First, ketchup was a vegetable. Now, McDonald's is manufacturing!

[Brotherjohn]

Don't know if this has already been brought out here, but thanks to MoveOn (http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df02242004.html) and the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/20/business/20jobs.html?pagewanted=print&position=), word is being spread that the administration is exploring the possibility of re-classifying fast food jobs as "manufacturing" jobs to improve job growth numbers in that field.

They actually write the following, in the "Economic Report of the President" recently sent to Congress (highlighted in a box, no less):
"When a fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a 'service' or is it combining inputs to 'manufacture' a product?"
AND
"mixing water and concentrate to produce soft drinks is classified as manufacturing. However, if that activity is performed at a snack bar, it is considered a service."

Well, for starters, the former is done in great bulk with specialized equipment in a factory setting. But besides such an obvious difference, I'd say to the entire proposition...

WTF!!!!

Are complete loonies in charge of our government?!?

They use what is becoming a bit of their M.O. to justify such a move, saying that the definition of manufacturing is unclear and "not well defined". They say that, for instance, if tax relief for "manufacturing" companies is legislated, how do we know if a fast food restaurant is "manufacturing"? (so it's also another effort at giving tax breaks to rich corporations)

Well, I think it's pretty clear to 99.99% of you out there.

But this "unclear" and "not well defined" thing is getting thrown around a lot lately.

They have to "clearly define" what a marriage is so that people are not in doubt. Translation: Amend the constitution to ban gay marriages.

They need "regulatory clarity" in environmental regulations so that companies can know what to expect. Translation: "It's clear! You can pollute away!"

They need to more clearly define what is known as a "manufacturing" job. Translation: "Now that sitting under overpasses all day and selling newspapers at intersections have been re-classified as 'manufacturing' jobs, the economy's never been better!"

One thing IS clear. You can be very clear and also be very wrong.

Which, come to think of it, pretty much neatly defines the entire Bush administration.

[Spentastic]

1. I'd be a bit careful

As much as I hate to defend the Bush idiots this manufacturing furore is pure spin.

The report in question simply raises issues with the current defintion. It does not suggest that activities should be re-classified as manufacturing.

That's all editorial.

[StClone]

3. You are not defending Bush

You are misinterpreting him. BushCo is looking to re-classify some service sector jobs as manufacturing and there is nothing to spin, that is exactly what they want.

[Brotherjohn]

6. The fact that they even pose the possibility reveals near insanity.

Certainly it reveals desperation, and an idealogy so deep as to blur the lines of reality.

The questions posed in an effort to "promote discussion" on whether fast food jobs could be considered manufacturing are so ridiculous on their face that it is hard to even know where to respond. The entire supposition is so ridiculous that it reveals volumes about this administration. The only plausible reasons for doing so might be to shore up the manufacturing job loss numbers, and (explicitly stated as one example reason) to give tax breaks to more corporations.

I won't argue that there may be a few industries that sit on the fence as to whether they can be classified as "manufacturing" or not. That could be a debate worth having. But the fact that the administration chose to make a case for fast food jobs, jobs with the lowest pay, least skill, and lowest benefits of all service sector jobs, is ridiculous. These are jobs which, perhaps more clearly than any other, are unquestionably NOT "manufacturing" jobs. Not coincidentally, they are also some of the few jobs that are on the increase in this economy.

The mere fact that the administration raises this issue should be spread far and wide. The "ketchup as a vegetable" thing didn't make it far past presidential reports, either, but it said a lot about the Reagan administration.

[HEyHEY]

2. What! Ketchup isn't a vegtable?

I planted all those empty bottles for nothing?

[Care Bear]

4. Oh, man!

They don't fill up until Spring; everyone knows that. Hang on a month, ok?

[Care Bear]

5. BushSpeak:

how Orwellian. Everyone get out your copies of "1984" and re-read.

[rman]

7. one day in the not to distant future

someone will claim the number of jobs in manufacturing has gone up. the redefinition won't be mentioned, nor the fact that food servicing jobs have gone down.

[MissB]

8. If you open this week's copy of Newsweek and look at their article

If you look at their article on unemployment, you'll see the statistic on the number of manufacturing jobs lost since Bush took office. The number is roughly 1,440,000 (I think it is 1,446,xxx but I don't have the magazine in front of me.)

So, how many McDonald's employees are there in the US?

[Fridays Child]

9. Ketchup used to be a mere vegetable. Now it's now a manufacturing job.

Reagan would be so proud of his little chimp.

[John_H]

10. LOL! Write your favorite whore, now!

My email to Lou.

Lou,

I know you'll be going along with the Bush administration when they classify working at Micky D's as a manufacturing job, but why stop there?

Jobs outsourced to China could be called exports to reduct the trade deficit. Marijuana growers could be family farmers. To make up the new shortfall in service jobs once those kids at Burger King have become part of our industial base, Bush could call Mafia hit men pest control employees and high priced escorts physical therapists.