O.K. I heard what Rush could play. Someone watching has a job to do.
I have asaked anyone hewre to tell me what is made here..no answers ...look at out trade deficit..
I will like the tax cut..gives me more money..but it will do nothing for the workers that have their jobs gone
Unemployment Rate:
6.0% in Nov 2002
Change in Unemployment Level:
+299,000 in Nov 2002
Change in Employment Level:
-689,000 in Nov 2002
Change in Civilian Labor Force Level:
-390,000 in Nov 2002
Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate:
66.4% in Nov 2002
Employment-Population Ratio:
62.5% in Nov 2002
" ****
Of the 2.3 million reemployed displaced workers who lost full-time wage
and salary jobs during the 1999-2001 period, 1.9 million were working again
in such jobs in January 2002.*** Of these reemployed full-time workers, about
48 percent were earning as much or more in their new jobs as they had earned
on the job they lost. This was lower than the proportion recorded in the
February 2000 survey (58 percent).**** In January 2002, 29 percent reported
earnings losses of 20 percent or more. (See table 7.)" *****
From
Technical information: (202) 691-6378 USDL 02-483
http://www.bls.gov/cps/
For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT
Media contact: 691-5902 Wednesday, August 21, 2002
WORKER DISPLACEMENT, 1999-2001
During the January 1999 through December 2001 period, 4.0 million
workers were displaced from jobs they had held for at least 3 years, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today.
The number of displaced workers increased from 3.3 million in January 1997
through December 1999. The more recent period includes the recession that
began in March 2001 and the resulting slowdown in the labor market. In
contrast, the prior survey covered a period of strong employment growth and
declining unemployment.
Since 1984, the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S.
Department of Labor has sponsored surveys that collect information on
workers who were displaced from their jobs. These surveys have been
conducted biennially as supplements to the Current Population Survey (CPS),
a monthly survey of households that is the primary source of information on
the nation's labor force.
Displaced workers are defined as persons 20 years of age and older who
lost or left jobs because their plant or company closed or moved, there was
insufficient work for them to do, or their position or shift was abolished.
The period covered in this study was 1999-2001, the 3 calendar years prior
to the January 2002 survey date. The following analysis focuses primarily
on the 4.0 million persons who had worked for their employer for 3 or more
years at the time of displacement (referred to as long-tenured). Another
6.0 million persons were displaced from jobs they had held for less than
3 years (referred to as short-tenured). Combining the short- and long-
tenured groups, the number of displaced workers totaled 9.9 million, up
from 7.6 million in the prior survey. Results from the January 2002
survey included the following highlights:
--Nearly two-thirds of the long-tenured displaced were reemployed at
the time of the survey.
--Nearly half of the long-tenured displaced workers cited plant or
company closings or moves as the reason for their displacement.
--Forty-three percent of displaced workers who had worked for their
employer for 3 or more years had received written advance notification
that their jobs would be terminated. Those who had received advance
notice, however, were no more likely to be reemployed in January 2002
than were those who had not received advance notice.
--One-third of long-tenured displaced workers lost jobs in manufacturing.
This proportion continued to be much larger than the industry's share of
long-tenured employees. (Long-tenured employment is defined as the number
of persons employed for 3 years or more as measured by the CPS supplement on
job tenure.)
--Just over half of long-tenured workers who were displaced from full-
time wage and salary jobs and who were reemployed in such jobs had earnings
that were lower than those on the lost job. Among this group of reemployed
full-time workers, about 3 in 10 experienced earnings losses of 20 percent
or more.
- 2 -
Characteristics of the reemployed
Sixty-four percent of the 4.0 million long-tenured displaced workers
were reemployed when surveyed in January 2002. The proportion unemployed
at the time of the survey was 21 percent. The remaining 15 percent of long-
tenured displaced workers were not in the labor force. (See table 1.)
In January 2002, reemployment rates for workers ages 20 to 24 and those
in the central-age group (ages 25 to 54) were roughly the same--about 70
percent. By comparison, reemployment rates were lower for older workers
ages 55 to 64 (51 percent) and 65 years and older (20 percent). Large
proportions of older displaced workers were not in the labor force when
surveyed.
Men and women's shares of displacement were about equal to their shares
of long-tenured employment. In January 2002, men and women had similar
reemployment rates, 65 and 62 percent, respectively. Women were slightly
less likely to be unemployed than men, but the proportion of displaced
women who had left the labor force, at 19 percent, was higher than for
men--12 percent.
In January 2002, whites (65 percent) were more likely to be reemployed
than either blacks (58 percent) or Hispanics (55 percent).
Reason for job loss and receipt of advance notice
Of those long-tenured workers displaced from January 1999 through
December 2001, 47 percent lost or left their jobs due to plant or company
closings or moves, 25 percent cited insufficient work as the reason for
being displaced, and 27 percent reported that their position or shift was
abolished. (See table 2.) These proportions were about the same as those
reported in the prior survey.
More than 4 in 10 displaced workers received written advance notice
that their jobs would be terminated. In January 2002, workers who lost
jobs due to plant or company closings or moves were most likely to have
received written advance notice of their impending job loss. Of this
group, 55 percent received such notice; in comparison, 38 percent of
workers displaced because of shift abolishment and only 26 percent of
those who lost jobs due to insufficient work were notified in advance.
Regardless of the reason for displacement, receipt of written advance
notice appears to have had little impact on the likelihood of being
reemployed in January 2002. Reemployment rates were essentially the
same for those who did and those who did not receive advance notice--63
and 64 percent, respectively. (See table 3.)
Industry and occupation
As in prior surveys, manufacturing accounted for a disproportionately
large share of displaced workers. During the 1999-2001 period, 1.3 million
factory workers were displaced from their jobs--one-third of all long-tenured
displaced workers. This share was much higher than manufacturing's 19 percent
share of total long-tenured employment. Manufacturing displacements were
concentrated in durable goods industries, particularly in machinery. (See
table 4.)
Displacements in wholesale and retail trade (723,000) accounted for 18
percent of all long-tenured workers displaced during the 1999-2001 period.
Long-tenured displaced workers in transportation and public utilities
(295,000) and in finance, insurance, and real estate (284,000) each
accounted for 7 percent of total displacement.
- 3 -
The reemployment rate for displaced manufacturing workers was 56 percent,
lower than the overall reemployment rate for displaced workers. (These work-
ers were not necessarily reemployed in the same industries from which they
were displaced.) Reemployment rates for workers displaced from the other
major industry groups ranged from 62 percent for workers displaced from con-
struction and from transportation and public utilities to 71 percent for work-
ers who lost jobs in finance, insurance, and real estate and in government.
The occupational composition of displaced workers was similar to that
recorded in the 2000 survey. In the January 2002 survey, persons in mana-
gerial and professional specialty jobs accounted for 30 percent of all long-
tenured displaced workers. This proportion is slightly less than this
occupational group's share of total long-tenured employment. Workers
displaced from technical, sales, and administrative support occupations
comprised 29 percent of all displaced workers, matching their share of
total long-tenured employment. In contrast, operators, fabricators, and
laborers were disproportionately affected by job loss. These workers made
up 19 percent of the long-tenured displaced, but only accounted for 14
percent of total long-tenured employment. Workers in these occupations
tend to be employed in manufacturing. (See table 5.)
The proportion of displaced workers who had found new jobs when surveyed
was highest for mechanics and repairers (82 percent) and lowest for machine
operators, assemblers, and inspectors (49 percent).
Geographic divisions
Compared with the prior survey, the number of workers displaced in each
geographic division in the United States increased during the 1999-2001
period. The distribution of displacement among the divisions, however,
was about the same as in the prior survey. In terms of employment status
at the time of the January 2002 survey, the Pacific and Middle Atlantic
divisions had the largest proportions of displaced workers who were
unemployed in January 2002--28 and 24 percent, respectively. Displaced
workers in these divisions also were least likely to have found new
jobs; the reemployment rate for workers in the Middle Atlantic division
was 54 percent and in the Pacific division was 60 percent. (See table 6.)
Earnings
Of the 2.3 million reemployed displaced workers who lost full-time wage
and salary jobs during the 1999-2001 period, 1.9 million were working again
in such jobs in January 2002. Of these reemployed full-time workers, about
48 percent were earning as much or more in their new jobs as they had earned
on the job they lost. This was lower than the proportion recorded in the
February 2000 survey (58 percent). In January 2002, 29 percent reported
earnings losses of 20 percent or more. (See table 7.)
- 4 -
Total displaced workers (with no tenure restriction)
The total number of workers displaced during the 1999-2001 period
(regardless of how long they had held their jobs) was 9.9 million, more
than the number displaced during the 1997-99 period--7.6 million. Nearly
two-thirds of the total displaced had found new jobs when surveyed in
January 2002, while 22 percent were unemployed and 14 percent were not in
the labor force. (See table 8.)
Compared with the long-tenured displaced workers, the short-tenured were
more likely to be young and to have lost jobs in services and retail trade.
"I'll give you a short list of American made appliances for right now... Amana, Caloric, GE, Hotpoint, KitchenAid, Maytag, Speed Queen, Whirlpool, Farberware.
Please if you want to keep US made goods here, purchase them! "
Apparently your correspondent doesn't pay much attention to where the goods he/she buys are made. I certainly have a lot of Made in the USA labels on my goods. But, then again, I stay away from WalMart.
I agree! Pushing for higher taxes is NOT a winning position. The dims sound like complete idiots everytime they try to argue that people WANT their taxes raised. We just have to make SURE we get the word out that the demons have redefined 'rich' to include basically the entire middle class.
Tax the poor!
its the difference between giving the kid in the city a basketball but never teaching him how to play
give the man a fish or teach him.......
Do you think the Labor Unions have anything at all to do with jobs moving out of the US ? When union rules demand that a "skilled " worker make a minimum of $30 an hour for standing around pressing a button every couple of minutes -- I can see at least one reason why the jobs are going elsewhere
Brilliant.....absolutely brilliant...and deserving of it's own thread, John. Please?
Lets see what it means to be made in America..perhaps you are the one that needs an education...
Whirlpool Corporation, the world's leading manufacturer of major home appliances, has
comments regarding the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) request for input pertaining
to "Made in USA" claims in product advertising and labeling. We are a global marketer
and manufacturer of a full line of major home appliances and have a marketing presence in
over 140 countries. In the US we see a value in being able to advertise our products as
++++ "Made in USA." Heretofore we have not done so because of the very strict standards that
the FTC has established for declaring a product as being of US manufacture.
The 100% parts and labor content standard established by the FTC is unreasonable and
does not reflect our truly global economy. As such, Whirlpool supports the position of
our trade association (The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers- AHAM) which
condones using one or more of the NAFTA criteria for determining origin. ++++
Specifically,
for some products, like small appliances, a product is "Made in the USA" if
1) over 50% of the product is of domestic origin using the net cost method, or
2) more than 60% of the product is of domestic origin using the transaction value
method.
Alternatively, we agree with AHAM that another option for the FTC to consider would be
to allow "Made in USA" status, for advertising purposes, if over 50% of the product's
parts and labor content is domestic. The FTC should be aware that for other products,
like major home appliances, the rules of origin are based on tariff classification change, not
value content. This latter method has the advantage of avoiding burdensome accounting
to determine eligibility of a product for domestic origin. Any of the above approaches
would be more acceptable and would provide needed flexibility to manufacturers in
advertising to consumers that a preponderance of the parts and labor in a particular
product are of US origin.
EXAMPLES OF APPLICATIONS
FTC PROPOSED GUIDES FOR THE USE OF U.S. ORIGIN CLAIMS(1)
The standard for unqualified U.S. Origin Claims (e.g., "Made in USA"):
A marketer making an unqualified U.S. origin claim should, at the time it makes the claim, possess and rely upon a reasonable basis that substantiates that the product is substantially all made in the United States.
75% U.S. CONTENT SAFE HARBOR
It will not be considered a deceptive practice for a marketer to make an unqualified U.S. origin claim if, at the time it makes the claim, the marketer possesses and relies upon competent and reliable evidence that: (1) U.S. manufacturing costs constitute 75% of the total manufacturing costs for the product; and (2) the product was last substantially transformed in the United States.
Example 1: A bicycle is assembled in the United States, and its frame is manufactured in the United States. Of the remaining parts of the bicycle (tires, derailleur, gear shift, etc.), some are manufactured in the United States and some are imported from foreign countries. Overall, U.S. costs constitute 75% of the total costs of manufacturing the product. In addition, under U.S. Customs Service rulings, the bicycle would be considered to have been last substantially transformed in the United States. It would likely not be deceptive for the bicycle to be labeled "Made in USA."
Example 2: A toaster is made from primarily U.S. parts and is assembled in Canada in a process that constitutes a substantial transformation. U.S. costs account for 75% of the total costs of manufacturing the product. A claim that the toaster is "American Made" would likely be deceptive, as the last substantial transformation occurs outside the United States.
The following example shows in more detail how marketers might calculate U.S. content:
Example 3: A company manufactures lawn mowers in its U.S. plant, making most of the parts (housing, blade, handle, etc.) itself from U.S. materials. The engine, however, is bought from a supplier. The engine's cost constitutes 50% of the total cost of producing the lawn mower, while the manufacture of the other parts and final assembly costs constitute the other 50% of the total. The engine is manufactured in a U.S. plant from U.S. and imported parts; U.S. manufacturing costs constitute 60% of the engine's total cost. Thus, U.S. costs constitute 80% of the total cost of manufacturing the product (50% [U.S. cost of final assembly and other parts] + (60% x 50%) [U.S. cost of engine]). Because U.S. manufacturing costs exceed 75% of total manufacturing costs and the last substantial transformation of the product took place in the United States, a claim that the lawnmower is "Made in USA" would likely not be deceptive.
TWO LEVELS OF SUBSTANTIAL TRANSFORMATION SAFE HARBOR
It will not be considered a deceptive practice for a marketer to make an unqualified U.S. origin claim if, at the time it makes the claim, the marketer possesses and relies upon competent and reliable evidence that: (1) the product was last substantially transformed in the United States; and (2) all significant inputs into the final product were last substantially transformed in the United States.
Example 1: A tape recorder is made up of three major subassemblies, and a few additional minor parts (which account for only a small fraction of the finished product's cost). Each of the subassemblies is manufactured in the United States, using primarily imported components. Final assembly of the tape recorder takes place in the United States. The assembly of each of the subassemblies as well as the final assembly would be considered substantial transformations under the Tariff Act. A label that said "Made in America" would likely not be deceptive.
Example 2: A refrigerator is assembled in the United States from a number of components, and this assembly process constitutes the last substantial transformation of the product. Several of the refrigerator's components are themselves assembled in the United States, but certain other major components, such as the compressor and the motor, are manufactured abroad. Because the last substantial transformation of these major components occurred abroad, unless manufacturing and assembling costs attributable to the United States constitute at least 75% of the total manufacturing costs of the refrigerator, an unqualified claim that the refrigerator was "Manufactured in USA" would likely be deceptive.
Example 3: A blank compact disk is manufactured in the United States from imported materials, in a process that constitutes a substantial transformation. Music is then encoded onto the compact disk in the United States, in a process that also constitutes a substantial transformation and is the last substantial transformation of the product. Because both the manufacture of the compact disk and the encoding of music onto the disk would be considered substantial transformations under the Tariff Act, the last two levels of substantial transformation take place in the United States, and a printed statement on the compact disk that said "USA" would likely not be deceptive, even if the imported materials used in the manufacture of the compact disk account for more than 25% of the total manufacturing costs.
QUALIFIED U.S. ORIGIN CLAIMS
Example 1: A piece of luggage is produced in the United States from leather that was tanned and processed in Italy. U.S. manufacturing costs account for 50% of the total manufacturing costs of the luggage; the leather, 40%; and miscellaneous imported parts, 10%. A claim that the luggage was "Made in the USA of Italian leather" would likely not be deceptive.
Example 2: A snowblower is assembled in the United States. The engine is manufactured in the United States and other parts, such as the frame and the wheels, are imported from several different countries. Together, the U.S. assembly and U.S. parts account for 55% of the total cost of manufacturing the product. An advertising circular that described the snowblower as "Proudly made in America with U.S. and imported parts" would likely not be deceptive.
Example 3: A typewriter is produced in the United States from a mix of U.S. and imported parts. Assuming that the marketer can substantiate that U.S. costs constitute 60% of the total costs of manufacturing the typewriter, a label that said "60% American Made" or "U.S. Content: 60%" would likely not be deceptive.
U.S. ORIGIN CLAIMS FOR SPECIFIC PROCESSES OR PARTS
Example 1: Computer software is designed and written in the United States and copied in the United States onto floppy disks that are manufactured in Japan. A package label that stated "Software written in the United States" would likely not be deceptive.
Example 2: A U.S.-based furniture maker designs a sofa in the United States and has the sofa manufactured in Denmark. Because the Tariff Act would require that the sofa be marked with a foreign country of origin, a tag that said only "Designed in USA" would not be permitted by the U.S. Customs Service. Were the furniture maker, however, to note the U.S. design of the product in conjunction with an appropriate foreign origin marking, e.g., "Made in Denmark from U.S. designs," the statement would likely be both permissible under the Tariff Act and not deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
Example 3: A faucet is manufactured in the United States from a U.S.-made cartridge (which controls water flow) and other parts, all of which are foreign-made. The foreign parts account for sufficient cost that an unqualified U.S. origin claim could not be made for the faucet. The marketer of the faucet has a World Wide Web page on the Internet that advertises the faucet as "Made with our exclusive U.S.-made cartridges." The claim is likely not deceptive.
COMPARATIVE U.S. ORIGIN CLAIMS
Example 1: In an advertisement for its stereo speakers, the manufacturer states that "We do more of our manufacturing in the United States than any other speaker manufacturer." The manufacturer assembles the speakers in the United States from U.S. and imported components. U.S. costs, from final assembly operations at the manufacturer's U.S. factory and from U.S.-made parts, are significant but constitute less than 75% of the total cost of manufacturing the speakers, and, therefore, the manufacturer cannot substantiate an unqualified U.S. origin claim. However, provided that the manufacturer can substantiate that the difference between the U.S. content of its speakers and that of the other manufacturers' speakers is significant, the comparative claim would likely not be deceptive.
1. Some, but not all, of these examples appear in the proposed guides.
