Bush manufacturing czar candidate withdraws (Raimondo)

MSNBC ^ | 4/11/2004 | MSNBC

[lelio]

WASHINGTON - A Nebraska business executive has withdrawn from consideration to be President Bush's point man on manufacturing amid Democratic charges he outsourced jobs to China. The controvercy arose Wednesday when Sen. John Kerry raised questions about Tony Raimondo's stance on shifting U.S. jobs to foreign countries.

The Bush administration said Raimondo's withdrawal was related to Nebraska political issues and not the flap raised by the Kerry campaign.

[lelio]

Well dang, I just posted that Tony (not Justin) Raimondo was going to be nominated today for the "Manufacturing Czar" position opened by Bush 6 months ago.

[maro]

What about Jack Welch as a nominee for that job?

[Peach]

Why we need a manufacturing czar is beyond me:

Business - Reuters

Factories Operate Near 20-Year High
Mon Mar 1,10:36 AM ET Add Business - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Eric Burroughs

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. factories boomed at close to a 20-year high in February, according to a survey released on Monday that also suggested a turnaround in hiring may be on the horizon after a three-year struggle.

Related Quotes
DJIA
NASDAQ
^SPC
10128.38
1943.89
1106.78
-168.51
-20.26
-17.11



delayed 20 mins - disclaimer
Quote Data provided by Reuters






Missed Tech Tuesday?
Phone home on your PC for free. Get the PC gear, or do it without a computer.





The Institute for Supply Management said its monthly manufacturing index fell to 61.4 in February from January's two-decade high of 63.6, showing the ninth straight month of expansion in the sector that makes up less than a fifth of the U.S. economy.


Even though the index fell below the 62.0 level forecast by economists, the strength of the survey's components gave a lift to stocks and hurt safe-haven U.S. Treasuries. A reading above 50 in the index shows expansion. All 20 industry sectors in the survey also showed expansion.


"It appears that the manufacturing sector has sustainable momentum at this point," said Norbert Ore, ISM's manufacturing survey director.


The other ISM indexes also showed manufacturers gaining enough confidence to hire workers and the outlook for future growth was bright, though a rapid rise in prices may be squeezing profits.


The employment index jumped to 56.3 in February -- the highest since December 1987 -- from January's 52.9. ISM's Ore said more and more factories were reporting hiring though it has yet to show up in government employment statistics.


Even as the ISM report and other regional surveys have shown a pick-up in jobs during the past two months, the government's payrolls survey showed a 38,000 decline in manufacturing jobs nationwide.


Ore said there are "a lot of comments about people doing some hiring." The February U.S. payrolls report will be released Friday and economists forecast a 125,000 rise.


Two things are worrying manufacturers, ISM said -- the rapid rise in energy prices and a growing shortage of steel.


The prices index jumped in February to 81.5, the highest since early 1995, from 75.5 and is up almost 20 points in the past four months. Rather than being inflationary, typically such a rapid rise in prices cuts profit margins at factories.


The ISM manufacturing report is based on monthly responses by purchasing executives at more than 400 industrial companies, from textiles and chemicals to paper and computers.

[sarcasm]

Ore said there are "a lot of comments about people doing some hiring." The February U.S. payrolls report will be released Friday and economists forecast a 125,000 rise.

Nonfarm employment was little changed (+21,000) in February

[Peach]

I predict March will see quite an uptick.

Unless technology has replaced so many hands that the manufacturing people interviewed in this article aren't aware of it, it's difficult to have an upswing greater than we've seen in 17 years in manufacturing without hiring more people.

[Willie Green]

Why we need a manufacturing czar is beyond me:

I understand that Raimondo was excited about the assignment until he discovered
that Dubya was only gonna pay him minimum wage for Manufacturing a Burger.

[sarcasm]

The administration has made the same prediction for what seems to be years.

[Peach]

It sure wasn't the administration quoted in that article.

Greenspan has made the same predictions for a few months.

And, more importantly, the unemployment rate is only 5.6% which is the exact same it was during Clinton's term on average.

Of course, during Clinton's term the 5.6% average unemployment rate was deemed wonderful.

Now the exact same unemployment rate is deemed miserable.

Don't buy into the lamestream press crap.

[lelio]

Nonfarm employment was little changed (+21,000) in February

They should just drop that "nonfarm" bit and instead tell us "nongovernment employment" jobs. Oh wait, that means that there was 0 job growth in Feb.

[sarcasm]

And, more importantly, the unemployment rate is only 5.6% which is the exact same it was during Clinton's term on average.

The Labor Force Participation Rate is much lower:

Series Id:           LNS11300000 Seasonal Adjusted Series title:        (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate Labor force status:  Civilian labor force participation rate Type of data:        Percent Age:                 16 years and over
Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
1994	66.6	66.6	66.5	66.5	66.6	66.4	66.4	66.6	66.6	66.7	66.7	66.7
1995	66.8	66.8	66.7	66.9	66.5	66.5	66.6	66.6	66.6	66.6	66.5	66.4
1996	66.4	66.6	66.6	66.7	66.7	66.7	66.9	66.7	66.9	67.0	67.0	67.0
1997	67.0	66.9	67.1	67.1	67.1	67.1	67.2	67.2	67.1	67.1	67.2	67.2
1998	67.1	67.1	67.1	67.0	67.0	67.0	67.0	67.0	67.2	67.2	67.1	67.2
1999	67.2	67.2	67.0	67.1	67.1	67.1	67.1	67.0	67.0	67.0	67.1	67.1
2000	67.3	67.3	67.2	67.3	67.1	67.1	66.9	67.0	66.9	66.9	66.9	67.0
2001	67.2	67.1	67.1	66.9	66.7	66.7	66.8	66.6	66.8	66.8	66.7	66.7
2002	66.4	66.7	66.6	66.7	66.7	66.6	66.6	66.6	66.8	66.6	66.4	66.4
2003	66.3	66.3	66.2	66.4	66.3	66.5	66.3	66.2	66.1	66.2	66.2	66.0
2004	66.1	65.9

[sarcasm]

They should just drop that "nonfarm" bit and instead tell us "nongovernment employment" jobs. Oh wait, that means that there was 0 job growth in Feb.

That's supposed to be a secret.

[Peach]

I don't know where you got those numbers. But there's some interesting information to consider:

I've had this published in a letter to the editor:

There are two primary measures of unemployment. The Department of Labor conducts a monthly Household Survey, which has always generated the official unemployment rate used by the government. This official survey shows 2.4 million jobs have been added to the work force between November ’02 and February ‘04. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) conducts its payroll survey by phoning businesses. It is unprecedented to use the BLS unemployment statistics when discussing America’s unemployment rate and yet this is where the Democrats are getting their 2.3 million lost jobs figure.

For example, had the unofficial BLS survey been used in the mid-90’s, we would have had a 12.8% unemployment rate using the same methodology. Instead, in 1996, the unemployment rate was 5.6%, the exact same rate as we have today.

-- The number of working Americans, 138.5 million, is a level never previously attained in our history.

-- The combined net worth of all US households is $44.4 trillion, the highest ever achieved.

-- The stock market has advanced 45% in the last 12 months.

--The gross domestic product, the total goods and service produced in the US, increased in the 3rd quarter last year at an annual rate of 8.2% after inflation and 4.1% in the 4th quarter. Growth in the 90’s averaged a little better than 3% annually.

-- The average wage of American workers is currently $15.40 vs. $11.80 during the 90’s.

Despite 9/11 and the over $500 billion it took out of our economy, it appears the economy is booming.

[BrooklynGOP]

Raimondo pulled out :(

[sarcasm]

I don't know where you got those numbers.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

The Department of Labor conducts a monthly Household Survey, which has always generated the official unemployment rate used by the government. This official survey shows 2.4 million jobs have been added to the work force between November ’02 and February ‘04.

Greenspan-Payroll survey more accurate US job count

WASHINGTON, Feb 12 (Reuters) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan repeated on Thursday the Labor Department's survey of payrolls was a more accurate gauge of the employment situation than the more optimistic household survey.

[Peach]

It may be more accurate, but it's not the number we use when we publish the official unemployment rate.

Several conservative commentators and Larry Kudlow of CNBC have mentioned this as well.

For example, had the unofficial BLS survey been used in the mid-90’s, we would have had a 12.8% unemployment rate using the same methodology. Instead, in 1996, the unemployment rate was 5.6%, the exact same rate as we have today.

[pete anderson]

Now that the White house has designated fast food jobs as manufacturing jobs, the President should nominate Ronald Mc Donald to the post.

[sarcasm]

Instead, in 1996, the unemployment rate was 5.6%, the exact same rate as we have today.

You are again failing to consider the labor force participation rate.

[lelio]

That's supposed to be a secret.

Dont worry, the secret that 99.9% of the 21k jobs created in Feb were government related is safe with me

[lelio]

nominate Ronald Mc Donald to the post.

I nominate the Hamburgler to represent the offshoring of jobs. They can join forces together in "Operation Weekday Freedom"

[sarcasm]

If I might be so bold:

Don't worry, the secret that 99.9% of the 21k jobs created in Feb were government related is safe with me

[lewislynn]

“On the same day the Bush administration announced it was ready to name the head of the new office for manufacturing, the nominee (Raimondo) couldn’t be reached because he was in China, where his company is building a new factory after laying off 75 workers in Columbus, Nebraska,”

LOL...What attracted Bush to this clown to be "Manufacturing Czar"?...Manufacturing experience or his last name?

I wonder if Bush personally told those layed off workers how much better off they and America will be without their (worthless) jobs...

This will free up the layed off worker's time to be the CEO's they always wanted to be now.

[Peach]

I must be missing something. We have MORE people working now than at ANY TIME IN OUR HISTORY.

-- The number of working Americans, 138.5 million, is a level never previously attained in our history.

[lelio]

Oh now you're just being silly.

How about a version in multi colors, like ClassyGreenEyedBlond's signature from years ago?

[lelio]

We have MORE people working now than at ANY TIME IN OUR HISTORY

And in other news, there's MORE PEOPLE IN THE US now than any other time in history.

[Peach]

I agree, but it still does not take away from two central facts:

The unemployment rate, the official unemployment rate that has been used all of my lifetime, the Household Survey, shows a 5.6% unemployment rate. The same rate it was during the 90's.

We have more people working than ever. Regardless of the fact that there may be more people here than ever before, we also have more people working than ever before.

Those are two central facts, as well as other excellent economic indicators, that post 9/11 reflects on how very well we are doing. Rather than a regressive tax on the nation's wealthiest individuals, the tax cut for ALL taxpayers has had an effect on the economy and we are on the verge of a boom, if we aren't already in it.

Those aren't just my words. Greenspan and most Wall Street analysts agree. Not all of course. They never ALL agree. But most.

[sarcasm]

I must be missing something. We have MORE people working now than at ANY TIME IN OUR HISTORY.

Again, you are using the inaccurate household survey.

[sarcasm]

How 'bout sky blue pink?

[Peach]

BUT, the household survey has been used for our official unemployment numbers since time immemorial.

Which part of that don't people get?

If you want to play the apples and oranges game, then we had approx. a 12.8% unemployment rate in the 90's.

Is that the game you want to play? Along with our Democratic friends? Please.

[NC28203]

When the household survey is done, they simply ask wether or not you have done any work for pay in the last week. So if you lose your job, but mow your neighbor's lawn to get some extra money then you are still considered employed. If your daughter babysits, she is considered employed. The survey fails to capture underemployment.
The advantage of looking at the payroll numbers is that being on a payroll implies some consistency in work schedule and a higher likelihood of being employed goinjg forward.

[Peach]

Read my comments on the household survey.

If you want to play apples and oranges, then we had a 12.8% unemployment rate in the 90's.

If you don't like the survey, fine.

BUT, there is NO getting around the fact the OFFICIAL unemployment numbers have ALWAYS been derived from the Household Survey.

To start to change the parameters and the way numbers are collected and reported is dishonest. There are many who do believe the BLS numbers are more accurate. BUT they are NOT the numbers we've used to report unemployment.

[sarcasm]

BUT, the household survey has been used for our official unemployment numbers since time immemorial.

Why don't you try computing the unemployment rate using the average participation rate over the last five years and see what you get - I understand that it is close to 8%.

[NC28203]

The payroll survey doesn't calculate an unemployment rate. It only provides the number of people on nonfarm payrolls.
While the current unemployment rate of 5.6% is equal to April 1996, the rate was 7.3% when Clinton took office and 4.2% when Bush took office. Is this the comparison you really want to make come election day?

[Peach]

You are playing a game that the Democrats play. Changing the parameters. We have never computed the unemployment rate using the average participate rate. Good try though.

[Peach]

Huh? I'm trying to defend the very reasonable unemployment rate we have TODAY, not the day and pre-9/11 when Bush took office.

No one cares what it was when he took office. People care what it is TODAY.

And TODAY it's the exact same percentage as it was in 1996 and the average during Clinton's entire term was 5.7% which was deemed excellent.

Now, post 9/11, we have a rate of 5.6% and it's being presented by both the press and some Freepers on this thread as terrible. Hogwash.

[sarcasm]

You, of course, would never try to spin numbers for political advantage.

[lelio]

Now, post 9/11, we have a rate of 5.6% and it's being presented by both the press and some Freepers on this thread as terrible. Hogwash.

There's also chronic unemployment (defined as being out of work for 6 months or more) which is the worst its been in 20 years at 22% of all unemployed workers.

And don't forget classics like this: Atlanta looses 16k workers instead of gaining 68k in 2003. Why should I believe any numbers the government puts out?

[NC28203]

No one cares? What about the 1.4% of the work force that is unemployed today that was employed when W took office. Remember, the last election was extremely close. That 1.4% could have a big effect on the outcome when they step into the polling booth and ask themselves if they are better off today than they were four years age.

[NC28203]

Also, from the current population survey:
Number of unemployed -
January 1993 - 9.3 million
January 1997 - 7.5 million
January 2001 - 6.0 million
February 2004 - 8.2 million

In a close election those 2.2 million jobs could have a big impact.

[Peach]

Great numbers - thanks!!

[Peach]

There is no spin in using the Household Survey unemployment numbers which have ALWAYS been used.

Show me the spin there?

You are the one playing the apples and oranges game, which is exactly what the Democrats do.

[Peach]

What are you all missing here.

Let me try ONE more time and then I give up and the trolls and naysayers can have at it.

Whenever we discuss unemployment numbers, there are two primary surveys. One is the Household Survey. This is the published unemployment number that has been used for time immemorial.

The other method of determining unemployment is the BLS method. It's a valid method and economists use it and some people have been arguing for a long time that it's a more valid method of determining unemployment. The only problem is that it's NEVER been the method used to determine unemployment for official sources.

No one is saying you should believe the government's numbers. From either survey.

But to play the game that unemployment was good in the 90's (using the Household Survey official unemployment numbers) and bad now (using the unofficial BLS numbers) is playing the game the Democrats are using.

Whenever you have seen an unemployment number in your newspaper, it has ALWAYS been from the Household Survey.

The Household Survey today shows a 5.6% unemployment. During Clinton's term, the official unemployment average was 5.7%.

If you wish to believe the media spin, go for it. If you don't wish to believe the other numbers I published above, which come from economists, Wall Street, government web sites, go for it. They are all wrong. I'm wrong. The economy is terrible. I think the economy is terrific and considering 9/11 (which everyone seems all too willing to forget), I think it's downright miraculous.

[sixmil]

I must be missing something. We have MORE people working now than at ANY TIME IN OUR HISTORY.

We also have more people living in this country than ever before. What does that mean?

[sixmil]

Hopefully I am wrong, but the nasdaq is headed for trouble...

[Willie Green]

What about Jack Welch as a nominee for that job?

IMHO, William R. Hawkins would be a much more credible and capable candidate.
But sadly, we all know that's not what Dubya is really after.

[lelio]

And just when you didn't think there could be MORE comic potential in this, according to this article the chairman of the Bush - Cheney 2004, Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), learned about Raimondo's consideration and then later withdrawl from the newspapers.