On 18 Nov 2006 14:30:10 GMT, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:00:41 -0600, Prometheus wrote:

On 17 Nov 2006 14:00:12 GMT, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 05:10:35 -0600, Prometheus wrote:

I'm with you on the "service economy" nonsense- I don't think that even
includes maintenance in most cases. As far as I can tell, it's
referring to short-order cooks and shelf stockers, though I have to hope
for all our sakes that it means something else.

Hate to tell you but it most assuredly does include maintenance. IBM
considers itself to be a service company and is considered to be part of
the service economy, and if you've ever had anything fixed under an IBM
service contract you'll know they're serious about it. Doctors and lawyers
and most other "professions" are providing services. If it's not making
something or moving something then it's probably a service.

Nope- never had anything fixed by IBM. I guess I was thinking of the
FANUC maintenance guys that all seem to be from other parts of the
world (at least going by the very thick accents I've heard from most
of them, though YMMV) and the delightful Indian voices that answer the
phones whenever I try to get a problem with just about anything
resolved.

Here's the problem with doctors and lawyers as the basis of an
economy, though- it's too circular and localized.

"Doctors and lawyers" are not the only examples. Try to _think_ about
this. Mechanics, plumbers, electricians, painters, carpenters, all of
those are in part "service sector".

I guess to my mind, the trades are not part of a "service sector",
because they produce tangible goods as an end result- Though I can
see your argument, and if that is what people are referring to when
speaking of the service sector, then I'm a little more comfortable
with the idea.

While they're jobs
that pay well and are valuable in their own right, not everyone can do
them. We're not (as far as I know) outsourcing medical personnel and
legal advice to other countries on any signifigant basis.

We aren't outsourcing plumbers either. If it's a job that has to have a
warm body on-site and the site can't be moved then it can't be
outsourced. You can outsource camera repair--shipping a camera to
Elbonia costs peanuts--but shipping an 18-wheeler to Elbonia for
repair is hardly a viable proposition.

Hence the
comment about cooks and stockers- those are the service industry jobs
that the great majority of displaced factory workers are doing, and they
do little or nothing to bring money into our country. When those people
were making things, money was coming in- now, it's going out.

The only jobs that "bring money into our country" are jobs involving
exportation. Since the US is the largest single economy in the world
(four times the size of the next largest national economy and about the
size of the entire EU put together) it's little wonder that more gets
imported than exported. You want to "bring money into the country" then
bring the rest of the world up to the US standard so that they can all
afford our goods.

All right, how about we rephrase my original rant to "keep money in
our country.". The same basic principle applies in either case, and
if I'm wrong, I wouldn't mind being enlightened about this, as the
"service economy" seems to me like a buzzword concept used to justify
a whole lot of things done to increase quarterly profits that aren't
necessarily in our best interests. Might be a load off my mind if I
can see the underlying nuts and bolts of how it is supposed to work.

I know that I have a very simplified version of the system, but
sometimes there is a virtue inherant in simplicity that is only
complicated by spin. So if you can tell me where the reasoning is
flawed, I'll be happy to listen.

Here's what I figure-

If we are making things from our own (or imported) raw materials, we
add value to them by virtue of the manufacturing process- a finished
pulley is more useful and valuable than a raw lump of iron ore, right?

If we are moving finished product from elsewhere around, we are adding
cost to them, but the value is unchanged, correct?

As a by-product of the manufacturing process, we give local people a
way to earn an income, and those people spend that income locally-
which in turn supports those people who are providing services rather
than goods.

As an added benefit, we know that those products are produced under
the regulations of our social contract, and that in buying them, we
are not supporting child labor, forced labor, or the wholesale
destruction of another area of the world's environs.

We also have an advantage in times of war, when international trade
becomes more complex and difficult. If we make most things inside of
our own borders, we have a renewable supply source for our armies.
This does not just include munitions, but things like cookpots, shoes,
clothing, and computers- along with anything else an army or our own
population requires.

What we're seeing now is that much of our manufacturing has already
been outsourced to Asia- China in particular. While I have nothing in
particular against the Chinese (indeed, I really like the ones I have
met, and enjoy thier food and cinema,) their (if I may remind you)
communist government has not always been on the best terms with our
own.

China is the #1 ally of North Korea, who has recently declared itself
a nuclear power, and has detonated a nuclear device- following that
action with the declaration that it will attack our country with their
new weapons if we pursue any punitive actions against them for it,
including international economic sanctions. If that happens, I don't
see us apolgizing to Kim Jong Il, and laying down arms- it's far more
likely to result in total war against the North Koreans.

While China may not choose N.K. over the US market, we cannot know for
certain that that will always be the case- especialy if the US uses a
ham-fisted unilateral approach to subduing the Korean threat. If
that, or another, incident brings us into an armed conflict with China
at some point in the future, we're no longer going to have the huge
discount on imported Chinese goods that we enjoy today.

So where are we then? We do not control China. They can do basically
anything they like- despite our military strength. They control over
1/6 of the world's total population, and most of the means of
production. We might eventually win a war against them, but it would
surely hurt us- a lot.

Sure, we could rebuild American manufacturing capabilities- but why
wait until it's do or die time? We can compete with the rest of the
world- one American with modern equipment can produce as many finished
goods in one shift as a village full of rural Indians (for example)
can in a week's worth of toil with hand tools.

What I don't understand is why we don't. We send away our equipment,
materials, and expertise. And after years of this, we're coming to
the state where there are is a majority of people who can run a cash
register with pictures on the buttons- but can't read a tape measure.
These are the people who will need to learn to produce tangible goods
when it becomes necessary- it may not be that hard to train someone to
deburr a part, or reload a shell, but it takes time and money to teach
someone to act independantly to adjust offsets in a CNC controller or
use instruments to maintain quality levels.

Don't believe the lie- we're not all going to be doctors, lawyers,
rock-stars or famous actors. Nobody on this list is likely to be
President some day, and few of us are going to be rich. Anyone that
punches a time clock every day should understand that at a viseral
level. The sucessful are always held up as examples for everyone
else- and there is nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't mean that
every Joe six-pack is going to make it there. To him, the "service
economy" probably means that he's going to be bagging groceries (if
anywhere still does that) instead of running a press- and probably for
a lot less money and self esteem. Good thing there's cheap Chinese
stuff at the discount store for him to buy, so he can furnish his
trailer and still buy anti-depressants, right?

In the 1950s, a guy could work in a manufacturing job and use that
money to buy a house, own a car, and support his family- while his
wife stayed at home and took care of the kids. (I don't care if women
are working or not- that's not my point.) Can we really say that the
rise of the "service economy" has improved the lives of the middle
class? Both I and my wife work full time- I as skilled trade labor,
and she as unskilled factory labor, and barely keep our heads above
water- without any children to look after. If one or both of us were
depending on the income from service jobs, we'd be forced out of our
home within six months. Most people I know are so far in debt
(including professionals in the much touted "service sector") that
they're choosing between decent food, gasoline, or an ever growing
credit-card balance on any given week. If that's what this brave new
world brings us, I think we have a right to question it.

What I'm advocating here is not rocket science, but it does require a
bit of education amongst our population. I'd like to see vocational
education restored to our public schools, and people at least making
an attempt to support American manufacturers and products. That
doesn't mean you can't buy toilet paper at the Walmart- just don't buy
everything from China. As long as we retain some manufacturing
capabilites, we have a pool of workers and experience to draw from if
we need it- and it's likely that some day we will.

If we produce and enhance weath here, wealth is what we have. If just
move money around on computers, it will eventually all be in the
pockets of people on foreign soil.


All the money in the world won't buy even a box of nails if there
is no one around to make them.

And if you insist on making them locally when they can be made for a tenth
the price in Elbonia all you do is price your goods out of the
world market.

Why do we need to be in an unbalanced world market? Why not impose
tariffs on foreign importers who abuse their workers, and only allow
free trade with those who increase the standard of living for thier
populations?

I've heard the argument that a rising tide raises all ships- but I
don't believe it is true. Seems more like it raises the ocean liners,
and sinks the fishing boats.

Services are important, sure- but given
the choice between that or food, clothing and housing, I'll choose the
physical requirements for survival first every time.

Housing? Construction is one industry that cannot be outsourced--you need
warm bodies on site to build something. As for food, you were complaining
earlier about "cook" as line of work.

A cook is not the same thing as a manufacturing plant that processes
raw food and grain into finished product.

Hell... I've even been hearing radio ads about a new "exciting and
rewarding career opportunity" selling crap on eBay. Didn't anyone learn
the lessions of the first internet bubble? We can't all be rich, and we
can't all be peddlers- somebody has to produce wealth in the first
place.

What does snake oil have to do with anything? There are always radio ads
about get-rich-quick schemes.

The whole damn country is being continually sold snake oil in shiny
packages.

No matter how far our society progresses, and how different it becomes,
we will always need the basics- I don't know about you, but I am not
comfortable with the idea of everything I need to survive being produced
in another country.

"Everything you need to survive"? What specific item that you "need to
survive" is produced in another country?

Textiles.

Gasoline/heating oil.

Tools.

Building materials (though most of those come from Canada in my area,
and I'm comfortable with that)

Cooking utensils.

Food (some, not all of it)

Electronic/communication components.

Those are a few examples, and there are probably better ones. The
short and non-specific answer is "almost everything."

Look- I know that I could get together a pile of scrap metal, make my
own knives and axes from it, and eke out the bare necessities for life
by hunting and foraging for my own food and cutting down trees for
heat and shelter, but that's not what I mean by "needs" in a modern
world.

Like I said, I'm open to a clear explaination of how American services
produce tangible wealth. It's quite possible that I'm entirely wrong,
and I'm more than willing to learn something new here that might help
me sleep a little better at night.

Especially when we've got a government and
citizenry that seems to think that the rest of the world doesn't matter
at all, and we can treat anyone and everyone else like **** with
impunity.