Do We Still Make Anything in America?

America, we often hear, doesn't make things any more. The drop in manufacturing is sometimes blamed on free trade agreements and is seen as part of our long-term economic decline. In a fascinating article, Noam Scheiber connects the decline to the fact that our top business talent increasingly goes into the financial sector. But there's just one problem with that story: manufacturing in the U.S. continues to grow.

In fact, manufacturing still accounts for around 11% of the our gross domestic product (GDP). In real terms, the country's manufacturing output has grown fairly steadily over the last 50 years. It declined during the last recession—when global trade fell a stunning 12%—but is already beginning to recover. Part of what accounts for the sense manufacturing has declined is that it accounts for a smaller percent our economy than it used to. At its peak in 1953, manufacturing accounted for more than 28% of our GDP. It was around 15-16% throughout the 1990s, but fell as a share of our economy over the last ten years. That's not entirely surprising, since manufacturing tends become a smaller part of developed economies as they mature. But it is a substantially smaller share of our economy than it is of other developed countries. Manufacturing's share of the GDP has fallen in part because of the growth of finance and health care sectors. But it also reflects an imbalance in the trade of manufactured goods—the fact that we import more than we export.

Perhaps the main reason it seems we no longer make things is that manufacturing employment has declined dramatically—by almost 6 million jobs—over the last ten years. At FiveThirtyEight, Hale Stewart argues that manufacturing employment has declined mostly because gains in productivity have outstripped the demand for manufactured goods. One problem with that argument is that government statistics may overstate gains in manufacturing output and productivity. Because many of the goods we produce are made with parts manufactured overseas, we're able to produce finished goods more efficiently partly because of improvements in the productivity of foreign factories. Another problem with Stewart's argument is that, as Robert Scott shows, manufacturing employment has fallen not so much because productivity has increased, but because the value of the goods we sell has leveled off. That's partly a consequence of the trade imbalance, which in a real sense represents manufacturing jobs that might otherwise have remained at home.

America's share of the world's GDP has been fairly constant over the last 40 years. Our manufacturing industry is not in decline. But its failure to keep up with the growth of our other industries is a problem. As Clyde Prestowitz points out, the manufacturing sector is a major source of both innovation and high-paying jobs. With productivity growing faster than sales, the manufacturing jobs we lost in the latest recession may not be coming back. That doesn't mean we can no longer make things in the U.S. Manufacturing would certainly rebound if China and other Asian countries could be convinced to stop keeping the value of their currencies artificially low, in effect dumping their goods on us in order to gain market share. In the long run, however, we'll need to shift our investment to new technologies—like alternative energy and nano-technology—where our scientific and technical expertise continues to give us an advantage.

Related Articles

Scientists discover what caused the worst mass extinction ever

How a cataclysm worse than what killed the dinosaurs destroyed 90 percent of all life on Earth.

Credit: Ron Miller
Surprising Science

While the demise of the dinosaurs gets more attention as far as mass extinctions go, an even more disastrous event called "the Great Dying” or the “End-Permian Extinction” happened on Earth prior to that. Now scientists discovered how this cataclysm, which took place about 250 million years ago, managed to kill off more than 90 percent of all life on the planet.

Keep reading Show less

Why we're so self-critical of ourselves after meeting someone new

A new study discovers the “liking gap” — the difference between how we view others we’re meeting for the first time, and the way we think they’re seeing us.

New acquaintances probably like you more than you think. (Photo by Simone Joyner/Getty Images)
Surprising Science

We tend to be defensive socially. When we meet new people, we’re often concerned with how we’re coming off. Our anxiety causes us to be so concerned with the impression we’re creating that we fail to notice that the same is true of the other person as well. A new study led by Erica J. Boothby, published on September 5 in Psychological Science, reveals how people tend to like us more in first encounters than we’d ever suspect.

Keep reading Show less

NASA launches ICESat-2 into orbit to track ice changes in Antarctica and Greenland

Using advanced laser technology, scientists at NASA will track global changes in ice with greater accuracy.

Firing three pairs of laser beams 10,000 times per second, the ICESat-2 satellite will measure how long it takes for faint reflections to bounce back from ground and sea ice, allowing scientists to measure the thickness, elevation and extent of global ice

Leaving from Vandenberg Air Force base in California this coming Saturday, at 8:46 a.m. ET, the Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite-2 — or, the "ICESat-2" — is perched atop a United Launch Alliance Delta II rocket, and when it assumes its orbit, it will study ice layers at Earth's poles, using its only payload, the Advance Topographic Laser Altimeter System (ATLAS).

Keep reading Show less