http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* America is doomed without industrial restoration - 18 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3ac833194943bee0?hl=en
* DTV converters - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e46bdc878c0fe848?hl=en
* It's all falling apart, isn't it? - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/aaee75672b67549f?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: America is doomed without industrial restoration
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3ac833194943bee0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 18 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 5:24 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Saggy wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> m...@privacy.net wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> I know a good EE in Atlanta who has not worked in his trade for eight years.
>>>> He should have got a clue and got qualified in different engineering.
>>> Like what KIND of engineering?
>> Civil would be fine, any modern first world country keeps needing decent
>> infrastructure and a water supply, sewage treatment, roads, bridges etc etc etc.
>>> serious question
> Engineering ain't like sales .... switching from shoes to
> slacks in the sales department ...... engineers can't 'switch' .....
Corse they can, its just harder to switch.
And I said that he should have chosen the type of engineering that
cant be offshored when getting qualified in the first place anyway.
> I'm also a relatively unemployed engineer ..... I've sent out
> beaucoup resumes ..... some for positions doing obscure
> highly technical work that I am a stone cold expert in and
> very few others are ..... and gotten almost no (2) interviews ...
That obviously depends on the particular engineering field you're qualified in.
> (note: I doctor the resume to hide the age factor) ... hahaha ...
That may be more obvious than you believe.
> and the managers interviewing me though I was incompetent
> even while staring a resume as long as their arm .........
There will always be some who dont interview well.
Doesnt matter so much in a field where there isnt a big surplus of qualified applicants.
> I did check out the labor stats and according to them engineering
> is still relatively hot.... (except for older engineers who have had it)
> ............... but I don't buy it .....
I do, because a mate of mine is a qualified civil engineer and has no trouble getting jobs.
In fact he attempted to retire, essentially because he didnt like the
detail of how the state was changing how they did their water supply
engineering and they were so desperate for qualified engineers that
he ended up working for them as a consultant after he had resigned.
He's been doing it for long enough that he can afford to
retire any time he likes and he doesnt need to work anymore.
> it's a totally different ball game then 20 years ago .......
> I'd say anyone should avoid the field altogether .....
More fool you. There is still plenty of work for civils and those jobs
cant be outsourced to anything like the extent that EEs can be.
> check the engineering schools ...(well, at least mine)......... all oriental ..... hahaha ....
Sure, some engineering didnt have much future when much of the low end
manufacturing moved offshore. It should have been obvious that that was coming.
You're never going to see it all offshored tho, most obviously with the military.
It isnt even all that likely that the US will give up on having a decent military system any time soon either.
== 2 of 18 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 5:27 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
me@privacy.net wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Like what KIND of engineering?
>> Civil would be fine, any modern first world country keeps
>> needing decent infrastructure and a water supply, sewage
>> treatment, roads, bridges etc etc etc.
> Yeah I've thought civil still might be good
I know it is, a mate of mine still works in that area.
He attempted to retire, basically because he didnt like the bureacracy much
and what the state decided to do with water supply thats his field and ended
up having to work for them as a consultant because he was so hard to replace.
== 3 of 18 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 5:31 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Scout wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> me@privacy.net wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> I know a good EE in Atlanta who has not worked in his trade for eight years.
>>>> He should have got a clue and got qualified in different engineering.
>>> Like what KIND of engineering?
>> Civil would be fine, any modern first world country keeps needing
>> decent infrastructure and a water supply, sewage treatment, roads,
>> bridges etc etc etc.
> Hate to tel you but CE's are fnding that work is drying up.
It cant dry up, everyone still needs their water,
sewage disposed of, bridges built etc etc etc.
> Companies are doing a whole lot of new buildings or expansions.
Sure, but they still need the CEs to do that.
> Governments have cut way back on all sorts of infrastructure projects.
They cant ever cut back to zero.
> Money is tight and these projects simply aren't being done as much.
Thats just changed with Obummer spending heaps on that stuff.
Even the alternative energy stuff has got to boom with all that money being spent on it.
>>> serious question
== 4 of 18 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 5:48 pm
From: me@privacy.net
Saggy <gurfinkle@gmail.com> wrote:
> check the engineering schools ...(well, at
>least mine)......... all oriental ..... hahaha ....
what was your school?
== 5 of 18 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 5:50 pm
From: me@privacy.net
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> it's a totally different ball game then 20 years ago .......
>> I'd say anyone should avoid the field altogether .....
>
>More fool you. There is still plenty of work for civils and those jobs
>cant be outsourced to anything like the extent that EEs can be.
what abt nuclear engineering in the USA?
== 6 of 18 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 6:13 pm
From: Saggy
On Feb 20, 8:48 pm, m...@privacy.net wrote:
> Saggy <gurfin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > check the engineering schools ...(well, at
> >least mine)......... all oriental ..... hahaha ....
>
> what was your school?
Brzrkly
== 7 of 18 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 6:19 pm
From: Saggy
On Feb 20, 8:27 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> m...@privacy.net wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>> Like what KIND of engineering?
> >> Civil would be fine, any modern first world country keeps
> >> needing decent infrastructure and a water supply, sewage
> >> treatment, roads, bridges etc etc etc.
> > Yeah I've thought civil still might be good
>
> I know it is, a mate of mine still works in that area.
>
> He attempted to retire, basically because he didnt like the bureacracy much
> and what the state decided to do with water supply thats his field and ended
> up having to work for them as a consultant because he was so hard to replace.
I've seen that happen often, and hoped like hell it would happen to
me. I was always riding the wrong pony. Don't mean a thing in the
overall scheme of things. As it appears to me .... 20 yrs ago they
wanted warm bodies .... and you were given a project to do and away
you went ...... now, every job has a list of requirements as long as
your arm ...... and you're an infinitesimal replaceable cog in a huge
bureaucracy. That is, it used to be fun .....now you couldn't pay
me .....
== 8 of 18 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 6:23 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
me@privacy.net wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> it's a totally different ball game then 20 years ago .......
>>> I'd say anyone should avoid the field altogether .....
>> More fool you. There is still plenty of work for civils and those jobs
>> cant be outsourced to anything like the extent that EEs can be.
> what abt nuclear engineering in the USA?
More risky, essentially because its hard to say how long it will
take before the US gets a clue and starts building nukes again.
It'd be fine in France or Japan.
== 9 of 18 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 6:35 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Saggy wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> m...@privacy.net wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Like what KIND of engineering?
>>>> Civil would be fine, any modern first world country keeps
>>>> needing decent infrastructure and a water supply, sewage
>>>> treatment, roads, bridges etc etc etc.
>>> Yeah I've thought civil still might be good
>> I know it is, a mate of mine still works in that area.
>> He attempted to retire, basically because he didnt like the
>> bureaucracy much and what the state decided to do with
>> water supply thats his field and ended up having to work for
>> them as a consultant because he was so hard to replace.
> I've seen that happen often, and hoped like hell it would
> happen to me. I was always riding the wrong pony.
Yeah, most stick to what interests them most and dont really consider which
part of engineering has the best future. I did that myself, and so did he.
> Don't mean a thing in the overall scheme of things. As it appears to me ....
> 20 yrs ago they wanted warm bodies .... and you were given a project
> to do and away you went ...... now, every job has a list of requirements
> as long as your arm ...... and you're an infinitesimal replaceable cog in a
> huge bureaucracy. That is, it used to be fun .....now you couldn't pay me .....
I did it the other way, worked out how to drive an aircraft
carrier thru the bureaucracy and carried on regardless.
Much harder to do that in some fields like his tho, in fact impossible in his case.
I was always in the fortunate position that I was always paid very well to do
what I would have been quite happy to do for free, and it was always possible
to drive an aircraft carrier thru the bureaucracy if you knew what you were doing.
No regrets, I wouldnt change anything much at all if I had to do it over again.
Didnt even need the money, I've been involved in investments
since highschool and ended up rolling in it from that alone.
Also did other stuff like building my own house from scratch too, designed and
built entirely by me with a few of the very high risk stuff done by a contractor like
actually pouring the concrete slab, after I did all the formwork and reinforcing etc.
Even had the hilarious situation where the local building authority told the professional
builders to have a look at mine, because that was how it was supposed to be done.
== 10 of 18 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 6:44 pm
From: "Scout"
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7093qvFmonfaU1@mid.individual.net...
> Scout wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> me@privacy.net wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> I know a good EE in Atlanta who has not worked in his trade for eight
>>>>>> years.
>
>>>>> He should have got a clue and got qualified in different engineering.
>
>>>> Like what KIND of engineering?
>
>>> Civil would be fine, any modern first world country keeps needing
>>> decent infrastructure and a water supply, sewage treatment, roads,
>>> bridges etc etc etc.
>
>> Hate to tel you but CE's are fnding that work is drying up.
>
> It cant dry up, everyone still needs their water,
> sewage disposed of, bridges built etc etc etc.
True, but when you have more CE's than there are jobs, well, some people
aren't going to find work, and those already employed are going to tend to
be the ones who keep the jobs.
>> Companies are doing a whole lot of new buildings or expansions.
>
> Sure, but they still need the CEs to do that.
But not as many. Not nearly as many as already exist.
>> Governments have cut way back on all sorts of infrastructure projects.
>
> They cant ever cut back to zero.
never said they would. However, the market for EE's isn't ever going to be
cut back to zero either, but a lot of them are finding work hard to obtain.
>> Money is tight and these projects simply aren't being done as much.
>
> Thats just changed with Obummer spending heaps on that stuff.
That assumes that those funds will actually reach us in volumns and rates
necessary to do much good.
> Even the alternative energy stuff has got to boom with all that money
> being spent on it.
Only in a very minor sense. The designs are used for long periods of time
with little or no modifications. Fabrication, Construction and erection are
routine. Not a whole lot of need for engineers in there once the initial
designs are produced and the construction process starts. Sure, there will
be a boost at the start, assuming we don't simply copy someone else's
existing designs. However, once that part of the project is done, it takes
very few engineers to keep it going.
== 11 of 18 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 6:45 pm
From: "Scout"
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7096tmFnicl5U1@mid.individual.net...
> me@privacy.net wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>> it's a totally different ball game then 20 years ago .......
>>>> I'd say anyone should avoid the field altogether .....
>
>>> More fool you. There is still plenty of work for civils and those jobs
>>> cant be outsourced to anything like the extent that EEs can be.
>
>> what abt nuclear engineering in the USA?
>
> More risky, essentially because its hard to say how long it will
> take before the US gets a clue and starts building nukes again.
Actually we recently gave final approval for some 8 additional reactors.
However, with the economy, the funds needed to construct may be less readily
available.
== 12 of 18 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 7:19 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Scout wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> me@privacy.net wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> it's a totally different ball game then 20 years ago .......
>>>>> I'd say anyone should avoid the field altogether .....
>>>> More fool you. There is still plenty of work for civils and those jobs cant be outsourced to anything like the
>>>> extent that EEs can be.
>>> what abt nuclear engineering in the USA?
>> More risky, essentially because its hard to say how long it will
>> take before the US gets a clue and starts building nukes again.
> Actually we recently gave final approval for some 8 additional reactors.
Sure, but it remains to be seen what the effect of the entire
world economy tanking very spectacularly will have on that now.
> However, with the economy, the funds needed to construct may be less readily available.
No maybe about it.
And I can't see Obummer being that keen on spending taxpayers money on nukes
give the party he comes from, he's much more likely to be stupid enough to prefer
'alternative' energy instead, even tho that makes absolutely no sense at all.
== 13 of 18 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 7:36 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Scout wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Scout wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> me@privacy.net wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> I know a good EE in Atlanta who has not worked in his trade for eight years.
>>>>>> He should have got a clue and got qualified in different engineering.
>>>>> Like what KIND of engineering?
>>>> Civil would be fine, any modern first world country keeps needing
>>>> decent infrastructure and a water supply, sewage treatment, roads,
>>>> bridges etc etc etc.
>>> Hate to tel you but CE's are fnding that work is drying up.
>> It cant dry up, everyone still needs their water,
>> sewage disposed of, bridges built etc etc etc.
> True, but when you have more CE's than there are jobs,
You dont, particularly not that Obummer has got
Congress to spend heaps on infrastructure projects.
> well, some people aren't going to find work,
Sure, there will always be some who are unemployable in any field.
> and those already employed are going to tend to be the ones who keep the jobs.
Sure, but its still one engineering field that has much better prospects
than some others, essentially because very little of that can be offshored.
The original question was which part of engineering I would recommend to
someone aged 22 today. I'd still recommend civil over most other engineering.
My main qualification would be that if you detest bureaucracy
passionately, then civil may well not be an ideal field for you.
>>> Companies are doing a whole lot of new buildings or expansions.
>> Sure, but they still need the CEs to do that.
> But not as many. Not nearly as many as already exist.
I dont believe that.
>>> Governments have cut way back on all sorts of infrastructure projects.
>> They cant ever cut back to zero.
> never said they would. However, the market for EE's isn't ever going to be cut back to zero either, but a lot of them
> are finding work hard to obtain.
Yes, because its much easier to offshore that work,
particularly with the cheaper consumer products.
While the US does still completely dominate military engineering, it doesnt
with heavy aircraft particularly anymore, not even aerospace anymore.
>>> Money is tight and these projects simply aren't being done as much.
>> Thats just changed with Obummer spending heaps on that stuff.
> That assumes that those funds will actually reach us in volumns and rates necessary to do much good.
Corse it will. The only thing that might concievably stop that is if china etc
gives up on funding the US deficit and the money cant be raised to do it.
>> Even the alternative energy stuff has got to boom with all that money being spent on it.
> Only in a very minor sense.
Sure, its a small part of total engineering employment.
> The designs are used for long periods of time with little or no modifications.
You still need engineers involved.
> Fabrication, Construction and erection are routine.
Yes.
> Not a whole lot of need for engineers in there once the initial designs are produced and the construction process
> starts.
Depends on the detail of the alternative energy being encouraged.
If Congress is actually stupid enough to encourage the use of
alternative energy in individual houses instead of major alternative
engineering projects, that will still provide a lot of work for engineers.
In spades if Congress is actually stupid enough to encourage subsidys for
small scale individual alternative electricity generation like Germany has.
I doubt Congress will be that stupid personally, largely because the Germans
do that because of their stupid proportional representation system that gives
their Greens a hell of a lot of political power that you just dont see in the US.
> Sure, there will be a boost at the start, assuming we don't simply copy someone else's existing designs.
The US has hardly ever gone that route for various reasons.
> However, once that part of the project is done, it takes very few engineers to keep it going.
Thats just plain wrong with hi tech projects.
And even with small scale house based alternative energy, there will be a
continuing need for engineers to modify the designs as technology keeps improving
given that the much higher cost is the achilles heel of an alternative energy system.
Corse that might end up being offshored, remains to be seen.
== 14 of 18 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 8:27 pm
From: residualselfimage1999@gmail.com
On Feb 14, 4:24 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> residualselfimage1...@gmail.com wrote
>
> If many of those migrant workers werent being paid at all,
> you would not have seen tens of millions of them moving
> from the rural countryside/inner provinces to the factorys.
Migrant factory workers inside China are ofte paided very little
They've migrated to work in the urban areas for work because
there are no jobs in the rural countryside. Because of the
extreme competitive forces - even during economic boom periods
many factories have shut down in the past decade or so -
run out of business by the competition. Often when I read
reports about factories shuting down or construction projects
going bellyup , the owners have ranaway without paying their
workers and suppliers. China's version of capitalism is
much more brutual than in the USA.
>
> > I've been reading reports on a fairly consistent basis
> > over the last ten years of of different incidents in China
> > where factory and construction workers are not paid for
> > several months (they are paid on a montly basis)
>
> That does NOT mean that they werent ever paid at all.
>
I never said that no Chinese factory workers do get paid,
most do get paid - but production worker salaries in China
is very low.
> > and where the employers/owners have
> > either runaway or declared bankruptcy.
>
> Sure, but while that certainly happens, it cant be happening
> to the bulk of those migrant workers or we woudnt have
> seen tens of millions of them moving from the rural
> countryside/inner provinces to the factorys.
It seems that many of the owners/operators of
Chinese factories have anticipated the current
global economic meltdown - and have paid their
workers for workd done before laying them off
before the Lunar New Year..
>
> > During the economic boom these incidents did occur
> > because of poor management, weak labor protection
> > laws, and China's inadequate and primitive judicial system.
>
> Sure, but while that certainly happens, it cant be happening
> to the bulk of those migrant workers or we woudnt have
> seen tens of millions of them moving from the rural
> countryside/inner provinces to the factorys.
>
Unpaid work has occurs often enough to cause persistant
systemic social unrest and protest over the last decade
in China - much ado has been made over the supression
of these protest over the last decade by the state. Despite
efforts to suppress reports about such incidents - they
seem to pop up in western media anyway. The Chinese
Judicial system just isn't adequate or powerful enough to
successfully handle the ups and downs of classical
capitalism.
> >>> Their economic condition cannot be improve by waving the
> >>> magic wand of imports-exports or changing currency evaluation.
> >> Correct.
> >>> The only financial mechanism that has been shown to improve the
> >>> economic opportunity of the poor has been micro-capitalization
> >>> (micro-loans) and small business incubator/development
> >>> programs (which were shown to work in Banglesdesh).
> >> Wrong. The other obvious approach is exports and those working
> >> in those factorys buying the goods that the factorys produce.
> >> And they all do that last.
> > I totally disagree with your assessment.
> > There is a high distribution and transaction cost to Import Export
>
> Wrong again. You can deal with them yourself any time using ebay.
False
Ebay and the similar auction sites in the USA and China
does not elimitate the high overhead that is inherited by
Import and Export. All goods end up costing more as an
export than if they were sold domestically. When an
import cost less than a domestically item - it is because
that exporting country has a production cost advantage
that is several times greater than the importing country.
While it might cost $36 to make a famous brand sneaker
in Taiwan - almost all the profit from selling that sneaker
$240 is made in the USA. However, since that $36
sneaker has a famous logo brand name on it - the
distribution and sale of that sneaker is strictly controlled
in the USA so that by the time that $36 sneaker entered
the USA it cost $180 wholesale on Ebay.
>
> > - which favors large firms over smaller firms.
>
> You still see plenty using ebay anyway
ebay is great. however, the bulk of USA GNP
is based on profits created by knowledge industrial
sector (e.g. medical services, legal servies) and
technologicaly monopolies (e.g. aerospace/aviation
manufacturers, telecommunications) which do not
lend themselves to ebay like transactions.
>
> > For example, while a factory in india could
> > make and sell pharmaceticals very cheaply
> > in the USA - they are banned for doing so.
>
> And no one bans most of what china exports.
Tautologically speaking,
one usually does not export things that are banned from being
exported.
However, when there is a product safety issue most countries
will ban certain imports from certain sources. For example, the
USDA may ban or quarantee certain items to prevent possible invasion
of foriegn pests (e.g. beetles, larves of flying insects, fungi).
India's Pharma industry has purchased
the rights to make many of USA Pharm products and
can make them at a much lower cost but such products
are banned from entering the USA ( often by contract).
For example, many of the *cocktails* used to keep
AIDS in check are made in India for a mere fraction of
the cost in the USA. I remember reading a report
which was addressing AIDS in Africa mentioning of
acquiring a cheaper version of the *cocktails* from
India.
>
> > Even when a factory in Canada could make and sell
> > a generic drug in the USA for very cheap - often a
> > larger firm will *buy out* (pay a annual stipend) to that
> > Canadian generic drug maker to NOT make a particular
> > generic drug - as to create a monopoly/exclusive market
> > for their existing name brand designer drug.
>
> Doesnt apply to the vast bulk of what china exports.
It is NOT the BULK of what is exported that
really counts BUT the VALUE of what what
is being exported that really counts. The above
situation has significant bearing on the most
valuable industrial sectors that are being imported
or exported.
>
> Thats as silly as claiming that just because heroin or
> cocaine trafficking is banned, that has any relevance
> what so ever to what china can export fine.
Irrelevant.
The argument is with regard to the banning of legal
and pharma/medical products not illegal drug trafficking.
>
> > In addition, dual use technology restrictions
> > limit many technologies from being
> > exported in the USA, e.g. advance GPS
> > equipment or encryption security programs.
> > One has to go through an array of regulatory
> > barriers to import or export a motor vehicle -
> > such initial cost is too high for most smaller firms.
>
> Pity about all the rest of china's exports where that doesnt apply.
Okay - maybe I should spell things out for you
since you can't put the pieces together yourself.
By restricting hi-value export to China - USA
has reduced its exports to China to mainly lo-value
items which making balanced trade problematic
to next to impossible. In addition, most of the
USA GNP is based on the production of this hi-value
technological monopolistic markets - thus by
banning the export of these items to China -
there isn't many things of hi value that China
can purchase with the US dollars they have.
>
> > The USA economy is not driven by free markets but by
> > technological/intellectual property based monopolies,
>
> Wrong again. The absolute vast bulk of the US economy
> is actually driven by services which arent even licensed.
False.
>
> > e.g. copyrighted images like "mickey mouse" and
> > patents for microprocessors to hybrid corn seeds.
>
> Thats a trivial part of the total US economy.
You are wrong.
>
> > In addition, another hi-profit part of the US economy
> > is based on government handouts/licenses/grants,
> > e.g. a radio frequency-bandwidth to make public
> > broadcast, rights to harvest trees from public
> > lands, rights to mine for minerals from public
> > lands, the right to graze cattle over public
> > lands, and/or to fish along the coast.
>
> Also a trivial part of the total US economy.
You are wrong again.
== 15 of 18 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 10:01 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
residualselfimage1999@gmail.com wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> residualselfimage1...@gmail.com wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> residualselfimage1...@gmail.com wrote
>>>>> DanB (Previously DB) <a...@some.net> wrote
>>>>>> Mark M. wrote
>>>>>>> residualselfimage1...@gmail.com wrote
>>>>>>>> wis...@yahoo.com wrote
>>>>>>>>> All the bailouts... and the stimulii...all the hot air....
>>>>>>>>> the debt... the debt servicing... they DON"T MATTER
>>>>>>>>> In the long run it all comes down to loss of US productivity..
>>>>>>>>> the loss of US created wealth. Unless the US can rebuild
>>>>>>>>> its manufacturing capability it will be a long slide into a
>>>>>>>>> third world level of subsistence.
>>>>>>>> China's current economic tumble shows that even
>>>>>>>> a highly productive economy with a high manufacturing
>>>>>>>> capacity does not necessarily adequately protect
>>>>>>>> an economy from a downturn -
>>>>>>> China could help itself by having Chinese workers
>>>>>>> consume more of what they produce.
>>>>>> I think it may be easer said. They already have a huge wealth
>>>>>> disparity problem. Migrant workers are well off the charts of
>>>>>> affording what they produce. And catching up with the present loss
>>>>>> of exports would require a big move toward domestic consumption.
>>>>>> http://lakeweb.com/money/Social%20Unrest%20in%20China.pdf-
>>>>> Unfortunately, many if not most of china's factory workers are
>>>>> migrant workers coming in from the rural countryside/inner provinces
>>>> Yes.
>>>>> and are paid very little if they are paid at all.
>>>> That last is a mindless pig ignorant lie. They wouldnt be coming
>>>> to the factorys if they werent being paid to work in them.
>>> Aggregate statistics never tell the whole story.
>> Never said anything about any aggregate statistics.
>> If many of those migrant workers werent being paid at all,
>> you would not have seen tens of millions of them moving
>> from the rural countryside/inner provinces to the factorys.
> Migrant factory workers inside China are ofte paided very little
Thats only true in the sense of what they are paid back where they came from.
> They've migrated to work in the urban areas for work
> because there are no jobs in the rural countryside.
Thats just plain wrong. Most of them migrate because what
work there is is much better outside the rural countryside,
both in the pay and the basic working conditions as well.
In spades with subsistence agriculture.
> Because of the extreme competitive forces - even during
> economic boom periods many factories have shut down in
> the past decade or so - run out of business by the competition.
Yes, but thats an entirely separate matter to whether
they are paid or not before the operation goes bust.
> Often when I read reports about factories shuting down
> or construction projects going bellyup , the owners have
> ranaway without paying their workers and suppliers.
Yes, but that just how they do going broke, not how they
operate before they go broke or when they dont go broke.
> China's version of capitalism is much more brutual than in the USA.
It is indeed, but they certainly do get paid when they arent going broke.
>>> I've been reading reports on a fairly consistent basis
>>> over the last ten years of of different incidents in China
>>> where factory and construction workers are not paid for
>>> several months (they are paid on a montly basis)
>> That does NOT mean that they werent ever paid at all.
> I never said that no Chinese factory workers do get paid, most
> do get paid - but production worker salaries in China is very low.
Thats nothing like your original, which you carefully
deleted from the quoting and I have restored.
>>> and where the employers/owners have
>>> either runaway or declared bankruptcy.
>> Sure, but while that certainly happens, it cant be happening
>> to the bulk of those migrant workers or we woudnt have
>> seen tens of millions of them moving from the rural
>> countryside/inner provinces to the factorys.
> It seems that many of the owners/operators of
> Chinese factories have anticipated the current
> global economic meltdown - and have paid their
> workers for workd done before laying them off
> before the Lunar New Year..
Sure, but thats again nothing like your original that I commented on.
>>> During the economic boom these incidents did occur
>>> because of poor management, weak labor protection
>>> laws, and China's inadequate and primitive judicial system.
>> Sure, but while that certainly happens, it cant be happening
>> to the bulk of those migrant workers or we woudnt have
>> seen tens of millions of them moving from the rural
>> countryside/inner provinces to the factorys.
> Unpaid work has occurs often enough to cause persistant
> systemic social unrest and protest over the last decade
> in China - much ado has been made over the supression
> of these protest over the last decade by the state.
Thats a different effect entirely, the much more gung ho approach
to capitalism in china that sees lots of operations go broke.
> Despite efforts to suppress reports about such incidents
> - they seem to pop up in western media anyway. The Chinese
> Judicial system just isn't adequate or powerful enough to
> successfully handle the ups and downs of classical capitalism.
Sure, but again, thats nothing like your original that I commented on.
>>>>> Their economic condition cannot be improve by waving the
>>>>> magic wand of imports-exports or changing currency evaluation.
>>>>> Correct. The only financial mechanism that has been shown to
>>>>> improve the economic opportunity of the poor has been
>>>>> micro-capitalization (micro-loans) and small business incubator/
>>>>> development programs (which were shown to work in Banglesdesh).
>>>> Wrong. The other obvious approach is exports and those working
>>>> in those factorys buying the goods that the factorys produce.
>>>> And they all do that last.
>>> I totally disagree with your assessment.
>>> There is a high distribution and transaction cost to Import Export
>> Wrong again. You can deal with them yourself any time using ebay.
> False
Nope. I do it all the time.
> Ebay and the similar auction sites in the USA and China
> does not elimitate the high overhead that is inherited by
> Import and Export.
Wrong. There is no overhead involved in posting stuff to the buyer.
> All goods end up costing more as an
> export than if they were sold domestically.
Yes, but most of the goods exported cant be sold domestically
in china, because most of the chinese dont have the standard
of living to be able to afford to buy them.
> When an import cost less than a domestically item - it is
> because that exporting country has a production cost advantage
> that is several times greater than the importing country.
Doesnt have to be several times greater, most of the stuff I
import is just the best value compared with the domestic item.
In fact I buy almost all stuff using the net and I dont care whether
its sent to me within the country or from outside the country instead.
> While it might cost $36 to make a famous brand
> sneaker in Taiwan - almost all the profit from
> selling that sneaker $240 is made in the USA.
Most arent stupid enough to buy much with that sort of margin.
> However, since that $36 sneaker has a famous logo brand
> name on it - the distribution and sale of that sneaker is strictly
> controlled in the USA so that by the time that $36 sneaker
> entered the USA it cost $180 wholesale on Ebay.
I dont buy famous logo shit at all. So I dont buy anything with that sort of stupid price on ebay.
>>> - which favors large firms over smaller firms.
>> You still see plenty using ebay anyway
> ebay is great. however, the bulk of USA GNP
> is based on profits created by knowledge industrial
> sector (e.g. medical services, legal servies) and
> technologicaly monopolies (e.g. aerospace/aviation
> manufacturers, telecommunications) which do not
> lend themselves to ebay like transactions.
Thats just plain wrong. Huge swathes of the USA GNP
is for very basic stuff like food, what you use to clean
the house with, etc etc etc
>>> For example, while a factory in india could
>>> make and sell pharmaceticals very cheaply
>>> in the USA - they are banned for doing so.
>> And no one bans most of what china exports.
> Tautologically speaking, one usually does not export
> things that are banned from being exported.
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out.
> However, when there is a product safety issue most
> countries will ban certain imports from certain sources.
That doesnt in fact happen much.
> For example, the USDA may ban or quarantee certain items to prevent
> possible invasion of foriegn pests (e.g. beetles, larves of flying insects, fungi).
Thats not product safety, thats a different type of ban entirely.
> India's Pharma industry has purchased the
> rights to make many of USA Pharm products
Fuck all of the ones that matter, actually.
> and can make them at a much lower cost but such products
> are banned from entering the USA ( often by contract).
Mostly it isnt done by contract.
> For example, many of the *cocktails* used to keep
> AIDS in check are made in India for a mere fraction
> of the cost in the USA. I remember reading a report
> which was addressing AIDS in Africa mentioning of
> acquiring a cheaper version of the *cocktails* from India.
Thats nothing like what happens with most pharmaceuticals.
>>> Even when a factory in Canada could make and sell
>>> a generic drug in the USA for very cheap - often a
>>> larger firm will *buy out* (pay a annual stipend) to that
>>> Canadian generic drug maker to NOT make a particular
>>> generic drug - as to create a monopoly/exclusive market
>>> for their existing name brand designer drug.
>> Doesnt apply to the vast bulk of what china exports.
>
> It is NOT the BULK of what is exported that
> really counts BUT the VALUE of what what
> is being exported that really counts.
Doesnt apply to the vast bulk of the value of what china exports.
> The above situation has significant bearing on the most
> valuable industrial sectors that are being imported or exported.
Nope, its only a trivial part of what china exports.
>> Thats as silly as claiming that just because heroin or
>> cocaine trafficking is banned, that has any relevance
>> what so ever to what china can export fine.
> Irrelevant.
Nope.
> The argument is with regard to the banning of legal
> and pharma/medical products not illegal drug trafficking.
I said your claim was as silly as that other one, not that they are the same thing.
>>> In addition, dual use technology restrictions
>>> limit many technologies from being
>>> exported in the USA, e.g. advance GPS
>>> equipment or encryption security programs.
>>> One has to go through an array of regulatory
>>> barriers to import or export a motor vehicle -
>>> such initial cost is too high for most smaller firms.
>> Pity about all the rest of china's exports where that doesnt apply.
> Okay - maybe I should spell things out for you
> since you can't put the pieces together yourself.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> By restricting hi-value export to China
No it hasnt except with military hardware, very little of which china
would buy anyway since it can get the russian stuff much cheaper.
> - USA has reduced its exports to China to mainly lo-value items
Utterly mangled all over again. Try aircraft for starters.
> which making balanced trade problematic to next to impossible.
That happens for completely different reasons. There is fuck
all that the US would like to export that china needs to import.
There is fuck all that china would like to export that isnt
significantly cheaper than the same thing made in the US.
THATS the reason for the trade imbalance.
Some other countrys like Australia have managed to end up
with a positive balance of trade in its favor with both Japan
and China because it does export what both those countrys
need in huge quantitys, most obviously with iron ore, coal,
natural gas and various other minerals etc.
> In addition, most of the USA GNP is based on the
> production of this hi-value technological monopolistic markets
Utterly mangled all over again. Look at agriculture for starters.
> - thus by banning the export of these items to
> China - there isn't many things of hi value that
> China can purchase with the US dollars they have.
Utterly mangled all over again. Very little is export
banned, just military hardware, and china would buy
very little of that even if it wasnt banned, just because
the russian stuff is much cheaper.
>>> The USA economy is not driven by free markets but by
>>> technological/intellectual property based monopolies,
>> Wrong again. The absolute vast bulk of the US economy
>> is actually driven by services which arent even licensed.
> False.
Nope.
>>> e.g. copyrighted images like "mickey mouse" and
>>> patents for microprocessors to hybrid corn seeds.
>> Thats a trivial part of the total US economy.
> You are wrong.
Nope.
>>> In addition, another hi-profit part of the US economy
>>> is based on government handouts/licenses/grants,
>>> e.g. a radio frequency-bandwidth to make public
>>> broadcast, rights to harvest trees from public
>>> lands, rights to mine for minerals from public
>>> lands, the right to graze cattle over public
>>> lands, and/or to fish along the coast.
>> Also a trivial part of the total US economy.
> You are wrong again.
Nope.
Have a look at the official stats sometime. And then reach for a VERY large towel for your face.
== 16 of 18 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 10:11 pm
From: "Scout"
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:709a62Fnb0isU1@mid.individual.net...
> Scout wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> me@privacy.net wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> it's a totally different ball game then 20 years ago .......
>>>>>> I'd say anyone should avoid the field altogether .....
>
>>>>> More fool you. There is still plenty of work for civils and those jobs
>>>>> cant be outsourced to anything like the extent that EEs can be.
>
>>>> what abt nuclear engineering in the USA?
>
>>> More risky, essentially because its hard to say how long it will
>>> take before the US gets a clue and starts building nukes again.
>
>> Actually we recently gave final approval for some 8 additional reactors.
>
> Sure, but it remains to be seen what the effect of the entire
> world economy tanking very spectacularly will have on that now.
>
>> However, with the economy, the funds needed to construct may be less
>> readily available.
>
> No maybe about it.
>
> And I can't see Obummer being that keen on spending taxpayers money on
> nukes
> give the party he comes from, he's much more likely to be stupid enough to
> prefer
> 'alternative' energy instead, even tho that makes absolutely no sense at
> all.
No taxpayer money involved. All 100% utility money.
== 17 of 18 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 10:56 pm
From: B1ackwater
Yep ...
But it's a chicken/egg proposition.
Can't have restoration without customers and protectionist
policies.
== 18 of 18 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 11:50 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Scout wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Scout wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> me@privacy.net wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> it's a totally different ball game then 20 years ago .......
>>>>>>> I'd say anyone should avoid the field altogether .....
>>>>>> More fool you. There is still plenty of work for civils and those jobs cant be outsourced to anything like the
>>>>>> extent that EEs can be.
>>>>> what abt nuclear engineering in the USA?
>>>> More risky, essentially because its hard to say how long it will
>>>> take before the US gets a clue and starts building nukes again.
>>> Actually we recently gave final approval for some 8 additional reactors.
>> Sure, but it remains to be seen what the effect of the entire
>> world economy tanking very spectacularly will have on that now.
>>> However, with the economy, the funds needed to construct may be less readily available.
>> No maybe about it.
>> And I can't see Obummer being that keen on spending taxpayers money on nukes give the party he comes from, he's much
>> more likely to be stupid enough to prefer 'alternative' energy instead, even tho that makes absolutely no sense at
>> all.
> No taxpayer money involved. All 100% utility money.
We'll see now that the entire world economy has tanked very spectacularly indeed.
And while money isnt always provided by govt for nukes, they do generally
provide other stuff thats even more important, like indemnitys etc.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: DTV converters
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e46bdc878c0fe848?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 5:28 pm
From: "John A. Weeks III"
In article <Coznl.30756$xK6.29821@newsfe12.iad>,
clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> Thanks - oddly, I'm getting a channel that's not listed in our paper &
> I'm not finding any information about it (RTN - 10.2). It appears to be
> an independent station where its programming does not match anything the
> paper nor cable.
That is the Retro Television Network out of Rhode Island. You can
google for it. The broadcast on channel 51, and your tv displays
it as channel 10. 10.1 is the NBC station, 10.2 is RTN.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 5:37 pm
From: "John A. Weeks III"
In article
<1a92db88-97ee-47c1-af45-73bba5505c19@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
JG <jgrove24@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 7:09 am, "John A. Weeks III" <j...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <e161c684-3673-4d06-962d-2f74644c1...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Jon von Leip...@mayday.com" <JonLeip...@myway.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sounds like the one I got at RS. Just installed it, using the old
> > > rabbit ears. Works great. Much improved pic, about double the number
> > > of channels. Not much worth watching, tho. If it weren't for my
> > > religion, (football) I probably wouldn't even own a TV.
> >
> > If you are a football fan, which you write that you are, that is
> > reason enough to get HD TV. Football in HD is a whole different
> > game. Things that are fuzzy in SD are crystal clear in HD, such
> > as the names on the uniforms and the ball flying through the
> > air. Instant replay suddenly becomes much more clear, and the
> > wide screen allows more of the play to be in the picture. If
> > you see football once in HD, you will never go back.
>
>
> Is the CBS DTV channel as underpowered in other areas as it is in
> Chicago ? WBBM is on dtv ch. 3 here is really low power..JG
WBBM is caught in the transition mess. They were given a
channel number that has since been taken back by the FCC.
Their new channel number is 11, but there is an analog
station running on 11 until the shutdown. Since WBBM cannot
be on that same channel, they are running on a very low power
temporary antenna. After 11 goes dark, WBBM will come up
on that antenna over at the Sears Tower at their full power.
Until then, they are limping along.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
==============================================================================
TOPIC: It's all falling apart, isn't it?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/aaee75672b67549f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 5:52 pm
From: Harold Burton
In article
<eacd8d83-56df-4b7f-8811-8aad4321f5ec@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Cindy Hamilton <angelicapaganelli@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 8:50 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <8822ef0e-ed15-44b2-bffc-2198990c2...@m2g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> > Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 17, 9:46 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Right, before DemocRAT Johnson changed the rules. Bet the
> > > > Obama-lama-ding-dong appreciates that.
> >
> > > You undermine the validity of your position by resorting to junior-
> > > high insults.
> >
> > Which makes me different for all the lefturds posting, how?
>
> Does this rhetorical question mean that you don't care about
> being different from the "lefturds"?
I just enjoy rubbing their noses in their hypocrisy. Using "junior-high
insults" is a way of baiting them, and they are stupid enough to bite.
> I should imagine that you would want to distinguish yourself from
> them as much as possible.
Doesn't bother me.
> > I notice you chose to dodge the question. Good idea.
>
> I saw no question in your post, only assertions. I am
> relatively indifferent to the political machinations that
> result in underestimation of unemployment figures.
>
> Politicians lie, regardless of which way they lean. It
> is fruitless to point fingers in one direction when lies
> emanation from all quarters.
I know that both sides lie and I enjoy baiting the idiots on the left
that labor under the delusion that their side is any better than the
other.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 5:53 pm
From: Harold Burton
In article <499d9d52$0$1629$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
-=DirtBag© <Dirt@sonic.net> wrote:
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 8:50 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <8822ef0e-ed15-44b2-bffc-2198990c2...@m2g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Feb 17, 9:46 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Right, before DemocRAT Johnson changed the rules. Bet the
> >>>> Obama-lama-ding-dong appreciates that.
> >>> You undermine the validity of your position by resorting to junior-
> >>> high insults.
> >> Which makes me different for all the lefturds posting, how?
> >
> > Does this rhetorical question mean that you don't care about
> > being different from the "lefturds"? I should imagine that
> > you would want to distinguish yourself from them as much
> > as possible.
> >
> >> I notice you chose to dodge the question. Good idea.
> >
> > I saw no question in your post, only assertions. I am
> > relatively indifferent to the political machinations that
> > result in underestimation of unemployment figures.
> >
> > Politicians lie, regardless of which way they lean. It
> > is fruitless to point fingers in one direction when lies
> > emanation from all quarters.
>
> Yea they are just a lying bunch of liars.
>
> I have suggesting each election to vote out ALL incumbents for years
> now.
the problem is that most people believe that it's someone else's
incumbent who's the problem. :-)
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 20 2009 6:13 pm
From: The Real Bev
Harold Burton wrote:
> -=DirtBag© <Dirt@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> >
>> > Politicians lie, regardless of which way they lean. It
>> > is fruitless to point fingers in one direction when lies
>> > emanation from all quarters.
>>
>> Yea they are just a lying bunch of liars.
>>
>> I have suggesting each election to vote out ALL incumbents for years
>> now.
I try, but it doesn't seem to work.
> the problem is that most people believe that it's someone else's
> incumbent who's the problem. :-)
Not me. California's incumbents are about as bad as it;s possible to get
without actually being indicted. Exception is made for Ahnold only because I
really hope he'll do the right thing. No hope at all for the rest.
--
Cheers, Bev
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"We're from the Government. We're here to help."
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
