation in the world. They were pretty big on free trade at that point and were considered the ';workshop of the world';. What you're talking about sounds like a mix of these two points in history.Is it true that the British used to ban manufacturing in the USA?
Yes, it whas called ';Mercantilism'; and it failed, like all protectionist economic policies have failed through all history.
Free trade is competitive but it insures the most opportunity and prosperity to the largest number of civilians.
We seem to have to learn that over and over again because we elect politicians who can't read history books.
Is it true that Job-order costing is used in manufacturing companies and process costing is used in service co?
Is it true that Job-order costing is used in manufacturing companies and process costing is used in service companies.Is it true that Job-order costing is used in manufacturing companies and process costing is used in service co?
No, in general it's the other way round.
Manufacturers (again in general) make many identical units of the same product, so process costing would be appropriate.
In a service company, most jobs are unique and the costs incurred can be assigned to specific jobs = job order costing.
---------------
To whomever gave my answer a thumbs-down, please feel free to answer the question and explain why my answer is wrong. I like to learn, and I feel my answer is correct. Please enlighten me with your reasoning. If you make a good argument, I shall delete my answer and give you a thumbs-up for yours. I really specifically want to know how you can argue that service companies use process costing.
No, in general it's the other way round.
Manufacturers (again in general) make many identical units of the same product, so process costing would be appropriate.
In a service company, most jobs are unique and the costs incurred can be assigned to specific jobs = job order costing.
---------------
To whomever gave my answer a thumbs-down, please feel free to answer the question and explain why my answer is wrong. I like to learn, and I feel my answer is correct. Please enlighten me with your reasoning. If you make a good argument, I shall delete my answer and give you a thumbs-up for yours. I really specifically want to know how you can argue that service companies use process costing.
Why do people think manufacturing is the only source of true wealth?
I've seen this comment many times here from people biased against service industries. I think it's obvious nonsense. How would you defend that statement? If manufacturing creates wealth, why doesn't providing a service do the same? Explain!Why do people think manufacturing is the only source of true wealth?
I think people are just afraid of change. However, I dont think people really realize that the average service sector job pays more then the average manufacturing job. I find it ironic that that political party in the US that gives itself the title of ';Progressive';, is the one most resistant to evolution and transition in the economy, and supports protectionism and preserving the old industrial base.
What most people dont get is that a service economy isnt just retail and fast food. It includes, doctors and other medical personal, lawyers, business consultants, wealth managment and investment services, information technology, education, research and developement, engineering services, entertainment, media development and so on. Personaly, my econ analyst job is considered a service sector job.
There is a reason why the most advanced economies in the world have larger relative service sectors. I find the current nestagia for manufactoring that creaps its way into political debate to be quite similar to the 1800s where there were those that complained that manufacturing was replacing our traditional agriculture economy, and that would lead to the downfall of the nation. It was argued that production based on land was essential to wealth. This is very similar to people now arguing that producing goods is key to wealth.
Looking back though, I highly doubt there are many that would now argue that we should have put policy in place to restrict manufactruing in order to keep all of our low productivity substidance farms. Restricting the current change now would be just as damaging, and will only lower our future standard of living.
What people also dont realize is that the US is the lagest gross and net exporter of services in the world. Also, despite being smaller as a ratio of the economy then it has in the past, and a smaller portion of employment, the US still has the highest industrial output of any country in the world and is the second largest gross exporter, after Germany (Not China). Its just that we dont see US manufacturing in our daily lives on little tags, because we no longer produce low skill manufactured consumer products. We make aircraft, construction equipment, cars, biotechnolgy, high end electronics, software, chemicals, industrial machinery, and so on. And on a dollar basis, you can import a lot of cheap plastic junk in return for exporting one Boeing 747.Why do people think manufacturing is the only source of true wealth?
Well personally if my budget needed some tweaking.. and I had to pick between a service or a good to cut from my spending, I would cut the service first.
I think manufacturing makes people think of invention. It is a theory (sorry can't recall the name) that a nation must perpetually invent new things to stay on top in the world. Take the calculator or TV.. when first invented it was pricy.. then it got a little cheaper.. then the inventing country actually ends up importing the good they themselves invented. With service industry there isn't much to invent from my point of view. They can develop new ways to advertise or new ways to make people desire more services but it is limited. The only room to grow is to become a better salesman.. who here actually like salesmen?
Even the service industry is getting outsourced to some degree. When you call for service on your computer, is it someone from India or the US?
Well, I would tend to lean towards the idea that the service industry is relatively new. Yes there have been people providing services for everything for a long time, however, not an industry. There's a strong sentiment (in the U.S. at least) that families should be able to provide everything one needs. Although I do believe that families usually have the most to offer, there are obviously many people who do not have healthy family relationships, or the problem they are seeking attention for does not go over well with family members.
A lot of it also, I think, has to do with one's political idealogy. Conservatives generally lean towards more of a traditional way of making a living, where as liberals often are interested in new ways of thinking.
I think people are just afraid of change. However, I dont think people really realize that the average service sector job pays more then the average manufacturing job. I find it ironic that that political party in the US that gives itself the title of ';Progressive';, is the one most resistant to evolution and transition in the economy, and supports protectionism and preserving the old industrial base.
What most people dont get is that a service economy isnt just retail and fast food. It includes, doctors and other medical personal, lawyers, business consultants, wealth managment and investment services, information technology, education, research and developement, engineering services, entertainment, media development and so on. Personaly, my econ analyst job is considered a service sector job.
There is a reason why the most advanced economies in the world have larger relative service sectors. I find the current nestagia for manufactoring that creaps its way into political debate to be quite similar to the 1800s where there were those that complained that manufacturing was replacing our traditional agriculture economy, and that would lead to the downfall of the nation. It was argued that production based on land was essential to wealth. This is very similar to people now arguing that producing goods is key to wealth.
Looking back though, I highly doubt there are many that would now argue that we should have put policy in place to restrict manufactruing in order to keep all of our low productivity substidance farms. Restricting the current change now would be just as damaging, and will only lower our future standard of living.
What people also dont realize is that the US is the lagest gross and net exporter of services in the world. Also, despite being smaller as a ratio of the economy then it has in the past, and a smaller portion of employment, the US still has the highest industrial output of any country in the world and is the second largest gross exporter, after Germany (Not China). Its just that we dont see US manufacturing in our daily lives on little tags, because we no longer produce low skill manufactured consumer products. We make aircraft, construction equipment, cars, biotechnolgy, high end electronics, software, chemicals, industrial machinery, and so on. And on a dollar basis, you can import a lot of cheap plastic junk in return for exporting one Boeing 747.Why do people think manufacturing is the only source of true wealth?
Well personally if my budget needed some tweaking.. and I had to pick between a service or a good to cut from my spending, I would cut the service first.
I think manufacturing makes people think of invention. It is a theory (sorry can't recall the name) that a nation must perpetually invent new things to stay on top in the world. Take the calculator or TV.. when first invented it was pricy.. then it got a little cheaper.. then the inventing country actually ends up importing the good they themselves invented. With service industry there isn't much to invent from my point of view. They can develop new ways to advertise or new ways to make people desire more services but it is limited. The only room to grow is to become a better salesman.. who here actually like salesmen?
Even the service industry is getting outsourced to some degree. When you call for service on your computer, is it someone from India or the US?
Well, I would tend to lean towards the idea that the service industry is relatively new. Yes there have been people providing services for everything for a long time, however, not an industry. There's a strong sentiment (in the U.S. at least) that families should be able to provide everything one needs. Although I do believe that families usually have the most to offer, there are obviously many people who do not have healthy family relationships, or the problem they are seeking attention for does not go over well with family members.
A lot of it also, I think, has to do with one's political idealogy. Conservatives generally lean towards more of a traditional way of making a living, where as liberals often are interested in new ways of thinking.
Is it true ITEC Manufacturing has Aluminum Die Casting Equipment for sale? How do I contact them?
Itec began to setup some Aluminum Die Casting systems, then lost the contract that these systems would be used to support. We have two 400 ton die cast machines and furnaces that we are selling. They are 400 HPM machines. More info is at http://machines4sale.googlepages.com/aluminumdiecastingequipment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)