Detroit Vs Japan
05-25-2005, 10:35 PM
#121
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Detroit Vs Japan
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>> But since labor costs are still so low in many countries, it's no wonder
>>> why businesses (and not just American businesses) are shifting
>>> production to those countries.
>>
>> And you view this as a good thing?
>
> No, but it is happening, and eventually there will be a paradigm shift in
> education in the US to adjust to it. In the late 19th century, while the
> US was shifting from a agricultural society to an industrial society,
> farming become more automated and many farmhands with a sixth-grade
> education found themselves out of work. The early 20th centrury saw a
> national priority to increase education for the labor force to make them
> more employable, hence high school attendance was made universal. Now we
> are on the cusp of another educational prioriy...a high school education
> won't be enough to compete globally, and two years minimum of post high
> school study will be necessarily universal in the next twenty years or so.
Education has nothing to do with it. Here's the problem: For the US to
compete globally, we need tangible goods to sell. Education does nothing to
give us those tangible goods to sell to the world. Someone has to actually
produce them. In the late 1980's, Pres. Bush declared that he wanted to
push the transition of the US to a service oriented society, which is the
last stage defined by Karl Marx in the evolution of a society's economy.
This has been the fundemental shift that has been happening since the early
1980's, where we've gradually gone to making more and more goods outside
the US. There has been a push to become more of a global marketplace and a
global economy. The problem with this is that you have to have something to
sell to the world. At first, you'd think that we'd sell our services of our
expertise. Well, the shift of computer related jobs to India has shown that
that type of work can be exported a lot easier than moving an entire
production plant. Now, once that knowledge has been gained by foreign
countries, what else do we have to sell to the world? If we've become a
society that is too expensive to employ, we then don't have any hard goods
to sell. We then face economic collapse. When it becomes too easy to
replace you with someone on another continent for a lot less, then we're
doomed.
The US is something like 1/3 the entire world consumer market, and roughly
the size of the entire european continent combined. However, if we keep
trying to cut costs by eliminating jobs by sending them outside our
borders, or replacing them with foreign immigrants who pay no taxes, and
the government subsidizing such action, we'll find ourselves in desperate
times. For too long, white collar and self-employed people have looked the
other way because it didn't affect them. Well, it's beginning to. Again,
they can ship white collar jobs outside the US far cheaper than they can
move a plant. If the current trend continues, you'll find company
accounting records kept in India, etc..
Self-employed people need to be worried too. As more and more production of
goods is outside the US, larger, more global companies are arising,
stamping out the mom-and-pops and small businesses out of the market
altogether. Witness Walmart. 80% of their goods are produced in foreign
countries, typically in sweat shops. That enables them to sell cheaper, and
runs smaller chains out. This is a disease that we all are catching because
we like to pay less. Again, this country is becoming more out for
themselves to a degree unprecedented. Everyone feels like they deserve
$100,000+ a year, but the next guy gets paid too much for what he does.
We're driving down our collective standard of living, as a result. This way
of thinking is a sinking ship...
> Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there will
> be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the emphasis
> will be to stay employable.
Yeah, and like lemmings, we're following this trend...
And when all the tangible goods are made outside the US, accounting,
computer related positions, and just about all white collar work is
exported to India and management only needs a computer readout of the
reports? What then? Is it even possible to stay employable? Doing what?
When enough people can't find work, or cannot earn a decent enough living,
then the market for goods collapses, sending the economy down the toilet
with it to doomsday.
For this country to survive, we need people earning good livings. I don't
just mean a few with college educations, I mean the vast majority of
everyday people. Then, they pay lots of taxes, the government has money to
do its job, and the consumer market flourishes and fuels a booming economy.
Instead, we're trying to rid this country of good paying jobs by exporting
them somewhere else. I heard a local talk radio host claim that we export
low paying jobs and gain high paying jobs in the process. However, I don't
see those jobs lost by GM, Ford, and DC worker to Mexico as being low pay.
I'm telling you...this trend is dangerous for the economy in the long run.
It's good for corporate America, but bad for you and I.
> I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
> people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really
> didn't have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and
> fuel efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the floodgates
> and the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market
> share and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into 1970's
at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most Ferraris
in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even the
Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche never
even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you even
seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There was
nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota, and
Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the much
needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly good
products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they were
so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something like
that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
--
Registered Linux user #378193
>>> But since labor costs are still so low in many countries, it's no wonder
>>> why businesses (and not just American businesses) are shifting
>>> production to those countries.
>>
>> And you view this as a good thing?
>
> No, but it is happening, and eventually there will be a paradigm shift in
> education in the US to adjust to it. In the late 19th century, while the
> US was shifting from a agricultural society to an industrial society,
> farming become more automated and many farmhands with a sixth-grade
> education found themselves out of work. The early 20th centrury saw a
> national priority to increase education for the labor force to make them
> more employable, hence high school attendance was made universal. Now we
> are on the cusp of another educational prioriy...a high school education
> won't be enough to compete globally, and two years minimum of post high
> school study will be necessarily universal in the next twenty years or so.
Education has nothing to do with it. Here's the problem: For the US to
compete globally, we need tangible goods to sell. Education does nothing to
give us those tangible goods to sell to the world. Someone has to actually
produce them. In the late 1980's, Pres. Bush declared that he wanted to
push the transition of the US to a service oriented society, which is the
last stage defined by Karl Marx in the evolution of a society's economy.
This has been the fundemental shift that has been happening since the early
1980's, where we've gradually gone to making more and more goods outside
the US. There has been a push to become more of a global marketplace and a
global economy. The problem with this is that you have to have something to
sell to the world. At first, you'd think that we'd sell our services of our
expertise. Well, the shift of computer related jobs to India has shown that
that type of work can be exported a lot easier than moving an entire
production plant. Now, once that knowledge has been gained by foreign
countries, what else do we have to sell to the world? If we've become a
society that is too expensive to employ, we then don't have any hard goods
to sell. We then face economic collapse. When it becomes too easy to
replace you with someone on another continent for a lot less, then we're
doomed.
The US is something like 1/3 the entire world consumer market, and roughly
the size of the entire european continent combined. However, if we keep
trying to cut costs by eliminating jobs by sending them outside our
borders, or replacing them with foreign immigrants who pay no taxes, and
the government subsidizing such action, we'll find ourselves in desperate
times. For too long, white collar and self-employed people have looked the
other way because it didn't affect them. Well, it's beginning to. Again,
they can ship white collar jobs outside the US far cheaper than they can
move a plant. If the current trend continues, you'll find company
accounting records kept in India, etc..
Self-employed people need to be worried too. As more and more production of
goods is outside the US, larger, more global companies are arising,
stamping out the mom-and-pops and small businesses out of the market
altogether. Witness Walmart. 80% of their goods are produced in foreign
countries, typically in sweat shops. That enables them to sell cheaper, and
runs smaller chains out. This is a disease that we all are catching because
we like to pay less. Again, this country is becoming more out for
themselves to a degree unprecedented. Everyone feels like they deserve
$100,000+ a year, but the next guy gets paid too much for what he does.
We're driving down our collective standard of living, as a result. This way
of thinking is a sinking ship...
> Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there will
> be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the emphasis
> will be to stay employable.
Yeah, and like lemmings, we're following this trend...
And when all the tangible goods are made outside the US, accounting,
computer related positions, and just about all white collar work is
exported to India and management only needs a computer readout of the
reports? What then? Is it even possible to stay employable? Doing what?
When enough people can't find work, or cannot earn a decent enough living,
then the market for goods collapses, sending the economy down the toilet
with it to doomsday.
For this country to survive, we need people earning good livings. I don't
just mean a few with college educations, I mean the vast majority of
everyday people. Then, they pay lots of taxes, the government has money to
do its job, and the consumer market flourishes and fuels a booming economy.
Instead, we're trying to rid this country of good paying jobs by exporting
them somewhere else. I heard a local talk radio host claim that we export
low paying jobs and gain high paying jobs in the process. However, I don't
see those jobs lost by GM, Ford, and DC worker to Mexico as being low pay.
I'm telling you...this trend is dangerous for the economy in the long run.
It's good for corporate America, but bad for you and I.
> I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
> people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really
> didn't have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and
> fuel efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the floodgates
> and the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market
> share and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into 1970's
at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most Ferraris
in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even the
Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche never
even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you even
seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There was
nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota, and
Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the much
needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly good
products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they were
so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something like
that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
--
Registered Linux user #378193
05-25-2005, 11:05 PM
#122
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Detroit Vs Japan
You got it! The U.S.of A. must produce a product then sell more of
it to the world than we buy. That's what supports our dollar, like
everyone is selling life insurance, maybe a little litigation, and
doctors caring for the elderly are only services. Like our trade deficit
is marking the time we have until the end. No product, no economy it's
as simple as that!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ruel Smith wrote:
>
> Education has nothing to do with it. Here's the problem: For the US to
> compete globally, we need tangible goods to sell. Education does nothing to
> give us those tangible goods to sell to the world. Someone has to actually
> produce them. In the late 1980's, Pres. Bush declared that he wanted to
> push the transition of the US to a service oriented society, which is the
> last stage defined by Karl Marx in the evolution of a society's economy.
> This has been the fundemental shift that has been happening since the early
> 1980's, where we've gradually gone to making more and more goods outside
> the US. There has been a push to become more of a global marketplace and a
> global economy. The problem with this is that you have to have something to
> sell to the world. At first, you'd think that we'd sell our services of our
> expertise. Well, the shift of computer related jobs to India has shown that
> that type of work can be exported a lot easier than moving an entire
> production plant. Now, once that knowledge has been gained by foreign
> countries, what else do we have to sell to the world? If we've become a
> society that is too expensive to employ, we then don't have any hard goods
> to sell. We then face economic collapse. When it becomes too easy to
> replace you with someone on another continent for a lot less, then we're
> doomed.
>
> The US is something like 1/3 the entire world consumer market, and roughly
> the size of the entire european continent combined. However, if we keep
> trying to cut costs by eliminating jobs by sending them outside our
> borders, or replacing them with foreign immigrants who pay no taxes, and
> the government subsidizing such action, we'll find ourselves in desperate
> times. For too long, white collar and self-employed people have looked the
> other way because it didn't affect them. Well, it's beginning to. Again,
> they can ship white collar jobs outside the US far cheaper than they can
> move a plant. If the current trend continues, you'll find company
> accounting records kept in India, etc..
>
> Self-employed people need to be worried too. As more and more production of
> goods is outside the US, larger, more global companies are arising,
> stamping out the mom-and-pops and small businesses out of the market
> altogether. Witness Walmart. 80% of their goods are produced in foreign
> countries, typically in sweat shops. That enables them to sell cheaper, and
> runs smaller chains out. This is a disease that we all are catching because
> we like to pay less. Again, this country is becoming more out for
> themselves to a degree unprecedented. Everyone feels like they deserve
> $100,000+ a year, but the next guy gets paid too much for what he does.
> We're driving down our collective standard of living, as a result. This way
> of thinking is a sinking ship...
>
> > Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there will
> > be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the emphasis
> > will be to stay employable.
>
> Yeah, and like lemmings, we're following this trend...
>
> And when all the tangible goods are made outside the US, accounting,
> computer related positions, and just about all white collar work is
> exported to India and management only needs a computer readout of the
> reports? What then? Is it even possible to stay employable? Doing what?
> When enough people can't find work, or cannot earn a decent enough living,
> then the market for goods collapses, sending the economy down the toilet
> with it to doomsday.
>
> For this country to survive, we need people earning good livings. I don't
> just mean a few with college educations, I mean the vast majority of
> everyday people. Then, they pay lots of taxes, the government has money to
> do its job, and the consumer market flourishes and fuels a booming economy.
> Instead, we're trying to rid this country of good paying jobs by exporting
> them somewhere else. I heard a local talk radio host claim that we export
> low paying jobs and gain high paying jobs in the process. However, I don't
> see those jobs lost by GM, Ford, and DC worker to Mexico as being low pay.
>
> I'm telling you...this trend is dangerous for the economy in the long run.
> It's good for corporate America, but bad for you and I.
>
> > I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
> > people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really
> > didn't have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and
> > fuel efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the floodgates
> > and the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market
> > share and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
>
> Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into 1970's
> at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
> counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
> build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
> impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
> performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most Ferraris
> in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
> something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even the
> Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche never
> even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
> performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you even
> seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There was
> nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
> 1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
> their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota, and
> Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the much
> needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly good
> products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
> them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they were
> so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something like
> that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
>
> --
>
> Registered Linux user #378193
it to the world than we buy. That's what supports our dollar, like
everyone is selling life insurance, maybe a little litigation, and
doctors caring for the elderly are only services. Like our trade deficit
is marking the time we have until the end. No product, no economy it's
as simple as that!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ruel Smith wrote:
>
> Education has nothing to do with it. Here's the problem: For the US to
> compete globally, we need tangible goods to sell. Education does nothing to
> give us those tangible goods to sell to the world. Someone has to actually
> produce them. In the late 1980's, Pres. Bush declared that he wanted to
> push the transition of the US to a service oriented society, which is the
> last stage defined by Karl Marx in the evolution of a society's economy.
> This has been the fundemental shift that has been happening since the early
> 1980's, where we've gradually gone to making more and more goods outside
> the US. There has been a push to become more of a global marketplace and a
> global economy. The problem with this is that you have to have something to
> sell to the world. At first, you'd think that we'd sell our services of our
> expertise. Well, the shift of computer related jobs to India has shown that
> that type of work can be exported a lot easier than moving an entire
> production plant. Now, once that knowledge has been gained by foreign
> countries, what else do we have to sell to the world? If we've become a
> society that is too expensive to employ, we then don't have any hard goods
> to sell. We then face economic collapse. When it becomes too easy to
> replace you with someone on another continent for a lot less, then we're
> doomed.
>
> The US is something like 1/3 the entire world consumer market, and roughly
> the size of the entire european continent combined. However, if we keep
> trying to cut costs by eliminating jobs by sending them outside our
> borders, or replacing them with foreign immigrants who pay no taxes, and
> the government subsidizing such action, we'll find ourselves in desperate
> times. For too long, white collar and self-employed people have looked the
> other way because it didn't affect them. Well, it's beginning to. Again,
> they can ship white collar jobs outside the US far cheaper than they can
> move a plant. If the current trend continues, you'll find company
> accounting records kept in India, etc..
>
> Self-employed people need to be worried too. As more and more production of
> goods is outside the US, larger, more global companies are arising,
> stamping out the mom-and-pops and small businesses out of the market
> altogether. Witness Walmart. 80% of their goods are produced in foreign
> countries, typically in sweat shops. That enables them to sell cheaper, and
> runs smaller chains out. This is a disease that we all are catching because
> we like to pay less. Again, this country is becoming more out for
> themselves to a degree unprecedented. Everyone feels like they deserve
> $100,000+ a year, but the next guy gets paid too much for what he does.
> We're driving down our collective standard of living, as a result. This way
> of thinking is a sinking ship...
>
> > Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there will
> > be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the emphasis
> > will be to stay employable.
>
> Yeah, and like lemmings, we're following this trend...
>
> And when all the tangible goods are made outside the US, accounting,
> computer related positions, and just about all white collar work is
> exported to India and management only needs a computer readout of the
> reports? What then? Is it even possible to stay employable? Doing what?
> When enough people can't find work, or cannot earn a decent enough living,
> then the market for goods collapses, sending the economy down the toilet
> with it to doomsday.
>
> For this country to survive, we need people earning good livings. I don't
> just mean a few with college educations, I mean the vast majority of
> everyday people. Then, they pay lots of taxes, the government has money to
> do its job, and the consumer market flourishes and fuels a booming economy.
> Instead, we're trying to rid this country of good paying jobs by exporting
> them somewhere else. I heard a local talk radio host claim that we export
> low paying jobs and gain high paying jobs in the process. However, I don't
> see those jobs lost by GM, Ford, and DC worker to Mexico as being low pay.
>
> I'm telling you...this trend is dangerous for the economy in the long run.
> It's good for corporate America, but bad for you and I.
>
> > I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
> > people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really
> > didn't have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and
> > fuel efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the floodgates
> > and the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market
> > share and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
>
> Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into 1970's
> at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
> counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
> build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
> impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
> performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most Ferraris
> in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
> something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even the
> Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche never
> even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
> performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you even
> seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There was
> nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
> 1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
> their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota, and
> Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the much
> needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly good
> products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
> them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they were
> so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something like
> that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
>
> --
>
> Registered Linux user #378193
05-25-2005, 11:05 PM
#123
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Detroit Vs Japan
You got it! The U.S.of A. must produce a product then sell more of
it to the world than we buy. That's what supports our dollar, like
everyone is selling life insurance, maybe a little litigation, and
doctors caring for the elderly are only services. Like our trade deficit
is marking the time we have until the end. No product, no economy it's
as simple as that!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ruel Smith wrote:
>
> Education has nothing to do with it. Here's the problem: For the US to
> compete globally, we need tangible goods to sell. Education does nothing to
> give us those tangible goods to sell to the world. Someone has to actually
> produce them. In the late 1980's, Pres. Bush declared that he wanted to
> push the transition of the US to a service oriented society, which is the
> last stage defined by Karl Marx in the evolution of a society's economy.
> This has been the fundemental shift that has been happening since the early
> 1980's, where we've gradually gone to making more and more goods outside
> the US. There has been a push to become more of a global marketplace and a
> global economy. The problem with this is that you have to have something to
> sell to the world. At first, you'd think that we'd sell our services of our
> expertise. Well, the shift of computer related jobs to India has shown that
> that type of work can be exported a lot easier than moving an entire
> production plant. Now, once that knowledge has been gained by foreign
> countries, what else do we have to sell to the world? If we've become a
> society that is too expensive to employ, we then don't have any hard goods
> to sell. We then face economic collapse. When it becomes too easy to
> replace you with someone on another continent for a lot less, then we're
> doomed.
>
> The US is something like 1/3 the entire world consumer market, and roughly
> the size of the entire european continent combined. However, if we keep
> trying to cut costs by eliminating jobs by sending them outside our
> borders, or replacing them with foreign immigrants who pay no taxes, and
> the government subsidizing such action, we'll find ourselves in desperate
> times. For too long, white collar and self-employed people have looked the
> other way because it didn't affect them. Well, it's beginning to. Again,
> they can ship white collar jobs outside the US far cheaper than they can
> move a plant. If the current trend continues, you'll find company
> accounting records kept in India, etc..
>
> Self-employed people need to be worried too. As more and more production of
> goods is outside the US, larger, more global companies are arising,
> stamping out the mom-and-pops and small businesses out of the market
> altogether. Witness Walmart. 80% of their goods are produced in foreign
> countries, typically in sweat shops. That enables them to sell cheaper, and
> runs smaller chains out. This is a disease that we all are catching because
> we like to pay less. Again, this country is becoming more out for
> themselves to a degree unprecedented. Everyone feels like they deserve
> $100,000+ a year, but the next guy gets paid too much for what he does.
> We're driving down our collective standard of living, as a result. This way
> of thinking is a sinking ship...
>
> > Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there will
> > be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the emphasis
> > will be to stay employable.
>
> Yeah, and like lemmings, we're following this trend...
>
> And when all the tangible goods are made outside the US, accounting,
> computer related positions, and just about all white collar work is
> exported to India and management only needs a computer readout of the
> reports? What then? Is it even possible to stay employable? Doing what?
> When enough people can't find work, or cannot earn a decent enough living,
> then the market for goods collapses, sending the economy down the toilet
> with it to doomsday.
>
> For this country to survive, we need people earning good livings. I don't
> just mean a few with college educations, I mean the vast majority of
> everyday people. Then, they pay lots of taxes, the government has money to
> do its job, and the consumer market flourishes and fuels a booming economy.
> Instead, we're trying to rid this country of good paying jobs by exporting
> them somewhere else. I heard a local talk radio host claim that we export
> low paying jobs and gain high paying jobs in the process. However, I don't
> see those jobs lost by GM, Ford, and DC worker to Mexico as being low pay.
>
> I'm telling you...this trend is dangerous for the economy in the long run.
> It's good for corporate America, but bad for you and I.
>
> > I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
> > people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really
> > didn't have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and
> > fuel efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the floodgates
> > and the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market
> > share and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
>
> Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into 1970's
> at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
> counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
> build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
> impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
> performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most Ferraris
> in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
> something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even the
> Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche never
> even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
> performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you even
> seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There was
> nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
> 1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
> their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota, and
> Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the much
> needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly good
> products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
> them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they were
> so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something like
> that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
>
> --
>
> Registered Linux user #378193
it to the world than we buy. That's what supports our dollar, like
everyone is selling life insurance, maybe a little litigation, and
doctors caring for the elderly are only services. Like our trade deficit
is marking the time we have until the end. No product, no economy it's
as simple as that!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ruel Smith wrote:
>
> Education has nothing to do with it. Here's the problem: For the US to
> compete globally, we need tangible goods to sell. Education does nothing to
> give us those tangible goods to sell to the world. Someone has to actually
> produce them. In the late 1980's, Pres. Bush declared that he wanted to
> push the transition of the US to a service oriented society, which is the
> last stage defined by Karl Marx in the evolution of a society's economy.
> This has been the fundemental shift that has been happening since the early
> 1980's, where we've gradually gone to making more and more goods outside
> the US. There has been a push to become more of a global marketplace and a
> global economy. The problem with this is that you have to have something to
> sell to the world. At first, you'd think that we'd sell our services of our
> expertise. Well, the shift of computer related jobs to India has shown that
> that type of work can be exported a lot easier than moving an entire
> production plant. Now, once that knowledge has been gained by foreign
> countries, what else do we have to sell to the world? If we've become a
> society that is too expensive to employ, we then don't have any hard goods
> to sell. We then face economic collapse. When it becomes too easy to
> replace you with someone on another continent for a lot less, then we're
> doomed.
>
> The US is something like 1/3 the entire world consumer market, and roughly
> the size of the entire european continent combined. However, if we keep
> trying to cut costs by eliminating jobs by sending them outside our
> borders, or replacing them with foreign immigrants who pay no taxes, and
> the government subsidizing such action, we'll find ourselves in desperate
> times. For too long, white collar and self-employed people have looked the
> other way because it didn't affect them. Well, it's beginning to. Again,
> they can ship white collar jobs outside the US far cheaper than they can
> move a plant. If the current trend continues, you'll find company
> accounting records kept in India, etc..
>
> Self-employed people need to be worried too. As more and more production of
> goods is outside the US, larger, more global companies are arising,
> stamping out the mom-and-pops and small businesses out of the market
> altogether. Witness Walmart. 80% of their goods are produced in foreign
> countries, typically in sweat shops. That enables them to sell cheaper, and
> runs smaller chains out. This is a disease that we all are catching because
> we like to pay less. Again, this country is becoming more out for
> themselves to a degree unprecedented. Everyone feels like they deserve
> $100,000+ a year, but the next guy gets paid too much for what he does.
> We're driving down our collective standard of living, as a result. This way
> of thinking is a sinking ship...
>
> > Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there will
> > be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the emphasis
> > will be to stay employable.
>
> Yeah, and like lemmings, we're following this trend...
>
> And when all the tangible goods are made outside the US, accounting,
> computer related positions, and just about all white collar work is
> exported to India and management only needs a computer readout of the
> reports? What then? Is it even possible to stay employable? Doing what?
> When enough people can't find work, or cannot earn a decent enough living,
> then the market for goods collapses, sending the economy down the toilet
> with it to doomsday.
>
> For this country to survive, we need people earning good livings. I don't
> just mean a few with college educations, I mean the vast majority of
> everyday people. Then, they pay lots of taxes, the government has money to
> do its job, and the consumer market flourishes and fuels a booming economy.
> Instead, we're trying to rid this country of good paying jobs by exporting
> them somewhere else. I heard a local talk radio host claim that we export
> low paying jobs and gain high paying jobs in the process. However, I don't
> see those jobs lost by GM, Ford, and DC worker to Mexico as being low pay.
>
> I'm telling you...this trend is dangerous for the economy in the long run.
> It's good for corporate America, but bad for you and I.
>
> > I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
> > people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really
> > didn't have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and
> > fuel efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the floodgates
> > and the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market
> > share and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
>
> Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into 1970's
> at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
> counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
> build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
> impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
> performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most Ferraris
> in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
> something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even the
> Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche never
> even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
> performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you even
> seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There was
> nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
> 1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
> their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota, and
> Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the much
> needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly good
> products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
> them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they were
> so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something like
> that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
>
> --
>
> Registered Linux user #378193
05-25-2005, 11:05 PM
#124
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Detroit Vs Japan
You got it! The U.S.of A. must produce a product then sell more of
it to the world than we buy. That's what supports our dollar, like
everyone is selling life insurance, maybe a little litigation, and
doctors caring for the elderly are only services. Like our trade deficit
is marking the time we have until the end. No product, no economy it's
as simple as that!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ruel Smith wrote:
>
> Education has nothing to do with it. Here's the problem: For the US to
> compete globally, we need tangible goods to sell. Education does nothing to
> give us those tangible goods to sell to the world. Someone has to actually
> produce them. In the late 1980's, Pres. Bush declared that he wanted to
> push the transition of the US to a service oriented society, which is the
> last stage defined by Karl Marx in the evolution of a society's economy.
> This has been the fundemental shift that has been happening since the early
> 1980's, where we've gradually gone to making more and more goods outside
> the US. There has been a push to become more of a global marketplace and a
> global economy. The problem with this is that you have to have something to
> sell to the world. At first, you'd think that we'd sell our services of our
> expertise. Well, the shift of computer related jobs to India has shown that
> that type of work can be exported a lot easier than moving an entire
> production plant. Now, once that knowledge has been gained by foreign
> countries, what else do we have to sell to the world? If we've become a
> society that is too expensive to employ, we then don't have any hard goods
> to sell. We then face economic collapse. When it becomes too easy to
> replace you with someone on another continent for a lot less, then we're
> doomed.
>
> The US is something like 1/3 the entire world consumer market, and roughly
> the size of the entire european continent combined. However, if we keep
> trying to cut costs by eliminating jobs by sending them outside our
> borders, or replacing them with foreign immigrants who pay no taxes, and
> the government subsidizing such action, we'll find ourselves in desperate
> times. For too long, white collar and self-employed people have looked the
> other way because it didn't affect them. Well, it's beginning to. Again,
> they can ship white collar jobs outside the US far cheaper than they can
> move a plant. If the current trend continues, you'll find company
> accounting records kept in India, etc..
>
> Self-employed people need to be worried too. As more and more production of
> goods is outside the US, larger, more global companies are arising,
> stamping out the mom-and-pops and small businesses out of the market
> altogether. Witness Walmart. 80% of their goods are produced in foreign
> countries, typically in sweat shops. That enables them to sell cheaper, and
> runs smaller chains out. This is a disease that we all are catching because
> we like to pay less. Again, this country is becoming more out for
> themselves to a degree unprecedented. Everyone feels like they deserve
> $100,000+ a year, but the next guy gets paid too much for what he does.
> We're driving down our collective standard of living, as a result. This way
> of thinking is a sinking ship...
>
> > Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there will
> > be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the emphasis
> > will be to stay employable.
>
> Yeah, and like lemmings, we're following this trend...
>
> And when all the tangible goods are made outside the US, accounting,
> computer related positions, and just about all white collar work is
> exported to India and management only needs a computer readout of the
> reports? What then? Is it even possible to stay employable? Doing what?
> When enough people can't find work, or cannot earn a decent enough living,
> then the market for goods collapses, sending the economy down the toilet
> with it to doomsday.
>
> For this country to survive, we need people earning good livings. I don't
> just mean a few with college educations, I mean the vast majority of
> everyday people. Then, they pay lots of taxes, the government has money to
> do its job, and the consumer market flourishes and fuels a booming economy.
> Instead, we're trying to rid this country of good paying jobs by exporting
> them somewhere else. I heard a local talk radio host claim that we export
> low paying jobs and gain high paying jobs in the process. However, I don't
> see those jobs lost by GM, Ford, and DC worker to Mexico as being low pay.
>
> I'm telling you...this trend is dangerous for the economy in the long run.
> It's good for corporate America, but bad for you and I.
>
> > I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
> > people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really
> > didn't have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and
> > fuel efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the floodgates
> > and the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market
> > share and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
>
> Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into 1970's
> at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
> counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
> build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
> impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
> performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most Ferraris
> in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
> something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even the
> Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche never
> even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
> performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you even
> seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There was
> nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
> 1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
> their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota, and
> Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the much
> needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly good
> products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
> them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they were
> so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something like
> that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
>
> --
>
> Registered Linux user #378193
it to the world than we buy. That's what supports our dollar, like
everyone is selling life insurance, maybe a little litigation, and
doctors caring for the elderly are only services. Like our trade deficit
is marking the time we have until the end. No product, no economy it's
as simple as that!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ruel Smith wrote:
>
> Education has nothing to do with it. Here's the problem: For the US to
> compete globally, we need tangible goods to sell. Education does nothing to
> give us those tangible goods to sell to the world. Someone has to actually
> produce them. In the late 1980's, Pres. Bush declared that he wanted to
> push the transition of the US to a service oriented society, which is the
> last stage defined by Karl Marx in the evolution of a society's economy.
> This has been the fundemental shift that has been happening since the early
> 1980's, where we've gradually gone to making more and more goods outside
> the US. There has been a push to become more of a global marketplace and a
> global economy. The problem with this is that you have to have something to
> sell to the world. At first, you'd think that we'd sell our services of our
> expertise. Well, the shift of computer related jobs to India has shown that
> that type of work can be exported a lot easier than moving an entire
> production plant. Now, once that knowledge has been gained by foreign
> countries, what else do we have to sell to the world? If we've become a
> society that is too expensive to employ, we then don't have any hard goods
> to sell. We then face economic collapse. When it becomes too easy to
> replace you with someone on another continent for a lot less, then we're
> doomed.
>
> The US is something like 1/3 the entire world consumer market, and roughly
> the size of the entire european continent combined. However, if we keep
> trying to cut costs by eliminating jobs by sending them outside our
> borders, or replacing them with foreign immigrants who pay no taxes, and
> the government subsidizing such action, we'll find ourselves in desperate
> times. For too long, white collar and self-employed people have looked the
> other way because it didn't affect them. Well, it's beginning to. Again,
> they can ship white collar jobs outside the US far cheaper than they can
> move a plant. If the current trend continues, you'll find company
> accounting records kept in India, etc..
>
> Self-employed people need to be worried too. As more and more production of
> goods is outside the US, larger, more global companies are arising,
> stamping out the mom-and-pops and small businesses out of the market
> altogether. Witness Walmart. 80% of their goods are produced in foreign
> countries, typically in sweat shops. That enables them to sell cheaper, and
> runs smaller chains out. This is a disease that we all are catching because
> we like to pay less. Again, this country is becoming more out for
> themselves to a degree unprecedented. Everyone feels like they deserve
> $100,000+ a year, but the next guy gets paid too much for what he does.
> We're driving down our collective standard of living, as a result. This way
> of thinking is a sinking ship...
>
> > Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there will
> > be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the emphasis
> > will be to stay employable.
>
> Yeah, and like lemmings, we're following this trend...
>
> And when all the tangible goods are made outside the US, accounting,
> computer related positions, and just about all white collar work is
> exported to India and management only needs a computer readout of the
> reports? What then? Is it even possible to stay employable? Doing what?
> When enough people can't find work, or cannot earn a decent enough living,
> then the market for goods collapses, sending the economy down the toilet
> with it to doomsday.
>
> For this country to survive, we need people earning good livings. I don't
> just mean a few with college educations, I mean the vast majority of
> everyday people. Then, they pay lots of taxes, the government has money to
> do its job, and the consumer market flourishes and fuels a booming economy.
> Instead, we're trying to rid this country of good paying jobs by exporting
> them somewhere else. I heard a local talk radio host claim that we export
> low paying jobs and gain high paying jobs in the process. However, I don't
> see those jobs lost by GM, Ford, and DC worker to Mexico as being low pay.
>
> I'm telling you...this trend is dangerous for the economy in the long run.
> It's good for corporate America, but bad for you and I.
>
> > I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
> > people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really
> > didn't have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and
> > fuel efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the floodgates
> > and the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market
> > share and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
>
> Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into 1970's
> at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
> counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
> build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
> impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
> performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most Ferraris
> in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
> something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even the
> Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche never
> even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
> performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you even
> seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There was
> nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
> 1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
> their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota, and
> Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the much
> needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly good
> products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
> them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they were
> so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something like
> that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
>
> --
>
> Registered Linux user #378193
05-25-2005, 11:05 PM
#125
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Detroit Vs Japan
You got it! The U.S.of A. must produce a product then sell more of
it to the world than we buy. That's what supports our dollar, like
everyone is selling life insurance, maybe a little litigation, and
doctors caring for the elderly are only services. Like our trade deficit
is marking the time we have until the end. No product, no economy it's
as simple as that!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ruel Smith wrote:
>
> Education has nothing to do with it. Here's the problem: For the US to
> compete globally, we need tangible goods to sell. Education does nothing to
> give us those tangible goods to sell to the world. Someone has to actually
> produce them. In the late 1980's, Pres. Bush declared that he wanted to
> push the transition of the US to a service oriented society, which is the
> last stage defined by Karl Marx in the evolution of a society's economy.
> This has been the fundemental shift that has been happening since the early
> 1980's, where we've gradually gone to making more and more goods outside
> the US. There has been a push to become more of a global marketplace and a
> global economy. The problem with this is that you have to have something to
> sell to the world. At first, you'd think that we'd sell our services of our
> expertise. Well, the shift of computer related jobs to India has shown that
> that type of work can be exported a lot easier than moving an entire
> production plant. Now, once that knowledge has been gained by foreign
> countries, what else do we have to sell to the world? If we've become a
> society that is too expensive to employ, we then don't have any hard goods
> to sell. We then face economic collapse. When it becomes too easy to
> replace you with someone on another continent for a lot less, then we're
> doomed.
>
> The US is something like 1/3 the entire world consumer market, and roughly
> the size of the entire european continent combined. However, if we keep
> trying to cut costs by eliminating jobs by sending them outside our
> borders, or replacing them with foreign immigrants who pay no taxes, and
> the government subsidizing such action, we'll find ourselves in desperate
> times. For too long, white collar and self-employed people have looked the
> other way because it didn't affect them. Well, it's beginning to. Again,
> they can ship white collar jobs outside the US far cheaper than they can
> move a plant. If the current trend continues, you'll find company
> accounting records kept in India, etc..
>
> Self-employed people need to be worried too. As more and more production of
> goods is outside the US, larger, more global companies are arising,
> stamping out the mom-and-pops and small businesses out of the market
> altogether. Witness Walmart. 80% of their goods are produced in foreign
> countries, typically in sweat shops. That enables them to sell cheaper, and
> runs smaller chains out. This is a disease that we all are catching because
> we like to pay less. Again, this country is becoming more out for
> themselves to a degree unprecedented. Everyone feels like they deserve
> $100,000+ a year, but the next guy gets paid too much for what he does.
> We're driving down our collective standard of living, as a result. This way
> of thinking is a sinking ship...
>
> > Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there will
> > be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the emphasis
> > will be to stay employable.
>
> Yeah, and like lemmings, we're following this trend...
>
> And when all the tangible goods are made outside the US, accounting,
> computer related positions, and just about all white collar work is
> exported to India and management only needs a computer readout of the
> reports? What then? Is it even possible to stay employable? Doing what?
> When enough people can't find work, or cannot earn a decent enough living,
> then the market for goods collapses, sending the economy down the toilet
> with it to doomsday.
>
> For this country to survive, we need people earning good livings. I don't
> just mean a few with college educations, I mean the vast majority of
> everyday people. Then, they pay lots of taxes, the government has money to
> do its job, and the consumer market flourishes and fuels a booming economy.
> Instead, we're trying to rid this country of good paying jobs by exporting
> them somewhere else. I heard a local talk radio host claim that we export
> low paying jobs and gain high paying jobs in the process. However, I don't
> see those jobs lost by GM, Ford, and DC worker to Mexico as being low pay.
>
> I'm telling you...this trend is dangerous for the economy in the long run.
> It's good for corporate America, but bad for you and I.
>
> > I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
> > people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really
> > didn't have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and
> > fuel efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the floodgates
> > and the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market
> > share and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
>
> Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into 1970's
> at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
> counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
> build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
> impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
> performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most Ferraris
> in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
> something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even the
> Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche never
> even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
> performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you even
> seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There was
> nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
> 1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
> their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota, and
> Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the much
> needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly good
> products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
> them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they were
> so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something like
> that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
>
> --
>
> Registered Linux user #378193
it to the world than we buy. That's what supports our dollar, like
everyone is selling life insurance, maybe a little litigation, and
doctors caring for the elderly are only services. Like our trade deficit
is marking the time we have until the end. No product, no economy it's
as simple as that!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Ruel Smith wrote:
>
> Education has nothing to do with it. Here's the problem: For the US to
> compete globally, we need tangible goods to sell. Education does nothing to
> give us those tangible goods to sell to the world. Someone has to actually
> produce them. In the late 1980's, Pres. Bush declared that he wanted to
> push the transition of the US to a service oriented society, which is the
> last stage defined by Karl Marx in the evolution of a society's economy.
> This has been the fundemental shift that has been happening since the early
> 1980's, where we've gradually gone to making more and more goods outside
> the US. There has been a push to become more of a global marketplace and a
> global economy. The problem with this is that you have to have something to
> sell to the world. At first, you'd think that we'd sell our services of our
> expertise. Well, the shift of computer related jobs to India has shown that
> that type of work can be exported a lot easier than moving an entire
> production plant. Now, once that knowledge has been gained by foreign
> countries, what else do we have to sell to the world? If we've become a
> society that is too expensive to employ, we then don't have any hard goods
> to sell. We then face economic collapse. When it becomes too easy to
> replace you with someone on another continent for a lot less, then we're
> doomed.
>
> The US is something like 1/3 the entire world consumer market, and roughly
> the size of the entire european continent combined. However, if we keep
> trying to cut costs by eliminating jobs by sending them outside our
> borders, or replacing them with foreign immigrants who pay no taxes, and
> the government subsidizing such action, we'll find ourselves in desperate
> times. For too long, white collar and self-employed people have looked the
> other way because it didn't affect them. Well, it's beginning to. Again,
> they can ship white collar jobs outside the US far cheaper than they can
> move a plant. If the current trend continues, you'll find company
> accounting records kept in India, etc..
>
> Self-employed people need to be worried too. As more and more production of
> goods is outside the US, larger, more global companies are arising,
> stamping out the mom-and-pops and small businesses out of the market
> altogether. Witness Walmart. 80% of their goods are produced in foreign
> countries, typically in sweat shops. That enables them to sell cheaper, and
> runs smaller chains out. This is a disease that we all are catching because
> we like to pay less. Again, this country is becoming more out for
> themselves to a degree unprecedented. Everyone feels like they deserve
> $100,000+ a year, but the next guy gets paid too much for what he does.
> We're driving down our collective standard of living, as a result. This way
> of thinking is a sinking ship...
>
> > Big business loves this trend. Like all socioecononomic shifts, there will
> > be some that will be left behind. You want to stay employed...the emphasis
> > will be to stay employable.
>
> Yeah, and like lemmings, we're following this trend...
>
> And when all the tangible goods are made outside the US, accounting,
> computer related positions, and just about all white collar work is
> exported to India and management only needs a computer readout of the
> reports? What then? Is it even possible to stay employable? Doing what?
> When enough people can't find work, or cannot earn a decent enough living,
> then the market for goods collapses, sending the economy down the toilet
> with it to doomsday.
>
> For this country to survive, we need people earning good livings. I don't
> just mean a few with college educations, I mean the vast majority of
> everyday people. Then, they pay lots of taxes, the government has money to
> do its job, and the consumer market flourishes and fuels a booming economy.
> Instead, we're trying to rid this country of good paying jobs by exporting
> them somewhere else. I heard a local talk radio host claim that we export
> low paying jobs and gain high paying jobs in the process. However, I don't
> see those jobs lost by GM, Ford, and DC worker to Mexico as being low pay.
>
> I'm telling you...this trend is dangerous for the economy in the long run.
> It's good for corporate America, but bad for you and I.
>
> > I see your point...I think a lot of it was in the gas crunch of the 70's
> > people wanted smaller, fuel efficient cars, and the domestics really
> > didn't have much to offer, while almost every Japanese car was small and
> > fuel efficient, quality notwithstanding. That really opened the floodgates
> > and the quality improvement perception came later as they built up market
> > share and the domestics' quality stagnated through the early 80's.
>
> Yes, it's like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, Mercedes, etc... Look back into 1970's
> at their products. They're far inferior in most ways to American
> counterparts of the period. Ferrari's were beautiful cars with kit car
> build quality. Mechanically they were unreliable. They weren't all that
> impressive performance-wise either. Sure, the snobby will call their
> performance "balanced", but a common Chevelle SS would outgun most Ferraris
> in an acceleration contest. The one on Magnum PI had a 0-60 time of
> something like 9 seconds! The original VW GTi was capable of that. Even the
> Corvette during those poor performance years could go faster. Porsche never
> even made a fast car until the 1978 911 Turbo was released, and its
> performance would have been laughed at between 1967 to 1971. Have you even
> seen a 70's era Bimmer or Benz? Most were nothing to look at... There was
> nothing special about Mercedes vehicles back then, but somehow in the
> 1980's we began a love affair with them and that funded them to improve
> their product to be where they are now. Same goes for Honda, Toyota, and
> Datsun (Nissan). Our need for fuel efficiency provided them with the much
> needed funds, combined with their ambitition, led to the admittedly good
> products they have now. But back then, there was nothing special about
> them. I remember reading an article about a Toyota 2000GT, where they were
> so unreliable that the engine needed rebuilt every 60K or something like
> that. They got the reliability later, after we funded it.
>
> --
>
> Registered Linux user #378193
05-26-2005, 12:07 AM
#126
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Detroit Vs Japan
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4294C16F.E9DE4E3D@***.net...
> http://merrimack.nara.gov:80/cgi-bin...31/jfksnew.txt
"Your session has been closed"
__
Steve
..
05-26-2005, 12:07 AM
#127
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Detroit Vs Japan
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4294C16F.E9DE4E3D@***.net...
> http://merrimack.nara.gov:80/cgi-bin...31/jfksnew.txt
"Your session has been closed"
__
Steve
..
05-26-2005, 12:07 AM
#128
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Detroit Vs Japan
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4294C16F.E9DE4E3D@***.net...
> http://merrimack.nara.gov:80/cgi-bin...31/jfksnew.txt
"Your session has been closed"
__
Steve
..
05-26-2005, 12:07 AM
#129
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Detroit Vs Japan
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4294C16F.E9DE4E3D@***.net...
> http://merrimack.nara.gov:80/cgi-bin...31/jfksnew.txt
"Your session has been closed"
__
Steve
..
05-26-2005, 12:09 AM
#130
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Detroit Vs Japan
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42953CF8.B8F27224@***.net...
> You got it! The U.S.of A. must produce a product then sell more of
> it to the world than we buy. That's what supports our dollar, like
> everyone is selling life insurance, maybe a little litigation, and
> doctors caring for the elderly are only services. Like our trade deficit
> is marking the time we have until the end. No product, no economy it's
> as simple as that!
So W is bringing the Rapture?
__
Steve
..