U.S. Manufacturing's Decline Is Business as Usual for Bush Administration

TradeAlert.org ^ | Friday, December 12, 2003 | William R. Hawkins

[A. Pole]

James Sasser, who served as U.S. ambassador to China from 1995 to 1999 and was a U.S. Senator before that, recently told Bloomberg news, "The Chinese really don't do any lobbying. The heavy lifting is done by the American business community."

Bump

[Willie Green]

Nationwide, only 15% of the manufacturing workforce is represented by organized labor.
In comparison, over 40% of government workers are unionized.
(Union affiliation of employed wage and salary workers by occupation and industry)

[IronJack]

labor seen as a commodity

That has a decidedly Marxist tone to it ...

[A. Pole]

labor seen as a commodity

That has a decidedly Marxist tone to it ...

Are you suggesting that free traders are Marxists?

[Tempest]

Well that's great! All the new jobs are being created in the Administrative and support services.

[IronJack]

Are you suggesting that free traders are Marxists?

No, just that the "commodity theory of labor" rings remarkably like Marx's Labor Theory of Capital.

[templar]

Are you suggesting that free traders are Marxists?

Karl Marx was a free trader. Draw your on inferences.

[ARCADIA]

Are you suggesting that free traders are Marxists?

A good question. I will judge you by the friends you keep and so far globalist love to associate with socialist and communist. Communist states have capital and powerful and wealthy families, they simply differ by not providing opportunities, and by using propaganda and oppression to control the population. That sounds too much like the present day US to me.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

"Contradictory job reports rattle markets, some analysts," by Danielle DiMartino, The Dallas Morning News, reported that "Employers added just 57,000 jobs, far less than the 150,000 that economists had expected."

I did not google hard enough to get the names of the economists but I had read that many did in fact expect more jobs to be created. I believe that the adminstration itself set a goal of 200,000 a month last summer.

[Tempest]

150k is the job rate in which we need to create in order to match the rate of growth. 200k is a pipe dream. I think perhaps something must've been taken out of context. Because anyone expecting 150k jobs a month rate of growth this early in the recovery is smoking some serious crack. Or they'er riding on that instant gratification train that all the kiddies like so much.

[Siamese Princess]

No, just that the "commodity theory of labor" rings remarkably like Marx's Labor Theory of Capital.

You've put your finger on something. The Marxists and the "the free market will solve all of the problems of mankind" crowd both see human beings simply as economic units, homo economicus, economic man -- workers, taxpayers, consumers.

[ARCADIA]

...expecting 150k jobs a month rate of growth this early in the recovery is smoking some serious crack.

Gee, I heard the "recovery" had started years ago. So what would you call a reasonable expectation, 10-15 years and perhaps never?

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: smoking some serious crack and the instant gratification train that all the kiddies like so much.

I am compelled to respond. Maybe you are not old enough to remember when these things followed the classic model. Like in the 1950s, 60s, for example.

150,000 people a month being recalled / hired would be peanuts. We've just had the second anniversary of the beginning of the recovery stage. In the old days everyone would have been back at work for months and getting ready for the next downturn.

Stephen Roach writes about a new model. Right or wrong, I don't understand why more economists don't admit that this ain't their dad's recession.

Perhaps I misunderstand and you are saying that in this particular recovery -- not the classic model -- it is not reasonable to expect so many jobs at this time. IMO, for this particular recovery, two years is indeed early in the recovery. What's going on today is nothing like what I remember.

[Jerr]

Like I have said in the past, once American companies view their products as nothing more than commodity products, they eliminate any advantage that they previously had.

At that point, they can not compete on price alone, and they lose their market....and ultimately American jobs.

They have to reverse the trend by instilling something of value into their products AND keep costs at a reasonable level. They need to reincorporate quality and technological advances. Give the consumer something extra not just another commodity product.

[snopercod]

Well that's great! All the new jobs are being created in the Administrative and support services.

Hey, don't leave out the #2 increase, hotel maids (accomodations).

[snopercod]

They need to reincorporate quality and technological advances.

That would certainly help. Take coffee pots for instance.

The ones you buy at Wal-Mart for $15 are really annoying. They leak water out as they're brewing, and the pots don't pour well. Seems like some American company could make a better one for...say...$30. But maybe not.

[zip]

Line up Trolls. Willie's at it again.

[A. Pole]

No, just that the "commodity theory of labor" rings remarkably like Marx's Labor Theory of Capital.

Hmm, this is a FACT that free traders treat labor as a commodity. So maybe it is their affinity with Marxists that is ringing.

[Cacophonous]

Karl Marx was a free trader.

That's only partly true. Karl Marx supported free trade for the west because he saw - just as Adam Smith saw - that unbridled "free trade" - the variety worshipped today by neocons and liberals alike - would desctroy the western manufacturing capability. He also knw that it was the only way an economy with government control of manufacturing and transportation could survive, by importing that now destroyed manufacturing capacity. I don't know how surprised he would be to see so much of the neo-con western world lining up to slit its own throat, though.

Adam Smith knew this too, which is why he insisted, in many instances, on tariffs.

[Cacophonous]

A good question. I will judge you by the friends you keep and so far globalist love to associate with socialist and communist. Communist states have capital and powerful and wealthy families, they simply differ by not providing opportunities, and by using propaganda and oppression to control the population. That sounds too much like the present day US to me.

It does make one wonder about the difference between a government and economy controlled by a few individuals, and one controlled by a few corporations.