"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?

Yes.

Do you deny such a document exists?

A document in which the president states that "fast food jobs were a form of
manufacturing"?
Yes I do deny it.


Do you deny that it stated fast food jobs were to be considered
"manufacturing"?

Yes.


What portion of my statement, "including fast food workers in the
manufacturing
sector skews the statistics" do you find dishonest?

The part where you said they "were" included.


President Bush directly stated that his administration intended to include
burger flippers and sandwich wrappers in the totals for "manufacturing
jobs".


He, nor anyone from his administration has ever said this.
From the CBS link you provided-
"The report does not recommend that burger-flippers be counted alongside
factory workers."
Instead, it concludes that the fuzziness of the manufacturing definition is
problematic, because policies — like, for example, a tax credit for
manufacturers — may miss their target if the definition is overly broad or
narrow.

Has he changed his mind?

How can he change his mind on something he never said?

If not, we're back to my original "swerve" that those "mfg jobs" aren't
included yet they will be in the future.

Yes, we're back to *your* lie.

"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.

Joe wrote:

Yes, we're back to *your* lie.

Lie?

I asume that you are prepared to make the same "liar" charge against Gregory
Mankiw, (Chairman of the President's Economic Advisors) who has publicly stated
that switching burger flipping to a manufacturing job is an "important
consideratin" of the Bush economic recovery plan?

*******************


According to The New York Times, the idea of reclassifying fast-food
restaurants as manufacturers is buried in 417 pages of statistics included in
the new report. But Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the president's Council of
Economic Advisers, is certainly not shying away from this plan. In a speech
last week to economists in Washington, Mankiw said that classifying hamburger
flippers as manufacturers is "an important consideration" for the
administration's economic policy.

(From the Macomb Daily, 2-29-2004)
******************************************

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Joe wrote:

Yes, we're back to *your* lie.

Lie?

I asume that you are prepared to make the same "liar" charge against
Gregory
Mankiw, (Chairman of the President's Economic Advisors) who has publicly
stated
that switching burger flipping to a manufacturing job is an "important
consideratin" of the Bush economic recovery plan?

*******************


According to The New York Times, the idea of reclassifying fast-food
restaurants as manufacturers is buried in 417 pages of statistics included
in
the new report. But Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the president's Council of
Economic Advisers, is certainly not shying away from this plan. In a
speech
last week to economists in Washington, Mankiw said that classifying
hamburger
flippers as manufacturers is "an important consideration" for the
administration's economic policy.

(From the Macomb Daily, 2-29-2004)
******************************************



Why not go back and address each (snipped) question that I answered, in
order, and then I'll answer this one?

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 00:48:23 -0400, thunder wrote:

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

An enlightening post, thunder, thank you.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

NOYB wrote:

I didn't read the Economic Report...only the commentary of liberal
pundits. I'll read the report and give you my perspective...

"which I'm sure will be different from that of the liberal pundits".

Then there is no reason to read it if you have already made up your mind.

I think we all agree to a limited degree that "burger flipping" and related
jobs, shouldn't be included.

--
_______m___õ¿~___m_________________________
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take,
but by the moments that take our breath away".
--George Carlin--

Why not go back and address each (snipped) question that I answered, in
order, and then I'll answer this one?

Because you are the party that has abandoned discourse in favor of name
calling.

You want to holler "liar", then it should be easy enough for you to post the
list of occupations included in the "manufacturing jobs" portion of the report
and establish that Bush did not follow through with his own, announced,
intention and "important consideration" of including fast food workers in the
mfg job category.

I don't have such a list either. I was simply relying on the President's recent
assertions, (in the President's Economic Report) that burger flippers belong in
the manufacturing category. Guess that's what happens when you believe the
president.

Why is it so many of you guys over there think that hollering "liar" or
"traitor" when you hear something you disagree with is some sort of substitute
for reasoned discussion?

I hope that Bush did not put the burger flippers in the mfg category. All I
know for a fact is that he said earlier this year that the burger flippers
*should* be included, members of his administration have since defended that
position, and then lo an behold, a few months before the election,
manufacturing jobs enjoy this whalloping increase.

If someone will produce evidence that Bush changed his mind about burger
flipping being a "manufacturing job" or post a list of the occupations included
in the "manufacturing jobs" category in the report NOYB mentioned, I would be
willing to concede an error in assuming that Bush followed through with his
announced plan.

In the mean time, aside from playground-level insults and unsupported denials
from Bush supporters, we have no evidence that the fast food workers were *not*
factored in to Mickey up the numbers.

John H wrote:

Good news is really bad news, isn't it?

Umm, no. My point was that the good noews is unfortunately accompanied
by lots more bad.

... Has there ever been a time when no
engineer was looking for work?

Oh yes. The class before mine was 85% recruited before graduation and
100% employed in the field. AFAIK that was the peak.

In the boom years of the middle 1990s we could not hire anybody for a
salary the company could afford.

I'm sure that somehwere, some engineer was looking for a job... but
unless he was a complete idiot he found one quick.


... If the employment rate were 1%, would no
engineers be out of work. The employment rate is better than it was throughout
the 90's, yet there is this persistent whine.

Maybe that's because the unemployment rate is not a true reflection of
how many people are out of work... by which I mean the work they are
trained & qualified for, not pumping burgers...

It is an economic verity: when the demand for capital rises, interest
rates rise. When the demand for goods & services rise, the demand for
capital to create the jobs will rise. So, as long as interest rates are
dead on the floor, so is the economy. Of course, the current picture is
better IMHO than double digit inflation, but then, I currently have a
job. If I was flipping burgers, I'd see it differently.

DSK

DSK wrote:

John H wrote:


Good news is really bad news, isn't it?


Umm, no. My point was that the good noews is unfortunately accompanied
by lots more bad.

... Has there ever been a time when no
engineer was looking for work?


Oh yes. The class before mine was 85% recruited before graduation and
100% employed in the field. AFAIK that was the peak.

In the boom years of the middle 1990s we could not hire anybody for a
salary the company could afford.

I'm sure that somehwere, some engineer was looking for a job... but
unless he was a complete idiot he found one quick.


... If the employment rate were 1%, would no
engineers be out of work. The employment rate is better than it was
throughout
the 90's, yet there is this persistent whine.


Maybe that's because the unemployment rate is not a true reflection of
how many people are out of work... by which I mean the work they are
trained & qualified for, not pumping burgers...

It is an economic verity: when the demand for capital rises, interest
rates rise. When the demand for goods & services rise, the demand for
capital to create the jobs will rise. So, as long as interest rates are
dead on the floor, so is the economy. Of course, the current picture is
better IMHO than double digit inflation, but then, I currently have a
job. If I was flipping burgers, I'd see it differently.

DSK



Herring prefers the simple-minded answers that raise no questions...it's
easier for guys like him when they can believe in their political leader
and not worry about the millions on the fringes...

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:01:26 -0400, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:

Good news is really bad news, isn't it?

Umm, no. My point was that the good noews is unfortunately accompanied
by lots more bad.

... Has there ever been a time when no
engineer was looking for work?

Oh yes. The class before mine was 85% recruited before graduation and
100% employed in the field. AFAIK that was the peak.

In the boom years of the middle 1990s we could not hire anybody for a
salary the company could afford.

I'm sure that somehwere, some engineer was looking for a job... but
unless he was a complete idiot he found one quick.


... If the employment rate were 1%, would no
engineers be out of work. The employment rate is better than it was throughout
the 90's, yet there is this persistent whine.

Maybe that's because the unemployment rate is not a true reflection of
how many people are out of work... by which I mean the work they are
trained & qualified for, not pumping burgers...

It is an economic verity: when the demand for capital rises, interest
rates rise. When the demand for goods & services rise, the demand for
capital to create the jobs will rise. So, as long as interest rates are
dead on the floor, so is the economy. Of course, the current picture is
better IMHO than double digit inflation, but then, I currently have a
job. If I was flipping burgers, I'd see it differently.

DSK

So the unemployment rate was zero at the time you graduated?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!