Just the facts, ma'am.

A nice collection but they appear to have been selective in what they reported.

Why do they only report manufacturing jobs under the jobs category?

Throughout most of American history during which such types of statistics were kept, the manufacture of "durable goods" (anything from washing machines to automobiles which is not intended for immediate consumption, but for long-term use) has been considered a "key indicator" of the economic health of the nation. Therefore, the rise or decline of manufacturing jobs has been taken as an indicator of the relative economic health of the population, given that an increase in unemployment is far less significant if the sale of durable goods remains high.

However, i agree completely that this site is selectively reporting these statistics. Most durable goods which are now sold in the United States are not entirely produced in the United States. This is not just a matter of imports, either. So, for example, my jeep requires metric tools for me to do minor upkeep and repairs. This is because the engine and drive train were manufactured in the Canada, and engine periferals, the electrical system and most of the assembly were done in Mexico. Even though the final assembly was accomplished in the United States, and it is likely that the sheet metal with which the body was assembled in Mexico came from the United States (and the steel for that sheet metal may well have been imported), the majority of the vehicle, in terms of its value at the time of initial sale, was not produced in the United States. So reporting of durable goods sales is no longer as accurate an indicator as it once was, given that it is no longer representative of manufacturing jobs in the United States, and therefore the relative health of the economy in terms of the earnings of the population.

And yet this web site is still being disingenuous when reporting manufacturing jobs, because as the manufacture of durable goods or their components have declined in the United States--which is to say, there is no longer equivalence between the sale of durable goods and manufacturing jobs--the number of service industry jobs, and "tech sector" jobs has increased dramatically. That is to say, dramatically in comparison to the proportion of service industry jobs and jobs requiring technical skills (especially in the use of electronics, primarily computers) which have traditionally employed Americans.

So, on the one hand, reporting manufacturing jobs rather than the sales of durable goods is a more accurate indicator of the economic health of the population because so many of the durable goods sold, or the components of the durable goods are imported. On the other hand, simply reporting manufacturing jobs is significantly misleading, because such a low proportion of the gainfully employed population is employed in manufacturing in comparison to most of the 20th century.



If you simply mean you wish you had a source for statistics to attempt to make a reasonable comparison, there is such a source, which is Statistics Canadaurl], the Federal agency in Canada charged with the task of collecting and disseminating public statistics.

Of course, if by you wish you could find similar ones on Canada you mean you wish you could find a web site with a similar bias, good luck--you're on your own as far as i'm concerned.