| ▲ | nialv7 a day ago |
| what a bizarre article, completely disconnected from reality. in what world is manufacturing, a sector that has been neglected for decades at this point, having any sway on politics in Britain. why does The Economist have so much disdain of manufacturing and people who work in it? look at China, look at their manufacturing industry and what they are able to do with it. then look at the UK, who is struggling to build Hinkley Point C, or HS2 (projected to be the most expensive high-speed rail in the world btw). The Economist is an absolute f*ing joke. |
|
| ▲ | pjc50 a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| The point is that manufacturing is a relatively small part of both the economy and the job market; AND the popular view of manufacturing (large plant staffed by a large number of men being the dominant employer of a nearby town or city) doesn't look anything like the reality of modern manufacturing (small run boutique high value stuff like satellites and turbines, highly automated and professionalized, relatively small number of employees). This leads to stupid decisions like gutting the university sector, which is a major export industry. |
| |
| ▲ | modo_mario 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >The point is that manufacturing is a relatively small part of both the economy and the job market Yes because the UK is overfinancialised to a ridiculous degree.
It has deindustralised in doing so. >This leads to stupid decisions like gutting the university sector, which is a major export industry. I'd call it more of a major import industry.
At the same time your doctors and such are leaving the country. Besides, if these are so profitable why are they making the cuts you think?
Is it that those degrees aren't exactly paying off in an economy that can't consist of HR departments and other PMC's? | |
| ▲ | RetroTechie a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's not boutique vs large plant. It's base materials (paper mills, steel smelters, plastic etc) that tend to be low in added value, versus higher up the stack (like your examples) that also tend to be higher in added value. Most countries didn't care much for the former other than historic reasons, but like the latter for obvious reasons (add £ to GDP). That's changing due to "sovereignty". You can't build a satellite without metal profiles, wiring, tubes etc. Which requires manufacturing capacity for those. Which requires steel/alu/copper smelters & plastic extruders. Which requires plastic & thus a chemical industry. This whole 'sovereign movement' is about keeping/bringing back capabilities across the stack which are deemed critical (like steel). But I suspect there are few (if any) countries that have these dependency chains mapped out in detail. | |
| ▲ | lysace a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/jul/14/university... Thousands of university job cuts in humanities and social sciences are creating widespread cold spots for languages, classics and theology degrees, the British Academy has warned. [...] The subjects with the biggest staff cuts were social work (-9%), English and classics (both -8%), anthropology (-7%) and linguistics (-6%). | | |
| ▲ | pjc50 a day ago | parent [-] | | https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/town-and-gown/univers... "Universities brought in an estimated £24 billion to the UK economy from abroad in 2022. They provide services (education) to international students who bring money to the institutions from abroad through international fees. These students also bring money to the local economy by spending on goods and services while they are studying" (presumably there's an attempt to imply that those are bad courses in some way, but you haven't shown your working) | | |
| ▲ | linksnapzz a day ago | parent [-] | | How many destroyer keels has U. Essex laid down this decade? | | |
| ▲ | t0mpr1c3 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You'll find Colchester lads undeniably tasty around closing time on a Saturday. | |
| ▲ | pjc50 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | None? That's not really its job? | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | gruez a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >in what world is manufacturing, a sector that has been neglected for decades at this point, having any sway on politics in Britain. Are you confusing the lack of effective interventions with "neglect"? Nearly every administration in the past decade had some sort of an industrial policy, but even though they failed to bring manufacturing back to britain, that doesn't mean "neglect". It just means the forces of globalization is too strong. |
|
| ▲ | ifwinterco 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The economist is pravda for the global globalist class. It's not at all surprising that they're hostile to the idea of a nation doing anything to take its fate into its own hands when it comes to supply chains etc. |
|
| ▲ | linksnapzz a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The Economist is a mouthpiece for the money power, specifically the banking interests of the Rothschild and Cadbury families. The idea of making money by making things (as opposed to arbitrage) is anathema to them. |
| |
| ▲ | gruez a day ago | parent [-] | | >The idea of making money by making things (as opposed to arbitrage) is anathema to them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_stance_of_The_Econom... They're pro free trade against government intervention. That's not the same as "making things ... is anathema to them". They're for planning reform in uk, to help build infrastructure and homes, for instance. | | |
| ▲ | linksnapzz a day ago | parent | next [-] | | They're pro-offshoring of any sort of industrial base. Line-goes-up! | |
| ▲ | owebmaster a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > They're for planning reform in uk As long as the reform is to cut taxes for the rich | | |
| ▲ | gruez a day ago | parent [-] | | >As long as the reform is to cut taxes for the rich Source? Strangely "tax" only has one hit within the wikipedia article, and it's not about tax cuts. If it's really such an important part of their editorial stance, you should update the article. | | |
| ▲ | Chu4eeno 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | You are very naive about the neutrality of Wikipedia. Maintaining the Wikipedia page is part of what any PR/reputation management agency does. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Right, which is why the first part of my comment, before mentioning wikipedia at all is "Source?". Wikipedia might be biased, but it's a good starting point. Likewise, it's very hard to take you seriously when all you can do is complain about how wikipedia is biased/astroturfed, but can't provide any sources to contradict the wikipedia article, yet are willing to take a random commenter at face value. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | traceroute66 a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > look at China, look at their manufacturing industry and what they are able to do with it. "look at China" what ? Have you seen the population size of China ? Have you seen the geographic size of China ? Remember what is often said when Mr Trump talks about bringing tech manufacturing back to the US .... Yes great idea Mr Trump. But even with the most generously optimistic figures, due to the lack of available workforce and space the US could only ever provide the capacity equivalent to one Chinese manufacturing town of which the Chinese have dozens. |
| |
| ▲ | pjc50 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Have you seen the population size of China ? Have you seen the geographic size of China ? British thinking seems to be that because we won the Opium War we should just expect a country with 20 times our population and a vast land area to be poorer, both per capita and in total, than our island, forever. | | | |
| ▲ | 8note a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | the US and china are basically the same size geographically though? and the US federally owns tons of land it can create manufacturing cities out of | | |
| ▲ | traceroute66 a day ago | parent [-] | | > and the US federally owns tons of land it can create manufacturing cities out of Ok, being generous and accepting your point at face value .... What about the people staffing those manufacturing cities ? Is the state creating them too ? I seem to recall reading somewhere that – at most – the US could "find" 200,000 people for new manufacturing plants. Sounds about right to me, no ? I think even with a generous mind the US would struggle to "find" much more than that, let alone getting to or exceeding 1 million which is the value you would need for seriously thinking about >1 manufacturing city. | | |
| ▲ | nradov a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The US labor force participation rate is currently at a relatively low level. There is plenty of surplus labor available with the right economic incentives. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART | | |
| ▲ | cliglot a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > There is plenty of surplus labor available with the right economic incentives. Instead the “Economic incentives” go to the Chinese owners who then learn that Americans are not interested in working in a sweatshop and instead rely on third parties to supply them with illegal workers and engage in white collar crime. I’m suspicious of “re-industrialization” pushes because everywhere I’ve ever lived it’s resulted in at best a foreign company given massive tax breaks to create a few hundred low paid button pusher jobs and maybe a handful of better paying technician jobs. | |
| ▲ | gruez a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Isn't that just due to people retiring? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060 | | |
| ▲ | nradov a day ago | parent [-] | | No, the labor force metrics only include people of working age. | | |
| ▲ | yorwba a day ago | parent | next [-] | | They include the civilian noninstitutional population, which includes retirees who are not institutionalized in a nursing home: https://www.bls.gov/cps/definitions.htm#population | |
| ▲ | gruez a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Then why does my link specifically have a "25-54 Yrs" qualification, and has a totally different shape compared to the first link? The difference between the two is stark, 21.8 percentage points. Do you really think there's that many people willing to work between 18-25 and 54+? | | |
| ▲ | traceroute66 a day ago | parent [-] | | > Do you really think there's that many people willing to work between 18-25 and 54+? And willing to work long hours at the minimum-wage rates required for US-based manufacturing .... P.S. 18-25 and 54+ ... its actually 16–25 and 54+ I don't think you'll find many 16–18 year olds biting your arm off for a job in manufacturing either... | | |
| ▲ | nradov a day ago | parent [-] | | US average manufacturing average wage is $36/hr, which is far more than minimum wage. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES3000000003 | | |
| ▲ | foco_tubi 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The average does not represent the entry level wage, which is closer to minimum wage in some states. Why would you risk losing an appendage in a factory machine if you can fold t-shirts for the same pay? | |
| ▲ | traceroute66 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > US average manufacturing average wage is $36/hr, Chinese-scale manufacturing cities in the US at $36/hr ? Yeah, that ... ain't happening. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 8note 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | as far as people go, the US could grant citizenship to all those people its trying to deport? and there isnt a lack of people that would accept working in one of said manufacturing towns for 10 years or something to get US citizenship? If manufacturing was a serious problem, the US could definitely solve that problem too. |
|
|
|
