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

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

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

"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?

"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

"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

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

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/

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

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....

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.

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.

"Louis Ohland" wrote in message
news
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

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
news
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

...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

"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

"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

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

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.

"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.

"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.)

"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

"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.

"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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
news
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.

"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?

"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

"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

"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.

"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

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.

"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

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