In the New Economics: Fast-Food Factories?

Natoma

Veteran
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/20/business/20jobs.html

Sounds like someone is trying to erase many of the manufacturing losses suffered during the past 4 years.

And for those who don't have a NYTimes registration (though it's free and worth it):

Is cooking a hamburger patty and inserting the meat, lettuce and ketchup inside a bun a manufacturing job, like assembling automobiles?

That question is posed in the new Economic Report of the President, a thick annual compendium of observations and statistics on the health of the United States economy.

The latest edition, sent to Congress last week, questions whether fast-food restaurants should continue to be counted as part of the service sector or should be reclassified as manufacturers. No answers were offered.

In a speech to Washington economists Tuesday, N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, said that properly classifying such workers was "an important consideration" in setting economic policy.

Counting jobs at McDonald's, Burger King and other fast-food enterprises alongside those at industrial companies like General Motors and Eastman Kodak might seem like a stretch, akin to classifying ketchup in school lunches as a vegetable, as was briefly the case in a 1981 federal regulatory proposal.

But the presidential report points out that the current system for classifying jobs "is not straightforward." The White House drew a box around the section so it would stand out among the 417 pages of statistics.

"When a fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a 'service' or is it combining inputs to 'manufacture' a product?" the report asks.

"Sometimes, seemingly subtle differences can determine whether an industry is classified as manufacturing. For example, 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."

The report notes that the Census Bureau's North American Industry Classification System defines manufacturing as covering enterprises "engaged in the mechanical, physical or chemical transformation of materials, substances or components into new products."

Classifications matter, the report says, because among other things, they can affect which businesses receive tax relief. "Suppose it was decided to offer tax relief to manufacturing firms," the report said. "Because the manufacturing category is not well defined, firms would have an incentive to characterize themselves as in manufacturing. Administering the tax relief could be difficult, and the tax relief may not extend to the firms for which it was enacted."

David Huether, chief economist for the National Association of Manufacturers, said he had heard that some economists wanted to count hamburger flipping as manufacturing, which he noted would produce statistics showing more jobs in what has been a declining sector of the economy.

"The question is: If you heat the hamburger up are you chemically transforming it?" Mr. Huether said.

His answer? No.
 
Instead of digging deep into the mystery of classification I think it's a more interesting question to ask why manufacturing is more likely to receive tax relief than the service sector. Is there any point with that?
 
John Reynolds said:
I posted a link on this days ago in the Was the war in Iraq worth it thread.

This is hilarious...because while you were in your "Bash Bush", mode, I was this close to asking if Natoma had taken over your soul for a day. ;)
 
Joe DeFuria said:
John Reynolds said:
I posted a link on this days ago in the Was the war in Iraq worth it thread.

This is hilarious...because while you were in your "Bash Bush", mode, I was this close to asking if Natoma had taken over your soul for a day. ;)

Or it could be that John is like any of the tens of millions of americans that don't like Bush's policies much. But thanks for thinking of me in particular. I always knew you cared. ;)
 
Humus said:
Instead of digging deep into the mystery of classification I think it's a more interesting question to ask why manufacturing is more likely to receive tax relief than the service sector. Is there any point with that?

One reason is because "Blue Collar" jobs have existed far longer, and entire states depend on these "Blue Collar" jobs than "White Collar" service jobs. Much of the tax provisions that take them into account have simply been on the books longer.
 
Joe DeFuria said:
This is hilarious...because while you were in your "Bash Bush", mode, I was this close to asking if Natoma had taken over your soul for a day. ;)

LOL I'm tempted to say something but don't want to offend anyone.
 
Just wondering, but has anybody actually read the testimony, in context, from where the article stems from?
 
RussSchultz said:
Just wondering, but has anybody actually read the testimony, in context, from where the article stems from?

I've read Mankiw's testimony. What he says is actually economically sound. It's just not politically sound. ;)
 
Back
Top