Slashdot Mirror

The US has nowhere near the highest labor costs in the world. We're not even in the top 10.

If you actually believe that labor costs in the US aren't among the highest in the world then you haven't actually bothered to look at the data. Depending on how you measure it the labor costs in the US are mostly somewhere between 5th and 20th per capita. Yes there are some countries with higher labor costs but not very many of them. The fact that we don't have THE highest labor costs per capita is not important. What is important is that our labor costs are WELL above the mean globally. If you want to know why manufacturing companies have moved to China (and elsewhere) for labor intensive manufacturing, labor costs are by far the biggest factor. There are a lot of products that simply cannot be made in the US for the hourly wages that a US based manufacturer would have to pay.

I used to do global sourcing for a living. I've traveled all over Eastern Asia, Southeast Asia, and Central America for manufacturing companies. I work in manufacturing and I buy products and commodities from around the world. The US without question has some of the highest labor rates in the world. It's not even a debate. If you think otherwise you don't know what you are talking about.

...that if women aren't highly represented in these endeavors, it might be a sign that women just aren't interested in the same damn things that men are?!

The same argument has been made historically to explain - and justify - the exclusion of women from every profession.

The same argument has been used against those of other races and religions. It has never been far distant when the geek talks about outsourcing his work to India.

Microsoft seems to care about this stuff:

Women at Microsoft, Women's Leadership Conference

And so far as you're concerned, it's nice that you have multiple advanced degrees and all, but explain to me how that has anything to do with the kind of employment being lost to the United States today: manufacturing jobs, mostly, because of all the production that's been sent to China.

Are you similarly outraged about the telephone operators and secretaries that were replaced by technology? Even China is losing manufacturing jobs due to automation. Being able to produce more with less is good, even though it may hurt certain people in the short run.

US manufacturing output is rising. There are fewer *jobs* in the field, but that's largely because of automation, not foreign competition. China is losing manufacturing jobs too. As productivity rises, fewer workers can produce more. While this is often bad for those who lose their jobs, it's a net benefit to society; consider buggy whip makers, phone operators, secretarial pools, etc.

either the first-world country's costs and standards of living are going to sink, or the third-world's are going to rise, and the former is a whole lot easier and a lot more likely than the latter

Considering the consistent worldwide economic growth in the last several centuries (when not ruined by totalitarian regimes), which today is being accelerated by Moore's Law, the latter seems much more likely to me.

Take a look around: you're witnessing the decline of one of the world's great empires

The US may lose its hyperpower status though any number of causes, but that's independent of whether standards of living rise or fall. The sun now sets on the British Empire, but I'd rather live in London today than in 1907.

You see if you haven't been paying attention the US economy has gone from 25% financial 75% industrial to 75% finacial to 25% industrial in our economy.

Sure, because manufacturing has become far more efficient. Even China is losing manufacturing jobs due to increasing automation.

Really... How much work does it take to leave your money in the bank?

Well, it takes the discipline to not spend every dollar you make, which is beyond many people.

Or maybe buy a few thousand shares and wait till it rises in price?

Assuming it does. Sure, day trading is essentially a zero-sum game. But real investing is positive-sum; the combined actions of investors direct capital to where it can be most effectively used, and society as a whole benefits from that.

Sometimes I even feel guilty when I set limit order sells on stocks that I only bought a few days ago because I know I'm just playing this system to vampire blood out of actual working people at that company.

How does buying and selling a company's stock have any impact at all on its employees? If anything, buying stock may help them since they're more likely to be stockholders, and you're increasing the demand for shares and thus raising the market price. Of course if you sell two days later the effect is canceled, but they're still not hurt.

"Thankfully", the $495 report (if you aren't a "Conference Board associate") helps tell you how to handle the situation.p Bruce isn't in the business for giving out his top notch observations for free. Erm, the report is not Bruce's; it's from a consulting co. hired by DHS: http://www.conference-board.org/publications/descr ibe.cfm?id=1231 Navigating Risk -- The Business Case for Security Author: Thomas E. Cavanagh Publication Date: October 2006 Report Number: R-1395-06-RR This report details the results of a survey by The Conference Board (sponsored by the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security) of 213 senior corporate executives working for a broad range of companies. Results show the importance of managing and mitigating risk in making the business case for security. Companies that have the most to lose, tend to be the companies that are most willing to invest in security. These companies include those in critical infrastructure industries, large corporations, multinationals with global operations, and publicly traded companies. Topics Covered: * Alignment with Business Objectives * Risk-Related Metrics * Different Metrics for Different Industries * Involvement in Security Activities * Access to Senior Management * Influence vs. Support in Security Decision-Making * Security, Risk and Competitive Advantage * Certification Standards and the Loss of Business * Putting a Limit on Security Spending

...their corporate charter is a social contract, issued in the expectation of receiving some societal benefit, like employment for citizens.

...human rights come before other considerations, like profits.

*shudder*

Of course human rights come before profits, but once you start elevating employment to the status of an innate right, you're a hop and a skip away from killing off the motivation to excel in the marketplace.

Quoth http://www.conference-board.org/utilities/pressDet ail.cfm?press_ID=2560:

"While the productivity gap between the EU-15 and the U.S. is 8 percentage points in 2004, the per capita income gap is 28 percentage points. With the exception of Luxembourg, no European country has turned this relatively high productivity into a per capita income higher than the U.S. This is because EU countries have a smaller fraction of the population employed than the U.S., and those that are employed generally work fewer hours."

Who is John Galt?

"Lou Dobbs has become a populist scare-monger."

That caught my eye, because it made me realize how true it is.

But still, it reflects worries that exist in a lot of people, including myself.

"There is a small risk of dollar inflation due to the trade deficit. As long as there continue to be promising opportunities for foreign investment in the US, and as long as the dollar remains the worlds reserve currency, inflation should not be a problem."

But without that, which will be the jobs that replace the lost ones? That it the main question that keeps people worried. They are looking for the answer to the question "What job will I do?"

That question is different than 'how much unemployment will there be', because it addresses issues like career changes, relocation, and pay scales that greatly affect the people personally.

Macroeconomic talk doesn't answer that question, it only works on cumulatives, such as "GDP" and nationwide 'payroll' numbers. Who is to say that with this change it won't be a case where the sum grows despite creation of a new poor class, when the new riches are only for a smaller elite?

"Eventually, as other countries like India and China become richer, they will import more from the US, and the inflation issue will be even less of a concern"

But who knows how long from now is 'eventually'? Or better: How long until the unemployment numbers are good again. And how much inflation will have happened before then? Or in other words: how many goods will the prevailing salaries buy the worker then? More or less than today?

And: how much will China's policies regarding international currency exchange mess this all up?

For people to be confident about their personal future, there need to be answers to those questions.

Questions, questions, questions... And how come it seems that the majority is worrying less and less? I must be worrying too much.