dr. houseman suggests, among the most robust findings in labor economics. in conclusion, dr. houseman has inn deuced another important analysis of the puzzle regarding the effect of productivity and trade on manufacturing employment. i asked dr. hicks to expand his remarks in order to directly comment on the -- in one of the main issues that sue raises, which is can we attribute the erosion of manufacturing employment to automation or to, you know, rather than anything related to output related matters or trade. and -- okay. so here's what he says. while i concur that slow output growth say contributor to lower levels of manufacturing employment growth, i don't think it is necessarily relevant to exclude computers from the discussion. susan may be correct -- there's a theme here. susan may be correct that bls waiting biases upward productivity growth but a full accounting of its total effect on manufacturing would require conducting some of the same analysis for noncomputer inputs. that was the point i attempted to make about earlier criticism of the bls. manufacturing goods a