By almost any measure, the US manufacturing sector is going like gangbusters(2).

Well, almost any measure.

"Peculiar travel suggestions are dancing lessons from God."

As with any facet of the economy, the issue is complex Complex? I daresay some would try to simplify the issue...perhaps dumb it down. Such as counting fast food as manufacturing.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

That's one of the problems with getting your news from fringe sources such as Alternet. You end up with a skewed, partisan (and simplistic, I daresay) look at complicated issues. The 2004 Economic Report of the President was posing a serious question about how economists ought to evaluate certain sectors of the economy. The question about fast food preparation and its proper place in economic analysis was never implemented as a change to policy, and has no bearing on what I wrote above.

Jim Hightower (the author) is fringe?

And, yes it does have a bearing on what you wrote.  Manufacturing may be going like "gangbusters", but even as you mentioned, actual employment (i.e. people) in that sector is down.  So, while we're making more stuff, we have fewer people (with good wages) making it.  This has to be bad news for any administration, not just Bush's.  What's appalling about the report is that they would even count making hamburgers as manufacturing in the first place.  That's just a cynical way to pimp the numbers so folks will think things are ok.  As as far as that policy not being implemented, I daresay that it's because of the howls of outrage and derision from folks.  "Fast food is manufacturing?  Are you shitting me?"

How does this fit into the big picture?  The parent post by tyger was spot on where he said that groundbreaking science is critical for this country...and by vetoing the stem cell bill, we have taken a big step back from cutting edge research.

Which brings me back to my original question...Do you want fries with that?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Jim Hightower (the author) is fringe?

Um, yes? The self-proclaimed "#1 Populist" is unthinkingly partisan and unapologetically liberal.

So, while we're making more stuff, we have fewer people (with good wages) making it.  This has to be bad news for any administration, not just Bush's

That is probably true, but it says more about the generally poor understanding of economics among the American population than it does about how well the nation is doing.

What's appalling about the report is that they would even count making hamburgers as manufacturing...

It's not appalling at all. (It is, in fact, a misquote from the report, written either from ignorance or malicious disregard of the truth. Hard to tell with Jim Hightower, but it's generally one or the other in his editorials.) The idea comes from mainstream economic theory and was put forth by a respected economist, not some careless partisan hack. And it's clear that your entire understanding of the issue comes from ill-conceived and shallow articles such as the ones found on Alternet. The report's author was not "[counting] making hamburgers as manufacturing," but was using the example of fast food to illustrate a problem with using broad and arbitrary economic categories wen formulating public policy:

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 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

It was that small, reasonable side note (in a 400-page report) that do-nothings like Hightower seized upon to try to criticize the Bush Administration's economic policies.

How does this fit into the big picture?  The parent post by tyger was spot on where he said that groundbreaking science is critical for this country...

I agree with the narrow idea that scientific research is crucial to the long-term health of the US economy. I also think that Bush's position on stem cell research is illogical and, ultimately, wicked. But the notion that the US economy is going to hell in a handbasket is unsupported by tyger's comment about the manufacturing sector. (His statement about US agriculture is similarly absurd, and won't stand up to a careful application of facts.)

Do you want fries with that?

Yes, please.

   

Um, yes? The self-proclaimed "#1 Populist" is unthinkingly partisan and unapologetically liberal.

And of course, Rush, Bill, et al are all thoughtful and flexible in their outlook.  That's why their claims to be mainstream are impossible to refute.

    So, while we're making more stuff, we have fewer people (with good wages) making it.  This has to be bad news for any administration, not just Bush's

That is probably true, but it says more about the generally poor understanding of economics among the American population than it does about how well the nation is doing.

Poor understanding?  Well, it's not hard to affix that phrase to anything to do with economic theory.  However, I would guess that a factory worker who just watched his/her job vanish has a pretty good idea of what's going on.  But hey, even though their lives have been turned upside down, at least these displaced workers can take comfort in knowing that the nation is doing well.

Which brings me to a question...Granted, manufacturing productivity is improving all of the  time.  Fewer workers...more stuff, etc, etc.  This probably works very well for the company execs and the shareholders.  However, what about the long run?  Workers replace well paying jobs for those with much lower pay, less security, and fewer benefits.  Even though we are better at making stuff, are we any better at buying stuff?  Is this kind of national and economic wellness sustainable?

It was that small, reasonable side note (in a 400-page report) that do-nothings like Hightower seized upon to try to criticize the Bush Administration's economic policies.

Funny, I think that was the same argument that the Bush administration used to deflect criticism.  C'mon Z, we both know that politicians of all stripes drop little bon mots like this into larger reports and saying later, "oh that?  It's nothing...just a parentetical comment...move on, nothing to see".  If this were just an isolated incident of flipping the definitions to make things sound better, I would probably just say, meh, it's just a comment.  But this small thing harkens back to the times in the Reagan administration where his economists said that the service sector was a better deal than manufacturing...or when his folks at the USDA (or HHS, I don't remember) said that ketchup is a vegetable.  

I guess in the end, it all comes down to opinion.  You say that this is a harmless and reasonable question.  I say that this is a fairly risk-free (and cynical) way to test market a bad idea.  Well, it's not a bad idea if your goal is to find a way to artificially comfort the passengers on a sinking ship.  To wit from the part of your quote that left out this comment: "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." (my emphasis)

So, you and me Z.  How do you want to work this?  Do you want the job in back assembling hamburgers or would you rather work up front in the sales and marketing division?

McJobs: Billions and billions of hamburgers...manufactured?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

...Rush, Bill, et al are all thoughtful and flexible in their outlook

I'm not sure I see your point. Why did you mention them? Did they write editorials criticizing the Economic Report to the President?

...what about the long run?  Workers replace well paying jobs for those with much lower pay, less security, and fewer benefits.  Even though we are better at making stuff, are we any better at buying stuff?  Is this kind of national and economic wellness sustainable?

The sustainability question sounds like a variation of the lump of labor fallacy. The US economy has been steadily reconfiguring itself for the past half-century in terms of employment becoming less manufacturing-centered. And it's done that while keeping unemployment low and wages high. The idea that service sector jobs necessarily pay worse than manufacturing jobs is just plain wrong. The peak of the US manufacturing sector in terms of percentage of all employment happened back in the 1950s. The peak of the US manufacturing sector in total number of jobs happened in the late 1970s. Yet median income for the nation rose from the 50s through the 70s, and has continued to rise since then.

There is undoubtedly short-term disruption to families and communities when manufacturing firms fail due to overseas competition. That, however, is no reason to fear the inevitable structural change to the job market.

You say that this is a harmless and reasonable question.  I say that this is a fairly risk-free (and cynical) way to test market a bad idea

The quote from the report that I pasted above explains why it might be a good idea, and is at least a thing that should be carefully considered. But you haven't said why you think it is a bad idea. Standard economic statistical methods are periodically modified as theory improves. Why should the definition of manufacturing be exempt from such refinement?

(His statement about US agriculture is similarly absurd, and won't stand up to a careful application of facts.)

Interesting.  Well then, tell me/us all about the wide swaths of the American heartland [hint: where my family is from - double hint: from somewhere that would literally vanish from the map were it not for farm subsidies] that would not just totally implode and cease to exist if it were not for farm subsidies.

Moreover, tell us all about how the US agriculture industry is a stuning example of the free market at work.  Since it's not.  Farm subsidies are nothing but a third rail that no one dares touch lest votes be lost.

And other lampoonery of such kind.

Well then, tell me/us all about the wide swaths of the American heartland...that would not just totally implode and cease to exist if it were not for farm subsidies

I suspect that the 60% of US farmers who receive no subsidies at all would be just fine. And I think that even Iowa, where 70% of farms receive subsidy money, would continue to grow approximately the same amount of corn as they do now. Sure, some marginal farms would become unprofitable, and some farmers would be forced to sell their land, but as long as Americans continue to like their beef and soda, there will be a demand for corn.

...tell us all about how the US agriculture industry is a stuning example of the free market at work

I never claimed that it was. I was only objecting to your idea that America's "agricultural base can't survive without coastal welfare." It would not only survive, but would thrive if the fetters of the mismanaged economy were removed.

Are you counting tobbacco in the magnificent 70% number? Also, is that a per-farm percentage, or a per acre?  'Cause last I checked the big non-family farming corporations all feed from the trough.  And I believe Glaxo-Smith-Kline farms as much as several hundred small families..if they get subsides, then who care is 100 familes with 10 acre farms don't?

Are you counting tobbacco in the magnificent 70% number?

I don't think so. My data came from the farm subsidy database website. But I don't think they grow much tobacco in Iowa.

And I believe Glaxo-Smith-Kline farms as much as several hundred small families...

I don't know. But I didn't notice them on the list.

Are you counting tobbacco...?

Oh, I just looked it up: tobacco subsidies are something like 1/2% of all farm subsidies. The proverbial drop in the bucket. Got to scrape the bottom of the pork barrel just to find some.

My understanding of the issue is that ADM would still grow corn and soybeans, in abundance and with profit, albeit with a lot less profit. It's the family-to-midsized farms that would disappear, and with that the crop diversity that would allow the US to feed itself in an all-out trade war.

Speaking of trade wars, it's the farm subsidies to the largest US agribusinesses that's threatening to start a real one, and that is stalling the progress to true globalization.

(His statement about US agriculture is similarly absurd, and won't stand up to a careful application of facts.)

As I said in my last post, big-scale agribusiness would do just fine if farm subsidies were ended.

But it's interesting to note how the stem-cell issue shows how increasingly ham-handed the Republicans have become; they've mixed their earmarks (pork for friends in big pharma) with their anger points (murdering babies!)

The self-proclaimed "#1 Populist" is unthinkingly partisan and unapologetically liberal.

Then we should carefully think the opposite of whatever he tells us.  Thanks for the tip, zyx!

The idea comes from mainstream economic theory and was put forth by a respected economist, not some careless partisan hack.

Hmmm...mainstream economist = careless partisan hack, so far as I can tell.

Why do you say that?

We can't even make cars anymore.  Sure, SUVs and other massive vehicles, but do tell, when was the last time a US car manufacturer ruled the roost?  You know, THE CAR, the thing without which the US can not function.  Consumer electronics?  My partner and I just ditched a TV that was so old we calibrate people by saying "this one one of the last TVs actually manufactured in the US" [hint: 20+ years old].  So cars and TVs.  We can't even make those.  Really inspiring.  Sure, we manufacture raw materials, but take a spin into the nearest Wal-Mart and tell me how many of those goods [ie: the ones that everyone buys] are made in the US.

Sure, we have a manufacturing industry, but look me in the eye and say that the US manufacturers can actually make the things that people buy on a day to day basis.  You can't, because we don't. Well, we sort of can, with massive subsidies in certain sectors.

That's why I say that.  Ok, let me rephrase that - the US is incapable of supporting even a fraction of it's own consumer economy.

And other lampoonery of such kind.

I'm sitting in my cube at work and can see 50 to 60 things that were manufactured in the US.  Your comment is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read.  Just because you can't buy a US made TV doesn't really prove anything other than companies in the US are smart enough not to manufacture low profit commodities.

NOTE TO EDITORS: I thought I replied to the above comment already, but I'm not seeing it now. I can imagine that someone would have modded it down, so I'll try again, and hopefully this time it'll stick:

Rombuu,

I honestly don't know and am quite curious - do office supplies really have a much higher profit margin than TVs? Or cars (the other object mentioned in the post you think is "ignorant")? I found this online, but it doesn't really answer my exact question. To me, at least, your assertion seems counter-intuitive.

Just so you know, I'm not saying anything one way or another in terms of your larger debate regarding the manufacturing capabilities of America. I've never worked in the manufacturing sector (unless you are counting fry cooks?), and to be honest with you, I probably don't know too many people who do. Which, now that I think about it, might say something about the manufacturing power of America. Or at least, the East Coast. Or, maybe it just says something about me...

{ k }

Considering that the big 3 automakers lose money on every car they manufature (car, not vehicle), almost everything has higher profit margins that making cars as things stand right now.  As far as office supplies, obviously that varies, but I remember reading a story recently about the absurd amount sticky notes contribute to 3M's bottom line.. something mind-boggingly absurd like 3/4 of a billion dollars annually.

Obviously if it were profitable to make TVs in the US, someone would do it, since people don't leave money lying around.  I don't see anything counter-intuitive about it.

Hell, I bought 2 books and a magazine on the way home tonight... weren't those manufactured?  (OK, one was The Economist for this week.. that might go on the UK's balance sheet.. but I bet it was printed in the US... printing is manufacturing, right?)  I don't see how anyone who wasn't blind could say they can't see anything at any time that wasn't manufactured in the US.

Sure, we have a manufacturing industry, but look me in the eye and say that the US manufacturers can actually make the things that people buy on a day to day basis

Making "the things that people buy on a day to day basis" is not especially lucrative. You only need to consider the wages of a typical Chinese factory worker to realize that. What the US manufacturing sector excels at is making things that (almost) no one else can make. If you were to compare the wages of the Chinese worker making gewgaws to sell at Walmart to the wages of an American worker assembling 737s to sell to Air China, you would immediately appreciate the advantage to the US economy of having the most productive workers in the world.

Making "the things that people buy on a day to day basis" is not especially lucrative.

Flatly wrong. The largest sector now in U.S. manufacturing is 'food manufacturing' (pdf), no other sector even comes close. Heavy industries have been replaced with Pop-Tart factories and water bottlers.

"Peculiar travel suggestions are dancing lessons from God."

The largest sector now in U.S. manufacturing is 'food manufacturing'...

Food processing is a special case when you're discussion the decline* of the US manufacturing sector. There are a number of reasons why we would not expect food processing to move overseas the same way that the manufacturing of durable goods has. Most notably, US farmers are the most efficient in the world by a good margin, and it's cost effective to process food nearby. Also, despite the rise of farm factories and the mechanization and assembly line nature of modern food processing, there is still a large number of tasks that can only be done by hand, piecemeal.

The manufacturing sector you're talking about includes jobs such as slaughtering chickens. So, slaughtering a chicken is, officially, manufacturing, wrapping the chicken parts in plastic is also considered manufacturing. But taking the chicken out of the package and cooking it for final consumption is considered to be a "service." It's that sort of arbitrary categorization of jobs into "manufacturing" and "service" that the report I mentioned above was trying to address.

The context of this discussion thus far was the mistaken notion that the US has no real manufacturing or agricultural capabilities. Other comments above perpetuate the myth that all the lost manufacturing jobs were "good" jobs that have been replaced by poorly-paying service sector positions. Food processing jobs pay notoriously bad wages.

*"Decline" is rhetoric, or depends on one's point of view. As I pointed out above, the US manufactures more now than ever in the past.

there would probably be a write-up on TnT decrying Bush if he had come out and tried to get rid of IVF entirely

Hi, koos,

I doubt Bush would ever go that far. The issue is more if the accepted American practice of fertilizing a group of embryos, then implanting the most viable and discarding the rest, is an acceptable ethically. For those who believe human life starts at conception, the answer is clearly "no". One embryo at a time (or, I expect, a group fertilization where all potentially viable embryos are implanted) doesn't raise the same concerns. (The key word there is "same"; due to the increased time and cost, there are other ethical concerns for the latter practice.)

In otehr words, it's not a compromise, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

This I agree with.

I did. And I'll give a one out anytime anybody writes anything vaguely close to "you'd all be mad no matter what bush did", because I'm a fucking immune system for viral propaganda.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!