The real issue I have with a "manufacturing czar".

[Liberal Veteran]

Besides the silly name and the fact that looking out for the economy should not require the creation of a whole new staff member to do what should have been his duty already.

My main problem with it is that the it's a case of too-little, too-late. The bulk of the manufacturing exodus to third world sweatshops has already taken place and it did that years ago. Are we going to have to wait until 2015 to get "IT czar" to look into the exodus of IT jobs leaving this country?

That is not to say that manufacturing in this country is not still in danger. It is. But we need to be a bit more proactive and stop waiting until all the animals have escaped before closing the barn door.

[slappypan]

1. Elaine Chao et al

Yes, it really makes one wonder what the purpose is of the Secretary of Labor and all those economic advisors. What do they do all day? Why should Bush need yet another one?

[KT2000]

2. Even more....

Make no mistake....the manufacturing czar will be put in place to rid manufacturers of regulations, including those protecting safety and health.
The activities of the lobbyists - Manufacturers Association - national and state level should provide a glimpse of their agenda They are always there to fight any regulation. This will be further rollbacks.

[smirkymonkey]

3. I have a question..

What about the sector of the economy that has nothing to do with manufacturing?? Aren't we more of a service economy these days? Not rhetorical questions, just wondering what sector was the hardest hit by job losses, Services/non-mfg. (financial services, marketing, advertising, store clerks, waitstaff, customer service operators, etc..) or actual manufacturing jobs?? Does anyone have numbers?

If it isn't manufacturing, what about the rest of us? Do we get our own Czar?? The "My company is too greedy to keep on a full staff" Czar?

[electricmonk]

6. Fond these stats at Staffingindustry.com

www.staffingindustry.com/jobsdata.html

Manufacturing payrolls lost 71,000 employees in July, marking three straight years of decline. July's loss was the second largest this year after April's decline of 79,000 jobs. Since July of 2000, manufacturing has lost 2.7 million workers, with an average monthly loss of 75,000.

The professional business services sector grew significantly in July adding 73,000 new workers for a 0.5% rise. It was the largest increase this year and the largest since April of 2000.

Leisure and hospitality grew by 13,000 last month, further helping to reverse the loss of 106,000 jobs that occurred from April through May.

Financial services added jobs for the 11th straight month with 7,000 new employees.

[SaintLouisBlues]

8. 2.5 of the 2.6 million lost Bush jobs were in manufacturing

These were the numbers I remember from about two months ago, although there were actually 3.1 million

jobs lost since the selection. Bush hired 600K to offset the 3.1 million. Nothing like small government repukes.


I'm guessing the other 600K lost jobs were spread pretty evenly across the economy. Falling tides ground all ships.

[trotsky]

4. C'mon, you know the answer.

Because * & Co. really don't give a rat's ass about the loss of jobs here. On the contrary, I'm sure they use their favorite phrase, "Bring 'em on!" Less jobs, more people needing those jobs means CHEAP LABOR, which pleases *'s contributors to no end.

This "manufacturing czar" is a painless way to make it appear to the average Joe that * is doing something, while all he's doing is adding to the federal payroll yet ANOTHER lackey to take his orders from industry, instead of people.

[sangh0]

5. Just wait!

Soon Bush* will appoint a "car and buggy czar"! :-)

[BrewCrew]

7. 1st thing

The 1st Thing this "Manufacturing Czar" should do is march down the hall to Elaine Chao's office and sing this lyric with her,

"I've got this thing that I consider my only art of fucking people over."


That could/should be their theme