After following some of the links showing job loss and productivity gains,
it's quite depressing, I've come to the conclusion that one of my main goals
has been to eliminate employees' jobs. In the past year I have eliminated 3
people and outsourced semi-finished goods from other American companies at
least. But guess what? Boxes of parts don't have mood swings, PMS,
holidays, don't have to be heated or cooled, and NO SCRAP! They come in at
a set cost with out the variables. Kind of sad that I can no longer devote
the HR to barely breaking even ...on good days. But, specialized suppliers
can do so much better due to their economy of scale than I can.

My newest built machine will eliminate 2 more jobs and a hefty bonus
structure. I just came to realize that the next 3 projects will be such a
boost in productivity that 4 or 5 more jobs are in jeopardy. So does this
make me a bad guy? I don't really think so, but multiply this around the
country and that's a LOT of jobs lost with a net gain in products produced.
So, who's going to have money to BUY products in the future?

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
After following some of the links showing job loss and productivity gains,
it's quite depressing, I've come to the conclusion that one of my main
goals
has been to eliminate employees' jobs. In the past year I have eliminated
3
people and outsourced semi-finished goods from other American companies at
least. But guess what? Boxes of parts don't have mood swings, PMS,
holidays, don't have to be heated or cooled, and NO SCRAP! They come in
at
a set cost with out the variables. Kind of sad that I can no longer
devote
the HR to barely breaking even ...on good days. But, specialized
suppliers
can do so much better due to their economy of scale than I can.

I wouldn't say you're part of the problem, Tom. Outsourcing and productivity
improvements are part of the game. If it occurs gradually, the economy
adapts, we all benefit from the improved productivity, and life goes on.

The problems are surges of imports, companies chasing low wages around the
world and shutting down US plants to do so, and foreign countries
manipulating the factors of production for the purpose of predatory pricing.
It's a combination of profiteering and predation. When the numbers behind
those phenomena get large, we wind up with industries that, suddenly and
overwhelmingly, become non-competitive

Ed Huntress

it's quite depressing, I've come to the conclusion that one of my main
goals
has been to eliminate employees' jobs.

A good deal of my career has also been to eliminate jobs. But, as
justification, most of those were jobs that people shouldn't be doing anyway.

Working at GTE Sylvania in Maine, it seemed that every time we grew more
efficient, we had to take on more people because we could cut costs on are
automotive and lighting products.

The present job is a machine to place hangers on plant pots. Doesn't sound
like much of a deal except that a greenhouse might have to do 6 million of
these in a short growing season. Rows of ladies lined up ruining their wrists
is not a pleasant sight. Automation is a real plus here even though some might
not have this low paying job. There are lots of other examples where
automation benefits people and society over the long haul.

Earle Rich
Mont Vernon, NH

Thanks. I am college educated and unemployed for two years. Take a bow.

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
After following some of the links showing job loss and productivity gains,
it's quite depressing, I've come to the conclusion that one of my main
goals
has been to eliminate employees' jobs. In the past year I have eliminated
3
people and outsourced semi-finished goods from other American companies at
least. But guess what? Boxes of parts don't have mood swings, PMS,
holidays, don't have to be heated or cooled, and NO SCRAP! They come in
at
a set cost with out the variables. Kind of sad that I can no longer
devote
the HR to barely breaking even ...on good days. But, specialized
suppliers
can do so much better due to their economy of scale than I can.

My newest built machine will eliminate 2 more jobs and a hefty bonus
structure. I just came to realize that the next 3 projects will be such a
boost in productivity that 4 or 5 more jobs are in jeopardy. So does this
make me a bad guy? I don't really think so, but multiply this around the
country and that's a LOT of jobs lost with a net gain in products
produced.
So, who's going to have money to BUY products in the future?

"George" wrote in message
...
Thanks. I am college educated and unemployed for two years. Take a bow.

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
After following some of the links showing job loss and productivity
gains,
it's quite depressing, I've come to the conclusion that one of my main
goals
has been to eliminate employees' jobs. In the past year I have
eliminated
3
people and outsourced semi-finished goods from other American companies
at
least. But guess what? Boxes of parts don't have mood swings, PMS,
holidays, don't have to be heated or cooled, and NO SCRAP! They come
in
at
a set cost with out the variables. Kind of sad that I can no longer
devote
the HR to barely breaking even ...on good days. But, specialized
suppliers
can do so much better due to their economy of scale than I can.

My newest built machine will eliminate 2 more jobs and a hefty bonus
structure. I just came to realize that the next 3 projects will be such
a
boost in productivity that 4 or 5 more jobs are in jeopardy. So does
this
make me a bad guy? I don't really think so, but multiply this around
the
country and that's a LOT of jobs lost with a net gain in products
produced.
So, who's going to have money to BUY products in the future?




But you still have internet?

"Bill Bright" wrote in message
...

"George" wrote in message
...
Thanks. I am college educated and unemployed for two years. Take a
bow.

But you still have internet?


He doesn't tell us in which field he's educated.

Tom, perhaps with all these jobs being taken over by machines, you have
other duties for these surplus employees to attend to? I suppose it's
difficult if they're no/semiskill.. Or are they tradespeople/professionals?
Who's head's on the block?

Regards,

Robin

"Bill Bright" wrote in message
...

"George" wrote in message
...
Thanks. I am college educated and unemployed for two years. Take a
bow.

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
After following some of the links showing job loss and productivity
gains,
it's quite depressing, I've come to the conclusion that one of my main
goals
has been to eliminate employees' jobs. In the past year I have
eliminated
3
people and outsourced semi-finished goods from other American
companies
at
least. But guess what? Boxes of parts don't have mood swings, PMS,
holidays, don't have to be heated or cooled, and NO SCRAP! They come
in
at
a set cost with out the variables. Kind of sad that I can no longer
devote
the HR to barely breaking even ...on good days. But, specialized
suppliers
can do so much better due to their economy of scale than I can.

My newest built machine will eliminate 2 more jobs and a hefty bonus
structure. I just came to realize that the next 3 projects will be
such
a
boost in productivity that 4 or 5 more jobs are in jeopardy. So does
this
make me a bad guy? I don't really think so, but multiply this around
the
country and that's a LOT of jobs lost with a net gain in products
produced.
So, who's going to have money to BUY products in the future?




But you still have internet?


I have a high tech background...I consider it a necessity in searching for a
high tech job. Things like cable tv and new cars are a luxury, internet
access is a necessity.

"Bill Bright" wrote in message
...

"George" wrote in message
...
Thanks. I am college educated and unemployed for two years. Take a
bow.

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
After following some of the links showing job loss and productivity
gains,
it's quite depressing, I've come to the conclusion that one of my main
goals
has been to eliminate employees' jobs. In the past year I have
eliminated
3
people and outsourced semi-finished goods from other American
companies
at
least. But guess what? Boxes of parts don't have mood swings, PMS,
holidays, don't have to be heated or cooled, and NO SCRAP! They come
in
at
a set cost with out the variables. Kind of sad that I can no longer
devote
the HR to barely breaking even ...on good days. But, specialized
suppliers
can do so much better due to their economy of scale than I can.

My newest built machine will eliminate 2 more jobs and a hefty bonus
structure. I just came to realize that the next 3 projects will be
such
a
boost in productivity that 4 or 5 more jobs are in jeopardy. So does
this
make me a bad guy? I don't really think so, but multiply this around
the
country and that's a LOT of jobs lost with a net gain in products
produced.
So, who's going to have money to BUY products in the future?




But you still have internet?


Again about the high tech background...if I had a metalworking background,
I'd probably be employed by now around here.

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:59:38 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

After following some of the links showing job loss and productivity gains,
it's quite depressing, I've come to the conclusion that one of my main goals
has been to eliminate employees' jobs. In the past year I have eliminated 3
people and outsourced semi-finished goods from other American companies at
least. But guess what? Boxes of parts don't have mood swings, PMS,
holidays, don't have to be heated or cooled, and NO SCRAP! They come in at
a set cost with out the variables. Kind of sad that I can no longer devote
the HR to barely breaking even ...on good days. But, specialized suppliers
can do so much better due to their economy of scale than I can.

You're a lot luckier than Lockheed-Martin has been with outsourcing.
We've done a lot of it, and have discovered that our suppliers have
all the same quality problems we do, and in return for lower costs, we
get reduced ability to correct any little problems that arise.

Since little problems can result in 40 ton missiles landing in your
backyard, this is something of an issue for me...

Al Moore

"Robin S." wrote in message
.. .

"Bill Bright" wrote in message
...

"George" wrote in message
...
Thanks. I am college educated and unemployed for two years. Take a
bow.

But you still have internet?


He doesn't tell us in which field he's educated.

Tom, perhaps with all these jobs being taken over by machines, you have
other duties for these surplus employees to attend to? I suppose it's
difficult if they're no/semiskill.. Or are they
tradespeople/professionals?
Who's head's on the block?

Regards,

Robin


B.S.E., electrical engineering (from a top 10 engineering
college)...background is automated electronic test. Ironically, the kind of
automation I was involved in hasn't displaced people in the last 10-15 years
(it did initially) instead merely kept from creating rather mundane,
repetitive jobs in favor of creating (fewer) jobs that required "super"
techs to fill them.

In article , Alan Moore says...

Since little problems can result in 40 ton missiles landing in your
backyard, this is something of an issue for me...

Not to mention those pesky satallite gravitation problems.
"Geeze, I guess they outsourced those 24 bolts!"

Jim

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

George, no matter what, you won't do the part "A" into part "B" job for min+
wages will you? One of the big problems some people (politicians and
political people) have is that they don't realize that there is a NEED for
these jobs to provide income and satisfaction to a whole class of people
that really, really can't DO anything else. I have people that can't count,
read a tape measure, have never had a checking or savings account... they
live paycheck to paycheck but help support a family and community. I see
the only other alternative to these lower end jobs is to suck the public
teat. No satisfaction in that for people at all.

"George" wrote in message
...
Thanks. I am college educated and unemployed for two years. Take a bow.

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
After following some of the links showing job loss and productivity
gains,
it's quite depressing, I've come to the conclusion that one of my main
goals
has been to eliminate employees' jobs. In the past year I have
eliminated
3
people and outsourced semi-finished goods from other American companies
at
least. But guess what? Boxes of parts don't have mood swings, PMS,
holidays, don't have to be heated or cooled, and NO SCRAP! They come
in
at
a set cost with out the variables. Kind of sad that I can no longer
devote
the HR to barely breaking even ...on good days. But, specialized
suppliers
can do so much better due to their economy of scale than I can.

My newest built machine will eliminate 2 more jobs and a hefty bonus
structure. I just came to realize that the next 3 projects will be such
a
boost in productivity that 4 or 5 more jobs are in jeopardy. So does
this
make me a bad guy? I don't really think so, but multiply this around
the
country and that's a LOT of jobs lost with a net gain in products
produced.
So, who's going to have money to BUY products in the future?

Actually you are part of the solution if you can do what the "theory"
says. Take all that extra profit and start an R&D project. Use the
excess labor to push the paper and get ISO9001 certified. Invest
another couple hundred $K setting up international marketing chanels and
start exporting. The theory says that is how we balance the trade
situation.

Oddly, we have such a situation here in Macon. Small job shop serving
the kaolin industry here developed a special ball mill for processing
chalk. The owner did an industry and trade junket to some place in
Africa and found a market for the mill. Now he is sending beer drinkin'
South Georgia good ol' boys to places like Celon, Indonesia and China to
install his mills. Just added 40,000 more feet to the shop, a couple
million in machines and hired 8 more machinist.

That is how it is supposed to work but it is the exception rather than
the rule.

Tom Gardner wrote:

After following some of the links showing job loss and productivity gains,
it's quite depressing, I've come to the conclusion that one of my main goals
has been to eliminate employees' jobs. In the past year I have eliminated 3
people and outsourced semi-finished goods from other American companies at
least. But guess what? Boxes of parts don't have mood swings, PMS,
holidays, don't have to be heated or cooled, and NO SCRAP! They come in at
a set cost with out the variables. Kind of sad that I can no longer devote
the HR to barely breaking even ...on good days. But, specialized suppliers
can do so much better due to their economy of scale than I can.

My newest built machine will eliminate 2 more jobs and a hefty bonus
structure. I just came to realize that the next 3 projects will be such a
boost in productivity that 4 or 5 more jobs are in jeopardy. So does this
make me a bad guy? I don't really think so, but multiply this around the
country and that's a LOT of jobs lost with a net gain in products produced.
So, who's going to have money to BUY products in the future?



--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

Your industry has it's own stupid rules that hog-tie people with synapses
that still fire. I have heard that you can't make simple, logical
improvements to a system without masive re-quallifying expences. "Oh no, we
can't use that chip with a higher heat rating even though it's exactly the
same part and will cure the problem forever." Cheaper is not always
cheaper...is it.

"Alan Moore" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:59:38 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

After following some of the links showing job loss and productivity
gains,
it's quite depressing, I've come to the conclusion that one of my main
goals
has been to eliminate employees' jobs. In the past year I have
eliminated 3
people and outsourced semi-finished goods from other American companies
at
least. But guess what? Boxes of parts don't have mood swings, PMS,
holidays, don't have to be heated or cooled, and NO SCRAP! They come in
at
a set cost with out the variables. Kind of sad that I can no longer
devote
the HR to barely breaking even ...on good days. But, specialized
suppliers
can do so much better due to their economy of scale than I can.

You're a lot luckier than Lockheed-Martin has been with outsourcing.
We've done a lot of it, and have discovered that our suppliers have
all the same quality problems we do, and in return for lower costs, we
get reduced ability to correct any little problems that arise.

Since little problems can result in 40 ton missiles landing in your
backyard, this is something of an issue for me...

Al Moore

"George"
B.S.E., electrical engineering (from a top 10 engineering
college)...background is automated electronic test. Ironically, the kind
of
automation I was involved in hasn't displaced people in the last 10-15
years
(it did initially) instead merely kept from creating rather mundane,
repetitive jobs in favor of creating (fewer) jobs that required "super"
techs to fill them.



What part of the world do you live?
Could you work for "super tech" wages?
Sorta the compromise that is made from time to time, all the time.

My thought is that you are only doing half of your job. One of the
main goals is to reduce the work required by your employees per unit
produced. But the other half is to either sell more of what you make,
or make more different things. I know! Easy to say, lots harder to
do.

Dan


"Tom Gardner" wrote in message ...
After following some of the links showing job loss and productivity gains,
it's quite depressing, I've come to the conclusion that one of my main goals
has been to eliminate employees' jobs. In the past year I have eliminated 3
people and outsourced semi-finished goods from other American companies at
least. But guess what? Boxes of parts don't have mood swings, PMS,
holidays, don't have to be heated or cooled, and NO SCRAP! They come in at
a set cost with out the variables. Kind of sad that I can no longer devote
the HR to barely breaking even ...on good days. But, specialized suppliers
can do so much better due to their economy of scale than I can.

My newest built machine will eliminate 2 more jobs and a hefty bonus
structure. I just came to realize that the next 3 projects will be such a
boost in productivity that 4 or 5 more jobs are in jeopardy. So does this
make me a bad guy? I don't really think so, but multiply this around the
country and that's a LOT of jobs lost with a net gain in products produced.
So, who's going to have money to BUY products in the future?

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:59:38 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


My newest built machine will eliminate 2 more jobs and a hefty bonus
structure. I just came to realize that the next 3 projects will be such a
boost in productivity that 4 or 5 more jobs are in jeopardy. So does this
make me a bad guy? I don't really think so, but multiply this around the
country and that's a LOT of jobs lost with a net gain in products produced.
So, who's going to have money to BUY products in the future?

I wrote this on a similar thread on another newsgroup yesterday:

design, electronics, computer networking, management and scheduling, and a
variety of other skills. That is, the people like me who could get 20% more
out of the very expensive equipment than the ambitious uneducated schlubs
who usually are the cream of the crop on a factory floor.

Put that together with the fact that productivity has soared in the
manufacturing base that is left and you can see the future. I have.

It happened in agriculture. It's happening now in computer-controlled
manufacturing.

"Ayup. The US is STILL the leader in productivity. The recession is
nearly over. Manufacturing is coming back. However..there are a ****
load of jobs that will never be regained in manufacturing, as the
surviving US companies, in an effort to weather the recession, and the
sucking sound as work goes out of the country, have learned to work
smarter, and faster, and with less labor.

What used to be manufactured in the 60s, on manual lathes and mills,
over the course of a couple hours, by $25 hr machinists, , is now
manufactured in 30 seconds by a single machine, with a $11hr operator.

Its only going to get worse for employees who didnt keep pace with
technology. But then..this is old news. Technology has always
outpaced the worker. The textile mill turning thousands of yards of
material replaced the hand weaver and his 5 yrds a day. The mechanic
whom repaired milk wagons and shoes milk horses, was replaced by an
auto mechanic. The Ice Cutter whom cut lake ice, moved it and stored
it in the winter, has been replaced by refridgeration. The draftsman
has been replaced by the CadCam guy. The list is endless.

One has to either be able to keep up with technology, or find a
special niche, or retrain for a new trade a number of times in his
life. The joys and pain of the modern world.

Its not helped either, that labor is the #1 expense behind virtually
all products. And the more the labor costs, due to bennies, wages,
unions etc etc..the more incentive the company has to reduce labor as
much as possible. If a trained machinest, gets $60,000 a year, and he
can be replaced by a $60,000 machine, which does 100x the work, with
no wastage...and you had to both compete with Turd world labor, and
answer to the stockholders..what would you do? Keep the machinist or
buy TWO of those $60k machines?

Gunner, CNC machine tool tech."

I made $22k gross last year, after the big machine tool slump. My
overhead was $23k.
If Im really lucky..and sell a couple more machines out of my back
yard, unplug a few more toilets, and patch another roof or two..I
might gross $27k by the time this year is over. Of course..my overhead
is now $25k, and my kid and his pregnant new wife moved in, my wife
still is in deep **** medically, and so forth. I turned 50 on the
11th, and I live in a dying town, but have to keep a place in $o.Cal
to work out of. This does not include all the back medical bills and
taxes the wife dumped on me...

So Im screwed no matter what I do. Shrug. Im no different than any
of the weavers, wool sorters, horseshoe makers and milk wagon
mechanics through out history. We either die in poverty, or find some
gig to keep the wolf from the door. One of the reasons Im a
survivalist, and live frugally. **** does happen, both in society and
in real life. Not a day goes by that I, and most here, dont listen for
that other shoe to fall. All we can do is the best we can, and keep
looking and preparing for that niche. And bitching about it doesnt do
a damned bit of good.

Gunner



"The British attitude is to treat society like a game preserve where a
certain percentage of the 'antelope' are expected to be eaten by the
"lions".
Christopher Morton

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:00:25 -0500, "George"
wrote:


"Bill Bright" wrote in message
...

"George" wrote in message
...
Thanks. I am college educated and unemployed for two years. Take a
bow.

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
After following some of the links showing job loss and productivity
gains,
it's quite depressing, I've come to the conclusion that one of my main
goals
has been to eliminate employees' jobs. In the past year I have
eliminated
3
people and outsourced semi-finished goods from other American
companies
at
least. But guess what? Boxes of parts don't have mood swings, PMS,
holidays, don't have to be heated or cooled, and NO SCRAP! They come
in
at
a set cost with out the variables. Kind of sad that I can no longer
devote
the HR to barely breaking even ...on good days. But, specialized
suppliers
can do so much better due to their economy of scale than I can.

My newest built machine will eliminate 2 more jobs and a hefty bonus
structure. I just came to realize that the next 3 projects will be
such
a
boost in productivity that 4 or 5 more jobs are in jeopardy. So does
this
make me a bad guy? I don't really think so, but multiply this around
the
country and that's a LOT of jobs lost with a net gain in products
produced.
So, who's going to have money to BUY products in the future?




But you still have internet?


I have a high tech background...I consider it a necessity in searching for a
high tech job. Things like cable tv and new cars are a luxury, internet
access is a necessity.

Quite true. Plus its cheap entertainment..far cheaper than cable tv.
Which I dont have btw.

Gunner

"The British attitude is to treat society like a game preserve where a
certain percentage of the 'antelope' are expected to be eaten by the
"lions".
Christopher Morton

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:00:25 -0500, "George"
wrote:
big snip---
But you still have internet?


I have a high tech background...I consider it a necessity in searching
for a
high tech job. Things like cable tv and new cars are a luxury, internet
access is a necessity.

Quite true. Plus its cheap entertainment..far cheaper than cable tv.
Which I dont have btw.

Gunner

Yep, same with the Vordos household. I refuse to toss over $400/year for tv
programming, then be subjected to commercials endlessly. What little tv we
watch, aside from news, is generally recorded and then watched at a more
convenient time, bypassing all the advertising. I don't give a damn that
advertising pays the tab, if I have to choose between watching those lame,
insulting, head banging commercials and not watching tv, I'll take the
silence and some good jazz on the stereo in its place anytime.

Harold

George scribed in
:

Thanks. I am college educated and unemployed for two years. Take
a bow.

ever considered taking a job you are not qualified for? they're out
there, you just gotta be willign to take them even though they're
'not your thing'

then you can go from there

or, you could start your own business and employ others. then you
can take a bow (-:

swarf, steam and wind

--
David Forsyth -:- the email address is real /"\
http://terrapin.ru.ac.za/~iwdf/welcome.html \ /
ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail - - - - - - - X
If you receive email saying "Send this to everyone you know," / \
PLEASE pretend you don't know me.

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:59:38 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

After following some of the links showing job loss and productivity gains,
it's quite depressing, I've come to the conclusion that one of my main goals
has been to eliminate employees' jobs. In the past year I have eliminated 3
people and outsourced semi-finished goods from other American companies at
least. But guess what? Boxes of parts don't have mood swings, PMS,
holidays, don't have to be heated or cooled, and NO SCRAP! They come in at
a set cost with out the variables. Kind of sad that I can no longer devote
the HR to barely breaking even ...on good days. But, specialized suppliers
can do so much better due to their economy of scale than I can.

But Tom, think positively. You are under pressure from customers
to keep your prices reasonable.
By becoming more efficient you can do that and employ say 10
people instead of 20, so 10 lose their jobs, which is a shame. But,
on the positive side, you are still employing and providing jobs for
10, whereas if you could not compete, you would go broke and not have
any employees, so 20 jobs lost and you would have no income for
yourself.
Alan
in beautiful Golden Bay, Western Oz, South 32.25.42, East 115.45.44 GMT+8
VK6 YAB ICQ 6581610 to reply, change oz to au in address

Yea, it was your threads I was following. A good friend of mine and
sometimes consultant for special projects sums it up thus: " It's a circle
of guys polishing each other's shoes and everyone gets a little polish 'till
its gone but nobody is making any polish...the system is not sustainable."
I'm really having doubts if this industrial revolution thing was the right
way to go. What are people going to do when they run out of polish?


"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:59:38 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


My newest built machine will eliminate 2 more jobs and a hefty bonus
structure. I just came to realize that the next 3 projects will be such
a
boost in productivity that 4 or 5 more jobs are in jeopardy. So does
this
make me a bad guy? I don't really think so, but multiply this around the
country and that's a LOT of jobs lost with a net gain in products
produced.
So, who's going to have money to BUY products in the future?

I wrote this on a similar thread on another newsgroup yesterday:

design, electronics, computer networking, management and scheduling, and
a
variety of other skills. That is, the people like me who could get 20%
more
out of the very expensive equipment than the ambitious uneducated schlubs
who usually are the cream of the crop on a factory floor.

Put that together with the fact that productivity has soared in the
manufacturing base that is left and you can see the future. I have.

It happened in agriculture. It's happening now in computer-controlled
manufacturing.

"Ayup. The US is STILL the leader in productivity. The recession is
nearly over. Manufacturing is coming back. However..there are a ****
load of jobs that will never be regained in manufacturing, as the
surviving US companies, in an effort to weather the recession, and the
sucking sound as work goes out of the country, have learned to work
smarter, and faster, and with less labor.

What used to be manufactured in the 60s, on manual lathes and mills,
over the course of a couple hours, by $25 hr machinists, , is now
manufactured in 30 seconds by a single machine, with a $11hr operator.

Its only going to get worse for employees who didnt keep pace with
technology. But then..this is old news. Technology has always
outpaced the worker. The textile mill turning thousands of yards of
material replaced the hand weaver and his 5 yrds a day. The mechanic
whom repaired milk wagons and shoes milk horses, was replaced by an
auto mechanic. The Ice Cutter whom cut lake ice, moved it and stored
it in the winter, has been replaced by refridgeration. The draftsman
has been replaced by the CadCam guy. The list is endless.

One has to either be able to keep up with technology, or find a
special niche, or retrain for a new trade a number of times in his
life. The joys and pain of the modern world.

Its not helped either, that labor is the #1 expense behind virtually
all products. And the more the labor costs, due to bennies, wages,
unions etc etc..the more incentive the company has to reduce labor as
much as possible. If a trained machinest, gets $60,000 a year, and he
can be replaced by a $60,000 machine, which does 100x the work, with
no wastage...and you had to both compete with Turd world labor, and
answer to the stockholders..what would you do? Keep the machinist or
buy TWO of those $60k machines?

Gunner, CNC machine tool tech."

I made $22k gross last year, after the big machine tool slump. My
overhead was $23k.
If Im really lucky..and sell a couple more machines out of my back
yard, unplug a few more toilets, and patch another roof or two..I
might gross $27k by the time this year is over. Of course..my overhead
is now $25k, and my kid and his pregnant new wife moved in, my wife
still is in deep **** medically, and so forth. I turned 50 on the
11th, and I live in a dying town, but have to keep a place in $o.Cal
to work out of. This does not include all the back medical bills and
taxes the wife dumped on me...

So Im screwed no matter what I do. Shrug. Im no different than any
of the weavers, wool sorters, horseshoe makers and milk wagon
mechanics through out history. We either die in poverty, or find some
gig to keep the wolf from the door. One of the reasons Im a
survivalist, and live frugally. **** does happen, both in society and
in real life. Not a day goes by that I, and most here, dont listen for
that other shoe to fall. All we can do is the best we can, and keep
looking and preparing for that niche. And bitching about it doesnt do
a damned bit of good.

Gunner



"The British attitude is to treat society like a game preserve where a
certain percentage of the 'antelope' are expected to be eaten by the
"lions".
Christopher Morton

If I EVER do the ISO thing, please shoot me! I have cherry-picked some good
things from ISO but mostly it's just a way to exclude suppliers from the
"Boyz Club" I'm certainly no expert on it but any system that excludes
(un)common sense... I was always taught that "Quality" was a subjective
thing. It's not the highest quality for the application, it's the RIGHT
quality for the application. It still should be the right mix of
"rightquality", price and service that counts. My industry is mature and
shrinking, there ARE no frontiers. Participants gain market share with
buy-outs, improve productivity with technology, and out-source volume items
to China. I'm still concerned who is going to buy my industrial products
when industry is gone or who is going to buy ANYTHING with a burger-flipping
income, or who is going to be able to afford burgers?


"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:UQfub.6538$0K4.2929@lakeread04...
Actually you are part of the solution if you can do what the "theory"
says. Take all that extra profit and start an R&D project. Use the
excess labor to push the paper and get ISO9001 certified. Invest
another couple hundred $K setting up international marketing chanels and
start exporting. The theory says that is how we balance the trade
situation.

Oddly, we have such a situation here in Macon. Small job shop serving
the kaolin industry here developed a special ball mill for processing
chalk. The owner did an industry and trade junket to some place in
Africa and found a market for the mill. Now he is sending beer drinkin'
South Georgia good ol' boys to places like Celon, Indonesia and China to
install his mills. Just added 40,000 more feet to the shop, a couple
million in machines and hired 8 more machinist.

That is how it is supposed to work but it is the exception rather than
the rule.

Tom Gardner wrote:

After following some of the links showing job loss and productivity
gains,
it's quite depressing, I've come to the conclusion that one of my main
goals
has been to eliminate employees' jobs. In the past year I have
eliminated 3
people and outsourced semi-finished goods from other American companies
at
least. But guess what? Boxes of parts don't have mood swings, PMS,
holidays, don't have to be heated or cooled, and NO SCRAP! They come
in at
a set cost with out the variables. Kind of sad that I can no longer
devote
the HR to barely breaking even ...on good days. But, specialized
suppliers
can do so much better due to their economy of scale than I can.

My newest built machine will eliminate 2 more jobs and a hefty bonus
structure. I just came to realize that the next 3 projects will be such
a
boost in productivity that 4 or 5 more jobs are in jeopardy. So does
this
make me a bad guy? I don't really think so, but multiply this around
the
country and that's a LOT of jobs lost with a net gain in products
produced.
So, who's going to have money to BUY products in the future?



--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

9001 is largely BS but unfortunately we will have to bite the bullet and
do it if we want to get any export business. My software is ISO9001. I
have a $50,000 300+ page document that is growing every day full of crap
that says so. I had to do it to keep a couple of clients in Bermuda but
the customers are international banks that don't seem to think money is
actually a real thing so I could charge it all to them. :-)

For a small software shop like mine it is fairly easy to keep in
compliance. Mostly some added paperwork that has actually helped my
billing process but for a manufacturer I can see that it would be a
major PITA.

Tom Gardner wrote:

If I EVER do the ISO thing, please shoot me! I have cherry-picked some good
things from ISO but mostly it's just a way to exclude suppliers from the
"Boyz Club" I'm certainly no expert on it but any system that excludes
(un)common sense... I was always taught that "Quality" was a subjective
thing. It's not the highest quality for the application, it's the RIGHT
quality for the application. It still should be the right mix of
"rightquality", price and service that counts. My industry is mature and
shrinking, there ARE no frontiers. Participants gain market share with
buy-outs, improve productivity with technology, and out-source volume items
to China. I'm still concerned who is going to buy my industrial products
when industry is gone or who is going to buy ANYTHING with a burger-flipping
income, or who is going to be able to afford burgers?


"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:UQfub.6538$0K4.2929@lakeread04...

Actually you are part of the solution if you can do what the "theory"
says. Take all that extra profit and start an R&D project. Use the
excess labor to push the paper and get ISO9001 certified. Invest
another couple hundred $K setting up international marketing chanels and
start exporting. The theory says that is how we balance the trade
situation.

Oddly, we have such a situation here in Macon. Small job shop serving
the kaolin industry here developed a special ball mill for processing
chalk. The owner did an industry and trade junket to some place in
Africa and found a market for the mill. Now he is sending beer drinkin'
South Georgia good ol' boys to places like Celon, Indonesia and China to
install his mills. Just added 40,000 more feet to the shop, a couple
million in machines and hired 8 more machinist.

That is how it is supposed to work but it is the exception rather than
the rule.

Tom Gardner wrote:


After following some of the links showing job loss and productivity

gains,

it's quite depressing, I've come to the conclusion that one of my main

goals

has been to eliminate employees' jobs. In the past year I have

eliminated 3

people and outsourced semi-finished goods from other American companies

at

least. But guess what? Boxes of parts don't have mood swings, PMS,
holidays, don't have to be heated or cooled, and NO SCRAP! They come

in at

a set cost with out the variables. Kind of sad that I can no longer

devote

the HR to barely breaking even ...on good days. But, specialized

suppliers

can do so much better due to their economy of scale than I can.

My newest built machine will eliminate 2 more jobs and a hefty bonus
structure. I just came to realize that the next 3 projects will be such

a

boost in productivity that 4 or 5 more jobs are in jeopardy. So does

this

make me a bad guy? I don't really think so, but multiply this around

the

country and that's a LOT of jobs lost with a net gain in products

produced.

So, who's going to have money to BUY products in the future?



--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com





--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

upper Midwest...
sure, I could work for supertech wages (one reason I relocated here, to
relieve the salary pressure) and have submitted my resume for jobs which
would represent up to a 75% pay cut (that's right, willing to work for 25
cents on the dollar I was making)...so far, nothing (except a little
substitute teaching...that would be 25 cents on the dollar IF it were
consistent, unfortunately it is sporadic as they have over 1,000 subs
registered in this area)

BTW--a REAL supertech would probably be much quicker at finding most
problems than I would be...slightly different mindset for techs vs.
engineers...of course, I'm sure I could find much tougher ones!

"Kent Frazier" wrote in message
news

"George"
B.S.E., electrical engineering (from a top 10 engineering
college)...background is automated electronic test. Ironically, the
kind
of
automation I was involved in hasn't displaced people in the last 10-15
years
(it did initially) instead merely kept from creating rather mundane,
repetitive jobs in favor of creating (fewer) jobs that required "super"
techs to fill them.



What part of the world do you live?
Could you work for "super tech" wages?
Sorta the compromise that is made from time to time, all the time.

I have people that can't count,
read a tape measure, have never had a checking or savings account... they
live paycheck to paycheck but help support a family and community. I see
the only other alternative to these lower end jobs is to suck the public
teat. No satisfaction in that for people at all. So the jobs that go
belong to the people that can least afford to be unemployed. Some will say
that these jobs shouldn't exist anyway. I have mixed feeling, part of me
feels empathy and part of me is responsible to the stock holders to maximize
their investment...of which I am one.

"Robin S." wrote in message
.. .

"Bill Bright" wrote in message
...

"George" wrote in message
...
Thanks. I am college educated and unemployed for two years. Take a
bow.

But you still have internet?


He doesn't tell us in which field he's educated.

Tom, perhaps with all these jobs being taken over by machines, you have
other duties for these surplus employees to attend to? I suppose it's
difficult if they're no/semiskill.. Or are they
tradespeople/professionals?
Who's head's on the block?

Regards,

Robin

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
snip---

.. I'm still concerned who is going to buy my industrial products
when industry is gone or who is going to buy ANYTHING with a
burger-flipping
income, or who is going to be able to afford burgers?

Exactly!. The concept of higher and higher wages, even for jobs that
can't be sent to China, is going to undo our society unless serious changes
are made, and soon. The very idea that one is guaranteed any given wage
is insane. All that does is encourage deadbeats to continue the course,
never preparing for life, assuming they will be able to get a menial task
job and demand a living wage. Sorry, Charlie, I don't agree, nor do I
feel anyone is owed a living. Can't speak for others, but I've actually
worked for my fortune, such as it is. I fully expect others to do the
same, and to be paid in keeping with the contribution to society, only at
face value, not some inflated one that so many seem to feel they are worth.

It is my opinion that if someone, anyone, can take away your job, it isn't
worth much. Only those with specific training (schooling) and talent
(experience) should be in the position to expect more than minimum pay.
Some how, we have to convey that message to the young folks coming up and
encourage them to get proper training, be it vocational or in pursuit of a
degree from the local college. We have to find a way to make things
equitable, to put value back in service, to accept pay in keeping with the
VALUE. If you have an employee that can't read a tape, where I come from
that's called a trainee, and he should be paid appropriately.

Harold

In article , Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
snip---

. I'm still concerned who is going to buy my industrial products
when industry is gone or who is going to buy ANYTHING with a
burger-flipping
income, or who is going to be able to afford burgers?

Exactly!. The concept of higher and higher wages, even for jobs that
can't be sent to China, is going to undo our society unless serious changes
are made, and soon. The very idea that one is guaranteed any given wage
is insane. All that does is encourage deadbeats to continue the course,

.... If you have an employee that can't read a tape, where I come from
that's called a trainee, and he should be paid appropriately. Harold

where i come from, he would be called, "illiterate", and would not
qualify for any job beyond day labor. --Loren

"Loren Coe" wrote in message
news:s7wub.182758$ao4.614473@attbi_s51...
In article , Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
snip---

. I'm still concerned who is going to buy my industrial products
when industry is gone or who is going to buy ANYTHING with a
burger-flipping
income, or who is going to be able to afford burgers?

Exactly!. The concept of higher and higher wages, even for jobs that
can't be sent to China, is going to undo our society unless serious
changes
are made, and soon. The very idea that one is guaranteed any given
wage
is insane. All that does is encourage deadbeats to continue the course,

... If you have an employee that can't read a tape, where I come from
that's called a trainee, and he should be paid appropriately.
Harold

where i come from, he would be called, "illiterate", and would not
qualify for any job beyond day labor. --Loren


Cool!! I can dig it! (no pun intended)

Harold

In article , Harold & Susan Vordos says...

... Can't speak for others, but I've actually
worked for my fortune, such as it is. I fully expect others to do the
same, and to be paid in keeping with the contribution to society, only at
face value, not some inflated one that so many seem to feel they are worth.

Umm, harold, if their wages are inflated, then they will
wind up paying more of your social security! The flip
side is, if you see them tossed out of work, or working
at mcd's, then nobody *will* pay your SS!

Jim

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

In article , Tom Gardner says...

... I'm still concerned who is going to buy my industrial products
when industry is gone or who is going to buy ANYTHING with a burger-flipping
income, or who is going to be able to afford burgers?

Ok, I seem to have found one person who agrees with me,
that if the better paying technical and manufacturing jobs
go overseas, and the wages are depressed here (as harold
suspects they will) then this might have some effect
on the overall market for goods and services in the US.

In other words, laid-off folks don't buy much of anything.

Jim

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

On 17 Nov 2003 18:41:53 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Alan Moore says...

Since little problems can result in 40 ton missiles landing in your
backyard, this is something of an issue for me...

Not to mention those pesky satallite gravitation problems.
"Geeze, I guess they outsourced those 24 bolts!"

Actually, we had an official briefing on that the other day.

They didn't say explicitly, but it sounded as if the tech who said:
"There seem to be some bolts missing" was fired, among others. I'm not
so sure about the engineer who replied "Don't worry about it..."

Al Moore

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:54:33 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

Your industry has it's own stupid rules that hog-tie people with synapses
that still fire. I have heard that you can't make simple, logical
improvements to a system without masive re-quallifying expences. "Oh no, we
can't use that chip with a higher heat rating even though it's exactly the
same part and will cure the problem forever." Cheaper is not always
cheaper...is it.

snip

The theory we operate under is that we make one work, then make the
rest just like that one, because no one really knows how to predict
all the consequences of any change -- not that we don't actually make
plenty of changes...

And yes, we start with "cutting edge" technology in the hopes that we
can still find the stuff which will be hopelessly obsolete by the end
of the program.

Al Moore

Yep, same with the Vordos household. I refuse to toss over $400/year for
tv
programming, then be subjected to commercials endlessly. What little tv
we
watch, aside from news, is generally recorded and then watched at a more
convenient time, bypassing all the advertising. I don't give a damn
that
advertising pays the tab, if I have to choose between watching those lame,
insulting, head banging commercials and not watching tv, I'll take the
silence and some good jazz on the stereo in its place anytime.

Harold


Isn't it a bit ironic that cable tv works very hard to prosecute people who
get their programming without paying while THEY get and RESELL broadcast tv
without compensating THOSE CONTENT PROVIDERS? Makes you wonder who the true
pirates are...

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Harold & Susan Vordos says...

... Can't speak for others, but I've actually
worked for my fortune, such as it is. I fully expect others to do the
same, and to be paid in keeping with the contribution to society, only at
face value, not some inflated one that so many seem to feel they are
worth.

Umm, harold, if their wages are inflated, then they will
wind up paying more of your social security! The flip
side is, if you see them tossed out of work, or working
at mcd's, then nobody *will* pay your SS!

Jim

Lower wages, those that are really earned, would be the answer to the
problem. If manufacturers had a conscience, they would price their
products in accordance with expenses, allowing for a REASONABLE profit, and
if expenses were in line with reality, the price of products would,
likewise, be reasonable. Assuming that scenario was true, perhaps I
would then be rewarded with lower prices at the grocery and other stores,
making my limited money still pay for my needs. This endless cycle of
demanding more for less is a big part of why we're where we are today as we
relate to the rest of the world. I've said it before, and I'll say it
again, the American worker is way too arrogant, way too over paid to go
along with it. If I'm wrong, how is it that so much of our industry is
leaving?

You seem to have a particular axe to grind with SS. I'm not sure we've
ever discussed your age, but judging from a photo of you I saw about three
years ago, I'd suggest you are in your mid 40's. That being the case,
you'll find that you will approach SS retirement age in one hell of a hurry.
Time zips by when you're busy, and I think, from our endless conversations,
that you are a busy person, certainly not a couch potato. Having
stated these great words of wisdom, trust me that as you approach retirement
age, you're going to see SS from a totally different perspective. As much
as I detested it, the very fact that they held me captive with the demands
to pay into the system, again, at 15%, not the half you've become accustomed
to paying, I now see it from a different position. . No, I do not agree
with it, not any more than I did previously. However, now that my pocket
has been relieved of the money, I want it back as was suggested to me
through the years. You will, too. Trust me. And you'll rejoice when the
first payment hits your checking account, just as I did one year ago.

By the way, part of the reason I chose to retire so young (54) was to end
(or limit) the cycle of being taxed at every turn. I realized that if I
wasn't extravagant, I could get by on a small income, which we do.
Understand we do not live like we're broke, in spite of the fact that we
have a limited income. When you own everything outright, and have money
drawing interest instead of paying it, the world takes on a different
meaning.

I'm also pleased to tell you that Susan is the type of woman that makes due,
without complaint, that which we have. She is just as happy with a burger
when we go to town as many women may be with a cut of prime rib. We are
simple people, living in a simple way. Both of us, in spite of our
conservative ways, however, enjoy a hobby that is expensive. Instead of
running lines of coke, punching needles into our arms, drinking ourselves
into insanity, or paying for and using weed, we spend our free money on
things that make sense, at least to us. I enjoy my machines and the stereo
system, and Susan enjoys her art glass collection. We didn't quit living
when we went into retirement, the only real change was the lowering of our
income.

Harold

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Tom Gardner says...

... I'm still concerned who is going to buy my industrial products
when industry is gone or who is going to buy ANYTHING with a
burger-flipping
income, or who is going to be able to afford burgers?

Ok, I seem to have found one person who agrees with me,
that if the better paying technical and manufacturing jobs
go overseas, and the wages are depressed here (as harold
suspects they will) then this might have some effect
on the overall market for goods and services in the US.

In other words, laid-off folks don't buy much of anything.

Jim

I'm having a bit of a struggle coming to terms with your statement above.
Isn't that exactly what I've been saying right along? What I've proposed
is folks coming to terms with their inflated incomes and settling for pay in
keeping with its value. That, in turn, keeps them on the job, albeit at a
lower income, because the savings to the corporation that may have been
realized by jumping to China, for example, no longer exists. We keep jobs
home, inflation is not a problem (not out of control), and perhaps prices at
the store even decline to some degree. Not many of us prefer no money
as opposed to less money. I think rational people would accept a pay cut
instead of a pink slip.

We can not solve this problem with legislation or tariffs. As long as we
insist that we are worth more than the rest of the world, the exodus will
never end, not until there's nothing left that can leave. The foreign
countries will see to it. They want the work. Only equilibrium, by any
means, will stop the flow. It's like drugs. Until the profit is removed
from drugs, they will persist, and stronger than our ability to resist them.

Harold

Gawd! Jim! Say it ain't so. You mean this here soanal sucurtitty isn't
actuarially sound?

Bob Swinney

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Harold & Susan Vordos says...

... Can't speak for others, but I've actually
worked for my fortune, such as it is. I fully expect others to do the
same, and to be paid in keeping with the contribution to society, only at
face value, not some inflated one that so many seem to feel they are
worth.

Umm, harold, if their wages are inflated, then they will
wind up paying more of your social security! The flip
side is, if you see them tossed out of work, or working
at mcd's, then nobody *will* pay your SS!

Jim

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

In article , Harold & Susan Vordos says...

... I refuse to toss over $400/year for tv
programming, then be subjected to commercials endlessly. What little tv we
watch, aside from news, is generally recorded and then watched at a more
convenient time, bypassing all the advertising. I don't give a damn that
advertising pays the tab, if I have to choose between watching those lame,
insulting, head banging commercials and not watching tv, I'll take the
silence and some good jazz on the stereo in its place anytime.

We have a TV, but no live feed into the house. So we
can watch recorded stuff that we choose. This works
out pretty well, we do a library run once a week and
get a stack of books to work through.

My daughter was recently rewarded with a small portable
dvd player, for watching stuff in her room.

Jim

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

Harold,

I want to commend you on your story. There are lessons here that would keep
people out of financial trouble. My plan is to retire in 3 1/2 years at 57.

Gary Repesh

Jim

Lower wages, those that are really earned, would be the answer to the
problem. If manufacturers had a conscience, they would price their
products in accordance with expenses, allowing for a REASONABLE profit, and
if expenses were in line with reality, the price of products would,
likewise, be reasonable. Assuming that scenario was true, perhaps I
would then be rewarded with lower prices at the grocery and other stores,
making my limited money still pay for my needs. This endless cycle of
demanding more for less is a big part of why we're where we are today as we
relate to the rest of the world. I've said it before, and I'll say it
again, the American worker is way too arrogant, way too over paid to go
along with it. If I'm wrong, how is it that so much of our industry is
leaving?

You seem to have a particular axe to grind with SS. I'm not sure we've
ever discussed your age, but judging from a photo of you I saw about three
years ago, I'd suggest you are in your mid 40's. That being the case,
you'll find that you will approach SS retirement age in one hell of a hurry.
Time zips by when you're busy, and I think, from our endless conversations,
that you are a busy person, certainly not a couch potato. Having
stated these great words of wisdom, trust me that as you approach retirement
age, you're going to see SS from a totally different perspective. As much
as I detested it, the very fact that they held me captive with the demands
to pay into the system, again, at 15%, not the half you've become accustomed
to paying, I now see it from a different position. . No, I do not agree
with it, not any more than I did previously. However, now that my pocket
has been relieved of the money, I want it back as was suggested to me
through the years. You will, too. Trust me. And you'll rejoice when the
first payment hits your checking account, just as I did one year ago.

By the way, part of the reason I chose to retire so young (54) was to end
(or limit) the cycle of being taxed at every turn. I realized that if I
wasn't extravagant, I could get by on a small income, which we do.
Understand we do not live like we're broke, in spite of the fact that we
have a limited income. When you own everything outright, and have money
drawing interest instead of paying it, the world takes on a different
meaning.

I'm also pleased to tell you that Susan is the type of woman that makes due,
without complaint, that which we have. She is just as happy with a burger
when we go to town as many women may be with a cut of prime rib. We are
simple people, living in a simple way. Both of us, in spite of our
conservative ways, however, enjoy a hobby that is expensive. Instead of
running lines of coke, punching needles into our arms, drinking ourselves
into insanity, or paying for and using weed, we spend our free money on
things that make sense, at least to us. I enjoy my machines and the stereo
system, and Susan enjoys her art glass collection. We didn't quit living
when we went into retirement, the only real change was the lowering of our
income.

Harold

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:17:48 -0500, "George" wrote:
Isn't it a bit ironic that cable tv works very hard to prosecute people who
get their programming without paying while THEY get and RESELL broadcast tv
without compensating THOSE CONTENT PROVIDERS? Makes you wonder who the true
pirates are...

Actually, they do have to pay the content providers, unless they're operating
merely as a community antenna system. The FCC changed the cable rules a
few years back. A station can now elect to either be "must carry" or an "enhanced
content provider".

Under "must carry", the cable system is treated as a community antenna
system, and does not have to compensate the broadcaster, but must carry
its signal as part of the "basic" cable package.

Under "enchanced content", the cable company must negotiate for, and
pay for, the right to carry the broadcaster's signal, same as they've always
done for content providers like HBO or Showtime. In return, the cable
company gets to price the local broadcast content the same way it does
other cable channels. In other words, it doesn't have to include local
channels as part of the "basic" cable package unless it wants to.

Gary