| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
It's baaaack!
Just got a AES flyer today. Prices are going to be going up in April.
Inflation starts anew! - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Just got a AES flyer today. Prices are going to be going up in April. Inflation starts anew! Mike, Is it really inflation, or perhaps changes in the exchange rate with Japan? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Just got a AES flyer today. Prices are going to be going up in April. Inflation starts anew! Mike, Is it really inflation, or perhaps changes in the exchange rate with Japan? The exchange rate is what is going to kick-start inflation. since the dollar has been falling against other currencies recently, the other countries either have to raise their prices, or keep them the same, which is actually a price cut due to the exchange rate. Since we import so many things, those prices will go up and business will start charging more to offset the price rise...... |
Yep,
Also note that this is why OPEC is cutting oil production. Their price is benchmarked to the US dollar and they have stated that the dollar is sinking so they have to raise prices. Given time, you may see more radios manufactured in the USA. Of course, few in the US will be able to afford them since we will be the cheap labor of the world. Give it about 10 or 15 more years. Stay tuned to this one and see who blames whom for the mess that is likely to result. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Just got a AES flyer today. Prices are going to be going up in April. Inflation starts anew! Mike, Is it really inflation, or perhaps changes in the exchange rate with Japan? The exchange rate is what is going to kick-start inflation. since the dollar has been falling against other currencies recently, the other countries either have to raise their prices, or keep them the same, which is actually a price cut due to the exchange rate. Since we import so many things, those prices will go up and business will start charging more to offset the price rise...... --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.605 / Virus Database: 385 - Release Date: 3/1/04 |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Just got a AES flyer today. Prices are going to be going up in April. Inflation starts anew! Mike, Is it really inflation, or perhaps changes in the exchange rate with Japan? The exchange rate is what is going to kick-start inflation. since the dollar has been falling against other currencies recently, the other countries either have to raise their prices, or keep them the same, which is actually a price cut due to the exchange rate. Since we import so many things, those prices will go up and business will start charging more to offset the price rise...... Makes ya wonder who REALLY won the war, doesn't it...?!?! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Just got a AES flyer today. Prices are going to be going up in April. Inflation starts anew! Mike, Is it really inflation, or perhaps changes in the exchange rate with Japan? The exchange rate is what is going to kick-start inflation. since the dollar has been falling against other currencies recently, the other countries either have to raise their prices, or keep them the same, which is actually a price cut due to the exchange rate. Since we import so many things, those prices will go up and business will start charging more to offset the price rise...... And if we get lucky it will perhaps cause some of that business to return to the US over time. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
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" 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"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. 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. In the long run, those currently cheap off shore labor markets will self adjust upwards. 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. 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. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
N2EY wrote:
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? http://www.connpost.com/Stories/0,14...987510,00.html It's worth a read! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Just got a AES flyer today. Prices are going to be going up in April. Inflation starts anew! Mike, Is it really inflation, or perhaps changes in the exchange rate with Japan? The exchange rate is what is going to kick-start inflation. since the dollar has been falling against other currencies recently, the other countries either have to raise their prices, or keep them the same, which is actually a price cut due to the exchange rate. Since we import so many things, those prices will go up and business will start charging more to offset the price rise...... And if we get lucky it will perhaps cause some of that business to return to the US over time. I would sure hope so. I fear for our country as we send our manufacturing and skilled jobs overseas, and retain our burger flippers and money shuffling jobs here. No disrespect towards burger flipping - it's just that that is more and more becoming one of the choices for people trained in other fields. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Jim Hampton wrote: Yep, Also note that this is why OPEC is cutting oil production. Their price is benchmarked to the US dollar and they have stated that the dollar is sinking so they have to raise prices. Given time, you may see more radios manufactured in the USA. Of course, few in the US will be able to afford them since we will be the cheap labor of the world. Give it about 10 or 15 more years. Stay tuned to this one and see who blames whom for the mess that is likely to result. The same people they've blamed for every problem on the face of the planet for years, Jim. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"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. 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? 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? I don't know of any country that grew prosperous on a service economy alone. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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 - |
"N2EY" wrote in message om... "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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
|
Jim,
We are about to find out ... 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "N2EY" wrote in message om... I don't know of any country that grew prosperous on a service economy alone. 73 de Jim, N2EY --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.614 / Virus Database: 393 - Release Date: 3/5/04 |
Jim Hampton wrote:
Jim, We are about to find out ... And that my friend, scares the bejabbers out of me......... - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
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 |
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:
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. Good grief, next thing to go would be flatware and napkins. First china, then crystal, then more forking around. Your dinner done up with all imported settings. 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. Support them. Increase your capacity. Perhaps they should eat cake? Betty Croker is doing that to Little Debbie. LHA / WMD |
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 |
N2EY wrote:
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. Despite his reprehensible support for the N***s, he did know how to sell cars and keep his people pretty well satisfied. 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? The company making the road. My fault, I reread my post and didn't made that clear at all. It was part of a large road building project. One portion of it included basically lopping of the top of a mountain, and filling in a small valley next to it to even out the terrain. 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. Oh, they do cost! But we have this warped mentality that some groups are exempt from responsibility. If we wreck a large part of say the tourist and vacation and vacation product industry in our area, we lose all that money. And it's so much more money than would have been spent by doing the job correctly in the first place. The little stream connects into prime *native* fishing stream, a prime bass fishing stream and a large lake heavily used for recreation. My folks taught me that if it costs too much - don't do it. 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? The Excursion has been canceled you know. The monsters really aren't selling that well anymore 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. Is that a definition thing Jim? The feed stock is certainly biologically based. And it's a good process, that simply uses offal to make it's goop. On a small scale, it can be helpful, but I still believe that it is insufficient on a large scale. Although maybe...... Soylent oil? 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
|
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
N2EY wrote: 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. Despite his reprehensible support for the N***s, he did know how to sell cars and keep his people pretty well satisfied. And all those Willow Run B-24s.... 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? The company making the road. My fault, I reread my post and didn't made that clear at all. It was part of a large road building project. One portion of it included basically lopping of the top of a mountain, and filling in a small valley next to it to even out the terrain. Sounds like lawsuit time and serious trouble for whoever did the signing-off. Particularly the PEs involved. 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. Oh, they do cost! But we have this warped mentality that some groups are exempt from responsibility. If we wreck a large part of say the tourist and vacation and vacation product industry in our area, we lose all that money. And it's so much more money than would have been spent by doing the job correctly in the first place. The little stream connects into prime *native* fishing stream, a prime bass fishing stream and a large lake heavily used for recreation. My folks taught me that if it costs too much - don't do it. Again, the problem consists of getting the big picture and taking the long view. One can imagine that the reason for the road in the first place was so the tourist/vacation set could have easier access to the fishing and lake.... 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? The Excursion has been canceled you know. The monsters really aren't selling that well anymore That's good. 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. Is that a definition thing Jim? The feed stock is certainly biologically based. And it's a good process, that simply uses offal to make it's goop. It's a big thing if what is now a disposal problem can be turned into a usable product. On a small scale, it can be helpful, but I still believe that it is insufficient on a large scale. Although maybe...... Soylent oil? 8^) bwaahaahaa! But I agree that even if TDP works (both technically *and* economically), it's only a piece of the puzzle and not a complete solution. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: (Bill Sohl wrote): But in today's world, even telecom has cut back on training expenses. That is because they intend to get rid of every possible employee whenever possible. Why would you train people that aren't going to be working for you in a few years? The military does it all the time! Side note: These good folk could probably save money if they were to get a bill passed requiring all Americans to learn Indian language in school. That way they wouldn't have to train their new help to speak English. Which language of India? Companies can not afford to support products for long terms and they MUST keep coming out with the latest products because if they don't, the consumer will pass them by. The irony of non-support for older products is that in some cases, cottage or niche companies are created to fill the void if there is sufficient consumer interest. This isn;t a new game. Back in the late 1950s, US automakers "redesigned" their cars every year. Most of the "redesign" was cosmetic, not functional. Their goal wasn't to make cars that would last - they wanted those who were the new-car buyers to come back into the dealerships every year. They almost succeeded - at one point, the average new-car buyer was back every two years, and it was very rare for a car to last 100,000 miles even with the best of care. Yet today the average car hit 200K miles or more. And the new car is so expensive that it darn well *better* make 200 K miles. They have become waay too expensive. Did you know that they are offering 7 year auto loans now? All the "innovative" techniques that the companies had to do over the years to sell cars as the price went up is reaching an end-game for them. Most people do not want to pay $500-$600 or more a month for a vehicle. Are cars *really* more expensive, adjusted for inflation? Back in 2001, my Honda Odyssey minivan cost about $26,000 new. How much did, say, the classic Ford Country Squire station wagon with the woodlike sides cost in 1964? How much has typical income increased in that time period? I just paid it off, and it's got a lot more usable life in it. So the total lifetime cost may be less in inflation-adjusted dollars. Leasing looked good for a while, but of course you have no trade-in, and the lease company doesn't really want you to trade the thing in, they want you to buy-out. But oh those car payments! All depends on a whole bunch of unknowns like residual value, interest rate, repair cost, etc. Look at the ever newer, faster and more memory for PCs. Not just memory but every part of the machine - processor, drives, etc. However, these improvements are often done at the price of quality. Huh? Based on what information do you make that statement? Open up an old IBM PC, then open up a clone box built for cheap performance. I can send you pix of some I have in my garage. Agreed. But that's in large part because they are not meant to last that long. And because enough people buy on price alone. Meanwhile, folks like me cherrypick the trailing edge for pennies. This Amidon 350MHz box cost me a lot less than $100, and most of that was for the CD-ROM burner and the modem. 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). A few years back, the Dow was near 12,000, the Federal budget was balanced, Congress was trying to figure out how to spend the "peace dividend", unemployment *and* inflation were at record lows and a lot of folks I knew were talking about retiring at 55. And Ahnold was a movie actor. Your point? You like it better this way? I don't. All changed now. Your point? Same question. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article m, "Dee D. Flint"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message . com... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.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, 800 square feet (or even 1200) is a very small house! Where do you get those figures? But you do have a point in that the typical middle-class houses of 40-50 years ago were built to a different paradigm than today. Those houses typically were built with very few closets and bathrooms, simple, tiny kitchens, no air conditioning and maybe a 1 car garage. OTOH, basements, porches and attics were much more common back then. Another factor is the cost of running the house - maintenance, utilities, insurance and taxes. The big question is whether a comparable house in a comparable neighborhood today is as affordable in total cost as 40-50 years ago. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: (Bill Sohl wrote): But in today's world, even telecom has cut back on training expenses. That is because they intend to get rid of every possible employee whenever possible. Why would you train people that aren't going to be working for you in a few years? The military does it all the time! Ad they aren't so worried about bottom line profit. Side note: These good folk could probably save money if they were to get a bill passed requiring all Americans to learn Indian language in school. That way they wouldn't have to train their new help to speak English. Which language of India? Companies can not afford to support products for long terms and they MUST keep coming out with the latest products because if they don't, the consumer will pass them by. The irony of non-support for older products is that in some cases, cottage or niche companies are created to fill the void if there is sufficient consumer interest. This isn;t a new game. Back in the late 1950s, US automakers "redesigned" their cars every year. Most of the "redesign" was cosmetic, not functional. Their goal wasn't to make cars that would last - they wanted those who were the new-car buyers to come back into the dealerships every year. They almost succeeded - at one point, the average new-car buyer was back every two years, and it was very rare for a car to last 100,000 miles even with the best of care. Yet today the average car hit 200K miles or more. And the new car is so expensive that it darn well *better* make 200 K miles. They have become waay too expensive. Did you know that they are offering 7 year auto loans now? All the "innovative" techniques that the companies had to do over the years to sell cars as the price went up is reaching an end-game for them. Most people do not want to pay $500-$600 or more a month for a vehicle. Are cars *really* more expensive, adjusted for inflation? Back in 2001, my Honda Odyssey minivan cost about $26,000 new. How much did, say, the classic Ford Country Squire station wagon with the woodlike sides cost in 1964? How much has typical income increased in that time period? I don't have statistics in front of me, but I do know that when I started buying cars, a typical loan was 2 years. now they are doing 6 and seven year loans. I just paid it off, and it's got a lot more usable life in it. So the total lifetime cost may be less in inflation-adjusted dollars. That's good to pay off a car in two years. Hopefully you got a good trade in, or your payments were pretty steep. A 0 percent loan with no down payment would be almost $1100 per month. Leasing looked good for a while, but of course you have no trade-in, and the lease company doesn't really want you to trade the thing in, they want you to buy-out. But oh those car payments! All depends on a whole bunch of unknowns like residual value, interest rate, repair cost, etc. I've leased two cars now, and did okay by both of them. For this go round, I wanted to buy, and to do that, I spent 10K less for the new vehicle than I did 5 years ago for my last one to keep the payments reasonable. Look at the ever newer, faster and more memory for PCs. Not just memory but every part of the machine - processor, drives, etc. However, these improvements are often done at the price of quality. Huh? Based on what information do you make that statement? Open up an old IBM PC, then open up a clone box built for cheap performance. I can send you pix of some I have in my garage. Agreed. But that's in large part because they are not meant to last that long. And because enough people buy on price alone. The old IBM's were meant to last. One of these days maybe we'll concentrate on writing good functional software and operatin systems that actually work, and then we won't have to get new computers every two years. Meanwhile, folks like me cherrypick the trailing edge for pennies. This Amidon 350MHz box cost me a lot less than $100, and most of that was for the CD-ROM burner and the modem. I do both. I have the latest and greatest for some of my uses, and I'm using an old P166 Thinkpad running Win95 for my rig computer. The old PC laptops had very nice sound output, and were built well. - Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:03 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com