"Dan Caster" wrote in message
m...

It sounds good, Dan, but the realities are somewhat different. For example:

But more jobs in China means
more farm goods exported to China.

Not likely. It doesn't work that way with China. Their agricultural
productivity is increasing, too -- much faster than ours. They may buy more
but you can be sure that the jobs equation will go the other way, as will
most of the money.


Management can not let their companies become uncompetitive. If they
do all the workers lose their jobs, the stockholders their investments
( and management their high salaries ).

This is a good description of the dilemma. So, do you think that following
these traditional economic imperatives will produce a good overall result,
or is it possible that, given the unique, unprecedented factors in the
equation (1.4 billion people in China; 80-cent wage rates for skilled
workers; 800 million peasants standing in line to get those good,
80-cent-per-hour jobs), it's really a self-delusional, one-way suicide trip?

Some companies as Nucor are
manufacturing in the States. They have two plants that make
fasteners. But they are extremely automated. Run 24 hours a day and
have something like two guys on the swing and night shifts. Not many
jobs there. Ditto with steel making. They make lots of steel, but
don't employ many people.

Maybe we can pay the robots, and teach them to drink beer and buy cars. g


--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)