The US hasn't deindustrialized at all. Industrial production has increased pretty consistently as far back as I can find data.
What has increased in pace, though, is capacity per person, so manufacturing _jobs_ have decreased. It's less of a geopolitical issue and more of a domestic employment issue.
Idk what a hedonic multiplier is, but my understanding of that article is that production numbers measure the real $ value of output, not the actual quantity, making the production index misleading (e.g., if the US manufactured totally stopped except to make 1 computer chip costing $100 trillion, then manufacturing would seem to shoot up, even as it actually collapsed.)
If that's correct, then it's interesting: we're making few, valuable items now, rather than many, cheap items. It follows that automation isn't a drive towards cheaper production, but more a drive towards higher quality goods that simply require machines to make.
But it all takes me back to my point: from a geopolitical perspective, being good at highly-differentiated, tech-intensive, difficult-to-execute manufacturing is a great position. It's just a disaster from an employment perspective, because to get there, we traded away all our labor-intensive manufacturing.
Hedonic multiplier is the idea that a CPU that's twice as good should count for twice the GDP even if it doesn't actually sell for that. It's a strategy for overweighting our strengths in those manufacturing indices by confusing the relationship between money and value.
Intel was the lynchpin of this lie. We are in a thread about Intel becoming non-competitive at highly-differentiated, tech-intensive, difficult-to-execute manufacturing.
No, that is not a great geopolitical position to be in.
What has increased in pace, though, is capacity per person, so manufacturing _jobs_ have decreased. It's less of a geopolitical issue and more of a domestic employment issue.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INDPRO
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAPB50001SQ