Bush Looks to Stem Manufacturing Job Loss

AP ^ | 9/1/2003 | SCOTT LINDLAW

[Nov3]

You are truly clueless if you can't see the structural problems here. I won't even take anymore time.

[LS]

No, I'm asking you a simple question. If you have an answer, it can be a simple one. When did the jobs "come?" If they "left," they had to "come" sometime. I gave you three options. My suspicion is that once you saw what the options were, you could not admit that they "came" in a period of a) free trade; b) Carter "malaise," or c) low-to-zero tariffs under Reagan. Those are your only options. So when did all these jobs appear? Remember, the late 1970s was a period of recession and massive layoffs, so I don't think you want to argue that manufacturing jobs "appeared" then.

[Nov3]

You win. The flow of manufacturing jobs and facilities to other countries is good. Go worship Rush.

[LS]

See, you STILL can't answer a very simple question. When did the jobs "come." Please. I await your BRILLIANT reply on this, because obviously you don't have one.

[Mamzelle]

Millions of conservative voters with a few populist leanings are going to go either way this next cycle. Bush has his work cut out of him. He needs to be as pro-America domestically as he is militarily, or we won't have either.

Would like a reposting or a link to the article a few weeks back about Bush offering "assurances" to India to help keep the outsourcing rolling along...haven't been able to turn it up as yet on search. Will keep trying.

[Mamzelle]

See my post at #65. Still can't find the article--it involved Bush providing assurances to the Indian gov that the outsourcing there would not be restricted by his admin.

[Nov3]

You are right. The loss of the manufacturing sector is NOTHING to worry about. I JUST work in manufacturing, I really don't know anything about it and my suppliers. Rush and his one study are much more authorative. We don't need no stinkin manufacturing, we can wash each others cars, and clean each others lawns. That is a sure way to generate WEALTH. At least they can't take that job overseas like the service sector is doing with other jobs now.

Thanks for setting me straight. I really got off track thinking we need manufacturing.

[LS]

Blah, blah. You still have not answered my very simple question: When did all these manufacturing jobs appear?

It would help you a great deal to confront this, because your options are they came either in the Reagan years (no protection on 99% of American manufacturing); or in the Clinton years (NAFTA); or in the Carter depression.

To "lose" jobs, they had to come from somewhere. When did they "come?"

[LS]

BTW, just got off the phone with a friend of mine who has a machine screw business, and he says business is up and all his manufacturing suppliers say their business is up. But, please, answer my question.

[Nov3]

BTW, just got off the phone with a friend of mine who has a machine screw business, and he says business is up and all his manufacturing suppliers say their business is up.

WOW things are great after all. I must be imagining all the Chinese lettering in the recieving department!

As to your question again. The normal business cycle will have jobs created and lost. What is happening is not a normal business cycle. There have been uptrends but ONLY A MORON WOULD THINK THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR IS DOING WELL. I don't know why I am arguing with you. You won't grasp the obvious. It is not good in the long term for factories to close here and open in China. If you can't see that. . . . . . . .

The difference in the recieving dock in the past ten years is unbelievable and it represents lost jobs.

[LS]

This is amazing. You keep blathering on. I've asked you five times to give me an answer to ONE SIMPLE QUESTION:

when did the manufacturing jobs in this country "come." If they "left," when did they come? What decade? When did mfg. GROW? This is a very simple concept. Instead of answering, you want to go off on a tangent.

Answer the question.

[Nov3]

Dude what are you talking about. Your posts get more non-sensical. We are talking about the destruction of our manufacturing base. You are unable to grasp that. You think it is hunky dory.

Your question is stupid and a complete non-sequitor.

[LS]

No they are extremely sensible. I'll pose it again, as simply as I can:

You maintain we are "losing" manufacturing jobs. OK, for us to have "lost" jobs, when did all these jobs appear? Just give me a decade. When did we have massive manufacturing job growth since 1970?

This is critical because if you say that all these manufacturing jobs came in the Carter years, you must then credit the extremely high taxes of the Carter years. Therefore, I assume your "solution" to job loss is to raise taxes.

If you say the job growth occurred in the Reagan years (which is what I say) then you have a problem, because Reagan cut taxes, and had almost NO protective tariffs on anything. (Briefly, on Harleys, briely on some cars---never on computers or high tech, which was the most rapidly growing sector, or on steel, which lost jobs).

If you say that the job growth occurred during the Clinton years, then you must credit NAFTA, which I don't think you want to do.

There is a fourth alternative that I know you don't want to face: we might not have EVER changed our share of mfg. jobs since 1950.

[Nov3]

When did we have massive manufacturing job growth since 1970?

We haven't had massive manufacturing growth since the early 40's. However we have never had OUR OWN INDUSTRY fleeing the country at ever increasing rates like we see today. I see the results at work daily. I don't care what Rush's one study says. We have serious problems.

Good luck and believe what you want.

[Nov3]

There is a fourth alternative that I know you don't want to face: we might not have EVER changed our share of mfg. jobs since 1950.

You mean when we had a trade surplus we had less manufacturing?

[LS]

You still aren't confronting my argument. For the jobs to "leave," when did they "come?" You refuse to answer this, because you know that our share of mfg. has not changed in 40 years. WHAT we manufacture has changed, but not how much.

[Nov3]

For the jobs to "leave," when did they "come?"

They came during the 40's, they are leaving NOW.

[LS]

Ok, finally. It took this long for you to answer a question. So, in your view, the only thing that creates jobs is war, right?

Because there was nothing else happening in the 1940s except the war. Inflation was at a near-all-time high; there WAS no real "civilizan" production until about 1947 (see Robert Higg's study), and we had worldwide captive markets, because no one else had any industry left. Is that your idea of a healthy U.S. or even healthy world economy?

Or do you advocate a major war? Either way, this is pure Keynesianism: Government spends money, jobs "get created." (Which, of course, is false.)