Regardless, we'll have more jobs at the
end of Bush's term than at any point during the Clinton years.

And good thing, too.

I have seen from several sources that our economy needs to generate 150,000 net
new jobs per month just to stay even with the growing population of working age
adults.

During a four year presidency, that would be 7,200,000 net new jobs to stay
even.
Bush still has seven months to go to the four year finish line. If he's up by
7,200,000 jobs over what Clinton had at the end of that time, the employment
situation will be just as good as it was when Clinton was
embarrasing the office. Anything less probably means that there are a lot of
part timers, underemployed, and discouraged workers who have quit looking.

Gould 0738 wrote:

Regardless, we'll have more jobs at the
end of Bush's term than at any point during the Clinton years.


And good thing, too.

I have seen from several sources that our economy needs to generate 150,000 net
new jobs per month just to stay even with the growing population of working age
adults.

During a four year presidency, that would be 7,200,000 net new jobs to stay
even.
Bush still has seven months to go to the four year finish line. If he's up by
7,200,000 jobs over what Clinton had at the end of that time, the employment
situation will be just as good as it was when Clinton was
embarrasing the office. Anything less probably means that there are a lot of
part timers, underemployed, and discouraged workers who have quit looking.








bush will be damned lucked to be about even with clinton...seven million
jobs ahead...not a chance

NOYB wrote:

I guess the old adage applies he it takes one to know one.

Tread thou cautiously, Sir NOYB. The "liar" adjective has been trotted out
previously in this discussion. :-)

Gould 0738 wrote:

NOYB wrote:


I guess the old adage applies he it takes one to know one.


Tread thou cautiously, Sir NOYB. The "liar" adjective has been trotted out
previously in this discussion. :-)



Nobby has pretty close to the thickest blinders on of anyone in the
newsgroup with a working brain. Lack of one excuses Gawkin, Jackoff and
Bertie from the category.

Nobby has pretty close to the thickest blinders on of anyone in the
newsgroup with a working brain. Lack of one excuses Gawkin, Jackoff and
Bertie from the category.


C'mon, Harry. The NOYB and I are having an issues oriented discussion, (pretty
much so, anyway), and you wade in to try and stir up the entire right wing?

This issue is whether the Bush administration followed thorugh with its idea to
reclassify burger flippers, Subway sandwich builders, and ice cream scoopers as
"manufacturing" employees.
(And whether or not such reclassification is affecting the number of
manufacturing jobs in the most recent report).

You want to discuss who does or does not have a brain, start your own thread.
:-)

Gould 0738 wrote:
Nobby has pretty close to the thickest blinders on of anyone in the
newsgroup with a working brain. Lack of one excuses Gawkin, Jackoff and
Bertie from the category.



C'mon, Harry. The NOYB and I are having an issues oriented discussion, (pretty
much so, anyway), and you wade in to try and stir up the entire right wing?

This issue is whether the Bush administration followed thorugh with its idea to
reclassify burger flippers, Subway sandwich builders, and ice cream scoopers as
"manufacturing" employees.
(And whether or not such reclassification is affecting the number of
manufacturing jobs in the most recent report).

You want to discuss who does or does not have a brain, start your own thread.
:-)




One of the reports I saw indicated that the last month's job creation
figure included about 25,000 manufacturing jobs.

I recall the suggestion to reclassify burger flippin jobs as
manufacturing jobs, but have no idea whether it was implemented.

In any event, Bush will be damned lucky to end up at the same level of
employment as Clinton had, even if those Bush jobs don't begin to match
in quality, pay or benefits a similar nunmber of jobs in the Clinton
years. The quality of jobs and benefits is in a tailspin.

As far as Bush having a serious net gain in employment that compares
with the numerical gains in the Clinton years, that's not in the cards.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
You can debate the intentions of the proposal all you want, but the fact
is
fast-food jobs are *not* considered manufacturing jobs.

You're as dishonest as Harry, just smoother in your delivery.


Interesting. So, do you then feel that the document titled "President's
Economic Report" and that stated fast food jobs were a form of
manufacturing
was some sort of
liberal hoax?

I said we can debate the intentions of the *proposal* all you want, and I
will post the exact language for just that.

It is *you* that stated that they *were* counted as manufacting jobs, it is
up to *you* to back up your claim.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Hypothetically; If you discovered Bush *had* pumped up the mfg jobs
numbers by
including fast food workers, would you defend his doing so?

No.


Good answer. :-)

Now, do you have a list of the occupations included in the "mfg. jobs"
section
of the report you noted? I went to the bls website
you referred to, and found a gazillion reports, files, etc etc etc going
back
many years. Can you offer a more definitive link that will demonstrate
that in
spite of the administration's stated intention to reclassify burger
flipping as
a manufacturing job, they have not, in fact, done so? (Or had not done so
in
the time period covered by the report?)

I'd really like to be wrong on this one. It would be better all around if
the
administration wasn't pumping up the number of manufacturing jobs merely
by
expanding the number of job classifications defined as "manufacturing."


I can't address the "burger flipping as MFG jobs" question, but I noticed
this article today and it seems on topic:

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/we...chive_01212004

It would seem that the new jobs are at a lower wage than the jobs they are
replacing.

Mark Browne

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 02:30:59 +0000, Gould 0738 wrote:

Regardless, we'll have more jobs at the end of Bush's term than at any
point during the Clinton years.

And good thing, too.

I have seen from several sources that our economy needs to generate
150,000 net new jobs per month just to stay even with the growing
population of working age adults.

What is often overlooked, is that, due to low American birth rates, that
growing population of working adults is dependent on immigration. I was
surprised to learn that nearly all of the net increase in the Northeast's
labor force was due to immigration. As it is becoming increasingly clear
that our economic growth depends on immigration, I'm wondering just how
much post 9/11s tightening of our borders has had on our low job numbers.

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/sw.../swe0306a.html

As an aside, I noticed Chart 2 looked a little like the Red/Blue States
map. When placed against the following map, the comparison is quite clear.

http://www.massinc.org/commonwealth/..._red_blue.html

"Joe" wrote in message
...

I said we can debate the intentions of the *proposal* all you want, and I
will post the exact language for just that.

Ok, here is the exact text from the report from page 73-74 as referenced in
your CBS link. (link to full report
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/index.html )
You tell me were it recommends that fast food jobs should be classified as
manufacturing jobs.

Box 2-2: What Is Manufacturing?

The value of the output of the U.S. manufacturing sector as defined
in official U.S. statistics is larger than the economies of all but a
handful of other countries. The definition of a manufactured product,
however, is not straightforward. When a fast-food restaurant sells a
hamburger, for example, is it providing a "service" or is it combining
inputs to "manufacture" a product?
The official definition of manufacturing comes from the Census
Bureau’s North American Industry Classification System, or NAICS.
NAICS classifies all business establishments in the United States into
categories based on how their output is produced. One such category
is "manufacturing." NAICS classifies an establishment as in the
manufacturing sector if it is "engaged in the mechanical, physical, or
chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into
new products."

This definition is somewhat unspecific, as the Census Bureau has
recognized: "The boundaries of manufacturing and other sectors… can
be somewhat blurry." Some (perhaps surprising) examples of manufacturers
listed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics a bakeries, candy stores,
custom tailors, milk bottling and pasteurizing, fresh fish packaging
(oyster shucking, fish filleting), and tire retreading. Sometimes, seemingly
subtle differences can determine whether an industry is classified
as manufacturing. For example, mixing water and concentrate to
produce soft drinks is classified as manufacturing. However, if that
activity is performed at a snack bar, it is considered a service.
The distinction between non-manufacturing and manufacturing
industries may seem somewhat arbitrary but it can play an important
role in developing policy and assessing its effects. Suppose it was
decided to offer tax relief to manufacturing firms. Because the
manufacturing category is not well defined, firms would have an incentive
to characterize themselves as in manufacturing. Administering the tax
relief could be difficult, and the tax relief may not extend to the firms
for which it was enacted.

For policy makers, the blurriness of the definition of manufacturing
means that policy aimed at manufacturing may inadvertently distort
production and have unintended and harmful results. Whenever
possible, policy making should not be based upon this type of
arbitrary statistical delineation.