President Clinton, The Economy Started Losing Manufacturing Jobs While You Were in Office

[Karmadillo]

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/president-clinton-the-economy-started-losing-manufacturing-jobs-while-you-were-in-office

President Clinton, The Economy Started Losing Manufacturing Jobs While You Were in Office
by Dean Baker

Monday, 20 June 2011 09:52

If you ever wondered why manufacturing employment has not done well over the last 15 years, President Clinton gave us part of the answer in a column giving advice on job creation . His 13th item on job creation is "Enforce Trade Laws," where he tells readers:

"We lost manufacturing jobs in every one of the eight years after I left office. One of the reasons is that enforcement of our trade laws dropped sharply. Contrary to popular belief, the World Trade Organization and our trade agreements do not require unilateral disarmament. They’re designed to increase the volume of two-way trade on terms that are mutually beneficial. My administration negotiated 300 trade agreements, but we enforced them, too. Enforcement dropped so much in the last decade because we borrowed more and more money from the countries that had big trade surpluses with us, especially China and Japan, to pay for government spending. Since they are now our bankers, it’s hard to be tough on their unfair trading practices. This happened because we abandoned the path of balanced budgets 10 years ago, choosing instead large tax cuts especially for higher-income people like me, along with two wars and the senior citizens’ drug benefit. In the history of our republic, it’s the first time we ever cut taxes while going to war."

Okay, we have some real serious confusion here from the former president. First, it is true that the economy lost manufacturing jobs in the eight years after President Clinton left office, but the job loss began in his last three years in office. Here are the numbers:

Change in Manufacturing Jobs

1998 -140,000

1999 -170,000

2000 -99,000


It is true that the pace of job loss picked up after Clinton left office, but this was due first and foremost to the recession caused by the collapse of the stock bubble. Blaming President Bush for that downturn would be like blaming Obama for the Lehman crisis if it happened to occur in February of 2009 rather than September of 2008. The downturn caused by the collapse of the bubble was the result of President Clinton's team failure to try to rein in the bubble. As a result of the collapse of the stock bubble, the country had at the time the longest period without job growth since the Great Depression. It only began to create jobs again once the housing bubble began to fuel a construction and consumption boom.

Now for the other part of Clinton story:

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Agreed, and may I add

that during Clinton's tenure, the phenomenon really took off of new jobs were mostly temporary and/or part time positions. Full time, good-paying jobs with benefits were relics of the past during the Clinton years and it's only worsened since that time.

[robcon]

3. Loss of manufacturing jobs will continue.

There were fewer manufacturing jobs in 1980 than in 1970. Fewer in 1990 than 1980. Fewer in 2000 than in 1990. Fewer in 2010 than 2000.

There will be fewer manufacturing jobs in 2020 than there are now in the the U.S.

One of the benefits of freer trade is that trade creates opportunities for other countries to compete, and to lower prices, to improve quality - resulting in a stronger economy for all countries.

Going back to where we made our 'own' steel, aluminum, cars, toys, food, etc. is not realistic, and it's not going to happen.

Defining 'who was president' during the loss of manufacturing is silly, IMO.

[Motown_Johnny]

16. your statement does not seem to be completely accurate

Can you please source your claim that there were fewer manufacturing jobs in 1980 than in 1970?

Also, the changes from 1980 to 1990 and 1990 to 2000 seem to be very slight. A decline as a percentage of the population but pretty much flat as far as actual manufacturing jobs go.

From 2000 onward the story changes dramatically.



source material here: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

[robcon]

31. 1 manufacturing is not coming back. 2. who was the president during China's surge is irrelevant.

Those are my points.

Blaming it on the president is silly, IMO. China's surge came a decade after it moved to a more capitalist system - it doesn't matter who was president at that time.

[Distant Observer]

26. Why? China may want to move some production back to the US

[sufrommich]

4. This is straight out of the GOP talking points handbook. nt

[MrNJ]

7. Pay no attention to the man in the White House

In case that man is Bill Clinton, right?

[FreakinDJ]

11. Clinton open the door - Bush blew up the Dam and jobs ran out like Flood Water

Bush's Tax Cuts included the Off Shore Corp Profits clause. That more then any thing else has turned what was once a crack in the wall into the Bursting of the Damm

[Romulox]

15. More like Clinton drew up the plans for the job. CLINTON, not BUSH, is architect of NAFTA,

MFN for China...

[JoePhilly]

20. GHW Bush was the architect of NAFTA, not Clinton.

[Romulox]

21. NAFTA bears Clinton's signature. Engage with reality. nt

[JoePhilly]

34. There is a difference between being the architect of a bill, and siging it.

Your claim was false. You can claim he signed it, you can not claim he was its "architect".

As you said, engage with reality.

[Romulox]

14. You aren't going to argue that NAFTA has been good for Michigan.

Not with a straight face you're not. :hi:

[Motown_Johnny]

22. +1

[Hubert Flottz]

5. The Steel Mills were shutting down and moving out under Reagan.

Nixon started the ass kissing in China and the downhill slide started there.

[FreakinDJ]

8. That was the enactment of tighter EPA standards

and a shady deal by US Steel that was allowed to pass

[OHdem10]

10. Reagan opened up FREE TRADE. Remember he promised

we would protect Hi Tech and more complicated MFG
therefore we could give those low level manufacturing
jobs to the 3rd World.

This is how they were able to get it passed.

Lies, Lies Lies.

[FreakinDJ]

12. Exactly - Reagan turned us into a "Debtor Nation"

but I replied to his post concerning "Steel Mills" so that is why I mentioned US Steel. At the time they didn't have the lucrative Tax Incentives that Bush provided to move off shore. So US Steel set up it's subsidiary Corp in S Korea rather the clean up it's US manufacturing facilities. At the time they were still burning coke in "Open Hearth Furnaces"

But make no mistake -

It is the Bush Tax Cuts (with Obama just allowed to be extended) that provided Tax incentives to offshore jobs at an accelerated rate

[FreakinDJ]

6. Wall St knew Bush would Tax the Internet

Clinton had placed a Federal Moratorium on taxing internet sales.

Yes the Tech Stocks were over-valued but their declined followed Bush's poll numbers in the lead up to the 2000 election

[BrklynLiberal]

9. Sad but true.

Some folks are doing to Clinton what the repukes do to Reagan.

[FreakinDJ]

13. UnRec for too many RATpubliCON talking points

[Romulox]

17. LOL. Truth hurts. A LOT. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

18. Where did they get these numbers from? They don't seem to be accurate.

If you go here: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

The US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics has different numbers





1998 17623 17627 17637 17635 17623 17609 17421 17563 17557 17511 17465 17447
1999 17432 17395 17368 17343 17333 17296 17308 17286 17279 17273 17281 17277
2000 17292 17284 17302 17298 17279 17298 17321 17286 17226 17215 17202 17178

[MatthewStLouis]

19. Clinton didn't help things by pushing the 'service economy'.

Of course Reagan was the one who got the ball rolling. It's been a great ride for Wall Street, but sucks for the rest of us; stuck with crappy retail/service jobs, pension plans taken away, encouraged to play the stock market with our retirement money (401k plans)...

How's it all gonna end?

[Gregorian]

23. True. But we're we not already losing manufacturing jobs before Clinton was in office?

I'm not defending Clinton as much as asking why those jobs were being lost. We can point squarely back at the previous presidents who set the stage.

I want to see more data on this part of the story.

[jwirr]

24. The leak of jobs actually started with raygun but it did not stop in

the Clinton years and doesn't look like it is going to stop now either. Our corporations are not interested in national security. Only corporate security at taxpayers expense.

[Distant Observer]

25. ERR! SO MUCH FALSE INFO, SO LITTLE TIME. Manufacturing declined from the '80s under Reagan

There has been a complex of changes in the US economy and the labor market since WW II. The factors that set the stage for U.S. manufacturing decline -- expansion of steel and basic components manufacturing in the far east, the opening of China -- emerged in the 70's, but the real decline started in the 80's under Reagan.

The decision by the electorate to choose the Reagan vision of "morning in America" over the Carter warning of American malaise -- in the face of an energy crisis and growing global competition -- really was the turning point.

American business was cocky and believed they could move the lower-profit manufacturing industries to other countries without any long-term penalty.

[moondust]

29. Thank you.

That's how I remember it. During the deregulatory, greed-is-good, gas-guzzling 80s of Reagan a few greedy companies moving their jobs offshore may not have made a big dent in the overall economy; but over time as more and more companies did it unemployment was bound to grow.

During Clinton's terms it was suggested, if not explicitly stated, that "new economy" tech jobs would replace the lost manufacturing jobs so people shouldn't fret. Then during the GWB years the offshoring continued with a lot of those tech jobs. And now we're screwed.

If something was ever going to be done to stop the massive offshoring of jobs and drain on the U.S. economy, the best time to do it was early on before it got out of hand--back in the 1980s.

[jtuck004]

27. Well before that..."Half an Ingot for the Steel Industry"

In a long-awaited decision last week that left no one jumping for joy, President Reagan ruled out import quotas to shield the American steel industry from cheaper foreign steel. Instead he opted for a system of voluntary restraints on shipments to the U.S. by producers in Japan, Brazil, South Korea and elsewhere and vowed stiffer enforcement of existing Fair Trade laws. Unionized steelworkers said Reagan did not go far enough toward protecting their jobs. The steel industry, drained by $4.7 billion in losses during the past two years partly because of foreign competition, had lobbied for more protection.
...

...Farmers were opposed because they feared foreign governments would retaliate by restricting U.S. agricultural sales. U.S. banks did not want the White House to be too restrictive against steel from Brazil and other developing countries, which need the money from exports to pay interest on debt owed to American banks. Cheaper foreign steel keeps the price of Detroit's cars more competitive with those from Japan, so Detroit's autoworkers have reason to approve Reagan's decision. Major steel users who are big exporters, Caterpillar Tractor of Peoria, Ill., for one, are also in favor of lower-cost steel. It allows them to make products for sale abroad at more competitive prices.

...

By John S. DeMott;William Stewart/Washington Monday, Oct. 01, 1984


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,954409,00.html#ixzz1PvaBiJTp

_______________________________________________________________________--

The financial world has been on a kick to profit from debt for a long, long time. It's just that now they are better at it, and no longer constrained by old-fashioned notions such as morality, concern for others well-being, or honesty. For 40 years the above mentioned elected officials and others continue to support their efforts with law(s) and, when that proves unsound, provides for taxpayer cash to further their efforts. And rather than invest in our country and people we have been told the path should be the loss of basic social services to millions of people imposed by constraints chosen by people interested in only the lowest common denominator.

Then again, we keep making excuses for them.

[amborin]

28. China to WTO was his worst move

[Donnachaidh]

30. Captain Nafta really needs to be called out publicly on his crimes against the working class

Especially now as he supposedly is working with Obama on a *jobs* program.

[robcon]

33. NAFTA was a tremendous boost to U.S. employment - but not in manufacturing

All free trade agreements help both countries - or in the case of NAFTA, all three countries.

[Taverner]

32. That is because he killed those jobs

Offshore offshore offshore!

Outsource!

Yeah, that worked out well...