Obama Announces Institute to Create Manufacturing Jobs

[ProSense]

Obama Announces Institute to Create Manufacturing Jobs

By MARK LANDLERJAN

RALEIGH, N.C. — It was President Obama’s first policy-related trip of 2014, but he used it to take care of some unfinished business from 2013...a pledge from last year’s speech, announcing the creation of a high-tech manufacturing institute aimed at creating well-paying jobs.

Speaking to 2,000 students at North Carolina State University, which is leading a group of universities and companies that established the institute, Mr. Obama said it was the kind of innovation that would reinvigorate the nation’s manufacturing economy.

<...>

This is the first of three such institutes the White House plans to announce in the coming weeks. It will be financed by a five-year, $70 million grant from the Department of Energy, which will be matched by funding from the consortium members, including the equipment maker John Deere and Delphi...The institute will use advanced semiconductor technology to develop a new generation of energy-efficient devices for automobiles, consumer electronics and industrial motors. Earlier Wednesday, Mr. Obama toured a Finnish company, Vacon, that makes drives used to control the speed of electric motors, to increase their energy efficiency.

<...>

The announcement Wednesday of the new manufacturing institute showcased the White House’s determination to press ahead with jobs programs, with or without Congress....But it also laid bare the limits of Mr. Obama’s authority, since Congress has stymied his more ambitious proposals that require legislation. In last year’s State of the Union address, the president announced a $1 billion plan, modeled on one in Germany, to create a network of 15 institutes that would develop new industries....setting up 15 institutes would require congressional authorization. So last year, Mr. Obama narrowed his focus to establishing three institutes using existing funds and executive authority. At the same time, he increased his long-term goal to 45 institutes over 10 years, while acknowledging this would require congressional action.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/us/politics/obama.html

From the piece, what are Republicans pushing for job creation: Keystone.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I think it might be more effective if we had a NEW CONGRESS!

[MineralMan]

4. We can do that in November.

GOTV 2014!

[ProSense]

14. I don't think a new Congress will help

Everything, and I mean everything, the President proposes is mischaracterized and/or dismissed: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024336572#post3

What we need is a new face: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024333473

Doesn't matter what he supports: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024335397

As long as it's not Obama, "Trojan Horse."

[ProSense]

11. The available funding is limited, and that is where Congress comes in. n/t

[Cha]

2. President Obama is out there working his

butt off for People and jobs. And, yeah.. let's send him a Congress he can WORK with.

Thanks PS

[ProSense]

8. But

"President Obama is out there working his butt off for People and jobs."

...this doesn't count because speculation about TPP.

Let's see, real initiative to create jobs vs. speculation about future job losses due to not yet approved or ratified treaty.

Maybe he should adopt Schweitzer and the Republicans' position on the job-creating Keystone bill and drop this one.

[Cha]

10. President Obama thinks things through and

doesn't come out swinging blindly like someone such as Schweitzer.

[cali]

3. and yet, President Obama is pushing the hell out of the job destroying, environment destroying

TPP and its equally terrible European counterpart, the TTIP.

[ProSense]

5. So he should scrap the OP initiative? n/t

[cali]

6. I said nothing of the sort. Just pointing out a glaring inconsistency.

[ProSense]

7. There is no "inconsistency." One has nothing to do with the other. n/t

[El_Johns]

23. Of course they do. Pushing more trade bills that make outsourcing manufacturing easier v. an

"Institute" to "promote manufacturing".

One is the economic ground, the other is a tiny point on that ground.

[ProSense]

25. Please

Of course they do. Pushing more trade bills that make outsourcing manufacturing easier v. an

"Institute" to "promote manufacturing".

One is the economic ground, the other is a tiny point on that ground.

...everyone understands the potential negative aspects of free trade, and the need to eliminate of minimize those effects.

Still, what does that have to do with the OP?

I guess the Republicans were right to kill the jobs bill because of people's opposition to free trade?

[pampango]

9. As you know trade has relatively little to do with our economy compared to almost any other country

in the world. The TPP has relatively little to do with trade as you have posted.

Obama obviously cares about the health of our manufacturing sector and its employees. Any domestic policy initiative that will help create manufacturing jobs will be a good thing.

[legcramp]

12. Just what is needed, another "institute". Assign it to a committee

and then they can break out into discussion groups to identify the problem.

WE KNOW THE PROBLEM ALREADY. THERE AIN'T NO GOD DAMN DECENT JOBS!

Discussion over, what ever we have been doing isn't working. Try something different, anything but more blah blah blah.

Being in motion is not taking action.

[ProSense]

13. The initiative is not "committee." n/t

[legcramp]

15. It's not an "lnitiative" it's an Institute.

eom

[ProSense]

16. LOL! Yes, it is. n/t

[JoePhilly]

18. Is there an actual recommendation in there?

You hate this idea, yet you propose nothing, or should I say NOTHING!

Ranting isn't taking action either.

[ProSense]

17. Kick! n/t

[DefenseLawyer]

19. It's not a lack of "innovation" that has destroyed the manufacturing sector.

It's 3rd world wages. Touting this little deal while supporting TPP is a little insulting.

[ProSense]

20. There it is

"Touting this little deal while supporting TPP is a little insulting."

...again. No, it isn't "insulting." What's "insulting" is implying that the President should push job-creating initiatives because of speculation about future job losses due to a not yet approved or ratified treaty.

[DefenseLawyer]

21. It's not just one treaty

It's the entire Friedman, supply-side, failed economic philosophy that brought us unfettered international corporatism by which Americans have lost millions of jobs to cheap 3rd world labor. Whistling past the graveyard while touting innovation and efficiency, yet still pretending our "free trade" policies are working (or have ever worked) and that they aren't 90% of the reason we don't have a strong manufacturing sector is insulting to me. You, of course, are free to cheer-lead for an utterly failed and disastrous economic philosophy as you see fit.

[ProSense]

22. Can you

It's not just one treaty

It's the entire Friedman, supply-side, failed economic philosophy that brought us unfettered international corporatism by which Americans have lost millions of jobs to cheap 3rd world labor. Whistling past the graveyard while touting innovation and efficiency, yet still pretending our "free trade" policies are working (or have ever worked) and that they aren't 90% of the reason we don't have a strong manufacturing sector is insulting to me. You, of course, are free to cheer-lead for an utterly failed and disastrous economic philosophy as you see fit.

...you point the jobs lost from Obama's push for free trade? Also, are you suggesting that he not push job-creating initiatives?

I can point to some positive results.

Obama Admin Wins Trade Complaint Against China At WTO

by TomP

Good timing for the speech today in Ohio.

GENEVA/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Washington won a major victory in an election-year dispute against China on Monday when a WTO ruling found China had discriminated against U.S. bank card suppliers in favor of a state-owned enterprise that enjoys an illegal monopoly.

The decision by a World Trade Organization dispute panel said Beijing was breaking WTO rules by requiring all yuan-denominated payment cards issued in China to work with the network belonging to China UnionPay (CUP), as well as requiring every merchant and ATM to accept CUP's cards.

<...>

White House spokesman Jay Carney called the ruling a "win" that showed "our determination to go after China's efforts to distort global trade rules".

"That is precisely why 3.5 years into the president's first term we have doubled the rate of WTO cases against China, versus the prior administration," he told reporters aboard Air Force One.

cnbc

This means a few more jobs:

US Trade Representative (USTR) Ron Kirk said the victory in the World Trade Organization dispute would allow US companies to compete on a level playing field with China's own company, China Union Pay, which has dominated the EPS market.

"The WTO panel agrees that China's pervasive and discriminatory measures deny a level playing field to American service providers, which are world leaders in this sector," Kirk said.

"This decision will help US companies and increase American jobs as a more efficient credit and debit payment system in China enables consumers to buy more goods, including quality, made-in-America products," he said.

According to industry estimates, the United States will gain 6,000 jobs related to electronic payment services, the Obama administration said.

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/16/1110564/-Obama-Admin-Wins-Trade-Complaint-Against-China-At-WTO

WTO Upholds Obama’s Tire Industry Relief Decision

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Appellate Body yesterday upheld President Obama’s decision based on U.S. trade law to provide relief for American tire industry workers against surging imports from China of passenger and light truck tires.

In September 2009, Obama became the first president to enforce U.S. trade law when he imposed tariffs to protect domestic workers against a surge in tire imports from China. The original complaint came from the United Steelworkers (USW), and Obama’s decision led to a rebound in the tire industry.

http://blog.aflcio.org/2011/09/06/wto-upholds-obamas-tire-industry-relief-decision/

[DefenseLawyer]

24. I support the President.

I've worked for his campaigns. I'll wager that I've donated as much to his campaigns as just about anyone here. He's wrong on "free trade". He didn't "cause" this problem. It's not all, or even mostly, "his fault". " We have followed this failed Chicago School supply side nonsense for 30 years and it has destroyed the working class. He continues to buy into the same disastrous philosophy. As long as he continues to bow to this failed idea that crushes the working class, I'm going to say I disagree. As I said, you can be for it because the President is for it. That's your prerogative.

[ProSense]

26. Good grief

I support the President. I've worked for his campaigns. I'll wager that I've donated as much to his campaigns as just about anyone here. He's wrong on "free trade". He didn't "cause" this problem. It's not all, or even mostly, "his fault". " We have followed this failed Chicago School supply side nonsense for 30 years and it has destroyed the working class. He continues to buy into the same disastrous philosophy. As long as he continues to bow to this failed idea that crushes the working class, I'm going to say I disagree. As I said, you can be for it because the President is for it. That's your prerogative.

What the hell does that have to do with the OP?

[DefenseLawyer]

28. The idea that "innovation" will bring back manufacturing is nonsense

It's wages. Wages wages wages. As long as a company can make something in Vietnam, paying a dollar for what they would have to pay 12 in the United States, we will not have a manufacturing base in this country and those jobs that remain will be streaking to the bottom of the wage scale. That's not a theory. That's the economic reality of the last 30 years. That's the real issue. That's a million times more important that "innovation" and "enterprise zones" and all the rest. Until that's addressed I don't see this kind of initiative going much of anywhere. So to my original point, talking about this while still blindly supporting "free trade" is frustrating, to say the least.

[ProSense]

29. Wait

"The idea that 'innovation' will bring back manufacturing is nonsense It's wages. Wages wages wages. As long as a company can make something in Vietnam, paying a dollar for what they would have to pay 12 in the United States, we will not have a manufacturing base in this country and those jobs that remain will be streaking to the bottom of the wage scale."

...did you read the OP?

RALEIGH, N.C. — It was President Obama’s first policy-related trip of 2014, but he used it to take care of some unfinished business from 2013...a pledge from last year’s speech, announcing the creation of a high-tech manufacturing institute aimed at creating well-paying jobs.

[DefenseLawyer]

32. You can create all the "high tech institutes" you want.

If you honestly believe that the reason wages have plummeted in this country and our manufacturing base has disappeared is because we lacked a "high-tech manufacturing institute" then you are delusional. Touting something like this as the solution to fix our dismal working class economy while plowing full speed ahead with the free trade, supply side policies that ACTUALLY created and continue to exacerbate the problem is not what I am looking for.

[ProSense]

33. Seriously,

"If you honestly believe that the reason wages have plummeted in this country and our manufacturing base has disappeared is because we lacked a 'high-tech manufacturing institute" then you are delusional.' "

...try to recognize that the point is to create "well-paying jobs." See, it says it right there:

RALEIGH, N.C. — It was President Obama’s first policy-related trip of 2014, but he used it to take care of some unfinished business from 2013...a pledge from last year’s speech, announcing the creation of a high-tech manufacturing institute aimed at creating well-paying jobs.

The jobs aren't the "institute." The wages aren't the "institute."

Until you understand that, don't call anyone else "delusional."

[DefenseLawyer]

34. The bridge has collapsed

And you are hard at work repainting the double yellow line.

[ProSense]

35. Actually,

"The bridge has collapsed

And you are hard at work repainting the double yellow line."

...that's lame considering that thus far, your point makes no frigging sense.

[pampango]

36. " ... our manufacturing base has disappeared ..." We are #2 manufacturer in the world,

slightly behind China ($1.9 trillion vs our $1.8 trillion) which has 4 times our population. I don't think that reflects a country whose "manufacturing base has disappeared". In fact it has risen steadily since the end of WWII.



As for wages, here's a graph from Paul Krugman of nonsupervisory workers:



http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/youre-all-losers/?_r=0

And US manufacturing wages are now average $19.60 an hour and has been rising since 1995 or so.

[DefenseLawyer]

37. Productivity and profit

Yes, by Wall Street's measuring stick things couldn't be much better. Thanks for setting me straight. Never mind that by your own graph the percentage of manufacturing JOBS has plummeted; because, hey, PRODUCTIVITY and PROFIT are way up, and that's all that matters. Never mind that by your own graph wages are LOWER in real dollars that they were in 1970, because profits are up and that's all that matters. Now you've left me with a dilemma: Do I go online and buy stock in one of those profitable corporations that has conquered the "cost of labor" or do I sit back and wait for a little of your trickle down magic to fill the streets with gold?

[pampango]

38. Manufacturing jobs have plummeted in all developed countries.

I did not say that productivity and profit are all that matter. I posted that manufacturing output is very high even while employment is dropping. Yes, productivity is high. What are you going to do to reverse the increase in productivity?

Indeed our wages are lower than the were in 1970. They declined for 20 years before the WTO, before China became a manufacturing powerhouse, before NAFTA or any other trade deals. The trend of wages has increased since all of those 'bad' things happened.

Would I like the 'good ol' days' to come back? Sure. I imagine there are some old timers who want the good ol' days when everyone worked on a farm to come back as well. I know I'm getting old when I seriously think that the good ol' days will come back one day.

BTW, all the other countries on the graph above are more progressive than the US. They still have healthier middle classes, stronger unions and better safety nets. They do that through domestic policy choices - progressive taxes, legal support for unions, adequate funding for safety nets. We can do it too with the same policy choices.

[ProSense]

39. Here's some good information

"Manufacturing jobs have plummeted in all developed countries."

...on that topic:

<...>

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from 1973 to 1989 manufacturing employment declined at an annual rate of 0.3 percent. By contrast, it declined at a rate of 1.7 percent annually between the years of 1989 to 2012. If we had simply maintained the earlier rate of decline we would have another 4.7 million manufacturing jobs.

These years are business cycle peaks, however we get an ever sharper picture if we put the break in 1997 when Robert Rubin was able to put muscle behind his high dollar policy through his control of the IMF's bailout of the East Asian countries from their financial crisis. The annual rate of decline from 1973 remains the same at 0.3 percent, however the decline since 1997 has been 2.5 percent. If we had maintained the 1973 to 1997 rate of decline through 2012 we would have 4.9 million more manufacturing jobs today. That would be more than a 40 percent increase in manufacturing employment.

In the same vein, we have the comparison with other countries. As Samuelson's colleague Dylan Matthews showed us last month, the manufacturing share of employment in Germany fell by roughly a third between 1973 and 2010. By contrast, it fell by 60 percent in the United States. If the U.S. had seen the same pace of decline as Germany we would have another 8 million manufacturing jobs.

Alternatively, we can look at our trade deficit. At $500 billion it is around 3.2 percent of GDP. In economics textbooks, rich countries like the United States are supposed to be exporting capital to poorer developing countries, which would mean that we would have a trade surplus. But let's just say that we balance our trade and this was done through increased net exports of manufactured goods. (Manufactured goods account for the overwhelming majority of trade.)

This would be a 27 percent increase in manufacturing output. If we had a corresponding increase in employment it would translate into an additional 3.2 million manufacturing jobs.

- more -

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-spreads-confusion-on-manufacturing

[pampango]

40. That is good information. I notice they place blame on an overvalued dollar.

The main culprit is the over-valued dollar, which makes our goods less competitive in the world economy.

Of course, Germany trades much, much more than the US does. Yet their decline in manufacturing employment has been relatively modest. Their strong unions, high wages and a strong middle class leading to a vibrant domestic economy are probably important factors.

[gulliver]

27. Mine the green.

Green is the whole other half of the economy that we have been neglecting. If every job that took from the ecosystem were counterbalanced by a job that added an equal or greater amount back, everyone could be happy. When Republicans oppose efforts to curb global warming they are opposing jobs.

[ProSense]

30. Information on

the other initiative mentioned in the NYT article.

Partnering with Local Communities: The First Five “Promise Zones”

Last year, in his State of the Union address, President Obama announced his plan to work with local communities and businesses to create jobs, increase economic security, expand educational opportunities, increase access to quality, affordable housing and improve public safety by creating 20 “Promise Zones” across the country.

Yesterday, as we reflected on the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty, the President reiterated this commitment; he reminded us of the frustrations that many American families face, and the need to build ladders of opportunity for those working to get into the middle class.

In a country as great as this one, a child’s zip code should never be what determines his or her opportunity. The government can’t fix this on its own, but it can be a much better partner in helping local leaders develop policies that improve education, protect the most vulnerable, and encourage the entrepreneurial spirit. That’s what we’ll be doing in these Promise Zones, where the federal government will partner with local innovators, advancing their work to expand opportunity in their communities.

Today, in the East Room of the White House, the President will announce the first five “Promise Zones”, located in San Antonio, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Southeastern Kentucky, and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.

These areas – urban, rural, and tribal – have all committed, in partnership with local business and community leaders, to use existing resources on proven strategies, and make new investments that reward hard work. They have developed strong plans to create jobs, provide quality, affordable housing and expand educational opportunity, which we’ll help them execute with access to on-the-ground federal partners, resources, and grant preferences.

Each of these designees has a proven track record of working collaboratively; their officials work as a team with business, faith-based and non-profit organizations; and with the public to ensure that opportunity becomes real for every member of their communities.

Over the next three years, we’ll announce 15 more Promise Zones around the country to help build on this Administration’s commitment to create better futures for the middle class and those striving to reach the middle class. The President called this the defining challenge of our time, and I’m proud that today’s announcement will take us one step closer to addressing that challenge. You can watch the President’s remarks here, starting at 2:20 pm ET, and visit our web site to learn more about our efforts to build ladders of opportunity.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/01/09/partnering-local-communities-first-five-promise-zones

Promise Zones Overview
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=PZFAQ_182014final.pdf

Impoverished Part Of Kentucky Declared ‘Promise Zone’

One of President Obama’s newly-announced “Promise Zones” will be set up in Bell County, Kentucky, which is in the heart of impoverished coal country. It has a 17 percent jobless rate.

The Promise Zone includes a $1.3 million loan fund for small businesses in the area, increased job training and special help in applying for anti-poverty programs.

Bell County Judge/Executive Albey Brock tells Here & Now‘s Meghna Charkrabarti that he is optimistic the program will help, but what his area really needs is new business to bring in jobs.

Brock says he has personally witnessed county residents selling off all of their possessions “just to get by.”

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/01/10/promise-zone-kentucky

[muntrv]

31. First, vote out the teabaggin' congresscritters.