Now Yahoo! Buzzes Service Sector Increase

Well...no sooner had I thought I'd pack it in for the night that I stumbled across this tentatively hopeful report about the increase in Service Sector jobs:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100405/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy;_ylt=Au8cYLquMHdebr6vyYqgeySs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNlYmtxYXQwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDA1L3VzX2Vjb25vbXkEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM3BHBvcwM0BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDbW9yZWdvb2RlY29u

[Jeez, what a long link!]

The first part that 'jumped out at me' was this:

"Some economists and corporate executives say it (service sector job growth bring down the unemployment rate) could. And they say they no longer fear a double-dip recession — in which the end of government stimulus money would tip the economy back into contraction."

Hmmm....somewhere...a long time ago, a very good English professor instructed me to "cite my sources" when making sweeping statements. Don't get me wrong, I want the U.S. economy to recover. But two paragraphs down, the authors of this article quote one economist from one "capital markets" firm. Farther down, they quote one V-P for a recruiting firm and two executives from a public relations firm. Some? To me that seems more like 'a few.'

But, hey, a small ray of sunshine in an otherwise bleak economy, right?

And best of all, this article gave me a clue as to what a 'service economy' consists of: "It includes jobs in areas like health care, retail and financial services." That doesn't sound so bad.

Nevertheless, there's a nagging doubt in the back of my mind about the U.S. economy being a 'service-based' economy versus a 'manufacturing-based economy'... I'm clinging to my assertion in the previous post. A balanced economy of service and manufacturing would serve the U.S. best.

My pursuit of understanding this continues.

Manufacturing Sector Info in Article About Chinese Currency Manipulation?

After eight days of off-and-on research, I stumbled across an article today from Forbes about the Chinese economy (and its relationship to the U.S. economy), currency manipulation and a possible 'trade war' between the U.S. and the Chinese governments. The U.S. manufacturing industry is mentioned, hence, the reason to even bring it up now. To my perception, the information, found here:

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/05/china-trade-war-personal-finance-currency-manipulation.html?boxes=Homepagechannels

falls somewhere between the rosy picture found in the industry newsletter and the Yahoo! article which paints a doomed picture for those who have been in manufacturing all their lives.

To quote:

"Make no mistake: The reduction in the manufacturing and goods-producing sector (manufacturing, mining and agriculture) of the economy continues to be a serious problem. Manufacturing's contribution has fallen from 14.5% of U.S. gross domestic product in 2000 to 11.5% now. More troubling is the jobs picture. The U.S. has lost 5.7 million manufacturing jobs over the past decade. Measured in terms of all goods-producing sectors, the losses come to a stunning 6.8 million jobs."

There are so many statistics floating around, it was easy for me to get lost in the numbers and wonder, "What does it all mean in concrete terms that I can wrap my mind around?"

As I was considering that question two days ago, a thought occurred to me. How about a balanced economy? One with manufacturing jobs, farm jobs, service jobs, and every other kind of jobs. Something for everybody.

To quote the late Robert Heinlein, "Specialization is for insects." Can the United States survive as a country 'specializing' in just that one thing, "service"? Personally, I don't think so.

Manufacturing Industry Doublespeak?

I first heard that the United States of America would be moving from a "manufacturing economy" to a "service economy" back in the 1990s. At that time I thought, "Service economy? What the heck is that?"

I still haven't come across a satisfactory answer. But more on that later.

I was surfing around various sites on the 'Net and came across several references to American manufacturing ... or the lack thereof. So I became curious. Has the USA passed from being a manufacturing powerhouse? I arrived at an online newsletter for "The National Association of Manufacturers."
< http://www.nam.org/Communications/Articles/2009/10/NewDataShowUnitedStatesWorldsLargestManufacturing.aspx>

A few highlights:

• The United States has the largest manufacturing economy in the world, producing $1.6 trillion in goods annually.
• America's global market share of manufacturing has held steady at around 22 percent for 30 years.
• One in six U.S. jobs is in or directly tied to manufacturing, which still pays premium wages and benefits.

Wow, that's a relief. But...if the above is true, why are there so many folks in the 'manufacturing sector' collecting unemployment?

My search continued. I discovered this on Yahoo! Finance news:

The Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI) reports high unemployment "won't change even as the rate of joblessness continues to improve." Lakshman Achuthan, spokesman for (ECRI) "figures of 40% of the unemployed, particularly in manufacturing, are permanently unemployable. 'So, those people are displaced. The recovery is happening. It's very real, but the economy doesn't want their skills for one reason or other."

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/growth-may-slow-but-%22there%27s-no-new-recession-in-sight%22-declares-ecri%27s-lakshman-achuthan-451530.html?tickers=^dji,^gspc,dia,spy,qqqq,tlt,uup&sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=

I went back to check the dates on both sources. The Manufacturing Industry Newsletter was dated October 6, 2009. The ECRI information was posted to Yahoo! Finance news March 27, 2010. So sometime between October of last year and March of this year...something major happened to the manufacturing sector? Does Mr. Achuthan know something that the National Association of Manufacturers doesn't? One inquiring mind wants to know...because they can't both be right. Can they?

Back to the newsletter, "In order to recover from the deepest manufacturing recession since the 1930's, it is vital to adopt policies promoting a sound domestic environment for this sector," said Thomas J. Duesterberg, president and chief executive officer of the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI. Wait a minute, at the top of the newsletter: one in six jobs is in the manufacturing sector. But overall, then, there must have been some job losses if manufacturing has been in a recession. Before the 'deepest manufacturing recession since the 1930's'...how many jobs out of six were in the same 'sector'? Two? Three? Me thinks somebody's playing the statistical shell game.

I'm still analyzing this because it is way out of my normal research and writing pursuits. And the data is not readily available on the Internet. It's apparently complex...like those Trade Agreements I was looking at. Now those will make your head spin.

In Nobody's 'Herd'

For two years friends have been encouraging me to 'weblog' now known as 'create a blog,' 'to blog,' and 'blogging.' I kept telling them I wouldn't know what to write. Or my thoughts are not very important, why should I torture the world with what I think. (Or anyone who might stumble onto this tiny corner of the Internet.)

Then, what to me was a surreal moment happened. I clicked on a link to a woman's blog just one day after the Healthcare Bill passed and, according to her, conservative talk radio and television was sending out 'coded messages' to their faithful followers. Understand this about me: 1) I read many different viewpoints; 2) I have said for at least fifteen years that the liberal/conservative and conservative/liberal split was going to get much worse and much uglier; and, 3) having friends and acquaintances in both camps while trying to 'keep to the middle' has been a very entertaining life.

I have sat through several of Bill O'Reilly's broadcasts and if there's a coded message in there...the key to it must be a humdinger. He actually is careful about how he phrases stuff: 'alleged'; 'suspected'; 'bears further investigation.' Now as far as Rush Limbaugh goes...I haven't heard him since the mid-nineties. He seemed on the verge of a heart attack to me then. But Mr. Limbaugh didn't strike me as a trained reporter type. Neither does Glen Beck.

But lest the gentle reader of this think I'm attacking any of these men, I think they're in good company. I give you Boake Carter. Born Harold Thomas Henry Carter in Baku, Russia ... in either the late 1800s or the early 1900s, depends on who you cite ... to a British Foreign Service family. Anyway, he became a U.S. citizen and rose to fame on the Lindburgh baby kidnapping. After being picked up by a national radio sponsor, according to someone somewhere, his "commentary became 'ascerbic'." He was not a fan of the New Deal under FDR. A different source writes, "FDR really wanted to shut him up." Hmmm, that sounds familiar.

So...if one is a bad, sinister conservative, it's acceptable to make nonsensical comments about him (or her). Suddenly the issue isn't about positions, logic, or facts. It's about sneakiness, about sending out information that only the 'initiated' can understand. The next question begged to be answered: to get the 'initiated' to do what exactly. But the answer never came. At least not in the blog that inspired this one.


I refuse to be stuffed into a pigeon hole of someone else's definition. On some issues I'm conservative. On other issues, I'm liberal. And I firmly believe, there' is always a Third Path. We Americans just haven't found it yet.