To: TobagoJack who wrote (427 ) 10/29/2002 6:21:49 AM From: Mark Adams Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 867 Jay, I have heard of this trend (migration to ever lower labor costs). A positive spin. It can be seen as an equalization of employment opportunity and living standards long term. With the caveat that leaders of developing nations don't allow environmental rape in the name of growth. In fact, one of the topics of discussion in the US re transplanted mexico industry was the toxic sludge accumulating openly in ditches as the result of practices which would be outlawed in more developed nations. I believe there is substantial history of corporations (which seem to be amoral on the basis of divided responsibility) disregarding the general welfare of their workers, the communities and environment in which they do business, and now their investor/shareholders. On top of that, you have a very likely outcome that the enrichment of the labor pool will be quite uneven. I'm told not to dis the system, as it's the best we've collectively been able to come up with thus far in our history. A sad comment if this remains true. I expect once living standards extend beyond survival mode, even poor nations and communities will demand appropriate respect for common materials historically abused. (Clean Air, Water, Greenspace, Animals and what not). On another note; One interesting comment in heard in the recent round of conference calls was a mention of increased nickel demand due to stainless scrap scarcity, presumably created by demand from small mills in China. (Inco Call?) Clearly Russia swamps China in Nickel production. Difficult to ascertain if the stainless produced in china is for domestic consumption or export products. Nickel ('000 tonnes) 2000/2001 Demand Taiwan, China 90 85 Russian Fed. 21 28 Production China 51 50 Russian Fed. 221 245 insg.org