N2EY wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net...

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , "Dee D.

Flint"

writes:


And if we get lucky it will perhaps cause some of that business to return

to

the US over time.

I wouldn't count on it, Dee. Unless the American people get a lot more

choosy

about what they buy.

The Bush Administration is so desperate for good numbers that last week

they

seriously investigated the possibility of redefining the work of hamburger
assembly. IOW, they asked why jobs at Burger Meister couldn't be

classified as

"manufacturing". Whether it's a Big Mojo Burger or a minivan, it's

assembly,

isn't it?

"No Millionaire Left Behind"

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! ;^)


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.

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.

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


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.


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.

- Mike KB3EIA -

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

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

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

N2EY wrote:
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.

It's a debatable case for invoking Godwin, maybe?

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?

Sure. We have a local case in which a massive amount of known Iron
Pyrite rock was dumped in a small valley with a stream running along the
bottom of the valley. The valley is all filled in now. The predictable
happened, and we now have a massive acid drainage problem that will kill
many tourist frequented streams and will probably sterilize the creeks
it runs into and construction on the highway has been stopped, and we
have a real mess on our hands.

Not much of a gray area there I think. And we can keep busy enough with
the blatant cases that we don't have to go after Joe six-pack and his
Sunday BBQ or his lawnmower.

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.

Some people are making a good profit.


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

Wellll, you are partially correct. You lump SUV's as if they are all of
the Excursion/Suburban/Escalade type. And that is wrong. I just bought
an SUV that gets in the 20's in town, and low 30's on the highway. It's
downright tiny by comparison, and is a very responsible vehicle as far
as resources go.

And I don't think that any of the Bio fuel options are viable or even
desirable. To see what I mean, replacement of even a tiny fraction of
what we use now in fossil fuel will take a lot of biofuel, and how much
can we make?

The tragedy of the biofuels is this:

America decides that we should go ethanol in a big way. Lots of corn
and other sources are grown for fermentation. After all, this will use
up that silly surplus, right?

Only then it's no longer surplus. There would be a lot of pressure to
grow more and more of the raw materials. Have you seen what has happened
to much of the great plains lately? Salt desert, and besides that, the
aquifer is not being recharged except at a very slow rate.

Now when push comes to shove, and population starts to strain our
ability to produce food, you make the decision. Food or fuel? Who drives
and who dies?

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

It will probably take running out of/low on resources of one kind or
the other. Like the above.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
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.

It's a debatable case for invoking Godwin, maybe?

My point was simply that I'm not glorifying him.

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?

Sure. We have a local case in which a massive amount of known Iron
Pyrite rock was dumped in a small valley with a stream running along the
bottom of the valley. The valley is all filled in now. The predictable
happened, and we now have a massive acid drainage problem that will kill
many tourist frequented streams and will probably sterilize the creeks
it runs into and construction on the highway has been stopped, and we
have a real mess on our hands.

Who dumped the bad rock?

Not much of a gray area there I think. And we can keep busy enough with

the blatant cases that we don't have to go after Joe six-pack and his
Sunday BBQ or his lawnmower.

Of course! That's the kind of details I'm talking about.

OTOH, one of the excuses given by industry is that environmental concerns cost
too much.

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.

Some people are making a good profit.

Yup.

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

Wellll, you are partially correct. You lump SUV's as if they are all of

the Excursion/Suburban/Escalade type.

Many of them are.

And that is wrong. I just bought
an SUV that gets in the 20's in town, and low 30's on the highway. It's
downright tiny by comparison, and is a very responsible vehicle as far
as resources go.

Sure - but how many of the big ones are sold for every responsible one? And how
many are driven as commuting vehicles and status symbols rather than because
their capabilities are really needed?

And I don't think that any of the Bio fuel options are viable or even
desirable. To see what I mean, replacement of even a tiny fraction of
what we use now in fossil fuel will take a lot of biofuel, and how much
can we make?

TDP isn't biofuel.

The tragedy of the biofuels is this:

America decides that we should go ethanol in a big way. Lots of corn
and other sources are grown for fermentation. After all, this will use
up that silly surplus, right?

Nope.

Only then it's no longer surplus. There would be a lot of pressure to
grow more and more of the raw materials. Have you seen what has happened
to much of the great plains lately? Salt desert, and besides that, the
aquifer is not being recharged except at a very slow rate.

Ethanol has other problems, too, such as poor performance at low temperatures.
TDP is something completely different.

Now when push comes to shove, and population starts to strain our
ability to produce food, you make the decision. Food or fuel? Who drives
and who dies?

Exactly.

Point is, there's no single simple answer. Instead, we need a coordinated
approach on many fronts. Efficiency - conservation - recycling - new technology
- infrastructure. Most of all, changes in how we live.

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

It will probably take running out of/low on resources of one kind or
the other. Like the above.

Unfortunately, you may be right.

73 de Jim, N2EY

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
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?

And her stock is now dropping thru the floor which is impacting all
the little folk who put savings into pieces of her empires, layoffs
will ensue, etc. OYeah, the feds "won" this one big. But who is
getting *really* spanked? Martha? Ha! As if. Ashcroft & Co. strike
again.


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.

TDP is another scam.

"This is classic pseudoscience - bordering on fraudulent!

FROM Discovery article May 03 :

"Thermal depolymerization, Appel [the guy who built the TDP pilot
plant in Philly] says, has proved to be 85 percent energy efficient
for complex feedstocks, such as turkey offal: "That means for every
100 Btus in the feedstock, we use only 15 Btus to run the process."

HOWEVER

"Their energy numbers are [highly] specious. They give efficiency as
the energy content of the input waste over the energy use. That's
flat-out misleading. They should tell us usable energy of the output
fuel. That's all the matters. We do not rate coal plants by the energy
of the coal they burn, after all, all we care about is the output.
This little evasion suggests that they are not being completely honest
in their entire analysis." (Bonehead at Metafilter.com)

An actual [honest] measure of TDP efficiency would contrast usable
energy content of the OUTPUT (not of the inputs) to the energy
required to drive the reaction/process.

"[This] is called marketing. Anybody selling anything has an interest
in convincing you that it will give you eternal life and the Buddha's
ten secrets of personal enlightenment. Their energy estimate is so
dishonest that it hardly seems useful to give it any more time. A
100-BTU chicken couldn't possibly yield more than a few BTU's of
useable fuel, a small percentage of which could actually be converted
into useable energy. It's probably better to just heat your home by
burning the chicken." {Atlantic Online post}

WRT Economics:

"If the New, Improved Poo Fuel and OPEC oil both come to market at
$30/barrel or so, the only difference will be in the profit margin for
Poo Energy Co. " {metafilter.com post}

This is NOT new. Chemistry is chemisty, period. It sure looks like a
pyrolytic process to me, even though they've given it a snazzy new
name. Their comparison chart also sets up pyrolysis as a straw man --
pyrolysis can also handle slurries,liquids, etc. and yields highly
uniform products. So this appears to be 'fancy'[read: hyped,
creatively marketed] pyrolysis to me. Also appears to be a 'classic'
example of "research" finding the results they want to find. Virtually
all experimental design (methodology, instrumentation, analytical
tools) are carefully chosen (crafted) to identify the expected
outcome. Choices are directed by prejudice - in this case, economic.
Given sufficient data, statistics can be employed to 'prove' any
theorum. Unless someone can tell me what I'm missing, of course...

"Most men think that they think, but what they are actually doing is
rearranging their prejudice"(Bertrand Russell)

Get a grip folks! TANSTAAFL

Posted by: dr mac at April 26, 2003 02:09 PM"

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


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

And her stock is now dropping thru the floor which is impacting all
the little folk who put savings into pieces of her empires, layoffs
will ensue, etc. OYeah, the feds "won" this one big. But who is
getting *really* spanked? Martha? Ha! As if. Ashcroft & Co. strike
again.

Exactly. So what's you're solution - let her go?

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.

TDP is another scam.

Maybe, maybe not. Certainly not something to bet the bank on.

"This is classic pseudoscience - bordering on fraudulent!

Sez who? You a ChemE too?

FROM Discovery article May 03 :

"Thermal depolymerization, Appel [the guy who built the TDP pilot
plant in Philly] says, has proved to be 85 percent energy efficient
for complex feedstocks, such as turkey offal: "That means for every
100 Btus in the feedstock, we use only 15 Btus to run the process."

HOWEVER

"Their energy numbers are [highly] specious. They give efficiency as
the energy content of the input waste over the energy use. That's
flat-out misleading. They should tell us usable energy of the output
fuel. That's all the matters. We do not rate coal plants by the energy
of the coal they burn, after all, all we care about is the output.
This little evasion suggests that they are not being completely honest
in their entire analysis." (Bonehead at Metafilter.com)

"Bonehead"?

An actual [honest] measure of TDP efficiency would contrast usable
energy content of the OUTPUT (not of the inputs) to the energy
required to drive the reaction/process.

No, not really. See below.

"[This] is called marketing. Anybody selling anything has an interest
in convincing you that it will give you eternal life and the Buddha's
ten secrets of personal enlightenment. Their energy estimate is so
dishonest that it hardly seems useful to give it any more time. A
100-BTU chicken couldn't possibly yield more than a few BTU's of
useable fuel, a small percentage of which could actually be converted
into useable energy. It's probably better to just heat your home by
burning the chicken." {Atlantic Online post}

Has this person actually investigated the process?

WRT Economics:

"If the New, Improved Poo Fuel and OPEC oil both come to market at
$30/barrel or so, the only difference will be in the profit margin for
Poo Energy Co. " {metafilter.com post}

Well, sort of.

$ per barrel is the only measure that will really stand up in the real world.
It doesn't matter if the TDP process
is 9% or 90% efficient in terms of BTU, what matters is the final cost of the
finished product in dollars per barrel or BTU or ccf. And that will be proven
or disproven by the plants already in service (the turkey plant in the Midwest)
and others in development.

This is NOT new. Chemistry is chemisty, period. It sure looks like a
pyrolytic process to me, even though they've given it a snazzy new
name. Their comparison chart also sets up pyrolysis as a straw man --
pyrolysis can also handle slurries,liquids, etc. and yields highly
uniform products. So this appears to be 'fancy'[read: hyped,
creatively marketed] pyrolysis to me. Also appears to be a 'classic'
example of "research" finding the results they want to find. Virtually
all experimental design (methodology, instrumentation, analytical
tools) are carefully chosen (crafted) to identify the expected
outcome. Choices are directed by prejudice - in this case, economic.
Given sufficient data, statistics can be employed to 'prove' any
theorum. Unless someone can tell me what I'm missing, of course...

It's a combination of temperature and pressure, plus water, that allegedly do
the breakdown. Again, the devil is in the details.

"Most men think that they think, but what they are actually doing is
rearranging their prejudice"(Bertrand Russell)

Get a grip folks! TANSTAAFL

Posted by: dr mac at April 26, 2003 02:09 PM"

"dr mac" huh?

Maybe TDP works, maybe it doesn't, the obvious measure is given above. Of
course if a company has 200 tons of turkey offal per day to dispose of, they're
going to pay the TDP folks just to get rid of it. And if something useful can
be made from for a competitive price, so much the better. Same for sewage
sludge and old plastic, etc.

But even if TDP works as advertised, it's not the entire answer because it will
take decades to bring enough plants online *and* there may not be enough
suitable feedstock meet the demand. (imagine - not enough waste?)

25 or so years ago a ChemE friend of mine did her master's thesis on shale oil
recovery. Developed a process that would get good-quality feedstock from oil
shales of the type that are all over the Rockies. Worked quite well, and was
clean to boot. Only problem was that the resulting oil would cost about
$45/barrel to extract - and that was in 1980 dollars. Figure $60-80/barrel
today.

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

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 -