Are Airlines Outsourcing Maintenance to Other Countries Increasingly?

[Smurf]

I was told very early on that most people change careers about 3 times in their lifetime. Sure, it's a bit more stressful when it was someone else's decision and not yours that it's time to change, but ultimately, the outcome is the same anyway.

I've heard that statistic too. Any possibility that maybe the reason why that's true is because people are forced to do it?

It's because we don't know that will be the outcome.

This is untrue, economics are not chaotic and unpredictable. If it were we wouldn't have created a field of study for it and Wal-Mart/Micrsoft/Exxon/ect., never would have risen to the status they are now.. unless you believe they're just really really lucky?

It could also not come to that. If your concern is that government is dominated by big business, then vote for someone else, but it's rather hard to find someone who will defend our capitalistic economy and simultaneously be in favor of restricting big business.

Nonsense, that's what a mixed economy is. A Mixed economy is what the USA has implemented, edward simply feels the USA is leaning too far in one direction.

If you don't like what a company is doing, vote with your dollars and don't buy from them.

Firstly, Implying business is a democratic system is complete nonsense. Liberal democracy is based on the principle of 'one man, one vote' (or in modern society, woman too) and "equal representation" and providing protection for minorities. Not on making as much money as possible.

Not everyone get's equal votes, and there is absolutely no way to protect someone from Tyranny of the Majority either. This argument is pure folly, unless your intention is to advocate a system of unfair representation and suppression of minorities.

Secondly, if this WAS a democratic system, edward's actions would be perfectly acceptable as part of liberal democracy is free expression and debate over any aspect or policy of society and government.

 

[Moonbear]

I've heard that statistic too. Any possibility that maybe the reason why that's true is because people are forced to do it?

It could be so. Though, it was told to me in the context of people becoming discontent with careers and choosing to change them.

This is untrue, economics are not chaotic and unpredictable. If it were we wouldn't have created a field of study for it and Wal-Mart/Micrsoft/Exxon/ect., never would have risen to the status they are now.. unless you believe they're just really really lucky?

Economics are not chaotic, true, but other factors can be unpredictable and influence the economy. My comment related back to my responses to Solutions In A Box about predicting the future.

Firstly, Implying business is a democratic system is complete nonsense. Liberal democracy is based on the principle of 'one man, one vote' (or in modern society, woman too) and "equal representation" and providing protection for minorities. Not on making as much money as possible.

I think you've misunderstood my point. I wasn't referring to voting in the sense of choosing candidates there, I was referring to who you buy from. Businesses most certainly listen to where their money is coming from. If enough people stopped buying tickets from an airline because they were outsourcing jobs, the airline is going to notice and will have to give into market demand for not outsourcing jobs or else go belly up.

Not everyone get's equal votes, and there is absolutely no way to protect someone from Tyranny of the Majority either. This argument is pure folly, unless your intention is to advocate a system of unfair representation and suppression of minorities.

I don't know where you're getting all this from out of the idea of don't buy from someone whose business practices you don't like? What on Earth does any of this have to do with suppression of minorities?

Secondly, if this WAS a democratic system, edward's actions would be perfectly acceptable as part of liberal democracy is free expression and debate over any aspect or policy of society and government.

Did I say he couldn't say or do anything? I was, however, suggesting that rather than just complain about it, people can actually DO something about things they disagree with if it is important to them.

 

[Smurf]

meh, I was responding in the same context as that cop-out is usually used. It's a stupid cliche and I thought I'd say so.

 

[russ_watters]

Just because the USSR had a centralized economy does not mean anywhere with a centralized economy will be the USSR.

No, but it is highly likely that many of the problems of their centrally planned economy would be reflected in others - if you doubt that, look into some of the othere centrally planned economies and compare (China prior to, say, 1990, North Korea, etc.)

I've heard that statistic too. Any possibility that maybe the reason why that's true is because people are forced to do it?

Actually, I'm pretty sure that statistic is out of date - its something like double what it was 30 years ago. And the reason has more to do with the workers than the companies. People in their 20s, especially, jump from one job to the next looking for the best one for them. And that's perfectly reasonable - who really wants to be locked into a road with no turns by age 25?

This is untrue, economics are not chaotic and unpredictable.

Economics is not chaotic, but markets can be. Not even Bill Gates predicted the internet boom - even after it already started! You can be sure that the law of supply and demand will apply 20 years from now, but if you think you can predict what people will be buying, then you stand to become a billionaire.

 

[loseyourname]

What does that have anything to do with my qualification to make any judgement? Are you suggesting I have never gotten my hands dirty or worked up a sweat or worked long hours, and that disqualifies me from determining someone might have gotten spoiled with such a long spell of job security? I don't see how it would be a disqualification, but if it matters to you so much, my research all involves farm animals, and I've done my share of shoveling sh*t, herding sheep and goats, dragging water buckets out to pastures in the dead of winter, arriving to work at 2 AM in an ice storm because the experiment had to be done and animals needed to be fed, collecting blood samples from sheep every 5 minutes for 8 hours at a time, or every hour for 24 to 72 hours at a time. I've slept on barn floors so I could catch a half hour nap in order to keep going another 12 hours. We spend 9 hours standing for surgeries and then spend another 2 hours scrubbing the OR from top to bottom because nobody else does it for us. I've been kicked and stepped on and knocked on my butt in filthy pens, even hobbled around for 2 hours AFTER spraining my ankle out at the barns because I wasn't done doing what needed doing. And I'm not complaining. The past 3 years I've been spoiled by not having to do that on a regular basis, and I'm looking forward to my new job and getting my hands dirty again.

Wow, you just shot all the way to the top of my list of sexiest women I know, and I don't even know you.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Wow, you just shot all the way to the top of my list of sexiest women I know, and I don't even know you.

It was the mention of farm animals, right? :!)

 

[solutions in a box]

What does that have anything to do with my qualification to make any judgement? Are you suggesting I have never gotten my hands dirty or worked up a sweat or worked long hours, and that disqualifies me from determining someone might have gotten spoiled with such a long spell of job security? I don't see how it would be a disqualification, but if it matters to you so much.

I didn't see where anyone suggested anything except that you apparently can not relate to people who have struggled with a constantly changing work place for the last 20 years. It may be that it is simply too much to expect someone to be able to comprehend something, when they have "never been there or done that" for nearly half of their working years, as the older working Americans have.

It seems a little odd that you complain about jobs being outsourced to other countries because people work for less there and then try to make comparisons between wages of other countries to use that as evidence CEOs are overcompensated.

It was comparing earnings of CEO's of other countries, not wages of workers. That is oranges and apples, but of course you knew that. Nice attempt at trying to confuse the issue though.

I'm can teach at the university level, and I can teach med students, and I can teach grad students (for all of which there are few job openings)

The universities are hurting financially because of the economy. The university of Arizona has cut entire degree programs. All state and loclal governments are also struggling. Yet you say the economy is good.

But, when big corporations fail, and there's suddenly an open space in the market... That's one of the beauties of this country, that it changes, adapts, and new opportunities arise for new people all the time.

Some of us don't see a sucession of corporate failures with constant change and readaption as being a beautiful part of this country. The new opportunities are mostly going offshore.

I hear that there are jobs we supposedly need to give to ILLEGAL immigrants because no Americans will do them.

This is the most commonly used excuse for continuing to allow illegals to flow over the border at a rate of 2,000 per day. I live in Arizona and I am well aware of what is happening. The illegals aren't taking jobs Americans won't do, or those jobs would not have been filled before the illegals started coming.


A bit off topic
The true story is that the illegals are willing to take the jobs for "less pay" than an American can afford to work for. They are also taking many jobs that once were our second jobs. They are also willing to work at jobs that have no benefits because they know that they will be cared for under current U.S. laws. Most of them in my area get food stamps using fake ID's.

Recently they have learned how to work our health care system in another way. They are a close knit community. One health care insurance policy is purchased. Then all of the persons with the same approxiamte age and sex use the same ID card.

Several months ago I went to a lab for a blood work up. Before they would draw my blood I had to show a picture ID. + my insurance card. The illegals quickly overcome that by getting picture ID cards with the single policy holders name on all of them.
They have brought in a big surge in the fake ID business to accommodate them. It has gotten to the extent that most local commercial truck drivers are illegals using forged drivers licenses and multiple names.

If you're unemployed, and have NO job, and there is a job available, you do it, even if it's only temporary while you continue looking for something better.

Most of the working class have done that. And are continuing to do that, again and again.

Why, because I worked my butt off to create options for myself and don't sit around taking the "I'm a victim of the big, evil, corporate CEOs" attitude?

Many of us have worked our butts off for the same reasons. However, after 15 or 20 years of doing just that, we start to look at WHY it is continuing, and who is causing it to happen.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Many of us have worked our butts off for the same reasons. However, after 15 or 20 years of doing just that, we start to look at WHY it is continuing, and who is causing it to happen.

Funny ... nobody has asked me why I have lived in 6 counties before on this forum.

I've been folowing my job through the world.

Now I am semi-retired.

I am screwed if I fully retire though... no adequate pension.

But I have been employed all my life in my career.

 

[Smurf]

... What IS your job anyway?

 

[loseyourname]

... What IS your job anyway?

Given the amount of time he's been spending here, it presumably involves surfing the internet.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Given the amount of time he's been spending here, it presumably involves surfing the internet.

Let's say I have an MSc IN Computer Science and am now a consultant for companies who want to deal in China. (25 years in business specifying systems in finance and manufacturing)

I am also a part time lecturer in CS, English and Math at Soochow University.

I work about 25 hours a week.

Oh, yes ... and I am writing a book on the Chinese perceptions and problems dealing with Japan and the second world war ... or had you figured that bit out already?

 

[Smurf]

we all suspected a little bit

 

[The Smoking Man]

we all suspected a little bit

I was thinking of writing one about America and their involvement in the world over the past 100 years or so but I ended up writing

@#$%

on the first page and got writers block.

You may also have noted a penchant for cruel humour.

 

[Smurf]

don't worry, you can only see it if you're looking for it. :rollseyes:

 

[The Smoking Man]

don't worry, you can only see it if you're looking for it. :rollseyes:

Damn ... And I thought I was being subtle.

 

[outsider]

Everyone only has the life that they have been given. We can only control our own actions. Options are presented and we must choose. When we fail to choose, that is also a choice. No one deserves anything more than they are given. To ask for more is a luxury and may end without the desired result. Unions are bad for business. Job stability is not representative of the new age we live in. This is why we should stick close to friends and family. We need to help each other make it as the government and corporations do not put our interests before their own. anyway... I'll be taking a few days off of PF... have fun w/ your posts.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that statistic is out of date - its something like double what it was 30 years ago. And the reason has more to do with the workers than the companies. People in their 20s, especially, jump from one job to the next looking for the best one for them. And that's perfectly reasonable - who really wants to be locked into a road with no turns by age 25?

That stat is tough to track down, but I did find THIS

Myth #4: My first job out of college is one that I will be stuck with for a long time.
Reality: Most new college graduates are in their first job for one to three years.
People who spend a lifetime with one employer are a dying breed. In the new economy, a job change every three to five years is not considered job-hopping. In fact, demonstrated experience at several employers is an asset, while long-term employment with one firm can be a warning sign of someone afraid of risk-taking or change. Studies show that the average working American will have three to five careers and between 10 to 12 jobs during his or her lifetime. As a result, you will need to make multiple moves to gain new skills and get ahead. Do avoid very short stints—those under one year.

 

[edward]

Roman outsourcing

Most posters here have never experienced the America we once had. And now we are being told by some that we can never have America back, because big business says so.

The job stability of previous times was not an evil thing, nor was it boring. No one was stuck in a job or a job field unless they choose to be. From the end of WWII until the 1980's we had, good jobs, good homes, and a good educational system. That is why one of the most popular TV programs ever was Called: "Happy Days"

The war in Vietnam nearly spirited away our happy days, but we didn't succumb to the national discouragement of an ill advised war, and carried on.

I will be the first one to admit that the Vietnam war did provide even more jobs for an already strong industrial base.
When we pulled out of Vietnam the three largest assemblies of military equipment in the world were; What the USA had, What the Russians had, and what the USA left behind in Vietnam.

After the war we moved rapidly into the technological revolution. Both industrial and new tech jobs were steady and plentiful, up until a new phenomenon began. Jobs started to be exported to other countries so that corporations could reap the benefits of cheaper labor.

After being thoroughly reaped American workers were left with; an unsteady, unreliable, ever changing and insecure work place. Math and science test scores in our schools plummeted and rank at an all time low worldwide, neccesitating the importation of skilled and educated foreigners.

Workers must now scramble to buy temporary medical coverage because with each job change they are left without insurance until their new employers medical policy (if it has one at all) takes effect. We have 45 million people without any medical coverage. The lucky ones are those who's income is so low that they can qualify for medicaid.

We have politicians who sit on their behinds regarding domestic problems, while at the same time diving headlong into a foreign a war at the request of American oil companies. They have the time to propagandize the American people into believing there is a justified reason for the war while at the same time they are too busy at home to do anything except give big oil another tax break via a, so called, new energy policy.

They have depleted our skilled work force into a skeleton of its past capabilities, while at the same time talking about new wars which would require our long lost industrial capabilities. They purchased $78,000,000 worth of weapons from China to give to the new Iraqi army because the newly trained Iraqi soldiers felt that American made weapons were inferior.

They want to have their cake and eat it to by wanting to have the worlds strongest military, while at the same time allowing the decimation of the U.S. industrial base that would be needed to provide equipment for that military.
During the first year of WWII American workers produced over 9,000 Sherman tanks, yet more recently it took nearly two years to produce 2,000 armored Humvees.

They are of the mindset that our high tech weapons can bomb any country into submission. Yet they fail to realizing that the people in those, and surrounding countries, still aren't going to allow us have their oil or select their form of government.

At the rate they are allowing our own industrial base to be outsourced, it will eventually become necessary to outsource our own military or at the very least the weapons for that military.

The Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions because of a loss of civic virtue among its citizens. They had become lazy and soft, outsourcing their duties to defend their Empire to barbarian mercenaries, who then became so numerous and ingrained that they were then able to easily take over the Empire.

 

[Informal Logic]

"I find Bangalore to be one of the most exciting places in the world," says Dan Scheinman, Cisco Systems Inc.'s senior vice-president for corporate development. "It is Silicon Valley in 1999."

"A new world economy -
Balance of power will shift to the East as China and India evolve"
Businessweek Aug. 18, 2005

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8998389/

 

[solutions in a box]

Inside outsourcing

There seems to be no hint of ethics left in corporate America.

The following link describes illegal aleins who were caught working in an aircraft maintenance facility in Greensboro S.C.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-04-18-air-security_x.htm

Were these jobs that Amercans won't do?

 

[edward]

"A new world economy -
Balance of power will shift to the East as China and India evolve"
Businessweek Aug. 18, 2005

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8998389/

From the same link:

But visit the office towers and research and development centers sprouting everywhere, and you see the miracle. Here, Indians are playing invaluable roles in the global innovation chain. Motorola, (MOT) Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), Cisco Systems (CSCO), and other tech giants now rely on their Indian teams to devise software platforms and dazzling multimedia features for next-generation devices.

I have seen this coming for a long time now. Some, however, see this situation as some kind of a new fun and games adventure for American workers.
It will be a brave new world alright, except for the very wealthy, few Americans will have any participation.

 

[The Smoking Man]

From the same link:



I have seen this coming for a long time now. Some, however, see this situation as some kind of a new fun and games adventure for American workers.
It will be a brave new world alright, except for the very wealthy, few Americans will have any participation.

They are also moving R&D to China in a massive way.

Face it, the USA is a saturated strained market.

Innovation in this case is 'What do people in these developing nations want in a product' and not 'how can we make an American throw away his old one in favour of a new one'.

There is just over 1/3 the population of the Earth living in China and India ... well over 2 billion people.

Why would R&D be centered around an economy that has a mere 300 million people or so when the largest market has different needs and requirements?

 

[russ_watters]

There is just over 1/3 the population of the Earth living in China and India ... well over 2 billion people.

Why would R&D be centered around an economy that has a mere 300 million people or so when the largest market has different needs and requirements?

Its pretty simple: the East isn't the largest market for the types of products you are talking about. Because the per capita gdp in those countries is so low that they can't buy most of the products that you can sell to Americans in anywhere near the quantities in which Americans buy them. For example, roughly 18 million computers were sold in China in 2003 while 160 million were sold in the US.

While Americans buy roughly 20 million cars a year, the Chinese buy about 5 million.

With all those people, a substantial fraction of the GDP goes to basic necessities, so in order for China's purchases of manufactured goods to exceed the America's, the Chinese GDP needs to be substantially higher than the US's. Therein lies the fallacy in directly comparing GDPs.

And yes, I know the Chinese economy is growing quickly. They may surpass the US in computer sales in a decade, but it'll be several decades before they do with most manufactured goods.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Its pretty simple: the East isn't the largest market for the types of products you are talking about. Because the per capita gdp in those countries is so low that they can't buy most of the products that you can sell to Americans in anywhere near the quantities in which Americans buy them. For example, roughly 18 million computers were sold in China in 2003 while 160 million were sold in the US.

While Americans buy roughly 20 million cars a year, the Chinese buy about 5 million.

With all those people, a substantial fraction of the GDP goes to basic necessities, so in order for China's purchases of manufactured goods to exceed the America's, the Chinese GDP needs to be substantially higher than the US's. Therein lies the fallacy in directly comparing GDPs.

And yes, I know the Chinese economy is growing quickly. They may surpass the US in computer sales in a decade, but it'll be several decades before they do with most manufactured goods.

Interesting you use 2003 figures and only quote for China instead of the combined purchasing power of China and India.

Basic necessities ... We have 85% cell phone market penetration in China and one of the most advanced and unified communications backbones over here.

Cars ... the government actively discourages the purchase of cars here because (a) purchasing happens around cities with Shanghai having 20 million people alone and (b) there isn't enough gasoline to run them all.

The population of Beijing and Shanghai exceeds the populations of Australia and of Canada!

GDP is a poor estimate when it comes to purchasing power because it averages income. I hate to tell you this but the 'citizens' (ie. the people who live in cities) make far more than you imagine and have purchasing power that isn't 'drempt of in your philosophy'.

China has for example past Australia, the UK and Germany in the purchase of automobiles.

Also, if you take a look at the stats, most analysts state the sales of cars went down in 2003/04 because the punters are waiting for the lifting of tarrifs which happens completely in 2005.

Now as far as household appliances ... who do you think is taking the cake here... Haier just tried to buy the failing Whirlpool and Hoover brandnames.

Believe me, ... everyday goods will quickly outstrip the USA especially when the USA contines on down the spiral.

 

[russ_watters]

Interesting you use 2003 figures and only quote for China instead of the combined purchasing power of China and India.

Partly laziness. But a quick google shows computer sales in India are even lower than in China: about 2.5 million. The other part of the reason is why are you comparing a continent to a country? It doesn't make sense.

Basic necessities ... We have 85% cell phone market penetration in China and one of the most advanced and unified communications backbones over here.

Source? According to THIS article, its only 25%. And cell phones are a lot easier than other "needs" because they require significantly less infrastructure than, say, electricity. Regardless, its the rural areas that will get the infrastructure last and that is an enormous task.

Cars ...

I used cars as an example because for most Americans, its the second most expensive thing they own. Feel free to provide another example.

The population of Beijing and Shanghai exceeds the populations of Australia and of Canada!

That's my point: the markets of the east are big due to the mass of people alone, not due to an actual relative strength: ie, a per capita one.

GDP is a poor estimate when it comes to purchasing power because it averages income.

Actually, I think that makes it a good estimate, which is precisely why you don't want to use it:

I hate to tell you this but the 'citizens' (ie. the people who live in cities) make far more than you imagine and have purchasing power that isn't 'drempt of in your philosophy'.

Ironic - you were here for the discussions on income equality, weren't you? Yes, I suspect if you slice off the top 3rd of the population of China, you'll get a population that is almost half as prosperous (estimate - it could be closer to 2/3) as a comparable Western one, but what of the other 2/3 of the population? Don't they matter?

China has for example past Australia, the UK and Germany in the purchase of automobiles.

I should hope so - those countries have on the order of 1/10 the population of China.

Believe me, ... everyday goods will quickly outstrip the USA especially when the USA contines on down the spiral.

Heh - spiral? Must be a negative spiral, since the US GDP is still increasing at a pretty rapid clip. Regardless, "quickly" is a pretty relative term: my guess is it'll be about 50 years. The fastest it could possibly be is about 20.

For the most part, you didn't address my points, so let me restate them a little more concisely:

1. It will be several decades before China overtakes the US in raw economic strength (or if you want to lump all the east together, you may as well lump all the west together too).
2. However, most of that will continue to go toward necessities and infrastructure, meaning that China still has a ways to go before competing with the US's primary economic strength: consumer goods. If I had to guess, about 50 years.
3. And even then, that's still a raw number, which will not reflect the actual economic development of the country. For consumer products, the concentration of the market matters more than the overall size, and because of the uneven-ness of the economic growth, it could well be a century before China overtakes the US as the choice market for consumer products.

Caveat: my estimates are based on current growth rates and the reality of economics is that it changes much faster than my estimates allow for. So the most that can really be said with any veracty is that China won't be overtaking the US in anything but raw GDP and a few specific markets in the next 20 years.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Partly laziness. But a quick google shows computer sales in India are even lower than in China: about 2.5 million. The other part of the reason is why are you comparing a continent to a country? It doesn't make sense. Source? According to THIS article, its only 25%. And cell phones are a lot easier than other "needs" because they require significantly less infrastructure than, say, electricity. Regardless, its the rural areas that will get the infrastructure last and that is an enormous task. I used cars as an example because for most Americans, its the second most expensive thing they own. Feel free to provide another example. That's my point: the markets of the east are big due to the mass of people alone, not due to an actual relative strength: ie, a per capita one. Actually, I think that makes it a good estimate, which is precisely why you don't want to use it: Ironic - you were here for the discussions on income equality, weren't you? Yes, I suspect if you slice off the top 3rd of the population of China, you'll get a population that is almost half as prosperous (estimate - it could be closer to 2/3) as a comparable Western one, but what of the other 2/3 of the population? Don't they matter? I should hope so - those countries have on the order of 1/10 the population of China. Heh - spiral? Must be a negative spiral, since the US GDP is still increasing at a pretty rapid clip. Regardless, "quickly" is a pretty relative term: my guess is it'll be about 50 years. The fastest it could possibly be is about 20.

For the most part, you didn't address my points, so let me restate them a little more concisely:

1. It will be several decades before China overtakes the US in raw economic strength (or if you want to lump all the east together, you may as well lump all the west together too).
2. However, most of that will continue to go toward necessities and infrastructure, meaning that China still has a ways to go before competing with the US's primary economic strength: consumer goods. If I had to guess, about 50 years.
3. And even then, that's still a raw number, which will not reflect the actual economic development of the country. For consumer products, the concentration of the market matters more than the overall size, and because of the uneven-ness of the economic growth, it could well be a century before China overtakes the US as the choice market for consumer products.

Caveat: my estimates are based on current growth rates and the reality of economics is that it changes much faster than my estimates allow for. So the most that can really be said with any veracty is that China won't be overtaking the US in anything but raw GDP and a few specific markets in the next 20 years.

I was never talking about 'countries' I was talking about MARKETS.

The figures you gave of 168 million ... where did you get it? According to http://in.tech.yahoo.com/050126/137/2j8it.html sales are far short of what you claim.

Chinese PC sales rose 19 percent to 16 million units last year, according to preliminary International Data Corp (IDC) figures, while U.S. demand grew 11 percent to 58 million. Indian growth last year was 31 percent.

Though regional economic engines may cool down in 2005 as the U.S. economy slows, Asian PC demand was likely to stay resilient.

"In China and India, there are 3 billion people, of which 80 to 90 percent do not own or have access to computing, and while not completely isolated from worldwide economic growth, it appears that demand for PCs is going to remain strong," he added.

Asia Pacific ex-Japan contributed about 46 percent of Intel's total revenue in the fourth quarter, with Japan accounting for about 9 percent.

Intel's microprocessors, the "brains" of a personal computer, are used in 80 percent of the world's PCs.

The Asia Pacific ex-Japan saw total PC shipments of 34 million units last year, 16 percent higher than in 2003. Growth is expected to ease to 11 percent this year, IDC said.

This all backs my claim that growth has its major potential in Asia.

You're right I had misread the market penetration of Cells in China in this article: http://www.crn-india.com/features/stories/44951.html Which does state:

A key indicator of a country''''s consumption potential is the total number of cell phone users in that country In China the cell phone users have already equaled the landline phones installed As on end-November 2002, China had 20 03-crore cell phone users According to COAI, the total number of cell phone users in India (June 2003) are 1 52 crore India today has 3 6 crore (till April 2003) landline phones installed In China this figure is 21 3 crore (till November 2002)

What we are looking at is the growth of cell phone use because, as you have pointed out, connections to the backbone in rural areas has been outstripped by demand.

Regardless of WHY it is happening, the sales indicate concentrated areas of consumption indicating markets that exceed US consumption.

Cars are now a false indicator due to as I said, the fact that it costs more than the price of a car to actually license a car in Shanghai ... 34,000 RMB to buy a plate when a used VW Santana can be purchased for $15,000 AND they have limited the number of licences for sale.

Now the reason WHY I am comparing Asia to the USA is to go by your false assumption that the USA is not in competition with a product type in demand in a market.

There are currently trade agreements between the Chinese and India creating a market potential of 3 billion people. While America does see a larger demand for luxury goods, the combined Asian market has created a LARGER secondary market in utility goods which now require another form of innivation in R&D.

While you are experiencing mediocre sales in refrigerators with bluetooth connections for example, sales of simple utilitarian refrigerators with super-insulation and efficient motors/vacuum pumps (due to unstable electricity supplies) are going through the roof.

This is the new market.

What is currently being seen in the USA is viewed as a false market since it is 'credit driven'. China and India are cash driven societies since banks are reluctant to make personal loans.

All in all, the traditional view of the American Markets can not be applied to SE Asia and much of the world any more. There are too many new factors.

The view of The USA compared to China is, for example like trying to compare a country (China) to all of America and forgetting about Brazil, Argentina and Peru.

That is why we must discuss Markets instead of countries.

Now while the GDP of America is 'enviable' from one point of view, it is absurd from another. The question simply is ... how do you compete when your market is so far out of kilter with the rest of the world? Sure you can produce cars but who can buy them?

Germany (BMW) is currently manufacturing their product in China at a fraction of the price due to lower costs and they are going like gangbusters here. The USA is also manufacturing cars here for sales in this market. This is HOW your companies are having to remain competetive. So yeah, American cars are sold in China are going up and your corporate profits are up substantially however you are still closing factories AND having to develop vehicles that fit into this market.

You saw me mention the VW Santana ... what is it? It's a car specifically developed for the Chinese market BY VW to fit this market. Where was it developed? ... HERE from the components of other VW models.

In the early 90's, the USA held 95% of all patents issued worldwide. You are now sitting with about 45% of the current patents. That alone should scare the sh!t out of you.

The fact that the market is driven by the sheer number of people as opposed to the GDP ... that's absurd. Companies don't care HOW they tap a growing market. They are not foing to sit on the sidelines waiting for China and India to come up to the level of the US before they introduce product. They are simply going to introduce product that suits the market.

So yeah, your idea is to become like Britain in the late 50's, early 60's with your blinders on to the 'new order'. If you want to sell Rolls' and British Leyland products to a shrinking elite, go ahead.

 

[Skyhunter]

Russ you keep saying how unemployment is so low. And based on the Labor department statistics it is currently at 5%. But look what happens when you combine job creation with population growth.

In Jan 2001 there were 132.388 million Americans employed. Unemployment was 4.2% with a civilian labor force participation rate of 67.2%. In Dec 2004 there are 132.266 million Americans employed. Unemployment is 5.4% with a civilian labor force participation rate of 66.0%.

I couldn’t find the exact job numbers I was looking for but here is a fairly accurate estimate.

The Population of the US increased by 14,312,228 since Bush took office.
New job created in since Bush took office is 2,346,000. This leaves approximately 12 million new people without jobs. At 66% participation new jobs should be 9,446,070.

So how can we use the number of people receiving benefits as a measure of how many people are not working?

What are the other 7,100,070 people doing?

 

[SOS2008]

Russ you keep saying how unemployment is so low. And based on the Labor department statistics it is currently at 5%. But look what happens when you combine job creation with population growth.

In Jan 2001 there were 132.388 million Americans employed. Unemployment was 4.2% with a civilian labor force participation rate of 67.2%. In Dec 2004 there are 132.266 million Americans employed. Unemployment is 5.4% with a civilian labor force participation rate of 66.0%.

I couldn’t find the exact job numbers I was looking for but here is a fairly accurate estimate.

The Population of the US increased by 14,312,228 since Bush took office.
New job created in since Bush took office is 2,346,000. This leaves approximately 12 million new people without jobs. At 66% participation new jobs should be 9,446,070.

So how can we use the number of people receiving benefits as a measure of how many people are not working?

What are the other 7,100,070 people doing?

Agreed -- benefits are not a good indicator for two reasons. I know three people who were laid off. They were still unemployed after their benefits ended for as much as two more years. All three people have jobs again, but two have jobs in different industries at a fraction of what they used to earn. So when we look at job creation, we must also realize these jobs are not as high-end. It's all just Bush-s**t.

 

[Smurf]

Ironic - you were here for the discussions on income equality, weren't you? Yes, I suspect if you slice off the top 3rd of the population of China, you'll get a population that is almost half as prosperous (estimate - it could be closer to 2/3) as a comparable Western one, but what of the other 2/3 of the population? Don't they matter?

Actually, no. Because just 1/3 of China's population is still more than 400 million people. I think GM trys to tap markets much much smaller than that.

 

[edward]

The Population of the US increased by 14,312,228 since Bush took office.
New job created in since Bush took office is 2,346,000. This leaves approximately 12 million new people without jobs. At 66% participation new jobs should be 9,446,070.

So how can we use the number of people receiving benefits as a measure of how many people are not working?

What are the other 7,100,070 people doing?

Over two million of them are in prison.
As my mother used to say: "Idle hands are the devils plaything."


Most of the rest of them are here:

The official rate is the percentage of all workers who are unemployed, expressed as unemploy- ment/labor force. The numerator, unemployment, is the number of jobless people who have actively looked for work during the last four weeks. The denominator is the number of people in the labor force, which equals employment plus unemployment, or people who have jobs plus those who are unemployed as defined in the numerator.

This measure understates unemployment in two key respects. First, unemployment excludes involuntary part-timers—people who want full-time work but have to settle for part-time or split-week schedules. Second, it excludes “discouraged workers”—those who believe they can no longer find work and stop looking or who indicate they want a job and have looked for work sometime in the indefinite recent past. People in this category are no longer actively seeking work and are therefore classified as “not in the labor force” (neither employed nor unemployed).

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2004/duboff0204.html

 

[solutions in a box]

There seems to be no hint of ethics left in corporate America.

The following link describes illegal aleins who were caught working in an aircraft maintenance facility in Greensboro S.C.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-04-18-air-security_x.htm

Were these jobs that Amercans won't do?

More inside outsourcing:

Firm Charged For Supplying Ilegal Aliens to Package MREs for U.S. Military – On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Attorney in Houston unsealed a federal indictment charging a Texas firm with providing illegal alien workers to a plant that packaged combat meals for the U.S. military. The indictment charged the Tollin Group Inc. (Remedy Intelligent Staffing), with conspiracy to falsify Employment Eligibility Verification Forms to conceal from the Joint Terrorism Task Force that it had illegally and unlawfully hired illegal aliens as employees to work for the Wornick Co. Wornick is a company that assembles the U.S. military's packaged food called MREs, or "Meals Ready to Eat." Wornick was the recipient of a $47.2 million contract to produce and deliver more than 1.1 million MREs between February and May 2003 to support U.S. military forces in Iraq. Ten Remedy temporary employees, who worked at Wornick and were also indicted in July 2004, have been arrested and c onvicted of the misdemeanor offense of fraud in connection with the unlawful possession of a false Social Security number following guilty pleas.

More jobs Americans supposedly would't do:
Note this is a federal government website. ICE = Immigration and Customs enforcment.

http://www.ice.gov/text/news/factsheets/worksite_cases.htm

 

[edward]

More inside outsourcing:More jobs Americans supposedly would't do:
Note this is a federal government website. ICE = Immigration and Customs enforcment.

http://www.ice.gov/text/news/factsheets/worksite_cases.htm

I understand that the illegals are spreading pretty much nationwide, but I suppose your being in AZ gives you a more up close and personal look at the situation.

I thought it all was harmless at first, but when I began looking up the sheer numbers about a year ago, I could see that we were diving headlong into another problem.

I think what really made the immigration of illegals much worse was when Bush, in an attempt to win the Latino vote during the last election, started using the "magic" word ; Amnesty. And then promised to initiate a guest worker program in a country already full of uninvited guest workers.

 

[Skyhunter]

More inside outsourcing:

Firm Charged For Supplying Ilegal Aliens to Package MREs for U.S. Military – On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Attorney in Houston unsealed a federal indictment charging a Texas firm with providing illegal alien workers to a plant that packaged combat meals for the U.S. military. The indictment charged the Tollin Group Inc. (Remedy Intelligent Staffing), with conspiracy to falsify Employment Eligibility Verification Forms to conceal from the Joint Terrorism Task Force that it had illegally and unlawfully hired illegal aliens as employees to work for the Wornick Co. Wornick is a company that assembles the U.S. military's packaged food called MREs, or "Meals Ready to Eat." Wornick was the recipient of a $47.2 million contract to produce and deliver more than 1.1 million MREs between February and May 2003 to support U.S. military forces in Iraq. Ten Remedy temporary employees, who worked at Wornick and were also indicted in July 2004, have been arrested and c onvicted of the misdemeanor offense of fraud in connection with the unlawful possession of a false Social Security number following guilty pleas.

At $42.91 a meal I would think they could afford to pay an American to work there.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ you keep saying how unemployment is so low. And based on the Labor department statistics it is currently at 5%. But look what happens when you combine job creation with population growth.

In Jan 2001 there were 132.388 million Americans employed. Unemployment was 4.2% with a civilian labor force participation rate of 67.2%. In Dec 2004 there are 132.266 million Americans employed. Unemployment is 5.4% with a civilian labor force participation rate of 66.0%.

I couldn’t find the exact job numbers I was looking for but here is a fairly accurate estimate.

The Population of the US increased by 14,312,228 since Bush took office.
New job created in since Bush took office is 2,346,000. This leaves approximately 12 million new people without jobs. At 66% participation new jobs should be 9,446,070.

So how can we use the number of people receiving benefits as a measure of how many people are not working?

What are the other 7,100,070 people doing?

C'mon, Skyhunter (SOS, edward), you're smarter than that. Apply some critical thinking to your scenario, there. Do a reality check: Ie, if there were 7 million new and unaccounted-for unemployed people, they'd be dragging down the economy in ways that just aren't happening. Household wages would be down because more people would be out of work. Poverty rates would go up. Per capita gpd would drop. Etc, etc, etc. Is any of that happening? (Answer: no).

The flaw in your analysis is simple: population growth and workforce growth don't exactly correlate. In particular, the first baby boom generation is in the process of retiring as we speak. In some cases, I'm sure, people retired earlier than they really wanted to because of the job situation, but they still retired and left the workforce.

Don't make up numbers. If you can find some actual workforce data that supports your point, by all means post it, but it appears your entire thesis is based on not believing the data that you do have!

 

[Astronuc]

Russ you keep saying how unemployment is so low. And based on the Labor department statistics it is currently at 5%. But look what happens when you combine job creation with population growth.

In Jan 2001 there were 132.388 million Americans employed. Unemployment was 4.2% with a civilian labor force participation rate of 67.2%. In Dec 2004 there are 132.266 million Americans employed. Unemployment is 5.4% with a civilian labor force participation rate of 66.0%.

I couldn’t find the exact job numbers I was looking for but here is a fairly accurate estimate.

The Population of the US increased by 14,312,228 since Bush took office.
New job created in since Bush took office is 2,346,000. This leaves approximately 12 million new people without jobs. At 66% participation new jobs should be 9,446,070.

So how can we use the number of people receiving benefits as a measure of how many people are not working?

What are the other 7,100,070 people doing?

Well, there are lies, d****d lies, and statistics.

It is possible that the criteria are selected to report a favorable version of the economy. On the other hand, children and adults who are students are not considered in the pool of elligible workers.

In the unemployment category, millions of people are excluded if they are employed part-time, in the penal (aka criminal justice) system, retired (even prematurely), discouraged (gave up), . . . . So the 'real' unemployment may be considerably higher - about that of Europe.

There is also under-employment - people looking for higher paying jobs, but being unable to find them, or people looking for full-time jobs, but only finding part-time or temporary. Anecdotally, I know of several people who were laid off and had to accept jobs with 30-50% lower income (wages or salaries) than they previously had. Many of the jobs created during the Bush administration have actually been low-wage/low-salary jobs. However, I have heard of higher salary jobs increasing during the last three months. But I have also heard of pending layoffs and bankruptcy in some large companies.

I just learned of an increase in home foreclosures in Houston. The economy is doing very well for a few, somewhat OK for many, and mediocre or rather poorly for many others.

And just watch Delta and Northwest Airlines - bankruptcy is a strong possibility. While I was delayed in Detroit this past weekend, and Airbus plane was being held at the gate while NW Airlines was waiting for a qualified mechanics to fix the APU, which had apparently malfunctioned.

For some numbers, not necessarily real, but more or less 'official' - try the Bureau of Labor Statistics. ( http://www.bls.gov/ ) and Bureau of Economic Analysis ( http://www.bea.doc.gov/ ).