|
OT--Terrific employment news again
1 Attachment(s)
Showing Confidence in Economy, Employers Add 248,000 Jobs
By KENNETH N. GILPIN Published: June 4, 2004 In a clear sign of improved business confidence in the economy and its prospects, the Labor Department said this morning that employers added nearly a quarter million jobs to their payrolls in May. As significant, the government said that hiring in March and April was more robust than previously reported. With the revisions, nearly one million jobs have been created over the last three months. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
|
OT--Terrific employment news again
"jps" wrote in message ... In article , says... Showing Confidence in Economy, Employers Add 248,000 Jobs By KENNETH N. GILPIN Published: June 4, 2004 In a clear sign of improved business confidence in the economy and its prospects, the Labor Department said this morning that employers added nearly a quarter million jobs to their payrolls in May. As significant, the government said that hiring in March and April was more robust than previously reported. With the revisions, nearly one million jobs have been created over the last three months. And the unemployment rate didn't go down. LOL. You guys are too much. A few months ago, the liberals were whining that the unemployment rate didn't matter since it was based on the Household Survey data. What sort of jobs are we creating? High paying jobs or low wage jobs. Pretty good ones. It was the largest gain in manufacturing job in 6 years. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
Pretty good ones. It was the largest gain in manufacturing job in 6 years.
OK, but don't forget to note that mini-wage burger flippers were reclassified as "manufacturing" workers. Would tend to skew the numbers a bit, would it not? |
OT--Terrific employment news again
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Pretty good ones. It was the largest gain in manufacturing job in 6 years. OK, but don't forget to note that mini-wage burger flippers were reclassified as "manufacturing" workers. Would tend to skew the numbers a bit, would it not? Sure it would...if it were true. But it's not. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
Sure it would...if it were true. But it's not.
C'mon, NOYB. Do all the rw news sources really keep you guys that insulated? Or are you maintaining that the President's plan, outlined in the economic report of late February, simply hasn't been implemented yet? A few excerpts from the web: ******************* February 24, 2004 Rep. Dingell Challenges Mankiw on Fast-Food "Manufacturing" jobs Again, thanks to Atrios for the pointer. Rep. John Dingell, of Michigan, wrote a letter to CEA Chairman Mankiw this week, not only challenging the absurd classification of fast-food workers as “manufacturing jobs� but doing so with such humor that I rolled on the floor laughing – a rare thing when reviewing the Administration’s hijinks these days. Here are some fun quotes, but I recommend reading the whole thing: I am sure the 163,000 factory workers who have lost their jobs in Michigan will find it heartening to know that a world of opportunity awaits them in high growth manufacturing careers like spatula operation, napkin restocking, and lunch tray removal. Dingell goes on to ask key questions about this new trend in job creation, however: Will federal student loans and Trade Adjustment Assistance grants be applied to tuition costs at Burger College? Will special sauce now be counted as a durable good? ***************************** (CBS) Manufacturing jobs making things like airplane engines, cars and farm equipment are disappearing from the American economy. Or are they? According to a White House report, new manufacturing jobs might be as close as your nearest drive-thru. The annual Economic Report of the President has already stirred controversy by suggesting the loss of U.S. jobs overseas might be beneficial, and predicting that a whopping 2.6 million jobs will be created in the country this year. As first reported by The New York Times, the fast food issue is taken up on page 73 of the lengthy report in a special box headlined "What is manufacturing?" "The definition of a manufactured product," the box reads, "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?" it asks. Manufacturing is defined by the Census Bureau as work involving employees who are "engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products." But, the president's report notes, even the Census Bureau has acknowledged that its definition "can be somewhat blurry," with bakeries, candy stores, custom tailors and tire retreading services considered manufacturing. "Mixing water and concentrate to produce soft drinks is classified as manufacturing," the president's report reads. "However, if that activity is performed at a snack bar, it is considered a service." 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. 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. The annual economic report — most of which consists of charts and statistics — has been the focus of unusual scrutiny this year, perhaps reflecting the presidential campaign and concern about the lack of job creation despite an ongoing recovery. The report first touched off a furor with a statement regarding the "outsourcing" of U.S. jobs overseas, where wages are lower. "When a good or service is produced at lower cost in another country, it makes sense to import it rather than to produce it domestically. This allows the United States to devote its resources to more productive purposes," the report read. The statement, which reflects standard economic theory about the efficiencies of trade, was denounced by Democrats and Republicans alike. "These people, what planet do they live on?" asked Democratic presidential candidate and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. Even Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert wrote to the White House protesting at the claim. The president's top economic adviser and the lead author of the report, Gregory Mankiw, replied to Hastert that "My lack of clarity left the wrong impression that I praised the loss of U.S. jobs." Critics of the White House also seized on a chart in the report that suggested the administration expects 2.6 million new jobs by the end of the year. "I've got a feeling this report was prepared by the same people who brought us the intelligence on Iraq," said Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, a Massachusetts senator. The White House insisted the figure was just an estimate. ©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. Bush: We're At 'Turning Point' In Italy, Dubs War On Terror "Challenge Of Our Time" • Reagan Health Deteriorating • Smarty Looking To Make History • Another GI Killed In Baghdad • Dozer Rampager Dead Kerry's Uphill Fight For Vets Vote Dem Holds Rally With Fellow Veterans; Poll Shows Vets Favor Bush • Bush: We're At 'Turning Point' • Fla. Rep. To Replace Tenet? • Al Sharpton Gets TV Gig • Team Bush Is On A Crusade Back To Top • Help • Advertise • Contact Us • Terms of Service • Privacy Policy • CBS News Bios • Internships ©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. • Interactives • Washington Wrap • Lynch: Political Points • Meyer: Against the Grain • CBS News Polls • Complete Primary Results On The Job Explore America's labor economy, track recent major layoffs and meet key economic players. Bush Presidency Explore the Bush White House - facts, figures, major events and key personalities. Eye on the Economy Explore the U.S. economy through our in-depth features on U.S. markets, taxes, employment and the Federal Reserve. Story Bush Aides Back Off Jobs Numbers Story Bush Econ Advisor: Outsourcing OK Story Record U.S. Trade Deficit In 2003 Story Bush, Dems Fight Over Lost Jobs Story Huge Abortion Rights Rally In D.C. Story Kerry Wins, Edwards Grins Story Consumers Losing Their Nerve Story Retail Sales Spike Story Fed Chief Upbeat On Personal Debt Story Job Growth: Reality Or Fairy Tale? *************************** HIGHTOWER: Bush Creates New Manufacturing Jobs! By Jim Hightower, AlterNet March 9, 2004 I have excellent news, Americans! The Bu****es have come up with a sure-fire plan to increase the number of manufacturing jobs in the USA! Yes, while Democrats merely complain about the demise of such jobs, George W and his team are stepping forward with a creative, can-do solution that, I think, can only be described as astonishing. Their plan is proposed in the "Economic Report of the President." In it, George W's top economists assert that all of those people working in such fast food joints as McDonalds and Subway really are not part of the service economy – but more accurately should be reclassified as manufacturing workers, just as those who make cars and other industrial products. After all, contend Bush's crack team of job classifiers, when you insert that meat patty, lettuce, cheese, and ketchup into a sliced bun, you are engaged in the combining of inputs to "manufacture" a product, no less so than those who assemble electronic parts to manufacture, say, a computer. Bush's innovative economists also note that manufacturing is officially defined as "the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials into new products," and, they claim, when you heat ground beef, you are, in fact, chemically transforming it into a burger. Of course, if Bush can redefine hundreds of thousands of hamburger flippers as manufacturing workers, then he can statistically hush the critics who've been pointing to the drastic decline in these production jobs. There's another upside for the Bu****es, too – since manufacturing gets special tax breaks, suddenly Bush's backers in the fast-food industry serendipitously qualify. I'm with Bush on this one. After, all, by assembling nouns, verbs, and whatnot, I have manufactured this piece, and by applying the chemistry of my tiny brain cells, I have transformed raw words into a new product. Manufacturers of the world, unite! Now, where do I go to get my tax break? « Home « Top Stories |
OT--Terrific employment news again
NOYB wrote:
With the revisions, nearly one million jobs have been created over the last three months. Gee, that's great. How come we still have engineers coming to my door and pleading for a job almost daily? How come interest rates have barely twitched off the bottom of historic lows? DSK |
OT--Terrific employment news again
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 11:46:21 -0400, DSK wrote:
NOYB wrote: With the revisions, nearly one million jobs have been created over the last three months. Gee, that's great. How come we still have engineers coming to my door and pleading for a job almost daily? How come interest rates have barely twitched off the bottom of historic lows? DSK Good news is really bad news, isn't it? Has there ever been a time when no engineer was looking for work? 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. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
OT--Terrific employment news again
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 11:46:21 -0400, DSK wrote: NOYB wrote: With the revisions, nearly one million jobs have been created over the last three months. Gee, that's great. How come we still have engineers coming to my door and pleading for a job almost daily? How come interest rates have barely twitched off the bottom of historic lows? DSK Good news is really bad news, isn't it? Has there ever been a time when no engineer was looking for work? 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. There are many reasons why engineers and other technical fields are suffering. With the steady increase in productivity of computers, you do not need the bodies to do the equivalent amount of work that you used to, I recently completed a design of a 250,000 s.f. office building. The entire team...engineers, included, that worked on the project was 10. There were 500 sheets of drawings that were completed in under 6 months. Just a few years ago, it would have taken 3-4 times that many people to complete the same task. The construction industry always lags behind the rest of the economy as well. Look around a present day office, you don't see many secretaries like there used to be either. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
OT--Terrific employment news again
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 14:40:46 -0400, "Paul Fritz"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 11:46:21 -0400, DSK wrote: NOYB wrote: With the revisions, nearly one million jobs have been created over the last three months. Gee, that's great. How come we still have engineers coming to my door and pleading for a job almost daily? How come interest rates have barely twitched off the bottom of historic lows? DSK Good news is really bad news, isn't it? Has there ever been a time when no engineer was looking for work? 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. There are many reasons why engineers and other technical fields are suffering. With the steady increase in productivity of computers, you do not need the bodies to do the equivalent amount of work that you used to, I recently completed a design of a 250,000 s.f. office building. The entire team...engineers, included, that worked on the project was 10. There were 500 sheets of drawings that were completed in under 6 months. Just a few years ago, it would have taken 3-4 times that many people to complete the same task. The construction industry always lags behind the rest of the economy as well. Look around a present day office, you don't see many secretaries like there used to be either. I agree with you, Paul. However, there are some in this group who would claim that improved efficiency was simply a subversive plot of the Bush administration to keep good people out of work. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
OT--Terrific employment news again
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Sure it would...if it were true. But it's not. C'mon, NOYB. Do all the rw news sources really keep you guys that insulated? Or are you maintaining that the President's plan, outlined in the economic report of late February, simply hasn't been implemented yet? Nice swerve. First you state "don't forget to note that mini-wage burger flippers were reclassified as "manufacturing" workers", in an attempt to discredit the gain in manufacturing jobs, and then when called on this lie you change your tune to "simply hasn't been implemented yet" 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. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
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. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
"Joe" wrote in message ... "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Sure it would...if it were true. But it's not. C'mon, NOYB. Do all the rw news sources really keep you guys that insulated? Or are you maintaining that the President's plan, outlined in the economic report of late February, simply hasn't been implemented yet? Nice swerve. No, it wasn't a "nice swerve"...it was a blatant lie. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
"DSK" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: With the revisions, nearly one million jobs have been created over the last three months. Gee, that's great. How come we still have engineers coming to my door and pleading for a job almost daily? Engineers? Or do you mean IT guys? How come interest rates have barely twitched off the bottom of historic lows? Because it's an election year and, historically, the Fed chairman doesn't raise rates during an election year. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
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? Do you deny such a document exists? Do you deny that it stated fast food jobs were to be considered "manufacturing"? What portion of my statement, "including fast food workers in the manufacturing sector skews the statistics" do you find dishonest? President Bush directly stated that his administration intended to include burger flippers and sandwich wrappers in the totals for "manufacturing jobs". Has he changed his mind? If not, we're back to my original "swerve" that those "mfg jobs" aren't included yet they will be in the future. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
NOYB wrote:
No, it wasn't a "nice swerve"...it was a blatant lie. Hell, NOYB. Worse than that! It's a frickin' conspiracy. I just typed "burger manufacturing jobs" into Google and found 1214 other "blatant liars" Amazing how we all sit around and have the same hallucination at the same time, isn't it. :-) |
OT--Terrific employment news again
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. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
"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? Do you deny such a document exists? I deny that the current BLS statistics are skewed by burger flipping being classified as a manufacturing job...as you clearly stated. Do you deny that it stated fast food jobs were to be considered "manufacturing"? I deny that the current numbers reflect that "suggestion". What portion of my statement, "including fast food workers in the manufacturing sector skews the statistics" do you find dishonest? Perhaps the fact that fast food workers are *NOT* included in the current BLS statistics. The current stats show the greatest increase in the number of jobs in the manufacturing sector in 6 years...and fast food workers aren't included in those stats...contrary to what you stated. President Bush directly stated that his administration intended to include burger flippers and sandwich wrappers in the totals for "manufacturing jobs". Has he changed his mind? They weren't included. Check www.bls.gov If not, we're back to my original "swerve" that those "mfg jobs" aren't included yet they will be in the future. Perhaps they *will* be included (IMO they shouldn't be)...but they currently are *not* included, so it's deceitful to say otherwise. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: No, it wasn't a "nice swerve"...it was a blatant lie. Hell, NOYB. Worse than that! It's a frickin' conspiracy. I just typed "burger manufacturing jobs" into Google and found 1214 other "blatant liars" Amazing how we all sit around and have the same hallucination at the same time, isn't it. :-) I wouldn't know. I leave hallucinogenic drug experimentation to the liberals. Nevertheless, you said "burger flippers *WERE* reclassified as manufacturing workers". That's a lie. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
"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. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
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? |
OT--Terrific employment news again
Nevertheless, you said "burger flippers *WERE* reclassified as manufacturing
workers". That's a lie. See there. You believe the president even one time, (when he says that burger flipping is to be reclassified as a manufacturing job), and you're left swingin in the wind. Why do you suppose he said the administration was going to make the reclassification, if they did not? |
OT--Terrific employment news again
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. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
"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. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Nevertheless, you said "burger flippers *WERE* reclassified as manufacturing workers". That's a lie. See there. You believe the president even one time, (when he says that burger flipping is to be reclassified as a manufacturing job), and you're left swingin in the wind. Why do you suppose he said the administration was going to make the reclassification, if they did not? 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. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
Gould 0738 wrote:
Nevertheless, you said "burger flippers *WERE* reclassified as manufacturing workers". That's a lie. See there. You believe the president even one time, (when he says that burger flipping is to be reclassified as a manufacturing job), and you're left swingin in the wind. Why do you suppose he said the administration was going to make the reclassification, if they did not? It is indisputable that the Bush Administration lies about almost everything. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
"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. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Gould 0738 wrote: Nevertheless, you said "burger flippers *WERE* reclassified as manufacturing workers". That's a lie. See there. You believe the president even one time, (when he says that burger flipping is to be reclassified as a manufacturing job), and you're left swingin in the wind. Why do you suppose he said the administration was going to make the reclassification, if they did not? It is indisputable that the Bush Administration lies about almost everything. I guess the old adage applies he it takes one to know one. I also guess that's why I don't see the lies that you claim Bush is telling. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Gould 0738 wrote: Nevertheless, you said "burger flippers *WERE* reclassified as manufacturing workers". That's a lie. See there. You believe the president even one time, (when he says that burger flipping is to be reclassified as a manufacturing job), and you're left swingin in the wind. Why do you suppose he said the administration was going to make the reclassification, if they did not? It is indisputable that the Bush Administration lies about almost everything. I guess the old adage applies he it takes one to know one. I also guess that's why I don't see the lies that you claim Bush is telling. Of course you don't; you never will, no matter what. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
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." |
OT--Terrific employment news again
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. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
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 |
OT--Terrific employment news again
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. :-) |
OT--Terrific employment news again
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. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
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. :-) |
OT--Terrific employment news again
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. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
"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. |
OT--Terrific employment news again
"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 |
OT--Terrific employment news again
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 |
OT--Terrific employment news again
"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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com