In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

There's no sign that any sufficient number of folks in
the USA are going to boycott non-USA made products
or spend N dollars more to get a product "made in the USA'
as opposed to buying a cheaper imported product.

That can change, though.

In the long run, those currently
cheap off shore labor markets will self adjust upwards.

Maybe. And if so, might they not find themselves in the same boat?

Like I said, global economy.

As long as we're not on a sinking ship..

In the short
run, US labor has their head in the sand if they think there's something
either party (Dems or Reps) can really do to stem the shift of
manufacturing jobs overseas. The same thing is going on in Europe.

OTOH, unemployed workers can't buy the goods anyway. So what good are
lower prices?

In the long run, employees must be constantly reevaluating their
job skills and looking at the prospect of how vulnerable their job
may be as to their job being farmed out to off shore labor.

That's true up to a point. But how often is it reasonable to expect a
person to retrain? And what happens to "the wealth of nations" in the
meantime?

You retrain whenever it becomes necessary. There's nothing
mystical about it. If your job skill goes wanting, you'd
better find another skill set.

How often is reasonable and practical? A lot of things cannot be learned
overnight. Inexperience and the lack of judgement that can result pose major
threats.

And who pays for the retraining?

I don't know of any country that grew prosperous on a service economy
alone.

We still manufacture and produce in the USA, it is just
done with more and more automation resulting in less
and less need for skilled labor.

We manufacture and produce some things, but much of the production - automated
and all - is moving to places like China.

And the concept of planned obsolescence has been reinvented....

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

The reality of things economic is that, like it or not, we are in a global
economy and that isn't going to change.


That's true to a point. But we don't have to simply accept everything
that comes down the pike as inevitable.

It will probably stabilize when one of the programmers from India
writes a good program to replace CEO's! ;^)

'zactly.

The drastic reduction in costs
of shipping (both importing and exporting goods) as well as
similar reductions for communications makes it cheaper to manufacture
and even provide certain service functions off-shore. That isn't
going to change in the short run.

Only if it doesn't affect buyer behavior. If buyers protest with their
dollars, things will change.

In the long run, those currently
cheap off shore labor markets will self adjust upwards.

Maybe. And if so, might they not find themselves in the same boat?

Correct! I have alway though that the best argument for what is going
on is the elevation of a population's living standard. A country has a
low standard of living, and the workforce is available for next to
nothing, wage wise. So like Pizza take-out's in a college town, everyone
ant their brother migrate there for the cheap labor. AS the standard of
living goes up, the cheap labor starts to demand more in salary and/or
benefits. This works for a while, but eventually another poor country
looks attractive to employers. So they move on to the next poor country.

The trick is to do that without creating more poor countries.

And the fundamental question is: Why are countries poor in the first place, and
how do countries get rich and stay rich without exploiting other countries?

Examples are what has happened to Japan. Korea is the present hot
spot,
but is slowing. China is ascendant now, but the inevitible will happen
there. Mexico is now experiencing import concerns too.

Remember NAFTA and the "giant sucking sound"? Where's Ross now?

What happens when the cycle is complete, and the last third world
nation is brought up to modern standards will be the interesting thing.

First you have to understand why it hasn't happened yet.

In the short
run, US labor has their head in the sand if they think there's something
either party (Dems or Reps) can really do to stem the shift of
manufacturing jobs overseas. The same thing is going on in Europe.

OTOH, unemployed workers can't buy the goods anyway. So what good are
lower prices?

You see, the big trick is to have all this happen without ourselves
turning into a third world country. See below.

And that trick is?

In the long run, employees must be constantly reevaluating their
job skills and looking at the prospect of how vulnerable their job
may be as to their job being farmed out to off shore labor.

That's true up to a point. But how often is it reasonable to expect a
person to retrain? And what happens to "the wealth of nations" in the
meantime?

I don't know of any country that grew prosperous on a service economy
alone.

Countries that are service based economies are the *servants* of other
countries.

We can "reality" each other all day long, but if economies chase the
almighty profit without any moral guidance - that is if they are not in
business for the sole purpose of making a buck, then disaster is the result.

Actually I think it's simpler than that. They have to consider both the
short-term buck and the long-term buck.

Henry Ford was criticized by other industrialists because he paid workers the
princely sum of $5 per day. His response was that it did not make sense to him
to have people building a product they could not afford to buy. He traded off
the short-term buck of higher wages for the long-term buck of a bigger market.
I don't think he did this out of any love for the workers or the country, but
rather because he saw a bigger picture.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:
Actually I think it's simpler than that. They have to consider both the
short-term buck and the long-term buck.

Henry Ford was criticized by other industrialists because he paid workers
the
princely sum of $5 per day. His response was that it did not make sense to
him
to have people building a product they could not afford to buy. He traded
off
the short-term buck of higher wages for the long-term buck of a bigger
market.
I don't think he did this out of any love for the workers or the country,
but
rather because he saw a bigger picture.


Exactly, he saw that by looking at the longterm, his overall total profits
would be enhanced. He wanted a longterm, stable income than a quick buck.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


The reality of things economic is that, like it or not, we are in a global
economy and that isn't going to change.


That's true to a point. But we don't have to simply accept everything
that comes down the pike as inevitable.

It will probably stabilize when one of the programmers from India
writes a good program to replace CEO's! ;^)


'zactly.


The drastic reduction in costs
of shipping (both importing and exporting goods) as well as
similar reductions for communications makes it cheaper to manufacture
and even provide certain service functions off-shore. That isn't
going to change in the short run.

Only if it doesn't affect buyer behavior. If buyers protest with their
dollars, things will change.

In the long run, those currently
cheap off shore labor markets will self adjust upwards.

Maybe. And if so, might they not find themselves in the same boat?

Correct! I have alway though that the best argument for what is going
on is the elevation of a population's living standard. A country has a
low standard of living, and the workforce is available for next to
nothing, wage wise. So like Pizza take-out's in a college town, everyone
ant their brother migrate there for the cheap labor. AS the standard of
living goes up, the cheap labor starts to demand more in salary and/or
benefits. This works for a while, but eventually another poor country
looks attractive to employers. So they move on to the next poor country.


The trick is to do that without creating more poor countries.


At the present time, I doubt that is a concern.

And the fundamental question is: Why are countries poor in the first place, and
how do countries get rich and stay rich without exploiting other countries?

Examples are what has happened to Japan. Korea is the present hot
spot,

but is slowing. China is ascendant now, but the inevitible will happen
there. Mexico is now experiencing import concerns too.


Remember NAFTA and the "giant sucking sound"? Where's Ross now?

Ahh, there was some comic relief!


What happens when the cycle is complete, and the last third world
nation is brought up to modern standards will be the interesting thing.

First you have to understand why it hasn't happened yet.

There are plenty of countries yet to bring up.

In the short
run, US labor has their head in the sand if they think there's something
either party (Dems or Reps) can really do to stem the shift of
manufacturing jobs overseas. The same thing is going on in Europe.

OTOH, unemployed workers can't buy the goods anyway. So what good are
lower prices?

You see, the big trick is to have all this happen without ourselves
turning into a third world country. See below.

And that trick is?

As I see it, one of the first things to do is to stabilize the stock
market. Right now it is so short term, that it will do damage to the
companies involved, and to workers. The pressure to increase profits on
the short time scales now involved makes longterm actions difficult if
not impossible.

I don't subscribe to the Japanese lifetime employment thing, but at the
base of it, there is a valid idea. Humans desire a little stability.
Remove that stability, and a whole host of problems erupt. Employer
loyalty goes away, and when that happens, things suffer. If I know my
employer will just as soon get rid of me for .001 percent rise in their
stock, I'm not going to be willing to stay in all night to make sure the
project goes out the door on time.

Note the present legislative efforts to shift workers from overtime
eligible to salaried. From the supershort term view, this makes perfect
sense. Reduction of the employees salary by mandatory unpaid overtime.
This will make for a quick jump in profits. From a longer term
perspective, it makes for a "what do we do next quarter to increase
profits" issue, it makes the job less desireable, because now the
employees are taking a wage cut, and they have it reinforced that their
empoloyer would like nothing better than to get rid of them.

In the long run, employees must be constantly reevaluating their
job skills and looking at the prospect of how vulnerable their job
may be as to their job being farmed out to off shore labor.

That's true up to a point. But how often is it reasonable to expect a
person to retrain? And what happens to "the wealth of nations" in the
meantime?

I don't know of any country that grew prosperous on a service economy
alone.

Countries that are service based economies are the *servants* of other
countries.

We can "reality" each other all day long, but if economies chase the
almighty profit without any moral guidance - that is if they are not in
business for the sole purpose of making a buck, then disaster is the result.


Actually I think it's simpler than that. They have to consider both the
short-term buck and the long-term buck.

Henry Ford was criticized by other industrialists because he paid workers the
princely sum of $5 per day. His response was that it did not make sense to him
to have people building a product they could not afford to buy. He traded off
the short-term buck of higher wages for the long-term buck of a bigger market.
I don't think he did this out of any love for the workers or the country, but
rather because he saw a bigger picture.

73 de Jim, N2EY

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:
Actually I think it's simpler than that. They have to consider both the
short-term buck and the long-term buck.

Henry Ford was criticized by other industrialists because he paid workers

the

princely sum of $5 per day. His response was that it did not make sense to

him

to have people building a product they could not afford to buy. He traded

off

the short-term buck of higher wages for the long-term buck of a bigger

market.

I don't think he did this out of any love for the workers or the country,

but

rather because he saw a bigger picture.



Exactly, he saw that by looking at the longterm, his overall total profits
would be enhanced. He wanted a longterm, stable income than a quick buck.

And the most amazing thing is that with just that outlook, we not only
stabilize the situation, but we preserve the best part of how our
econmmic system works.

I always thought that the best way was to let the businesses do their
thing as much as possible, with a light touch. The time for intervention
is when the business threatens the environment, employee rights (such as
there are any) or of course engaging in illegal activities, which there
will always be some companies willing to do that. And of course the
monopoly problems.
- Mike KB3EIA

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

There's no sign that any sufficient number of folks in
the USA are going to boycott non-USA made products
or spend N dollars more to get a product "made in the USA'
as opposed to buying a cheaper imported product.

That can change, though.

In the long run, those currently
cheap off shore labor markets will self adjust upwards.

Maybe. And if so, might they not find themselves in the same boat?

Like I said, global economy.

As long as we're not on a sinking ship..

In the short
run, US labor has their head in the sand if they think there's
something
either party (Dems or Reps) can really do to stem the shift of
manufacturing jobs overseas. The same thing is going on in Europe.

OTOH, unemployed workers can't buy the goods anyway. So what good are
lower prices?

In the long run, employees must be constantly reevaluating their
job skills and looking at the prospect of how vulnerable their job
may be as to their job being farmed out to off shore labor.

That's true up to a point. But how often is it reasonable to expect a
person to retrain? And what happens to "the wealth of nations" in the
meantime?

You retrain whenever it becomes necessary. There's nothing
mystical about it. If your job skill goes wanting, you'd
better find another skill set.

How often is reasonable and practical? A lot of things cannot be learned
overnight. Inexperience and the lack of judgement that can result pose
major
threats.

Consider the overall change in technology for almost anything.
Wholesale change almost every 15/20 years. If I hadn't had the
opportunity to learn semiconductors via additional training in the
Navy (1967) and then a full array of digital theory and application
compliments of "ma bell", I'd probably be pushing a broom
somewhere.

And who pays for the retraining?

It depends. Even in telecommunications, the old days of heavy
training costs per employee are gone.

I don't know of any country that grew prosperous on a service economy
alone.

We still manufacture and produce in the USA, it is just
done with more and more automation resulting in less
and less need for skilled labor.

We manufacture and produce some things, but much of the production -
automated
and all - is moving to places like China.

And the concept of planned obsolescence has been reinvented....

The obsolescence isn't planned...it just happens. Look at the
ever newer, faster and more memory for PCs. Consider too that
a few years back, marketing considered anything under $300
to be an "impulse buy" (i.e. no real thought as to price vs value
is applied by the consumer).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Exactly, he saw that by looking at the longterm, his overall total profits
would be enhanced. He wanted a longterm, stable income than a quick buck.

And the most amazing thing is that with just that outlook, we not only
stabilize the situation, but we preserve the best part of how our
econmmic system works.

Henry Ford wasn't a paragon of virtue by any means but he did take the long
view. That's considered old-fashioned today.

I always thought that the best way was to let the businesses do their
thing as much as possible, with a light touch. The time for intervention
is when the business threatens the environment, employee rights (such as
there are any) or of course engaging in illegal activities, which there
will always be some companies willing to do that. And of course the
monopoly problems.

Of course - the devil is in the details, though. How much environmental threat
is OK? What rights do employees really have?

Martha and her bookie...I mean broker...got convicted, didn't they?

Here's a datapoint for ya: The USA imported 57% of the petroleum used here last
year, up from 56% in the previous year. Domestic production is down slightly.
Even if the Alaskan refuge is drilled, it will be 10 years before full
production is reached there. Gasoline prices are already about $1.75 and it's
only March.

Meanwhile, SUV sales are at record levels and a process called TDP (Thermal
Depolymerization) is almost unheard of.

How do we get folks to take the long view again?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

The trick is to do that without creating more poor countries.

At the present time, I doubt that is a concern.

I meant that one of the poor countries would be the USA.

And the fundamental question is: Why are countries poor in the first place,
and how do countries get rich and stay rich without exploiting other
countries?

No substitute for the Econ 101 fundamentals that W3RV posted.

Examples are what has happened to Japan. Korea is the present hot
spot, but is slowing. China is ascendant now, but the inevitible will
happen
there. Mexico is now experiencing import concerns too.

Remember NAFTA and the "giant sucking sound"? Where's Ross now?

Ahh, there was some comic relief!

Except Ross Perot was exactly right.

Consider this, too: We got 8 years of Bill Clinton in large part because Perot
split his opposition. We got Shrub in 2000 because Ralkph Nader did the same
thing to *his* opposition. And now ol' Crazy Ralphie is poised to do it again.

What happens when the cycle is complete, and the last third world
nation is brought up to modern standards will be the interesting thing.

First you have to understand why it hasn't happened yet.

There are plenty of countries yet to bring up.

The reasons it hasn't happened are things like:

- Corrupt strongman governments
- Overpopulation for the country's resources
- Cultural factors that hinder development
- Different values of the people

In the short
run, US labor has their head in the sand if they think there's something
either party (Dems or Reps) can really do to stem the shift of
manufacturing jobs overseas. The same thing is going on in Europe.

OTOH, unemployed workers can't buy the goods anyway. So what good are
lower prices?

You see, the big trick is to have all this happen without ourselves
turning into a third world country. See below.

And that trick is?

As I see it, one of the first things to do is to stabilize the stock
market. Right now it is so short term, that it will do damage to the
companies involved, and to workers. The pressure to increase profits on
the short time scales now involved makes longterm actions difficult if
not impossible.

The market is slowly but surely recovering from the boom dot bust debacle of
2000.

I don't subscribe to the Japanese lifetime employment thing, but at the

base of it, there is a valid idea. Humans desire a little stability.
Remove that stability, and a whole host of problems erupt. Employer
loyalty goes away, and when that happens, things suffer. If I know my
employer will just as soon get rid of me for .001 percent rise in their
stock, I'm not going to be willing to stay in all night to make sure the
project goes out the door on time.

That and a whole lot more. In an environment where employees jump ship a lot,
the continuity of how and why things are done is often lost and the same
mistakes are made over and over.

Note the present legislative efforts to shift workers from overtime
eligible to salaried. From the supershort term view, this makes perfect
sense. Reduction of the employees salary by mandatory unpaid overtime.
This will make for a quick jump in profits. From a longer term
perspective, it makes for a "what do we do next quarter to increase
profits" issue, it makes the job less desireable, because now the
employees are taking a wage cut, and they have it reinforced that their
empoloyer would like nothing better than to get rid of them.

Yup - and that's just one effect. Another is that tax revenue and consumer
spending drop. Efficiency drops because more mistakes are made. The really good
workers migrate to jobs that still pay decently and the employers find they are
left with those who can't go anywhere else.

And then the organized labor movement is revitalized as more and more workers
realize their only strength is in unity. This costs companies even more in the
form of strikes and restrictive contracts.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:


There's no sign that any sufficient number of folks in
the USA are going to boycott non-USA made products
or spend N dollars more to get a product "made in the USA'
as opposed to buying a cheaper imported product.


That can change, though.

In the long run, those currently
cheap off shore labor markets will self adjust upwards.

Maybe. And if so, might they not find themselves in the same boat?

Like I said, global economy.


As long as we're not on a sinking ship..

In the short
run, US labor has their head in the sand if they think there's something
either party (Dems or Reps) can really do to stem the shift of
manufacturing jobs overseas. The same thing is going on in Europe.

OTOH, unemployed workers can't buy the goods anyway. So what good are
lower prices?


In the long run, employees must be constantly reevaluating their
job skills and looking at the prospect of how vulnerable their job
may be as to their job being farmed out to off shore labor.


That's true up to a point. But how often is it reasonable to expect a
person to retrain? And what happens to "the wealth of nations" in the
meantime?

You retrain whenever it becomes necessary. There's nothing
mystical about it. If your job skill goes wanting, you'd
better find another skill set.


How often is reasonable and practical? A lot of things cannot be learned
overnight. Inexperience and the lack of judgement that can result pose major
threats.

Let's assume that the average worker is expected to job shift 4 times
over their career. You get your Bach in say Computer programming. Work
in tech support for 4 years. maybe you're working on your Masters. Your
job disappears so you either go back and finish you Masters (is this a
good move, considering the field is apparently moving to India) or start
over again in another field. Said other field might just go to some
other country also. So you have to do this 5 times over your working
life, and each degree costs an average of 50K. Keep in mind that the
first degree will cost more, and successive ones relatively less if
inflation doesn't increase the price. Of course the education price
depends on your school. Really good schools cost a good bit more. So
what you are going to do is spend maybe a quarter to a half million
dollars for education over your career, and at these education points,
you are going to have to find a way to support yourself and maybe a
family. What this all sounds like is a great way to go into personal
bankruptcy.

Sorry, it just won't work and I don't care what model yer usin'. If
you are doing a job that requires a couple months of training, you can
get away with job shifting from time to time. If your job training takes
years to do, then it simply isn't going to work.


And who pays for the retraining?

Trickle down? 8^)


I don't know of any country that grew prosperous on a service economy
alone.

We still manufacture and produce in the USA, it is just
done with more and more automation resulting in less
and less need for skilled labor.


We manufacture and produce some things, but much of the production - automated
and all - is moving to places like China.

In our area, a whole glass production plant has been disassembled and
moved to China, where they are putting it back together. A lot of good
paying skilled jobs lost.

Another capacitor making plant has just shut down to move out also.
these jobs weren't as good paying, but they were still jobs. All this in
just one year.


Perhaps they should eat cake?


- mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message

[snip]

Your point?

That something needs to be done.

One factor that hasn't been mentioned is the effect of societal
changes, particularly in the middle class.

40 years ago, it was typical for Dad to work and Mom to stay home with
the kids and they all lived a comfortable if not luxurious
middle-class existence. (Yes, there were plenty of exceptions, but as
a rule if Dad had a good job, Mom did not have to work outside the
home when the kids were small).

Today, two-career families are the rule rather than the exception, and
almost always by necessity. First it's to pay off their own
educations, then to afford a house, then kids, then the kid's
education, then retirement. And that's if they're lucky and all goes
well!


Much of it is due to changing expectations as to what is acceptable as a
standard of living. The typical family 40 years ago in the major
metropolitan areas either lived in an apartment or in an 800 sq. ft. house.
A family with a single income today can still afford an 800 sq ft house.
However that is now considered unacceptably small. They want a 1200 sq ft
house as a minimum. That is just one example of changing expectations that
have driven us to two-career families.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE