美国的MAGA梦能实现吗？回溯美国制造业百年变迁

Group 1 - The article discusses the historical significance of American manufacturing as a backbone of national strength and social structure, highlighting the decline of stable job opportunities for the middle class due to the loss of manufacturing jobs [4][5]. - It raises critical questions about whether the U.S. can bring back some manufacturing capabilities and if the service sector can fill the gap left by manufacturing in providing stable, middle-class jobs [5][36]. Group 2 - The formation of American manufacturing civilization was characterized by the ability of companies to integrate resources across states and industries, supported by government initiatives that set clear demand through public works and military procurement [7][8]. - The post-war period saw significant contributions from education and population structure, with the GI Bill expanding access to higher education and vocational training, while infrastructure projects like the Interstate Highway Act fueled domestic demand [11][12]. Group 3 - The decline of American manufacturing is attributed to three main forces: rising institutional friction, globalization pushing manufacturing to low-cost regions, and the concentration of wealth among high-skilled workers due to technological and financial trends [22][24][25]. - Institutional friction has led to a preference for less risky projects, making it harder for manufacturing to thrive in the U.S. as the approval processes become longer and more complex [24][26]. Group 4 - The article emphasizes that while nominal GDP share of manufacturing has decreased, the actual output has remained stable, indicating that manufacturing has not disappeared but rather shifted in its role within the economy [30][34]. - Employment in manufacturing peaked in June 1979 at 19.6 million and has since declined to approximately 12.8 million by June 2019, reflecting a significant drop in its share of total employment [35][68]. Group 5 - The service sector's ability to absorb displaced manufacturing jobs is questioned, as it struggles to provide sufficient, well-paying jobs with clear career advancement paths, particularly in a high-cost living environment [36][39]. - The article outlines that the service sector is characterized by a "dumbbell structure," where high-end jobs require significant education and skills, while low-end jobs offer low wages and instability, making it difficult to support a middle-class lifestyle [39][40]. Group 6 - The discussion on re-industrialization in the U.S. highlights the need for a dual approach: ensuring national security in critical industries while also addressing the social structure to allow ordinary people to share in economic growth [44][46]. - The article suggests that a realistic path forward involves selective return of manufacturing capabilities, focusing on key industries while also investing in infrastructure, energy transition, and skill development to create stable job opportunities [49][51]. Group 7 - The challenges of re-establishing manufacturing in the U.S. are not solely financial; they also include regulatory hurdles, skill shortages, supply chain density, and overall cost structures that complicate the return of manufacturing jobs [53][54][55]. - The article argues that simple policies like tariffs and subsidies are insufficient to address the complex structural issues facing American manufacturing and that a more nuanced approach is necessary [56][58]. Group 8 - The article concludes that if manufacturing cannot recreate a robust middle class, the U.S. must explore a combination of industries to provide dignified work for ordinary people, including infrastructure, energy transition, and restructured service sectors [60][61]. - It emphasizes that the ultimate goal is to restore a social structure where ordinary people can achieve dignity through work, rather than merely focusing on the number of manufacturing jobs [62][63].