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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (93359)	1/12/2005 10:35:23 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

A brighter economy, but where are the jobs? By Stan Modic A new year has begun. It promises to bring a brighter economy. Or so the corporate executives and economists tell me. Unfortunately, the structural changes the manufacturing world is struggling through will continue to find U.S. manufacturing workers stuck between a rock and a hard place. The economy will come back, but many of the jobs won’t. They will go to foreign, low paid workers as U.S. factories move to low-cost countries; or they will be lost to investments in more productive machinery that cranks out more product with fewer workers. It is not news that the way we do business and make and trade goods is being globalized or that the services Americans use and the goods they buy are being supplied from foreign countries. As consumers, we snap up the lower-priced foreign goods with little regard to the loss of American jobs our purchase decisions create. We’ve talked about it. It has been in the news a lot. But as the economy picks up and the rehiring of laid-off workers doesn’t follow the reality of what’s happening will finally sink in. It’s a new ball game, but too many people I talk to don’t fully comprehend the gravity of what is happening. Brian Papke, president, Mazak Corporation, a machine tool builder, is convinced too many companies are just sitting around expecting their business to bounce back as the economy improves. “They are not going to make it,” he feels. He’s convinced that only the efficient companies will survive. What is happening is comparable to what happened in the early 20th century when our country made its transition from an agricultural to an industrial society; when 80 percent of the population that was employed growing food shrunk to 3 percent. A study done every two years by the State of Ohio Bureau of Labor Market Information indicates that almost all job growth in Ohio, a heavily industrialized state, will shift from manufacturing and other goods-producing industries to service businesses. The study, which covers a period from 2000 to 2010, found that some 660,000 jobs will be created in Ohio in that decade. Most job openings, the study found however, will be in food service where wages amount to only a third of the wages paid for manufacturing jobs. In this new world of manufacturing competitiveness, workers find themselves in a no-win situation and companies are “damned if they do and damned if they don’t” when it comes to saving American jobs versus staying in business. Facing competition from Chinese products made by workers earning 60 cents an hour, the only way U.S. manufacturers can stay in business is to become more productive. They are paying wages in the $20 range and have health and liability insurance, safety, and environmental cost burdens that developing countries such as China and India have yet to embrace. Ironically, as bad as the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States is, the problem is global. A study by Alliance Capital Management found that 20 percent of the world’s largest economies have lost more than 22 million manufacturing jobs from 1995 to 2002. The report shows that the U.S. accounted for some 2 million of those jobs. However, measured as a percentage of their total work force, Japan, Brazil, and even China fared worse. Even as global manufacturing jobs declined by 11 percent from 1995 to 2002, the study showed industrial output rose by 30 percent. For the U.S. to maintain its technological and manufacturing leadership position in the global arena, many things have to happen—some on the shop floor, more in the corporate offices, and still more in the Congress. But, mostly, we have to start taking the situation more seriously. On September 1, President Bush created an assistant secretary position in the Commerce Department. The appointment has yet to be made. Hearings on the state of manufacturing in America were held by the Commerce Department all over the country to collect information to establish the Bush Administration’s policy by September. It has yet to be written. Senate hearings by Sen. George Voinovich (R, OH) were to be held in October to determine how effectively trade laws were being enforced. Hearing date has yet to be set. I have yet to hear any of the Democratic candidates for president articulate a position on just how he/she would support the manufacturing sector of the economy and save those jobs. Admittedly, there is more talk about the erosion of the manufacturing segment of the American economy. But talk isn’t going to get the job done. Contact Stan Modic at smodic@nelsonpub.com. manufacturingcenter.com

To: epicure who wrote (93359)	1/12/2005 11:20:29 AM
From: Mac Con Ulaidh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Interesting place- Terrific site, thanks. I was disappointed that Fruit of the Loom is out of the states. I guess I could make the switch to Jockeys. :) When I got to Alabama in the early 90's, WalMart was the place to aspire to for a job. People raved about how they treated their workers and what a great score it was to get on there. People wanted to work there forever. It's completely changed now, which is a shame. From how workers talked about ol' Sam, I have the feeling he'd be disappointed in how things are now there.