I do understand the difference between OUTPUT and EMPLOYMENT. Then again, I wasn't the one suggesting that OUTPUT meant increased EMPLOYMENT.
and, my links included the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. so, indeed.
How hard is it for you to deduce?
I am the one the posted the graphs of increasing output and declining employment.
You are the one arguing that what matters is jobs.
Remember? Its only two pages back!
http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=53741&page=2
oh yes.. it's a FALSE CORRELATION that so called free trade matches the decline of manufacturing jobs, eh?
oook.
clearly, your word means more than Dept of Labor stats.
Have you ever taken a class in regression? You understand the relationship between dependent and independent variables? You understand concepts such as serial correlation? If you do, you would know that you have to test different variables to understand the relationship between different factors and cause and effect.
So, yes, it is false causality. You have to separate different factors to understand cause and effect. That's why I posted an empirical study. You have done no such thing. You have posted anecdotes and made false analogies to declining employment levels.
I do understand the difference between OUTPUT and EMPLOYMENT. Then again, I wasn't the one suggesting that OUTPUT meant increased EMPLOYMENT.
and, my links included the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. so, indeed.
You seem to be confused, first on employment and output
I wonder if 93-97 is as applicable to understanding where we are in 08 as product OUTPUT is, apparently, the same thing as EMPLOYMENT.
since they, apparently, aren't the same thing, and second, on your seemingly incomprehension that I agree with you that manufacturing employment has fallen since we are both referencing data from the BLS. So why do you keep telling me that employment is falling? I already know that. I knew that when they released the data. Your repeating this fact does not substantiate your argument.
no shit. which is why I found it rather easy to post evidence indicating the decline of manufacturing jobs DESPITE the fact that you brought up OUTPUT.
So, did you want to tell me how our middle class has been able to support itself on MORE manufacturing jobs or would you rather stick with the ambiguous "creates more jobs"?
Because what matters is output, not jobs. Hey, we could have the Federal government take a billion dollars and hire a thousand people to dig ditches for a million dollars. Think of the thousand jobs we'd create, AND we'd create a thousand new millionaires. By your logic, we should do this because you can see the high-paying jobs being created, never mind that a billion dollars would be taken out of the economy and transfered to a lucky few. The effect of protectionism is to take money from a large group of people to give it to a few.
As for the middle class being reliant on manufacturing jobs, that couldn't be more wrong. Do simple math. The number of jobs in America at the end of 2007 was 138 million. The number of manufacturing jobs was 13.8 million.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
In other words, manufacturing jobs was 10% of total jobs. But we're supposed to believe that the middle class is dependent on manufacturing?
Funny that even though the proportion and outright numbers of manufacturing jobs have been declining, the middle class has not.
The middle class isn't disappearing - it's moving up.
The Census reports that the share of U.S. households earning $35,000 to $75,000 a year (in '06 dollars) - roughly, the middle class - has indeed shrunk slightly over the last decade, from 34 percent to 33 percent. But so, too, has the share earning less than $35,000 - from 40 percent to 37 percent.
It's the share of households earning more than $75,000 that's jumped - from 26 percent to 30 percent.
Trade has helped America transform itself into a middle-class service economy. Yes, the country's lost a net 3.3 million manufacturing jobs in the past decade - but it's added a net 11.6 million jobs in service and other sectors where average wages are higher than in manufacturing. Most of these new jobs are in better-paying categories, like professional and business services, finance and education and health services.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11072007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_truth_on_trade_424240.htm?page=0
So it appears that the middle class has shrunk by a whopping 1%, even though it appears that a bigger proportion of the workforce is now making more than $75k and even less are below $35k.
and again, here you are trying to suggest that the creation of retail jobs makes up for what has been lost in standard of living that was ONCE attainable with a factory job.
Should I be impressed that more poeple make LESS money these days?
Wrong. This is myth perpetuation. Since you didn't either click on
this link or outright ignored it, I'll post this graph
Contrary to the mythology, manufacturing jobs have not been replaced by low-end retail jobs.
Over the past 10 years, the loss of 3.3 million jobs have been offset by the creation of 11.6 million that pay more than the average wage in manufacturing.
Source - as you keep repeating - Bureau of Labor Statistics.
a blog, eh?
well, IM convinced.
Are you serious? It is a post on a large study in a book by an academic. I thought you would have figured out that all you had to do was click the link in the post for reference. Sorry. I won't make that assumption next time.
Here ya go.
http://bookstore.petersoninstitute.org/book-store/4143.html
A synopsis
http://www.petersoninstitute.org/publications/briefs/lawrence4143.pdf
A preview
http://www.petersoninstitute.org/publications/chapters_preview/4143/alliie4143.pdf
I had a smartass comment here but I'm going to edit it out so you stick around this thread.
You mean you haven't been making smart-ass comments already?
PS
Toyota takes 1Q world sales lead from General Motors
Wednesday April 23, 6:20 pm ET
By Tom Krisher, AP Auto Writer
Toyota takes 1Q world sales lead from General Motors after overtaking it in production in 2007
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080423/gm_global_sales.html?.v=8
probably has nothing to do with gas prices either. False Correlation, you know.
Toyota is productive than GM. Thank you for proving my point.
But since you said earlier that it would be better for America if Americans paid an extra 10 grand for a car, feel free, the next time you want to buy a vehicle, to go to the salesman and say you want to do your part for America by offering to pay $10,000 more than the sticker price, and quality doesn't matter, so make sure you get an inferior vehicle.
Because its better for Americans to pay more for an inferior product.
