Global economic meltdown, Part Deux: China?

Could you provide the quote that says I'm skeptical as to whether the U.S. has lost textile jobs?

 

Depends on what you mean by "strong."

Strong for the worker? Hell no.

Strong in total output? Yes.

If you disagree, I'd love to see your evidence.

 

OK.

 

I'll just keep throwing these out there until I find one people will accept, or until someone provides one showing me wrong:


http://www.edn.com/blog/1700000170/post/2000051800.html

 

Okay, I'm going to go back through this to make sure there's no confusion. If you are going to disagree with me, you should at least be clear on what I'm saying.

"I'm definitely skeptical of it" was in reply to "Are you actually denying that we've lost a ton of textile jobs to Mexico and Asia?"

"to Mexico and Asia" is the key term. He's provided evidence that U.S. textile jobs are severely down. I don't disagree. It's the "to Mexico and Asia" part that I am skeptical of. They have gone there, but they may just be like a lot of other manufacturing jobs and been lost to productivity gains.

 

The sum value of things that are manufactured.

 

Oh for chrissakes. A little common sense, please.

And are you also "skeptical" about all these silly stories about our auto industry's downfall? Do you believe Detroit's still making the same percentage of the world's cars as ever before? After all, nobody here's cited you proof of that one either. And they shouldn't have to if you've been even remotely paying attention to anything in recent years.

Same goes for the textile industry. Tell you what, I dare you to cite any source that denies that we've lost textile jobs overseas. Even the neo-conservative hacks you've been relying on for your numbers won't make that claim. Reveals some serious ignorance that you'd even consider denying that fact.

 

No, I am generally distrustful of common sense. It causes people to believe lots of things that aren't true.

Nope, Detroit has definitely lost market share. But that's not the only thing driving job loss there, and the job loss has been much, much steeper than the market-share decline.

You are the one making the positive claim. The burden of proof is on you, logically. If it's so incredibly obviously true, it shouldn't be that hard to support it.

 

http://www.fibre2fashion.com/news/association-news/amtac/newsdetails.aspx?news_id=35976

http://www.amtacdc.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/Amtac/Press%20Room/06%2003%2007%20Press%20Statement.pdf

http://www.ncto.org/ustextiles/joblosses.asp

http://www.ncto.org/ustextiles/closings.asp

http://southeastfarmpress.com/mag/farming_continuing_loss_textile/

http://www.unc.edu/~pconway/Textiles/emplevol.pdf

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj6n3/cj6n3-2.pdf

 

Rick: To be blunt, your "We're still No. 1!" statistics are pretty meaningless to a laid-off factory worker with bills to pay and no way to pay them. And your "well, they're ignorant" comment smacks of elitism.

Try telling one of them that we haven't lost manufacturing jobs in this country. Michigan or Ohio would be a good place to look. They don't need to look at a fancy graph to know their jobs are gone forever.

 

The first link shows job losses but doesn't show that they went overseas. It correlates those job losses with NAFTA, but anyone who has even a basic understanding of logic or scientific method knows that correlation does not prove causation.

The second link is a copy-and-paste of the first link

The third link again shows job losses, but makes no link to foreign countries whatsoever.

The fourth link does the same thing.

The fifth link makes reference to losing jobs overseas but provides no data. It is just begging the question.

The sixth link is a fantastic study, but it actually supports my argument and not yours (did you actually read it before you linked it)? It shows that the job losses were occurring before loosening of trade restrictions, due in part to "labor-saving machinery." It specifically states in its conclusion that if finds no correlation between international trade and job losses. (Correlation does not prove causation, but lack of correlation generally disproves causation).

The seventh link is similar. I am again wondering if you actually read this before you posted, because it says *exactly* what I'm saying:

Your own link explicitly states that there is no link between textile imports and domestic textile employment.

 

I didn't *say* that. I don't know how much clearer I can be.

Jobs have been lost. Millions and millions of jobs. And they aren't coming back. And it sucks for all the people who lost them.

But that's not the same as saying the U.S. doesn't manufacture anything, or that the majority jobs went overseas. The first is provably false, the second is on shaky ground and has certainly not been proven true. Some certainly went overseas, but not a majority.