The "Canadian Content" thread pushed me into the mode of thinking about what we still make in Oregon:
- wood products for building construction
- paper products
- titanium castings
- railroad cars
- integrated circuits
- dentist chairs/tools
- software
- food products
- glass products
- rifle scopes
- specialized electronic/mechanical manufacturing equipment
- watercraft
What about in your state/province/country?
What products do we still make?
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
-
Plain_simple
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:17 am
-
borisborisboris
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:12 pm
Googling manufacturing concerns in Philadelphia, it seems pretty diversified (more so than I expected). In terms of actual, tangible things that we make in large quantities, though, that's hard to track down.
Chemicals (Rohm and Haas, DuPont, FMC)
Drugs (Lots of Pharma, but I think a lot of the manufacturing is now done overseas)
Petroleum derivatives
Processed food
medical products
Pennies (at the mint)
Virtual Money (federal reserve operations)
Other stuff:
Legal services
Accounting / Consulting services
Tons of hospitals
Education - lots of universities
Chemicals (Rohm and Haas, DuPont, FMC)
Drugs (Lots of Pharma, but I think a lot of the manufacturing is now done overseas)
Petroleum derivatives
Processed food
medical products
Pennies (at the mint)
Virtual Money (federal reserve operations)
Other stuff:
Legal services
Accounting / Consulting services
Tons of hospitals
Education - lots of universities
We make a lot of stuff in Georgia.
Luxury jets (Gulfstream)
Fighter jets (Lockheed Martin)
Tractor trailers (Great Dane)
Golf carts (EZGO)
Food equipment (Hobart)
Cars (KIA)
Paper products (GP)
Carpet (mills around Dalton)
Lots of tech companies around Georgia Tech
And then there's agriculture:
Peanuts
Vidalia Onions
Pecans
Pine trees
Chickens
We don't grow that many peaches, actually.
Luxury jets (Gulfstream)
Fighter jets (Lockheed Martin)
Tractor trailers (Great Dane)
Golf carts (EZGO)
Food equipment (Hobart)
Cars (KIA)
Paper products (GP)
Carpet (mills around Dalton)
Lots of tech companies around Georgia Tech
And then there's agriculture:
Peanuts
Vidalia Onions
Pecans
Pine trees
Chickens
We don't grow that many peaches, actually.
@Original-George,
I was intrigued by your question. I was searching on the Net about this fact: Here's some things I noticed.
1. Chad is right. The title "No.1 Mfr of the World" belongs to the USA.
2. But consumer spending, coupled with government health care spending constituted 70% of the American economy.! :-O
3. The bulk of the Manufacturing is concentrated around aeroplane mfg, and especially in the defence sector(#). Makes sense. National security and trade "monopoly" cannot be outsourced anyway.
(#) Orlov says this is one of the "collapse" precipitators of the USSR, i.e., dependency on military spending which keeps growing until runaway proportions are reached.
4. Other major areas: petroleum, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, and mining. Also, Pharma has become the "new" saviour of Pennsylvania, thanks to increased healthcare bills (thumbs up: Boris!)
5. Paradoxically, 1 in 6 mfg jobs have been lost since 2000. Employment in manufacturing was its lowest since July 1950. Somewhat bizarrely, this is attributed due to gains in productivity.
6. Pretty much all medium to low end manufacturing has moved elsewhere (day to day items for the citizens, and perhaps even of such items that will be used within the supply chain of those large giants have gone away). Also, since "spending" and "healthcare" eclipses everything else, manufacturing is never "big enough" to get highlighted in discussions.
My thoughts: Moving forward
1. Peak oil manifestation is going to be the biggest party pooper for most of those industries: aeroplanes, petrochemical, automobile, chemical industries, etc...
2. Peak oil manifestation might move those medium-low-end-mfg jobs back (shipping costs outstrip offshoring advantage),
3. Perhaps peak oil might create new jobs in the farming sector (as intensive farming is too much dependent on oil as a driver and chemicals for fertilisers).
3. Need for new "Office workers" may also reduce a little on account jobs getting more and more distributed around the world (This will poop huge, overstaffed Indian offshore centres too
)..
Other thoughts:
All of the articles and news reports on these topics prefer to dwell on macroeconomic data alone (trillions, worldwide, global...etc...). This makes for good and very sterile reading, of course: "No.1 mfr", "Mfg output in dollars from US is output of India, Brasil, China combined", etc...
Even when cursorily dealing about microeconomic data, the same old sterile, "we moved to high-tech jobs" rather than explaining "we lost these following sector jobs", or "we made phenomenal gains in productivity" and this is why we have "lost record number of workforce" or sometimes "Globally the pool of mfg jobs have shrunk" or "the salaries of high-end jobs have increased because of demand for labour" (^) I can go on.
(^) but the effect of inflation is somehow not discussed. Germany releases better data that way. They've acknowledged that "real wages" actually shrunk in order to stay competetive, and Fr. Merkel got some stick for that
The manner of using the language in all of the articles and the kind of projections being made through the language, uncomfortably reminded me of "Newspeak".
Also, in some articles, some permutation of GDP, workforce etc., puts Germany before USA, and some other permutation puts USA before Germany... it all got a bit much for my limited brain.
This is just my opinion. I don't want to take anything away from all this, and I am happy if things are well.
I was intrigued by your question. I was searching on the Net about this fact: Here's some things I noticed.
1. Chad is right. The title "No.1 Mfr of the World" belongs to the USA.
2. But consumer spending, coupled with government health care spending constituted 70% of the American economy.! :-O
3. The bulk of the Manufacturing is concentrated around aeroplane mfg, and especially in the defence sector(#). Makes sense. National security and trade "monopoly" cannot be outsourced anyway.
(#) Orlov says this is one of the "collapse" precipitators of the USSR, i.e., dependency on military spending which keeps growing until runaway proportions are reached.
4. Other major areas: petroleum, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, and mining. Also, Pharma has become the "new" saviour of Pennsylvania, thanks to increased healthcare bills (thumbs up: Boris!)
5. Paradoxically, 1 in 6 mfg jobs have been lost since 2000. Employment in manufacturing was its lowest since July 1950. Somewhat bizarrely, this is attributed due to gains in productivity.
6. Pretty much all medium to low end manufacturing has moved elsewhere (day to day items for the citizens, and perhaps even of such items that will be used within the supply chain of those large giants have gone away). Also, since "spending" and "healthcare" eclipses everything else, manufacturing is never "big enough" to get highlighted in discussions.
My thoughts: Moving forward
1. Peak oil manifestation is going to be the biggest party pooper for most of those industries: aeroplanes, petrochemical, automobile, chemical industries, etc...
2. Peak oil manifestation might move those medium-low-end-mfg jobs back (shipping costs outstrip offshoring advantage),
3. Perhaps peak oil might create new jobs in the farming sector (as intensive farming is too much dependent on oil as a driver and chemicals for fertilisers).
3. Need for new "Office workers" may also reduce a little on account jobs getting more and more distributed around the world (This will poop huge, overstaffed Indian offshore centres too
)..Other thoughts:
All of the articles and news reports on these topics prefer to dwell on macroeconomic data alone (trillions, worldwide, global...etc...). This makes for good and very sterile reading, of course: "No.1 mfr", "Mfg output in dollars from US is output of India, Brasil, China combined", etc...
Even when cursorily dealing about microeconomic data, the same old sterile, "we moved to high-tech jobs" rather than explaining "we lost these following sector jobs", or "we made phenomenal gains in productivity" and this is why we have "lost record number of workforce" or sometimes "Globally the pool of mfg jobs have shrunk" or "the salaries of high-end jobs have increased because of demand for labour" (^) I can go on.
(^) but the effect of inflation is somehow not discussed. Germany releases better data that way. They've acknowledged that "real wages" actually shrunk in order to stay competetive, and Fr. Merkel got some stick for that
The manner of using the language in all of the articles and the kind of projections being made through the language, uncomfortably reminded me of "Newspeak".
Also, in some articles, some permutation of GDP, workforce etc., puts Germany before USA, and some other permutation puts USA before Germany... it all got a bit much for my limited brain.
This is just my opinion. I don't want to take anything away from all this, and I am happy if things are well.