From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Promises, promises
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:31:18 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <168A17E11.N336BZ@tamvm1.tamu.edu> N336BZ@tamvm1.tamu.edu (MLee) writes:
]john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]>Not only that, it is a dumb idea. We are rapidly entering the "post-industrial"
]>society. Technology has brought us to the place where we don't need high
]>paying workers to do most manufacturing - machines do it. The US has the
]>HIGHEST productivity in the world, and that means we need the fewest
]>workers per unit output. If Clinton wants to increase manufacturing,
] 
]The major problem with saying that we have entered into a post-
]industrial society lies in the fact that we would need a post-
]industrial economy to support such a society.  No one knows what
]such an economy would look like.  _No_ manufacturing base?  One
]lesson the U.S. has learned in the past two decades is that a nation
]that cannot produce a product is in a *very* bad postition in world
]markets for that product.

Who said "No" manufacturing base? I am merely pointing out that as
productivity goes up, manufacturing jobs go down. We are on that trend
line, and there is no way I know of to stop it. That is why Clinton's
industrial policy ideas to save manufacturing jobs is wrong. It is
equivalent to trying to preserve buggy whip manufacturing jobs
during the age of autos. The "product" that we produce in large
amounts is information and information processing. Recognizing that these
are valid products is part of learning how to deal with the modern world.

]The question of the hour becomes, are there any _limits_ to
]substituting capital for labor?  As long as a nation has credit
]in world financial markets to support deficit spending, perhaps not.

This doesn't make sense. Capital, with automation, does replace labor.
I don't think you can deny that. To take it to a limit is absurd, unless
we get smart enough robots. It has nothing to do with deficit spending.
Remember, we sell services for hard currency, although it doesn't show
in the trade "deficit" figures..

]**stuff deleted**
]>
]>High paying jobs of the future will be in either information related or
]>personal service fields. Those in the information related areas
] 
]Again, the assumption that all one nation needs to produce is
]services.  Without a manufacturing base, *what* is being serviced?

Did I say that? No, I didn't. I said "high paying jobs" will be in
information related or personal service fields. The reason is that manufacturing
jobs will be low paying unless they require a lot of information processing
(ie, highly skilled workers), because they are in competition with lots
of workers in low paying lands.

One could take specialization to an extreme and have a nation that only
produces services. After all, today we have cities that do no manufacturing,
but they trade with cities which do, without a "deficit." Extending it
to nations is only more complicated because of issues of national
sovereignity and national security. It is NOT really an economic issue
(except where sovereignity leads to radically different economic rules
in different countries).

] 
]However, neither is poverty shameful for the people who have not.  A
]poor man shames us all.

Nonsense. A poor man doesn't shame me unless I stole from him. Why should
it? Is it my responsibility to somehow make him not poor?


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - It is not enough to be right. One must also be effective! - -
Xref: sparky alt.president.clinton:489 misc.test:13143 talk.bizarre:38385