From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Clinton's plan our best and only hope for the future
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:01:31 GMT

In <q9==jkB@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:

>In article <1992Nov6.142436.27938@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>|> 
>|> This statement just doesn't seem to track.  If a company is
>|> manufacturing something, whether under contract or not, that is
>|> manufacturing.  Those workers don't all of a sudden magically become
>|> 'service sector' workers.
>|> 

>A manufacturing company does more than simply produce goods.  They
>will typically have an accounting department, a billing department,
>an EDP department, etc.  If all of these activities are being performed
>'in house' all of these workers are considered to be 'manufacturing'
>workers.  If the EDP department is spun off into its own company and
>contracts with the former company, those workers are now 'service'
>sector workers.

Ah, I see where you are going with this now.  That didn't seem to be
what you were talking about before.  I have a question, though.  Is
this your assumption about how the counting is done, or is this
actually how it is done.  I would think that there would be quite
small effects from this sort of thing.  In fact, I was always under
the impression that workers were classified by JOB FUNCTION as to
whether they were manufacturing or not, using this whacking great book
of job codes that the government has put together (and I know that at
least such a book exists, because we used it in the military for
classification of civilian skills).  Hence an accountant is always a
'non-manufacturing' job, no matter where he accounts.

>|> >Also,
>|> >the fact that we can produce more goods with fewer people is an
>|> >indication of our increased productivity.  If we wanted to keep 
>|> >everyone employed in manufacturing industries we could simply require
>|> >companies to eliminate all machines and require that work be done
>|> >by hand.  Of course this would also dramatically raise costs, and
>|> >substantially lower the standard of living for everyone.
>|> 
>|> Disingenous and specious.
>|> 

>How so?

Because the argument of "well, if your goal is to increase workers
involved in manufacturing just reduce the efficiency of the workers
you have" is a meaningless argument, and we both know it.

>|> >|> 
>|> >|> >Our technology still leads the
>|> >|> >world in many areas.  
>|> >|> 
>|> >|> In some areas, indeed, but we're working real hard to piss those away,
>|> >|> too.  We INVENTED most of the technology that other countries turn
>|> >|> into products and beat our brains out with.  Why do you think that is?
>|> 
>|> >Perhaps we have better things to do with our time and effort.  If
>|> >you were a productive janitor as well as a productive electronic
>|> >engineer, would it be a productive use of your time to clean your
>|> >office, or would you hire someone else to do it?
>|> 
>|> Disingenous and specious, not to mention evading the question.
>|> 'Better things to do with our time'?  You assume that ALL of us are
>|> that 'engineer'; SOMEBODY still needs to be that 'janitor', whether I
>|> do it or not.  Just how economically profitable is it to do the R&D
>|> and then let someone else do the production?  It's NOT; that's why we
>|> have things like intellectual property laws.
>|> 

>Non-sequiter.  R&D may create an intellectual property.  Profit can
>be realized simply by selling the idea.  The person who comes up with
>the invention doesn't have to produce it to make money.

Who makes the bulk of the money; the guy with the intellecutal
property or the guy who makes stuff and sells it?  The answer, of
course, is the latter.  That second one is also the one that keeps all
those other people employed and with incomes so that they can buy
stuff and not have to be taken care of by the few 'idea men' that the
economy can support.

>|> >|> Obviously, there are great opportunities in those areas, and yet
>|> >|> countries with less of the 'market freedom' you vaunt clobber us in
>|> >|> your free markets.  How does that come about, do you think?
>|> >|> 
>|> 
>|> >Perhaps you could provide a better description of what you are talking
>|> >about.
>|> 
>|> Germany.  Japan.

>That's not an explanation.  Germany and Japan happen to be going through
>larger economic problems than we are.  We are more productive than the
>Japanese and Germans.  Japan has tried for years to match our computer
>expertise to no avail.  Personally I wouldn't trade our economy for
>theirs.

Yes, both currently have some problems.  Big surprise that when our
economy, being the largest, goes into the toilet that others follow.
However, both Japan and Germany have economies that are growing at at
least twice the rate of ours.  They both invest significantly more (as
a percentage of GNP) in R&D than we do.  Japan even has a higher per
capita GNP than we do (the only reason we turn out as more productive
is that a larger part of their population is in the workforce).  Our
economy is structurally sick, given the years of neglect in investment
and the constant short-term planning at the expense of long
term-planning.  Yes, we might still be in better shape right this
moment, but our problems are fundamental while those of Japan and
Germany are transitory.  If all three countries keep simply doing what
they are doing, we're well on our way to being a 3rd rate nation.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections