khaosworks | A Shrubby Deception

Burgers and Bullshit

By Mr. Terence Chua, Who Finds This Way Too Familiar.

Building Blue-Collar... Burgers?
NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2004

Manufacturing jobs making things like airplane engines, cars and farm equipment are disappearing from the American economy.

Or are they? According to a White House report, new manufacturing jobs might be as close as your nearest drive-thru.

The annual Economic Report of the President has already stirred controversy by suggesting the loss of U.S. jobs overseas might be beneficial, and predicting that a whopping 2.6 million jobs will be created in the country this year.

As first reported by The New York Times, the fast food issue is taken up on page 73 of the lengthy report in a special box headlined "What is manufacturing?"

"The definition of a manufactured product," the box reads, "is not straightforward."

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

Manufacturing is defined by the Census Bureau as work involving employees who are "engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products."

But, the president's report notes, even the Census Bureau has acknowledged that its definition "can be somewhat blurry," with bakeries, candy stores, custom tailors and tire retreading services considered manufacturing.

"Mixing water and concentrate to produce soft drinks is classified as manufacturing," the president's report reads. "However, if that activity is performed at a snack bar, it is considered a service."

The report does not recommend that burger-flippers be counted alongside factory workers.

Instead, it concludes that the fuzziness of the manufacturing definition is problematic, because policies — like, for example, a tax credit for manufacturers — may miss their target if the definition is overly broad or narrow.

But reclassifying fast food workers as manufacturing employees could have other advantages for the administration.

It would offset somewhat the ongoing loss of manufacturing jobs in national employment statistics. Since the month President Bush was inaugurated, the economy has lost about 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. That continues a long-term trend.

It's a classic bait and switch, of course, and even the Bush Administration isn't being original in its tactics. The use of reclassification to manipulate employment statistics is a time honored political tool. It reminds me of this exchange from the classic British political satire Yes, Minister (from "The Compassionate Society"):

Hacker: Yes sir, the government has already achieved a reduction of 11.3% in administrative and clerical staff and is actively pursuing further economies.

Lanford: But would the Minister explain how his assurance to the House squares with this minute from his own department? I quote, "If data reprocessing staff were reclassified from administrative to technical..."

Hon. Members: Ooh!

Lanford: "...and if the base of comparison was changed from the financial to the calendar year..."

Hon. Members: Ooh!

Lanford: "...then the figures would show a fall of 11.3%." Would the Minister care to comment on this shabby deception?

Hey, let's call the Presidency a Manufacturing job, too. After all, the White House has manufactured so much bullshit in the last three over years, it's got to count for something...