Manufacturing a must?

well yes because you need to fix unemployement.

once you fix unemployment and healthcare you get more return in taxes, less welfare participants,less ebt cards,less section 8 housing.
manufacturing in particular is important because most low-end jobs are unreliable and consumer based. and anything that is consumer based is likely to use imported goods which takes money out of america

>>1670065
Good point.

>>1670065
If there was a way for the US to have any manufacturing jobs, the rust belt would not be the rust belt. It is actually funny that while US likes to hate on commie Europe and yet they are unable to have a solid manufacturing without getting overrun by US commies.

>>1670065
>you need to fix unemployement
that's not possible
unemployment at one part is natural and transient the other part is usually structural which means that people not employed can't do the jobs that are in demand. for example you have shittons of factory line workers and need shittons off programmers.

>>1670089
what did you even say m8

The U.S. has plenty of manufacturing, in fact there is a shortage of skilled laborers. Morons like you keep pushing incorrect narratives though.

>>1670116

or we need a shit ton of anything but have a bunch of psychologists and art majors instead?

or like Cuba, need a bunch of engineers, but only have doctors?

>>1670178
What is manufactured though? It seems to me it is all high tech as opposed to what for example Germany or German supply chain has.

>>1670217
Automobiles, large appliances, etc

You can google that information you know

>>1670116
give a few reasons why you can't fix unemployment

>>1670182
yep stuff like that. it's very time consuming to train people to do the high demand jobs. and most of the workforce is getting too old to be taught new tricks. and that's a problem you can't just solve with magic or throwing around money. shit doesn't actually work.

the traditional recipe is war. lot's of dead lot's of destroyed value lot's or rebuilding to do and soldiering doesn't require much talent either. economy will soar too after a world war. there are no other easy solutions to structural unemployment.

>>1670234
how about you try to read a whole post?

>>1670052
Yes but high quality not factory shit. Like swiss watch makers

>>1670052
Yes, have you looked at extremes like Venezuela? One part of the economy may be very profitable, but if the other parts aren't there then it will erodes over time.

For example we look down on trashmen, pay them relatively little and they are prone to work illnesses, yet when they go away trash pile up and wide spread diseases erupt as sanitation fails. Same can be said for many low level support jobs. Not glamorous but vital in the larger picture.

Interestingly many of these functions were actually not officially paid as other groups supported them in a huge hidden workload, yet they have always been supported in one form or another because things break without them.

Also if we shrink the trade zone with things like made and bought locally then we can expect to see a significant monetary multiplier effects. Give people jobs so they can buy stuff, to support jobs so those worker can buy stuff. If the wages climb higher then the higher cost then we win big.

We need to be self sufficient and have industrial infrastructure because globalism as we know it is coming to an end. These long supply chains with shit being shipped around the world is coming to an end when oil supplies start to decline and transportation becomes expensive and outsourcing is no longer profitable. Transition to a economy not based on oil will be bad enough as it is without the entire domestic workforce made up of entirely of people selling each other cheeseburgers and credit cards.

>>1670343
Isn't the oil supply expected to last a few more decades? As more millennials enter the workforce and get into positions of power, you're going to see more and more investment in renewable fuels, and I think the day oil dries up isn't going to be all that devastating.

>>1670052
>Are americans with no jobs ready to work 70+ hours a week to keep up with demand?
>Implying salaried workers don't do that already