Hot damn, "US economic growth hits 8.2 percent in third

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » November 25, 2003, 12:34 pm

Consumers, enriched by massive tax cuts and super-low interest rates, splashed out in the quarter and drove the growth rate to its steepest since 1984, stunning analysts

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... omy_growth

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 25, 2003, 12:41 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:
Consumers, enriched by massive tax cuts and super-low interest rates, splashed out in the quarter and drove the growth rate to its steepest since 1984, stunning analysts
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... omy_growth

Dwarf tossing is really taking off in the US. Canada's ban is our boon!

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » November 25, 2003, 1:07 pm

Economics isn't my strong side by far.. is it common for the economy to take an upturn in the third quarter? Due to holiday shopping and stuff? Or does that come first in the fourth quarter?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » November 25, 2003, 1:21 pm

I'm far from an expert but don't these figures just scream "unsustainable credit-led bubble"?
Or is it really just the super-wealthy blowing their new untaxed dollars on diamonds for xmas?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » November 25, 2003, 1:25 pm

Xmas spikes normally show up in the fourth quarter.

What's intersting about this is that it makes two quarters of sustained growth in a row. Also, third quarter doesn't usually show a lot of growth, due to seasonal work tapering off.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » November 25, 2003, 1:37 pm

It's all smoke and mirrors and outright lies and manipulation unless a Dem does it. Wake up, Adex!

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 25, 2003, 1:52 pm

It's Q4 that get's the boost from holiday shopping. The growth in Q3 is a very good sign.

I'm not going to say that this has anything to do with Dubya's economic tinkerings. I AM however going to say what I've been saying all along: there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the American economy.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » November 25, 2003, 2:01 pm

/shrug

You can only keep your money out of the market for so long. Where else do you go with that kind of cash?

Let's hope this sparks some job growth rather than another increase in 'productivity'.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » November 25, 2003, 2:04 pm

Wow this is great news! I'm definitely going to cast my vote for Bush come reelection!

(That's sarcasm, kids!)

Mort · Post by **Mort** » November 25, 2003, 2:09 pm

I will not tolerate pro America threads in this forum, EVAR! WTF is going on here people?

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » November 25, 2003, 2:09 pm

That's excellent.

now, how about that mounting debt!!??

http://mysite.verizon.net/kazmier/bush_ ... the_US.htm

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » November 25, 2003, 2:11 pm

Growth at that rate is not likely to be sustainable. That doesn't mean that it will crash, but probably likely it will taper off to a lower rate.

Its not the second quarter of sustained growth by the way, its the eigth. Granted, the amount of growth hasn't necessarily been exciting but it has been growing.

IV 99 7.1
I 00 2.6
II 00 4.8
III 00 0.6
IV 00 1.1
I 01 -0.6
II 01 -1.6
III 01 -0.3
IV 01 2.7
I 02 5.0
II 02 1.3
III 02 4.0
IV 02 1.4
I 03 1.4
II 03 3.3
III 03r 8.2

Sorry for the formatting (or lack thereof). Numbers come from ...

http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm

Mort · Post by **Mort** » November 25, 2003, 2:11 pm

Skogen wrote:That's excellent.

now, how about that mounting debt!!??

http://mysite.verizon.net/kazmier/bush_ ... the_US.htm

Much better....

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » November 25, 2003, 2:16 pm

Chmee,

I was discounting Q4 of 2002 and Q1 of 2003 because growth of less than 3% doesn't generally spark job growth. I'm sure investors were happy to see it, but that small in increase isn't likely to have much long term impact.

As for the debt, I don't like it, but national debt growth during a military action isn't exactly news.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » November 25, 2003, 2:20 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Chmee,

I was discounting Q4 of 2002 and Q1 of 2003 because growth of less than 3% doesn't generally spark job growth. I'm sure investors were happy to see it, but that small in increase isn't likely to have much long term impact.

As for the debt, I don't like it, but national debt growth during a military action isn't exactly news.

the Iraq war $87 billion (for now)

....then how about the latest tax cut of $600 billion, the Medicare $400 billion, the energy bill port $23 billion:

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » November 25, 2003, 2:58 pm

Damn guys, not everything I post has a political slant.

I just thought it was nice to hear some good news for a change.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » November 25, 2003, 3:04 pm

Not allowed in this forum!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 25, 2003, 3:46 pm

oh man my heart really fucking goes out to you guys. it is so sad that you can't discuss how fantastic things are with all the dirty liberals around wrecking everything.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » November 25, 2003, 3:51 pm

Yeah, those fundies/rednecks need thier own forum

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 25, 2003, 4:39 pm

Ashur [FoH] wrote:Yeah, those fundies/rednecks need thier own forum

it'll go perfectly with the alternate reality most of you live in.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » November 25, 2003, 4:59 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/11 ... index.html

Here is a good start to what is really helping screwed our economy more than anything else. Pull all the jobs back inside the borders and then see if we have the same problems.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » November 25, 2003, 5:16 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Pull all the jobs back inside the borders and then see if we have the same problems.

I disagree that "jobs going out of country" is the problem. Economically speaking it is more efficient to specialize what you are good in and then trade for other goods. Instead of trying to do your own farming, and build your own house, raise your own livestock, make your own clothes etc. you specialize and trade for everything else. It doesn't really change when you move up to a national level.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 25, 2003, 5:19 pm

Chmee wrote:I disagree that "jobs going out of country" is the problem. Economically speaking it is more efficient to specialize what you are good in and then trade for other goods. Instead of trying to do your own farming, and build your own house, raise your own livestock, make your own clothes etc. you specialize and trade for everything else. It doesn't really change when you move up to a national level.

come back and say that when you lose your job to some indian in calcutta who only needs $75 US a month for himself and his entire family to live on.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 25, 2003, 5:27 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Chmee wrote:I disagree that "jobs going out of country" is the problem. Economically speaking it is more efficient to specialize what you are good in and then trade for other goods. Instead of trying to do your own farming, and build your own house, raise your own livestock, make your own clothes etc. you specialize and trade for everything else. It doesn't really change when you move up to a national level.
come back and say that when you lose your job to some indian in calcutta who only needs $75 US a month for himself and his entire family to live on.

My heart bleeds for all the call center chimps who lost their jobs. Damn, I guess those 3 months at DeVry were all for naught. Maybe you should become an MCSE

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » November 25, 2003, 5:33 pm

Chmee wrote:I disagree that "jobs going out of country" is the problem. Economically speaking it is more efficient to specialize what you are good in and then trade for other goods. Instead of trying to do your own farming, and build your own house, raise your own livestock, make your own clothes etc. you specialize and trade for everything else. It doesn't really change when you move up to a national level.

Sending jobs out of country has nothing to do with specialization. It's all about the all mighty $$.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » November 25, 2003, 5:36 pm

That would be all happy and good Chmee, except that those jobs are ones that were created in the US and then exported out to save cash for some greedy executive fucks who need multi-million dollar bonuses each year.

The bottom line for our economy is that we have to have people with disposable income for it to work. When you take jobs that existed here and move them to another country, you are taking away the spending power of the people who used to be employed. The money that is now leaving the country to pay foreign workers is not coming back into our economy to make purchases.

Now add that people don't have the money to spend for things they want and that means that they are not buying taxable goods that will go to fund government programs and federal/state funded projects. That now takes away work that could create more jobs or eliminates more workers that would have had jobs before. That now means even more people don't have disposable income which they could use to buy taxable goods......do you see where this is going? Our economy is based on goods and services being traded in a mostly self contained system. When you throw cash outside the system and people within do not receive it, things can go straight to hell. Add in government waste and flat out criminal practices and you have the US economy and budget problems.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 25, 2003, 5:50 pm

masteen wrote:My heart bleeds for all the call center chimps who lost their jobs. Damn, I guess those 3 months at DeVry were all for naught. Maybe you should become an MCSE

you work in IT? I'm guessing you do since most of your work day seems to be posting on the internet. your job is next. its funny because attitudes like yours is why your economy is getting entirely exported to ex-third world nations like India. no, you'll never lose your job. it's all those other people that are stupid. you are waaay to important.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » November 25, 2003, 5:54 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Chmee wrote:I disagree that "jobs going out of country" is the problem. Economically speaking it is more efficient to specialize what you are good in and then trade for other goods. Instead of trying to do your own farming, and build your own house, raise your own livestock, make your own clothes etc. you specialize and trade for everything else. It doesn't really change when you move up to a national level.
come back and say that when you lose your job to some indian in calcutta who only needs $75 US a month for himself and his entire family to live on.

I work in the IT field which is one of the areas which is facing increasing competition from overseas. I was even out of work for a bit over a year recently and when I came back it was to a lower salary. I still stand by my statement. IT jobs were in high demand and supplies were limited resulting in the high salaries of the 90s. To expect the government to make a bunch of regulations to keep supplies limited (by cutting off foreign competition) to prop up my salary and maintain my job security is not morally justifiable in my opinion. Especially since it will end up costing consumers more in terms of higher prices from the companies I work for. I like to make as a lot of money as much as anyone, but using force (in the form of the government) to try to do it isn't the way to go about it.

Its much the same as the Luddite argument. Advances in technology also destroy jobs. You can't just dismiss the people so affected, but if you try to stop new technology you prevent the creation of greater wealth which would ultimately be much more beneficial.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 25, 2003, 6:31 pm

kyoukan wrote:you work in IT?

I used to work in IT.

kyoukan wrote:I'm guessing you do since most of your work day seems to be posting on the internet.

Pot? Hey, it's Kettle! Long time no see!

kyoukan wrote:your job is next. its funny because attitudes like yours is why your economy is getting entirely exported to ex-third world nations like India. no, you'll never lose your job. it's all those other people that are stupid. you are waaay to important.

Yes, my contempt for people who answer the phone and follow a fucking script is why the IT crash happened.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » November 25, 2003, 7:08 pm

Someone should ask Ford, Merck, J & J, and RWJUH, if they give a shit. Probably not since that was about 8k jobs lost in the last 4 months all w/in a 15 mile radius.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » November 25, 2003, 7:11 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:
Consumers, enriched by massive tax cuts and super-low interest rates, splashed out in the quarter and drove the growth rate to its steepest since 1984, stunning analysts
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... omy_growth

So you give people free money while shitcanning your future, drive an interest rate to 1 fucking percent and you see some growth finally after 15 months of the same rhetoric, and people are stunned?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 25, 2003, 7:19 pm

masteen wrote:Yes, my contempt for people who answer the phone and follow a fucking script is why the IT crash happened.

So only people who work in a job where you personally feel justified as difficult deserve to be protected from having it taken away by foreign countries who'll do it cheaper? what guidelines do you use?

actually never mind. you will just give me some pointless smart ass rebuttal that answers nothing other than how utterly incapable you are of debate.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » November 25, 2003, 7:51 pm

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1378

An informative story.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » November 25, 2003, 8:03 pm

kyoukan wrote:
masteen wrote:Yes, my contempt for people who answer the phone and follow a fucking script is why the IT crash happened.
So only people who work in a job where you personally feel justified as difficult deserve to be protected from having it taken away by foreign countries who'll do it cheaper? what guidelines do you use?

actually never mind. you will just give me some pointless smart ass rebuttal that answers nothing other than how utterly incapable of debate.

??????

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 25, 2003, 8:09 pm

kyoukan wrote:So only people who work in a job where you personally feel justified as difficult deserve to be protected from having it taken away by foreign countries who'll do it cheaper? what guidelines do you use?

actually never mind. you will just give me some pointless smart ass rebuttal that answers nothing other than how utterly incapable of debate.

At least I'm capable of writing complete sentences.

Now the we've gotten the smartassery out of the way, I don't think that it's the government's job to protect ANY public sector job. Granted I don't want techs imported from China running the local nuclear power plant, but other than stuff like that, the gubmint needs to keep it's hands off.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » November 25, 2003, 8:30 pm

so it bothers you not in the least that perfectly able american jobs are streaming out of the country (as long as its not yours). where do you think these people are going to work? what in the world is the point of government if it does not attempt to protect it's people?

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » November 25, 2003, 9:26 pm

masteen wrote:
kyoukan wrote:
Chmee wrote:I disagree that "jobs going out of country" is the problem. Economically speaking it is more efficient to specialize what you are good in and then trade for other goods. Instead of trying to do your own farming, and build your own house, raise your own livestock, make your own clothes etc. you specialize and trade for everything else. It doesn't really change when you move up to a national level.
come back and say that when you lose your job to some indian in calcutta who only needs $75 US a month for himself and his entire family to live on.
My heart bleeds for all the call center chimps who lost their jobs. Damn, I guess those 3 months at DeVry were all for naught. Maybe you should become an MCSE

Actually, you're pretty ignorant if you think it's just call center jobs that are going overseas. There's more going on than that one example about Dell. Help desk centers are just one area. There's also software development, engineers (not the software variety), accountants, and the list goes on.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » November 25, 2003, 9:29 pm

Manufacturing. Holy living hell, companies have been bailing there manufacturing out of the US for cheap-ass, sweat-shop, slave labor-like foreign manufactuing sites. It's the almighty dollar.

and the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » November 25, 2003, 10:40 pm

Skogen wrote: and the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

Actually, most people have been getting richer. some faster than others granted, but that doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » November 25, 2003, 10:49 pm

Why don't you tell that to the large portion of people who have had income growth which is LESS than the very very low rate of inflation since 2000.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » November 26, 2003, 3:13 am

Aslanna wrote:
masteen wrote:
kyoukan wrote:
Chmee wrote:I disagree that "jobs going out of country" is the problem. Economically speaking it is more efficient to specialize what you are good in and then trade for other goods. Instead of trying to do your own farming, and build your own house, raise your own livestock, make your own clothes etc. you specialize and trade for everything else. It doesn't really change when you move up to a national level.
come back and say that when you lose your job to some indian in calcutta who only needs $75 US a month for himself and his entire family to live on.
My heart bleeds for all the call center chimps who lost their jobs. Damn, I guess those 3 months at DeVry were all for naught. Maybe you should become an MCSE
Actually, you're pretty ignorant if you think it's just call center jobs that are going overseas. There's more going on than that one example about Dell. Help desk centers are just one area. There's also software development, engineers (not the software variety), accountants, and the list goes on.

This is what worries me. It isn't just manufacturing that is being outsourced offshore these days. We are now seeing low, mid and high end technical and middle management following the same trends that manufacturing did.

I believe all these increased "productivity" numbers we are seeing are a direct result of layoffs combined with outsourcing offshore.

Will corporate greed create a workplace consisting of only top management and locally neccessary lower positions with everything else outsourced. What kind of state will that leave our society in? If this nightmare comes true we will have wealth even more heavily concentrated in the top 10% with a greatly reduced middle class and a correspondingly increased lower income class. Who will the consumers be in this society? We can't live on credit forever.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 26, 2003, 10:05 am

On a good note, Dell is supposedly closing corporate support in India and bringing it here to Tennessee. Dell India denies it, but I have been ramping up here for the last month with new techs for the big accounts. One of the chief complaints was the accents being too thick to understand. We figure the higher ups think its better not to lose multi-million dollar accounts because their IT dept cannot understand our techs, but home accounts will still be routed to India for support.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » November 26, 2003, 10:26 am

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/margi ... ing_f.html

Manufacturing fallacies
Some fallacies just keep coming back no matter how many times they have been exploded. Jobs in the manufacturing sector are disappearing and have been doing so for 30 years. The reason this has occured, however, is not because we have "sent the good jobs overseas" and it is not because our manufacturing sector is "rusting." Jobs have disappeared because the manufacturing sector has been spectaculary succesful. When measured in terms of what ultimately matters, output, the U.S. manufacturing sector has more than doubled in size over the past 30 years. We are now producing more "stuff" than virtually ever before and because of productivity improvements we are doing it with less labor. The graph below from The Economist is for the G7 countries, not just the U.S., but it conveys the correct idea. (For the US data see Robert Hall's recent testimony before Congress).

"Job destruction" is a vital aspect of progress. If we had not destroyed millions of farm jobs most of us would still be working in agriculture today.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » November 26, 2003, 1:44 pm

Chmee wrote:http://www.marginalrevolution.com/margi ... ing_f.html

Manufacturing fallacies
Some fallacies just keep coming back no matter how many times they have been exploded. Jobs in the manufacturing sector are disappearing and have been doing so for 30 years. The reason this has occured, however, is not because we have "sent the good jobs overseas" and it is not because our manufacturing sector is "rusting." Jobs have disappeared because the manufacturing sector has been spectaculary succesful. When measured in terms of what ultimately matters, output, the U.S. manufacturing sector has more than doubled in size over the past 30 years. We are now producing more "stuff" than virtually ever before and because of productivity improvements we are doing it with less labor. The graph below from The Economist is for the G7 countries, not just the U.S., but it conveys the correct idea. (For the US data see Robert Hall's recent testimony before Congress).

"Job destruction" is a vital aspect of progress. If we had not destroyed millions of farm jobs most of us would still be working in agriculture today.

I disagree Chmee. Manufacturing jobs did not just disappear because we made better mousetraps. This was a large part of it and the beneficial aspect IMO.

Building better mousetraps is an evolutionary step and creates opportunities and new markets for those mousetraps and offshoots made possible by those mousetraps. Hopefully those benefits are local.

But manufacturing was hit just as hard by relocation as evolution. Moving a resource (jobs) from one location to another to lower costs, adding value to the new location and with return value in the form of reduced prices. The problem with relocation is the return value is theoretical and entirely discretionary.

The reason I'm scared now is the current offshore outsourcing of technology, finance and management is entirely relocation with a huge potential of lost value for the majority segments of our societies. We are already in deep shit financially next decade as it is now. This could be catastrophic.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » November 26, 2003, 3:24 pm

The decrease in manufacturing jobs appears to be global.

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/0 ... tml#000879

Mickey Kaus links to this Robert Reich commentary that took my breath away because it was both blunt and correct. The key parts:
America has been losing manufacturing jobs to China, Latin America and the rest of the developing world. Right? Well, not quite. It turns out that manufacturing jobs have been disappearing all over the world. Economists at Alliance Capital Management in New York took a close look at employment trends in 20 large economies recently, and found that since 1995 more than 22 million factory jobs have disppeared.

In fact, the United States has not even been the biggest loser. Between 1995 and 2002, we lost about 11 percent of our manufacturing jobs. But over the same period, the Japanese lost 16 percent of theirs. And get this: Many developing nations are losing factory jobs. During those same years, Brazil suffered a 20 percent decline.

Here’s the real surprise. China saw a 15 percent drop. China, which is fast becoming the manufacturing capital of the world, has been losing millions of factory jobs.

What’s going on? In two words: Higher productivity.

200 years ago most people worked in agriculture. Now the percent of people that does is quite small, but we produce more food than ever. Similar things seem to be taking place in much of the traditional manufacturing sector.

This is not to say that we aren't losing jobs overseas. I am sure we are losing some. In a sense whenever you trade you lose jobs. But you gain in efficiency. More overall is produced. If a widget is manufactured overseas more cheaply, then that savings makes an impact on the economy. The assumption in this thread seems to be that it all just goes into the CEO's pocket. I am sure some of it does go there, some of it also goes to the investors, and competition drives some of it to show up as cheaper widgets to the consumers. The saved money then drives demand in new areas which spurs new job growth. We have been destroying and creating jobs for a long time now, it seems likely that the creation side is going to disapear overnight.

The goal is to create more stuff, rather than to try to conserve existing jobs.

I remember an anecdote I read a while back. Someone was visiting China I think and watching a group of people build a dam for a pond with shovels (or something along those lines). The visitor observed that you could do the entire job in an hour or two with a bulldozer and someone made the objection to think of all the jobs that would be lost. The visitor replied "I thought you wanted to build a dam, if you are worried about jobs give them all spoons".

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » November 26, 2003, 4:09 pm

Chmee wrote:200 years ago most people worked in agriculture. Now the percent of people that does is quite small, but we produce more food than ever. Similar things seem to be taking place in much of the traditional manufacturing sector.

This is a mousetrap. We now have jobs in heavy equipment, irrigation equipment, splicing genes into seeds, etc etc. Sure we lost jobs but new ones were created. Very visible value was added.

Chmee wrote:This is not to say that we aren't losing jobs overseas. I am sure we are losing some. In a sense whenever you trade you lose jobs. But you gain in efficiency. More overall is produced. If a widget is manufactured overseas more cheaply, then that savings makes an impact on the economy. The assumption in this thread seems to be that it all just goes into the CEO's pocket. I am sure some of it does go there, some of it also goes to the investors, and competition drives some of it to show up as cheaper widgets to the consumers. The saved money then drives demand in new areas which spurs new job growth. We have been destroying and creating jobs for a long time now, it seems likely that the creation side is going to disapear overnight.

Take a look at the pricing of sneakers since manufacturing moved to Asia. Nike certainly didn't pass on any savings to us. I can't think of any value add for our society from moving the manufacturing to sweat shops. In a global economic theory oriented picture there was value added, but where did that value go? I do not see lower production costs alone as progress when I do not see the value added that should result from those lower costs. I view lower prices as the baseline, without that I see a loss.

Chmee wrote:The goal is to create more stuff, rather than to try to conserve existing jobs.

I remember an anecdote I read a while back. Someone was visiting China I think and watching a group of people build a dam for a pond with shovels (or something along those lines). The visitor observed that you could do the entire job in an hour or two with a bulldozer and someone made the objection to think of all the jobs that would be lost. The visitor replied "I thought you wanted to build a dam, if you are worried about jobs give them all spoons".

Another mousetrap. Think of all the jobs involved with bulldozers. Obvious value added.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » November 26, 2003, 4:34 pm

Your "mousetraps" are basically stating my point. Old jobs are destroyed, new ones are created. Is there a reason why this won't continue to occur with the jobs people are worried about now?

As to the sneakers. Some other places that savings can show up is in improved qualities, new features, and athestics. Also inflation (although low recently, at least in the U.S.) can make it difficult to tell exactly how prices are changing over time.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » November 26, 2003, 5:08 pm

Chmee wrote:Your "mousetraps" are basically stating my point. Old jobs are destroyed, new ones are created. Is there a reason why this won't continue to occur with the jobs people are worried about now?

These are not old jobs being made redundant (or destroyed) via advances and new jobs being created as a result of those advances. These are jobs that are being moved solely to fatten profit margins that may or may not add value (relying on corporate management) but this definately weakens the middle class.

If times were prosperous and the future looked bright I might not care. But with the babyboomers retiring within the decade we can ill afford to weaken a middle class that will already be under intense pressure to carry the load.

Chmee wrote:As to the sneakers. Some other places that savings can show up is in improved qualities, new features, and athestics. Also inflation (although low recently, at least in the U.S.) can make it difficult to tell exactly how prices are changing over time.

Sneakers with air pumps! (And yes I had a pair

)

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » November 26, 2003, 6:06 pm

Masteen, I really don't understand why you have such an elitist attitude towards this. Why do you think that anyone who loses their job as a result of either the economy or foreign competition is somehow incompetent? I'm sure it is much easier to talk like you are the cream of the crop when you have job security, but I assure you that there are people who work much harder than you and are much smarter than you who are losing their jobs daily in the U.S. Though it may not affect you directly, it is definitely a detriment to the U.S.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » November 26, 2003, 6:25 pm

I have to agree with Forthe on this one as assuming the number of manufacturing jobs is decreasing primarily due to high productivity is absurd, regardless of someone's opinion you linked.

Sure, you learn to build better widgets more efficiently over time but what do you do when the entire widget factory is plopped in Mexico?

VeeshanVault

Hot damn, "US economic growth hits 8.2 percent in third

Hot damn, "US economic growth hits 8.2 percent in third

Re: Hot damn, "US economic growth hits 8.2 percent in t

Re: Hot damn, "US economic growth hits 8.2 percent in t