Notes that the reason not to erect trade barriers is that globalization raises the overall wealth of society -- but doesn't continue to the next obvious point, which is that the overall wealth of a society can rise while the majority of the members of that society suffer financially, if the increase is distributed unequally enough (for instance: sufficiently concentrated in the hands of the wealthiest members of society). This, as it happens, is exactly what we have seen happen.

Not sure this is correct. While the proposals to enhance employment in the software industry at least seem reasonable, there's still an issue of scale -- while manufacturing may be way down from its peak at over 19 million (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/business/us-manufacturing-is-a-bright-spot-for-the-economy.html?_r=1), it still employs nearly 12 million people; the software industry, 1 million (http://www.bsa.org/country/Public%20Policy/~/media/Files/Policy/Security/General/sw_factsfigures.ashx).

Things got so bad that in 2008, Forbes Magazine called Lancaster the most vulnerable place in America

Problem here: if "many" in the key graph is more like "few"

"Shorter job tenure is associated with a new era of insecurity, volatility, and risk. It's part of the same employment picture as the increase in part-time, freelance, and contract work; mass layoffs and buyouts; and "creative destruction" within industries. All these changes put more pressure on the individual--to provide our own health care, bridge gaps in income with savings, manage our own retirement planning, and invest in our own education to keep skills marketable and up to date. Financial commitments like homeownership or starting a family are a much tougher proposition when one, you can't expect to stay in a place for long and two, you can't expect to ever earn more in real terms than you do at age 40, as recent surveys at Payscale.com suggest."

"And yet, many members of the American workforce, Hasler included, aren't pining for a return to the era of the long job."

Also: health care arrangements not flexible...

...3-D printing, and automated manufacturing at a small-distributed scale in other ways. This is a hobbyist phenomenon right now where you have a machine that takes some gloop, that connects to your computer, and then the gloop is printed out into something you might like, like a new Frisbee, or coat hanger, or clarinet mouthpiece, whatever it is. As this gets more and more sophisticated, it becomes possible that more and more things can be manufactured onsite instead of made in China or wherever, and then moved over through a huge transportation network...<br />
<br />
Once again, whenever you improve efficiency, when you save money, it's only the same thing as making money if you're already rich. If there are people who aren't rich enough to benefit from that, it just makes them poorer because they have less to do, and less ways to earn money.

Graph of industrial production in the US, 1920-2011.

whether your problem is alienation or lack of good jobs, it’s hard to present manufacturing as the solution unless you’re willing to take a radical stand against labor-saving technology, and in favor of lower material standards of living.

via @tomvanderbilt

via things magazine

jet fuel from algae for the same cost as its fossil-fuel equivalent

There’s a whole industry that needs to be invented to capture phosphorus

belanger

belanger

Belanger's Landscape Journal article

BASF is developing chemicals from bacteria and fungi instead of processing oil derivatives (via http://campbelldollaghan.tumblr.com/post/271963806)