it seems like the vast majority of benefit in that expansion has gone to a very small number of people. Until the Teapublicans are defeated once and for all, the benefits of our wealth will continue to be funneled to the plutocrats.

per-capita inflation-adjusted terms?

I read the entire article and they didn't give a clue to what this means.

Only if it had risen in per-capita inflation-adjusted terms would it be indicative of improved living standards. We all know there has been some cumulative population growth and some cumulative inflation over the past 7 years, so manufacturing being above 2007 levels, in raw dollars, would not be all that meaningful. In fact it would be downright depressing.

And of course, it would be indicative of higher living standards assuming that 95% of the benefit didn't go to the top 1%.

That said, at least the U.S. economy is about the only developed economy showing some growth that I can think of (Japan in recession, Europe barely above water growth-wise).

A related number, the GDP growth numbers given in the news stories are inflation-adjusted numbers (though not per-capita), FWIW.

Production output, i.e., an increase in the number of widgets produced.

values, even when the "widgets" are of the same type, e.g. smartphones. And what if car output was flat but many many more smartphones are produced -- how do you compare things like this except on a dollar value basis?

Thanks for any info on this.

Issued quarterly. It does not attempt to match dollar value of what is produced; rather, it just looks at the quantity that is being produced, and reported in the aggregate and also by industry.

A link or something to an official source, as opposed to an opinion.

I'm on my smartphone so I can't get it to you right now.

physical units. Somehow.

So this is a great milestone, then (manufacturing output exceeding peak pre-recession levels), in physical terms. (Would be better if it was per capita, but that should happen in a few months).

THanks

Last edited Tue Dec 16, 2014, 02:35 PM - Edit history (1)

unemployment benefits are not counted in the official unemployment rate statistic. That people assert knowingly as established fact (without any source given), that turns out not to be true...

That's why I ask the questions, and generally don't regard someone's assertions as worth anything when not accompanied by some source.

============================================================
Here's a canned blurb on one of the unemployment rate myths:


# Myth: "those who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits are not counted as unemployed. If they were counted, the official unemployment rate would be much higher" (you often hear this claim from the RepubliCONS when a Democratic president is in the White House, and vice versa when a RepubliCON is in the White House).

# Fact: the count of the unemployed and the unemployment rate is NOT a count of those receiving unemployment benefits, nor is unemployment benefit receiver status factored at all into any of the official national unemployment rate statistics (U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, U6). Rather, the national unemployment rate is based on a survey of 60,000 households chosen at random. Over the past decade, only about one-third of the total unemployed, on average, received regular UI benefits. See: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm (and search the page for the word "insurance&quot .

I understand and have no problem with the ask.

I have also run up against opinion being passed off as fact ... it's really aggravating when posters spout someone else's opinion when it is clear they really don't understand the underlying facts that make the opinion specious, at best.

Federal Reserve: how they calculate industrial production-- http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/IpNotes.htm
Not real clear, but seems to be more "widgets" than dollars from what I'm reading (in the above link)

=====================================
The November report -- Federal Reserve Industrial Production (includes manufacturing as a subset) http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/current/

"Manufacturing output rose 1.1 percent in November, and the rates of change for prior months are stronger than reported previously. Factory output is now estimated to have been above its late-2007 pre-recession peak in both October and November."
=====================================

I was suspicious because I remember the Bush administration touting back in early 2004 (and the mainstream media also reporting this as fact) that manufacturing activity was at a 20 year high (this soon after many reports of millions losing manufacturing jobs) ... it turned out that this was based on a report by the Institute of Supply Management, which reported the largest monthly INCREASE in 20 years.

(What fooled a lot of people is they use an index where above 50 means an increase over the previous period (previous month or quarter, I forget), and below 50 means a decrease, and people just looked at the index number and said, "wow, its higher than its been in 20 years" without realizing it was a measure of monthly or quarterly increase/decrease, and not an absolute production level.

If we are back up and full speed ahead on manufacturing in this economy, then where are the jobs? And why is Detroit still empty? These reports of how wonderful the economy is always leave me wondering where is all this great improvement?

Along with the rest of the manufacturing sector. Will we ever see the Detroit of the 70s, where we saw a bunch of high wage, low skill jobs? Probably not. But that says nothing to negate the increasing factory output.

Besides the article talks about "pre-release on levels", not glory day levels.

but then, for the masters who pay the wages, isn't it always time to lower wages?

lowered wages and massive layoffs increase their standing on the stock market.

can't have the filthy, dirty, "takers" thinking they are as anywhere NEAR as important as those who OWN (rather than work) for a living...