[acslater00]

I don't know why I keep bothering to point this out, but the notion that "America no longer makes things" is absolutely, empirically, unassailably false.

See this: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/OUTMS

And a prior discussion of the topic.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3803022

Anybody who starts a discussion decrying the death of manufacturing in America is selling you something, and it's not a manufacturing job.

Sidebar: This quote!

"The workforce and the union offered to buy it, take it over, and run it themselves. The multinational decided to close it down instead, probably for reasons of class-consciousness."

Aside from the fact that this story is clearly made-up, the idea that a profit-seeking corporation would favor "shutting down" an asset rather than selling it because it fears an uprising of the working class is just about the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.

[mcantelon]

>Aside from the fact that this story is clearly made-up, the idea that a profit-seeking corporation would favor "shutting down" an asset rather than selling it because it fears an uprising of the working class is just about the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.

Profit-seeking corporations aren't immune to stupidity and pettiness. Another reason not to sell it is to prevent the emergence of a competitor.

[r00fus]

Case in point - Yahoo deciding to shut down del.icio.us - at the very least the brand name and bookmark list was worth something to someone... why shut it down?

[AndrewDucker]

They didn't. They sold it to Avos.

[leephillips]

It is Chomsky, after all: long ago exposed as a scoundrel and purveyor of dishonest pseudo-scholarship (in the realms of politics, history, and economics, not linguistics, where his ideas were considered important for a considerable time).

On another note, I don't remember Salon being this cheesy the last time I visited the site. The sidebar with links to other fascinating Salon articles includes pieces on gay porn, "Girls" sex, naked models, big butts, and more porn. That's five out of seven about porn and body parts. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it seems pretty desperate.

[jbooth]

Output is up, but employment is down in that same sector.

You know why? Robots.

Doesn't make the employment picture look any more rosy, in light of that increased output, does it?

Chomsky's pretty ideological and I'd always take him with a grain of salt, but the manufacturing output doesn't really rebut his main point about industrialists no longer needing workers as much as they used to.

[vijayr]

This book talks about the same thing - http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Work-Jeremy-Rifkin/dp/B000ILZ5...

output is consistently increasing, profits are consistently increasing - the only thing that is NOT increasing, is employment numbers. A big chunk of it is because of robots and automated systems.

huge population + huge unemployment = disaster

[agumonkey]

Isn't that the main topic ? As computer/robotics progress a vast span of jobs won't require humans. What will it means to exist in this future ? Will it be abundance and free creative life ? Can humans lead a good life without having ( a strong necessity) to work ?

[ArbitraryLimits]

> the notion that "America no longer makes things" is absolutely, empirically, unassailably false.

It depends whether you count robots and computers as part of America, doesn't it?

[bdunbar]

Per wiki Chomsky is a 'linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, and activist.'

I'm not sure how any of these qualify the man as someone to be listened on the topics of economics or manufacturing.

asset rather than selling it because it fears an uprising of the working class is just about the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.

It does tell us that Chomsky has an especially stupid view of the world.

[batista]

>I'm not sure how any of these qualify the man as someone to be listened on the topics of economics or manufacturing.

Maybe because neither economics, nor manufacturing nor any other field, are fields to be left to the "experts", to the exclusion of the citizenry in general (economics especially, as a soft science that leaches on Math and thrives on state power, is full of idiotic experts, with Phds and Nobels to match, whose aggregate predictive performance is closer to a coin toss, if not negative).

Not to mention that arguments are to be judged in themselves, not based on the expertise of who's making them.

[bdunbar]

to the exclusion of the citizenry in general

If I'm sick, I want a doctor. If I want to know how to shoot pie-sized targets at 500 meters, I'll find a Marine.

Life in the 21st century is complicated, seeking opinions from people in a given field is required if one is to know one's [redacted] from a hole in the ground.

arguments are to be judged in themselves, not based on the expertise of who's making them.

Arguments are context-free? Okay.

Skimming the linked article I found the arguments themselves to be less than persuasive.

[ChuckMcM]

I was going to add something similar. Chomsky and people like him pander to fear mongering about the 'loss of jobs' to a population of people who don't seem to understand that the number of jobs offered in this country has steadily and inexorably gone up. If technological progress was a net killer of jobs there would have been increasing unemployment from at least 1903 forward.

[glimcat]

"Taking Any Rand seriously" seems to be something of a persistent folly.

[batista]

>Aside from the fact that this story is clearly made-up, the idea that a profit-seeking corporation would favor "shutting down" an asset rather than selling it because it fears an uprising of the working class is just about the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.

"Made up"? Those kinds of stories play out all the time. Study a little international labour history.

[batista]

>I don't know why I keep bothering to point this out, but the notion that "America no longer makes things" is absolutely, empirically, unassailably false.

Too many things wrong with your argument.

For one, employment in that sector (as well as overall) is still down, because fewer people are needed to produce the same things.

Second, that the US produces, say, "more than it did 1985" is meaningless. A better metric would be what share of the domestic and international sold goods it produces, over time.

Third, an ever better measure would be the trade (import/export) deficit over time.