Bush in Ohio

Higher productivity also presents us a challenge, and here's the challenge: Many companies fill new orders and expand operations without needing to hire new workers. Because we're a productive work force, the economy can expand, and in some cases, they don't need to add additional workers to meet that expansion, to meet the additional demand. Manufacturing output, for instance, increased sixfold between 1950 and 2000 -- a sixfold increase. Yet, because of high productivity, all this manufacturing is done by about the same number of workers. And because of the new technologies throughout the economy, another challenge is the fact we've got to make sure people have got the skills necessary to become productive workers.

Well, I guess we now why the economy isn't creating jobs this far into a recovery. So, what about the rosy job growth forecasts? More on that later.

In Ohio, you know firsthand the effects of economic change. Manufacturers are more productive, so they aren't creating as many jobs as they used to. Ohio's unemployment rate is higher than the national average; manufacturing communities like Youngstown and Cleveland have been hit especially hard. I understand that. I know there are workers here concerned about their jobs going overseas. I share that concern. I know they're wondering whether they'll ever be able to find new skills necessary to fill the new jobs of the 21st century. I understand that. There are those with good jobs who worry about their health care and their retirement benefits. There are a lot of moms and dads who wonder whether or not their child will be able to find a job in the community in which they were raised. There are legitimate concerns amongst people here in Ohio and elsewhere around the country.

I agree, they are legitimate concerns. How do we address them, now that we have finally acknowledged that the vaunted "Bush Economy" isn't shaping up to all that different from that under another U.S. president with a shared last name?

And one reason why there's concern is because, as the economists say, this is a time of transition, it's a time of change. And if you're one going through transition, it's not an easy experience. But then we have a responsibility to help. We have a responsibility to help with more than just unemployment insurance. We have a responsibility in government to create an environment that increases more jobs and helps people find the skills to fill those jobs. That's a responsibility that we must do in government.

"As the economists say?" Hey, aren't you the MBA president?

You can use the link at the top to rifle through the speech. He offers no plan to decrease the flood of jobs overseas, and goes on about how bad rolling back the Bush tax cuts will be(I agree with Kerry, that rolling back the cuts for people maikng in excess of $200K per year is a good thing). Blah. It's pretty much canned GOP™. Nothing new.

There lots of errors of fact as to why companies (mainly Japanese) moved their production stateside. It was not because we can do a better job at assembly -- a large portion of assembly is robotic, and robots don't get paid -- it was due to sidestep import tariffs.

Almost comically, Bush uses tort reform as a way to prevent jobs from going overseas..I'm not kidding. I wish that I was.

Bush does not outline anything remotely like a plan to stem the tide of jobs outsourcing. He really cannot. He's a free trader. I too, agree with most free trade policy. Slightly later in the speech, he warns on protectionism, etc., and I agree. If I knew the answer to job growth in the U.S. I would not be posting to a weblog.

Being in the semicon industry, I can tell you with a high level of certainty that the trend toward outsourcing is here to stay. Barring some draconian "fortress America" trade policy, it's not only now, it's the future.

I'll say that overall, it seems by reading the text, that this was an above average speech by Bush. That's not a very high bar to hurdle. He stuck to the party line, and that's all he can do at this juncture.

If Bush is going to warrant consideration for election(not RE-election, as we had that awful Florida business) he has to give people a reason to vote for him. He offers up the same old stale lines time and again. That's not only unlikely to bore his audiences to death, it's a good bet that they'll see what the other guy has to offer.

I've talked to many 'dyed in the wool' Republicans, and they are looking for something new. A woman told me today that "I've never voted for a Democrat, but I'm not voting for Bush."

Me being the socially challenged individual that I am, couldn't help but ask her if she was going to vote in November. To which she replied, "Oh, yes. I'm voting for Kerry."