"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
he new BLS numbers are not counting burger flipping as a
manufacturing job.

To even suggest it, is dishonest.

HEY! Stop the presses!!

NOYB and Gould agree!!

Woho!

Yes, absolutely. It is unquestionably dishonest to suggest that burger
flipping
is a manufacturing job.

Well said, NOYB. We'll make a liberal of you yet. :-)

NOYB wrote:

No matter what the proposed plan said in the "Economic Report of the
President", the new BLS numbers are not counting burger flipping as a
manufacturing job.

To even suggest it, is dishonest.


Now, *this* is a nice swerve. Let me clarify for you: What's dishonest is
the suggestion that the current BLS numbers are counting burger flipping as
a manufacturing job.

Now, *this* is a nice swerve. Let me clarify for you: What's dishonest is
the suggestion that the current BLS numbers are counting burger flipping as
a manufacturing job.

So, if you can stop calling me a "liar" for a moment, let's explore two
important questions.

1) In light of the statements made in late Feb that the definition of
manufacturing jobs should be expanded to include fast food workers, how do you
*know* that there are no burger flipping jobs included in the report? Do you
have a breakdown of the employees in the mfg category, by specific occupation?

((Don't overlook the fact that it was Bush who raised the question about adding
burger flippers to the manufacturing jobs numbers, in the Presidents Economic
Report. This isn't some DNC generated rumor, it's in writing in an official
presidential document))

2) If the current report does not include burger flippers in the manufacturing
jobs section, what assurance do we have (again, in light of the President's own
Economic Report) that they will not be included in the future? Has Bush
publicly renounced his idea to include fast food workers in the manufacturing
category? If so, I'd be eager to see a published report of his policy reversal.

Let's not lose sight of one important fact here. We both agree that it would be
dishonest to pump up the "manufacturing jobs" numbers by including mini wage
burger flippers.

Hypothetically; If you discovered Bush *had* pumped up the mfg jobs numbers by
including fast food workers, would you defend his doing so?

Gould 0738 wrote:

Now, *this* is a nice swerve. Let me clarify for you: What's dishonest is
the suggestion that the current BLS numbers are counting burger flipping as
a manufacturing job.


So, if you can stop calling me a "liar" for a moment, let's explore two
important questions.

1) In light of the statements made in late Feb that the definition of
manufacturing jobs should be expanded to include fast food workers, how do you
*know* that there are no burger flipping jobs included in the report? Do you
have a breakdown of the employees in the mfg category, by specific occupation?

((Don't overlook the fact that it was Bush who raised the question about adding
burger flippers to the manufacturing jobs numbers, in the Presidents Economic
Report. This isn't some DNC generated rumor, it's in writing in an official
presidential document))

2) If the current report does not include burger flippers in the manufacturing
jobs section, what assurance do we have (again, in light of the President's own
Economic Report) that they will not be included in the future? Has Bush
publicly renounced his idea to include fast food workers in the manufacturing
category? If so, I'd be eager to see a published report of his policy reversal.

Let's not lose sight of one important fact here. We both agree that it would be
dishonest to pump up the "manufacturing jobs" numbers by including mini wage
burger flippers.

Hypothetically; If you discovered Bush *had* pumped up the mfg jobs numbers by
including fast food workers, would you defend his doing so?



A. It would be useful to know what kinds of jobs were added, and what
they pay, and what benefits they include.

B. It is worthwhile to point out that at best, by election, Bush will be
less than even with the number of jobs added to the economy during the
Clinton years. In other words, we still are not back where we were in
the good old Clinton years.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Gould 0738 wrote:

Now, *this* is a nice swerve. Let me clarify for you: What's dishonest
is
the suggestion that the current BLS numbers are counting burger flipping
as
a manufacturing job.


So, if you can stop calling me a "liar" for a moment, let's explore two
important questions.

1) In light of the statements made in late Feb that the definition of
manufacturing jobs should be expanded to include fast food workers, how
do you
*know* that there are no burger flipping jobs included in the report? Do
you
have a breakdown of the employees in the mfg category, by specific
occupation?

((Don't overlook the fact that it was Bush who raised the question about
adding
burger flippers to the manufacturing jobs numbers, in the Presidents
Economic
Report. This isn't some DNC generated rumor, it's in writing in an
official
presidential document))

2) If the current report does not include burger flippers in the
manufacturing
jobs section, what assurance do we have (again, in light of the
President's own
Economic Report) that they will not be included in the future? Has Bush
publicly renounced his idea to include fast food workers in the
manufacturing
category? If so, I'd be eager to see a published report of his policy
reversal.

Let's not lose sight of one important fact here. We both agree that it
would be
dishonest to pump up the "manufacturing jobs" numbers by including mini
wage
burger flippers.

Hypothetically; If you discovered Bush *had* pumped up the mfg jobs
numbers by
including fast food workers, would you defend his doing so?



A. It would be useful to know what kinds of jobs were added, and what
they pay, and what benefits they include.

It would be useful to know what kinds of jobs were lost in the preceding 3
years, and what they paid, and what benefits they included.


B. It is worthwhile to point out that at best, by election, Bush will be
less than even with the number of jobs added to the economy during the
Clinton years. In other words, we still are not back where we were in
the good old Clinton years.

Oh, how quick your tone changes. I notice you're no longer spouting off
about the "3 million jobs lost". Regardless, we'll have more jobs at the
end of Bush's term than at any point during the Clinton years.

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

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

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!

"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.

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."