I was at a shoe store recently and a quick check of a few shoe boxes
indicated that most shoes are not made in the USA. I can understand
why some products are not made in the United States but shoes? We have
shut down a lot of our mining industry for things like steel and
copper because of EPA regulations so I can understand why we ship in a
lot of steel. But shoes? Does China have so many cattle that they can
put shoes on the feet of their one billion plus population and have
enough leather left to send millions of shoes to the United States
every year/

Another question about shoes. India has around a billion people also
and I assume a lot of them wear shoes. However isn't it national
policy in India that cows are sacred? Of course leather can be made
out of Pigskin or other skins but aren't those animals sacred also?

During college I worked nights at a local beef packing house. One of
the jobs I did at that PH was spreading beef hides out and throwing
rock salt over them to start curing. That operation only processed
about 300 head a day but that is a helluva lot of shoes. I wonder how
much of our leather goes to China to be turned into shoes and sent
back to the United States. I guess it is cheaper to use expensive fuel
to send raw leather to China and use China's CHEAP LABOR and use some
more EXPENSIVE fuel to ship Chinese shoes back to America.

Go figure.
DL

TwoGuns wrote:

I was at a shoe store recently and a quick check of a few shoe boxes
indicated that most shoes are not made in the USA. I can understand
why some products are not made in the United States but shoes? We have
shut down a lot of our mining industry for things like steel and
copper because of EPA regulations so I can understand why we ship in a
lot of steel. But shoes? Does China have so many cattle that they can
put shoes on the feet of their one billion plus population and have
enough leather left to send millions of shoes to the United States
every year/

Another question about shoes. India has around a billion people also
and I assume a lot of them wear shoes. However isn't it national
policy in India that cows are sacred? Of course leather can be made
out of Pigskin or other skins but aren't those animals sacred also?

During college I worked nights at a local beef packing house. One of
the jobs I did at that PH was spreading beef hides out and throwing
rock salt over them to start curing. That operation only processed
about 300 head a day but that is a helluva lot of shoes. I wonder how
much of our leather goes to China to be turned into shoes and sent
back to the United States. I guess it is cheaper to use expensive fuel
to send raw leather to China and use China's CHEAP LABOR and use some
more EXPENSIVE fuel to ship Chinese shoes back to America.

You might consider that if the US
taxed fuel instead of labor
the equation might change a little

The products you consume might be made
a little closer to where you live



Go figure.
DL

TwoGuns wrote:I guess it is cheaper to use expensive fuel
to send raw leather to China and use China's CHEAP LABOR and use some
more EXPENSIVE fuel to ship Chinese shoes back to America.

Go figure.
DL


:-) Leather??? I'm pretty sure most shoes now-a-days
are made of plastic of some sort.
...lew...

In article
s.com, TwoGuns writes
snip
But shoes? Does China have so many cattle that they can
put shoes on the feet of their one billion plus population and have
enough leather left to send millions of shoes to the United States
every year/
Are they are made of faux leather?
If so, faux must be an endangered species in China. Perhaps the World
Wildlife Fund should investigate!
--
Chris Holford

On Mar 5, 5:41*am, TwoGuns wrote:
I was at a shoe store recently and a quick check of a few shoe boxes
indicated that most shoes are not made in the USA. I can understand
why some products are not made in the United States but shoes? We have
shut down a lot of our mining industry for things like steel and
copper because of EPA regulations so I can understand why we ship in a
lot of steel. But shoes? Does China have so many cattle that they can
put shoes on the feet of their one billion plus population and have
enough leather left to send millions of shoes to the United States
every year/

Another question about shoes. India has around a billion people also
and I assume a lot of them wear shoes. However isn't it national
policy in India that cows are sacred? Of course leather can be made
out of Pigskin or other skins but aren't those animals sacred also?

*During college I worked nights at a local beef packing house. One of
the jobs I did at that PH was spreading beef hides out and throwing
rock salt over them to start curing. That operation only processed
about 300 head a day but that is a helluva lot of shoes. I wonder how
much of our leather goes to China to be turned into shoes and sent
back to the United States. I guess it is cheaper to use expensive fuel
to send raw leather to China and use China's CHEAP LABOR and use some
more EXPENSIVE fuel to ship Chinese shoes back to America.

Go figure.
DL

http://www.tannerscouncilict.org/ict%20stats2008.pdf

In article ,
Chris Holford wrote:

In article
s.com, TwoGuns writes
snip
But shoes? Does China have so many cattle that they can
put shoes on the feet of their one billion plus population and have
enough leather left to send millions of shoes to the United States
every year/
Are they are made of faux leather?
If so, faux must be an endangered species in China. Perhaps the World
Wildlife Fund should investigate!

I wear ecco soft slip-on shoes that are made in India, but are made of
leather. I imagine that the leather is made outside of India, so the
sacred cows are safe.

I've read that the way the population of sacred cows in India is
controlled is by selling the cows to Pakistani companies.


Joe Gwinn

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 03:41:09 -0800, TwoGuns wrote:

I was at a shoe store recently and a quick check of a few shoe boxes
indicated that most shoes are not made in the USA. I can understand why
some products are not made in the United States but shoes? We have shut
down a lot of our mining industry for things like steel and copper
because of EPA regulations so I can understand why we ship in a lot of
steel. But shoes? Does China have so many cattle that they can put shoes
on the feet of their one billion plus population and have enough leather
left to send millions of shoes to the United States every year/

Another question about shoes. India has around a billion people also and
I assume a lot of them wear shoes. However isn't it national policy in
India that cows are sacred? Of course leather can be made out of Pigskin
or other skins but aren't those animals sacred also?

During college I worked nights at a local beef packing house. One of
the jobs I did at that PH was spreading beef hides out and throwing rock
salt over them to start curing. That operation only processed about 300
head a day but that is a helluva lot of shoes. I wonder how much of our
leather goes to China to be turned into shoes and sent back to the
United States. I guess it is cheaper to use expensive fuel to send raw
leather to China and use China's CHEAP LABOR and use some more EXPENSIVE
fuel to ship Chinese shoes back to America.

Go figure.
DL

The Blue Heron paper mill in Oregon City is closing -- they've been
operating under the protection of the bankruptcy court since 2009, but
this year the price for scrap paper jumped up, and things just didn't
pencil out anymore.

Back in 1776, we fought a war with the British, in no small part because
they were trying to prevent us from manufacturing our own goods: the
business model was that we'd send raw materials west, they'd make them
into manufactured goods (and make out like bandits), and we'd buy those
manufactured goods.

Now, we're _giving that away_. Republicans say "anything that makes
money for rich people is good". Democrats say "we'll all be college
educated managers and teachers in 20 years" (but don't do the math on
_who_ we're going to manage). No one seems to get the point.

Sigh.

--
http://www.wescottdesign.com

On Mar 5, 5:41*am, TwoGuns wrote:
I was at a shoe store recently and a quick check of a few shoe boxes
indicated that most shoes are not made in the USA. I can understand
why some products are not made in the United States but shoes? We have
shut down a lot of our mining industry for things like steel and
copper because of EPA regulations so I can understand why we ship in a
lot of steel. But shoes? Does China have so many cattle that they can
put shoes on the feet of their one billion plus population and have
enough leather left to send millions of shoes to the United States
every year/

Another question about shoes. India has around a billion people also
and I assume a lot of them wear shoes. However isn't it national
policy in India that cows are sacred? Of course leather can be made
out of Pigskin or other skins but aren't those animals sacred also?

*During college I worked nights at a local beef packing house. One of
the jobs I did at that PH was spreading beef hides out and throwing
rock salt over them to start curing. That operation only processed
about 300 head a day but that is a helluva lot of shoes. I wonder how
much of our leather goes to China to be turned into shoes and sent
back to the United States. I guess it is cheaper to use expensive fuel
to send raw leather to China and use China's CHEAP LABOR and use some
more EXPENSIVE fuel to ship Chinese shoes back to America.

Go figure.
DL

In your rant you forgot to add..."....by AMERICAN companies."

And yes cheap oil allows many "dumb" things to happen.

Americans used to wear buffalo coats ..... well until the cheap
buffalo were gone.

How dare they disappear!

FWIW...most people in the world either do not wear shoes or wear
something that you and I would have thrown out long ago.

And in many places, any protein including leather is tomorrow's lunch.

TMT

TwoGuns wrote:

Another question about shoes. India has around a billion people also
and I assume a lot of them wear shoes. However isn't it national
policy in India that cows are sacred? Of course leather can be made
out of Pigskin or other skins but aren't those animals sacred also?

Not all Indians are hindu. There are muslims, christians, and sikhs. I'm trying to
remember the book I read this in but where a hindu can't butcher a cow, a muslim can do it
for him or something like that.

Wes

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 03:41:09 -0800 (PST), TwoGuns
wrote:

I was at a shoe store recently and a quick check of a few shoe boxes
indicated that most shoes are not made in the USA. I can understand
why some products are not made in the United States but shoes?
snip
Long response but so is the story

When examined in depth this is a very long running but
highly illustrative saga dating back to at least the late
1950s and early 1960s. To avoid possible libel action, I
will call the exemplar company "The Sepia Shoe Company"
founded in the late 1870s and originally domiciled in St
Louis Missouri, because of the large numbers of packing
houses and the resulting supply of cheap leather.

The company survived two world wars and the depression, but
in the late 50's/early 60's began moving production
operations out of St Louis to rural areas, particularly
those south of St Louis. Much of this was driven by the
economic development activities of those rural areas, which
offered land, labor, and financing at very attractive, i.e.
taxpayer subsidized, rates. The financing allowed the
construction of state of the art buildings and purchase of
the latest shoe manufacturing technology.

After about 10 years [mid 70s], the new equipment was
becoming obsolescent and worn out, the local hourly
employees were getting restless wanting higher wages, the
local ED tax abatements were expiring, and fat early years
of equipment tax depreciation were ending. Most fortunately
for the Sepia Shoe Company, the mantra in Washington was
"trade, not aid" at this time, and Brazil was heavily in
debt to the Wall Street knee knockers. Brazil also had
large leather surpluses, and additional hides and finished
leather was available at very cheap prices from Argentina.
The production operations were quickly shifted to Brazil,
largely financed by local [Brazilian] economic development
funds, state of the art buildings constructed, and the
newest, most productive shoe machinery purchased.
Unemployment was high, and any wage was better than no wage.
As Brazil was under a military dictatorship at this time, no
labor problems were anticipated as unions were forbidden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazili...ary_government

It was at this stage that the domestic shoe industry became
important, at least locally, and may have decided at least
one Senate election when one candidate [IIRC an incumbent]
was photographed wearing Gucci loafers [Italian made at that
time] with a distinctive metal decoration on the instep,
while making speeches about protecting the domestic shoe
industry to the local "great unwashed" of Missouri.

One new wrinkle with the establishment of international
operations was the extensive and active use of transfer
pricing. Sepia Brazil did not sell directly to Sepia USA,
but rather to an intermediary we will call Sepia Aruba. [It
is still not clear who actually controlled Sepia Aruba.]
The grift worked like this. The shoes and other leather
goods, e.g. belts, were produced cheaply by Sepia Brazil,
and sold cheaply to the international marketing and
distribution arm Sepia Aruba, generating little profit in
Brazil by Sepia Brazil, not enough in many cases to cover
the financing costs, and certainly not enough to justify any
raises for the local employees. Sepia Aruba then sold the
shoes and other leather goods to Sepia USA at a very
considerable markup, so little profit was generated in the
US by Sepia USA sales. By a strange coincidence there was
and is no corporate income tax in Aruba, so huge pools of
untaxed and unregulated capital of unknown ownership/control
quickly accumulated.

In the mid 80's control of Brazil was returned to a civilian
government and the financial dealings/arrangements of the
military dictatorship [1964-1985] were reexamined, and
serious questions began to be raised about the failure of
several international operations in addition to Sepia Brazil
to charge arms-length or customary/usual prices for their
exports sold to other divisions, and their failure to pay
their local taxes, reasonable wages, reinvest in domestic
facalities or even pay off the ED bonds.

Time elapsed and more populist/nationalist governments were
elected in Brazil and several tax evasion and financial
manipulation investigations started, and wages increased
through minimum wage legislation. It should be noted that
Sepia Brazil had very few assets beyond the now dated
buildings and obsolescent/worn-out shoe manufacturing
equipment, and much of this was collateral for the
local/Brazilian ED bonds/financing through the New York
banks but guaranteed by the Brazilian people/government.

By the mid to late 90's, the Sepia Shoe Company was
abandoning Brazil, leaving the creditors of Sepia Brazil
"holding the bag," as they transferred their manufacturing
operations to China and India, again using local ED funds to
construct state of the art buildings and purchase the very
latest shoe manufacturing equipment. When "earnest money"
was required, Sepia USA could easily borrow from
international sources, which may well have been the funds
amassed by Sepia Aruba, but because of the local bank
secrecy laws there is no way to tell. If this is indeed the
case, Sepia USA is paying high interest rates to itself for
using its own [Sepia Aruba] money while deducting the
interest costs as a tax-deductible business expense against
their US and other taxable income.

The transfer pricing dodge where a separate "trading and
marketing" company [Sepia Hong Cong? Sepia Macau?] buys low
(locally, from Sepia China, Sepia India) and sells high (to
Sepia USA for US distribution), appears to still be
operating but though Asian tax haven countries. I don't
know about India, but the Chinese apparently learn from the
mistakes of other, and require local participation/control
and technology transfer. Vietnam is another area where shoe
manufacturing is being transferred.

As you can see this is not a "sudden" or "new" problem but
one that has festered and metastasized over at least 2
generations of politicians and 3 company iterations,
persistently aided and abetted by US governmental
policy/neglect.








-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Mar 5, 1:57*pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 03:41:09 -0800 (PST), TwoGuns

wrote:
I was at a shoe store recently and a quick check of a few shoe boxes
indicated that most shoes are not made in the USA. I can understand
why some products are not made in the United States but shoes?

snip
Long response but so is the story

When examined in depth this is a very long running but
highly illustrative saga dating back to at least the late
1950s and early 1960s. *To avoid possible libel action, I
will call the exemplar company "The Sepia Shoe Company"
founded in the late 1870s and originally domiciled in St
Louis Missouri, because of the large numbers of packing
houses and the resulting supply of cheap leather.

The company survived two world wars and the depression, but
in the late 50's/early 60's began moving production
operations out of St Louis to rural areas, particularly
those south of St Louis. *Much of this was driven by the
economic development activities of those rural areas, which
offered land, labor, and financing at very attractive, i.e.
taxpayer subsidized, rates. *The financing allowed the
construction of state of the art buildings and purchase of
the latest shoe manufacturing technology.

After about 10 years [mid 70s], the new equipment was
becoming obsolescent and worn out, the local hourly
employees were getting restless wanting higher wages, the
local ED tax abatements were expiring, and fat early years
of equipment tax depreciation were ending. *Most fortunately
for the Sepia Shoe Company, the mantra in Washington was
"trade, not aid" at this time, and Brazil was heavily in
debt to the Wall Street knee knockers. *Brazil also had
large leather surpluses, and additional hides and finished
leather was available at very cheap prices from Argentina.
The production operations were quickly shifted to Brazil,
largely financed by local [Brazilian] economic development
funds, state of the art buildings constructed, and the
newest, most productive shoe machinery purchased.
Unemployment was high, and any wage was better than no wage.
As Brazil was under a military dictatorship at this time, no
labor problems were anticipated as unions were forbidden.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazili...ary_government

It was at this stage that the domestic shoe industry became
important, at least locally, and may have decided at least
one Senate election when one candidate [IIRC an incumbent]
was photographed wearing Gucci loafers [Italian made at that
time] with a distinctive metal decoration on the instep,
while making speeches about protecting the domestic shoe
industry to the local "great unwashed" of Missouri.

One new wrinkle with the establishment of international
operations was the extensive and active use of transfer
pricing. *Sepia Brazil did not sell directly to Sepia USA,
but rather to an intermediary we will call Sepia Aruba. [It
is still not clear who actually controlled Sepia Aruba.]
The grift worked like this. *The shoes and other leather
goods, e.g. belts, were produced cheaply by Sepia Brazil,
and sold cheaply to the international marketing and
distribution arm Sepia Aruba, generating little profit in
Brazil by Sepia Brazil, not enough in many cases to cover
the financing costs, and certainly not enough to justify any
raises for the local employees. *Sepia Aruba then sold the
shoes and other leather goods to Sepia USA at a very
considerable markup, so little profit was generated in the
US by Sepia USA sales. *By a strange coincidence there was
and is no corporate income tax in Aruba, so huge pools of
untaxed and unregulated capital of unknown ownership/control
quickly accumulated.

In the mid 80's control of Brazil was returned to a civilian
government and the financial dealings/arrangements of the
military dictatorship [1964-1985] were reexamined, and
serious questions began to be raised about the failure of
several international operations in addition to Sepia Brazil
to charge arms-length or customary/usual prices for their
exports sold to other divisions, and their failure to pay
their local taxes, reasonable wages, reinvest in domestic
facalities or even pay off the ED bonds. *

Time elapsed and more populist/nationalist governments were
elected in Brazil and several tax evasion and financial
manipulation investigations started, and wages increased
through minimum wage legislation. *It should be noted that
Sepia Brazil had very few assets beyond the now dated
buildings and obsolescent/worn-out shoe manufacturing
equipment, and much of this was collateral for the
local/Brazilian ED bonds/financing through the New York
banks but guaranteed by the Brazilian people/government.

By the mid to late 90's, the Sepia Shoe Company was
abandoning Brazil, leaving the creditors of Sepia Brazil
"holding the bag," as they transferred their manufacturing
operations to China and India, again using local ED funds to
construct state of the art buildings and purchase the very
latest shoe manufacturing equipment. *When "earnest money"
was required, Sepia USA could easily borrow from
international sources, which may well have been the funds
amassed by Sepia Aruba, but because of the local bank
secrecy laws there is no way to tell. *If this is indeed the
case, Sepia USA is paying high interest rates to itself for
using its own [Sepia Aruba] money while deducting the
interest costs as a tax-deductible business expense against
their US and other taxable income.

The transfer pricing dodge where a separate "trading and
marketing" company [Sepia Hong Cong? Sepia Macau?] buys low
(locally, from Sepia China, Sepia India) and sells high (to
Sepia USA for US distribution), appears to still be
operating but though Asian tax haven countries. *I don't
know about India, but the Chinese apparently learn from the
mistakes of other, and require local participation/control
and technology transfer. *Vietnam is another area where shoe
manufacturing is being transferred.

As you can see this is not a "sudden" or "new" problem but
one that has festered and metastasized over at least 2
generations of politicians and 3 company iterations,
persistently aided and abetted by US governmental
policy/neglect.

-- Unka George *(George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

Good read.

And accurate.

I could add many more industries to your discussion.

Love the the Gucci angle. ;)

TMT

jim wrote:
TwoGuns wrote:

....
I guess it is cheaper to use expensive fuel
to send raw leather to China and use China's CHEAP LABOR and use some
more EXPENSIVE fuel to ship Chinese shoes back to America.

Yup!

You might consider that if the US
taxed fuel instead of labor
the equation might change a little

The products you consume might be made
a little closer to where you live

It's the damn unions! No American business can _afford_ to pay people $30.00
an hour for work that's worth 10.

And yes, they're doing it because it's cost-effective.

They're probably exporting the leather as well, although it'd be more likely
to go to Mexico to be made into sandals. ;-)

And of course, if we could get ahold of some of those Navy reactors that
they're using on all those aircraft carriers, fuel costs would plummet.

Cheers!
Rich

Tim Wescott wrote:

Now, we're _giving that away_. Republicans say "anything that makes
money for rich people is good".

Which specific Republican said that? Can you back up your claim, or are
you just tantrumizing like the unionists? "GIMME! GIMME! GIMME! GIMME!
GIMME!"

Anything that makes money for "rich people" makes money for _everybody_,
if the government doesn't confiscate it first to hand out to the union
bosses.

Where do you think the jobs come from? Government? Who pays the bill? China?

Hope This Helps!
Rich

On 3/5/2011 12:29 PM, Rich Grise wrote:
Tim Wescott wrote:

Now, we're _giving that away_. Republicans say "anything that makes
money for rich people is good".

Which specific Republican said that? Can you back up your claim, or are
you just tantrumizing like the unionists? "GIMME! GIMME! GIMME! GIMME!
GIMME!"

Anything that makes money for "rich people" makes money for _everybody_,
if the government doesn't confiscate it first to hand out to the union
bosses.

Where do you think the jobs come from? Government? Who pays the bill? China?

Hope This Helps!
Rich


well, I hope that anyone who reads the above can connect the dots, it is
so patently false that it does not require refutation. "anything ....
makes money for everybody" - One thing that makes money for rich people
is hedge fund trading. Tell me how that personally helps you? how does
currency exchange trades help you? You said that "anything" makes money
for "everybody" - how could this be true - and don't tell me that the
rich will buy stuff with the money, that is manifestly untrue

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 06:39:03 -0600, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



TwoGuns wrote:

I was at a shoe store recently and a quick check of a few shoe boxes
indicated that most shoes are not made in the USA. I can understand
why some products are not made in the United States but shoes? We have
shut down a lot of our mining industry for things like steel and
copper because of EPA regulations so I can understand why we ship in a
lot of steel. But shoes? Does China have so many cattle that they can
put shoes on the feet of their one billion plus population and have
enough leather left to send millions of shoes to the United States
every year/

Another question about shoes. India has around a billion people also
and I assume a lot of them wear shoes. However isn't it national
policy in India that cows are sacred? Of course leather can be made
out of Pigskin or other skins but aren't those animals sacred also?


Actually No. Pigs are only sacred to those who own them :-) Cows are
sacred only to the Hindu.

But as to numbers shod, I suggest that a substantial percentage of the
population in Asia does not wear shoes. They wear sandals which are
largely, today, made from plastic although in times past everything
from straw to wood was used.

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 14:47:26 -0500, Wes
wrote:

TwoGuns wrote:

Another question about shoes. India has around a billion people also
and I assume a lot of them wear shoes. However isn't it national
policy in India that cows are sacred? Of course leather can be made
out of Pigskin or other skins but aren't those animals sacred also?

Not all Indians are hindu. There are muslims, christians, and sikhs. I'm trying to
remember the book I read this in but where a hindu can't butcher a cow, a muslim can do it
for him or something like that.

Wes
A practicing Hindu will not touch anything that is made from a cow or
cause harm to a cow, so there is no question of a Hindu requiring a
Moslem to slaughter a cow.

By the way, if the person in question is a Hindu, or follows one of
the off-shoots of Hinduism, then it is highly likely that he is also a
vegetarian and doesn't eat meat anyway.

TwoGuns wrote:


Another question about shoes. India has around a billion people also
and I assume a lot of them wear shoes. However isn't it national
policy in India that cows are sacred?
To some sects yes, national policy No, now in nepal (at least when I
lived there) it was legally the same as killing a person. Accidental
deaths were ok, and it was ok to eat the resulting meat.

Of course leather can be made
out of Pigskin or other skins but aren't those animals sacred also?


No, and there are probably more water buffalos than cows any way, and
they are not sacred. [They make better milk and yoghurt though)

jk

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 12:23:56 -0800, the renowned Rich Grise
wrote:

jim wrote:
TwoGuns wrote:

...
I guess it is cheaper to use expensive fuel
to send raw leather to China and use China's CHEAP LABOR and use some
more EXPENSIVE fuel to ship Chinese shoes back to America.

Yup!

You might consider that if the US
taxed fuel instead of labor
the equation might change a little

Oh, hardly. It costs pennies to move a $100 pair of shoes around the
world by sea. Current 'emergency' increases due to bunker fuel costs
are less than a nickel US per shoebox volume. Triple that ($200/barrel
oil?) and it's still nothing. At what level would it make a
difference? 5% of retail? That's gasoline at $100 a gallon or
something like that. Other things will die first.


The products you consume might be made
a little closer to where you live

It's the damn unions! No American business can _afford_ to pay people $30.00
an hour for work that's worth 10.

Or $10 an hour for work that can be done even better for $1.50.

And yes, they're doing it because it's cost-effective.

They're probably exporting the leather as well, although it'd be more likely
to go to Mexico to be made into sandals. ;-)

And of course, if we could get ahold of some of those Navy reactors that
they're using on all those aircraft carriers, fuel costs would plummet.

Fuel costs are pretty much insignificant in this equation. Ships are
very cost-effective. Railways less so, but that's more because of the
domestic labor component (high to begin with, and higher because of
oligppoly-fed unions).

Cheers!
Rich


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 19:37:12 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 12:23:56 -0800, the renowned Rich Grise
wrote:

jim wrote:
TwoGuns wrote:

...
I guess it is cheaper to use expensive fuel
to send raw leather to China and use China's CHEAP LABOR and use some
more EXPENSIVE fuel to ship Chinese shoes back to America.

Yup!

You might consider that if the US
taxed fuel instead of labor
the equation might change a little

Oh, hardly. It costs pennies to move a $100 pair of shoes around the
world by sea. Current 'emergency' increases due to bunker fuel costs
are less than a nickel US per shoebox volume. Triple that ($200/barrel
oil?) and it's still nothing. At what level would it make a
difference? 5% of retail? That's gasoline at $100 a gallon or
something like that. Other things will die first.

Okay, here's a real spot price:
http://www.joc.com/maritime/containe...irst-time-year

Less than $2K ever-shrinking US dollars for a 40' container Hong Kong
to Los Angeles. Probably would hold 12,000-15,000 pairs of shoes, or
0.13-0.17/pair. Doesn't even make a dent in the sales tax at retail.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As of 2009, beef imports to the US equaled about 10% of US consumption.
Around 1/3 of that comes from Canada. We export around 3/4 as much as we
import.

Thanks for that bright note.

Wes

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 19:37:12 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 12:23:56 -0800, the renowned Rich Grise
wrote:

jim wrote:
TwoGuns wrote:

...
I guess it is cheaper to use expensive fuel
to send raw leather to China and use China's CHEAP LABOR and use some
more EXPENSIVE fuel to ship Chinese shoes back to America.

Yup!

You might consider that if the US
taxed fuel instead of labor
the equation might change a little

Oh, hardly. It costs pennies to move a $100 pair of shoes around the
world by sea. Current 'emergency' increases due to bunker fuel costs
are less than a nickel US per shoebox volume. Triple that ($200/barrel
oil?) and it's still nothing. At what level would it make a
difference? 5% of retail? That's gasoline at $100 a gallon or
something like that. Other things will die first.

Okay, here's a real spot price:
http://www.joc.com/maritime/containe...irst-time-year

Less than $2K ever-shrinking US dollars for a 40' container Hong Kong
to Los Angeles. Probably would hold 12,000-15,000 pairs of shoes, or
0.13-0.17/pair. Doesn't even make a dent in the sales tax at retail.


A shoe box is .25 cubic feet
There are 2500 cu ft in a container
That's 1000 boxes if packed full
Ocean voyage is the cheapest part of shipping
Costs in the neighborhood of $5 for shipping
from factory to store per pair of shoes

jim wrote:

A shoe box is .25 cubic feet
There are 2500 cu ft in a container
That's 1000 boxes if packed full
Ocean voyage is the cheapest part of shipping
Costs in the neighborhood of $5 for shipping
from factory to store per pair of shoes


No, it's 2720 cubic feet for the 40' * 8.0' * 8.5' high and 3040 cubic
feet for the 40' * 8.0' * 9.5' high.

2720 * 4 = 10880

3040 * 4 = 12160

If they are boxed before shipping.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

Lewis Hartswick wrote:

TwoGuns wrote:I guess it is cheaper to use expensive fuel
to send raw leather to China and use China's CHEAP LABOR and use some
more EXPENSIVE fuel to ship Chinese shoes back to America.

Go figure.
DL


:-) Leather??? I'm pretty sure most shoes now-a-days
are made of plastic of some sort.


Made from plastic cows. The rest is used for their imitation beef in
the food they ship us.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As of 2009, beef imports to the US equaled about 10% of US consumption.
Around 1/3 of that comes from Canada. We export around 3/4 as much as we
import.

Thanks for that bright note.

Wes

Ok. Urrrpppp.... I just ate some of it tonight. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 19:40:18 -0600, the renowned jim
wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 19:37:12 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 12:23:56 -0800, the renowned Rich Grise
wrote:

jim wrote:
TwoGuns wrote:

...
I guess it is cheaper to use expensive fuel
to send raw leather to China and use China's CHEAP LABOR and use some
more EXPENSIVE fuel to ship Chinese shoes back to America.

Yup!

You might consider that if the US
taxed fuel instead of labor
the equation might change a little

Oh, hardly. It costs pennies to move a $100 pair of shoes around the
world by sea. Current 'emergency' increases due to bunker fuel costs
are less than a nickel US per shoebox volume. Triple that ($200/barrel
oil?) and it's still nothing. At what level would it make a
difference? 5% of retail? That's gasoline at $100 a gallon or
something like that. Other things will die first.

Okay, here's a real spot price:
http://www.joc.com/maritime/containe...irst-time-year

Less than $2K ever-shrinking US dollars for a 40' container Hong Kong
to Los Angeles. Probably would hold 12,000-15,000 pairs of shoes, or
0.13-0.17/pair. Doesn't even make a dent in the sales tax at retail.


A shoe box is .25 cubic feet

11.5" x 7" x 3.75" = 302 cubic inches = 0.17 ft^3

There are 2500 cu ft in a container

2500/0.17 = 14,705.

That's 1000 boxes if packed full

Even using your numbers, I think your math is off by a factor of 10
here, 2500/0.25 = 10,000. Think about (only) 1000 boxes of shoes and
an entire 2+TEU shipping container!




Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Spehro Pefhany wrote:


That's 1000 boxes if packed full

Even using your numbers, I think your math is off by a factor of 10
here, 2500/0.25 = 10,000. Think about (only) 1000 boxes of shoes and
an entire 2+TEU shipping container!



Yes it should have been "10000 boses if packed full"
but that doesn't make the cost of an ocean voyage is the
determining factor in why manufacturing moves to China

US manufacturing output is still the largest and
American manufacturing employees are the most productive
the productive output per manufacturing job in the US
is much higher than anywhere else

So why is that?

US workers may be quite competent
but the real reason is that the playing field
is tipped so that we now have a situation
where only goods that require
the minimum human input are Made in the USA

Is that healthy?

And could the equation be changed
so that other factors (like transportation costs)
weigh more heavily?

I'm going to start a new oversight organization.
Save The Faux United. We'll have business
cards printed, and publish alerts, and fund raise.
Our business card will have our logo (the initials /
acronym) in large letters, and spelled out in very
tiny print. I'll greet everyone with "I'm saving the
world; STFU."

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Chris Holford" wrote in
message ...

Are they are made of faux leather?
If so, faux must be an endangered species in
China. Perhaps the World Wildlife Fund
should investigate!
--
Chris Holford

The Pakis strap on bombs, and send the cows
back to India?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...

I've read that the way the population of sacred cows in
India is
controlled is by selling the cows to Pakistani companies.


Joe Gwinn

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 07:09:00 -0600, the renowned jim
"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:



Spehro Pefhany wrote:


That's 1000 boxes if packed full

Even using your numbers, I think your math is off by a factor of 10
here, 2500/0.25 = 10,000. Think about (only) 1000 boxes of shoes and
an entire 2+TEU shipping container!



Yes it should have been "10000 boses if packed full"
but that doesn't make the cost of an ocean voyage is the
determining factor in why manufacturing moves to China

No, it means that the ocean effectively doesn't exist for any
reasonable level of fuel costs, so the playing field is more level.

US manufacturing output is still the largest and
American manufacturing employees are the most productive
the productive output per manufacturing job in the US
is much higher than anywhere else

So why is that?

Partly because American companies make many high technology items such
as aircraft- which require a lot of highly skilled and highly paid
workers. Partly because US workers put in more hours than Europeans so
even though they may lag, say, the French in $ added per hour, they
work more hours in a year. Partly because "productivity" is measured
in a dumb-a** manner- if you close down a factory and just box up
cheap imported stuff your "productivity" will soar. Fewer employees,
more $ markup per hour = more "productivity". The companies with the
highest "productivity" don't really do much- maybe manage a gas
pipeline with all the real work outsourced. You can get to millions of
dollars per employee revenue that way. Lay off your tech support
workers Bill and Charlie, and let Rajiv and Baljinder in Bangalore do
the work at 1/5 the cost, and your manufacturing "productivity"
increases.

US workers may be quite competent
but the real reason is that the playing field
is tipped so that we now have a situation
where only goods that require
the minimum human input are Made in the USA

Is that healthy?

Time will tell. Very few of us work on farms anymore but there's more
than enough food for all (and enough left over to use as an export as
aid, or as a weapon).

And could the equation be changed
so that other factors (like transportation costs)
weigh more heavily?

Sure, the market can be distorted in any number of ways, most of which
have been tried at one time or another, but high fuel costs are not a
natural way to favor domestic production over overseas production.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 07:09:00 -0600, the renowned jim
"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:



Spehro Pefhany wrote:


That's 1000 boxes if packed full

Even using your numbers, I think your math is off by a factor of 10
here, 2500/0.25 = 10,000. Think about (only) 1000 boxes of shoes and
an entire 2+TEU shipping container!



Yes it should have been "10000 boses if packed full"
but that doesn't make the cost of an ocean voyage is the
determining factor in why manufacturing moves to China

No, it means that the ocean effectively doesn't exist for any
reasonable level of fuel costs, so the playing field is more level.

US manufacturing output is still the largest and
American manufacturing employees are the most productive
the productive output per manufacturing job in the US
is much higher than anywhere else

So why is that?

Partly because American companies make many high technology items such
as aircraft- which require a lot of highly skilled and highly paid
workers. Partly because US workers put in more hours than Europeans so
even though they may lag, say, the French in $ added per hour, they
work more hours in a year. Partly because "productivity" is measured
in a dumb-a** manner- if you close down a factory and just box up
cheap imported stuff your "productivity" will soar. Fewer employees,
more $ markup per hour = more "productivity". The companies with the
highest "productivity" don't really do much- maybe manage a gas
pipeline with all the real work outsourced. You can get to millions of
dollars per employee revenue that way. Lay off your tech support
workers Bill and Charlie, and let Rajiv and Baljinder in Bangalore do
the work at 1/5 the cost, and your manufacturing "productivity"
increases.

US workers may be quite competent
but the real reason is that the playing field
is tipped so that we now have a situation
where only goods that require
the minimum human input are Made in the USA

Is that healthy?

Time will tell. Very few of us work on farms anymore but there's more
than enough food for all (and enough left over to use as an export as
aid, or as a weapon).

And could the equation be changed
so that other factors (like transportation costs)
weigh more heavily?

Sure, the market can be distorted in any number of ways, most of which
have been tried at one time or another, but high fuel costs are not a
natural way to favor domestic production over overseas production.

What it would favor is efficiency and long term viability

The market has been distorted as it stands by treating fuel
and energy costs as sacred cows
and treating human costs like they were sinful

And yes most of the productivity gains are by sleight of hand
Factories that package foreign goods instead of making goods
hiring temps instead of permanent employees
and out-sourcing the work that could be done in house as cheap
all are designed to make it appear greater production
is achieved with fewer workers

But what does that smoke and mirrors gain in the long term?

-jim





Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com