|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 72 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 26 of 72:
| 
Oct 24 22:04 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 27 of 72:
|
Oct 27 04:59 UTC 2003 |
I believe Walmart has replaced General Motors as the biggest employer in
America. This is not a particularly good sign for America. GM employees
mostly make things. Walmert employees mostly don't. GM employees are
largely unionized, and make fairly decent livings. Walmart employees are,
I believe, non-union and a substantial fraction of them earn crummy wages
with no medical benefits. This allows Walmart to sell for less, putting
stores that treat their employees decently out of business. It's not a
company that makes one feel good about the social value of capitalist
enterprise.
|
sj2
|
|
response 28 of 72:
|
Oct 27 05:31 UTC 2003 |
Welcome to China!!
|
gelinas
|
|
response 29 of 72:
|
Oct 27 11:52 UTC 2003 |
(In his latest book, _Managing in the Next Society_, Peter Drucker points out
that relatively few GM employees "make things." Manufacturing productivity,
like farming productivity, has outstripped demand.)
|
tod
|
|
response 30 of 72:
|
Oct 27 13:33 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 31 of 72:
|
Oct 27 14:23 UTC 2003 |
Joe's probably right - GM does a lot more selling than making. But my
observation was probably dumb anyway, as "selling" isn't inherently worse
than "making". Heck, someone out convincing people to buy recycled paper
products is probably doing the world more good than someone making yet
another Humvee. The isn't any inherent moral superiority to making things.
Personally, I find such work more satisfying, at least when it has a
creative component (which is probably fairly rare on an assembly line) but
lots of people aren't wired that way. So you can strike that comment.
|
remmers
|
|
response 32 of 72:
|
Oct 27 14:24 UTC 2003 |
...and hope the Wal-Mart doesn't drive said grocer out of business first.
|
remmers
|
|
response 33 of 72:
|
Oct 27 14:24 UTC 2003 |
(Jan' #31 slipped in. I was responding to Todd's #30.)
|
tod
|
|
response 34 of 72:
|
Oct 27 14:29 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 35 of 72:
|
Oct 27 14:32 UTC 2003 |
I'm still not sure it says good things about our country that we're trading
manufacturing jobs for positions in telemarketing and burger-flipping.
|
remmers
|
|
response 36 of 72:
|
Oct 27 14:33 UTC 2003 |
Hard to say. It could be that we're manufacturing just as much but
using fewer people to do it.
|
janc
|
|
response 37 of 72:
|
Oct 27 14:46 UTC 2003 |
Maybe we have enough stuff?
Nah.
|
jep
|
|
response 38 of 72:
|
Oct 27 15:08 UTC 2003 |
Manufacturing and farming involve turning natural resources into
products; the traditional definition of "creating wealth". That's how
the economy grows. Services -- sales, marketing, surgery, teaching,
management, etc. -- don't produce any wealth. They shift it around.
Few of us ever produce anything at all, but we all survive and prosper
off what is produced. We all eat, and we all buy cars and clothes and
gadgetry. It all gets produced by someone. In the service economy,
our function is to serve those producers in some way in order to earn
our share of their products.
|
slynne
|
|
response 39 of 72:
|
Oct 27 15:41 UTC 2003 |
Most manufacturing jobs in this country have been lost to technology.
Which isnt really a bad thing. We are still making just as much stuff,
it just takes less folks to make it. Which frees up people to earn
livings doing other things. Things like teaching and creating art and
entertaining, etc. Can you imagine how our lives would be if *most*
people had to either farm or work in factories?
This doesnt mean that Walmart isnt a problem though. They pay their
workers pretty low wages. I am always surprised that they are even able
to find employees.
|
aruba
|
|
response 40 of 72:
|
Oct 27 15:46 UTC 2003 |
I dunno - we sure import a lot of stuff from China. But I suppose this
question about how much stuff is made in the USA can be answered with
numbers.
|
keesan
|
|
response 41 of 72:
|
Oct 27 15:49 UTC 2003 |
Re 38 - I don't buy cars, nor does Jim. The two he currently owns were given
to him.
|
slynne
|
|
response 42 of 72:
|
Oct 27 16:25 UTC 2003 |
resp:40 - I was just listening to some radio economists going on about
this very thing. They said that we still make as much stuff as we did
40 years ago. However, there are a lot more people in the country now
and we consume WAY more stuff than we used to. So, while we make the
same amount of stuff, it is a much lower percentage of the total
consumption.
|
aruba
|
|
response 43 of 72:
|
Oct 27 16:26 UTC 2003 |
That makes sense - thanks.
|
tod
|
|
response 44 of 72:
|
Oct 27 17:02 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
sj2
|
|
response 45 of 72:
|
Oct 27 17:59 UTC 2003 |
In the 70s and 80s, lots of manufacturing jobs moved out of the US.
After that, the US economy has only grown further. No reason it should
stop growing bcoz of outsourcing of service industry jobs. Only remains
to be seen what will drive growth in the US now. Usually, growth in the
US economy provides growth for other economies too which is a good
things coz everyone benefits.
Can someone point me to a link for statistics on US exports category
wise? Arms, cars, steel, farm produce etc etc?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 46 of 72:
|
Oct 27 18:13 UTC 2003 |
I've always wondered why the economy must "grow" continually in order to
have a satisfactory economic structure. Obviously nothing can grow forever
- all resources are finite. Many looming problems - from depletion of the
oceans of edible fish to global warming - would have been averted by
moving to a constrained, steady-state economy, especially for the more
advanced economies. Then more effort could be put into an equalization of
world economies so noone is left in desperate circumstances.
|
tod
|
|
response 47 of 72:
|
Oct 27 18:33 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 48 of 72:
|
Oct 27 18:53 UTC 2003 |
re #46: spoken like someone already perched comfortably close to the top
of the economic ladder.
|
slynne
|
|
response 49 of 72:
|
Oct 27 19:04 UTC 2003 |
Economies can grow even without depletion of resources. Sometimes the
growth comes from coming up with ways to use available resources more
efficiently. Think about it. What if I could come up with a way to use
the energy from the sun such that it could supply all our power needs.
Let's just say that I need lots and lots of human labor in order to
make that happen. That would be a whole new industry and a lot of
growth and I dont think even Rane would suggest the status quo is
better than *that*. Whatever the future growth is in the economy, it is
likely to be something good.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 50 of 72:
|
Oct 27 19:33 UTC 2003 |
I see you have been "convinced". It would be great if it were simple to
harvest for sunlight, but what if that *accelerates* the depletion of
other resource? Without something else being done to limit growth, the
longer term effects would be to increase population and consumption faster
- of other finite resources - unless the brakes could also be placed on
growth per-se. I'm not opposed to a better life for all, but why must we
always let - or even encourage this to - this increase crowding and
environmental destruction?
|