To: Boplicity who wrote (6968 ) 11/27/2000 2:21:56 AM From: Walkingshadow Respond to of 13572 << I contend the economy will always find away around tight job market with more and more use of technology. >> Greg, I would agree that the economy will try to find a way to expand in the face of a tight job market. But to what degree it can succeed is arguable indeed. I submit that a tight job market sooner or later, probably sooner, exerts an inflationary pressure. The economy was, in my view, clearly expanding faster than the capacity of any technology to provide a solution to the tight labor market. I realize that many employers have outsourced labor into the global market. But even a brief conversation with management of most companies in most industries I think will be convincing evidence that there were several forces at work there which were destined to limit growth in an inflationary fashion regardless of the Fed: 1) The increasing inability of industries, particularly high tech industries, to attract and retain qualified personnel; 2) the sense among labor that they have the upper hand, and could now negotiate for a slice of the pie from a position of strength. Increased growth would only serve to exacerbate the first because accelerating growth requires more and more qualified personnel, and thus the shortage would become more acute, and have an even greater inhibitory effect on growth. Also, increasing incentives must be paid to qualified personnel in order to retain them, and at least some of these costs must be passed along ultimately to the consumer, stock options notwithstanding. This in turn would tend to exacerbate the second, the ultimate result of which would inevitably have been slowed growth in an inflationary environment. Besides the tight labor market, there is also the costs of energy, upon which all economic growth relies. In particular with regard to the New Economy companies, they are critically dependent on electricity, in an era when little increase in power production has occurred for the past decade, and furthermore, the demand for electric power from the New Economy companies is increasing way more rapidly than any other sector in the economy. These increased costs must be passed along eventually to the consumer, thereby tending to curtail the spending capacity of the consumer. The only way around this is to either greatly increase the number of consumers, decrease the costs of energy, or decrease the costs of production of goods and services (or some combination thereof). Decreases in the cost of energy are not an option, since in the open market, now rapidly deregulating, this is a simple function of supply and demand (then, there's OPEC, as well as various market manipulating middlemen). There are certainly ways to improve efficiency, though I doubt this would be of sufficient magnitude to fully absorb the increases in energy costs, and would in addition tend to exacerbate the situation, because the fallout would largely flow downhill to the middle class, the very people you hope to sell to. And increasing the number of consumers....... well, there's only a finite number of people out there, with a finite amount of money, and that money supply will be tending to decrease as costs are passed along to them, and also as their borrowing costs are increased (so yes, there the Fed certainly has a hand). So there's a limit as to how far that can be stretched as well, though admittedly poorly defined. Because these forces move comparatively slowly, and their full impact is not rapidly and accurately reflected in economic reports, I would not be surprised to see these play out anyway in the coming quarters. That is, we may yet find ourselves in an economic environment of slowed or even no growth, and increasing inflation, with the Fed now virtually powerless to act, since either easing or tightening would be likely to only make things worse. Guess only time will tell, but I hope to God I'm wrong. WS