No, the U.S. Industrial Base Is Not Collapsing
Our manufacturing output, even adjusted for inflation, is near all-time highs.

If you believe the political rhetoric, you probably think America's industrial base has been hollowed out, gutted, or "shipped overseas." Across the ideological spectrum, people say U.S. manufacturing is in decline. They argue mostly about who's to blame and how many tariffs we need to fix the problem.
This widely told tale is wrong.
For one thing, for all the talk of job losses and economic decline, it's worth remembering that the unemployment rate is a very low 4.1 percent, and real wages (those adjusted for inflation) have been growing. If anything, manufacturing is suffering a labor shortage, with more than 600,000 open jobs in the sector.
It's also worth noting that U.S. manufacturing output, even adjusted for inflation, is near all-time highs. While about 5 percent below its December 2007 peak, it's up 177 percent compared with 1975, the year America last ran an annual trade surplus. Industrial production—manufacturing, mining, and utilities combined—is higher than ever. That's hardly a collapse.
A principal source of confusion is the difference between jobs and output. Yes, the number of workers in manufacturing has declined dramatically—from around 19 million in 1980 to about 13 million today. But that didn't happen because America stopped making things. It happened because we got incredibly good at making things.
Productivity in manufacturing has surged thanks to automation, technology, and global supply chains. Just as we now produce more food than ever with just over 1 percent of Americans working in agriculture (down from around 75 percent in 1800), we produce more manufactured goods with far fewer workers. That's not economic decline; it's progress.
Also fueling the perception of decline are regional factors. Shuttered factories in Detroit or Youngstown, Ohio, bring concentrated pain and struggle for affected workers. No one denies this. But manufacturing didn't disappear; it relocated and upgraded.
That makes conversations about its so-called demise counterproductive. The conversation should be about how we can best help these communities, including empowering them to benefit from changes that have been more helpful than harmful for the country as a whole.
High-tech manufacturing has boomed in other parts of America, creating jobs in aerospace, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and advanced machinery and services. These jobs command much higher wages than manufacturing jobs used to. Output of computer and electronics products has grown 1,200 percent since 1994. Motor vehicle output is up well over 60 percent. America and its workers excel in these industries, where we have significant comparative advantages.
The biggest job and output losses were in sectors like apparel, textiles, and furniture. Apparel and leather goods output, for example, have fallen more than 60 percent since 2007. Should we do something about this?
If we could reverse these trends, it would mean pushing relatively prosperous manufacturing workers back into lower-paying jobs making clothing and shoes. If we could generate a manufacturing boom, we still wouldn't turn back into a nation of factory workers, because the way to manufacturing competitiveness is through automation.
Then there's the reality that young people would rather work in the service industry. That leads us to another myth: that a service-heavy economy is somehow weak or unproductive. In truth, services now make up about 79 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. That's what rich economies look like. As we grow wealthier, our demand for services such as health care, education, and entertainment rises relative to demand for manufactured goods.
It's a consequence of rising prosperity, which also spurs innovation and helps explain why manufacturing gets more efficient. As service-sector jobs become more attractive, manufacturers must raise wages or invest in labor-saving technology to compete for workers. If Americans today were willing to work for 1950s wages in 1950s factories, we'd have less automation. We'd also be much poorer.
Finally, some argue we must protect domestic industries like steel or semiconductors for national security reasons. Even famed economist Adam Smith, who laid out the case for free trade, carved out an exception for defense. But the notion that defense protectionism creates all that many jobs is another myth. They will be offset by job losses in other U.S. industries.
"America doesn't make anything anymore" is a powerful talking point, but it's false. We make plenty, including some of the most complex, high-valued goods in the world, from aircraft to pharmaceuticals to advanced electronics. Our workers don't make many T-shirts or toasters; other countries can do it more cheaply. And the more successfully we produce and export advanced machinery, the more foreign goods we can afford to import.
America's industrial base is not collapsing. It's evolving—becoming more productive, more specialized, and more capital-intensive. Protectionism won't bring back the past or revive old jobs. It will just make the future more expensive and shift workers into lower-paying jobs.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
American made aircraft have doors that seem to be bloeing off.
The liars will be out soon, claiming oh no, we got to bring back those jobs that went overseas, because industrial capacity is measured in jobs, not output.
Oh, and because Trump says so. He's never wrong.
So we'll get tariffs too, which is really funny, because is we can't buy imports from foreigners, they won't be able to earn the dollars they need to buy our exports, and then all the Trumpies will start screaming we need more exports because that is the sign of a healthy economy.
None of them have any faith in individuals or markets. Bunch of central planners, the lot of them. Socialists by any other name would smell as putrid.
The "liars" will say that Unemployment is at 4%, which is how this piece started, when the real number is 3x that due to so many people leaving the job market due to the lack of decent paying jobs in the industrial sector for someone without a real college degree.
Populists seeking office, and especially voters experiencing economic downturn, don't care that corporations make more $ with fewer employees. Small town Americans saw their fathers making decent money at plants that have since closed, and are faced with making poverty level wages in the retail and service sector as their only opportunity.
While a technically correct economic model, the whole tone of this argument is so incredibly out of touch as to be self-defeating when voters reject it. There has to be a better solution, such as promoting the return of some labor intensive industry thru loosening environmental and labor regulations, to keep the Deplorables mollified.
We hemorrhaged manufacturing jobs to China from 2002-2009 in the aftermath of China into the WTO. All of the other manufacturing jobs we lost since 1979 were positive with one big caveat—manufacturers would pay overtime instead of hiring another worker and having to pay benefits because health care costs started skyrocketing. So we should have gone to a single payer health care system in the 1980s because it would have mitigated manufacturing job losses and the waitress and teacher and nurse jobs that went along with factory towns that depended on the breadwinner factory jobs.
There is no such thing as single payer healthcare systems. Where does the government get money to pay for anything? As in other countries with government run healthcare the middle class and poor pay for mediocre to poor healthcare while the wealthy reject it and pay for their own private care. When taxes pay for health care it certainly isn't single payer. That is just rhetoric by those that want the dirty masses out of their healthcare so they can corner the market on good doctors and good healthcare.
This is exactly what Sarc said in the roundup comments this morning.
""we produce more manufactured goods with far fewer workers. That's not economic decline; it's progress.""
Less use of us peasants the better I guess. What then?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/i-don-t-think-we-re-going-to-have-a-choice-elon-musk-predicts-universal-income-will-eventually-be-high-but-fears-people-will-feel-useless/ar-AA1zRGcy
""the unemployment rate is a very low 4.1 percent, and real wages (those adjusted for inflation) have been growing.""
Still don't trust the employment numbers.
Go around the country talking hey, wages have gone up and see the response you get.
even adjusted for inflation
The entire purpose of rigging the inflation statistics in the early/mid 80's was to ensure that 'adjusting for inflation' would, over time, become a Soviet style exercise in producing numbers that are, superficially, complete bullshit - adjusted for inflation. There are ways of clearing the bullshit away but seriously - unless you know there's a pony there there's not much point is there. And that's the point.
MAGA is upset that manufacturing jobs for unskilled workers have vanished because they aren't smart enough or hard working enough to compete in a modern economy.
Haha. The blue hairs protesting tesla are way smarter and hard working, eh chuck? Parasites are the only ones bitching about doge.
"If anything, manufacturing is suffering a labor shortage, with more than 600,000 open jobs in the sector."
I think it's because of what Caplan says, because everyone has a degree and liberal people decide that everyone should have a degree, no one has the courage to learn a trade and take one of those jobs, and people in Congress are stupid enough to not change migration laws to let people from x place to take one of these 600.000 jobs, we will call progress the fact that 1.000.000 job in manufacture will stay vacant?
Most 'open jobs' are fake jobs. What happened with the decline of newspaper classified ads is it became virtually free to post a job opening. 'Looking for a CEO who will generate multimillion dollar profits for peanuts. Literally peanuts. That's what we pay. Interested?' That's an 'open job'. There's other reasons why fake jobs get posted now (eg show how much company A is growing because of all the vacancies) - but they are all bullshit fake jobs.
In truth, services now make up about 79 percent of U.S. gross domestic product.
IOW, we are weak. When only 21% of your money is going to things that aren't consumed immediately (or near enough), you have nothing.
We are rich. We can afford to spend all kinds of money paying each other to do things for us because they can do them more cheaply and efficiently than we could do for ourselves. We live in decadence compared to the wealthiest people on the planet a century ago.
There is a very serious danger (well - certainty actually) that we are only rich because we are eating the seed corn. Nothing is being produced by us that persists to become capital in future. Our borrowing is mostly for consumption (mortgages and refi's, share buybacks, income transfers, etc) not future production. In economic terms that is the marginal productivity of debt - the amount of economic output produced by an incremental unit of debt.
You can eat a big meal today by going into debt. Tomorrow the meal's energy is gone and the debt remains. This ain't about libertarian stuff either - debt is debt whether govt or private. Even worse when today's known private debt becomes tomorrow's public debt surprise because the private folks created a crisis and coerced govt into taking that debt. See 2008.
Useful blog post with graphs from someone in 2018 showing the secular decline in debt productivity Meaning steady increases in debt burden resulting ultimately in either debt slavery or debt jubilee - with crises as the only way the trend can change. We are now well past the 'crises required for temporary improvement'
If anything, manufacturing is suffering a labor shortage, with more than 600,000 open jobs in the sector.
Lower/eliminate the minimum wage and you'll solve that problem.
Yes, the number of workers in manufacturing has declined dramatically—from around 19 million in 1980 to about 13 million today. But that didn't happen because America stopped making things. It happened because we got incredibly good at making things.
Yea, and eventually the robots are going to come for your job too, Ronnie. Every reader here can tell that Reason is already outsourcing to AI.
But here's the thing - we need laborers too. And we need to pay them the value of their job, not some "minimum wage" that is literally nothing but artificial overhead for an employer, and only entices him to find more robots.
Then there's the reality that young people would rather work in the service industry. ... such as health care, education, and entertainment
Um. Those aren't typically what's considered the "service industry." But, I'm willing to concede the point that they're effectively the same thing now that we let any retarded idiot with an online degree or a youtube channel into those career paths.
But, again, it's now completely devalued. We shouldn't be paying them any more than the job is worth given supply and demand considerations.
The biggest job and output losses were in sectors like apparel, textiles, and furniture.
Because sweatshops undercut minimum wages. Because sweatshops know what jobs in the apparel, textile, and furniture industry are worth.
Our workers don't make many T-shirts or toasters; other countries can do it more cheaply.
Because they understand the value of a human resource when it comes to making T-shirts or toasters. The oh-so-entitled and decadent (and debt-laden) western world has forgotten that.
It's not much.
It's evolving—becoming more productive, more specialized, and more capital-intensive.
And yet, its labor force isn't evolving in tandem. The welfare queens aren't becoming aerospace engineers. The drug addicts aren't becoming computer scientists. The least valuable among us are being disproportionately compensated for the least valuable things to a society/economy - activism, media, and politics (which are all kind of the same thing as this point).
Ronny, I'm sorry, but you have a losing argument here. Until you get back to basic capitalism - a person and a job are only worth the value of what they produce - then you're ultimately just barking up the same dumb tree ENB does. That whores are special and valuable, when they're just plain not.
The bullshit levels are unusually high in here on this topic. For the umpteenth time: unemployment statistics are irrelevant in this context! The only statistic that matters is the EMPLOYMENT level. What you should want to know is, how many people are working for pay? What is their median income? What is their "productivity" in real buying power measures? And, by the way, anyone who says that people aren't working because wages for the jobs they're qualified to do aren't high enough deserves a swift kick in the pants! If you're not working for a living, are you starving to death in a gutter? If not, who is paying for your survival? A little real world here would go a long way ...
Or maybe playing FAIR is all about !!!!!!!! - equal - !!!!!! Tax-Costs for the import market and the domestic market.
If you want ZERO import tax (Tariff) start with ZERO domestic Tax.