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.