A fair point for low end manufacturing jobs, but then the alternative for the same workers is low end service jobs that aren't any better. That is they might pay much the same per hour, but then you find out it's not actually 38 hours a week but it's something less than that. Or it's casual employment. Or it's purely based on actual sales either as commission or because you're paid per km driven, delivery made, customer served, etc.
What manufacturing does do however is create a pathway at least for some into higher level employment. Eg go in as something basic, manual labour basically, and there's your opportunity to convince the right people you've got what it takes to do a trade apprenticeship. Once you've got that, well then you're worth a lot more working in that factory, and it also opens doors to employment elsewhere.
Personally well I can immediately think of examples of people I know or have worked with. One started out working in electronics manufacturing some decades ago. Long story short they ended up not only becoming an engineer, but were in charge of their last workplace and also hold patents in their own name too.
Another that comes to mind isn't manufacturing but it's near enough. Turned up as a contract cleaner at a power station, and to clarify that's just normal cleaning of the office, lunchroom, toilets and so on it's nothing specialised or technical. Last I knew they were still working at the same power station - it's just that they're now a qualified technician, a permanent employee of the company that owns it (as distinct from being a contractor).
And so on.
There's also the flow-on economic effects. Personally I don't work in manufacturing, but I've ultimately been paid by more than one manufacturer via my actual employer at the time. And that was paid overtime too, so I wasn't complaining. I'm certainly not the only one in that situation - you wouldn't have to ask too many people in Hobart before you found someone who's gained economically from Incat, the zinc works, whatever ANM has been renamed to these days or Cadbury at some time in their lives. Even if they've never been on the payroll, there's an awful lot who've worked somewhere that did work as a contractor, that supplied something, etc. Same in other cities where there's industry, men in particular you won't have to look too hard to find someone who's made money out of it somehow even if indirectly.
In all of this as I see it,
it comes down to what alternatives actually are available both in terms of employment and in terms of addressing "external" issues such as the balance of payments, supply security and so on.
What I don't follow how it would continue forever is a model where China (and other Asian countries) buy ores and fuels from Australia to produce goods which are sold to US consumers who as a whole can't really afford them. Whether it's currency debasement, borrowing, selling off assets or whatever, ultimately the US is living beyond its means and at some point that must surely become a crisis. In doing so that doesn't just kill manufacturing in China etc, it also cuts their need for Australian ores and fuels.
Same would then apply to Australia. If we start running big trade deficits, as we would if mining falters, then at some point that's got to end surely? There must surely be a limit somewhere to how much we can borrow, print the currency or sell off assets before the proverbial hits the fan. I mean the China, Thailand, Singapore, South Korea etc etc aren't going to just supply us forever out of the goodness of their heart, they're going to want something of tangible value in return.
The way I'm seeing it, this isn't a debate about whether manufacturing (or anything else) will improve life in the West but rather, it's that the present situation seems totally unsustainable. That being so, discussion of manufacturing isn't comparing it to the present but rather, it's comparing it to alternatives none of which are to carry on business as usual.
An analogy would be someone saying working doesn't sound anywhere near as much fun as going on holidays and partying, so why would they even consider working? True, generally work isn't fun, but it becomes a very different debate once it's accepted the inheritance isn't going to last and the banks won't lend without an income. Once you accept that point, once you accept that it's a job or it's outright poverty, that there is no option to continue living the high life, then all of a sudden getting a job becomes highly desirable.
As I see it, Trump's just brought all this forward. He's laid it bare what the situation is, rather than waiting for it to implode but it always was going to happen one way or another.
My expectation is we're going to go through the full cycle of grief, that being denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance in that order and that however long anyone expects that to take, it'll take far longer to play out.