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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (10425)	8/9/2004 6:36:51 PM
From: Cactus Jack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

JW, You've written in the past in positive terms about Stephen Leeb. Have you read his latest book, "The Oil Factor"? I just did, and am interested in your review if you have. amazon.com jpg

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (10425)	8/9/2004 7:54:02 PM
From: arun gera	Respond to of 116555

Jim: I have no political agenda here. I am genuinely trying to find out what the effects of outsourcing will be on the economies of two countries that I know well. Just like you threw some numbers in the air, I had suggested a simple model just for the sake of illustration. It was not meant to be accurate. It was purposely exaggerated. Just to conclude that outsourcing will kill US economy because it is a high wage country goes against some realities that I see. There is a significant difference in cost of living and wages between large US cities and rest of USA. But if a company moves its factory from costlier areas such as New York and New Jersey to a smaller city in the South, does not necessarily mean that it is the end of New Jersey. Jobs and business are continuously outsourced from costlier areas to cheaper areas within US itself. Does that kill the US economy or help it in the long run? Now if similar outsourcing was done on a global scale, is it necessary that the overall results will be bad for the outsourcing country? Or are you saying that economic benefits can cross state boundaries but not national boundaries? Let us go to the other extreme. If every family did not outsource any business outside its own link of relatives, will the overall pie be bigger or smaller? -Arun >his conclusions seemed politically based then defended with numbers which are so far absurd, they were really not even worthy of my comment his multiples for US net job growth are out of a nutcase political promo bullshit leaflet let's call it 'C minus'>

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (10425)	8/9/2004 8:53:56 PM
From: arun gera	Respond to of 116555

Who is are stealing away jobs from the Indian economy? sify.com Jobs in the organised sector shrink Friday, 19 December , 2003, 07:29 Call it a coincidence or whatever, but every single year of the tenure of the present as well as preceding BJP-led Government has witnessed a decline in organised sector jobs. In the initial post-liberalisation period, total organised sector employment numbers went up every year, from 263.53 lakh in end-March 1990 to 282.45 lakh in end-March 1997. In other words, there was a creation of nearly 19 lakh new jobs in the organised sector, which covers all private non-agricultural establishments employing 10 or more persons and all public sector establishments, irrespective of the number of employees. But every single year since then has seen the total end-March figure shrink — to 281.66 lakh in 1998, 281.13 lakh in 1999, 279.60 lakh in 2000 and 277.89 lakh in 2001. According to a recent statement made in Parliament, by the Union Labour Minister, Sahib Singh Verma, the year ending March 31, 2002 recorded a further drop of 4.2 lakh, making it the fifth consecutive year of decline. In all, in the five years between 1996-97 and 2001-02, there has been a destruction of about 8.8 lakh organised sector jobs. Seen over a longer timeframe, the 1980s generated over 4 million new organised sector jobs, whereas the cumulative increase for the subsequent period (after March 1990) works out to slightly over a million. Much of the dismal record for the latter period is attributable to the negative job growth trend that set in from around 1997. That was also the time when industry slid into a prolonged recession mode, following the initial heady years of liberalisation. This is reflected in the fact that the loss of organised sector jobs has been particularly pronounced in the case of manufacturing, with virtually every corporate from Bajaj Auto to Tata Steel and SAIL undertaking manpower reduction through voluntary retirement schemes. One could, nevertheless, surmise that the situation would have improved considerably after 2001-02. Although the Labour Ministry is yet to publish data to confirm this, the manufacturing revival since 2002-03 and signs of renewed investment activity offers hope that the employment picture is `shining' all over again. Roughly 70 per cent of the country's 275 lakh-strong organised labour force is now accounted for by the public sector. The latter includes the Railways (15 lakh), armed forces (14 lakh), postal department (6 lakh), other Central government departments (14 lakh), central PSUs (20 lakh), banks (7.5 lakh) and insurance companies (2 lakh).