Today the business section of the NY Times had two interesting
articles. One was entitled: "Wall Street Shaken by US Job
Losses in August" and the other was front page, "Drop in Jobs
is Continuing: 93,000 Lost Last Month."

Excerpt from the first:

.... yesterday the labor department reported that while the
unemployment rate slipped to 6.1% in August, companies cut
payrolls by 93,000. The report was weaker than expected and
delivered mixed signals about the nation's overall economic
health. Wall Street was expecting jobs to increase 20,000
to 25,000, Mr. Hogan [chief market analyst at Jeffries and
Company] said.

"We are concerned about the jobs-creation part of the
economy," Mr. Hogan said.

The second article is highly remiscent of the discussions
that went on here on rcm in the past few months, here I
quote from that article:

... What suprises many economists is that the job-shedding
has continued despite what they describe as an extraordinary
level of economic stimulus. Low interest rates, tax cuts and
rebates, a rise in military spending, mortgage refinancings,
growing corporate profits, even a long-awaited improvement
in business spending on new equipment and software have all
all contributed to the rise in the economic growth rate.

But jobs are disappearing, and employers continue to resist
adding hours for their existing workers. Economists warn that
without payroll expansion and rising income from wages,
sustaining the economic growth will be difficult once the
stimulus weakens.

"If we go into next year without job growth, then the consumer's
willingness to keep spending comes into question, and recovery
is in danger of unwinding," said James W Paulsen, chief
investment strategist for Wells Capital Management.

Seeking an explaination for the job drought, some economists
call attention to the shifting of production overseas,
particulary to China, and to the american economy's rapid
gains in productivity. The productivity gains allow companies
to maintain the same level of production with fewer workers.

Both trends have proceeded at a stepped-up pace in recent months
so the economy, in response, may now have to expand at an
annual rate of 5 percent or more, simply to keep employment
levels stable, said Albert M. Wojnilower, economic consultant
and wall street forecaster. ....

The article also mentioned that about half of the 93 thousand
jobs lost were in the manufacturing areas.

Frankly it sounds to me like the company's dreams of increased
profit by shifting production overseas where labor rates are
very low is already showing signs of failure. My bet is that
the management in firms like that is driven by the pure and
simple desire to temporarily boost profits, so that they
can line their own pockets before the rent comes due. Yep,
plain old greed.

The problem that nobody anticipated is, the feedback time
constant is way, way too far short for this to work. To
boost their profits, they need to lay off american workers.
Sure the workers have some savings, but once you lay off
the worker, they stop buying - instantly, and almost
completely.

Which leaves no market for the goods that the companies are
trying to peddle. A lot of this stuff is about perception,
all a person needs to hear is that their friend has just
been laid off, and he thinks, "that could be me. I better
start tightening the belt now before it's too late."

Somebody has to knock these idiots' heads together
and holler in their ears, that NOBODY BUYS ANYTHING
WHEN THEY HAVE NO JOB. This seems simple but they
just ain't 'getting it.'

How much do folks want to be that the next big export
overseas to china is going to be those executives
themselves, when they discover that their efforts have
destroyed their companies - and the US economy as
well. I suspect they will also be making 1/20 of
their present salary or thereabout - IF china is
interested in hiring them. Otherwise it's off to the
rice farm for them.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:

... What suprises many economists is that the job-shedding
has continued despite what they describe as an extraordinary
level of economic stimulus. Low interest rates, tax cuts and
rebates, a rise in military spending, mortgage refinancings,
growing corporate profits, even a long-awaited improvement
in business spending on new equipment and software have all
all contributed to the rise in the economic growth rate.

But jobs are disappearing, and employers continue to resist
adding hours for their existing workers. Economists warn that
without payroll expansion and rising income from wages,
sustaining the economic growth will be difficult once the
stimulus weakens.

"If we go into next year without job growth, then the consumer's
willingness to keep spending comes into question, and recovery
is in danger of unwinding," said James W Paulsen, chief
investment strategist for Wells Capital Management.




Someone at the presidential debate quoted Henry Ford as saying, " I pay
my workers
more so they can afford to buy my product."

I've read some about Ford and I recall that when he raised wages, the
money went
into a trust to be paid out after 6 months if the employee was still
there, in good standing.

Fred

On 6 Sep 2003 19:37:25 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
The problem that nobody anticipated is, the feedback time
constant is way, way too far short for this to work. To
boost their profits, they need to lay off american workers.
Sure the workers have some savings, but once you lay off
the worker, they stop buying - instantly, and almost
completely.

Which leaves no market for the goods that the companies are
trying to peddle.

You're assuming that *only* the laid off workers bought their
products. That would be a very unusual business indeed. In
almost all cases, a company's workers form a *very* small
subset of its customers.

Look at it this way, out of a potential domestic market of
nearly 300 million consumers, the manufacturers lost
93,000 potential customers. That's 0.031% of the market.
That *very* small drop in the potential market size is more
than compensated by the much lower production costs
of having the product made off shore.

As long as the cost reductions exceed the loss of market
size, the company comes out a winner. Look at the auto
industry. They're having a *record* sales year (in units
sold) despite continuing shrinkage of the number of US
auto workers.

They've had to discount their prices (via rebates and zero
percent financing) to achieve that, but as long as those
discounts are less than their cost savings due to outsourcing,
they're ahead of the game, and consumers have benefited
from lower prices.

Gary

"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
...
On 6 Sep 2003 19:37:25 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
The problem that nobody anticipated is, the feedback time
constant is way, way too far short for this to work. To
boost their profits, they need to lay off american workers.
Sure the workers have some savings, but once you lay off
the worker, they stop buying - instantly, and almost
completely.

Which leaves no market for the goods that the companies are
trying to peddle.

You're assuming that *only* the laid off workers bought their
products. That would be a very unusual business indeed. In
almost all cases, a company's workers form a *very* small
subset of its customers.

Look at it this way, out of a potential domestic market of
nearly 300 million consumers, the manufacturers lost
93,000 potential customers. That's 0.031% of the market.
That *very* small drop in the potential market size is more
than compensated by the much lower production costs
of having the product made off shore.

As long as the cost reductions exceed the loss of market
size, the company comes out a winner. Look at the auto
industry. They're having a *record* sales year (in units
sold) despite continuing shrinkage of the number of US
auto workers.

They've had to discount their prices (via rebates and zero
percent financing) to achieve that, but as long as those
discounts are less than their cost savings due to outsourcing,
they're ahead of the game, and consumers have benefited
from lower prices.

Gary

Gary, I think you have been badly infected with Washington Consensus
economics. g

It isn't 93,000 workers. It's now 2.8 million manufacturing workers, because
each company contributes it's own little bit. One person ****ting in the
park is no big deal, but, when half the town starts doing it...

As for the health of the US automobile industry, it's now totally dependent
upon squeezing its supply base like an anaconda wrapped around a monkey. And
Ford and GM together, just two companies in the whole of US manufacturing,
are planning to increase their imports from China from (Ford) $1.1B and (GM)
$2.3B this year, to $10B in 2010 (Ford) and $20B in 2007 (GM), for a total
of a $30B increase in around six years. Even if the economy picks up at a
dramatic rate, there will be a net loss of jobs -- and of purchasing power.

This is no longer an ideological issue. Most of the "conservative" economic
sources, ranging from Bus. Week to the WSJ to The Economist, have agreed on
these points within the last few weeks. The rough consensus is that our
equilibrium unemployment rate probably will have to be raised by one point,
due to trade imbalance and productivity increases combined, and that it will
take GDP growth of over 4% just to stand still in terms of jobs.

So we may have some growth, but it won't go into the pockets of many
consumers. Where that capital accumulation will wind up is problematic as
well. With the US now the most productive country in the world (both in
terms of labor productivity and total factor productivity), those low-wage
countries are looking ever-more attractive as the place to invest. They have
the elbow room to grow faster. We're about tapped out for capital-efficient
growth.

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

In article , Gary Coffman says...

Look at it this way, out of a potential domestic market of
nearly 300 million consumers, the manufacturers lost
93,000 potential customers. That's 0.031% of the market.
That *very* small drop in the potential market size is more
than compensated by the much lower production costs
of having the product made off shore.

Ah, but that's in *one* month. And the suspected
cause of the job loss is only just beginning. What
happens when it keeps up, month after month?

As long as the cost reductions exceed the loss of market
size, the company comes out a winner. Look at the auto
industry. They're having a *record* sales year (in units
sold) despite continuing shrinkage of the number of US
auto workers.

Somehow this seems like a ponzi scheme to me, still.
If this is true, that the job flight overseas isn't a
problem, then how come all those economists are starting
to wring their hands?

There's nobody who wants this to turn around more than
the president. Everyone there is praying for some
daylight in the economic forcasts, but it seems to be
not forthcoming. Could it be they're missing the
obvious?

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

This is no longer an ideological issue. Most of the "conservative" economic
sources, ranging from Bus. Week to the WSJ to The Economist, have agreed on
these points within the last few weeks. The rough consensus is that our
equilibrium unemployment rate probably will have to be raised by one point,
due to trade imbalance and productivity increases combined, and that it will
take GDP growth of over 4% just to stand still in terms of jobs.

The question is, can the gdp grow that much, when the
domestic market is shrinking from loss of wages?

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress
says...

This is no longer an ideological issue. Most of the "conservative"
economic
sources, ranging from Bus. Week to the WSJ to The Economist, have agreed
on
these points within the last few weeks. The rough consensus is that our
equilibrium unemployment rate probably will have to be raised by one
point,
due to trade imbalance and productivity increases combined, and that it
will
take GDP growth of over 4% just to stand still in terms of jobs.

The question is, can the gdp grow that much, when the
domestic market is shrinking from loss of wages?

It could. We tend to wish and buy our way out of recessions. We could do it
again.

However, there will be fewer people doing it, although they'll have a lot of
money in their pockets.

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

A complex problem but here are a couple of thoughts to consider. In
the 1800's most of the jobs were farm jobs, but now there are very few
farm jobs. The same thing is happening to manufacturing jobs. It
takes fewer people where ever they are to manufacture things. With
Cad, Cam, etc it takes fewer engineers as well as factory workers.
And I don't think we want to ensure more manufacturing jobs by
decreasing producivity. Anyone for outlawing carbide and insisting on
using HSS?

And as far as relocating jobs. Some years back jobs were leaving the
North and going to the South. With time the advantage has decreased.
Wages in the South are higher now. And Southerners buy more with
their increased wages. The same thing will happen with other
countries. Not quickly, not smoothly. But more jobs in China means
more farm goods exported to China. Farm goods produced by fewer
workers than in the 1800's.

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 ). 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.

Dan


jim rozen wrote in message ...
Today the business section of the NY Times had two interesting
articles. One was entitled: "Wall Street Shaken by US Job
Losses in August" and the other was front page, "Drop in Jobs
is Continuing: 93,000 Lost Last Month."

"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)

Guys, the plain fact is that, all else being equal, things should be
produced where they can be done so most efficiently. The ultimate
beneficiary is the end consumer. For example, the reason that US cars were
crap in the late '70's and early '80's was an entrenched workforce and lack
of competition. To the extent they're better quality now, it was directly
competition with Japan that made the difference.

Having said that, my concern is that our business with China is the classic
case of a free market selling communists the rope with which we will be
hanged. These people not only use slave labor to beat their economic
competitors, they are physically dangerous to us. When a major Chinese
general says that interference with their desire to absorb Taiwan will be
for them to nuke LA, this should not be dismissed, and we certainly
shouldn't be doing business with them.

"jim rozen" wrote


Somebody has to knock these idiots' heads together
and holler in their ears, that NOBODY BUYS ANYTHING
WHEN THEY HAVE NO JOB. This seems simple but they
just ain't 'getting it.'


Jim.... your post was right on the money. Very well said.

Mark

In article , Dan Caster says...

And as far as relocating jobs. Some years back jobs were leaving the
North and going to the South. With time the advantage has decreased.
Wages in the South are higher now. And Southerners buy more with
their increased wages. The same thing will happen with other
countries. Not quickly, not smoothly. But more jobs in China means
more farm goods exported to China. Farm goods produced by fewer
workers than in the 1800's.

Or, the relocation of jobs from the southern US to Mexico,
to the border regions. Those areas of Mexico are now
rapidly becoming wastelands as the factories are rapidly
departing to China. The wages in Mexico were starting to
inch up also, so off we go in search of the next cheap
place.


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 ).

I guess this is my point Dan - that the companies view
'being competitive' as being equal to 'firing all the
US employees.' I can just imagine the discussions that
go on in the board rooms - "say look, if we don't do
this and cut our labor costs, then XYZ company (competitor)
*will* shift _its_ production overseas, undercut us by
ten percent in price, get all the business and eat our
lunch. So we HAVE to do it or go under."

There's a certain logic there and honestly I don't know
what I would say if I were in those shoes. I think the
forces driving the job migration are real and relentless.
They're not going away.

But as Ed has said before, there's *nothing* we
can do or make in this country, that the folks in China
can't do or produce - for about 1/20 the labor cost.
Everything is susceptible here. We're not just talking
about manufacture of goods, were talking software,
services, support, all that. Like the song says,

"These jobs are going son, and they won't be back."


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.

Ah, but my question is, who is buying the fasteners and steel?
If those folks are out of work, they won't be spending any
money at all. If those companies are supplying US manufacture
or industry, then I would claim they're on a finite lifeline.
Only a matter of time before their market slowly dwindles out of
existence.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 7 Sep 2003 16:08:01 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gary Coffman says...

... The US is no longer a good place for manufacturers to
invest and expand. As with the 90% of US farmers who migrated
from the land to other occupations, manufacturing employees in
this country are going to have to find other occupations too. The
government's list of fastest growing occupations in the US doesn't
include a single manufacturing job.


Let me guess - nursing. Also,
working at Wal-Mart.

Expanding these days? Probably police and military...

Al Moore

(Who's son is in the rapidly expanding Coast Gaurd. Now part of the
new and improved Dept. of Homeland Security...)

On 7 Sep 2003 16:08:01 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gary Coffman says...

... The US is no longer a good place for manufacturers to
invest and expand. As with the 90% of US farmers who migrated
from the land to other occupations, manufacturing employees in
this country are going to have to find other occupations too. The
government's list of fastest growing occupations in the US doesn't
include a single manufacturing job.


Let me guess - nursing. Also,
working at Wal-Mart.

Yeah, car salesman or mechanic too. (US auto sales are on
track for a record 19 million units sold this year. Someone is
making a commission on each sale, and somebody is going
to eventually have to fix all of them too.)

It isn't just health care for people which is growing either.
Veterinary jobs are growing rapidly too. (People who have
foregone having children are lavishing care on pets instead.)

Walmart is also looking for a record year.

Careers to avoid include farmer, railroad worker, telephone
operator, typists/data entry operators, meter readers, machine
operators, and insurance claims processing clerk.

Gary

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 17:21:09 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
take GDP growth of over 4% just to stand still in terms of jobs.

The question is, can the gdp grow that much, when the
domestic market is shrinking from loss of wages?

It could. We tend to wish and buy our way out of recessions. We could do it
again.

However, there will be fewer people doing it, although they'll have a lot of
money in their pockets.

It is worth noting that the US workforce is shrinking. More people are
retiring than entering the workforce. This caused a net shrinkage of
the workforce of half a million workers during the first half of this year.
It would have been even greater except for the unprecedented number
of illegals entering the US. As the Baby Boomers reach retirement age,
this trend will accelerate.

So we can expect fewer workers to be chasing jobs in the future.
And that means we'll need fewer jobs created to satisfy them.

Gary

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 22:55:46 GMT,
..... wrote
in Msg. SHO6b.384323$Ho3.58137@sccrnsc03

When a major Chinese
general says that interference with their desire to absorb Taiwan will be
for them to nuke LA, this should not be dismissed,

Learning from the U.S. way of doing business I guess.

--Daniel

--
"With me is nothing wrong! And with you?" (from r.a.m.p)

In article , mikee says...

Fastest growing occupations:
2000-2010: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.t06.htm

Doesn't look bad for computer professionals according to this list. One
wonders
whether they have factored in the global outsourcing of these jobs, also.

Agree - all but *two* of those occupations have that
vaguely similar aroma about them - that they can
trivially be shipped overseas, especially given that
the work product can be imported without the use of a
container ship!

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Gary Coffman says...

It is worth noting that the US workforce is shrinking. More people are
retiring than entering the workforce. This caused a net shrinkage of
the workforce of half a million workers during the first half of this year.
It would have been even greater except for the unprecedented number
of illegals entering the US. As the Baby Boomers reach retirement age,
this trend will accelerate.

My personal take on this effect (and I have personally noted
it myself in all my relatives) is that this is the ultimate
outfall of the 1930s depresssion. That basically anyone
who lived through that event simply does not want to ever
stop working. Once they have a job, they will never give it
up, because they lived through a time when jobs were unavailable.

So nothing short of death or extreme illness will cause them to
retire. Both my parents are 70s plus, and they commute in to
work every day. My mom has scaled back to three days a week
but my father still goes in every day, *and* he travels abroad
many times per year on field trips.

Even though those folks were fairly young during the 30s,
they still remember hard times. And act on them accordingly.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Fastest growing occupations:
2000-2010: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.t06.htm

Doesn't look bad for computer professionals according to this list. One wonders
whether they have factored in the global outsourcing of these jobs, also.

Mike Eberlein

Gary Coffman wrote:

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 16:22:52 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
.. .
On 6 Sep 2003 19:37:25 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
The problem that nobody anticipated is, the feedback time
constant is way, way too far short for this to work. To
boost their profits, they need to lay off american workers.
Sure the workers have some savings, but once you lay off
the worker, they stop buying - instantly, and almost
completely.

Which leaves no market for the goods that the companies are
trying to peddle.

You're assuming that *only* the laid off workers bought their
products. That would be a very unusual business indeed. In
almost all cases, a company's workers form a *very* small
subset of its customers.

Look at it this way, out of a potential domestic market of
nearly 300 million consumers, the manufacturers lost
93,000 potential customers. That's 0.031% of the market.
That *very* small drop in the potential market size is more
than compensated by the much lower production costs
of having the product made off shore.

As long as the cost reductions exceed the loss of market
size, the company comes out a winner. Look at the auto
industry. They're having a *record* sales year (in units
sold) despite continuing shrinkage of the number of US
auto workers.

They've had to discount their prices (via rebates and zero
percent financing) to achieve that, but as long as those
discounts are less than their cost savings due to outsourcing,
they're ahead of the game, and consumers have benefited
from lower prices.

Gary

Gary, I think you have been badly infected with Washington Consensus
economics. g

I'm just doing the sums. I don't know what "Washington Consensus"
economics is.

It isn't 93,000 workers. It's now 2.8 million manufacturing workers, because
each company contributes it's own little bit. One person ****ting in the
park is no big deal, but, when half the town starts doing it...

No, the article didn't say 93,000 were laid off from one company. That
figure was for the economy as a whole in August.

I'm not sure what time span you're using for the 2.8 million figure, but
total manufacturing employment in the US is 17.1 million. It has been
declining since about 1970 when it reached a peak. It is now about at
the level it was in 1950.

In just the last 10 years the cost of a US manufacturing employee
has soared 56% while productivity has only increased 18%. It is pretty
easy to see why companies are reluctant to add US employees to
their operations.

Still, despite all that, unemployment has actually fallen to 6.1% overall.

As for the health of the US automobile industry, it's now totally dependent
upon squeezing its supply base like an anaconda wrapped around a monkey. And
Ford and GM together, just two companies in the whole of US manufacturing,
are planning to increase their imports from China from (Ford) $1.1B and (GM)
$2.3B this year, to $10B in 2010 (Ford) and $20B in 2007 (GM), for a total
of a $30B increase in around six years. Even if the economy picks up at a
dramatic rate, there will be a net loss of jobs -- and of purchasing power.

Yes, but as I said, as long as the net loss to the customer base is less than
the net cost reductions due to outsourcing, the company wins. They aren't
cutting their own throats as Jim asserted.

This is no longer an ideological issue. Most of the "conservative" economic
sources, ranging from Bus. Week to the WSJ to The Economist, have agreed on
these points within the last few weeks. The rough consensus is that our
equilibrium unemployment rate probably will have to be raised by one point,
due to trade imbalance and productivity increases combined, and that it will
take GDP growth of over 4% just to stand still in terms of jobs.

Note that over the last 3 years an estimated 5 million illegals entered the
country. Nearly all of them found jobs (not necessarily good paying jobs,
of course). Without them, the labor market would actually be tight, and
unemployment figures would be low. This is something the current
administration doesn't want to address.

So we may have some growth, but it won't go into the pockets of many
consumers. Where that capital accumulation will wind up is problematic as
well. With the US now the most productive country in the world (both in
terms of labor productivity and total factor productivity), those low-wage
countries are looking ever-more attractive as the place to invest. They have
the elbow room to grow faster. We're about tapped out for capital-efficient
growth.

That's true. The US is no longer a good place for manufacturers to
invest and expand. As with the 90% of US farmers who migrated
from the land to other occupations, manufacturing employees in
this country are going to have to find other occupations too. The
government's list of fastest growing occupations in the US doesn't
include a single manufacturing job.

Gary

Although I respect your opinion about "the red menace", there are a few
points to be made.

Most of China is MORE capitalistic than the USA. Although there are
large government subsidies (mostly for larger stuff and largely
indirect) etc, the majority of their economy runs in a similar
"business" mode to the USA. The subsidy issue also comes up in the USA:
A good example is increasing orders for Patriot Missle systems that are
an abject failure. Another example are the huge sums of money given to
the wine making industry to "market" products.

Much of the USA effectively has "slave labor" also. This varies from
the prison workforce (paid pennies on the dollar with large government
subsidies to market products) to the current changes in the overtime
laws (which the Dept of labor admits will cause loss of overtime for a
huge number and those who are no longer "exempt" from overtime are
expected to have wages lowered so there is no net gain...IE working
extra hours for free).

Finally, Are you saying that our threats against russia and china to
keep their hands out of the Iraq issue (not to supply aid to Iraq) and
the threats of "severe retribution" against those couontries if such
were to happen as being any different than the Taiwan Issue?

The pot calls the kettle black

Koz

...... wrote:

snip

Having said that, my concern is that our business with China is the classic
case of a free market selling communists the rope with which we will be
hanged. These people not only use slave labor to beat their economic
competitors, they are physically dangerous to us. When a major Chinese
general says that interference with their desire to absorb Taiwan will be
for them to nuke LA, this should not be dismissed, and we certainly
shouldn't be doing business with them.

I just had to add a quick ramble here....

When 5% of the people hold 90% of the wealth in this country, most
business essentially operates to serve the interests of that 5%, not the
other 90%. The result is that the overall goal is to result in "short
term" profitability rather than overall business strength. A good
example of this is the HUGE focus of the governmental policies to try
and and keep stock prices going up. This also puts o focus on CEOs to
artificially inflate those prices through layoffs, cost cutting
measures, etc which cause huge short-term profits at the expense of any
long term company strength. A good example of this is US steel dumping
all their fabricated product divisions in the early 80s. Those
divisions were making profits for the company (small and consistent) but
when the overall stock price was falling, they dumped all fabricated
products and re-worked the accounting system to make it look like cost
savings and bolster the stock price.

One should also take note that "increase in worker productivity" is seen
as a GOOD thing in all the government reports. Yes, slight increases in
productivity are good but for most workers, this figure means they are
working harder and longer for the same money. How many of you can say
that you are paid more and work less than 20 years ago? Can you even
say that you are paid more and work about has hard as 20 years ago?

As long as the government operates in a mode where decisions are made
with such a high focus on "short term profitability", as they currently
do for that 5% who hold the 90% wealth, we will always be weak and
nationally insecure.

Koz (and yes it is a ramble, no it isn't suggestion communism or
government screwing business, just changing the focus to a broader
position of strength rather than a short-term position of maximizing
profits)

jim rozen wrote:

Today the business section of the NY Times had two interesting
articles. One was entitled: "Wall Street Shaken by US Job
Losses in August" and the other was front page, "Drop in Jobs
is Continuing: 93,000 Lost Last Month."

Excerpt from the first:

.... yesterday the labor department reported that while the
unemployment rate slipped to 6.1% in August, companies cut
payrolls by 93,000. The report was weaker than expected and
delivered mixed signals about the nation's overall economic
health. Wall Street was expecting jobs to increase 20,000
to 25,000, Mr. Hogan [chief market analyst at Jeffries and
Company] said.

"We are concerned about the jobs-creation part of the
economy," Mr. Hogan said.

The second article is highly remiscent of the discussions
that went on here on rcm in the past few months, here I
quote from that article:

... What suprises many economists is that the job-shedding
has continued despite what they describe as an extraordinary
level of economic stimulus. Low interest rates, tax cuts and
rebates, a rise in military spending, mortgage refinancings,
growing corporate profits, even a long-awaited improvement
in business spending on new equipment and software have all
all contributed to the rise in the economic growth rate.

But jobs are disappearing, and employers continue to resist
adding hours for their existing workers. Economists warn that
without payroll expansion and rising income from wages,
sustaining the economic growth will be difficult once the
stimulus weakens.

"If we go into next year without job growth, then the consumer's
willingness to keep spending comes into question, and recovery
is in danger of unwinding," said James W Paulsen, chief
investment strategist for Wells Capital Management.

Seeking an explaination for the job drought, some economists
call attention to the shifting of production overseas,
particulary to China, and to the american economy's rapid
gains in productivity. The productivity gains allow companies
to maintain the same level of production with fewer workers.

Both trends have proceeded at a stepped-up pace in recent months
so the economy, in response, may now have to expand at an
annual rate of 5 percent or more, simply to keep employment
levels stable, said Albert M. Wojnilower, economic consultant
and wall street forecaster. ....

The article also mentioned that about half of the 93 thousand
jobs lost were in the manufacturing areas.

Frankly it sounds to me like the company's dreams of increased
profit by shifting production overseas where labor rates are
very low is already showing signs of failure. My bet is that
the management in firms like that is driven by the pure and
simple desire to temporarily boost profits, so that they
can line their own pockets before the rent comes due. Yep,
plain old greed.

The problem that nobody anticipated is, the feedback time
constant is way, way too far short for this to work. To
boost their profits, they need to lay off american workers.
Sure the workers have some savings, but once you lay off
the worker, they stop buying - instantly, and almost
completely.

Which leaves no market for the goods that the companies are
trying to peddle. A lot of this stuff is about perception,
all a person needs to hear is that their friend has just
been laid off, and he thinks, "that could be me. I better
start tightening the belt now before it's too late."

Somebody has to knock these idiots' heads together
and holler in their ears, that NOBODY BUYS ANYTHING
WHEN THEY HAVE NO JOB. This seems simple but they
just ain't 'getting it.'

How much do folks want to be that the next big export
overseas to china is going to be those executives
themselves, when they discover that their efforts have
destroyed their companies - and the US economy as
well. I suspect they will also be making 1/20 of
their present salary or thereabout - IF china is
interested in hiring them. Otherwise it's off to the
rice farm for them.

Jim

================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =

"Koz" wrote in message
...
I just had to add a quick ramble here....

When 5% of the people hold 90% of the wealth in this country, most
business essentially operates to serve the interests of that 5%, not the
other 90%.

I disagree, business operates to satisfy the stockholder, and today, in the
U.S., that is every working stiff with a 401K or mutual fund investment,
plus a lot of small busnessmen who have their pension plan invested at least
partially in stocks and bonds. The 1960's idea that only the idle rich care
about stock prices is long gone, the man on the street is just as likely to
check his investments as the tycoon.

The result is that the overall goal is to result in "short
term" profitability rather than overall business strength.

I disagree again, you assume that a small cadre of ultra rich are running
the country to suite their fancy. The facts are that those running business
today answer to almost the entire spectrum of American society, look at the
Enron executives either doing time or about to do time, in prison. This
should reafirm your flagging belief in the free market system as practiced
in America.

A good
example of this is the HUGE focus of the governmental policies to try
and and keep stock prices going up. This also puts o focus on CEOs to
artificially inflate those prices through layoffs, cost cutting
measures, etc which cause huge short-term profits at the expense of any
long term company strength. A good example of this is US steel dumping
all their fabricated product divisions in the early 80s.

Your example of what is wrong with corperate America come from the 1980"s!
Are you kidding! A lot of things are done wrong in every decade, that is the
human element, but to try to buttress your arguement with examples from 20
years ago is simply irrelevant.

Those
divisions were making profits for the company (small and consistent) but
when the overall stock price was falling, they dumped all fabricated
products and re-worked the accounting system to make it look like cost
savings and bolster the stock price.

That was their perogative, if it was the wrong decision, they would be
punished by the market, again 20 year old examples are obsolete when talking
about the big business climate of 2003, soon to be 2004.


One should also take note that "increase in worker productivity" is seen
as a GOOD thing in all the government reports. Yes, slight increases in
productivity are good but for most workers, this figure means they are
working harder and longer for the same money. How many of you can say
that you are paid more and work less than 20 years ago?

I most definitly can, 20 years ago I was making a fraction of what I make
today.

Can you even
say that you are paid more and work about has hard as 20 years ago?

Of course I can.


As long as the government operates in a mode where decisions are made
with such a high focus on "short term profitability", as they currently
do for that 5% who hold the 90% wealth, we will always be weak and
nationally insecure.

I am, and I believe WE are, neither. Keep your weakness and insecurity to
your self, I am, and those I befriend and associate with, are NOT weak, and
NOT insecure. I feel sorry for anyone that, living in the most freedom
loving country in the world, the country with the greatest amount of
opportunity ever available on the face of the earth, that finds their
predicament so depressing, you my man would have been eaten alive in the
middle ages, you would have never survived on the plains in the 1880's, and
you probably only survive (to whine) due to government assistance in the
year 2003.

JTMcC.



Koz (and yes it is a ramble, no it isn't suggestion communism or
government screwing business, just changing the focus to a broader
position of strength rather than a short-term position of maximizing
profits)

jim rozen wrote:

Today the business section of the NY Times had two interesting
articles. One was entitled: "Wall Street Shaken by US Job
Losses in August" and the other was front page, "Drop in Jobs
is Continuing: 93,000 Lost Last Month."

Excerpt from the first:

.... yesterday the labor department reported that while the
unemployment rate slipped to 6.1% in August, companies cut
payrolls by 93,000. The report was weaker than expected and
delivered mixed signals about the nation's overall economic
health. Wall Street was expecting jobs to increase 20,000
to 25,000, Mr. Hogan [chief market analyst at Jeffries and
Company] said.

"We are concerned about the jobs-creation part of the
economy," Mr. Hogan said.

The second article is highly remiscent of the discussions
that went on here on rcm in the past few months, here I
quote from that article:

... What suprises many economists is that the job-shedding
has continued despite what they describe as an extraordinary
level of economic stimulus. Low interest rates, tax cuts and
rebates, a rise in military spending, mortgage refinancings,
growing corporate profits, even a long-awaited improvement
in business spending on new equipment and software have all
all contributed to the rise in the economic growth rate.

But jobs are disappearing, and employers continue to resist
adding hours for their existing workers. Economists warn that
without payroll expansion and rising income from wages,
sustaining the economic growth will be difficult once the
stimulus weakens.

"If we go into next year without job growth, then the consumer's
willingness to keep spending comes into question, and recovery
is in danger of unwinding," said James W Paulsen, chief
investment strategist for Wells Capital Management.

Seeking an explaination for the job drought, some economists
call attention to the shifting of production overseas,
particulary to China, and to the american economy's rapid
gains in productivity. The productivity gains allow companies
to maintain the same level of production with fewer workers.

Both trends have proceeded at a stepped-up pace in recent months
so the economy, in response, may now have to expand at an
annual rate of 5 percent or more, simply to keep employment
levels stable, said Albert M. Wojnilower, economic consultant
and wall street forecaster. ....

The article also mentioned that about half of the 93 thousand
jobs lost were in the manufacturing areas.

Frankly it sounds to me like the company's dreams of increased
profit by shifting production overseas where labor rates are
very low is already showing signs of failure. My bet is that
the management in firms like that is driven by the pure and
simple desire to temporarily boost profits, so that they
can line their own pockets before the rent comes due. Yep,
plain old greed.

The problem that nobody anticipated is, the feedback time
constant is way, way too far short for this to work. To
boost their profits, they need to lay off american workers.
Sure the workers have some savings, but once you lay off
the worker, they stop buying - instantly, and almost
completely.

Which leaves no market for the goods that the companies are
trying to peddle. A lot of this stuff is about perception,
all a person needs to hear is that their friend has just
been laid off, and he thinks, "that could be me. I better
start tightening the belt now before it's too late."

Somebody has to knock these idiots' heads together
and holler in their ears, that NOBODY BUYS ANYTHING
WHEN THEY HAVE NO JOB. This seems simple but they
just ain't 'getting it.'

How much do folks want to be that the next big export
overseas to china is going to be those executives
themselves, when they discover that their efforts have
destroyed their companies - and the US economy as
well. I suspect they will also be making 1/20 of
their present salary or thereabout - IF china is
interested in hiring them. Otherwise it's off to the
rice farm for them.

Jim

================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =

In article , John T. McCracken says...

When 5% of the people hold 90% of the wealth in this country, most
business essentially operates to serve the interests of that 5%, not the
other 90%.

I disagree, business operates to satisfy the stockholder, and today, in the
U.S., that is every working stiff with a 401K or mutual fund investment,
plus a lot of small busnessmen who have their pension plan invested at least
partially in stocks and bonds. The 1960's idea that only the idle rich care
about stock prices is long gone, the man on the street is just as likely to
check his investments as the tycoon.

Here he may be talking about regulatory issues as well,
John. It is *certainly* true that large corporations that
contribute mightily to politicians' campaign funds *do*
get preferential treatment when the laws get written.

One simple example that I've trotted out time and time
again is the law that used to require businesses who
pay employees by check to allow those paychecks to be
cashed without fee, within a certain distance of the
workplace, or the wages would have to be paid in cash.

The banking industry got alhold of that and crushed it,
so now if a worker wants to actually cash his check, he
has to pay a fee, one that ranges between one and ten
dollars, typically.

Sure every joe has a bit in the stock market now (except
me I guess) but if you are really trying to convince anyone
here that just because somebody owns $10K in some mutual
fund, that this puts them on an even footing with, say,
Exxon-Mobil or Halliburton, I think this is not going to
work.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Koz" wrote in message
...
Although I respect your opinion about "the red menace", there are a few
points to be made.

Most of China is MORE capitalistic than the USA.

Your credibility is gone right there.




Although there are
large government subsidies (mostly for larger stuff and largely
indirect) etc, the majority of their economy runs in a similar
"business" mode to the USA.

If you had any credibility left, it's gone now.


The subsidy issue also comes up in the USA:
A good example is increasing orders for Patriot Missle systems that are
an abject failure.

What whacko newspaper have you been reading?



Another example are the huge sums of money given to
the wine making industry to "market" products.

Much of the USA effectively has "slave labor" also.


Not since 1865.


This varies from
the prison workforce (paid pennies on the dollar with large government
subsidies to market products) to the current changes in the overtime
laws (which the Dept of labor admits will cause loss of overtime for a
huge number and those who are no longer "exempt" from overtime are
expected to have wages lowered so there is no net gain...IE working
extra hours for free).

Finally, Are you saying that our threats against russia and china to
keep their hands out of the Iraq issue (not to supply aid to Iraq) and
the threats of "severe retribution" against those couontries if such
were to happen as being any different than the Taiwan Issue?

The pot calls the kettle black

Koz

You my man, are a nut.

JTMcC.

..... wrote:

snip

Having said that, my concern is that our business with China is the
classic
case of a free market selling communists the rope with which we will be
hanged. These people not only use slave labor to beat their economic
competitors, they are physically dangerous to us. When a major Chinese
general says that interference with their desire to absorb Taiwan will be
for them to nuke LA, this should not be dismissed, and we certainly
shouldn't be doing business with them.

"Koz" wrote in message ...


John T. McCracken wrote:

"Koz" wrote in message
...

I just had to add a quick ramble here....

When 5% of the people hold 90% of the wealth in this country, most
business essentially operates to serve the interests of that 5%, not the
other 90%.


I disagree, business operates to satisfy the stockholder, and today, in the
U.S., that is every working stiff with a 401K or mutual fund investment,
plus a lot of small busnessmen who have their pension plan invested at least
partially in stocks and bonds. The 1960's idea that only the idle rich care
about stock prices is long gone, the man on the street is just as likely to
check his investments as the tycoon.

I guess I presented it wrong. You are correct that there is broad stock ownership withn this country. However, by the dollar value the majority of this ownership is held in the hands of a small percentage of people. A simple analogy is, as a machineing business, you tend to serve your large customer with more care and interest than your small customer. most people imply that they are treated the same however, if time was important, who's order would be put off and who's would get the priority?

I don't buy your comparison of stockholders to large or small customers, ALL stockholders want the same thing, returns. To think a business decides to serve it's wealthy stockholders, while screwing the small stockholders, is crazy.

With respect to the pension plans, they do hold a great deal of the stock in this country. It's a bigger picture than that though. The fact that most companies can borrow and use the pension plan that is supposed to service the employees as colatoral for that loan..or borrow the money from the pension funds directly...shows that these have very little impact on decision making.

How does using a pension plan as colatoral threaten you, me or anyone??? Give us one single instance where retirees went unpaid.

The result is that the overall goal is to result in "short

term" profitability rather than overall business strength.


I disagree again, you assume that a small cadre of ultra rich are running
the country to suite their fancy. The facts are that those running business
today answer to almost the entire spectrum of American society, look at the
Enron executives either doing time or about to do time, in prison. This
should reafirm your flagging belief in the free market system as practiced
in America.

I was not implying that the ultra rich "control" things, just that the focus of the government and it's policies tend to be toward the production of "wealth" and those who have it. It's no different than the example above where the large customer gets priority over the small customer. I imply absolutely no "conspiricy" theory or anything else to this. Simply that becasue most of our officials come from backgrounds of money, they tend to foster a system that revolves around this. An example of this from another sector would be management of schools. Most of the people in school management positions come from the education field. The result is an inertia to keep things running the same...rarely a new idea introduced to improve education (more money for teacher's and smaller class size...how long have you been hearing that repeated?)


example of this is the HUGE focus of the governmental policies to try
and and keep stock prices going up. This also puts o focus on CEOs to
artificially inflate those prices through layoffs, cost cutting
measures, etc which cause huge short-term profits at the expense of any
long term company strength. A good example of this is US steel dumping
all their fabricated product divisions in the early 80s.


Your example of what is wrong with corperate America come from the 1980"s!
Are you kidding! A lot of things are done wrong in every decade, that is the
human element, but to try to buttress your arguement with examples from 20
years ago is simply irrelevant.

I used that example because it was close to home and I participated in the closure and saw the actual accounting figures for it. Rather than just repeat something someone else had presented in a news article, I went with something I had first hand knowledge of.


Those

divisions were making profits for the company (small and consistent) but
when the overall stock price was falling, they dumped all fabricated
products and re-worked the accounting system to make it look like cost
savings and bolster the stock price.


That was their perogative, if it was the wrong decision, they would be
punished by the market, again 20 year old examples are obsolete when talking
about the big business climate of 2003, soon to be 2004.

Of course it was their perogative. I am not speaking of taking away freedom to run your business as you want...I own a business myself. What I am speaking of is an entrenched business focus that emphasizes short term profitability and discourages long term investment. How many accounts in US businesses sign off on capital purchases for equipment that pay off in a period of more than 2 or three years? It is rare these days, with the exception of construction of new facilities, to see investments with longer pay-offs.


One should also take note that "increase in worker productivity" is seen
as a GOOD thing in all the government reports. Yes, slight increases in
productivity are good but for most workers, this figure means they are
working harder and longer for the same money. How many of you can say
that you are paid more and work less than 20 years ago?


I most definitly can, 20 years ago I was making a fraction of what I make
today.

I'm glad. The DOL statistics for pay schedules shows that the amount of hours worked by most US workers is increasing and that pay is not increasing as quickly as cost of living for most.


Can you even

say that you are paid more and work about has hard as 20 years ago?


Of course I can.


As long as the government operates in a mode where decisions are made
with such a high focus on "short term profitability", as they currently
do for that 5% who hold the 90% wealth, we will always be weak and
nationally insecure.


I am, and I believe WE are, neither. Keep your weakness and insecurity to
your self, I am, and those I befriend and associate with, are NOT weak, and
NOT insecure. I feel sorry for anyone that, living in the most freedom
loving country in the world, the country with the greatest amount of
opportunity ever available on the face of the earth, that finds their
predicament so depressing, you my man would have been eaten alive in the
middle ages, you would have never survived on the plains in the 1880's, and
you probably only survive (to whine) due to government assistance in the
year 2003.

JTMcC.

Strength comes not from the size of your armament,

Where in the world did I refer to armament???



but from the desire of the people to protect their way of life. With eroding standards of living,

I see no decline in standard of living, I see people with more of everything and the highest standard of living in the history of the world.


a general perception that the government is not working for the individual

I don't want the guverment to work for me, I want them to do what they are constitutionally mandated to do, and get out of my way.



, declining education, declining access to health care

Who, pray tell, in the U.S. is going without health care? Go to your local hospital emergency room, you will see a steady stream of welfare cases using the ER as their own personal doctor, for everything from minor scrapes to cold symptoms.



, etc, we risk declining security.

We risk declining security when we elect politicians more concerned with those sniveling that they just can't make it in the most prosperous land ever on earth, than they are with those enemies that plot and plan to destroy us.
JTMcC.





Koz (and yes it is a ramble, no it isn't suggestion communism or
government screwing business, just changing the focus to a broader
position of strength rather than a short-term position of maximizing
profits)

jim rozen wrote:


Today the business section of the NY Times had two interesting
articles. One was entitled: "Wall Street Shaken by US Job
Losses in August" and the other was front page, "Drop in Jobs
is Continuing: 93,000 Lost Last Month."

Excerpt from the first:

.... yesterday the labor department reported that while the
unemployment rate slipped to 6.1% in August, companies cut
payrolls by 93,000. The report was weaker than expected and
delivered mixed signals about the nation's overall economic
health. Wall Street was expecting jobs to increase 20,000
to 25,000, Mr. Hogan [chief market analyst at Jeffries and
Company] said.

"We are concerned about the jobs-creation part of the
economy," Mr. Hogan said.

The second article is highly remiscent of the discussions
that went on here on rcm in the past few months, here I
quote from that article:

... What suprises many economists is that the job-shedding
has continued despite what they describe as an extraordinary
level of economic stimulus. Low interest rates, tax cuts and
rebates, a rise in military spending, mortgage refinancings,
growing corporate profits, even a long-awaited improvement
in business spending on new equipment and software have all
all contributed to the rise in the economic growth rate.

But jobs are disappearing, and employers continue to resist
adding hours for their existing workers. Economists warn that
without payroll expansion and rising income from wages,
sustaining the economic growth will be difficult once the
stimulus weakens.

"If we go into next year without job growth, then the consumer's
willingness to keep spending comes into question, and recovery
is in danger of unwinding," said James W Paulsen, chief
investment strategist for Wells Capital Management.

Seeking an explaination for the job drought, some economists
call attention to the shifting of production overseas,
particulary to China, and to the american economy's rapid
gains in productivity. The productivity gains allow companies
to maintain the same level of production with fewer workers.

Both trends have proceeded at a stepped-up pace in recent months
so the economy, in response, may now have to expand at an
annual rate of 5 percent or more, simply to keep employment
levels stable, said Albert M. Wojnilower, economic consultant
and wall street forecaster. ....

The article also mentioned that about half of the 93 thousand
jobs lost were in the manufacturing areas.

Frankly it sounds to me like the company's dreams of increased
profit by shifting production overseas where labor rates are
very low is already showing signs of failure. My bet is that
the management in firms like that is driven by the pure and
simple desire to temporarily boost profits, so that they
can line their own pockets before the rent comes due. Yep,
plain old greed.

The problem that nobody anticipated is, the feedback time
constant is way, way too far short for this to work. To
boost their profits, they need to lay off american workers.
Sure the workers have some savings, but once you lay off
the worker, they stop buying - instantly, and almost
completely.

Which leaves no market for the goods that the companies are
trying to peddle. A lot of this stuff is about perception,
all a person needs to hear is that their friend has just
been laid off, and he thinks, "that could be me. I better
start tightening the belt now before it's too late."

Somebody has to knock these idiots' heads together
and holler in their ears, that NOBODY BUYS ANYTHING
WHEN THEY HAVE NO JOB. This seems simple but they
just ain't 'getting it.'

How much do folks want to be that the next big export
overseas to china is going to be those executives
themselves, when they discover that their efforts have
destroyed their companies - and the US economy as
well. I suspect they will also be making 1/20 of
their present salary or thereabout - IF china is
interested in hiring them. Otherwise it's off to the
rice farm for them.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Geez you people have a bad case of black or white thinking. Get a
grip and understand the some people speak of TRENDS, not all or nothing.
An example is only an example, not the end of the road.

...... wrote:

Most of China is MORE capitalistic than the USA.

This was speaking of culture. Them little buggers really know how to
wheel and deal.




The problem is that these businesses are owned outright by the Chinese
military, which unlike the US, is actually (not figuratively) actually
financially independent of any political accountability, even to its own
totalitarian government.

This is completely wrong. SOME are owned by the chinese government.
Some are partially owned by the chinese government. Most are freely
owned and generally by Japanese investors. Every dollar earned is NOT
spent on the military there. Although I don't have exact figures (I
doubt any one has), I would say a smaller percentage of their GDP goes
into military goodies than in the USA. A greater portion of the
military budget goes into personnel than the USA. IF you actually count
things like DOE sites that exist only to produce military goods, yet are
not part of the DOD budget, percentages of GDP spend on military goodies
in the USA are far greater than reported.




Much of the USA effectively has "slave labor" also.



These people are imprisoned for simply saying some innocuous religious or
philosophical statement, and are then worked to death in prison factories.
You have a lot of gall comparing their suffering to that of anyone in the
US.




Again, all or nothing statement. There are many examples of where this
has happened....There are many examples where this has happened in the
USA too. By percentage of population it probably isn't all that
different (if you believe the stories of many of those locked up in the
USA as willingly as you believe the same kinds of stories from those
locked up in China.)

China isn't great. However don't fall into the trap of demonizing based
on the claptrap that was shoveled to Americans through the years.

Fin

Koz (who promises to drop the whole thing now because it is just ****ing
people off anyway and is far off the original point)

I agree -

My Grandmother, taught classes in the classics and high grade English
and forced (somehow) the university to keep her on until her 85th when
the Board of Regents voted to retire her but allow here to come to
school
as needed. She continued for another 5 years and then spent most of the
time traveling and visiting family. She passed away post 100 years old.
Some fine lady she was.

My Dad, retired and started a software company. Kept it up and while he
was just sitting
around started a sign, custom cut type, company.

He retired from a Directorship and Chief Design Engineer (Hardware).
Still kicking around all of the time, I sent him a set of wrenches for
Christmas. :-)
Mom said they went into the truck just after breakfast!

Martin
--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

In article , jim rozen wrote:
In article , mikee says...

Fastest growing occupations:
2000-2010: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.t06.htm

this page looks like OLD NEWS, imho. probably a study published
in 1999 or 2000 and never up dated(?).

Doesn't look bad for computer professionals according to this list. One
wonders
whether they have factored in the global outsourcing of these jobs, also.

Agree - all but *two* of those occupations have that
vaguely similar aroma about them - that they can
trivially be shipped overseas, especially given that
the work product can be imported without the use of a
container ship! Jim

the business news (cable) channels and politicians have all
recently jumped on the fact that skilled jobs are "going overseas",
duh.... also very OLD news. --Loren

================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =

Wow! What are you smoking? Most Chinese shi*s outside in the field. If they
have toilets, the sewage doesn't travel very far from the source until it's
deposited on the ground.

Patriot? Name one other missile that has a documented kill rate like this one.
Abject failure? BS.

Slave labor in U.S.? Population in U.S. prisons is around 1+%. Hardly a
significant percentage from a manufacturing standpoint.

Taiwan no different from Iraq? Without reviewing some history, it's a lot
different.

China capitalistic? I certainly hope so. Maybe these poor SOB's will have a
future after all.

Mike Eberlein

Koz wrote:

Although I respect your opinion about "the red menace", there are a few
points to be made.

Most of China is MORE capitalistic than the USA. Although there are
large government subsidies (mostly for larger stuff and largely
indirect) etc, the majority of their economy runs in a similar
"business" mode to the USA. The subsidy issue also comes up in the USA:
A good example is increasing orders for Patriot Missle systems that are
an abject failure. Another example are the huge sums of money given to
the wine making industry to "market" products.

Much of the USA effectively has "slave labor" also. This varies from
the prison workforce (paid pennies on the dollar with large government
subsidies to market products) to the current changes in the overtime
laws (which the Dept of labor admits will cause loss of overtime for a
huge number and those who are no longer "exempt" from overtime are
expected to have wages lowered so there is no net gain...IE working
extra hours for free).

Finally, Are you saying that our threats against russia and china to
keep their hands out of the Iraq issue (not to supply aid to Iraq) and
the threats of "severe retribution" against those couontries if such
were to happen as being any different than the Taiwan Issue?

The pot calls the kettle black

Koz

..... wrote:

snip

Having said that, my concern is that our business with China is the classic
case of a free market selling communists the rope with which we will be
hanged. These people not only use slave labor to beat their economic
competitors, they are physically dangerous to us. When a major Chinese
general says that interference with their desire to absorb Taiwan will be
for them to nuke LA, this should not be dismissed, and we certainly
shouldn't be doing business with them.

"Dan Caster" wrote in message
m...
Part of my point is that it is not just jobs going overseas. You can
be competitive by being so efficent that labor is a small part of the
cost.

There's one point that's worth clarifying here, Dan. The direct labor in
manufacturing runs around 10 - 12% in many segments, and it's a common thing
to conclude that this can easily be overcome by improvements in
productivity.

But this assumes that all of the inputs to a product, including plant cost,
materials cost, transportation cost, and so on are freely traded or are
otherwise in reasonable balance around the world.

Not so. The fact is that, in a country like China, virtually all of those
costs are lower for the Chinese company. 80-cent/hour wage rates are paid in
manufacturing (that's a fairly high wage for them, overall), but also to the
truck driver who delivers the materials; to the rolling mill workers who
make the steel; to the miner who digs the ore out of the ground. And those
intermediate products aren't traded on world markets, because some of them
(such as transportation) are inherently local, and because the exports of
others are either not supported by government, or are not practical to trade
because the value-added is too small.

It makes the whole supply and service chain cheaper. There are some things
that China can produce for less than 10% of our costs overall. By the time
they get here the middlemen have taken a very healthy chunk, but the prices
are still so low that there is no possible way we could compete with them.

Ed Huntress

In article , Dan Caster says...

Part of my point is that it is not just jobs going overseas. You can
be competitive by being so efficent that labor is a small part of the
cost. Nucor does this. But the result is fewer jobs. So regardless
of whether the jobs go over seas or not, there are going to be fewer
manufacturing jobs. That does not mean that there is less being
manufactured.

So far so good. My comment was that if all the folks who
used to work at those jobs, which are now (for whatever
reason) not earning a wage, they will be unable to buy
anything, anywhere, because they have no money.

Less being manufactured, no. Not right away. But if the
stuff that is still being manufactured is sitting in the
warehouses, because it is no longer being sold, then they
*will* stop making more of it.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.net...
"John T. McCracken" wrote in message
...

"Koz" wrote in message
...
I just had to add a quick ramble here....

When 5% of the people hold 90% of the wealth in this country, most
business essentially operates to serve the interests of that 5%, not
the
other 90%.

I disagree, business operates to satisfy the stockholder, and today, in
the
U.S., that is every working stiff with a 401K or mutual fund investment,
plus a lot of small busnessmen who have their pension plan invested at
least
partially in stocks and bonds. The 1960's idea that only the idle rich
care
about stock prices is long gone, the man on the street is just as likely
to
check his investments as the tycoon.

You may want to consult the big stock holders about that. They'll tell you
that the businesses are run for the CEO's and other top executives,

The CEO and other top executives ARE the people that actually run the
company. The human element guaranties that some will operate in a corrupt
self serving manner. As we have seen, some of those will be caught, and
serve time in prison, in spite of previous fame or position. Most, will run
the business in a way to gain max benifit for the stockholder, that is where
the money comes from.


which is
the reason the SEC and the Justice Dept. are promoting a new plan that
gives
stockholders more say in the way the boards and the businesses are run.
It's
part of the court-imposed reorganization for MCI/WorldCom. Whether it's
adopted as SEC rules is problematic. Politically, it's not in the cards
right now, even though most experts agree it's necessary. It doesn't go
down
well with "free market" conservatives.

As for the 401K's, that's another myth. 85% of stock market wealth is held
by 20% of the people. The top 1% have 38% of the wealth (see this week's
issue of The Economist), and 10% to 15% of any big company's stock,
depending on the company, is usually enough to exercise control over a
board
of directors . The "working stiffs" are 'way down the totem pole. Wealthy
individuals and institutional investors

Those institutional investors are many times the "working stiff" that you
say has little influence, an example, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Jointers (the carpenters union), is a huge investment machine, they have
many billions to invest, all belonging to those working stiffs.

control the market. The 401K's are a
pile of money that other people use for their own purposes.

Of course they are! When you deposite money in the bank, buy a bond, or
invest in any vehicle available, someone is using your money for their own
purposes, that's the whole point. In return, I get a return.

The actual 401K
holder is just there for the ride. He can check his investments all he
wants
but his control over anything is largely illusory.

He has control over what he invests his money in. Of course he doesn't get
to run the company, he is an INVESTOR. He can and should expect a reasonable
return on his money, he gets to choose when and where and even if he
invests. If you want to have "control", then start and run a company. This
is totally seperate from the role of investor.


The result is that the overall goal is to result in "short
term" profitability rather than overall business strength.

I disagree again, you assume that a small cadre of ultra rich are
running
the country to suite their fancy.

They are at least running the economy to suit their fancy.

The facts are that those running business
today answer to almost the entire spectrum of American society, look at
the
Enron executives either doing time or about to do time, in prison.

Yes, please tell us about the Enron executives who are doing time. g
What
kind of time is Ken Lay doing? His last big stock sale netted him $101.3
million, which, by all accounts, he still has. It's probably some very
good
time indeed.

You let cases of unethical business practices taint the entire system. On
this planet you will NEVER be free of greed and corruption, the best you can
hope for is a reasonable amount of corrupt individuals being caught and
punished, hopefully persuading others that the choice to defraud and cheat
others is a poor choice that can lead to ruin.



This should reafirm your flagging belief in the free market system as
practiced
in America.

Superficial facts lead to superficial conclusions. Dig deep, and you will
find a lot of muck in the way our economy is presently operating.

Of course there is, just as in every human endeaver ever. It is however, in
my opinion, the best place in the world to do business, invest in business,
work for a business and patronize business. Rather than sit around pointing
out that the world is not fair (and it's not, and it never will be) I
choose to spend my time and efforts enjoying the benefits of living and
working in the most free nation ever to exist. And, I have to get back to
work now, running my evil empire.

The "free market" system has its ups and downs. As a principle, it has a
lot
going for it. If it were practiced according to the principles, it would
be
terrific.

Name me ONE economy in the world where you would rather try and excell,
outside the U.S. People die trying to reach the shore, not because of the
weather, because of the freedom, and freedom of opportunity.



But it's not, and the ways it's not are sometimes difficult to
root out. The facts are there, in financial reporting and economic
analysis,
but putting it all together and figuring out how it really works is not
something anyone can do from reports in the popular press or TV. It's a
cumulative thing you acquire from reading about corporate maneuverings at
the micro level, and about economic trends at the macro level. Even then,
the origins of power are not always easy to see.


Can you even
say that you are paid more and work about has hard as 20 years ago?

Of course I can.

As an individual, over a lifetime, of course you can expect to make more
money. But the wages in manufacturing, for example, have declined by 7.6%
in
real terms since 1972. Wasn't it all the "low-paying" jobs we were
supposed
to have sent to Mexico and China? Maybe someone made a mistake...

However, real *prices* for goods have actually declined quite a bit during
that time. We can buy more for the same money. It's not a simple issue.



As long as the government operates in a mode where decisions are made
with such a high focus on "short term profitability", as they
currently
do for that 5% who hold the 90% wealth, we will always be weak and
nationally insecure.

I am, and I believe WE are, neither. Keep your weakness and insecurity
to
your self, I am, and those I befriend and associate with, are NOT weak,
and
NOT insecure.

Attitude is important. Within the context we've been given, there's no
question that there are limitless opportunities, and a positive attitude
is
helpful in realizing them.

The valid argument here is over who is establishing the context. It isn't
easy to see from the ground. Given the opportunities we have, many of us
may
not care how the tune is being called. Many others do.

I pity anyone that thinks others are "calling their tune", you and only you
are responsible for your position in this life, given the limitations of
your circumstances. At no time on earth has a population had the freedom and
opportunity afforded you and I. I chose to try and take advantage of that
opportunity, knowing it is less than perfect. Indeed, power brokers wheel,
deal and operate at every level from my county planning and zoning dept. to
the highest levels of international banking. I know and recognize these
things, I don't however let them affect my ability to enjoy my short little
life or my pursuit of my version of the "American Dream". That will be my
last comment, as I really do have to get to work, have a good week!

JTMcC.

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

Lot's of good stuff snipped...

jim rozen wrote in message ...
Today the business section of the NY Times had two interesting...

For a very compelling and similar view check out this link... all on
one line

http://www.marke****ch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B21B5AD0D%2DC132%2D435F%2D8EF3%2D EB0F2D5630D9%7D&siteid=mktw

In article , John T. McCracken says...

You let cases of unethical business practices taint the entire system.

Not him, John. It's the regulatory agencies that allow this
to happen.

On
this planet you will NEVER be free of greed and corruption, the best you can
hope for is a reasonable amount of corrupt individuals being caught and
punished, hopefully persuading others that the choice to defraud and cheat
others is a poor choice that can lead to ruin.

So be reasonable, if you want to prevent punishment and corruption,
and punish those who engage in it, we should stop the present
plan of having govenment officials, whos job it is to do this,
be ultimately beholding to the CEOs of these corporations.

To put it simply, we got the foxes guarding the henhouse.

Until this changes, it's going to be business as usual.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , John T. McCracken says...

JTMcC, who wants the guverment to get out of his way, NOT to help him.

Well you would not do well as the head of one of those
corporations like Haliburton or Exxon-Mobil or any
of the airlines right now.

They've *all* got their hand out for the gummint to
'help' them, or whatever they call the call to return
the favor once they get their pet politico elected.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"mikee" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure I believe some of these statements:

First: 85% - 20%. Sounds like a restatement of the 80/20 rule. Unless
someone
has a database with over 270+ million names in it (US only now), with
direct
ties to their investments, I think this is voodoo (bogus) journalism.
Let's see
some facts here. And I dare them to make the info public domain, peer
reviewed,
etc.

1% - 38% wealth. Same argument One could ask the question "are these
individuals or instuitions that control this wealth?" Where's the data
(beef)?

10%-15% control. This could be true, but stockholders have a nasty habit
of
dumping companies that don't show a profit reflected in increased stock
value,
or pay dividends, and in the good old US that works quite well as a
coporate
firing squad.

Can you site documented sources to verify? (something more than some
British
periodical)?

For 1 and 2 above, The Economist, Sept. 6th - 12th 2003, p. 28. For 3 above,
a ten-year subscription to The Wall Street Journal, to be read every
morning.


Ed, this sounds like a Democrat (gasp) commercial.

You want a Republican commercial? I've been interviewing people inside the
Dept. of Defense and the House Armed Services Committee for a week. I can do
Republican commercials. g

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.net...
"mikee" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure I believe some of these statements:

First: 85% - 20%. Sounds like a restatement of the 80/20 rule. Unless
someone
has a database with over 270+ million names in it (US only now), with
direct
ties to their investments, I think this is voodoo (bogus) journalism.
Let's see
some facts here. And I dare them to make the info public domain, peer
reviewed,
etc.

1% - 38% wealth. Same argument One could ask the question "are these
individuals or instuitions that control this wealth?" Where's the data
(beef)?

10%-15% control. This could be true, but stockholders have a nasty
habit
of
dumping companies that don't show a profit reflected in increased stock
value,
or pay dividends, and in the good old US that works quite well as a
coporate
firing squad.

Can you site documented sources to verify? (something more than some
British
periodical)?

For 1 and 2 above, The Economist, Sept. 6th - 12th 2003, p. 28. For 3
above,
a ten-year subscription to The Wall Street Journal, to be read every
morning.


Ed, this sounds like a Democrat (gasp) commercial.

You want a Republican commercial? I've been interviewing people inside the
Dept. of Defense and the House Armed Services Committee for a week. I can
do
Republican commercials. g

If you are in the beltway, and these are the type of folks you spend your
day with, it's no wonder your thinking is so.......skewed.

JTMcC, in flyover country, where the real people live.




Ed Huntress

"John T. McCracken" wrote in message
...

If you are in the beltway,...

NYC suburbs, actually.

...and these are the type of folks you spend your
day with, it's no wonder your thinking is so.......skewed.

JTMcC, in flyover country, where the real people live.

Ah, that explains it. You get different additions of The Economist and the
Wall Street Journal out there, The Flypaper Editions, printed with special
sensitivity for people in Flyover Country, including shorter words and
bigger type.

Listen, JT, your sarcasm falls a little flat if your idea of an argument is
that you know more about what you're talking about because you live in
flypaper country. As soon as you opened your mouth I could tell that you've
been raised on a diet of sophomoric aphorisms about economics, but I was
trying to be polite.

Now, do you want sarcasm, and to act like a bumpkin, or do you want to talk
about those economic ideas you raised? I can do sarcasm, if that's what you
want. But I'd rather not.

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.net...
"John T. McCracken" wrote in message
...

If you are in the beltway,...

NYC suburbs, actually.

...and these are the type of folks you spend your
day with, it's no wonder your thinking is so.......skewed.

JTMcC, in flyover country, where the real people live.

This is where a little sense of humor would do wonders.


Ah, that explains it. You get different additions of The Economist and the
Wall Street Journal out there, The Flypaper Editions, printed with special
sensitivity for people in Flyover Country, including shorter words and
bigger type.

As I said, it WAS A JOKE.


Listen, JT, your sarcasm falls a little flat if your idea of an argument
is
that you know more about what you're talking about because you live in
flypaper country.

Again, a joke!!!


As soon as you opened your mouth I could tell that you've
been raised on a diet of sophomoric aphorisms about economics, but I was
trying to be polite.

Now, do you want sarcasm, and to act like a bumpkin, or do you want to
talk
about those economic ideas you raised? I can do sarcasm, if that's what
you
want. But I'd rather not.

Ed Huntress

Man oh man, it's a newsgroup for crying out loud. Lots of folks from whacko
to whatever the other end of the spectrum from wacko is.
You are not solving the problems of the world here, you are visiting, (
hopefully in a slightly educational and enjoyable way ) with people you
don't know. The only price of admission is having a hooked up 'putor. Some
people will have well thought out ideas, some won't. Some are misguided,
others aren't. Some will agree with me, some won't. It is just a (sometimes
lively, but in the overall scheme of things unimportant) conversation.
Don't take it so personal, and yes, maybe my Wall Street Journal is a
simpler edition, for my simple little rural mind. As far as being "raised on
a diet of sophomoric aphorisms", we don't much like french food around
here.

have a good week,
JTMcC.

In article , John T. McCracken says...

Personally I think we face a much greater threat from politicians promising
every freebie possible (and yes, we understand that they aren't free) and
desireable to those that vote based solely on "what are you going to give
ME, the government owes ME".

John you seem to be missing the bus here.

Sure the politicians promise the voters XYZ from here
to sunday. But they never deliver. They don't have to.

The real influence happens behind the scenes, where
millions of dollars gets dumped into the campaign
funds. In some cases it doesn't matter *who* wins
because they contribute to both sides.

And trust me on this, if you've donated millions to
get a politician elected, they *will* do what you tell
them to. This is how goverment works now, and anyone
who dithers around talking republican vs democrat,
liberal vs conservative, has just been given the biggest
smoke job you can imagine.

You may think that 'liberal' politicians are the
antichrist of goverment. My personal take is, that
corporate welfare, company bailouts, and the lack
of regulatory oversight on so many of these entities
that answer to nobody is the real trouble in the US
right now.

Power failures, gas shortages, or airline bailouts,
anyone?

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================