Need to see his data

Post #124,666 by JayMehaffey 11/7/03 5:32:47 PM Reply	Need to see his data I would really love to see the data he is pulling from, but I'm guessing that it is correct, but misleading. The .1 percent per year is probably manufacturing losses to China alone. When you add in other countries and other types of jobs that are being relocated it probably adds up to a lot more. Still, it wouldn't surprise me if relocation jobs losses are only a fraction of total job losses. The problem is that those are jobs that are not coming back, even if the economy picks up. He sorta implies that the jobs losses due to relocation are offset by the job gains at Walmart but that isn't the case. Most of the Walmart employees are people who would have been employed by other stores that Walmart drove out of buisness. The relocation jobs are simply gone. Jay
Post #124,667 by inthane-chan 11/7/03 5:43:46 PM Reply	Plus he's leaving out "quality" of employment. Employed/unemployed is binary. Many of the stores that Walmart drove out of business payed more/offered more benefits/had no unpayed mandatory overtime. In that final hour, when each breath is a struggle to take, and you are looking back over your life's accomplishments, which memories would you treasure? The empires you built, or the joy you spread to others? Therin lies the true measure of a man.
Post #124,683 by gdaustin 11/7/03 9:13:28 PM 11/7/03 9:16:51 PM Reply	More importantly... When you calculate the value of those jobs on the Chinese scale, meaning that the "value" of the jobs is what a Chinaman would take, then they probably DO account for 0.1 %. However, if a Chinaman makes 1/20 of what an American would make (.50 an hour vs $10), then the value of the jobs in American money is 2% (which might just be really close to reality). I'll bet he's pricing the value at the Chinaman's wages, not the American. The loss to the economy is the difference between the American wage and the Chinaman's. And a significant percentage is even Social Security and Income Tax. Bad for America, bad for retirees. Edited by gdaustin Nov. 7, 2003, 09:16:51 PM EST Expand All History
Post #124,746 by neelk 11/8/03 2:06:45 PM Reply	Re: Need to see his data Compared to 1995, the US is employing about 11 percent fewer factory workers today than it did then. That's about 1% of factory jobs per year. And those jobs are themselves only form about 10% of total US employment, IMS. So his figures of 0.1% decline/year seem to be in the right ballpark. However, despite this decline in employment, total US manufacturing output has enormously, because manufacturing productivity has been growing extremely quickly. This is a worldwide phenomenon: even China has 15% fewer factory workers than it did back in the mid-1990s. That increased productivity means that the price of manufactured goods is dropping, which means that peoples' money can buy more: they have extra real wealth. And real wealth that can (and is) used to create new businesses. Bemoaning the jobs "lost" to Wal-mart sounds progressive, but actually, it's not. It's low-income people -- the ones who have to stretch dollars the hardest to make ends meet -- who benefit the most from the reduced prices that Chinese factories and Wal-mart's logistics system bring to retail.

Welcome to IWETHEY!