|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
It may take a crushing of the United States to discredit the unions, the
minimum wage, and government mandated benefits. This election cycle,
Californians will vote on a law that will require companies to pay employees
while they take time off for "family emergencies". I believe the issue
should be worded on the ballot something like this: "Should companies be
required to pay people for not working if it means more jobs will be driven
from the United States in general and California in particular?" But of
course, they didn't ask me.
Kent
----- Original Message -----
From: "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: [RT] Service vs Manufacturing economy
Of course the US had a choice! The choice was between cheap goods produced
overseas by low-paid workers or a strong and vibrant manufacturing industry
constantly forced to seek productivity improvement. As has been the case for
decades here, consumption won and won big. Consumption also played into the
hands of the huge multi-nationals constantly seeking to find the cheapest
labor source ... note that many are now abandoning cheap labor markets such
as Mexico for the hinterlands of China and other equally deprived areas of
the world.
I'll not get into the union issues ... there are long term cycles which tend
to self-correct by moving power back and forth between labor and management
as one or the other gathers excessive power. With the ratio of executive
compensation to worker compensation having risen from 40:1 to 400:1 , in the
US, during the past several decades, I don't think it's hard to see where
the pendulum lies.
I have long believed that, as a country, we could not afford to import
without exporting equivalent dollar amounts as the accumulated debt would
eventually bury the US and, along with it, the rest of the world which
depends on US consumption. I believe that we are now seeing the beginnings
of paying the piper. Isolationism and trade protectionism will be the
inevitable political by-product and will dominate the US election cycles to
come. The nonsense that a county can survive solely on brains and brain work
will be thoroughly discredited. The economic and market implications will be
a rebirth of manufacturing in this country, but not soon enough to avoid the
pain of massive unemployment from the service industries.
Earl
----- Original Message -----
From: "ira" <mr.ira@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: [RT] Service vs Manufacturing economy
> Did the US have a choice in its conversion? It was convert or die. The
> manufacturing went elsewhere because they could do it just as good and a
lot
> cheaper. The only other alternative we had was to become isolationists
again
> and ban imports. Our agriculture is going the same way right now. Garlic
> is coming in from China at 1/2 the price it can be produced for in the US.
> The same with oranges, grapefruit and other citrus from Australia and
South
> America. Are the grain markets in the same shape? Brazil, Australia, and
> other countries are producing product for less. How long can a subsidy
> last? Where is our vaunted fishing fleet. Are there any American flag
> vessels left afloat, outside of the Navy and coast guard. Do we produce
> shoes or clothing any more? We still have a thriving wine industry.
>
> I have a question. Who does the service industry service? We have banks
> that lend money to foreign countries that don't repay the loans. We have
> computer companies that import all of the parts they assemble here. So we
> did save those high paying assembly line jobs. The fast food restaurants
> are expanding overseas instead of in the US so those high paying service
> jobs at Wendy's and McD aren't going to shrink the unemployment rolls.
The
> banks can now lose money in insurance, brokerage and other non banking
> endeavors. Even the federal government is sending our armaments for
> production overseas.
>
> Were is the talent coming from to operate the high tech companies? That
> talent is coming from oversees. We can't even produce an intelligent work
> force. There is one ever expanding area of the economy. Tattoo parlors
and
> body piercing salons are popping up all over. Now there is a real future
> for your kids. Am I missing something here? Ira
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 4:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [RT] Service vs Manufacturing economy
>
>
> > Gary, do you have a URL for that article, sure would like to read the
> whole
> > thing?
> >
> > I have long believed that true economic strength is built upon a strong
> and
> > resilient manufacturing base. I have also been saying for many years
that
> > the US would suffer deeply in the next recession/depression for having
> > converted to a service based economy.
> >
> > Earl
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gary Funck" <gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 3:23 PM
> > Subject: RE: [RT] 10 year note near 40 year highs ?
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Daniel Goncharoff [mailto:thegonch@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 9:37 AM
> > > > To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: Re: [RT] 10 year note near 40 year highs ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think there are two sides to this point. Isn't a service-based
> economy
> > > > more flexible than one based on large factories? It may mean that
> > > > changes come more easily, and that new industries can develop using
> the
> > > > excess information-based labor from weaker sectors.
> > > >
> > > > In this respect, telecoms will be a good real-life example. It will
be
> > > > interesting to see what happens to all the people getting laid off
by
> > > > the telecoms firms that won't be growing for several years. If they
> end
> > > > up having no place to go, that would indicate your believe is
> validated.
> > > > If they find new jobs in a similar field, I think the economic hit
> will
> > > > not be very big at all.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In this week's Business Week, there's a rather disturbing article that
> > refutes
> > > the theory that a service based economy should be more resilient.
> Excerpts
> > > below:
> > >
> > > SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
> > >
> > > NEWS: ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY
> > >
> > > The Educated Unemployed
> > > The jobless rate for managers and professionals is likely to rise
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > Here's why joblessness is likely to rise: Across the board, companies
> are
> > > facing an unholy trio of low profits, weak demand, and falling
> > prices--with no
> > > relief in sight. Revenues for the companies in the Standard & Poor's
> > 500-stock
> > > index are down 2% over the past year, adding to the pressure on
> businesses
> > to
> > > cut costs by cutting workforces. At the same time, productivity is
> soaring
> > at a
> > > rapid clip--a 6% gain over last year at nonfinancial corporations.
> That's
> > > allowing businesses to meet flat demand with fewer workers.
> > >
> > > Even more distressing, some of the sectors where the job market has
> stayed
> > > relatively strong--including health, education, finance, and
retailing,
> > which
> > > together make up about 40% of the total workforce--are showing signs
of
> > > cracking. And the already grim labor picture in the airline, energy,
> > > technology, telecom, and media sectors--some 7% of the
workforce--keeps
> > > deteriorating.
> > > [...]
> > > This is the dark side of the productivity boom. During the second half
> of
> > the
> > > 1990s, output per worker rose, but soaring demand and revenues, driven
> in
> > part
> > > by the technology and telecom boom, helped boost hiring and push down
> the
> > > unemployment rate below 4%. Wages and bonuses soared, and it seemed
like
> a
> > > golden age for workers.
> > >
> > > But rising productivity without rising demand is a recipe for
> disappearing
> > > jobs. If companies can't raise prices, the only way they can boost
> profits
> > is
> > > to cut workers--and higher productivity makes that possible.
> > > [...]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Home Selling? Try Us!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/ySSFAA/zMEolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|