Talk:Secondary sector of the economy
"Some economists contrast wealth-producing sectors in an economy such as manufacturing with the service sector which tends to be wealth-consuming." This seems to be a splinter view not worth mentionning in an article of this scope. Also the source cited is not academic. It is unclear in which way any sector of the economy should be more wealth-consuming or creating than any other. It depends on how one defines wealth, creation and consumption. While these are clearly thorny issues, the view that services are wealth consuming clearly is not a view held by many economists or any of rename, so "some economists" should be specified.
Why has the service sector been included in a page on the secondary sector? This clearly belongs in the Tertiary sector page - or at least it always has as far as I'm concerned and also who cares ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd really like to hear some persons with more economic background weigh in on this. To some extend the realm of information technologies (Computer science, telecom, etc.) belong in the secondary sector. Just because the medium at hand is intangible does not default the service as a member of the service sector. I propose that if a block of wood turned into a chair belongs here, than a block of silicon turned into a disk belongs here. While this is more the realm of computer manufacturing, which i doubt there is much argument that against its place here, computer science is an extention of the process. Whereas a block of wood is useless for sitting untill its final manifestation, a block of silicon is usless as a chip until it has been loaded with the appropriate logic to operate.
POV paragraph removed - wealth creating vs. consuming
Since I'm not the first person to have a problem with the neutrality of the below paragraph, I moved it here. This sounds like a conservative critique of the decline of manufacturing and rise in government funding of certain services in the U.S. and UK, without much context or balance. The references don't establish that the service sector in general is wealth-consuming, a claim which doesn't make much sense given how profitable some service businesses can be. -- Beland (talk) 10:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Some economists contrast wealth-producing sectors in an economy such as manufacturing with the service sector which tends to be wealth-consuming. Examples of service may include retail, insurance, and government. These economists contend that an economy begins to decline as its wealth-producing sector shrinks. Manufacturing is an important activity to promote economic growth and development. Nations that export manufactured products tend to generate higher marginal GDP growth, which supports higher incomes and marginal tax revenue needed to fund the quality-of-life initiatives such as health care and infrastructure in the economy. The field is an important source for engineering job opportunities. Among developed countries, it is an important source of well-paying jobs for the middle class to facilitate greater social mobility for successive generations of the economy.
- David Friedman, New America Foundation (2002-06-16).No Light at the End of the Tunnel Los Angeles Times.
- Sir Keith Joseph, Center for Policy Studies (1976-04-05).Stockton Lecture, Monetarism Is Not Enough, with forward by Margaret Thatcher. (Barry Rose Pub.) Margaret Thatcher Foundation (2006).