Why not move much of the government operations throughout flyover country (article suggests mid-west, but it ought to be wider / more spread out than that)?

That is certainly within the POTUS’ power to do, and doesn’t involve much, if any, hand into the private economy (i.e. industrial policy).
http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/12/9/13881712/move-government-to-midwest

Ha, glad you made clear which people you were referring to. 😉

Anyone who believes any combination of regulatory reform and tax cuts can lead to mid or lomg term salvation from the overwheling burden of 100+ trillion unfunded liabilities should contact me. I have ocean front property in Iowa available for 10 cents per 100 foot of frontage. BTW, ocean beaches in Iowa come with coconut palms and 72 dancing naked virgins; female virgins of course.

I am not for new regulations that intervene in the dynamism of our economic system, nor playing favorites over industries and corporations. That all just invites more corruption, as well.

If we need to help people, let’s keep the focus to providing THEM help, not on obstructing everyone else’s economic decision.

Another link I recently came across:
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/real-estate/2015/05/21/facebook-looking-at-north-fort-worth-for-huge-data-center

Yes, it is an example of yet more government incentives, which I do not favor, BUT, the striking thing is the dollar value vs the jobs…

“A project worth nearly $1 billion that’s in the works for North Fort Worth hopes to lure social media giant Facebook to Texas. … The data center in the works for North Fort Worth is projected to have about 40 workers. … “There are municipalities and states that have figured out that just because it’s not a lot of people, it’s still important,” Holcomb said”

The US manufacturing sector is (and has been steadily for decades but for 2008) increasing output, while, yes, their employment levels have decreased dramatically.

At the same time manufacturing has had a declining share of the global GDP.

Is the US “losing out”?

Maybe, the explanation is that we are collectively paying less for manufactured goods, which allows us collectively to have more to purchase other goods and services!
.

Perhaps the real question is what does one do with folks who do get displaced in a dynamic economy?

Arguing for trade barriers, special tax incentives and subsidies for those in the industry treat the symptom, not the real problem.

What happens to those employed in those other sectors, if we follow through with what you imply you want for the manufacturing sector?
.

If we are only looking at the jobs part of the economic balloon, and ignoring the other part of the balloon….

…With employment as the basis for justifying serious economic intervention by the government, then perhaps it should shut down Amazon and all internet shopping.

Why not? Consumers will go back to shopping at physical locations, and then people can get their jobs back at those brick and mortar retailers.

After all, retailers have long argued it is “unfair” competition.
.

I’ve written in more detail here on this topic:
http://neoneocon.com/2016/12/01/the-showman-president/#comment-2004134

There are something like 90 million manufacturing workers in China…surely at least half of them are producing for export. Of course, not all the exports go to the US, but also, China is by no means the only country producing for the US market. It is probably safe to estimate that at least 20-30 million people in other countries are making things that go to the US.

This does not represent a direct displacement of US labor, owing to higher US productivity (employee-driven, process-driven, and equipment-driven)…probably comes out to somewhere around 3-6 million US manufacturing workers not required because of product imports. There are of course many additional jobs in the economy that are also displaced indirectly.

Yes, technological change reduces labor intensity of manufacturing…as it has been doing for two centuries..but it’s not either-or. The effects of automation and of imports have a combined effect on employment and wage levels.

“”[T]his is 2016 not 1986. The world is a different place. The concerns and priorities of the American people are different today from what they were 30 years ago. The voters spoke with a thunderclap. … I don’t approve of all of these shifts, but they are what the voters voted for.” – Steve Moore

Moore’s broader argument seems to be that Donald Trump won, and thus all of his policies should win. … Moore radically exaggerates the popularity of Donald Trump’s program in order to make this case: … Trump won the lowest percentage of the primary vote since Reagan in 1968 (Reagan lost that nomination to Nixon), and had the most votes cast against him of any nominee in history. Trump did not win a sweeping national victory – in fact, he lost the popular vote by well over two million votes and came in 44th out of 54 elections in terms of the Electoral College. That’s not the mark of a sweeping mindset change among Americans.“ – Ben Shapiro
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/trump-economic-adviser-moore-doubles-down-this-is-trumps-party-now