McManufacturing Jobs
February 20, 2004 9:57 PM Subscribe
Er, the money quote of the article:
David Huether, chief economist for the National Association of Manufacturers, said he had heard that some economists wanted to count hamburger flipping as manufacturing, which he noted would produce statistics showing more jobs in what has been a declining sector of the economy.
I think the point of the article is that the adminstration is playing word games to try an make their economic policies look better. Kind of like trying to redefine the word "is." So it is about the current president.
posted by moonbiter at 10:36 PM on February 20, 2004
David Huether, chief economist for the National Association of Manufacturers, said he had heard that some economists wanted to count hamburger flipping as manufacturing, which he noted would produce statistics showing more jobs in what has been a declining sector of the economy.
I think the point of the article is that the adminstration is playing word games to try an make their economic policies look better. Kind of like trying to redefine the word "is." So it is about the current president.
posted by moonbiter at 10:36 PM on February 20, 2004
The report notes that the Census Bureau's North American Industry Classification System defines manufacturing as covering enterprises "engaged in the mechanical, physical or chemical transformation of materials, substances or components into new products."
Quite frankly, I think the above quoted passage was the "money quote". It basically tells you that any sort of "chemical transformation" is the basis for a manufacturing classification. Essentially, my taking a shit classifies as manufacturing, as long as I sold it.
The problem extends into the current administration, but the basis of said problem begins with what we consider manufacturing, GDP, and economic growth. Ask yourself why the President would want to inflate the manufacturing sector of our GDP. Ask yourself if the last 30 years of manufacturing decline is due to George W or some other factors altogether. There's a bigger picture here, but shitty articles like this completely neglect that and instead focus on current politics. Kerry, Edwards, Dean, whomever...NONE of them have offered concrete solutions for energizing our manufacturing sector. They've simply told you that Bush is to blame.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:46 PM on February 20, 2004
Quite frankly, I think the above quoted passage was the "money quote". It basically tells you that any sort of "chemical transformation" is the basis for a manufacturing classification. Essentially, my taking a shit classifies as manufacturing, as long as I sold it.
The problem extends into the current administration, but the basis of said problem begins with what we consider manufacturing, GDP, and economic growth. Ask yourself why the President would want to inflate the manufacturing sector of our GDP. Ask yourself if the last 30 years of manufacturing decline is due to George W or some other factors altogether. There's a bigger picture here, but shitty articles like this completely neglect that and instead focus on current politics. Kerry, Edwards, Dean, whomever...NONE of them have offered concrete solutions for energizing our manufacturing sector. They've simply told you that Bush is to blame.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:46 PM on February 20, 2004
But why the fuck should the public care? They just purchased a $70 DVD player, stole some movie off the 'net, and want to get laid while enjoying their credit card/local/state/national debt rise beyond repair.
muhahaha! yes! it is all precisely as we commoners planned it!
posted by quonsar at 11:49 PM on February 20, 2004
muhahaha! yes! it is all precisely as we commoners planned it!
posted by quonsar at 11:49 PM on February 20, 2004
Counting jobs at McDonald's, Burger King and other fast-food enterprises alongside those at industrial companies like General Motors and Eastman Kodak might seem like a stretch, akin to classifying ketchup in school lunches as a vegetable, as was briefly the case in a 1981 federal regulatory proposal.
This is a bigger deal than that, in a way. This proposal - while it has not yet been approved - would mean that accounting for what has happened during the Bush presidency would be changed.
NONE of them have offered concrete solutions for energizing our manufacturing sector. They've simply told you that Bush is to blame.
Who's to blame is not the issue. The issue is very much like the ketchup-as-a-vegetable issue: IF they decide to define certain jobs as a differnt KIND of job, the Bush administration's public assessment of what's going on is going to be skewed.
If the administration goes along with this idea, then they can point to charts that purport that manufacturing jobs are "up", when they are not.
It doesn't seem that they've done this yet, but what if they do? Isn't it an extremely sneaky way of redefining the terms in order to claim that joblessness is under control?
posted by interrobang at 11:51 PM on February 20, 2004
This is a bigger deal than that, in a way. This proposal - while it has not yet been approved - would mean that accounting for what has happened during the Bush presidency would be changed.
NONE of them have offered concrete solutions for energizing our manufacturing sector. They've simply told you that Bush is to blame.
Who's to blame is not the issue. The issue is very much like the ketchup-as-a-vegetable issue: IF they decide to define certain jobs as a differnt KIND of job, the Bush administration's public assessment of what's going on is going to be skewed.
If the administration goes along with this idea, then they can point to charts that purport that manufacturing jobs are "up", when they are not.
It doesn't seem that they've done this yet, but what if they do? Isn't it an extremely sneaky way of redefining the terms in order to claim that joblessness is under control?
posted by interrobang at 11:51 PM on February 20, 2004
Well remember, under the bush administration if you are so discouraged that you are no longer looking for a job you arent unemployed anymore.
posted by MrLint at 11:59 PM on February 20, 2004
posted by MrLint at 11:59 PM on February 20, 2004
[eats a ketchup sandwich to avoid starving]
posted by interrobang at 12:06 AM on February 21, 2004
posted by interrobang at 12:06 AM on February 21, 2004
Kerry, Edwards, Dean, whomever...NONE of them have offered concrete solutions for energizing our manufacturing sector.
This simply is misinformed. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who unfortunately falls under your "whomever", has offered concrete solutions. He just gets ignored by the media because he is a true liberal, or short, or single, or some other undefined reason.
posted by Goofyy at 2:08 AM on February 21, 2004
This simply is misinformed. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who unfortunately falls under your "whomever", has offered concrete solutions. He just gets ignored by the media because he is a true liberal, or short, or single, or some other undefined reason.
posted by Goofyy at 2:08 AM on February 21, 2004
If any changes are to be made, I am all in favor of any move to classify this administration as manufacturers.
Talk about supersizing...looks like just more sleight of hand along the "healthy forests" line to me.
But reclassifying fast food workers as manufacturing employees could have other advantages for the administration.
It would offset somewhat the ongoing loss of manufacturing jobs in national employment statistics. Since the month President Bush was inaugurated, the economy has lost about 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. That continues a long-term trend.
And the move would make the growth in service sector jobs, some of which pay low wages, more appealing. According to government figures, since January 2001 the economy has generated more than 600,000 new service-providing jobs. Building Blue-Collar … Burgers?
posted by madamjujujive at 6:52 AM on February 21, 2004
Talk about supersizing...looks like just more sleight of hand along the "healthy forests" line to me.
But reclassifying fast food workers as manufacturing employees could have other advantages for the administration.
It would offset somewhat the ongoing loss of manufacturing jobs in national employment statistics. Since the month President Bush was inaugurated, the economy has lost about 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. That continues a long-term trend.
And the move would make the growth in service sector jobs, some of which pay low wages, more appealing. According to government figures, since January 2001 the economy has generated more than 600,000 new service-providing jobs. Building Blue-Collar … Burgers?
posted by madamjujujive at 6:52 AM on February 21, 2004
Well remember, under the bush administration if you are so discouraged that you are no longer looking for a job you arent unemployed anymore.
posted by MrLint at 2:59 AM EST on February 21
Actually, that's a long standing BLS policy.
posted by reverendX at 12:11 PM on February 21, 2004
posted by MrLint at 2:59 AM EST on February 21
Actually, that's a long standing BLS policy.
posted by reverendX at 12:11 PM on February 21, 2004
There is another issue here from the 'how do we measure the economy' standpoint. The talk of 'productivity gains' driving the economy is not altogether an honest portrayal of our economy as it has changed in the last 50 years. If you go to Starbucks and instead of buying the $2 latte you go for the $3 monsterlatte, has the 'productivity' of the barista increased by 50%? By the way we currently measure worker efficiency, the answer is yes. The problem is that measuring productivity in a manufacturing economy is different than measuring productivity in a service economy.
There is a case to be made that the current 'productivity increases' are not real and the reports are hiding real systemic problems in the economy and labor markets. A reclassification of our service economy back to manufacturing would make it harder to quantify the real gains in productivity from the service-oriented 'fake' ones.
I am not claiming that technology etc is not producing real, lasting gains in worker productivity. Just that the gains the fed releases are vastly overstated.
posted by H. Roark at 7:40 PM on February 21, 2004
There is a case to be made that the current 'productivity increases' are not real and the reports are hiding real systemic problems in the economy and labor markets. A reclassification of our service economy back to manufacturing would make it harder to quantify the real gains in productivity from the service-oriented 'fake' ones.
I am not claiming that technology etc is not producing real, lasting gains in worker productivity. Just that the gains the fed releases are vastly overstated.
posted by H. Roark at 7:40 PM on February 21, 2004
Ah..."productivity increases."
Last August, I blogged another NY Times article (now behind the veil of pay-per-view) on the economy -- that one on productivity -- calling into question the common productivity metric as not the productivity of the nation but of those in the nation that are working, not the available inputs now laid off and minimally used. I wonder what the "whole system productivity" changes have been recently.
posted by fpatrick at 1:55 PM on February 23, 2004
Last August, I blogged another NY Times article (now behind the veil of pay-per-view) on the economy -- that one on productivity -- calling into question the common productivity metric as not the productivity of the nation but of those in the nation that are working, not the available inputs now laid off and minimally used. I wonder what the "whole system productivity" changes have been recently.
posted by fpatrick at 1:55 PM on February 23, 2004
« Older Qveere Eye for thye Medieval Man | ISP bringdown Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Ask yourselves this: Do any notable members of Congress accept the hypocrisy of accepting campaign donations from corporations yet continuing to rail against these same corporations that send blue-collar tech/manufacturing jobs overseas. Sure, it's cheaper to give others our jobs, but in the meanwhile we produce no practically valuable technology that would counter our job loss.
This isn't about Bush. It's about American politics and the fundamental selling out of its resources (LABOR!) in order to make a profit to help these same Americans stuff themselves with $2 cheeseburgers instead of $3 cheeseburgers. It's about making a short-term profit at the expense of long-term economic stability. But why the fuck should the public care? They just purchased a $70 DVD player, stole some movie off the 'net, and want to get laid while enjoying their credit card/local/state/national debt rise beyond repair.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:27 PM on February 20, 2004