He is appealing to core Democrats/Liberals, for whom an appreciation of reality is anathema...

MG's right, but what does that mean. Either Kerry is so cocooned in lefty think that he can't even talk to the middle, or he still thinks he needs to get the base.

David: why can't it be both?

kerry is a douche, plain and simple. 10 million new jobs @ a cost of over $500billion (a very lo-ball estimate). sounds like a deal to me, where should i send more of my hard-earned cash, same IRS address?

Papaya -- It could be both, but then what a boring 7 months we've got ahead of us.

a -

Is the govt. hiring the 10 million? No. And those who are hiring them, aren't they making more money now, and thus paying more taxes? Yes. And their stockholders? Oh yes, they will finally pay cap gains taxes. And the 10 million hired. won't also pay taxes? Yes. Me reckons you would have paid more in taxes had we not kick started growth...

I should have links to bolster this -- will hunt for them later. Manufacturing jobs as a average percentage (over 30%) of the total labor force peaked in about 1952 (a similar trend preceeded it from the turn of the century in Farming). Since then, it's been more or less a macro downward trend.

But now Kerry's going to single-handedly reverse a 50+-year trend in a far more dynamic and globalized economy? Please.

Too much French class, not enough Math.

The establishment survey shows manufacturing peaked in 1943 and 1944 at 37.9% of total employment. From 1945 on, manufacturing's share has declined in all but 12 years. The last increase in this ratio was in 1984, an increase of 0.1 percentage points to 19.0% from 1983's 18.9%. Other "recent" years of increase include 1976, 1973, 1966 and 1965--increases of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.1 percentage points.

In absolute terms, manufacturing peaked in 1979 at 19.4 million jobs, and has declined in 16 of the 24 years since then.

And manufacturing is declining globally.

Kerry's not going to stop this.

jsmith:
Thanks. I knew somebody would tighten up the facts for me. Either way, it's a strawman for more government manipulating labor supply and demand. If '79 was the 'absolute' peak at 19.4 million and it's steadily declined since (to what, 15M or so?), Kerry's 10 million jobs in 4 years would be a 67% increase.

MG: what are you talking about? i make a comment regarding the stupidity of kerry saying he can singlehandely create 10 million jobs, against all economic trends (as pointed out after me), while costing at least $500 billion (higher estimates come in closer to $1 trillion), and you respond with the following:

"Is the govt. hiring the 10 million? No. And those who are hiring them, aren't they making more money now, and thus paying more taxes? Yes. And their stockholders? Oh yes, they will finally pay cap gains taxes. And the 10 million hired. won't also pay taxes? Yes. Me reckons you would have paid more in taxes had we not kick started growth..."

first off, the only way he could come close to delivering on these numbers would be via subsidizing, which is what he plans to do by issuing tax breaks to companies that hire workers. unless the tax breaks are big enough to cover the COST of a new hire, companies aren't stupid enough to fall for that. basically, kerry will be buying jobs with tax dollars. while not directly hired by the gov't, well, you get the picture, right? the workers are indeed making money, but at the cost of other taxpayers. simple wealth distribution.

the rest of your money multiplier stuff wouldn't hold water because basically, for each job the gov't is buying, it's only getting max of 35% back on its investment, which of course spells deficits. as far as stockholders investing money into a sinking industry such as manufacturing, it's more likely they'll invest in developing markets than overpriced nanny-companies here in the states. but at least we'll have the option of overpaying for the 'made in america' tag.

instead of letting the industry die, and attempting to retrain individuals for other areas, kerry is committing the sin of protectionism and pseudo-job creation to secure the white house.

10 million jobs in four years isn't that big a deal. It's 2.5 million per year or 208,000 a month. At last month's rate, 308,000 new jobs, George Bush would create 15 million. I think the actual number created in the next Presidential term will be closer to 20 million than 10 million.

Kerry picked 10 million because it's bigger than what's happened the last four years, a round number, sounds impressive, and if he wins the claim won't come back to haunt him in 2008. It was a rare (for him) canny move.

"How does this square with any thinking person's reality?" It doesn't, but "thinking person" is not an adjective which applies to a majority of the population, and their votes count just as much as that of a thinking person, plus with the media dotting the left's I's and crossing it T's, it makes the unreasonable seem more reasonable. It's possible to win elections simly by herding most of the sheep, Bill Clinton did it twice. I don't think Kerry will pull it off, but winning on the logical battlefield doesn't guarantee victory on the electoral battlefield.

PJ: Well put. It's Kerry's emphasis on buggy-whip manufacturing jobs as the bulk of that 10million that makes him seem so disconnected from reality.

Not to mention, it's precisely manufacturing jobs which are most easily replaced by automation/third-world labor.

Even as the amount of goods manufactured, (at least in part), in America grows, the number of people employed in the field will shrink.

As John Resnick points out, it's exactly the same path that employment in agriculture took.