Retraining
An article in today's NYT...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/ma...l?ref=magazine ....finally gives some concrete answers to the question of what manufacturing workers should be retraining for, if they're expecting to work in a growing sector of the economy: "Why do presidential candidates touting their concern for the economy pose with factory workers rather than with ballet troupes? After all, the U.S. now has more choreographers (16,340) than metal-casters (14,880), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. More people make their livings shuffling and dealing cards in casinos (82,960) than running lathes (65,840), and there are almost three times as many security guards (1,004,130) as machinists (385,690). Whereas 30 percent of Americans worked in manufacturing in 1950, fewer than 15 percent do now. The economy as politicians present it is a folkloric thing." So, the answer is clear: It's time to learn to dance or shuffle. Practice those pirouettes, and always deal from the top of the deck, ya'll. http://www.wikihow.com/Do-a-Pirouette -- Ed Huntress |
Retraining
Interesting data, Ed. Thanks.
Dave Ed Huntress wrote: An article in today's NYT... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/ma...l?ref=magazine |
Retraining
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:19:45 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
An article in today's NYT... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/ma...n-lede-t.html? ref=magazine ...finally gives some concrete answers to the question of what manufacturing workers should be retraining for, if they're expecting to work in a growing sector of the economy: "Why do presidential candidates touting their concern for the economy pose with factory workers rather than with ballet troupes? After all, the U.S. now has more choreographers (16,340) than metal-casters (14,880), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. More people make their livings shuffling and dealing cards in casinos (82,960) than running lathes (65,840), and there are almost three times as many security guards (1,004,130) as machinists (385,690). Whereas 30 percent of Americans worked in manufacturing in 1950, fewer than 15 percent do now. The economy as politicians present it is a folkloric thing." So, the answer is clear: It's time to learn to dance or shuffle. Practice those pirouettes, and always deal from the top of the deck, ya'll. http://www.wikihow.com/Do-a-Pirouette Bleh. OTOH, those 15 percent are more likely to be good at what they do. I bet a lot of those mill operators in the '50s just knew how to work at the level of "turn the big handle over there until the number 55 is on top" where the ones that are left can not only build to print just fine, but hand you back a print with redlines to make the part better or less expensive to build. There's another thing to consider, if I'm not mistaken: The federal agency that tracks these things classifies ones job as a "service job" if one isn't actually putting stuff together with ones own hands -- so if you hold a job as an engineer, draftsman, planner, or any other vital job that requires practical experience and knowledge but doesn't have you touching the machines, then you're not considered to be "manufacturing" anything. That 15% of folks who are actually running the machines and bolting things together aren't standing out in the forest picking raw materials off the trees, and there aren't any shy woodland creatures carrying the finished product to market -- so "manufacturing" is bigger than the feds make out. -- Tim Wescott Control systems and communications consulting http://www.wescottdesign.com Need to learn how to apply control theory in your embedded system? "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" by Tim Wescott Elsevier/Newnes, http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html |
Retraining
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... An article in today's NYT... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/ma...l?ref=magazine ...finally gives some concrete answers to the question of what manufacturing workers should be retraining for, if they're expecting to work in a growing sector of the economy: "Why do presidential candidates touting their concern for the economy pose with factory workers rather than with ballet troupes? After all, the U.S. now has more choreographers (16,340) than metal-casters (14,880), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. More people make their livings shuffling and dealing cards in casinos (82,960) than running lathes (65,840), and there are almost three times as many security guards (1,004,130) as machinists (385,690). Whereas 30 percent of Americans worked in manufacturing in 1950, fewer than 15 percent do now. The economy as politicians present it is a folkloric thing." So, the answer is clear: It's time to learn to dance or shuffle. Practice those pirouettes, and always deal from the top of the deck, ya'll. http://www.wikihow.com/Do-a-Pirouette -- Ed Huntress A manufacturing chicken/egg. Parallel pressure on manufacturing from competition and unions create an atmosphere for increased automation and other enhancement from technology. I can only draw from my own limited experience but I think it's indicative. I know I've had to replace over 80% of my workforce in the past 25 years with automation or outsourcing to suppliers with better technology. I imagine most companies have had to do the same. The price of automation keeps getting cheaper and cheaper and the cost of employees keeps getting higher and higher. And, the quality of employee has continually diminished. Nine of ten new applicants can't do simple math or read a tape measure. The union has pushed wages and benefits way beyond reasonable. It's amazing that I can easily justify a $40,000 budget for some little sub-system that will eliminate a number of production man-hours because the pay-back is so quick. The education system and disintegration of value systems is mostly to blame in my opinion and corrupt, self-serving unions that force companies into finding solutions that don't include union people. The unions have created their own demise like a snake eating itself. As a result, all those jobs just go away. Did you want fries with that? |
Retraining
"Tim Wescott" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:19:45 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote: An article in today's NYT... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/ma...n-lede-t.html? ref=magazine ...finally gives some concrete answers to the question of what manufacturing workers should be retraining for, if they're expecting to work in a growing sector of the economy: "Why do presidential candidates touting their concern for the economy pose with factory workers rather than with ballet troupes? After all, the U.S. now has more choreographers (16,340) than metal-casters (14,880), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. More people make their livings shuffling and dealing cards in casinos (82,960) than running lathes (65,840), and there are almost three times as many security guards (1,004,130) as machinists (385,690). Whereas 30 percent of Americans worked in manufacturing in 1950, fewer than 15 percent do now. The economy as politicians present it is a folkloric thing." So, the answer is clear: It's time to learn to dance or shuffle. Practice those pirouettes, and always deal from the top of the deck, ya'll. http://www.wikihow.com/Do-a-Pirouette Bleh. OTOH, those 15 percent are more likely to be good at what they do. I bet a lot of those mill operators in the '50s just knew how to work at the level of "turn the big handle over there until the number 55 is on top" where the ones that are left can not only build to print just fine, but hand you back a print with redlines to make the part better or less expensive to build. Maybe. Maybe not. There are lots of former machine operators who are flipping burgers today, but the 15% you're talking about includes everyone. There's another thing to consider, if I'm not mistaken: The federal agency that tracks these things classifies ones job as a "service job" if one isn't actually putting stuff together with ones own hands -- so if you hold a job as an engineer, draftsman, planner, or any other vital job that requires practical experience and knowledge but doesn't have you touching the machines, then you're not considered to be "manufacturing" anything. It's just the opposite. They count everyone who works for a company that has a manufacturing or manufacturing service (machine shops, custom molders, etc.) NAICS code. They don't miss much. And that includes salesmen and office clerks who work for manufacturing companies. That 15% of folks who are actually running the machines and bolting things together aren't standing out in the forest picking raw materials off the trees, and there aren't any shy woodland creatures carrying the finished product to market -- so "manufacturing" is bigger than the feds make out. Yeah, it includes the people who carry the finished product to market -- as long as they work for the company. Independent trucking firms aren't included. Neither are people out picking things off of trees. g The percentage of people who work in manufacturing is simply down, Tim. That should be no surprise. What surprised me is how many choreographers we have. I don't really see that much dancing going on. -- Ed Huntress |
Retraining
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message . .. "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... An article in today's NYT... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/ma...l?ref=magazine ...finally gives some concrete answers to the question of what manufacturing workers should be retraining for, if they're expecting to work in a growing sector of the economy: "Why do presidential candidates touting their concern for the economy pose with factory workers rather than with ballet troupes? After all, the U.S. now has more choreographers (16,340) than metal-casters (14,880), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. More people make their livings shuffling and dealing cards in casinos (82,960) than running lathes (65,840), and there are almost three times as many security guards (1,004,130) as machinists (385,690). Whereas 30 percent of Americans worked in manufacturing in 1950, fewer than 15 percent do now. The economy as politicians present it is a folkloric thing." So, the answer is clear: It's time to learn to dance or shuffle. Practice those pirouettes, and always deal from the top of the deck, ya'll. http://www.wikihow.com/Do-a-Pirouette -- Ed Huntress A manufacturing chicken/egg. Parallel pressure on manufacturing from competition and unions create an atmosphere for increased automation and other enhancement from technology. Anything you can think of creates an atmosphere for increased automation. When I was involved in selling Wasino lathes to Mexico, they didn't want to hear about manual machines. CNC, with gantry-type autoloaders only. I can only draw from my own limited experience but I think it's indicative. I know I've had to replace over 80% of my workforce in the past 25 years with automation or outsourcing to suppliers with better technology. I imagine most companies have had to do the same. The price of automation keeps getting cheaper and cheaper and the cost of employees keeps getting higher and higher. It wouldn't matter if the cost of employees kept getting cheaper, either, as long as automation is getting cheaper faster. And it is. And, the quality of employee has continually diminished. Nine of ten new applicants can't do simple math or read a tape measure. The union has pushed wages and benefits way beyond reasonable. It's amazing that I can easily justify a $40,000 budget for some little sub-system that will eliminate a number of production man-hours because the pay-back is so quick. Why are you amazed? That's where we've been heading for 100 years. It's just happening faster because of computers. The education system and disintegration of value systems is mostly to blame in my opinion and corrupt, self-serving unions that force companies into finding solutions that don't include union people. The unions have created their own demise like a snake eating itself. As a result, all those jobs just go away. Did you want fries with that? Pfffht. The jobs would go away anyway. That's just the advance of technology. Do you think that, if it wasn't for unions, we wouldn't have computers, and everything would just be great? You're just looking for something or someone to blame, Tom. The course of technological advance wouldn't go backwards because employees got better. -- Ed Huntress |
Retraining
Ed Huntress wrote:
So, the answer is clear: It's time to learn to dance or shuffle. Practice those pirouettes, and always deal from the top of the deck, ya'll. I just got back from dropping my daughter off at the theater. I've been worried about her career path, but I feel better now. Kevin Gallimore |
Retraining
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:19:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: snip So, the answer is clear: It's time to learn to dance or shuffle. Practice those pirouettes, and always deal from the top of the deck, ya'll. snip ============ The black box economy By Stephen Mihm January 27, 2008 Behind the recent bad news lurks a much deeper concern: The world economy is now being driven by a vast, secretive web of investments that might be out of anyone's control. snip Should we be so confident this time? A handful of financial theorists and thinkers are now saying we shouldn't. The drumbeat of bad news over the past year, they say, is only a symptom of something new and unsettling - a deeper change in the financial system that may leave regulators, and even Congress, powerless when they try to wield their usual tools. That something is the immense shadow economy of novel and poorly understood financial instruments created by hedge funds and investment banks over the past decade - a web of extraordinarily complex securities and wagers that has made the world's financial system so opaque and entangled that even many experts confess that they no longer understand how it works. Unlike the building blocks of the conventional economy - factories and firms, widgets and workers, stocks and bonds - these new financial arrangements are difficult to value, much less analyze. The money caught up in this web is now many times larger than the world's gross domestic product, and much of it exists outside the purview of regulators. snip By cleverly exploiting regulatory loopholes, investment banks created new types of high-risk investments that did not appear on their balance sheets. Safe from the prying eyes of regulators, they allowed banks to dodge the requirement that they keep a certain amount of money in reserve. These reserves are a crucial safety net, but also began to seem like a drag to financiers, money that was just sitting on the sidelines. snip "Our modern shadow banking system," Gross writes, "craftily dodges the reserve requirements of traditional institutions and promotes a chain letter, pyramid scheme of leverage, based in many cases on no reserve cushion whatsoever." snip But today, increasingly, a new generation of derivatives doesn't trade on markets at all. These so-called over-the-counter derivatives are highly customized agreements struck in private between two parties. No one else necessarily knows about such investments because they exist off the books, and don't show up in the reports or balance sheets of the parties who signed them. As the derivatives business has grown more complex, it has also ballooned in scale. Broadly speaking, Das - author of a leading textbook on derivatives and complex securities - estimates that investors worldwide hold more than $500 trillion worth of derivatives. This number now dwarfs the global GDP, which tops out around $60 trillion. snip These risks are magnified, as they were during the stock bubble of the 1920s, by the fact that many of these assets are owned by investors who borrowed money to make the investments in the first place. When a market shock like the subprime crisis hits, it can send tremors through the system with incredible speed. snip ============== for complete article click on http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/id...k_box_economy/ |
Retraining
On Jan 27, 11:19 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
An article in today's NYT... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/ma...t.html?ref=mag... ...finally gives some concrete answers to the question of what manufacturing workers should be retraining for, if they're expecting to work in a growing sector of the economy: "Why do presidential candidates touting their concern for the economy pose with factory workers rather than with ballet troupes? After all, the U.S. now has more choreographers (16,340) than metal-casters (14,880), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. More people make their livings shuffling and dealing cards in casinos (82,960) than running lathes (65,840), and there are almost three times as many security guards (1,004,130) as machinists (385,690). Whereas 30 percent of Americans worked in manufacturing in 1950, fewer than 15 percent do now. The economy as politicians present it is a folkloric thing." So, the answer is clear: It's time to learn to dance or shuffle. Practice those pirouettes, and always deal from the top of the deck, ya'll. http://www.wikihow.com/Do-a-Pirouette -- Ed Huntress There were no CNC machines in 1950. Technology allows the best person in the bunch to make a thousand machines copy him. you could cut a factory to two people. One person designing the program for the machine. And one person doing maintanance like changing broken bits or dealing to a machine when something out of the ordinary happens. More can be done with less people. Case in point check out this link http://www.olivetreegenealogy.com/mi...upations.shtml The trades come and go as technology moves on look at all of these old professions that are fused into "machinist" now just about every (BLANK)MAKER is now merely a new assignment of a machinist or tool maker. Some of those trades i didnt even know were separate trades, Like a Blockmaker who apparently had enough business to spend all day making pulley blocks. How many Sawyers, Fullers, Coopers, and Smiths Still Saw, walk in rancid urine to prepare clothes, Make barrels, Or work Making tools form wrought iron. The last names survive but the occupations havent. They've gone on to do other things in other sections of life. Part of all the industrial revolution and all that is you dont need as many people building or making things and more people in society can think as a profession. Even those doing trades have become better at thinking in the job. the totally menial screw the same bolt on the assembly line all day job is gone and hopefully for good. Those types of Menial manufacturing jobs have changed industries, Now they are "Would you like fries with that?" Industry got organized and efficient and didnt need people to turn cranks or to fasten a bolt. And i dont think that a bad thing either, I'd rather my car be built by a few competent people controlling very repeatable machines. There is a reason you dont hear about Monday and Friday cars much anymore. I see trade deficits and jobs being sent away because its too expensive to have the workers to do it is bad. And there are a lot of factors there. But a loss of jobs purely to automation I dont see as nearly the same concern Employees making 40 dollars an hour to do menial work like sweeping a floor i see as an even worse threat than someone automating jobs like that. It makes things look bad when you do nothing for megabucks when others are busting their ass for peanuts. I know hospitals where the janitor makes more than the people in the lab processing and analyzing the test results used to generate a diagnosis. WHy go to school when you can make more money pushing a broom. That is the impression that the under-thinking over paid type jobs give me. Brent Ottawa Canada |
Retraining
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:07:04 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: snip What surprised me is how many choreographers we have. I don't really see that much dancing going on. snip Watch the hearings on C-SPAN.... |
Retraining
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:47:13 -0800 (PST), Brent
wrote: snip How many Sawyers, Fullers, Coopers, and Smiths Still Saw, walk in rancid urine to prepare clothes, Make barrels, Or work Making tools form wrought iron. The last names survive but the occupations havent. They've gone on to do other things in other sections of life. snip ================ That's the way it was supposed to work (and did for a long time) and is the justification for the largely correct [in the context] of Schumpeter's, et al "creative destruction." click on http://transcriptions.english.ucsb.e...chumpeter.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction However the operative word here is *CREATIVE* and NOT destruction. What we are now witnessing and experiencing is simple demolition and liquidation (aka "clear cutting") with no attempt to introduce new products, industries, etc. We are now in the position of eating the last of our seed corn. IMNSHO, one of the major contributing factors is the grossly excessive burden and overhead rates charged against manufacturing and indeed all productive activities. The most egregious example is the outrageous salaries and benefit packages, demanded and received, by the CEOs that are running our few remaining productive assets into the ground. To start a law could be enacted prohibiting any company from paying any person a salary/compensation greater in total than that received by the President of the United States ===unless that corporation is making a profit== as indicated by paying US income taxes on the corporate gross income at a rate at least as high the rate paid on gross income by a single working mother of two. |
Retraining
While the idea has merit, who gets to decide what someone earns? If
people (read company boards) are stupid enough to pay 400 million dollar separation packages, and the shareholders roll over, then what law has been broken? Next there will be a Bureau of Equal Outcomes, run with all the understanding of the IRS, and the efficiency of the Post Office, determining what you or anyone can earn. Take a look at "The Dance of Change" by Peter Senge. When all Wall Street can focus on is if the company makes ever more profit (which is not evil), unfortunately the corporate climate is to do just that. Groupthink is dangerous, wherever it occurs. F. George McDuffee wrote: IMNSHO, one of the major contributing factors is the grossly excessive burden and overhead rates charged against manufacturing and indeed all productive activities. The most egregious example is the outrageous salaries and benefit packages, demanded and received, by the CEOs that are running our few remaining productive assets into the ground. To start a law could be enacted prohibiting any company from paying any person a salary/compensation greater in total than that received by the President of the United States ===unless that corporation is making a profit== as indicated by paying US income taxes on the corporate gross income at a rate at least as high the rate paid on gross income by a single working mother of two. |
Retraining
"Louis Ohland" wrote in message ... While the idea has merit, who gets to decide what someone earns? If people (read company boards) are stupid enough to pay 400 million dollar separation packages, and the shareholders roll over, then what law has been broken? snip In the old days, the Board of Directors tended to consist of the company's largest shareholders. And, of course, the shareholders were individuals investing their own money. Now the big shareholders tend to be "institutional investors." Today's Boards of Directors are now merely "hired help," chosen by the CEO mostly from the ranks of CEOs of other companies. And, of course, the people running the "institutional investors" are also members of this same more or less incestuous little clique. And it is they that agree to pay one another these absurd sums, shareholders be damned. I once worked for a company that could not possibly succeed. While the technology worked impressively well, certain physical limitations (those damned Laws of Physics again...) precluded the company from ever generating enough revenue to support itself. We built a consumer product, for sale to the general public. Yet, our CEO could not operate our own product! He freely (and somewhat proudly) admitted that his contribution to the company was bringing in investors. As one of the production technicians once put it to me, "It's all so the big boys can have a smorgasboard and maybe you and me get a sandwich." Later, the business section of a major newspaper did a little article on that CEO (detailing his antics in another company where he served on the board). The article was entitled, "Are There No Limits to Greed?" Jerry |
Retraining
Uh, yeah. Look at the merger of Chrysler and Daimler Benz. Somebody got
their lunch handed to them. Johnny and Jane think the company owes them a check, send direct deposit Unions want ever increasing wage and benefits Wall Street has a bird if a company misses it's profit projections by a few per cent. The government thinks of new ways to tax. Lobbyists pay off politicians to leave their company alone, and / or make it tougher on their competitors. Boards follow whatever fad is current. Hell, why isn't America competitive? Damned if I know... Jerry Foster wrote: "Louis Ohland" wrote in message ... While the idea has merit, who gets to decide what someone earns? If people (read company boards) are stupid enough to pay 400 million dollar separation packages, and the shareholders roll over, then what law has been broken? snip In the old days, the Board of Directors tended to consist of the company's largest shareholders. And, of course, the shareholders were individuals investing their own money. Now the big shareholders tend to be "institutional investors." Today's Boards of Directors are now merely "hired help," chosen by the CEO mostly from the ranks of CEOs of other companies. And, of course, the people running the "institutional investors" are also members of this same more or less incestuous little clique. And it is they that agree to pay one another these absurd sums, shareholders be damned. I once worked for a company that could not possibly succeed. While the technology worked impressively well, certain physical limitations (those damned Laws of Physics again...) precluded the company from ever generating enough revenue to support itself. We built a consumer product, for sale to the general public. Yet, our CEO could not operate our own product! He freely (and somewhat proudly) admitted that his contribution to the company was bringing in investors. As one of the production technicians once put it to me, "It's all so the big boys can have a smorgasboard and maybe you and me get a sandwich." Later, the business section of a major newspaper did a little article on that CEO (detailing his antics in another company where he served on the board). The article was entitled, "Are There No Limits to Greed?" Jerry |
Retraining
...finally gives some concrete answers to the question of what manufacturing workers should be retraining for, if they're expecting to work in a growing sector of the economy: "Why do presidential candidates touting their concern for the economy pose with factory workers rather than with ballet troupes? After all, the U.S. now has more choreographers (16,340) than metal-casters (14,880), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. More people make their livings shuffling and dealing cards in casinos (82,960) than running lathes (65,840), and there are almost three times as many security guards (1,004,130) as machinists (385,690). Whereas 30 percent of Americans worked in manufacturing in 1950, fewer than 15 percent do now. The economy as politicians present it is a folkloric thing." So, the answer is clear: It's time to learn to dance or shuffle. Practice those pirouettes, and always deal from the top of the deck, ya'll. http://www.wikihow.com/Do-a-Pirouette Bleh. OTOH, those 15 percent are more likely to be good at what they do. I bet a lot of those mill operators in the '50s just knew how to work at the level of "turn the big handle over there until the number 55 is on top" where the ones that are left can not only build to print just fine, but hand you back a print with redlines to make the part better or less expensive to build. Maybe. Maybe not. There are lots of former machine operators who are flipping burgers today, but the 15% you're talking about includes everyone. There's another thing to consider, if I'm not mistaken: The federal agency that tracks these things classifies ones job as a "service job" if one isn't actually putting stuff together with ones own hands -- so if you hold a job as an engineer, draftsman, planner, or any other vital job that requires practical experience and knowledge but doesn't have you touching the machines, then you're not considered to be "manufacturing" anything. It's just the opposite. They count everyone who works for a company that has a manufacturing or manufacturing service (machine shops, custom molders, etc.) NAICS code. They don't miss much. And that includes salesmen and office clerks who work for manufacturing companies. That 15% of folks who are actually running the machines and bolting things together aren't standing out in the forest picking raw materials off the trees, and there aren't any shy woodland creatures carrying the finished product to market -- so "manufacturing" is bigger than the feds make out. Yeah, it includes the people who carry the finished product to market -- as long as they work for the company. Independent trucking firms aren't included. Neither are people out picking things off of trees. g The percentage of people who work in manufacturing is simply down, Tim. That should be no surprise. What surprised me is how many choreographers we have. I don't really see that much dancing going on. Well, it's a damn good thing there is because we're not making things anymore. I see two things going on here. One is that we are repeating history. Endland was the world's manufacturing king at one time. We instituted protectionist policies to build our own industries to compete with them and eventually we took the job of making things away from them. Leaving them screwed basically and us in fine shape. Now China and to some extent India are doing the same thing to us. Actually, they've already done it to us. Same with the Japanese, they protected their markets from us, dumped products on our open market, stole our markets and now they own them. When we made everything we were the richest country on earth, same with the Brits when they were making everything. Now everything is being made in the East and they are going to be in the great financial position we used to hold. Looks to me like the same thing that has gone on since the Industrial Revolution. But you would have thought our people would have been smarter and not allowed it to happen. The Japanese haven't let their manufacturing base go away like ours has. Clearly they are smarter, and less corrupt than we are. The second thing is the financial situation which is really dangerous. A few years back the real estate in Tokyo was valued at an astronomically high amount, I don't remember what it was but supposedly the value of all the real estate in Tokyo was worth more than in all of the United States. That's obviously crazy but it's a sign of what happens when finance doesn't reflect reality. Now with more money in finance than exists in all the material things in the world something is truly wrong. It's a situation that is ripe for a worldwide meltdown as real values will eventually bring down the false market values. Unfortunately, the only way to get control of it is for governments to jump in and strongly regulate the financial markets. Sadly, that's not going to happen when financial interests control the governments of all the wealthy nations. Therefore, the odds are that at some point there will be a worldwide financial meltdown. The good thing is that it is mainly going to hurt the richest among us since it's they who own all the assets. Which says a lot for having the bulk of a nation's wealth held by the majority of it's citizens and not a small privileged class like it is now in most of the world. Hawke |
Retraining
"axolotl" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: So, the answer is clear: It's time to learn to dance or shuffle. Practice those pirouettes, and always deal from the top of the deck, ya'll. I just got back from dropping my daughter off at the theater. I've been worried about her career path, but I feel better now. Ha! Wait until she's ready for college. A friend of mine put his daughter into a performing arts college in Boston and they had to do auditions at 13 schools in the process. He was driving around like a madman for months. It is *not* like applying for regular colleges. On the other hand, it could be tougher. She might want to work in a foundry. g -- Ed Huntress |
Retraining
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:19:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: snip So, the answer is clear: It's time to learn to dance or shuffle. Practice those pirouettes, and always deal from the top of the deck, ya'll. snip ============ The black box economy By Stephen Mihm January 27, 2008 Behind the recent bad news lurks a much deeper concern: The world economy is now being driven by a vast, secretive web of investments that might be out of anyone's control. Yeah. Remember our discussion about deregulated financial markets and Ronnie Reagan? It's "collateral, collateral, who's got the collateral?" all over the world. I think it was five or six years ago I said here that the derivatives in hedge funds are going to bite us in the ass some day, because nobody knew how they linked together, after they've been bundled and re-bundled a half-dozen times. I pointed out that we'd never find out how they're linked until they started to tank and everybody made margin calls and tried to collect on everyone else. Too bad I didn't sell short on them as an investment. -- Ed Huntress |
Retraining
Tim Wescott wrote:
OTOH, those 15 percent are more likely to be good at what they do. I bet a lot of those mill operators in the '50s just knew how to work at the level of "turn the big handle over there until the number 55 is on top" ... I'd say that it's just the opposite. In the '50s machining was predominately manual. In the steel mill the roller was king, because it took so much skill. The surveyor's transit was the same technology as George Washington's. The bulldozer controls were so rough that a lot of experience was required. Even paper tape NC didn't come in until the '60s (I think). Today, a "lathe operator" loads stock and programs into a CNC machine. Rolling mills don't take much more skill. Surveying is all lasers and computers. The new hydraulic controls allow most anyone to operate earthmoving equipment. A lot of this was driven by productivity, but it was also driven by a desire to get away from the need for the highly skilled labor that dominated '50s manufacturing. Bob |
Retraining
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:07:04 -0500 in rec.crafts.metalworking, "Ed
Huntress" wrote, Maybe. Maybe not. There are lots of former machine operators who are flipping burgers today, but the 15% you're talking about includes everyone. Flipping burgers is manufacturing, no? He's manufacturing a burger. |
Retraining
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... snip You're just looking for something or someone to blame, Tom. The course of technological advance wouldn't go backwards because employees got better. -- Ed Huntress Blame? Hell, I want to THANK someone! Until somewhat recently the technology payback was too far out. I'd love to see my business have nothing but an office and a shipping clerk. The other consideration is that US corporate taxes are 35%!!! Why do anything under those rates when it's much more attractive overseas? Patriotic duty? ...a good way to get crushed. Why should anybody invest in the US? There seems to be a move to punish anybody that could create jobs and wealth. I think it's a conspiracy concocted by the dairy industry to mandate that the Government has to give everybody a block of cheese every month. |
Retraining
"Hawke" wrote in message ... ...finally gives some concrete answers to the question of what manufacturing workers should be retraining for, if they're expecting to work in a growing sector of the economy: "Why do presidential candidates touting their concern for the economy pose with factory workers rather than with ballet troupes? After all, the U.S. now has more choreographers (16,340) than metal-casters (14,880), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. More people make their livings shuffling and dealing cards in casinos (82,960) than running lathes (65,840), and there are almost three times as many security guards (1,004,130) as machinists (385,690). Whereas 30 percent of Americans worked in manufacturing in 1950, fewer than 15 percent do now. The economy as politicians present it is a folkloric thing." So, the answer is clear: It's time to learn to dance or shuffle. Practice those pirouettes, and always deal from the top of the deck, ya'll. http://www.wikihow.com/Do-a-Pirouette Bleh. OTOH, those 15 percent are more likely to be good at what they do. I bet a lot of those mill operators in the '50s just knew how to work at the level of "turn the big handle over there until the number 55 is on top" where the ones that are left can not only build to print just fine, but hand you back a print with redlines to make the part better or less expensive to build. Maybe. Maybe not. There are lots of former machine operators who are flipping burgers today, but the 15% you're talking about includes everyone. There's another thing to consider, if I'm not mistaken: The federal agency that tracks these things classifies ones job as a "service job" if one isn't actually putting stuff together with ones own hands -- so if you hold a job as an engineer, draftsman, planner, or any other vital job that requires practical experience and knowledge but doesn't have you touching the machines, then you're not considered to be "manufacturing" anything. It's just the opposite. They count everyone who works for a company that has a manufacturing or manufacturing service (machine shops, custom molders, etc.) NAICS code. They don't miss much. And that includes salesmen and office clerks who work for manufacturing companies. That 15% of folks who are actually running the machines and bolting things together aren't standing out in the forest picking raw materials off the trees, and there aren't any shy woodland creatures carrying the finished product to market -- so "manufacturing" is bigger than the feds make out. Yeah, it includes the people who carry the finished product to market -- as long as they work for the company. Independent trucking firms aren't included. Neither are people out picking things off of trees. g The percentage of people who work in manufacturing is simply down, Tim. That should be no surprise. What surprised me is how many choreographers we have. I don't really see that much dancing going on. Well, it's a damn good thing there is because we're not making things anymore. I see two things going on here. One is that we are repeating history. Endland was the world's manufacturing king at one time. We instituted protectionist policies to build our own industries to compete with them and eventually we took the job of making things away from them. Leaving them screwed basically and us in fine shape. Now China and to some extent India are doing the same thing to us. Actually, they've already done it to us. Same with the Japanese, they protected their markets from us, dumped products on our open market, stole our markets and now they own them. When we made everything we were the richest country on earth, same with the Brits when they were making everything. Now everything is being made in the East and they are going to be in the great financial position we used to hold. Looks to me like the same thing that has gone on since the Industrial Revolution. But you would have thought our people would have been smarter and not allowed it to happen. The Japanese haven't let their manufacturing base go away like ours has. Clearly they are smarter, and less corrupt than we are. The second thing is the financial situation which is really dangerous. A few years back the real estate in Tokyo was valued at an astronomically high amount, I don't remember what it was but supposedly the value of all the real estate in Tokyo was worth more than in all of the United States. That's obviously crazy but it's a sign of what happens when finance doesn't reflect reality. Now with more money in finance than exists in all the material things in the world something is truly wrong. It's a situation that is ripe for a worldwide meltdown as real values will eventually bring down the false market values. Unfortunately, the only way to get control of it is for governments to jump in and strongly regulate the financial markets. Sadly, that's not going to happen when financial interests control the governments of all the wealthy nations. Therefore, the odds are that at some point there will be a worldwide financial meltdown. The good thing is that it is mainly going to hurt the richest among us since it's they who own all the assets. Which says a lot for having the bulk of a nation's wealth held by the majority of it's citizens and not a small privileged class like it is now in most of the world. Hawke I heard of a study that stated that if all the world's wealth was redistributed equally, it would all legally be back in roughly the same hands in a few years. It seems that some people are smarter and more industrious than others. How come the socialist pamphlets never include the words "Hard Work" or "Manage Money"? (It seems the public school system doesn't include them either.) |
Retraining
"David Harmon" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:07:04 -0500 in rec.crafts.metalworking, "Ed Huntress" wrote, Maybe. Maybe not. There are lots of former machine operators who are flipping burgers today, but the 15% you're talking about includes everyone. Flipping burgers is manufacturing, no? He's manufacturing a burger. Tell that to the U.S. Census Bureau. g -- Ed Huntress |
Retraining
"David Harmon" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:07:04 -0500 in rec.crafts.metalworking, "Ed Huntress" wrote, Maybe. Maybe not. There are lots of former machine operators who are flipping burgers today, but the 15% you're talking about includes everyone. Flipping burgers is manufacturing, no? He's manufacturing a burger. No, he's adding value to an agricultural product. |
Retraining
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message . net... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... snip You're just looking for something or someone to blame, Tom. The course of technological advance wouldn't go backwards because employees got better. -- Ed Huntress Blame? Hell, I want to THANK someone! Until somewhat recently the technology payback was too far out. I'd love to see my business have nothing but an office and a shipping clerk. Of course! And that's the reason manufacturing jobs are now paying $0.80/hour -- in China. All the people who were paying wages in the US never really wanted to, anyway, and now they've found a good reason not to. So what's your gripe? You got what you asked for, right? The other consideration is that US corporate taxes are 35%!!! Why do anything under those rates when it's much more attractive overseas? When are you moving? d8-) Patriotic duty? ...a good way to get crushed. Why should anybody invest in the US? The Europeans are flipping over the low cost of manufacturing in the US and they're buying up all of the manufacturing here they can get their hands on. Why are you having a problem? Just who is it you're competing with, anyway? There seems to be a move to punish anybody that could create jobs and wealth. I think it's a conspiracy concocted by the dairy industry to mandate that the Government has to give everybody a block of cheese every month. Tom, the US has the lowest taxes, or the second-lowest taxes overall, of any country in the OECD (developed countries). I think you've picked the wrong target. -- Ed Huntress |
Retraining
Brent wrote:
I know hospitals where the janitor makes more than the people in the lab processing and analyzing the test results used to generate a diagnosis. WHy go to school when you can make more money pushing a broom. The situation is the same in the US. The average age of a Medical Technologist is 54. There are some who wonder why no one wants to go to college for five years to make less than the janitor. Kevin Gallimore |
Retraining
Ed Huntress wrote:
Ha! Wait until she's ready for college. A friend of mine put his daughter into a performing arts college in Boston and they had to do auditions at 13 schools in the process. He was driving around like a madman for months. It is *not* like applying for regular colleges. On the other hand, it could be tougher. She might want to work in a foundry. We are starting the selection. Being a practical child, she feels that teaching music/theater is a better employment bet than performing. That means we have to find an education/dance/music/theater college. That is way outside my area of expertise. But- she really liked the casting demos at Cabin Fever. And there's probably a quota for female foundry workers. Kevin Gallimore |
Retraining
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:45:06 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote: I heard of a study that stated that if all the world's wealth was redistributed equally, it would all legally be back in roughly the same hands in a few years. It seems that some people are smarter and more industrious than others. How come the socialist pamphlets never include the words "Hard Work" or "Manage Money"? (It seems the public school system doesn't include them either.) ============ This appears to be another urban myth with nothing to back it up. As far as the omission of phrases such as "hard work" or "managing money," I don't recall words/phrases like "lucky" and "born with a silver spoon in one's mouth" being used much either. Winning the lottery or choosing rich parents is not a mark of moral superiority or superior intellect. What is certain, based on hard data from a number of societies/economies, both asian and western, socialist and capitalist, is that concentration of wealth/productive assets past a given point is a sure recipe for disaster, social upheaval and/or economic implosion. Wealth (in terms of ownership of productive assets) of the richest 1 percent of Americans is now slightly greater than 40%. The last time it was this high was in the summer of 1929... There is also the question of *HOW* this concentration of ownership of 40 % of America's wealth by 1% of the population was achieved. It is clear that increasingly this concentration is *NOT* the result of hard work, innovation and risk taking, or even "luck," but rather the product of large scale organized criminal activities such as fraud, extortion, insider-trading, arms-smuggling, drug-dealing, money-laundering, stock option back-dating/spring-loading, and tax-evasion. Enforcement of the organized crime statues [such as RICO] combined, with the enhanced financial tracking possible under the Patriot act, and communications monotoring under FISA, should be resulting in governmental seizures of massive amounts of executive bonuses, deferred compensation, and other assets such as Rolex watches and Maybach autos, in addition to long prison sentences for the officers and directors of many of our corporations. It is well to remember this 40% number when the complaints about taxes start. It seems only reasonable to me that if you own 40% of the productive assets, you should be paying about 40% of the total taxes, which is not the case. Wealth is power. This is a fact that many people seem to ignore, and wish to suppress. It is ironic that many of those lucky enough to possess the financial equivalent of a hydrogen bomb are among the most rabid advocates of disarming the general population by the abolition of the private ownership of firearms. If a law abiding citizen cannot be trusted to own a firearm, why should they be trusted to own/control a [financial] h-bomb? George Soros is the poster boy for this. |
Retraining
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:55:10 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote: "David Harmon" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:07:04 -0500 in rec.crafts.metalworking, "Ed Huntress" wrote, Maybe. Maybe not. There are lots of former machine operators who are flipping burgers today, but the 15% you're talking about includes everyone. Flipping burgers is manufacturing, no? He's manufacturing a burger. No, he's adding value to an agricultural product. ========== At least he is *ADDING* value [until he burns one...]. Per other posts, this is more than can be said for ever increasing numbers of economic sectors/occupations in the US. |
Retraining
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:35:13 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote: The other consideration is that US corporate taxes are 35%!!! =================== The statutory tax rate means nothing if no one pays it. There are now so many deductions, exceptions, exemptions, etc. that on the average, a US corporation pays income and total taxes at a *LOWER* rate than a single working mother, and this is only on their known/reported income. Where a corporation such as Ford, General Motors, or Chrysler reports a continuing operating loss they pay *NO* income taxes because they had no income, although they are generally consuming enormous amounts of tax payer funds. These losses will be subsidized by the tax payers for many years *IF* the corporations return to profitability, through the magic of "carry-forward" tax losses. Corporations operating under Chapter 11 (reorganization) are similarly favored. Lets get rid of these "tin cup" corporations. I suggest that "tax loss hobby operation" type regulations be applied to all corporations. For example, automatic chapter 11 reorganization if a corporation fails to pay federal and state income taxes in at least 7 years of a rolling 10 year period for which the national unemployment rate is below 6.5%, and automatic chapter 7 liquidation for second bankruptcy in a 3 year period, or for chapter 11 operation for more than 2 years. |
Retraining
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... snipped Blame? Hell, I want to THANK someone! Until somewhat recently the technology payback was too far out. I'd love to see my business have nothing but an office and a shipping clerk. Of course! And that's the reason manufacturing jobs are now paying $0.80/hour -- in China. All the people who were paying wages in the US never really wanted to, anyway, and now they've found a good reason not to. So what's your gripe? You got what you asked for, right? If you put your life savings and every way to make a living into a bank, would you put it in the bank that offers 3% interest or the one that offers %? ---assuming all other factors are the same and assuming you have to feed, clothe, shelter and entertain yourself for the rest of your life. I'm getting old now and I just don't have the energy or the will to go 90 miles an hour day after day anymore. Do I have some duty to give away my assets? Like the assets I DIDN'T spend on a new wide-screen or a new car or expensive food and such? Is it my fault that most of the population knows nothing about hard work and money management so they end up spending faster than they make then expect a gov. bail-out or support? The other consideration is that US corporate taxes are 35%!!! Why do anything under those rates when it's much more attractive overseas? When are you moving? d8-) Patriotic duty? ...a good way to get crushed. Why should anybody invest in the US? The Europeans are flipping over the low cost of manufacturing in the US and they're buying up all of the manufacturing here they can get their hands on. Why are you having a problem? Just who is it you're competing with, anyway? The biggest competitor in hardware wire wheels is the Spanish prison system, the rest is China. The Europeans are investing here because of the cultural similarities and Europe is socialist...no good for business. There seems to be a move to punish anybody that could create jobs and wealth. I think it's a conspiracy concocted by the dairy industry to mandate that the Government has to give everybody a block of cheese every month. Tom, the US has the lowest taxes, or the second-lowest taxes overall, of any country in the OECD (developed countries). I think you've picked the wrong target. So, the US should raise corporate taxes? Taxing a corporation at all is wrong! It's just another way to collect hidden taxes from consumers and hurt exports. |
Retraining
Let's get rid of the lawyers that make the tax code. Level playing
field. Tax income once. F. George McDuffee wrote: Lets get rid of these "tin cup" corporations. |
Retraining
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:45:06 -0500, "Tom Gardner" wrote: I heard of a study that stated that if all the world's wealth was redistributed equally, it would all legally be back in roughly the same hands in a few years. It seems that some people are smarter and more industrious than others. How come the socialist pamphlets never include the words "Hard Work" or "Manage Money"? (It seems the public school system doesn't include them either.) ============ This appears to be another urban myth with nothing to back it up. As far as the omission of phrases such as "hard work" or "managing money," I don't recall words/phrases like "lucky" and "born with a silver spoon in one's mouth" being used much either. Winning the lottery or choosing rich parents is not a mark of moral superiority or superior intellect. What is certain, based on hard data from a number of societies/economies, both asian and western, socialist and capitalist, is that concentration of wealth/productive assets past a given point is a sure recipe for disaster, social upheaval and/or economic implosion. Wealth (in terms of ownership of productive assets) of the richest 1 percent of Americans is now slightly greater than 40%. The last time it was this high was in the summer of 1929... There is also the question of *HOW* this concentration of ownership of 40 % of America's wealth by 1% of the population was achieved. It is clear that increasingly this concentration is *NOT* the result of hard work, innovation and risk taking, or even "luck," but rather the product of large scale organized criminal activities such as fraud, extortion, insider-trading, arms-smuggling, drug-dealing, money-laundering, stock option back-dating/spring-loading, and tax-evasion. Enforcement of the organized crime statues [such as RICO] combined, with the enhanced financial tracking possible under the Patriot act, and communications monotoring under FISA, should be resulting in governmental seizures of massive amounts of executive bonuses, deferred compensation, and other assets such as Rolex watches and Maybach autos, in addition to long prison sentences for the officers and directors of many of our corporations. It is well to remember this 40% number when the complaints about taxes start. It seems only reasonable to me that if you own 40% of the productive assets, you should be paying about 40% of the total taxes, which is not the case. Wealth is power. This is a fact that many people seem to ignore, and wish to suppress. It is ironic that many of those lucky enough to possess the financial equivalent of a hydrogen bomb are among the most rabid advocates of disarming the general population by the abolition of the private ownership of firearms. If a law abiding citizen cannot be trusted to own a firearm, why should they be trusted to own/control a [financial] h-bomb? George Soros is the poster boy for this. Luck is seldom permanent and the lucky one day are broke the next...not a factor in long term success. However, stupidity, lack of values, greed and such ARE a factor in long term failure. Socialism has never worked, why do people keep thinking it will this time? The theft and redistribution of wealth is ALWAYS advocated by the ones that seek a way around that "hard work" and "manage money" part and the redistribution part is ALWAYS skewed. Basically, you just want to be the CEO making the megabucks but have no marketable skill to get you there. |
Retraining
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:35:13 -0500, "Tom Gardner" wrote: The other consideration is that US corporate taxes are 35%!!! =================== The statutory tax rate means nothing if no one pays it. There are now so many deductions, exceptions, exemptions, etc. that on the average, a US corporation pays income and total taxes at a *LOWER* rate than a single working mother, and this is only on their known/reported income. Where a corporation such as Ford, General Motors, or Chrysler reports a continuing operating loss they pay *NO* income taxes because they had no income, although they are generally consuming enormous amounts of tax payer funds. These losses will be subsidized by the tax payers for many years *IF* the corporations return to profitability, through the magic of "carry-forward" tax losses. Corporations operating under Chapter 11 (reorganization) are similarly favored. Lets get rid of these "tin cup" corporations. I suggest that "tax loss hobby operation" type regulations be applied to all corporations. For example, automatic chapter 11 reorganization if a corporation fails to pay federal and state income taxes in at least 7 years of a rolling 10 year period for which the national unemployment rate is below 6.5%, and automatic chapter 7 liquidation for second bankruptcy in a 3 year period, or for chapter 11 operation for more than 2 years. How about no tax, no bail-out? |
Retraining
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message . .. "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... snipped Blame? Hell, I want to THANK someone! Until somewhat recently the technology payback was too far out. I'd love to see my business have nothing but an office and a shipping clerk. Of course! And that's the reason manufacturing jobs are now paying $0.80/hour -- in China. All the people who were paying wages in the US never really wanted to, anyway, and now they've found a good reason not to. So what's your gripe? You got what you asked for, right? If you put your life savings and every way to make a living into a bank, would you put it in the bank that offers 3% interest or the one that offers %? ---assuming all other factors are the same and assuming you have to feed, clothe, shelter and entertain yourself for the rest of your life. Perhaps there is some connection in your mind between the paragraph I wrote and the one you wrote in response. If so, I don't have the slightest idea of what it is. I'm getting old now and I just don't have the energy or the will to go 90 miles an hour day after day anymore. Do I have some duty to give away my assets? Like the assets I DIDN'T spend on a new wide-screen or a new car or expensive food and such? Is it my fault that most of the population knows nothing about hard work and money management so they end up spending faster than they make then expect a gov. bail-out or support? Here I could repeat the paragraph above, and then add that a spending population is what keeps you in business, directly and indirectly. What, specifically, are you complaining about? Why is it you aren't making as much money as you would like? Is it because some foreign competitors are undercutting your prices? If so, welcome to the new economy of globalization. Or is it because you're really competitive except for some combination of high wages and taxes? If so, I'll ask again: Who are these competitors who are keeping you from charging enough to make money? Are they foreign or domestic? Because if they're foreign, and these foreign competitors are in low-wage countries, you have no chance of competing against them directly unless you move to the third world. If they're domestic, why are they able to hold their costs down while you can't? The other consideration is that US corporate taxes are 35%!!! Why do anything under those rates when it's much more attractive overseas? When are you moving? d8-) Patriotic duty? ...a good way to get crushed. Why should anybody invest in the US? The Europeans are flipping over the low cost of manufacturing in the US and they're buying up all of the manufacturing here they can get their hands on. Why are you having a problem? Just who is it you're competing with, anyway? The biggest competitor in hardware wire wheels is the Spanish prison system, the rest is China. And how do you propose to compete with prison labor? Do you expect your employees to work for prison wages just so you can compete? As for China, forget it. They can buy the same technology you have and they pay $0.80/hour. You have no chance of competing with them head-to-head. You need a different niche, if there is one. In any case, you'd better figure out of there's a place for you in the global economy, because that's the economy we've got. The Europeans are investing here because of the cultural similarities and Europe is socialist...no good for business. Europe has been doing very well without us, thank you very much. There was an analysis of European versus US businesses in one of the major publications recently and it appears they're doing about the same as we are or slightly better overall. Socialism, which they have less of today than you appear to think, has nothing to do with it. As with China, their businesses are private enterprise, competing more effectively than we are on world markets even outside of Europe, and they have about an equal number of advantages and disadvantages versus the US. The reasons they're buying up US manufacturing properties are twofold: First, the euro/dollar exchange makes our investments relatively cheap. Second, our operating costs are quite low compared to theirs, partly because of the exchange rate and partly because US manufacturing has very high productivity on a worldwide scale. Our labor rates, especially in non-union regions, are a downright bargain. Our energy prices are ridiculously low. There was a story in a West Virginia newspaper a couple of days ago about a German company that bought a group of supply-chain companies in the region and is now exporting manufactured parts to Germany from the US, because of the low prices resulting from low manufacturing costs. Comparing what's going on in Europe, China, and the US obviously is not as simplistic as we make it out to be here. But in the upper echelons of globalized manufacturing, China is the low-priced supplier with many business, political, and logistical problems, and the US is now the low-priced advanced manufacturing company with easy access and trade. As I said a few years ago, all American manufacturing needs to be competitive on world markets is a cheaper dollar. The dollar has been 'way overpriced for nearly two decades, which has crippled our exports. Now it's one of our assets. If the cheap dollar doesn't kill us with inflation or a liquidity crisis first, it could turn out to be a solid boost for US manufacturing. But it won't solve the problems we have with China. When the competitor is a very low-wage country, what one has to do is outmaneuver them, by moving upmarket, by focusing on a niche or niches that aren't large enough for them, by adding services they can't, or by some other means. I hope you get to go along for the ride. There seems to be a move to punish anybody that could create jobs and wealth. I think it's a conspiracy concocted by the dairy industry to mandate that the Government has to give everybody a block of cheese every month. Tom, the US has the lowest taxes, or the second-lowest taxes overall, of any country in the OECD (developed countries). I think you've picked the wrong target. So, the US should raise corporate taxes? Taxing a corporation at all is wrong! It's just another way to collect hidden taxes from consumers and hurt exports. Corporations are taxed all over the world. If you want to see what the relative rates are, this is some older info from OECD, but the ratios still hold pretty much. China isn't an OECD country but its corporate tax rates are similar to ours: http://www.oecdwash.org/DATA/STATS/taxsystems.pdf You'll note that taxes for our major trading partners are in line with ours, with one BIG exception: The US has no value-added tax, which runs up to 20% or more in some countries. That's on TOP of the taxes that are similar to ours, minus our sales taxes, which are always a small fraction of other trading partners' VATs. We've discussed all of this before, yet you persist in saying that corporate taxes are part of your competitiveness problem, when they're demonstrably not. Labor rates are demonstrably not a competitive issue versus Europe. As for the brushes made with prison labor in Spain, where did you get this information? If I understand the GATT/WTO agreements correctly, countries can refuse to accept goods made with prison labor. Have you spoken to your congressman about it? If you're just butting your head against China, you'd might as well be butting your head against the Great Wall. If Spanish prison labor is the problem, it's time to talk to your congressman. The WTO specifically does not allow competition from prison labor that's priced under the home country's normal cost of production. And I'd be surprised if you couldn't compete with Spain's private industry. Actually, I'd be surprised if they tried to sell in the industrial niches of the US market for brushes at all. -- Ed Huntress |
Retraining
"axolotl" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: Ha! Wait until she's ready for college. A friend of mine put his daughter into a performing arts college in Boston and they had to do auditions at 13 schools in the process. He was driving around like a madman for months. It is *not* like applying for regular colleges. On the other hand, it could be tougher. She might want to work in a foundry. We are starting the selection. Being a practical child, she feels that teaching music/theater is a better employment bet than performing. That means we have to find an education/dance/music/theater college. That is way outside my area of expertise. But- she really liked the casting demos at Cabin Fever. And there's probably a quota for female foundry workers. Good luck to her in any case. Teaching sounds good. Foundry work will probably be so automated in a few years that they'll run with the lights out. -- Ed Huntress |
Retraining
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Tom Gardner" wrote in message . .. snipsnipsnip I'm just ranting...actually, over 80% of what I make today are new products exploiting a niche that I hope is too small to attract competition and the technology is proprietary. I just anticipate the other shoe dropping and I get screwed somehow. I've abandoned those products that are made in Spain and China but I still can produce if the demand swings and they become profitable. Ohio increased the minimum wage by more than 25% last year and bumped it again this year. I had to separate some low end employees that their skill level couldn't justify the bump. (porters and cleaners) I have hired more people at a much higher skill and wage level but I feel terrible that the jobless rate in Cleveland skyrocketed due to the State's wage bump. Crime rates paralleled it too with the added thousands to the street. I used to be able to afford a few "charity" jobs for the neighborhood riff-raff. You're right, the Dollar is over valued but until the Chinese cut the Yuan loose from the Dollar completely, they have a competitive advantage so I will stay out of those product lines or buy the products from them. Getting back to the original post, I see less and less people being involved in manufacturing in the US and those people will have higher and higher skill levels. The days of good factory jobs for the masses are gone for a while. I don't understand how the economy works with less and less actual wealth creation...it can't be a good thing. |
Retraining
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Tom Gardner" wrote in message . .. snipsnipsnip I'm just ranting...actually, over 80% of what I make today are new products exploiting a niche that I hope is too small to attract competition and the technology is proprietary. I just anticipate the other shoe dropping and I get screwed somehow. I've abandoned those products that are made in Spain and China but I still can produce if the demand swings and they become profitable. Ohio increased the minimum wage by more than 25% last year and bumped it again this year. I had to separate some low end employees that their skill level couldn't justify the bump. (porters and cleaners) I have hired more people at a much higher skill and wage level but I feel terrible that the jobless rate in Cleveland skyrocketed due to the State's wage bump. Crime rates paralleled it too with the added thousands to the street. I used to be able to afford a few "charity" jobs for the neighborhood riff-raff. From the statistics, it doesn't look like the increased minimum wage had a measurable effect on unemployment in Ohio -- it was already running a few tenths of a percent above the national average and it still is -- although sorting out the details for Cleveland and isolating the causes would be tough. You're a small business in a rust-belt, monopsonistic state (one that traditionally has a high percentage of large employers who dominate the labor market). As a small business you're always going to take the hit from higher wages, regardless of the cause. And Ohio's fortunes are still heavily influenced by the fortunes of the automobile industry, which, as Michigan knows, is not exactly booming. On the average, boosting a minimum wage results in a small increase in unemployment (partly because more people enter the labor market when wages go up, while hiring remains static due to the higher rates), accompanied by a small increase in average worker incomes. Where you have monopsony the increase in unemployment often is close to zero. Where a regional economy has a high percentage of low-wage service jobs the increase in unemployment can be significant. *Your* employment, as a small business, is going to drop but the statistical effect of small changes in employment in small manufacturing-related businesses is hardly measurable in most regional economies. But I won't quibble over that. You're feeling it, and you're obviously frustrated by it. If your "charity" jobs actually helped people get started working and encouraged them to do better, it's unfortunate that the increase in the minimum wage took that option away from you. I'm doubtful about how much effect that has when you start looking at entire communities and states, but I can't judge it because I don't know how common the practice is. The whole dynamic of employer size and dominance, union effects, and legislated minimum wages is a complicated thing to measure and judge. It tends to spring a few surprises, too. You're right, the Dollar is over valued but until the Chinese cut the Yuan loose from the Dollar completely, they have a competitive advantage so I will stay out of those product lines or buy the products from them. Getting back to the original post, I see less and less people being involved in manufacturing in the US and those people will have higher and higher skill levels. The days of good factory jobs for the masses are gone for a while. I don't understand how the economy works with less and less actual wealth creation...it can't be a good thing. "Actual wealth creation" is the key to that question, and it requires some study. The wealth tends to accumulate to the people or the societies that control the aggregation, lending, and supply of money, like Luxembourg, New York, or London. Where it actually comes from is an interesting question. Manufacturing is just one of several components. No doubt the numbers of people involved in manufacturing will continue to drop, although the big drops may already have happened. Productivity growth is likely to slow down and take a breather for a while. Now we're starting to see what manufacturing will look like in the US as globalization and development of large chunks of the world's economy and population advance. I've thought for a long while that the US will have a smaller but healthier base of manufacturing, and that, as you say, the people involved will be highly skilled. If nothing else, global competition will force it. -- Ed Huntress |
Retraining
But what about the foundry that she could have choreographed?
Brings to mind the Nextel (?) wireless commercial where the site boss has everyone working to the phone calls... Ed Huntress wrote: But- she really liked the casting demos at Cabin Fever. And there's probably a quota for female foundry workers. Good luck to her in any case. Teaching sounds good. Foundry work will probably be so automated in a few years that they'll run with the lights out. |
Retraining
"Louis Ohland" wrote in message ... But what about the foundry that she could have choreographed? Brings to mind the Nextel (?) wireless commercial where the site boss has everyone working to the phone calls... Ed Huntress wrote: But- she really liked the casting demos at Cabin Fever. And there's probably a quota for female foundry workers. Good luck to her in any case. Teaching sounds good. Foundry work will probably be so automated in a few years that they'll run with the lights out. If she can choreograph foundries, and if she can attract an audience, there's a unique place for her in the global economy. d8-) Foundrywork is much more fun as a hobby or a one-person specialty operation. I've been in enough foundries to know that I wouldn't want to work there. The local cupola iron foundry, which went out of business over 30 years ago, would remind you of those stories about hell we were told as kids. And old diecasting shops, when I started reported on manufacturing (mid-'70s) could have come straight out of Dante's Inferno. Everything was there but the wails, screams, and the sound of flailing chains. They probably muted them for my visit. -- Ed Huntress |
Retraining
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:32:30 -0500, "Tom Gardner"
wrote: snip Is it my fault that most of the population knows nothing about hard work and money management so they end up spending faster than they make then expect a gov. bail-out or support? snip ===================== No, but in the larger sense it is not the "fault," of the people in trouble either. Take a good look at the US TV ads and shows. The people in trouble are simply doing what the ads want them to do and are mirroring the behaviors they see on the TV shows, not realizing this is a highly toxic and counter-productive life-style. Think Paris Hilton (and she or her family has unlimited money). Indeed, the establishment "cure" for the current economic "hiccup" [by comparison to what is likely to occur] is to promote, extend and amplify the behavior patterns that caused the problem in the first place, i.e. conspicuous over-consumption. The traditional "hair of the dog that bit you" cure for a "hangover," appears to be alive and well. As far as bailouts go, if a bailout was for good for Chrysler, good for Lockheed, good for the S&Ls, good for LTCM [Long Term Capital Management], and good enough for the banks and brokerage houses [e.g. FRB prime interest rate cut to below the rate of inflation], then why aren't bailouts good for the people? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...947356,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...903076,00.html http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/ http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/ltcm.htm http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2008/01/2...?mod=wsjcrmain A major contributing factor to what you [and I] consider to be a glairing and increasingly serious omission in high school education, i.e. financial sanity and lifestyle review (which is at least as important as sex education, HIV information, and driver training) is that the "establishment," which relies on consumer debt, recreational shopping and conspicuous consumption for its existence, doesn't want it. == In this context, what you don't know will not only hurt you, it may well kill you, and in doing so, it may kill the country, as we know it. == Take a look at the SCANS [ Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills ] Report that is the basis for no-child-left-behind and other educational initiatives/cures/elixers/panaceas/snake-oil, and see if you find anything on "sustainable lifestyles" and/or "financial prudence." For SCANS information click on http://wdr.doleta.gov/SCANS/ Another factor is that many parents feel threatened when their children get even basic financial/lifestyle information and start asking questions about their family lifestyles/values. The politicians aren't too happy either, when "the people" start asking too many questions and putting limits/controls on their spending [e.g. TaBOR]. For some examples of their whining click on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Bill_of_Rights http://www.thebell.org/issues/fiscal/tabor.php |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter