[azotic]

The refusal of China and India to go along with the carbon-dioxide limits
should be the death knell for the Cap and Trade bill currently being
considered by the Senate. The legislation is a pretty hard sell. Even
advocates admit restrictions would only have a small effect -- only a
fraction of 1 degree Celsius, a virtually unnoticeable .07 degrees -- on
global temperatures by 2050.

Even if a worldwide agreement made sense, an agreement without China, India
and other developing countries can be counterproductive. It could actually
mean more, not less, carbon-dioxide emissions. With massive increases in
energy costs for the United States, Europe and Japan, energy-intensive
manufacturing will move to countries without limits. That would negate some
of the carbon-dioxide reductions in countries with limits.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ing-cap-trade/

Best Regards

Tom.

[Larry Jaques]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:28:54 -0700, the infamous "azotic"
scrawled the following:

The refusal of China and India to go along with the carbon-dioxide limits
should be the death knell for the Cap and Trade bill currently being
considered by the Senate. The legislation is a pretty hard sell. Even
advocates admit restrictions would only have a small effect -- only a
fraction of 1 degree Celsius, a virtually unnoticeable .07 degrees -- on
global temperatures by 2050.

Yabbut it puts billions of ducats in the pols' pockets while raising
the utility bills until half the population can't afford to use them.
What's not to like?

--
Mistrust the man who finds everything good, the man who finds everything
evil, and still more the man who is indifferent to everything.
-- Johann K. Lavater

[Buerste]

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:28:54 -0700, the infamous "azotic"
scrawled the following:

The refusal of China and India to go along with the carbon-dioxide limits
should be the death knell for the Cap and Trade bill currently being
considered by the Senate. The legislation is a pretty hard sell. Even
advocates admit restrictions would only have a small effect -- only a
fraction of 1 degree Celsius, a virtually unnoticeable .07 degrees -- on
global temperatures by 2050.

Yabbut it puts billions of ducats in the pols' pockets while raising
the utility bills until half the population can't afford to use them.
What's not to like?

--
Mistrust the man who finds everything good, the man who finds everything
evil, and still more the man who is indifferent to everything.
-- Johann K. Lavater

Will the last manufacturer in the US turn off the lights when he
leaves...oh, never mind.

[Bill Noble[_2_]]

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:28:54 -0700, the infamous "azotic"
scrawled the following:

The refusal of China and India to go along with the carbon-dioxide limits
should be the death knell for the Cap and Trade bill currently being
considered by the Senate. The legislation is a pretty hard sell. Even
advocates admit restrictions would only have a small effect -- only a
fraction of 1 degree Celsius, a virtually unnoticeable .07 degrees -- on
global temperatures by 2050.

Yabbut it puts billions of ducats in the pols' pockets while raising
the utility bills until half the population can't afford to use them.
What's not to like?

--
Mistrust the man who finds everything good, the man who finds everything
evil, and still more the man who is indifferent to everything.
-- Johann K. Lavater

Will the last manufacturer in the US turn off the lights when he
leaves...oh, never mind.


a bit naieve, don't you think? energy prices are rising and will continue
to do so, hence transportation costs. your doomsday scenario will not
happen. what is more likely is a protectionist approach to prevent imports
from those who won't comply, just like child labor laws block import of some
carpets and stuff

[Buerste]

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:28:54 -0700, the infamous "azotic"
scrawled the following:

The refusal of China and India to go along with the carbon-dioxide
limits
should be the death knell for the Cap and Trade bill currently being
considered by the Senate. The legislation is a pretty hard sell. Even
advocates admit restrictions would only have a small effect -- only a
fraction of 1 degree Celsius, a virtually unnoticeable .07 degrees -- on
global temperatures by 2050.

Yabbut it puts billions of ducats in the pols' pockets while raising
the utility bills until half the population can't afford to use them.
What's not to like?

--
Mistrust the man who finds everything good, the man who finds everything
evil, and still more the man who is indifferent to everything.
-- Johann K. Lavater

Will the last manufacturer in the US turn off the lights when he
leaves...oh, never mind.


a bit naieve, don't you think? energy prices are rising and will continue
to do so, hence transportation costs. your doomsday scenario will not
happen. what is more likely is a protectionist approach to prevent
imports from those who won't comply, just like child labor laws block
import of some carpets and stuff


There are plenty of other good markets, the US is headed for the bottom of
the heap. A friend of mine set up a satellite plant in Indonesia five years
ago to service his 20% of eastern customers. That plant is now doing three
times what his US plant is doing...at MUCH lower costs. He says he has
plenty of room for me.

In reality, I'm not moving out of the US just yet, but we are moving into a
more efficient building in another city. We are planning for electricity
and natural gas to triple within three years and labor costs will skyrocket
with mandatory COLAs, union demands and healthcare. More automation, less
people. Almost the same effect as if I moved to Indonesia...less and less
employees! I hear the same talk from other business owners. So much for
job creation! The number of jobs I have and will eliminate will be
multiplied by hundreds of thousands.

Protectionism, even in the smallest form will never pass! Too much money
goes into too many politicians' pockets. The US is now so corrupt with
wealth redistribution, blatant political lies, (not so) hidden agendas,
ruined education system, etc., that I doubt it's light will ever shine
brightly again. They've managed to cut open the goose to get all the gold,
and we all know how that turns out.

[Wes[_2_]]

"Buerste" wrote:

In reality, I'm not moving out of the US just yet, but we are moving into a
more efficient building in another city. We are planning for electricity
and natural gas to triple within three years and labor costs will skyrocket
with mandatory COLAs, union demands and healthcare. More automation, less
people. Almost the same effect as if I moved to Indonesia...less and less
employees! I hear the same talk from other business owners. So much for
job creation! The number of jobs I have and will eliminate will be
multiplied by hundreds of thousands.


About 14 months ago we recieved an automated cell that wiped out 5 jobs. If the numbers
make sense, machines in, people out. As long as the equipment isn't self repairing, I'll
be fine.

Wes

[Larry Jaques]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:37:07 -0400, the infamous "Buerste"
scrawled the following:


"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:28:54 -0700, the infamous "azotic"
scrawled the following:

The refusal of China and India to go along with the carbon-dioxide
limits
should be the death knell for the Cap and Trade bill currently being
considered by the Senate. The legislation is a pretty hard sell. Even
advocates admit restrictions would only have a small effect -- only a
fraction of 1 degree Celsius, a virtually unnoticeable .07 degrees -- on
global temperatures by 2050.

Yabbut it puts billions of ducats in the pols' pockets while raising
the utility bills until half the population can't afford to use them.
What's not to like?

--
Mistrust the man who finds everything good, the man who finds everything
evil, and still more the man who is indifferent to everything.
-- Johann K. Lavater

Will the last manufacturer in the US turn off the lights when he
leaves...oh, never mind.


a bit naieve, don't you think? energy prices are rising and will continue
to do so, hence transportation costs. your doomsday scenario will not
happen. what is more likely is a protectionist approach to prevent
imports from those who won't comply, just like child labor laws block
import of some carpets and stuff


There are plenty of other good markets, the US is headed for the bottom of
the heap. A friend of mine set up a satellite plant in Indonesia five years
ago to service his 20% of eastern customers. That plant is now doing three
times what his US plant is doing...at MUCH lower costs. He says he has
plenty of room for me.

In reality, I'm not moving out of the US just yet, but we are moving into a
more efficient building in another city. We are planning for electricity
and natural gas to triple within three years and labor costs will skyrocket
with mandatory COLAs, union demands and healthcare. More automation, less
people. Almost the same effect as if I moved to Indonesia...less and less
employees! I hear the same talk from other business owners. So much for
job creation! The number of jobs I have and will eliminate will be
multiplied by hundreds of thousands.

Protectionism, even in the smallest form will never pass! Too much money
goes into too many politicians' pockets. The US is now so corrupt with
wealth redistribution, blatant political lies, (not so) hidden agendas,
ruined education system, etc., that I doubt it's light will ever shine
brightly again. They've managed to cut open the goose to get all the gold,
and we all know how that turns out.

Just _maybe_, once BamBam and his Liberal accomplices (and the
Conservative accomplices) finish gutting the goose, the Tea Parties
will get real and hit the America RESET button. If that happens
before the final gutting, we might get lucky.

Cross your appendages, boys and girls.

--
Mistrust the man who finds everything good, the man who finds everything
evil, and still more the man who is indifferent to everything.
-- Johann K. Lavater

[Buerste]

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Buerste" wrote:

In reality, I'm not moving out of the US just yet, but we are moving into
a
more efficient building in another city. We are planning for electricity
and natural gas to triple within three years and labor costs will
skyrocket
with mandatory COLAs, union demands and healthcare. More automation, less
people. Almost the same effect as if I moved to Indonesia...less and less
employees! I hear the same talk from other business owners. So much for
job creation! The number of jobs I have and will eliminate will be
multiplied by hundreds of thousands.


About 14 months ago we recieved an automated cell that wiped out 5 jobs.
If the numbers
make sense, machines in, people out. As long as the equipment isn't self
repairing, I'll
be fine.

Wes

Yep, as long as there is demand for the products produced. Less employees
equals less money circulating in communities. A dollar gets spent 7 times
locally. That's created wealth from manufacturing, cheese checks don't
count. Even low-end jobs give accomplishment satisfaction to people,
cheese-checks cause despair, apathy and crime.

[Ed Huntress]

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Buerste" wrote:

In reality, I'm not moving out of the US just yet, but we are moving into
a
more efficient building in another city. We are planning for electricity
and natural gas to triple within three years and labor costs will
skyrocket
with mandatory COLAs, union demands and healthcare. More automation,
less
people. Almost the same effect as if I moved to Indonesia...less and
less
employees! I hear the same talk from other business owners. So much for
job creation! The number of jobs I have and will eliminate will be
multiplied by hundreds of thousands.


About 14 months ago we recieved an automated cell that wiped out 5 jobs.
If the numbers
make sense, machines in, people out. As long as the equipment isn't self
repairing, I'll
be fine.

Wes

Yep, as long as there is demand for the products produced. Less employees
equals less money circulating in communities. A dollar gets spent 7 times
locally. That's created wealth from manufacturing, cheese checks don't
count. Even low-end jobs give accomplishment satisfaction to people,
cheese-checks cause despair, apathy and crime.

It isn't clear what your point is, Tom. Are you arguing for trashing
automation? For paying people Chinese wages? Or what?

You and Wes seem to be implying that you wouldn't automate if there weren't
factors that raised labor costs. That's a mistake. What drives automation is
competition, not labor. That's been true since manufacturing began, and the
commentary I read in _American Machinist_ from the 1920s, '30s, '40s, etc.
said exactly the same things you're saying now. And it was just as wrong.

It wouldn't matter how low your labor costs were. The greatest influence on
the economics of automation is the interest rate you pay for capital
equipment, in combination with the availability of credit for large capital
investments -- investments in automation, in other words. And the
relationship between the viability of automation and labor costs ALWAYS
trends in favor of automation. That's happening even in China today.

If you take a look at the automotive parts plants in Mexico, you'll see the
same thing. We were selling Wasinos for that work and they had to be sold
without our gantry autoloaders -- not because it was more economic to run
without the automation, but because the Mexican government required it. Even
with their low wages, automation won, on the P&L statement. It just lost
temporarily because the government didn't want to face the inevitable.

In the US, or Mexico, or China, competition always applies pressure to
automate. One Chinese company competing with another will cause each of
*them* to automate -- and put even more pressure on you to do so. There's no
getting around it.

And trying to avoid it is just like pushing on the end of a rope. However,
if you succeed in driving down wages as a temporary stop-gap on the way to
further automation, you will have one economic effect: You'll drive real
wages, and the real economy, into a race for the bottom.

--
Ed Huntress

[Wes[_2_]]

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

You and Wes seem to be implying that you wouldn't automate if there weren't
factors that raised labor costs. That's a mistake. What drives automation is
competition, not labor. That's been true since manufacturing began, and the
commentary I read in _American Machinist_ from the 1920s, '30s, '40s, etc.
said exactly the same things you're saying now. And it was just as wrong.

Actually I agree on the competition theme to your reply. The point Tom was making is if
the costs of employing people increases significantly due to policies likely to come from
Washington, that will be that 'extra' budget that makes marginal automation schemes look
reasonable.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

[Ed Huntress]

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

You and Wes seem to be implying that you wouldn't automate if there
weren't
factors that raised labor costs. That's a mistake. What drives automation
is
competition, not labor. That's been true since manufacturing began, and
the
commentary I read in _American Machinist_ from the 1920s, '30s, '40s, etc.
said exactly the same things you're saying now. And it was just as wrong.

Actually I agree on the competition theme to your reply. The point Tom
was making is if
the costs of employing people increases significantly due to policies
likely to come from
Washington, that will be that 'extra' budget that makes marginal
automation schemes look
reasonable.

Wes

But that's the fallacy, Wes. If you look at it that way, you're always
behind in investment. If *today's* pricing and *today's* competition are
driving your decisions, you've already lost the game.

What you're describing is the kind of static thinking that killed the US
machine tool industry, among others. You are going to have to automate or
make other productivity-enhancing investments, no matter what happens to
your labor costs. If you're waiting for labor costs to make the decision for
you, you're too late. Your competition, overseas or domestic, has already
made that decision. That is, the competition that you will be fighting for
price and quality tommorow, rather than today.

If you use labor costs as your trigger for automating, you're using them as
a scapegoat for your own lack of foresight. Competition will force you to
act. And if you act by putting pressure on labor, you're just racing to the
bottom, because you're squeezing your own market, directly or indirectly.
Recognizing that is the "enlightened" part of the phrase, "enlightened
self-interest."

--
Ed Huntress

[Buerste]

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Buerste" wrote:

In reality, I'm not moving out of the US just yet, but we are moving
into a
more efficient building in another city. We are planning for
electricity
and natural gas to triple within three years and labor costs will
skyrocket
with mandatory COLAs, union demands and healthcare. More automation,
less
people. Almost the same effect as if I moved to Indonesia...less and
less
employees! I hear the same talk from other business owners. So much
for
job creation! The number of jobs I have and will eliminate will be
multiplied by hundreds of thousands.


About 14 months ago we recieved an automated cell that wiped out 5 jobs.
If the numbers
make sense, machines in, people out. As long as the equipment isn't
self repairing, I'll
be fine.

Wes

Yep, as long as there is demand for the products produced. Less
employees equals less money circulating in communities. A dollar gets
spent 7 times locally. That's created wealth from manufacturing, cheese
checks don't count. Even low-end jobs give accomplishment satisfaction
to people, cheese-checks cause despair, apathy and crime.

It isn't clear what your point is, Tom. Are you arguing for trashing
automation? For paying people Chinese wages? Or what?

You and Wes seem to be implying that you wouldn't automate if there
weren't factors that raised labor costs. That's a mistake. What drives
automation is competition, not labor. That's been true since manufacturing
began, and the commentary I read in _American Machinist_ from the 1920s,
'30s, '40s, etc. said exactly the same things you're saying now. And it
was just as wrong.

It wouldn't matter how low your labor costs were. The greatest influence
on the economics of automation is the interest rate you pay for capital
equipment, in combination with the availability of credit for large
capital investments -- investments in automation, in other words. And the
relationship between the viability of automation and labor costs ALWAYS
trends in favor of automation. That's happening even in China today.

If you take a look at the automotive parts plants in Mexico, you'll see
the same thing. We were selling Wasinos for that work and they had to be
sold without our gantry autoloaders -- not because it was more economic to
run without the automation, but because the Mexican government required
it. Even with their low wages, automation won, on the P&L statement. It
just lost temporarily because the government didn't want to face the
inevitable.

In the US, or Mexico, or China, competition always applies pressure to
automate. One Chinese company competing with another will cause each of
*them* to automate -- and put even more pressure on you to do so. There's
no getting around it.

And trying to avoid it is just like pushing on the end of a rope. However,
if you succeed in driving down wages as a temporary stop-gap on the way to
further automation, you will have one economic effect: You'll drive real
wages, and the real economy, into a race for the bottom.

--
Ed Huntress


I know it sounds funny but I feel guilty for eliminating jobs due to
automation. The lack of continual improvements in the previous generation
gave me a huge opportunity to make a lot of simple, easy improvements that
had big impacts in profits. I always had a lot of empathy with my workers
because I've done every job in a production role. A lot of the jobs were
very simple and a lot of the people we had just weren't capable of anything
more complex. But, they did the jobs proudly and felt good about
themselves. I worked side-by-side with everyone, ate lunch and told jokes
with them. Those are the jobs most easily eliminated and I know they won't
GET another job...they are doomed to welfare. But, If I wanted to stay in
business, I had to cut costs. The State of Ohio was no help to these people
by raising the minimum wage by almost 50%. Almost a third of my people were
affected. I couldn't keep everybody at that rate. The people that I had to
let go would gladly WORK for the lower wages rather than not work at
all...and they knew it! I think it's VERY important for all people to work
and feel productive as a contributing member of society. The left doesn't
get this at all! The left thinks that if somebody isn't making $30k, they
should be on welfare, they are worthless and can't contribute to society.

The average employee salary is much higher now as is the training level and
skill level. BUT, my labor costs are a lot lower, production is much
higher, and quality is higher. I've even managed to have a structure in
place that has allowed me and my sister to take a lot of time off. A few
phone calls and a half-day here and there have kept everything going
smoothly. Good for me but bad for guys like "Robert" who used to sweep and
move stuff around for me. That was all he was capable of doing and he was
happy. I had to let him go, I liked him and he was handy to have around.
And, with his past record, he'll NEVER get another job. But guess what - I
couldn't justify the unnecessary expense, especially after union demands. I
would love to provide a bunch of jobs to people

Meanwhile, my neighborhood is blighted with the jobless and crime is worse.
Are these people better off on the dole? The yearly COLA from Ohio won't
increase my labor cost or put more money into the neighborhoods, it'll hurt
the people THAT MUCH MORE! Sure, my first responsibility is to keep the
business running and profitable, but why does the State, unions and other
democrats demand that I hurt my community? It just goes against my grain.

Sorry, just another fanatical right-wing rant.

[Buerste]

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

You and Wes seem to be implying that you wouldn't automate if there
weren't
factors that raised labor costs. That's a mistake. What drives automation
is
competition, not labor. That's been true since manufacturing began, and
the
commentary I read in _American Machinist_ from the 1920s, '30s, '40s, etc.
said exactly the same things you're saying now. And it was just as wrong.

Actually I agree on the competition theme to your reply. The point Tom
was making is if
the costs of employing people increases significantly due to policies
likely to come from
Washington, that will be that 'extra' budget that makes marginal
automation schemes look
reasonable.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

EXACTLY! I think nothing of spending $30k on a project anymore because I
know the pay back is so fast with displaced labor costs. And, I don't have
to negotiate labor contracts with machines, nor can the state increase my
cost on a whim. I've given my engineering team a blank check and a mandate
to replace employees. I feel bad about it, but...

[Ed Huntress]

"Buerste" wrote in message
news

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Buerste" wrote:

In reality, I'm not moving out of the US just yet, but we are moving
into a
more efficient building in another city. We are planning for
electricity
and natural gas to triple within three years and labor costs will
skyrocket
with mandatory COLAs, union demands and healthcare. More automation,
less
people. Almost the same effect as if I moved to Indonesia...less and
less
employees! I hear the same talk from other business owners. So much
for
job creation! The number of jobs I have and will eliminate will be
multiplied by hundreds of thousands.


About 14 months ago we recieved an automated cell that wiped out 5
jobs. If the numbers
make sense, machines in, people out. As long as the equipment isn't
self repairing, I'll
be fine.

Wes

Yep, as long as there is demand for the products produced. Less
employees equals less money circulating in communities. A dollar gets
spent 7 times locally. That's created wealth from manufacturing, cheese
checks don't count. Even low-end jobs give accomplishment satisfaction
to people, cheese-checks cause despair, apathy and crime.

It isn't clear what your point is, Tom. Are you arguing for trashing
automation? For paying people Chinese wages? Or what?

You and Wes seem to be implying that you wouldn't automate if there
weren't factors that raised labor costs. That's a mistake. What drives
automation is competition, not labor. That's been true since
manufacturing began, and the commentary I read in _American Machinist_
from the 1920s, '30s, '40s, etc. said exactly the same things you're
saying now. And it was just as wrong.

It wouldn't matter how low your labor costs were. The greatest influence
on the economics of automation is the interest rate you pay for capital
equipment, in combination with the availability of credit for large
capital investments -- investments in automation, in other words. And the
relationship between the viability of automation and labor costs ALWAYS
trends in favor of automation. That's happening even in China today.

If you take a look at the automotive parts plants in Mexico, you'll see
the same thing. We were selling Wasinos for that work and they had to be
sold without our gantry autoloaders -- not because it was more economic
to run without the automation, but because the Mexican government
required it. Even with their low wages, automation won, on the P&L
statement. It just lost temporarily because the government didn't want to
face the inevitable.

In the US, or Mexico, or China, competition always applies pressure to
automate. One Chinese company competing with another will cause each of
*them* to automate -- and put even more pressure on you to do so. There's
no getting around it.

And trying to avoid it is just like pushing on the end of a rope.
However, if you succeed in driving down wages as a temporary stop-gap on
the way to further automation, you will have one economic effect: You'll
drive real wages, and the real economy, into a race for the bottom.

--
Ed Huntress


I know it sounds funny but I feel guilty for eliminating jobs due to
automation. The lack of continual improvements in the previous generation
gave me a huge opportunity to make a lot of simple, easy improvements that
had big impacts in profits. I always had a lot of empathy with my workers
because I've done every job in a production role. A lot of the jobs were
very simple and a lot of the people we had just weren't capable of
anything more complex. But, they did the jobs proudly and felt good about
themselves. I worked side-by-side with everyone, ate lunch and told jokes
with them. Those are the jobs most easily eliminated and I know they
won't GET another job...they are doomed to welfare. But, If I wanted to
stay in business, I had to cut costs. The State of Ohio was no help to
these people by raising the minimum wage by almost 50%. Almost a third of
my people were affected. I couldn't keep everybody at that rate. The
people that I had to let go would gladly WORK for the lower wages rather
than not work at all...and they knew it! I think it's VERY important for
all people to work and feel productive as a contributing member of
society. The left doesn't get this at all! The left thinks that if
somebody isn't making $30k, they should be on welfare, they are worthless
and can't contribute to society.

The average employee salary is much higher now as is the training level
and skill level. BUT, my labor costs are a lot lower, production is much
higher, and quality is higher. I've even managed to have a structure in
place that has allowed me and my sister to take a lot of time off. A few
phone calls and a half-day here and there have kept everything going
smoothly. Good for me but bad for guys like "Robert" who used to sweep
and move stuff around for me. That was all he was capable of doing and he
was happy. I had to let him go, I liked him and he was handy to have
around. And, with his past record, he'll NEVER get another job. But guess
what - I couldn't justify the unnecessary expense, especially after union
demands. I would love to provide a bunch of jobs to people

Meanwhile, my neighborhood is blighted with the jobless and crime is
worse. Are these people better off on the dole? The yearly COLA from Ohio
won't increase my labor cost or put more money into the neighborhoods,
it'll hurt the people THAT MUCH MORE! Sure, my first responsibility is to
keep the business running and profitable, but why does the State, unions
and other democrats demand that I hurt my community? It just goes against
my grain.

Sorry, just another fanatical right-wing rant.

I don't think that's a rant at all. That's the result of some very admirable
attitudes and behaviors on your part.

This reminds me of the arguments I used to have with Andy Ashburn, the
editor at _AM_ when I was there. Every time we wrote about some amazing new
automation idea I'd ask, "and what happens to the 20 workers who were
displaced?" Andy would get really ****ed at me for asking. So would the
other older guys. The idea was, there would always be jobs for them, because
the automation improved productivity, increasing economic activity and thus
increasing demand for labor.

I scratched my head over this, wondering why they didn't realize that their
entire idea depended on a high, probably unsustainable level of growth. And
now we're seeing what happens when growth flattens out. As it inevitably
will, IMO.

So your displaced workers are inevitable, if you accept the precepts of
capitalism, unless you can figure out a way to grow faster than you're
displacing workers. That was possible for a few decades in the middle of the
last century but my guess is that the rate of productivity improvement has
now outstripped the rate of job expansion. If you consider it as a math
problem, you'll recognize that the economy has to grow at some logarithmic
rate to produce a linear increase in jobs, given that productivity is
increasing all the while. Sooner or later, it becomes a Malthusian problem.

That's life. You do the best you can for your workers. But you'll never be
able to compete in a manufacturing field that responds to technical
productivity improvements and still keep them employed, without a high rate
of growth for your business, because it would require an ever-declining wage
rate -- until they couldn't live on it at all.

--
Ed Huntress

[John R. Carroll[_3_]]

Buerste wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Buerste" wrote:


I know it sounds funny but I feel guilty for eliminating jobs due to
automation.

You shouldn't.
Increasing your sales per man hour is an important metric.

The lack of continual improvements in the previous
generation gave me a huge opportunity to make a lot of simple, easy
improvements that had big impacts in profits. I always had a lot of
empathy with my workers because I've done every job in a production
role. A lot of the jobs were very simple and a lot of the people we
had just weren't capable of anything more complex. But, they did the
jobs proudly and felt good about themselves. I worked side-by-side
with everyone, ate lunch and told jokes with them. Those are the
jobs most easily eliminated and I know they won't GET another
job...they are doomed to welfare. But, If I wanted to stay in
business, I had to cut costs. The State of Ohio was no help to these
people by raising the minimum wage by almost 50%. Almost a third of
my people were affected. I couldn't keep everybody at that rate.
The people that I had to let go would gladly WORK for the lower wages
rather than not work at all...and they knew it! I think it's VERY
important for all people to work and feel productive as a
contributing member of society. The left doesn't get this at all!

I don't think this is a "left" or "right" issue Tom.
You'd like to have a low payed work force with the skill set of Trig Palin.


The left thinks that if somebody isn't making $30k, they should be on
welfare, they are worthless and can't contribute to society.

The average employee salary is much higher now as is the training
level and skill level. BUT, my labor costs are a lot lower,
production is much higher, and quality is higher.

There you go.
The future needs to look more like that and less like lower slobovia.


I've even managed
to have a structure in place that has allowed me and my sister to
take a lot of time off. A few phone calls and a half-day here and
there have kept everything going smoothly. Good for me but bad for
guys like "Robert" who used to sweep and move stuff around for me.
That was all he was capable of doing and he was happy. I had to let
him go, I liked him and he was handy to have around. And, with his
past record, he'll NEVER get another job. But guess what - I
couldn't justify the unnecessary expense, especially after union
demands. I would love to provide a bunch of jobs to people

You either couldn't or wouldn't train him into a decent job.
Had you taken less time off and used your new found increased productivity
to grown your sales instead of paying yourself at the first opportunity,
"Robert" might just have become the kind of productive member of your work
force that would have allowed him to prosper along with you.



Meanwhile, my neighborhood is blighted with the jobless and crime is
worse. Are these people better off on the dole?

The market works. When they have skills that are worth having they will be
paid accordingly.

The yearly COLA from
Ohio won't increase my labor cost or put more money into the
neighborhoods, it'll hurt the people THAT MUCH MORE! Sure, my first
responsibility is to keep the business running and profitable, but
why does the State, unions and other democrats demand that I hurt my
community? It just goes against my grain.

How do practices that encourage a lowest common denominator work force
benefit anyone Tom?
Here is an idea. Take some of your new found free time and have you and your
sister get of your asses.
Found a training center for the "Roberts" in your community. That is what
your community relies on it's leaders to do, not go fishing.

Sorry, just another fanatical right-wing rant.

Hardly, it is just ignorant and lazy.
Filling the American work force with three dollar an hour retards isn't
going to produce anything three dollar an hour retards can't afford. You can
realize your version of the American Dream real easily. Move to Somolia or
Ethiopia, places that work exactly to your liking.

--
John R. Carroll

[John R. Carroll[_3_]]

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Buerste" wrote in message
news

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Buerste" wrote:



That's life. You do the best you can for your workers. But you'll
never be able to compete in a manufacturing field that responds to
technical productivity improvements and still keep them employed,
without a high rate of growth for your business, because it would
require an ever-declining wage rate -- until they couldn't live on it
at all.

Nonsense.


--
John R. Carroll

[Ed Huntress]

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Buerste" wrote in message
news

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Buerste" wrote:



That's life. You do the best you can for your workers. But you'll
never be able to compete in a manufacturing field that responds to
technical productivity improvements and still keep them employed,
without a high rate of growth for your business, because it would
require an ever-declining wage rate -- until they couldn't live on it
at all.

Nonsense.


--
John R. Carroll

Nope. No growth, no employment. And with improving productivity, less
employment -- unless you have substantial growth.

--
Ed Huntress

[Leon Fisk]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:38:30 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

big snip
How do practices that encourage a lowest common denominator work force
benefit anyone Tom?
Here is an idea. Take some of your new found free time and have you and your
sister get of your asses.
Found a training center for the "Roberts" in your community. That is what
your community relies on it's leaders to do, not go fishing.

I've worked with "Roberts" too. They will never, ever be
more than they currently are no matter how much
training/education you try to jam down their throat. You can
show them how to do something today, they will do it okay,
two months later (or less) you can do it all over again,
repeat...

They are not bad people, criminals or anything like that,
but they will never become a "rocket scientist". And if for
some reason you try to have them perform at that level,
because what the hey, they've been trained, have a piece of
paper saying so, you'll will end up with the mess we have
today. People with a "college education" that can't use a
$10 calculator to figure out that there is no way they can
afford the mortgage on their house...

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

[John R. Carroll[_3_]]

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Buerste" wrote in message
news
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Buerste" wrote:



That's life. You do the best you can for your workers. But you'll
never be able to compete in a manufacturing field that responds to
technical productivity improvements and still keep them employed,
without a high rate of growth for your business, because it would
require an ever-declining wage rate -- until they couldn't live on
it at all.

Nonsense.

Nope. No growth, no employment. And with improving productivity, less
employment -- unless you have substantial growth.

Yeah, you have to pay attention and keep broadening your business into areas
where growth will occur.
What you said was that growth can't keep up. The facts and the evidence
don't support that unless you want to keep making buggy whips. Then there is
plenty.

Let's take Cleveland as an example.
The cities population and tax base continue to evaporate. One area that will
definitely grow is the downsizing business.
Flint Michigan is taking the lead on this. They will be wiping out half of
the place with bulldozers and putting something, or in saome cases nothing,
in the space created. The population will move to the space that is left. I
was born in Flint's East Side Ed. My grandmothers family had a successful
screw machine business on Dort Hwy. in Grand Blanc for half a century. Two
years from now the East side of Flint won't even exist and the screw machine
shop in Grand Blanc died with my Uncle Del, but what is left of all of that
when the city is done will be serviceable and vibrant. They will attract
new industry. I might move back just to watch it happen and lend a hand. The
valuations will certainly be right but I'm pretty well hooked on warm
wheather and ocean breezes.

Tom might consider expanding into the automation industry. He seems to have
a knack for it. There are also a ton of trainable people in his area. He'd
experience real growth if he focused on the sort of automation the energy
business was going to need to make, oh I don't know, batteries for vehicles
that we'll otherwise buy from Korea.

What you have to be able to do is see opportunity, get organized and seize
it. Otherwise, you just set yourself up to fail eventually.


--
John R. Carroll

[John R. Carroll[_3_]]

Leon Fisk wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:38:30 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

big snip
How do practices that encourage a lowest common denominator work
force benefit anyone Tom?
Here is an idea. Take some of your new found free time and have you
and your sister get of your asses.
Found a training center for the "Roberts" in your community. That is
what your community relies on it's leaders to do, not go fishing.

I've worked with "Roberts" too. They will never, ever be
more than they currently are no matter how much
training/education you try to jam down their throat. You can
show them how to do something today, they will do it okay,
two months later (or less) you can do it all over again,
repeat...

They are not bad people, criminals or anything like that,
but they will never become a "rocket scientist". And if for
some reason you try to have them perform at that level,
because what the hey, they've been trained, have a piece of
paper saying so, you'll will end up with the mess we have
today. People with a "college education" that can't use a
$10 calculator to figure out that there is no way they can
afford the mortgage on their house...

I guess we went to different schools.
Regardless, "Roberts" end up out of their menial jobs for one of two
reasons.
First, Tom's automation effrots aren't as messy. What is left to clean up is
done but the guys working on the floor.
It's one of the value adds that leads THEM to a higher wage. There was,
quite litterally, nothing for Toms "Robert" to do.

Second, altruistic "feel good" behavior is often undertaken in the moment by
people who don't think.
"Robert" could be back on the job tomorrow but not cleaning up because there
isn't anything for him to clean up, not even at a dollar an hour.

--
John R. Carroll

[Leon Fisk]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:28:18 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

snip
"Robert" could be back on the job tomorrow but not cleaning up because there
isn't anything for him to clean up, not even at a dollar an hour.

So what do we do with these people? I can tell you right off
that training isn't going to work. They have been trained,
they tried hard, it didn't stick.


--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

[Ed Huntress]

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Buerste" wrote in message
news
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Buerste" wrote:



That's life. You do the best you can for your workers. But you'll
never be able to compete in a manufacturing field that responds to
technical productivity improvements and still keep them employed,
without a high rate of growth for your business, because it would
require an ever-declining wage rate -- until they couldn't live on
it at all.

Nonsense.

Nope. No growth, no employment. And with improving productivity, less
employment -- unless you have substantial growth.

Yeah, you have to pay attention and keep broadening your business into
areas
where growth will occur.
What you said was that growth can't keep up. The facts and the evidence
don't support that unless you want to keep making buggy whips. Then there
is
plenty.

What I said was that you can't maintain employment without a healthy rate of
growth. That applies to goods-producing industries in general, and to
individual companies in particular. I've never tried to sort it out for the
whole economy, but the pattern has been clear for years now in
manufacturing.

Here's employment in goods-producing industries since 1940:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2.../USGOOD?cid=11

Here's the growth it took to sustain those levels of employment:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IPMAN

Since about 1970, the output of goods produced in the US has had to be on a
pretty steep incline just to keep manufacturing employment about level. In
other words, you need a lot of growth to keep from laying people off in
manufacturing, due largely to improvements in productivity. And if you have
even a slight downturn in manufacturing output, you get a big dip in
employment.

All of this is happening, of course, while the population is increasing. So
the percentage of people in manufacturing keeps dropping, even though the
total number is fairly flat. Where do the others go? As I've said, I've
never tried a full analysis, but a lot of them never return to
manufacturing.

So, as I said to Tom, it doesn't matter if you're chasing wages or not; your
competition is automating, here and abroad, and you have to, as well. And
unless you grow, you're going to wind up with fewer people.


Let's take Cleveland as an example.
The cities population and tax base continue to evaporate. One area that
will
definitely grow is the downsizing business.
Flint Michigan is taking the lead on this. They will be wiping out half of
the place with bulldozers and putting something, or in saome cases
nothing,
in the space created. The population will move to the space that is left.
I
was born in Flint's East Side Ed. My grandmothers family had a successful
screw machine business on Dort Hwy. in Grand Blanc for half a century. Two
years from now the East side of Flint won't even exist and the screw
machine
shop in Grand Blanc died with my Uncle Del, but what is left of all of
that
when the city is done will be serviceable and vibrant. They will attract
new industry. I might move back just to watch it happen and lend a hand.
The
valuations will certainly be right but I'm pretty well hooked on warm
wheather and ocean breezes.

Tom might consider expanding into the automation industry. He seems to
have
a knack for it. There are also a ton of trainable people in his area. He'd
experience real growth if he focused on the sort of automation the energy
business was going to need to make, oh I don't know, batteries for
vehicles
that we'll otherwise buy from Korea.

What you have to be able to do is see opportunity, get organized and seize
it. Otherwise, you just set yourself up to fail eventually.


--
John R. Carroll

All well and good. That requires getting into another business. If he wants
to keep all of his people employed, he'll need to sell more than brushes.

--
Ed Huntress

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:51:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

further automation, you will have one economic effect: You'll drive real
wages, and the real economy, into a race for the bottom.

It would seem that obamanomics already has us sliding down that particular
razor blade.

Thanks,
Rich

[Ed Huntress]

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:51:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

further automation, you will have one economic effect: You'll drive real
wages, and the real economy, into a race for the bottom.

It would seem that obamanomics already has us sliding down that particular
razor blade.

Thanks,
Rich

And where was it headed before the stimulus, Rich? Have you studied the
patterns in recessions sufficiently to evaluate this one, in comparison?

--
Ed Huntress

[Buerste]

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Buerste" wrote:


I know it sounds funny but I feel guilty for eliminating jobs due to
automation.

You shouldn't.
Increasing your sales per man hour is an important metric.

The lack of continual improvements in the previous
generation gave me a huge opportunity to make a lot of simple, easy
improvements that had big impacts in profits. I always had a lot of
empathy with my workers because I've done every job in a production
role. A lot of the jobs were very simple and a lot of the people we
had just weren't capable of anything more complex. But, they did the
jobs proudly and felt good about themselves. I worked side-by-side
with everyone, ate lunch and told jokes with them. Those are the
jobs most easily eliminated and I know they won't GET another
job...they are doomed to welfare. But, If I wanted to stay in
business, I had to cut costs. The State of Ohio was no help to these
people by raising the minimum wage by almost 50%. Almost a third of
my people were affected. I couldn't keep everybody at that rate.
The people that I had to let go would gladly WORK for the lower wages
rather than not work at all...and they knew it! I think it's VERY
important for all people to work and feel productive as a
contributing member of society. The left doesn't get this at all!

I don't think this is a "left" or "right" issue Tom.
You'd like to have a low payed work force with the skill set of Trig
Palin.


The left thinks that if somebody isn't making $30k, they should be on
welfare, they are worthless and can't contribute to society.

The average employee salary is much higher now as is the training
level and skill level. BUT, my labor costs are a lot lower,
production is much higher, and quality is higher.

There you go.
The future needs to look more like that and less like lower slobovia.


I've even managed
to have a structure in place that has allowed me and my sister to
take a lot of time off. A few phone calls and a half-day here and
there have kept everything going smoothly. Good for me but bad for
guys like "Robert" who used to sweep and move stuff around for me.
That was all he was capable of doing and he was happy. I had to let
him go, I liked him and he was handy to have around. And, with his
past record, he'll NEVER get another job. But guess what - I
couldn't justify the unnecessary expense, especially after union
demands. I would love to provide a bunch of jobs to people

You either couldn't or wouldn't train him into a decent job.
Had you taken less time off and used your new found increased productivity
to grown your sales instead of paying yourself at the first opportunity,
"Robert" might just have become the kind of productive member of your work
force that would have allowed him to prosper along with you.



Meanwhile, my neighborhood is blighted with the jobless and crime is
worse. Are these people better off on the dole?

The market works. When they have skills that are worth having they will be
paid accordingly.

The yearly COLA from
Ohio won't increase my labor cost or put more money into the
neighborhoods, it'll hurt the people THAT MUCH MORE! Sure, my first
responsibility is to keep the business running and profitable, but
why does the State, unions and other democrats demand that I hurt my
community? It just goes against my grain.

How do practices that encourage a lowest common denominator work force
benefit anyone Tom?
Here is an idea. Take some of your new found free time and have you and
your
sister get of your asses.
Found a training center for the "Roberts" in your community. That is what
your community relies on it's leaders to do, not go fishing.

Sorry, just another fanatical right-wing rant.

Hardly, it is just ignorant and lazy.
Filling the American work force with three dollar an hour retards isn't
going to produce anything three dollar an hour retards can't afford. You
can
realize your version of the American Dream real easily. Move to Somolia or
Ethiopia, places that work exactly to your liking.

--
John R. Carroll



John, you just don't get it! Not everybody IS trainable. "Robert is 62
years old, a felon and an IQ of maybe 70. You would have him not enjoy work
or the satisfaction of doing something useful. I think there should be
employment available for every one of the "Roberts". Do you propose we
euthanize them? THEN you can realize YOUR version of the American Dream.

We DO belong to WECO which is a neighborhood organization mandated to help
train people, deal with neighborhood issues, interface businesses and
government and steer plans for development. My sister and I have always
been the LAST to get paid when we were in the process of tripling sales. I
have employees that make more than I do, they're practically irreplaceable.
So, "Bite me"!

I want the highest paid, happiest and smartest workforce in the world. But
if everybody had your mindset and threw away everybody that didn't meet your
lofty standards, is that a world I want to live in? Not really. I have
friends that will never amount to anything, it's not possible. Do I love
them any less? Do I have a duty to other human beings even if I make less
money? I guess you'll never know the joy one can get from the joy of people
of even lesser stature than yourself nor the satisfaction of a bit of
sacrifice. Too bad.

If Trig needs a job when he's older, I'll find something for him. Obviously
the party of equality and tolerance won't, they would have killed him.

[Buerste]

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Buerste" wrote in message
news
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Buerste" wrote:



That's life. You do the best you can for your workers. But you'll
never be able to compete in a manufacturing field that responds to
technical productivity improvements and still keep them employed,
without a high rate of growth for your business, because it would
require an ever-declining wage rate -- until they couldn't live on
it at all.

Nonsense.

Nope. No growth, no employment. And with improving productivity, less
employment -- unless you have substantial growth.

Yeah, you have to pay attention and keep broadening your business into
areas
where growth will occur.
What you said was that growth can't keep up. The facts and the evidence
don't support that unless you want to keep making buggy whips. Then there
is
plenty.

What I said was that you can't maintain employment without a healthy rate
of growth. That applies to goods-producing industries in general, and to
individual companies in particular. I've never tried to sort it out for
the whole economy, but the pattern has been clear for years now in
manufacturing.

Here's employment in goods-producing industries since 1940:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2.../USGOOD?cid=11

Here's the growth it took to sustain those levels of employment:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IPMAN

Since about 1970, the output of goods produced in the US has had to be on
a pretty steep incline just to keep manufacturing employment about level.
In other words, you need a lot of growth to keep from laying people off in
manufacturing, due largely to improvements in productivity. And if you
have even a slight downturn in manufacturing output, you get a big dip in
employment.

All of this is happening, of course, while the population is increasing.
So the percentage of people in manufacturing keeps dropping, even though
the total number is fairly flat. Where do the others go? As I've said,
I've never tried a full analysis, but a lot of them never return to
manufacturing.

So, as I said to Tom, it doesn't matter if you're chasing wages or not;
your competition is automating, here and abroad, and you have to, as well.
And unless you grow, you're going to wind up with fewer people.


Let's take Cleveland as an example.
The cities population and tax base continue to evaporate. One area that
will
definitely grow is the downsizing business.
Flint Michigan is taking the lead on this. They will be wiping out half
of
the place with bulldozers and putting something, or in saome cases
nothing,
in the space created. The population will move to the space that is left.
I
was born in Flint's East Side Ed. My grandmothers family had a successful
screw machine business on Dort Hwy. in Grand Blanc for half a century.
Two
years from now the East side of Flint won't even exist and the screw
machine
shop in Grand Blanc died with my Uncle Del, but what is left of all of
that
when the city is done will be serviceable and vibrant. They will attract
new industry. I might move back just to watch it happen and lend a hand.
The
valuations will certainly be right but I'm pretty well hooked on warm
wheather and ocean breezes.

Tom might consider expanding into the automation industry. He seems to
have
a knack for it. There are also a ton of trainable people in his area.
He'd
experience real growth if he focused on the sort of automation the energy
business was going to need to make, oh I don't know, batteries for
vehicles
that we'll otherwise buy from Korea.

What you have to be able to do is see opportunity, get organized and
seize
it. Otherwise, you just set yourself up to fail eventually.


--
John R. Carroll

All well and good. That requires getting into another business. If he
wants to keep all of his people employed, he'll need to sell more than
brushes.

--
Ed Huntress


Yep, or at least new products into new markets. 80% of what I make today,
didn't exist 10 years ago. The trick for me is to find a market/product
that is hard to make, over priced and nobody want's to really do but they
have to keep customers happy with "me-too" items. Then I'll just tell my
guys that it can't be done.

Nobody wants to deal with flat wire, it's a bitch. We're now the biggest
and best in the world. It's a little niche but it's a nice little niche and
not even the Chinese want anything to do with it.

[Ed Huntress]

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Buerste" wrote in message
news
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Buerste" wrote:



That's life. You do the best you can for your workers. But you'll
never be able to compete in a manufacturing field that responds to
technical productivity improvements and still keep them employed,
without a high rate of growth for your business, because it would
require an ever-declining wage rate -- until they couldn't live on
it at all.

Nonsense.

Nope. No growth, no employment. And with improving productivity, less
employment -- unless you have substantial growth.

Yeah, you have to pay attention and keep broadening your business into
areas
where growth will occur.
What you said was that growth can't keep up. The facts and the evidence
don't support that unless you want to keep making buggy whips. Then
there is
plenty.

What I said was that you can't maintain employment without a healthy rate
of growth. That applies to goods-producing industries in general, and to
individual companies in particular. I've never tried to sort it out for
the whole economy, but the pattern has been clear for years now in
manufacturing.

Here's employment in goods-producing industries since 1940:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2.../USGOOD?cid=11

Here's the growth it took to sustain those levels of employment:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IPMAN

Since about 1970, the output of goods produced in the US has had to be on
a pretty steep incline just to keep manufacturing employment about level.
In other words, you need a lot of growth to keep from laying people off
in manufacturing, due largely to improvements in productivity. And if you
have even a slight downturn in manufacturing output, you get a big dip in
employment.

All of this is happening, of course, while the population is increasing.
So the percentage of people in manufacturing keeps dropping, even though
the total number is fairly flat. Where do the others go? As I've said,
I've never tried a full analysis, but a lot of them never return to
manufacturing.

So, as I said to Tom, it doesn't matter if you're chasing wages or not;
your competition is automating, here and abroad, and you have to, as
well. And unless you grow, you're going to wind up with fewer people.


Let's take Cleveland as an example.
The cities population and tax base continue to evaporate. One area that
will
definitely grow is the downsizing business.
Flint Michigan is taking the lead on this. They will be wiping out half
of
the place with bulldozers and putting something, or in saome cases
nothing,
in the space created. The population will move to the space that is
left. I
was born in Flint's East Side Ed. My grandmothers family had a
successful
screw machine business on Dort Hwy. in Grand Blanc for half a century.
Two
years from now the East side of Flint won't even exist and the screw
machine
shop in Grand Blanc died with my Uncle Del, but what is left of all of
that
when the city is done will be serviceable and vibrant. They will
attract
new industry. I might move back just to watch it happen and lend a hand.
The
valuations will certainly be right but I'm pretty well hooked on warm
wheather and ocean breezes.

Tom might consider expanding into the automation industry. He seems to
have
a knack for it. There are also a ton of trainable people in his area.
He'd
experience real growth if he focused on the sort of automation the
energy
business was going to need to make, oh I don't know, batteries for
vehicles
that we'll otherwise buy from Korea.

What you have to be able to do is see opportunity, get organized and
seize
it. Otherwise, you just set yourself up to fail eventually.


--
John R. Carroll

All well and good. That requires getting into another business. If he
wants to keep all of his people employed, he'll need to sell more than
brushes.

--
Ed Huntress


Yep, or at least new products into new markets. 80% of what I make
today, didn't exist 10 years ago. The trick for me is to find a
market/product that is hard to make, over priced and nobody want's to
really do but they have to keep customers happy with "me-too" items. Then
I'll just tell my guys that it can't be done.

Nobody wants to deal with flat wire, it's a bitch. We're now the biggest
and best in the world. It's a little niche but it's a nice little niche
and not even the Chinese want anything to do with it.

To be fair, I should be self-contradictory and confusing here by pointing
out that you're more or less making John's point, and contradicting mine.
d8-)

This is one of the enigmas of mixing micro- and macroeconomics, because your
effort to seek new products and markets is what John is talking about, and
it's the way to look at things from the point of view of a businessman, or
of a microeconomist. Looking at you and what you do, from the point of view
of a microeconomist, one sees the necessity to keep innovating and pushing
the boundaries of what your business does. From that microeconomist's point
of view, that *is* what you do. As an economic agent, you don't just make
brushes. You discover or create brush markets and fulfill them. That's
John's mindset, too.

Then the macroeconomist looks at the situation and puts it into a different
context -- the national statistics and trend lines in manufacturing,
finance, etc. -- and sees that it doesn't matter very much what you do.
You're like Brownian motion in a problem that, to that macroeconomist, is a
problem of gas pressure and volume. A businessman or a microeconomist looks
at Ohio Brush and sees a dynamic system that has an individual path and a
fate of its own. The macroeconomist sees a particle taking its random walk
in a stochastic process, and he isn't concerned with where you're going, as
an individual or an individual company.

In this thread I've been talking about the pressure/volume issue: the
macroeconomics. John is talking about the microeconomics. The
self-contradictory part is where I'll agree with him and say that you can
indeed find ways to employ Robert and that your emotional involvement in his
welfare, and that of your other employees, is hardly in vain. You can do
something about it. The goals of your enterprise are yours to choose.

But the macroeconomist will say, that's interesting and good human interest
copy for page 3 of your local newspaper, but I only read the index tables in
the business section. I want to know the parameters as they're being set by
economic conditions. Individual particles can go where they may; they're not
my concern, any more than the behavior of individual vapor molecules are a
concern to someone trying to adjust the running of a steam engine. No matter
how any individual particle may behave, the dynamics I'm looking at are
based on the safe assumption that they'll behave in a certain average way.

Many of the enigmas, frustrations, and arguments that arise in talking about
business, trade, employment, wages, and so on are the result of not keeping
the macro and micro in their appropriate boxes. When you're looking at
government wage policies and the state of competition with China, you're
looking at macro issues, which have their own driving forces and desired
outcomes. When you consider how to run your business, those are among the
parameters you're working with. The confusion and frustration come from
assuming that the micro benefits you would gain if we followed some
different policy would project to general benefits across the economy, ones
that are greater than the negative macro consequences. Lower wages would
keep more people employed -- for a while. But the consequences of driving
down wages would be a running down of the entire clock mechanism that is our
economy. Everyone will be hurt by it, once the particles are averaged out
into units of pressure and volume.

You won't solve our problems with competition, or even of a slumping
economy, by starting a race to the bottom.

--
Ed Huntress

[John R. Carroll[_3_]]

Buerste wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Buerste" wrote:




John, you just don't get it!

Sure I do. You are passing the buck.

Not everybody IS trainable. "Robert is
62 years old, a felon and an IQ of maybe 70. You would have him not
enjoy work or the satisfaction of doing something useful. I think
there should be employment available for every one of the "Roberts".
Do you propose we euthanize them? THEN you can realize YOUR version
of the American Dream.

You said the reason you got rid of the guy was that the burdens placed on
you by government made it impossible to keep him on the payroll Tom. That
simply isn't true. You just basically decided to abandon your pet and blame
somebody else.

People do this with cats and dogs all the time during economic downturns.
I'm pretty sure that some version of that scenario is how I ended up with
my cat. He was taking quite a toll on birds that were ****ting all over my
cars and mice that were destroying my back yard. He'll never go hungry Tom
and I won't turn him out. I actually gave it a great deal of thought before
"adopting" him.
The cost to me of feeding him won't ever be great enough to cause me to give
him the boot even if it rises to $1,000.00 an ounce.
I'll just work more. You have that same command over your life and, by your
own admission, the free time.


We DO belong to WECO which is a neighborhood organization mandated to
help train people, deal with neighborhood issues, interface
businesses and government and steer plans for development.

Well, based on the result produced, you are doing a crappy job. I wouldn't
want to live closer to Ohio Brush than about Lorraine.
Here is a thought. Get a few of the other local businessmen together and
hire a bunch of "Roberts" to clean up your 'hood.
The money might be forthcoming from Federal, State or local resources. You
can all write checks if it isn't.
Buy up properties, raise them and make it a place you want to keep Ohio
Brush, rather than the one you are salavating to leave.
Last I heard the money to move you is going to be spent elsewhere, cranes
and unloaders at the port as well as a right of way.
On that basis, you might as well get started today. You must have a strong
emotional attachment to your current facility anyway.
Just expand it and use that excuse to clean up the neighborhood. You can
keep the original building you are in as a museum.
Have bronze busts of your forebearers cast and stick them out front like
lawn boys to discourage the local hoodlums.
LOL

I've undertaken a couple of projects like this. You have the political
connections. Use them.

My sister
and I have always been the LAST to get paid when we were in the
process of tripling sales. I have employees that make more than I
do, they're practically irreplaceable. So, "Bite me"!

I'd shake your hand Tom but that's about as far as I'd go.
Your "WECO" is probably able to provide assistance. They don't appear to be
good for much else.


I want the highest paid, happiest and smartest workforce in the
world. But if everybody had your mindset and threw away everybody
that didn't meet your lofty standards, is that a world I want to live
in? Not really.

Not at all. I have adopted a number of pets Tom, human and other, but I'm
careful about it and understand the consequences.


If Trig needs a job when he's older, I'll find something for him.

I hope you don't abandon him when things no longer suit you.
"Robert" has enough company already.

Obviously the party of equality and tolerance won't, they would have
killed him.

What Sarah Palin did wasn't illegal and I wouldn't deny her the freedom to
make such a choice.
It was highly immoral, however, and for that I'm certain that she'll burn in
the hottest fire hell can produce.

--
John R. Carroll

[John R. Carroll[_3_]]

Leon Fisk wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:28:18 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

snip
"Robert" could be back on the job tomorrow but not cleaning up
because there isn't anything for him to clean up, not even at a
dollar an hour.

So what do we do with these people? I can tell you right off
that training isn't going to work. They have been trained,
they tried hard, it didn't stick.

Tom's building could use a coat of paint.
So could the entire neighborhood.
I'm sure there is something. A lot of things, as a matter of fact.
I had two guys cooking for breaks on three shifts for eighty people.
It was cheap and you would be surprised at the connection you can make to
the people you work with through
the simple act of sharing a meal or snack. The benefit far exceeded the both
the cost and any expectation I had initially.
People that know me still talk about it and the practice continues to this
day even though I'm no longer involved.
The same two guys, plus another, are creating something that binds all of
those people together on a daily basis.
The value of that isn't imaginary or trivial.

I'm sure "Robert" could master that with little supervision.
Simple acts like this can and do have profound consequences.

--
John R. Carroll

[Buerste]

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Buerste" wrote:




John, you just don't get it!

Sure I do. You are passing the buck.

Not everybody IS trainable. "Robert is
62 years old, a felon and an IQ of maybe 70. You would have him not
enjoy work or the satisfaction of doing something useful. I think
there should be employment available for every one of the "Roberts".
Do you propose we euthanize them? THEN you can realize YOUR version
of the American Dream.

You said the reason you got rid of the guy was that the burdens placed on
you by government made it impossible to keep him on the payroll Tom. That
simply isn't true. You just basically decided to abandon your pet and
blame
somebody else.

People do this with cats and dogs all the time during economic downturns.
I'm pretty sure that some version of that scenario is how I ended up with
my cat. He was taking quite a toll on birds that were ****ting all over my
cars and mice that were destroying my back yard. He'll never go hungry Tom
and I won't turn him out. I actually gave it a great deal of thought
before
"adopting" him.
The cost to me of feeding him won't ever be great enough to cause me to
give
him the boot even if it rises to $1,000.00 an ounce.
I'll just work more. You have that same command over your life and, by
your
own admission, the free time.


We DO belong to WECO which is a neighborhood organization mandated to
help train people, deal with neighborhood issues, interface
businesses and government and steer plans for development.

Well, based on the result produced, you are doing a crappy job. I wouldn't
want to live closer to Ohio Brush than about Lorraine.
Here is a thought. Get a few of the other local businessmen together and
hire a bunch of "Roberts" to clean up your 'hood.
The money might be forthcoming from Federal, State or local resources. You
can all write checks if it isn't.
Buy up properties, raise them and make it a place you want to keep Ohio
Brush, rather than the one you are salavating to leave.
Last I heard the money to move you is going to be spent elsewhere, cranes
and unloaders at the port as well as a right of way.
On that basis, you might as well get started today. You must have a strong
emotional attachment to your current facility anyway.
Just expand it and use that excuse to clean up the neighborhood. You can
keep the original building you are in as a museum.
Have bronze busts of your forebearers cast and stick them out front like
lawn boys to discourage the local hoodlums.
LOL

I've undertaken a couple of projects like this. You have the political
connections. Use them.

My sister
and I have always been the LAST to get paid when we were in the
process of tripling sales. I have employees that make more than I
do, they're practically irreplaceable. So, "Bite me"!

I'd shake your hand Tom but that's about as far as I'd go.
Your "WECO" is probably able to provide assistance. They don't appear to
be
good for much else.


I want the highest paid, happiest and smartest workforce in the
world. But if everybody had your mindset and threw away everybody
that didn't meet your lofty standards, is that a world I want to live
in? Not really.

Not at all. I have adopted a number of pets Tom, human and other, but I'm
careful about it and understand the consequences.


If Trig needs a job when he's older, I'll find something for him.

I hope you don't abandon him when things no longer suit you.
"Robert" has enough company already.

Obviously the party of equality and tolerance won't, they would have
killed him.

What Sarah Palin did wasn't illegal and I wouldn't deny her the freedom to
make such a choice.
It was highly immoral, however, and for that I'm certain that she'll burn
in
the hottest fire hell can produce.

--
John R. Carroll



Great post John! If I were 20 years old again, I'm sure I could do more,
make better decisions and live up to your expectations.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Buerste wrote:

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Buerste" wrote:




John, you just don't get it!

Sure I do. You are passing the buck.

Not everybody IS trainable. "Robert is
62 years old, a felon and an IQ of maybe 70. You would have him not
enjoy work or the satisfaction of doing something useful. I think
there should be employment available for every one of the "Roberts".
Do you propose we euthanize them? THEN you can realize YOUR version
of the American Dream.

You said the reason you got rid of the guy was that the burdens placed on
you by government made it impossible to keep him on the payroll Tom. That
simply isn't true. You just basically decided to abandon your pet and
blame
somebody else.

People do this with cats and dogs all the time during economic downturns.
I'm pretty sure that some version of that scenario is how I ended up with
my cat. He was taking quite a toll on birds that were ****ting all over my
cars and mice that were destroying my back yard. He'll never go hungry Tom
and I won't turn him out. I actually gave it a great deal of thought
before
"adopting" him.
The cost to me of feeding him won't ever be great enough to cause me to
give
him the boot even if it rises to $1,000.00 an ounce.
I'll just work more. You have that same command over your life and, by
your
own admission, the free time.


We DO belong to WECO which is a neighborhood organization mandated to
help train people, deal with neighborhood issues, interface
businesses and government and steer plans for development.

Well, based on the result produced, you are doing a crappy job. I wouldn't
want to live closer to Ohio Brush than about Lorraine.
Here is a thought. Get a few of the other local businessmen together and
hire a bunch of "Roberts" to clean up your 'hood.
The money might be forthcoming from Federal, State or local resources. You
can all write checks if it isn't.
Buy up properties, raise them and make it a place you want to keep Ohio
Brush, rather than the one you are salavating to leave.
Last I heard the money to move you is going to be spent elsewhere, cranes
and unloaders at the port as well as a right of way.
On that basis, you might as well get started today. You must have a strong
emotional attachment to your current facility anyway.
Just expand it and use that excuse to clean up the neighborhood. You can
keep the original building you are in as a museum.
Have bronze busts of your forebearers cast and stick them out front like
lawn boys to discourage the local hoodlums.
LOL

I've undertaken a couple of projects like this. You have the political
connections. Use them.

My sister
and I have always been the LAST to get paid when we were in the
process of tripling sales. I have employees that make more than I
do, they're practically irreplaceable. So, "Bite me"!

I'd shake your hand Tom but that's about as far as I'd go.
Your "WECO" is probably able to provide assistance. They don't appear to
be
good for much else.


I want the highest paid, happiest and smartest workforce in the
world. But if everybody had your mindset and threw away everybody
that didn't meet your lofty standards, is that a world I want to live
in? Not really.

Not at all. I have adopted a number of pets Tom, human and other, but I'm
careful about it and understand the consequences.


If Trig needs a job when he's older, I'll find something for him.

I hope you don't abandon him when things no longer suit you.
"Robert" has enough company already.

Obviously the party of equality and tolerance won't, they would have
killed him.

What Sarah Palin did wasn't illegal and I wouldn't deny her the freedom to
make such a choice.
It was highly immoral, however, and for that I'm certain that she'll burn
in
the hottest fire hell can produce.

--
John R. Carroll



Great post John! If I were 20 years old again, I'm sure I could do more,
make better decisions and live up to your expectations.


Or just tell him to **** off.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:08:54 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:51:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

further automation, you will have one economic effect: You'll drive real
wages, and the real economy, into a race for the bottom.

It would seem that obamanomics already has us sliding down that particular
razor blade.

And where was it headed before the stimulus, Rich? Have you studied the
patterns in recessions sufficiently to evaluate this one, in comparison?

Well, obviously, the Cheney/Bush "bailout" got us started. I suspect they
just wanted to dump the worst possible mess they could create right onto
Barry's lap.

I got sickened by Obama's little speech: "Hey, I inherited this huge
deficit!" (wah, wah). So what's the first thing he does? TRIPLES IT!

I fear it's reached the point where the best that we Freedom-lovers are
going to be able to do is to hunker down, protect our jewels, and hope
we enjoy the ride when the whole card house collapses around us.

Thanks,
Rich

[Ed Huntress]

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:08:54 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in
message
news
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:51:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

further automation, you will have one economic effect: You'll drive
real
wages, and the real economy, into a race for the bottom.

It would seem that obamanomics already has us sliding down that
particular
razor blade.

And where was it headed before the stimulus, Rich? Have you studied the
patterns in recessions sufficiently to evaluate this one, in comparison?

Well, obviously, the Cheney/Bush "bailout" got us started. I suspect they
just wanted to dump the worst possible mess they could create right onto
Barry's lap.

I got sickened by Obama's little speech: "Hey, I inherited this huge
deficit!" (wah, wah). So what's the first thing he does? TRIPLES IT!

I fear it's reached the point where the best that we Freedom-lovers are
going to be able to do is to hunker down, protect our jewels, and hope
we enjoy the ride when the whole card house collapses around us.

Thanks,
Rich

The irony of this downturn is that all those years of deficit spending (with
no good reason) has left no choice but more deficit spending -- unless you
want to do another Herbert Hoover and have the government sit there with its
collective thumb up its butt, watching the economy go down in flames. In
other words, now there *is* a good reason for it. And it's 'way more painful
than it should have been, because we're digging in a place where there
already was a big hole.

Seriously, there is no alternative, except in the academic theories of some
of the free-market extremists. And they don't have a single example from
history to draw upon, to support their ideas.

--
Ed Huntress

[Mark Rand]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:50:52 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:08:54 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in
message
news On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:51:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

further automation, you will have one economic effect: You'll drive
real
wages, and the real economy, into a race for the bottom.

It would seem that obamanomics already has us sliding down that
particular
razor blade.

And where was it headed before the stimulus, Rich? Have you studied the
patterns in recessions sufficiently to evaluate this one, in comparison?

Well, obviously, the Cheney/Bush "bailout" got us started. I suspect they
just wanted to dump the worst possible mess they could create right onto
Barry's lap.

I got sickened by Obama's little speech: "Hey, I inherited this huge
deficit!" (wah, wah). So what's the first thing he does? TRIPLES IT!

I fear it's reached the point where the best that we Freedom-lovers are
going to be able to do is to hunker down, protect our jewels, and hope
we enjoy the ride when the whole card house collapses around us.

Thanks,
Rich

The irony of this downturn is that all those years of deficit spending (with
no good reason) has left no choice but more deficit spending -- unless you
want to do another Herbert Hoover and have the government sit there with its
collective thumb up its butt, watching the economy go down in flames. In
other words, now there *is* a good reason for it. And it's 'way more painful
than it should have been, because we're digging in a place where there
already was a big hole.

Seriously, there is no alternative, except in the academic theories of some
of the free-market extremists. And they don't have a single example from
history to draw upon, to support their ideas.


It's better than that Ed (for irony, anyway). Without the continuing support
of China and, to a slightly lesser extent, Japan. The US would probably be
having to go to the IMF for a bailout, with all of the pain that goes with
that.

People, mostly in other fora, may get very exercised about the Chinese, but
they are the ones that are loaning the money for all that deficit spending.


regards
Mark Rand
RTFM

[Ed Huntress]

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:50:52 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:


"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in
message
news
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:08:54 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in
message
news On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:51:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

further automation, you will have one economic effect: You'll drive
real
wages, and the real economy, into a race for the bottom.

It would seem that obamanomics already has us sliding down that
particular
razor blade.

And where was it headed before the stimulus, Rich? Have you studied the
patterns in recessions sufficiently to evaluate this one, in
comparison?

Well, obviously, the Cheney/Bush "bailout" got us started. I suspect
they
just wanted to dump the worst possible mess they could create right onto
Barry's lap.

I got sickened by Obama's little speech: "Hey, I inherited this huge
deficit!" (wah, wah). So what's the first thing he does? TRIPLES IT!

I fear it's reached the point where the best that we Freedom-lovers are
going to be able to do is to hunker down, protect our jewels, and hope
we enjoy the ride when the whole card house collapses around us.

Thanks,
Rich

The irony of this downturn is that all those years of deficit spending
(with
no good reason) has left no choice but more deficit spending -- unless you
want to do another Herbert Hoover and have the government sit there with
its
collective thumb up its butt, watching the economy go down in flames. In
other words, now there *is* a good reason for it. And it's 'way more
painful
than it should have been, because we're digging in a place where there
already was a big hole.

Seriously, there is no alternative, except in the academic theories of
some
of the free-market extremists. And they don't have a single example from
history to draw upon, to support their ideas.


It's better than that Ed (for irony, anyway). Without the continuing
support
of China and, to a slightly lesser extent, Japan. The US would probably be
having to go to the IMF for a bailout, with all of the pain that goes with
that.

People, mostly in other fora, may get very exercised about the Chinese,
but
they are the ones that are loaning the money for all that deficit
spending.

For the record, as of the first of this year, China held 7.4% of the public
debt of the US. Japan held 6.3%. Those are large amounts, but let's not get
carried away.

--
Ed Huntress

[axolotl[_2_]]

Ed Huntress wrote:

That's life. You do the best you can for your workers. But you'll
never be able to compete in a manufacturing field that responds to
technical productivity improvements and still keep them employed,
without a high rate of growth for your business, because it would
require an ever-declining wage rate -- until they couldn't live on
it at all.

This is one of the enigmas of mixing micro- and macroeconomics, Lower wages would
keep more people employed -- for a while. But the consequences of driving
down wages would be a running down of the entire clock mechanism that is our
economy.
You won't solve our problems with competition, or even of a slumping
economy, by starting a race to the bottom.


It would be interesting to study a group as close to communism as one
could get- our girls in the slammer.
Federal Prison Industries pays about fifty cents an hour. The living
expenses of the inmates are paid for from another account, so to speak.
The prices are hard to beat, and the quality is good.
(Metalworking Content)
The fellows at work that deal with FPI tell me that clusters of machine
shops, started and staffed by ex-cons, have sprung up around the
prisons, to supply the manufacturing inside. I have been told that the
redivicisim rate among ex FPI employees is very low.

Kevin Gallimore

[Buerste]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
snip
Great post John! If I were 20 years old again, I'm sure I could do more,
make better decisions and live up to your expectations.


Or just tell him to **** off.



Mike, you know me better than that!

[Buerste]

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:50:52 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:


"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in
message
news On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:08:54 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in
message
news On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:51:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

further automation, you will have one economic effect: You'll drive
real
wages, and the real economy, into a race for the bottom.

It would seem that obamanomics already has us sliding down that
particular
razor blade.

And where was it headed before the stimulus, Rich? Have you studied
the
patterns in recessions sufficiently to evaluate this one, in
comparison?

Well, obviously, the Cheney/Bush "bailout" got us started. I suspect
they
just wanted to dump the worst possible mess they could create right
onto
Barry's lap.

I got sickened by Obama's little speech: "Hey, I inherited this huge
deficit!" (wah, wah). So what's the first thing he does? TRIPLES IT!

I fear it's reached the point where the best that we Freedom-lovers are
going to be able to do is to hunker down, protect our jewels, and hope
we enjoy the ride when the whole card house collapses around us.

Thanks,
Rich

The irony of this downturn is that all those years of deficit spending
(with
no good reason) has left no choice but more deficit spending -- unless
you
want to do another Herbert Hoover and have the government sit there with
its
collective thumb up its butt, watching the economy go down in flames. In
other words, now there *is* a good reason for it. And it's 'way more
painful
than it should have been, because we're digging in a place where there
already was a big hole.

Seriously, there is no alternative, except in the academic theories of
some
of the free-market extremists. And they don't have a single example from
history to draw upon, to support their ideas.


It's better than that Ed (for irony, anyway). Without the continuing
support
of China and, to a slightly lesser extent, Japan. The US would probably
be
having to go to the IMF for a bailout, with all of the pain that goes
with
that.

People, mostly in other fora, may get very exercised about the Chinese,
but
they are the ones that are loaning the money for all that deficit
spending.

For the record, as of the first of this year, China held 7.4% of the
public debt of the US. Japan held 6.3%. Those are large amounts, but let's
not get carried away.

--
Ed Huntress


Wouldn't the US be better off concentrating on wealth creation rather than
redistribution? Is it purely a political decision to abandon wealth
creation?

[Ed Huntress]

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:50:52 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:


"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in
message
news On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:08:54 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in
message
news On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:51:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

further automation, you will have one economic effect: You'll drive
real
wages, and the real economy, into a race for the bottom.

It would seem that obamanomics already has us sliding down that
particular
razor blade.

And where was it headed before the stimulus, Rich? Have you studied
the
patterns in recessions sufficiently to evaluate this one, in
comparison?

Well, obviously, the Cheney/Bush "bailout" got us started. I suspect
they
just wanted to dump the worst possible mess they could create right
onto
Barry's lap.

I got sickened by Obama's little speech: "Hey, I inherited this huge
deficit!" (wah, wah). So what's the first thing he does? TRIPLES IT!

I fear it's reached the point where the best that we Freedom-lovers
are
going to be able to do is to hunker down, protect our jewels, and hope
we enjoy the ride when the whole card house collapses around us.

Thanks,
Rich

The irony of this downturn is that all those years of deficit spending
(with
no good reason) has left no choice but more deficit spending -- unless
you
want to do another Herbert Hoover and have the government sit there with
its
collective thumb up its butt, watching the economy go down in flames. In
other words, now there *is* a good reason for it. And it's 'way more
painful
than it should have been, because we're digging in a place where there
already was a big hole.

Seriously, there is no alternative, except in the academic theories of
some
of the free-market extremists. And they don't have a single example from
history to draw upon, to support their ideas.


It's better than that Ed (for irony, anyway). Without the continuing
support
of China and, to a slightly lesser extent, Japan. The US would probably
be
having to go to the IMF for a bailout, with all of the pain that goes
with
that.

People, mostly in other fora, may get very exercised about the Chinese,
but
they are the ones that are loaning the money for all that deficit
spending.

For the record, as of the first of this year, China held 7.4% of the
public debt of the US. Japan held 6.3%. Those are large amounts, but
let's not get carried away.

--
Ed Huntress


Wouldn't the US be better off concentrating on wealth creation rather than
redistribution? Is it purely a political decision to abandon wealth
creation?

Hmmm. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? g

What do you mean by that question, Tom? And who is the "US" that has to do
this concentrating?

--
Ed Huntress

[Michael A. Terrell]

Buerste wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
snip
Great post John! If I were 20 years old again, I'm sure I could do more,
make better decisions and live up to your expectations.


Or just tell him to **** off.



Mike, you know me better than that!


Yes, but you have thought it, more than once. ;-)


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!