US is the largest economy in the world. It is approximately 18% of global GDP. At the same time the United States is also the world's largest importer. Import constantly exceed exports, creating a trade deficit. Inefficient allocation of the budget led to the fact that the United States federal budget is also constantly in deficit. The problem is that the United States is spending budget money on completely ineffective programs: military operations and engineering research of the Pentagon, social programs and health programs. In fact, today the economy of the United States is, as they say, "soap bubble", which will soon really should burst, the only question is when and after what event, whether it will be another war, economic reform or the new president of pointless project to "stabilization of the economy "
Protectionist arguments do not hold real validity in economic discussions. All of what you said is just populist rage really.
The balance of trade is only one side of the balance of payments. The trade deficit (current account deficit) is balanced by a capital account surplus. In other words, we are importing more goods than exporting, but more investment is flowing into the U.S. More foreign companies hire U.S. workers than U.S. companies outsource U.S. workers, for example. As far as other aspects of our government, like excessive military spending (and all spending really) you are correct those are problems. The biggest problem, IMO, is our monetary system. Since the current system was adopted in the early 1970s, real wages have been nearly stagnant for the vast majority of Americans.
Our economy is just the continuous trading of things I can do for you with things you can do for me. It's not doing good these days, there are a couple issues. But I think the single biggest issue is American's don't want to buy what American's want to build. We're getting a better deal from Chinese factories and call centers in India. How to fix that? Not sure. We need to get competitive again. Could be offering something better than those in rising economies are offering or the same thing cheaper. We'd be better off with the former. How can we do that? Not sure. Biofabrication, 3D printing, robotics, self assembling software, alternative energy... those seem promising. It sure as heck won't be with burger flipping.
The US is a consumption based economy. It was recently reported that the income of the top 10% grew 10% while the income for the other 90% fell 5% in 2013. When 90% of the population has less income there is a huge negative effect on consumer demand across the economy. Low consumer demand leads to lower levels of investment by those providing consumers with goods and services, which means less demand for workers and economic stagnation across large sectors of the economy. With less investment opportunity in consumer goods and services investors flood into the speculative markets, which creates a market boom of rising prices due to the flood of money. Which is how the top income earners gain income while everyone else loses. Which is how Wall Street gains while Main Street struggles to stay in place. The Fed tried to boost consumer demand but all the $Trillions it pumped into the economy went to Wall Street and none of it trickled down. The Federal government increased spending but not near enough to offset the deep and permanent cuts in local and state spending.The unemployment rate is not going down in many areas because local and state government layoffs due to massive budget reductions are offsetting private sector job growth. It is simple supply and demand at a macroeconomic level. Look closely at the numbers, dive deep to get the whole story.
Obama Outperforms Reagan on Jobs, Growth and Investing 9/05/2014 The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) today issued America’s latest jobs report covering August. And it’s a disappointment. The economy created an additional 142,000 jobs last month. After 6 consecutive months over 200,000, most pundits expected the string to continue, including ADP which just yesterday said 204,000 jobs were created in August. One month variation does not change a trend Even though the plus-200k monthly string was broken (unless revised upward at a future date,) unemployment did continue to decline and is now reported at only 6.1%. Jobless claims were just over 300k; lowest since 2007. Despite the lower than expected August jobs number, America will create about 2.5 million new jobs in 2014. And that is great news. Back in May, 2013 (15 months ago) the Dow was out of its recession doldrums and hitting new highs. I asked readers if Obama could, economically, be the best modern President? Through discussion of that question, the #1 issue raised by readers was whether the stock market was a good economic barometer for judging “best.” Many complained that the measure they were watching was jobs – and that too many people were still looking for work. To put this week’s jobs report in economic perspective I reached out to Bob Deitrick, CEO of Polaris Financial Partners and author of “Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box” (which I profiled in October, 2012 just before the election) for some explanation. Since then Polaris’ investor newsletters have consistently been the best predictor of economic performance. Better than all the major investment houses. This is the best private sector jobs creation performance in American history Unemployment Reagan v ObamaBob Deitrick – “President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President. So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’ As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama’s job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan. President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his 6th year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration. We forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms.” What about the Labor Participation Rate? Much has been made about the poor results of the labor participation rate, which has shown more stubborn recalcitrance as this rate remains higher even as jobs have grown. U3 v U6 1994-2014Bob Deitrick: “The labor participation rate adds in jobless part time workers and those in marginal work situations with those seeking full time work. This is not a “hidden” unemployment. It is a measure tracked since 1900 and called ‘U6.’ today by the BLS. Labor participation is affected much less by short-term job creation, and much more by long-term demographic trends. As this chart from the BLS shows, as the Baby Boomers entered the workforce and societal acceptance of women working changed, labor participation grew. Now that ‘Boomers’ are retiring we are seeing the percentage of those seeking employment decline. This has nothing to do with job availability, and everything to do with a highly predictable aging demographic. What’s now clear is that the Obama administration policies have outperformed the Reagan administration policies for job creation and unemployment reduction. Even though Reagan had the benefit of a growing Boomer class to ignite economic growth, while Obama has been forced to deal with a retiring workforce developing special needs. During the 8 years preceding Obama there was a net reduction in jobs in America. We now are rapidly moving toward higher, sustainable jobs growth.” Economic growth, including manufacturing, is driving jobs When President Obama took office America was gripped in an offshoring boom, started years earlier, pushing jobs to the developing world. Manufacturing was declining in America, and plants were closing across the nation. This week the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) released its manufacturing report, and it surprised nearly everyone. The latest Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) scored 59, 2 points higher than July and about that much higher than prognosticators expected. This represents 63 straight months of economic expansion, and 25 consecutive months of manufacturing expansion. New orders were up 3.3 points to 66.7, with 15 consecutive months of improvement and reaching the highest level since April, 2004 – 5 years prior to Obama becoming President. Not surprisingly, this economic growth provided for 14 consecutive months of improvement in the employment index. Meaning that the “grass roots” economy made its turn for the better just as the DJIA was reaching those highs back in 2013 – demonstrating that index is still the leading indicator for jobs that it has famously always been. As the last 15 months have proven, jobs and economy are improving, and investors are benefiting The stock market has converted the long-term growth in jobs and GDP into additional gains for investors. Recently the S&P has crested 2,000 – reaching new all time highs. Gains made by investors earlier in the Obama administration have further grown, helping businesses raise capital and improving the nest eggs of almost all Americans. And laying the foundation for recent, and prolonged job growth. Investment Returns Reagan v ObamaBob Deitrick: While most Americans think they are not involved with the stock market, truthfully they are. Via their 401K, pension plan and employer savings accounts 2/3 of Americans have a clear vested interest in stock performance. Over the first 67 months of their presidencies there is a clear “winner” from an investor’s viewpoint. A dollar invested when Reagan assumed the presidency would have yielded a staggering 190% return. Such returns were unheard of prior to his leadership. However, it is undeniable that President Obama has surpassed the previous president. Investors have gained a remarkable 220% over the last 5.5 years! This level of investor growth is unprecedented by any administration, and has proven quite beneficial for everyone. In 2009, with pension funds underfunded and most private retirement accounts savaged by the financial meltdown and Wall Street losses, Boomers and Seniors were resigned to never retiring. The nest egg appeared gone, leaving the ‘chickens’ to keep working. But now that the coffers have been reloaded increasingly people age 55 – 70 are happily discovering they can quit their old jobs and spend time with family, relax, enjoy hobbies or start new at-home businesses from their laptops or tablets. It is due to a skyrocketing stock market that people can now pursue these dreams and reduce the labor participation rates for ‘better pastures.” Where myth meets reality There is another election in just 8 weeks. Statistics will be bandied about. Monthly data points will be hotly contested. There will be a lot of rhetoric by candidates on all sides. But, understanding the prevailing trends is critical. Recognizing that first the economy, then the stock market and now jobs are all trending upward is important – even as all 3 measures will have short-term disappointments. There are a lot of reasons voters elect a candidate. Jobs and the economy are just one category of factors. But, for those who place a high priority on jobs, economic performance and the markets the data clearly demonstrates which presidential administration has performed best. And shows a very clear trend one can expect to continue into 2015. Economically, President Obama’s administration has outperformed President Reagan’s in all commonly watched categories. Simultaneously the current administration has reduced the deficit, which skyrocketed under Reagan. Additionally, Obama has reduced federal employment, which grew under Reagan (especially when including military personnel,) and truly delivered a “smaller government.” Additionally, the current administration has kept inflation low, even during extreme international upheaval, failure of foreign economies (Greece) and a dramatic slowdown in the European economy. http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/09/05/obama-outperforms-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/
Close all foreign tax shelters and bring back all the multi TRILLION dollars in capital hidden overseas. As for jobs, it is the red states that are enduring the worse of it thanks to their Republican politics: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...n-Republican-led-states-A-conspiracy-no-doubt Georgia currently has the highest unemployment rate in the nation. According to Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, that seems mighty suspicious. "It's ironic that in a year in which Republican governors are leading some of the states that are making the most progress — that they almost, without exception, are classified as having a bump in their unemployment rates. Whereas states that are under Democrat governors' control, they are all showing that their unemployment rate has dropped. Now, I don't know how you account for that," the Republican said in a video posted to YouTube by the Democratic Governors Association, which is working to prevent his reelection in November. "Maybe there is some influence here that we don't know about," he continued. "But when you say California is in a better position in terms of unemployment than the state of Georgia, there's just something that just does not ring true." States led by Republicans are seeing their unemployment rates rise even as other states see their unemployment rates drop? Whatever could be the cause of that? Surely, a new conspiracy is afoot. Vote Democrat, vote progress & jobs.
I think the biggest threats to our economy are: 1) Technological slowdown - the technologies we are inventing today are concentrated in a few areas (computing, healthcare, etc.) and not improving productivity as much as they used to. Read this article for more detail http://fortune.com/2014/09/04/peter-thiels-contrarian-strategy/ . 2) Demographic change - an aging population means it will be even harder to support ever more generous pension programs, disability insurance, and so on. It's also worth noting that over the past 20 years, a lot of the technological gains have been concentrated in high-skill jobs, as compared to the broad gains in the 1950s where technology improved productivity across the board. This explains why wages have been stagnant. "America doesn't manufacture enough" always gets brought up, but I'm not sure why. Manufacturing employment is falling but that is because workers today produce much more than they did in the 1950s because factories today are heavily automated. This is generally a good thing - higher worker productivity is what creates economic growth.
immigration can help solve that particular problem investment in education, research and development boosts technological advancement
I think you only ask 1/2 of the question; How about we also ask 'what's wrong with our government and society today'? How does a $4 trillion government and $500+ billion annual deficits and $17 trillion in debt effect the economy? How does the militarization of the USA and wars across the world effect the economy? IMO we're dumber and lazier; how does this effect the economy? A huge percentage of our consumption is accomplished via credit and debt, living beyond our means; how does this effect the economy? This list could go on and on but the point is if we had more efficient and effective governments, less credit purchases, greatly improved education, more reasonable spending at all government levels, blah blah blah...we might find that the US economy is pretty good...
How does a nation with a $16Trillion economy decide to get $17Trillion in debt instead of paying the taxes needed for spending it obligated itself to? Where is the rational thinking in doing that for decades on end? How are tax cuts considered a reasonable course of action?
The American economy is based on consumption. High paying, middle class jobs are being automated by machines or sent overseas, either eliminating these jobs or reducing the salaries that once made the middle class strong. Less consumption power and a decreasing middle class are what is wrong with the economy. You can blame government, left wingers, right wingers, too much taxes, too little taxes, etc all you want but all of you so far have ignored the fundamental issue facing the workforce today: That we don't need workers, or as many of them to do the jobs that once paid great wages.
Deficits and debt happen because no one is accountable...no one experiences any pain or penalty. Think about the political system we have; if politicians say no to spending they are voted out of office or at least threatened. And politicians pretty much do what they wish since their jobs seem to be secure. These are two contradictory statements but they are reality IMO because voters are generally biased and stupid. We'd be lucky to find 100 Americans who give a crap about the annual $450 billion debt interest payment! Tax cuts, when we have deficits and debt forecasted for years to come, are nothing buy politicians pandering for votes...
I keep harping that the economy is a separate entity from society and government and it's going to do what it does based on the demands of it's products and services. In this process, there is no association whatsoever with the idea of providing (x) amount of jobs in the USA. The economy will outsource and automate as dictated by competitive pressures and profit demands. If this economy only provides 150 million jobs and there are 175 million Americans wanting to work, then those 25 million need to seek other options. If those 25 million wish to have one of the 150 million jobs, then they must acquire more skills and education and higher performance, etc. in order to compete for the limited jobs. This has been obvious for years and continues to be obvious well into the future...
Well that's a problem, 25 million people that the economy has no use for. In the future it will get far worse. BY 2100 there will only be enough jobs in the economy for half the people who want them. Regardless of what skills you have or how much you know there will only be so many places for people like you and fewer and fewer for people with less skills and knowledge. What is to be done about this new found inevitability? For the past hundred years or so the foundation of both the social and economic structure was that everyone was able to gain their income from employment in the economy. For the most part there was a job for everyone who wanted one. The new economy is a one off economy. One person can write an app in an afternoon that replaces 1,000 jobs. After that, 1001 people need a job. The firm that bought and deployed the app does not need the app writer or any of the 1,000 who lost their jobs, it already has all 20 of the employees it needs to accomplish what it needs to do. Multiply that by a few hundred new job displacing apps a month for ten years and consider where employment in the economy will end up. The future does not even pretend that the economy can provide the population with income from employment. It is the march of progress. Farm workers went from 80% of the population to less than 10% in 100 years. Over the last forty years US manufacturers have raised their output by ten times while reducing their workforce by 90%. Advances in technology reduced menial office worker numbers and numerous business support trades just as drastically with the advent of things like copiers and computers. These advances were offset by the rise of a new service industry enabled by the technological advances but now those service jobs are being replaced by even newer technology but that road has reached a bottleneck. In the future the economy will simply be incapable of providing income through employment to most of the population and there is no political social or economic philosophy or train of thinking that is dealing with that coming reality. What is needed is some serious thinking about the economy's relationship to society or there will be some very serious problems for both in the not so far future.
Deregulate most business, especially for those wanting to expand, build an infrastructure or a start up business, unleash energy companies to explore/harness existing power sources, CUT Corporate Taxes, my opinion to 10% and _0_ in all States, get out of the way entirely from the healthcare system and your talking 25 million jobs the first year and all that so called stashed money over seas will be used to help create those jobs. Ask any person, who ever started a successful business before 2000 and they will tell you, it couldn't be done in today's business environment. If nothing else, leave it up to the States, including what can be done on property now controlled by the Federal Bureaucracy.
Bush tried that and it wrecked the economy. Corporations were given a tax holiday to bring back their overseas profits at 10% tax and they used to money to buy back stock while eliminating over 300,000 jobs. The financial sector was deregulated and regulatory oversight relaxed and that led directly to the housing finance collapse that tanked the economy. And you want to do that all over again???? I know quite a few people who have started and maintained successful businesses both before and since 2000 and they are all thriving in the current business environment. None of them think that government regulations are as burdensome as the increasingly changing arbitrary financing requirements from the idiot bankers and investment firms that they deal with. Their mantra is pretty simple, yesterday is not today, today is not tomorrow, adapt or die. The Feds are far harder to corrupt than state or local government actors and do a lot to keep them in check from a entrepreneurial businessman's standpoint. The last thing they want is for some crony state legislature to toss a monkey wrench into their plans by passing sweetheart legislation to protect entrenched parties from outside competition, like state auto dealer laws are doing to Tesla.
Well, the current economy is providing for 145-150 million Americans which is a good thing. The estimated population growth rate in the US for 2014 is .77%. Our current population is 316 million. So, .77% of 316 million is about 2.433 million. If we assume the current participation rate of 62%, then 1.509 million more people need jobs this year. If we further assume that each US job equals approximately $100K of GDP, then in order to keep up with population growth, GDP must also grow by $151 billion per year...or another trillion$ every 6.6 years. Seems like mouse-nuts but it's not that easy. And...if we add 2.433 million more Americans, and ignoring how many will actually work and pay taxes, this places more and more demand on governments at all levels which will struggle for funding...hence the continued deficit spending and accumulating debt. Once upon a time in the US the economy was booming because we made lots of stuff for domestic consumption and exports. Obviously changes have occurred which IMO stems from the global economy in which we have more resources but in parallel more competition. It's all sort of moving towards an equilibrium in which the primary economy and manufacturing is no longer concentrated in the USA. The pain comes from our over-spending, debt spending, living the high life, feeling entitled to far more than our collective fiscal capabilities can handle, and we are simply incapable of cutting back, and/or we refuse to cut back. In parallel we have a government begging people to spend more, and if they don't have the money, they'll give them the money! Where it all leads is far above my pay scale...
Although I understand your comments above, unless demand of products and services will increase, business/jobs won't grow much. With all of your recommended cuts above, how much of that money will actually turn into jobs? How much will go into new facilities, new equipment, perhaps to shareholders? How can we greatly increase consumption? If we can't do it domestically then we must greatly increase exports. No matter how we do it, we must produce stuff in the USA, and this has become a challenge. Americans refuse to pay more for products and services, example the success of Walmart and others, so this forces more US companies to compete with global companies...and when on cheap labor and materials...usually the US will lose out. Gotta love the immense success of Apple yet how many of those tens of millions of products are produced in the USA?
1-If you add a net million people to the payroll (nationwide), those dollars will flow into the economy. As in ND or where I live in the "Permian Basin (TX NM)", unemployment rates are 2-3% and even those could be working, if they wanted a job. In short demand, starts with job creation, IMO. 2-It's a chain reaction....but around 50% is the average cost of labor for a product or service in the US. The money saved from deregulation, cost to conform, would actually lose jobs, but your adding profit or lowing cost which will increase demand, in turn creating those jobs. 3-The cost to build a new building, permits to impact reports is astronomical, compared to building that same building outside the US. I once checked out the cost in California, just to start building cost more than actually building a plant/bldg in Mexico/So America. 4-It's a natural process, dependent on the consumer. However US Firms, around the World, hiring local folks, has not hurt their economy or should ours be hurt if others are encouraged to build here and many of my suggestion relate to that issue. 5-If Auto makers alone, built all there products in the US, our exports alone would be greater than imports, but they could not sell elsewhere at the cost to produce and export. Foreign Companies would come in, pay the taxes etc., if the business environment encouraged it. As it is with BP or Budweiser, most the employees and our State/Federal taxes remain the same. 6-Not necessarily and electronics is a good example. RCA, IBM, APPLE and others are subject to all taxes on the profits and a good number of people in transportation (Ship/Dock/Transport/Distribution) still have jobs. 7-Buy American might sound patriotic, but saving money on products that may ever be better than and cheaper than their US counterparts, is practical. Donald Trump, a large buyer of products has often mentioned this, but then he sells a lot of real estate to folks from elsewhere. 8-Yes, but keep in mind Apple sells most it's product outside the US and China, where most the products are produced, is a big future market.
I'm a business person and if my taxes went to 0%, it would give me a little more breathing room, but I'm not going to carelessly spend the money just because I have it. If current facilities and equipment work fine then I'm not going to change this. I cannot arbitrarily give wage increases because I believe in the supply and demand of labor. IMO prudent business managers will think the same. Further, if there are shareholders, again, how much of it will they get? And here's some proof for you...many corporations are holding huge stashes of cash and the reason they don't spend it is because they don't need to at this time! If it was as easy as you depict, these businesses could spend $10 of their cash and reap $20 in new sales. I think you'll find the average cost of labor to US business is closer to 15-30% but I don't know for sure. In my office, at this very moment, I'm guessing every single item was produced offshore! Copy machine, radio, lamps, computers, calculators, desk, pencils, pens, bookshelves, picture frames, floor fan, carpet, paper shredder, desk chair, etc. etc. etc. In my driveway are four cars and none of them are made in the USA. We have a tractor which is not made in the USA. The flat screens and surround systems and phones are not made in the USA. Be realistic and think about what is actually produced in the USA today? All of the reasons for where these products were produced are the reasons we our economy is not necessarily supporting all people who desire to work. If we cannot change this course, then we need to change how we live...
Having been in or run many business ventures over 40 years (1960/2000), I don't recall ever knowing of feeling a business was limited to what already was. Your now the exception, but Sam Walton, Trump, the many tech giants, down to my corner grocer are and have tried to expand, even if some tried and failed or have been hurt. That said, tax savings or the repurchase of some stock (Preferred being basically loans) was always a good sign. This is no longer true, for arguable reason (uncertainty), but basically the desire remains. My suggestion, I believe cover many of those fears. I don't know your business, but would guess it's some form of service, which does require a little less labor cost. Even here, cost of conforming to regulations, workman's comp, the new ACA pending requirements, half the payroll taxes, education or learning the policy and others benefits add up to a great deal of the cost of labor. Most of my original rant, involved "Start Up" or "Small Business", where I practiced, and people are hesitant to increase in size or venture into some business, which employs about 75% of workers. Much more in towns with no major Companies. Just as you have done, so has the general public when purchasing products for their home. No person. or you should be punished or ridiculed for being fugal. This in case your thinking tariffs or some other kind of tax would equalize cost to improve US producer sales.
I gave you proof of companies sitting on billion$ in cash...they are not spending it because the spending won't increase income. They are not going to spend it just because they have it. Of all the products I mentioned in my office, I have no choice but to buy offshore products! None of them are produced in the USA today...
And I've agreed, in the US both mom & pops and large companies fear the instability of Government, local, state and federal. States where that instability is least are growing just fine and it's not all based on energy. Texas is drawing new money/jobs from tech expansion in Dallas and Houston, while energy remains a growing segment. Florida is still expanding based on tourist attraction and retirement centers. No electronic product is produced or assemble entirely in any one country nor are autos, but most sold in the US are assembled here, even by a good many foreign names. I googled http://www.computersmadeinusa.com/ that explains much of this and I'm sure you could buy American, paying the price, for most anything you want...
Just because something is manufactured or assembled somewhere else does not mean that all the money also goes there. Manufacturing and assembly costs for many products are a smaller fraction of overall product expense than those incurred in the US for design, engineering, marketing and administration. Foreign auto manufacturers are in the US because overall cost per vehicle is lower than building at home and shipping to the US. Their suppliers have also moved to the US and many US companies also supply parts. The foreign component percentage of US manufactured vehicles by non-US auto manufacturers has been in a continuous decline and is now in the single digits or zero for many cars made by Toyota, Honda and Nissan. China is currently the world leader in low value manufacturing and assembly but that is not something it can hold on to for long since the barriers to entry in those fields are quite low. Gaining the knowledge base and expertise that the US enjoys is a very high barrier that is not likely to get any lower as the US continues to race ahead while others put all their effort into getting where the US was yesterday.While the US does not manufacture a lot of low margin consumer products it is still the largest manufacturer in the world by value and the second largest by volume. US manufacturing workers generate more revenue per worker than any other workers in the world. The US is the world leader in design, engineering, r & d, and technical manufacturing expertise. The US is maintaining its place at the top of the value chain as it always has while ceding lower value manufacturing to other nations so they can earn income to buy high value US products. The problem I have with a lot of conservatives is that they are completely oblivious to the way national economies have advanced and moved up the value chain, raising incomes and improving lives since the beginning of the industrial revolution. It seems to me that they believe that the economy should not advance at all, that the current economic state need to be maintained and can be if only the minimum wage was eliminated and government regulations removed. Conservatives think that struggling US manufacturers cannot compete against foreign competition because of high wages and government regulations. This argument has a thread of truth but from a standpoint of history and economic advance is an entirely ignorant and vastly stupid position. What it would really lead to is a massive economic decline as US manufacturers, who are currently striving mightily to maintain their position at the top of the value chain, are forced into a race to the bottom because of a misguided economic policy that seeks to preserve the inefficiencies of uncompetitive competitors. The future of wide scale employment in the US is not in manufacturing, it is going the way of the farmer so conservatives should just forget about their whole let's cut wages and benefits for all workers and manufacturing jobs will return mythology. If you conservatives want to alleviate mom and pop's fears maybe you should dial back the fear mongering.
