I was just scanning the Monster.com jobs board for machinist jobs / listings by using their search box and the search word “machinist”. I was pleased to see more than 1,000 job listings for “machinists”.

Looking at the listings I saw numerious openings referring to CNC. I saw fewer specific references to “manual machinist”, but there were still plenty. It’s not yet an “all computers, all the time” machining world.

Which raises an interesting question: If we have “machines doing it” does that ultimately mean that there will be less demand for machinists, OR, by having more work performed “by automation” might that drive down production costs and increase demand for machined goods and machinists to handle the production?

Also, has automation of machining leveled the international production playing field by decreasing reliance on manual labor? In other words, as automation of production increasingly takes hold, will vast pools of cheap labor eventually fail to yield a “production advantage” . . . when labor becomes a less dominant cost per units of machined goods produced?

This is likely “big labor market math” but it’s certainly an issue I’d like to better understand.

Will automation of machining enable “rusk belt” States in the USA to re-emerge as machinery manufacturing centers? What do you think? Is automation an boon or a bust for the skilled trades in countries where labor costs are traditionally higher?

Generally, I’m neither a fan nor a critic of Andy Rooney’s commentary on CBS’s show “60 Minutes” but everyone once in awhile I think the gets things just about right.

The other night Andy, whose job I guess is to be provocative, dropped this little word bomb:

There’s only so much money in the world and if it’s lost at a gambling table, it’s money that isn’t spent on things America makes. I mean who’s best for this country – a machinist at an automobile plant in Detroit or a blackjack dealer in Las Vegas?

Source CBSNews.com

I don’t know about you but for my money’s worth the US of A has been investing a bit too heavily – almost exclusively – in its “finance industries” for the last 2-3 decades and not nearly enough in its manufacturing sector.

So score one for Andy for putting it succinctly, if not politically correctly. The US most definitely needs to recapture jobs and market share in the manufacturing sector.

More jobs for machinists! More industries employing machinists!

Interesting read: I searched Google news for “machinist” and, besides the various stories about strikes or accidents one news search result that stood out were snippets of news about machinists that had retired or were retiring.

Why is this noteworthy?

Well, as a country that proposes to get back into the “making things” game, a/k/a manufacturing, the retirement of a significant number of skilled machinists in the USA isn’t a good thing. Except, that is, unless you are someone who just graduated from trade school and is entering the job market for the first time, looking for work as a skilled machinist.

Still, the loss of insight, habits and practices – the accumulated knowledge and experience of skilled tradesmen – is never a good thing for any company or industry. Granted the technology of machining may be changing, it has always been my experience that no matter the technical advancement there are certain fundamentals of a skilled trade – machining, for example, that do not change.

It’s still often (always) true that “the old man has something to teach that’s worth knowing”.