Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Oracle Corporation (ORCL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (17832)	1/15/2003 1:03:45 PM
From: Hardly B. Solipsist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19079

I'm not sure if software is classified as a service, but it is true that I don't make anything like a toaster. But my brother does, and I'd much rather have my job than his, since I make more money, I work at home, and the only time I break a sweat is when the air-conditioner goes on the blink during the summer. You are certainly welcome to go out and start a company making toasters or washing machines or something in the U.S., to help redress these macroeconomic changes that you deplore, but I'll keep my phony job as long as I can...

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (17832)	1/15/2003 3:42:28 PM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19079

Layoffs do have a lagging effect on productivity...that is, productivity does rise when layoffs occur. But it is a short term phenomenon. To simply say that layoffs show up as improved productivity is missing the point. That isn't the only way layoffs are accounted for in economic statistics, and productivity is accounted for in a manner that while layoffs have an impact, it isn't a major one. Productivity growth in the face of nonexistent GDP may seem illusory, but it isn't. If you are producing 100 widgets using 10 people, but you can produce the same with 9, that is still an increase in productivity whether you consider it illusory or not. The real question is why management was doing it with 10 to begin with if they knew 9 could do the job. I see that question being avoided every day. GDP growth remains the single best measure of our economic health. Losing manufacturing jobs is not a bad thing. Comparative advantage creates an environment in which health care and real estate are more important to our economy, right now, than building a dynamo. To say manufacturing is more important than services is to ignore the last 90 years of economic theory and history. There is nothing that says manufacturing jobs are important to the health of an economy. On the other hand, there is much that says manufacturing jobs don't require well skilled or well educated workforces. As such, they can be viewed as drag on a rapidly growing economy. To fully explain that would take more room than is available here, but trust me when I say there aren't many well-trained economists who would argue the point you made. I believe Barry Bluestone wrote a book about it 20 years ago..."The Deindustrialization of America". In the ensuing 20 years, everything he wrote has basically been proven wrong.