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WASHINGTON - A Nebraska business executive has withdrawn from consideration to be President Bush's point man on manufacturing amid Democratic charges he outsourced jobs to China.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