Bush Looks to Stem Manufacturing Job Loss

AP ^ | 9/1/2003 | SCOTT LINDLAW

[sixmil]

On a rain-soaked Labor Day trip to a factory training center, Bush said he had directed Commerce Secretary Don Evans to establish an assistant position to focus "on the needs of manufacturers." Keeping factory jobs is critical to a broader economic recovery, the president said, his outdoor venue ringed by cranes, backhoes and bulldozers.

Bush said the nation has lost "thousands of jobs in manufacturing." In fact, the losses have soared into the millions: Of the 2.7 million jobs the U.S. economy has lost since the recession began in early 2001, 2.4 million were in manufacturing. The downturn has eliminated more than one in 10 of the nation's factory jobs.

The president attributed the erosion to productivity gains and to jobs flowing to cheaper labor markets overseas. He suggested that jobs moving to foreign shores was his primary reason for creating the new manufacturing czar.

"One way to make sure that the manufacturing sector does well is to send a message overseas, (to) say, look, we expect there to be a fair playing field when it comes to trade," Bush said.

"See, we in America believe we can compete with anybody, just so long as the rules are fair, and we intend to keep the rules fair," Bush said, his audience of workers and supporters cheering.

Bush administration officials believe one way to spark the economy and deal with the bloated trade deficit is for other countries to remove trade barriers. That would allow U.S. companies to more freely do business in overseas markets, boosting America's global competitiveness. The nation's trade deficit ran at an annual rate of $488.5 billion for the first six months of this year, heading for another record.

Congress approved pacts with Singapore and Chile earlier this year, and the administration says it now is striving for an agreement for all of Central America.

Bush did not name the new manufacturing official, and gave no timetable for offering a nomination to the Senate. Nor did he specify what duties the new post would include.

He spent most of his speech expressing empathy for anxious workers, and wiping rain from his head, which became thoroughly drenched despite his union hat.

"I want you to understand that I understand that Ohio manufacturers are hurting, that there's a problem with the manufacturing sector," Bush said. "I understand that for a full recovery, to make sure people can find work, that manufacturing must do better," Bush said.

Ohio lost 185,000 jobs during the recession from 2001 through last March, nearly two-thirds in manufacturing, according to a study released Sunday by a private economic think tank.

Politics loomed large in Bush's 11th trip to Ohio — a state he carried in 2000, and one where he also spent the July Fourth holiday.

Monday, Bush brought along his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, for the half-day trip to address the International Union of Operating Engineers, which represents 400,000 construction and maintenance workers in the United States and Canada.

Bush has tried to woo some trade and industrial unions, which tend to be more conservative than public and service sector unions. The Operating Engineers union is among the largest labor donors to Republicans, contributing 16 percent of its $1.3 million to the GOP in 2002, and its president, Frank Hanley, has appeared at several previous events with Bush.

The White House chose politically friendly territory for the event. Although surrounding communities tilt Democrat, Richfield leans Republican. Bush's motorcade route took him along stately homes in an affluent neighborhood, and clusters of supporters waved signs backing the president.

His crowd applauded when Bush argued that two rounds of tax cuts had kept the recession shallow and had helped spur factory jobs.

Democrats said the tax cuts have gone to the wealthiest taxpayers and have sent the deficit spiraling to $480 billion for next year, while doing little to jump-start the economy.

"I hope his tour of the state will include the empty factories and bankrupt corporations," said Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich (news, bio, voting record), one of nine Democrats vying to challenge Bush.

The Labor Day trip marked Bush's first public appearance since he returned Saturday from a monthlong stay on his ranch in Crawford, Texas. It kicks off a burst of heavy travel in the 15 months leading up to Election Day.

Bush still had Crawford on his mind as he addressed the operating engineers.

"We need a little rain in Crawford," he told an audience shielding itself with rain slickers and garbage bags. "Send it that way, if you don't mind."

[sixmil]

Better late than never I guess.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I don't believe there is much the government can or should specifically do to attract or create jobs - manufacturing or otherwise.

They should focus on keeping taxes and regulation as light as possible, and leave the rest to the genius of the market.

[Balto_Boy]

"One way to make sure that the manufacturing sector does well is to send a message overseas, (to) say, look, we expect there to be a fair playing field when it comes to trade," Bush said.

Finally!!!

[ARCADIA]

Better late than never I guess.

Bush is the incumbent. He is going to have to deliver some significant results to have credibility. A few words, or vague promises, aren't going to cut it.

[caltrop]

There must be an election coming up.

[ARCADIA]

They should focus on keeping taxes and regulation as light as possible, and leave the rest to the genius of the market.

1) Tarrifs 2) The mere threat of retaliatory tarrifs 3) Domestic investment tax credits for new manufacturing or expanded manufacturing facilities.

[paul in cape]

Rush read an article last week from someone who looked at manufactirung jobs in the 1990's and found that jobs HAVE NOT BEEN LOST. It's a big lie, constantly regurgitated by the media and liberals (redundancy alert!)

Anyone else hear this, and can post the article?

[StriperSniper]

and bankrupt corporations," said Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich

But Dennis, I thought the evil corporations were being given tons of money from the evil Bush administration, how can they be bankrupt?

[Archangelsk]

Rush read an article last week from someone who looked at manufactirung jobs in the 1990's and found that jobs HAVE NOT BEEN LOST. It's a big lie, constantly regurgitated by the media and liberals (redundancy alert!)

Rush read a single document that runs contrary to everything else published and this is deemed credible? What is today, "I'm right and everyone else is wrong," day?

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

That's interesting, I've read articles saying that we've lost 5 million manufacturing jobs in the last 5 years. I'm not saying that I necessarily believe it, but that is what was reported. I'm curious as to what the real story is here.

[sixmil]

I don't believe there is much the government can or should specifically do to attract or create jobs - manufacturing or otherwise.

I agree, but I also think there is a lot that government can do to kill jobs like the unilateral free trade policy we have now. I'd like to see tarriffs raised until the trade deficit is zero and stays there, along with corresponding cuts on income and business taxes. Eventually we are going to have to admit that there is no benefit (just the opposite actually) to trading any more freely than everyone else does. Even with the WTO, we are not able to get everyone to play along, so we should develop a policy that is not dependent on how others play the game.

[Archangelsk]

"I want you to understand that I understand that Ohio manufacturers are hurting, that there's a problem with the manufacturing sector," Bush said. "I understand that for a full recovery, to make sure people can find work, that manufacturing must do better," Bush said.

I'm sorry, but this is the President's version of "I feel your pain."

[sixmil]

I think this is the story you are talking about:

Manufacturing myths

[kms61]

I suspect that it was the same Op Ed piece by Bruce Bartlett that was posted here and subsequently shot full of holes by any number of posters.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

This might be of interest: Manufacturing myths.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

You posted it just before me. Thanks!

[upchuck]

Gee, President Bush. It's Labor Day and you're making a speech bemoaning to jobs lost to overseas companies, etc.

And, what's this... not one word about the thousands (millions?) of jobs lost to criminal aliens invading our country at will? Perhaps you're unaware of this problem?

[Archangelsk]

Thanks. It's time for all of us to face the hard reality of the following: if the President does not change the perception of unemployment in the next 15 months he will lose the election. The Democratic candidate, whoever he or she may be will take the 30% of the voters who make their decisions two months prior to the election. They will base their decision on emotion and we will be worse off for it.

[ARCADIA]

What was the gist of Rush's arguement?

I have noticed a few Freepers posting some rant about manufacturing organizations and how they have evolved decentralized structures which outsource much of the work. They argue that since these jobs are provided through third party services, that they are tallied under services and that makes the manufacturing loss look worse then it is. Yet, if this were true we would have been reporting a massive surge in new service sector jobs. Instead we have a net loss of jobs across both sectors of the economy.

If it were only the domestic outsourcing of work then we wouldn't have a concern. Our concern is the net loss of American jobs to external manufacturing and service firms.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Wow - that's what I call a big government approach that would make Hillary Clinton proud! And who says a zero trade deficit is desirable? So long as we have the strongest economy in the world, it will be natural for us to import more goods and services from around the world than we sell to other, less rich, countries.

A tariff consists of a tax on domestic consumers, by the way.

Have a read of this column by David Limbaugh, which aptly explains the fallacies of "fair" trade, and offers an excellent example from the king of free markets, Milton Friedman:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20020309.shtml

[Big Giant Head]

jobs HAVE NOT BEEN LOST.

What? All these millions and millions of jobs lost in the last three decades are not really gone? < /sarcasm >

Maybe, just maybe, some jobs get created along the way, and not reported to the doom and gloomers? Otherwise there would be NO JOBS left.

[voicereason]

I don't believe there is much the government can or should specifically do to attract or create jobs - manufacturing or otherwise.

They should focus on keeping taxes and regulation as light as possible, and leave the rest to the genius of the market.

Exactly right. A good part of the problem lies with the government's willingness to stick it's nose into what it doesn't understand.

Now we not only have the government inserting itself in business affairs, but also expanding itself with the creation of another questionable position.

[4.1O dana super trac pak]

Bump for later.

[Ukiapah Heep]

A manufacturing czar won't do much. We are not a czarist economy.

It is the President's job to see to it that there is fair trade. Almost all recent presidents have done poorly on this one. Despite his extreme socialist leanings, the only special session Clinton called as president was to pass NAFTA.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

The major loss of American manufacturing jobs is not a lie and is well-documented. Rush does himself and the country no service by ignoring reality and quoting a single source of misinformation against a tidal wave of proof to the contrary.

Global free trade might be OK if it existed. China will not allow American business free access to Chinese markets. They insist that products sold there have to be, in large part, built there. That is not free trade. China has even told Boeing that it will not buy Boeing jets not built mostly in China. That is nonsense and should be grounds to stop the flood of cheap Chinese goods into the United States until it is corrected.

China is hell-bent on destroying American manufacturing as a strategic goal. Our turncoat business leaders are in lock-step to help them achieve that goal. I cannot envision a way to destroy the economy of the United States faster than exporting all of our manufacturing into China proper or to Chinese-owned businesses in other countries. It is absolute national suicide.

[edchambers]

I think "free trade" is one of these things that looks good on paper but in reality just isn't working.If we were to demand free and EQUAL trade that would be different.In other words if a country has a tarrif on American goods we should have the same tarrif on thier products.If a nation engages in economic sabbotage as Japan did in the 70s and China is doing now we should cut off our trade relationship until it is made equitable.

[Nov3]

Unlike in 91-92 when the jobs just went away for a while these jobs are gone for GOOD. This is the most serious threat to our economy.

[Nov3]

Rush read an article last week from someone who looked at manufactirung jobs in the 1990's and found that jobs HAVE NOT BEEN LOST.

Either you are smoking some awfully good stuff or you don't work in manufacturing. Rush is wrong.

[LS]

Somewhat dubious numbers: "Of the 2.7 million jobs the U.S. economy has lost since the recession began in early 2001, 2.4 million were in manufacturing."

I have seen previously that of all the jobs lost since 9/11, one-third are in travel, airlines, and recreation. This was a pretty solid study. I don't doubt that mfg. jobs have dminished, but I think it pales next to the decline in rec./air/travel jobs lost since 9/11.

[LS]

No, it doesn't run contrary to everything else. In fact it is ENTIRELY consistent with all the scholarship and research which has been done from 1985 on. It's only a surprise to you guys who constantly think the U.S. is in a recession---and, I might add, many of you were saying so through the 1990s. How can we lose jobs now that we never "gained" in the 1990s?????

The U.S. share of manufacturing has been constant for about three decades. Most of that manufacturing is done at thousands of small shops that don't make a big splash when they hire 1-2 more workers. On the other hand, let GE lay off 1,000, and it's in all the papers.

[LS]

Shot full of holes? Like, "Gee, I lost my job so it can't be right?"

Show me the NAM data on % of GDP of American manufactureres. Go ahead, make my day. I guarantee you it hasn't changed much over the last 20 years.

[Destro]

1) Tarrifs 2) The mere threat of retaliatory tarrifs 3) Domestic investment tax credits for new manufacturing or expanded manufacturing facilities.

Yes and more Yes!!!

Sad thing is no major party candidate out there is willing to run on this platform (so far). We are alone.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Thank you for the information.

I would just like to ask Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Reynolds of Cato to explain the Congressional testimony of Mr. Jerry Jasinowski, Chairman, National Association of Manufacturers earlier this year. Mr. Reynolds sure cannot. He instead sprinkles his inane comments with little cutesy remarks about superstition and failures to check facts. I think he was projecting.

2.1 million jobs lost in this recent downturn. Plus, "Over the past year and two months, we have seen the weakest manufacturing recovery from recession since the Federal Reserve started keeping tabs on such things back in 1919. The data show that since December 2001, manufacturing production has edged up only 1.6 percent, drastically slower than the first 14 months of the previous six recoveries when growth in manufacturing averaged 10.8 percent."

http://www.house.gov/smbiz/hearings/108th/2003/030409/jasinowski.html

If recognizing that there is unemployment means that I'm a Bush hater then I guess I am a Bush hater, though it's news to me.

[LS]

You hit the nail on the head. Does anyone else here remember we heard many of the same arguments in the 1990s---that we were losing all our mfg. jobs? Fine, if that is the case, when did we "GAIN" the manufacturing jobs that we are not "losing?"

I don't for a minute think that industry hasn't shed some/many jobs. But what you aren't seeing is the churning at the other end---the small shops doing the outsourcing/freelance/contractual stuff that are adding workers here and there. More important, we constantly overlook the number of NEW BUSINESS startups via entrepreneurs who are fed up with working for other people who can lay them off.

For example, Glenn Hubbard and William Gentry have a new paper on "entrepreneurship and household saving," showing that, to cut out all the "economese," households that have businesses own a substantial share of household wealth and income, and that they save almost universally in an undiversified manner---i.e., all their money goes into their businesses. Finally, they show that entrepreneurs save at even higher rates than everyone else. This is just one of many papers on how businesses are started (usually by internal funding, savings, etc., not loans) and how they grow (pretty well). There are plenty more studies out there like this.

[LS]

China accounts for a miniscule---MINISCULE---portion of our imports, trade, and especially manufacuturing. You'd be better off worrying about Ireland. Course, they DO have free trade, so you can't blame NAFTA or GATT or anything else for the sources of genuine mfg. competition.

China controls about as much of our mfg. dollar as the Arabs controlled American real estate in the early 1980s when there was a paranoia about the Arabs "buying up" American land. They peaked at .001%

[Lessismore]

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics at
http://www.bls.gov/iag/iag.manufacturing.htm

Manufacturing

Manufacturing is by far the largest of the goods-producing industries in terms of employment. While factories account for just a little more than a third of goods-producing establishments, manufacturing employees outnumber their colleagues in construction and mining by nearly 3-to-1. Manufacturing represents about 5 percent of all establishments and about 14 percent of all employment covered by unemployment insurance.

Employment data based on an establishment survey show annual average employment in manufacturing fluctuating from 18.1 million to 18.8 million between 1991 and 2000, before declining sharply in 2001 and 2002. In 2002, manufacturing employment stood at 16.7 million. From its cyclical trough in 1991, employment for the economy as a whole increased every year until it fell between 2001 and 2002.

Over the 1991-2002 period, the unemployment rate in manufacturing rose to 7.8 percent in 1992 and fell to 3.6 percent in 2000, then jumped to 5.2 percent in 2001 and 6.7 percent in 2002. The overall unemployment rate in 2002 was 5.8 percent.

Click on the link for charts.

[LS]

Fine. Explain to me when these jobs "came back."

If they did "come back," then it was on Clinton's watch.

If they did, then it was under NAFTA.

If they did, where are the stats showing that mfg. GREW in the 1990s? It didn't because they never "left."

[LS]

Rush is right. We are not exporting toymaking/trinket making jobs to China. Period.

[ARCADIA]

What are you trying to say?

There were manufacturing industries srinking during the 1970s and 1980s, and these continued to shrink during the 1990s. Whatever manufacturing we gained was a result of launching new industries such as computers, the internet, and related peripherals. The problem today is that all of these sectors are shrinking, and there is no new manufacturing jobs on the horizon.

As for entrepreneurship, it is largely a dead end. 4 out of 5 new businesses fail dramatically, and the barriers to entry are set higher then ever. The ADA requirements, insurance, and the convoluted licensing process alone will burn most people. Just the health insurance cost, for a family of four, is almost as large as a morgage. If you think entrepreneurship is the way to go, you either haven't launched a new business in decades, or are fortunate enough to have access to very significant capital. Sure people are trying to start new businesses; What choice do they have? But, most of these are not going to make it.

[RaceBannon]

Connecticut lost 12,000 jobs in July 2003 alone.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/959787/posts
Lawmaker predicts defeat for 'Buy American' language (Defense Department procurement update)

"But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade." ~ Karl Marx, On the Question of Free Trade, January 9, 1848 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/01/09ft.htm#marx

"Communists and socialists feel sure that setting up international “free” trade systems which impose regulations chuck full of intrigues, redistribution plans, arbitrary law, and interdependence schemes, will win out against the conservative interests of every free nation. What could be better than to use “free” trade to reverse the advantage of the relatively free, moral, prosperous, and strong nations of the Earth, so that the tyrannical, amoral, poor, and weak nations of the socialist bloc might get the upper hand? What could be a more cunning approach than to market the idea that those who oppose “free” trade are enemies of freedom?" http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2000/6/27/105655

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/954156/posts
Why FREE TRADE was never the answer.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/957315/posts
Drifting away: Many fear such 'offshoring' will hurt the economy and national security.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/956435/posts
US gives India assurance on outsourcing

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/956924/posts
Economy held back by 44,000 job losses

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/956820/posts
WHERE THE GOOD JOBS ARE....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/956686/posts
Conservative sees free trade as threat to manufacturing

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/956628/posts
Jobless rate drops, largely because of discouraged people leaving job market

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/956517/posts
U.S. labour market shrinks again in July

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/955929/posts
President Blames Unemployment On Lack Of Tech Skills

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/956461/posts
Tellabs to outsource North American manufacturing

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/957331/posts
White-collar jobs may not be back soon

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/957635/posts
It's Unstoppable: High Tech Jobs Ditching US

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/957588/posts
Manufacturing rally draws 1,200

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/960206/posts
Imports force Hooker's downtown factory to close

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/959227/posts
A Passage to India Services to Follow Manufacturing Jobs Exodus

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/960501/posts
Newsweek column on outsourcing

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/959757/posts
Sprint plans to send hundreds of technology jobs overseas

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/960979/posts
Job Losses in State Accelerate; July Payrolls Lowest in 2 Years

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/961212/posts
In a small town, workers question the future after factory shutdowns

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/961400/posts
Michigan loses as tech jobs slip overseas

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/961386/posts
IT happens only in India!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/961476/posts
Loss of factory jobs may have a long fall to bottom

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/962024/posts
Ultimate insult for American programmers as employers seek cheaper labor

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/962493/posts
'Smart-bomb' technology moving to China

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/963730/posts
U.S. Offshore Outsourcing Leads to Structural Changes and Big Impact

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/963930/posts
Lucent letting 1,500 more workers go

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/969207/posts
STUDY SHOWS MANUFACTURING IS KEY TO INNOVATION,PRODUCTIVITY, STRONG GROWTH AND GOOD JOBS

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969195/posts
Death of Manufacturing

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969274/posts
Outsourcing boom brews a season of despair in US

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969512/posts
Slump hits white-collar and IT jobs notably hard

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969622/posts
Forging a case for U.S. jobs in manufacturing

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/969664/posts
Experts agree, and jobless know, manufacturing jobs are dwindling

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/970204/posts
Free trade's victims turning against Bush, GOP

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/970269/posts
Walsh Says "Free Trade" Should Be "Fair Trade"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/970333/posts
Taxing businesses that cut U.S. jobs not that farfetched of an idea

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/970319/posts
The call to move overseas

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/970305/posts
Cut-throat international competition hurts U.S. textile producers

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971689/posts
White-collar jobs go abroad

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971687/posts
U.S. college grads see jobs being taken abroad

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971659/posts
India no longer as attractive for outsourcing, says analyst

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971540/posts
As layoffs mount, import relief sought

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971272/posts
Passage to India? Productivity at home will counter outsourcing.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971255/posts
Large Layoffs, Big Raises

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/970327/posts
U.S. future needs blue-collar might ^

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971712/posts
IMPACT OF U.S.-CHINA TRADE RELATIONS ON WORKERS, WAGES, AND EMPLOYMENT PILOT STUDY REPORT

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: mfg percent of GDP

It seems the definitions have been changed. "The redefinition of computer output was a crucial factor in driving the manufacturing revival of the late 1990s. . . Without the quality imputations to the real value of computers, this increase in the manufacturing share [of GDP] would not have been measured."

Gordon R. Richards, NAM testifing before the Subcommittee on the Census Committee on Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives On The quality of GDP data, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/about/test-grr.pdf

On can argue the significance in terms of, Well it's manufacturing ain't it? But it's misleading and confusing vis-a-vis traditional manufacturing of widgits. My guess is that the official of NAM I cited in a prior post is right about job loss and loss of capacity in traditional manufacturing while Mr. Linbaugh and Mr. Reynolds for whatever their reasons are less than truthful.

I'll defer to the experts but it seems to me there's more here than just a "constant" percent of GDP "proves" no one has lost a job and no manufacturing capacity has been lost.

[chainsaw]

A hefty tax on all imported goods would do wonderes for the US economy, and job growth. Too hell with NAFTA.

[LS]

No, I'm saying that if you gloomsters were right, there couldn't possibly be any jobs to "lose" today, because they were all gone in the Reagan years (when we "lost" them all to Japan) or in the 1990s when we "lost" them all to someone else. Yet our share of mfg. of GDP remains unchanged. Imagine that!

And, no, 4/5 of all new business starts do not, nor ever have, failed. The % is about 50, and always has been. But what is different today is that new starts are typically very small and stay that way to get out of regulations and taxes---they are called "micro businesses" and they are the fastest growing share of the U.S. business population (5 employees or less). Typically these employ a couple of family members or "consultants" who do not get health or taxes paid for them, but who can make pretty good money.

And they are a significant share of the jobs "lost" that actually haven't disappeared, but have transformed.

[Nov3]

China controls about as much of our mfg. dollar as the Arabs controlled American real estate in the early 1980s when there was a paranoia about the Arabs "buying up" American land. They peaked at .001%

That statement is so ridiculous. It is the statement of a man who does not work in manufacturing. It is the statement of a man who doesn't have a clue. BTW the Arabs and Japs couldn't tow our land back to Japan and Saudi Arabia. The Chinese, Mexicans and Indian have got our factories now. And we paid for them.

Rush is right. We are not exporting toymaking/trinket making jobs to China. Period.

Your statements are so convoluted I can't make heads or tails of them. What side of this issue are you on? You are right we are not exporting toy/trinket making jobs. We are exporting heavy industry. When we ordered an injection mold that we couldn't make in house from a tool making firm in Ohio, it arrived from CHINA. That was a wake up call. When practically all the mills and machine tools are made in China that is a wake up call. All our castings come from China (and they are beautiful). (The Indian castings were for shit.) Our steel . . . . (China and Japan) Electronics (Malaysia).

Fine. Explain to me when these jobs "came back."

People were layed off in 91 - 92 because of demand. The factories were still here. The factories are in China, India, and Mexico now. These jobs are not coming back period.

[Nov3]

Over the 1991-2002 period, the unemployment rate in manufacturing rose to 7.8 percent in 1992 and fell to 3.6 percent in 2000, then jumped to 5.2 percent in 2001 and 6.7 percent in 2002. The overall unemployment rate in 2002 was 5.8 percent.

Most of these people gave up on getting a good job and work in the "service sector" now. That is why the rates went down.

[Nov3]

And they are a significant share of the jobs "lost" that actually haven't disappeared, but have transformed.

Yeah from high paying manufacturing jobs that were creating wealth into burger flipping, insurance selling, car detailing, gutter cleaning, lawn care jobs. Sheesh you are clueless if you think this is good.

[Tauzero]

"What is today, 'I'm right and everyone else is wrong,' day?"

Queue Irving Berlin:

Did you see my lit-tle Jim-my march-ing,
With the sol-diers up the av-en-ue?
There was Jim-my just as stiff as starch,
Like his Dad-dy on the sev-en-teenth of March.

Did you no-tice all the love-ly la-dies,
Cast-ing their eyes on him?
It made me glad, To gaze at the lad;
Lord help the Kai- ser if he's like his Dad.

Were you there, and tell me, did you no-tice?
They were all out of step but Jim.

[sixmil]

Wow - that's what I call a big government approach that would make Hillary Clinton proud! And who says a zero trade deficit is desirable? So long as we have the strongest economy in the world, it will be natural for us to import more goods and services from around the world than we sell to other, less rich, countries.

Nothing big government here. Big government is big spending. Big spending is what leads to big taxing. I would never have a tax increase without cutting another tax at least as much.

We know that trade surpluses are bad in the long term. It's inefficient; just look at Japan and Germany. We are now starting to admit the trade deficits have their problems, unemployment and wage erosion to name a couple. What I am suggesting is to find a happy medium with the advantages of both. Have a control system where the tariff rate floats in order to keep as close to possible to 0% trade deficit/surplus.

I don't get why it is natural for a rich country to import more (as a percentage). Can it not produce enough to supply itself? That would be a weird argument since we currently feed a large portion of the world.

A tariff consists of a tax on domestic consumers, by the way.

An indirect tax for most people. It's certainly a lot easier than paying the income tax, and a lot less frequent. Something has to be taxed, and tariffs are a lot easier to deal with.

Thanks for the article. I have read some Limbaugh, but he is much better on the topic of law, instead of policy. Here is where his argument broke down for me:

"Buyers of such products would have extra money to spend on other things. The demand for other items would go up, as would employment in enterprises producing those items. Of course, it would take time to absorb the now unemployed steelworkers. However, to balance that effect, workers in other industries who had been unemployed would find jobs available. There need be no net loss of employment, and there would be a gain in output because workers no longer needed to produce steel would be available to produce something else."

Up to this point he was talking facts, now he is injecting theory which sounds logical. But the reality is that steel workers did not become software engineers. Maybe a couple did, but their jobs just got shipped off to India, or a Chinese national was imported to do their job instead. I know you guys are supply siders, but what about demand? It is the other half of the equation. Where is demand when you have perpetual unemployent?

[maui_hawaii]

Too bad the Chinese don't think the same way you do...

[maui_hawaii]

We can keep taxes light. Thats fine. I say we cut taxes even.

Give the people that import so much stuff the same deal they have had in the past...a 35-40% corporate income tax rate.

For those who source from the US, give them a 15-20% corporate income tax rate.

Its a tax cut.

You gonna complain about that too???