How ite done used to b

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykBSanSCS9k
bob

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 21:33:36 -0500, "bob urz" >
wrote:

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykBSanSCS9k
>bob


Where these people work now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hftb_...eature=related

bob urz wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykBSanSCS9k
> bob
>
>
Wow! Very cool movie.
I think I would rather work at Wal-Mart though.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 21:33:36 -0500, "bob urz" >
wrote:

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykBSanSCS9k
>bob
>

I just heard on some news this week that there are only 9 million
people employed in manufacturing in the US. Can you imagine that, out
of 350 million people only 9 million of them make things in factories
anymore.

Ashton Crusher > wrote in
news
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 21:33:36 -0500, "bob urz" >
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykBSanSCS9k
>>bob
>>
>
> I just heard on some news this week that there are only 9 million
> people employed in manufacturing in the US. Can you imagine that, out
> of 350 million people only 9 million of them make things in factories
> anymore.
>


There are three reasons for that:
1) manufacturing is far more productive than it used to be, with several
times more being created per worker than in the past, and
2) the smart money has moved on, into newer things with larger margins, and
3) the Chinese government provides ultra-cheap labor to the rest of the
world, so why waste your money paying First-World labor rates when it can
be used elsewhere to greater effect?

Similarly, there's only a tiny fraction of Americans working in the farming
industry compared to what there was in 1950, and nobody's worried about
running out of food anytime soon.

--
Tegger

On 09/15/2011 07:33 PM, bob urz wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykBSanSCS9k
> bob
>
>

yeah, dirty, dangerous, and inefficient. serious injuries were a
regular occurrence, and the effects on health of those working
conditions were a disgrace. and the quality of output was highly
inconsistent and unreliable.

re other comments, it's not that we employ fewer people in manufacturing
that's the biggest issue [although it is a significant problem with
substantial "down the road" impact], it is in my opinion one of national
security. both military and financial.

big picture is that if we don't manufacture here, we can't prepare for a
sudden war. and certainly not a large scale one.

secondary to that is the financial impact. manufacturing creates
wealth. sure, other forms of employment move money about, but
manufacturing creates it [literally] from the ground up. if we don't
have manufacturing, long term, our economy is going to be that of
polishing other people's boots. and there's no long term future in that.

now, manufacturing is an evolving endeavor. industry constantly
improves its knowledge and its abilities. and automation is the
inevitable product of that. it is pointless and ridiculous to hearken
back to the dark days of having humans do dirty dangerous repetitive
mundane b.s. jobs a machine can do faster, cleaner, safer, and without
the repetition causing it to fall asleep on the job and possibly kill
itself. manufacturing employment will naturally decline if output
remains constant. however, retaining the manufacturing capacity here
ensures those that do work in manufacturing can be better paid, safer,
healthier, and much more importantly, their wages stay here, and our
capacity stays here. that means the nation remains long term secure,
and long term wealthy. if we're wealthy, all the service industries
[that really add no value, just shuffle it about], can survive and take
up some of the slack.

[as an aside, wtf are we thinking with current employment practices
where everybody is working 50, 60, 70 hours a week? much better to have
more people working fewer hours. more people get to have a job. is
that such a hard concept?]

although it has its problems, germany is the poster child of not losing
sight of the benefits of retaining production capacity. at this time,
it's carrying the HUGE financial burden of the rest of the e.u., based
on the wealth creation of its manufacturing sector. and its capable of
paying for a public health system and employment benefits that shame us,
and all while remaining competitive on the world stage.

and let's not forget, germany is germany. it doesn't need a large
standing army. they can manufacture and go to war in a matter of
months. even if the rest of the world is watching, nobody else can
mobilize and arm as quickly as germany could. it's actually quite a
scary thing if you happen to be a neighbor. and this is precisely why
china has targeted manufacturing growth as its #1 long term strategic
goal. with that manufacturing capacity, it is now the #1 threat in the
region, and on its current trajectory, to the world.

anyway, we should embrace the technology, keep manufacturing at home,
and keep our wealth at home. and thus, retain our strength. right now,
it seems we're hell-bent on shooting ourselves in the head, and the only
people getting fat are the wall st vultures stripping the carcasses.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 09/17/2011 05:43 AM, Tegger wrote:
> Ashton > wrote in
> news >
>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 21:33:36 -0500, "bob >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykBSanSCS9k
>>> bob
>>>
>>
>> I just heard on some news this week that there are only 9 million
>> people employed in manufacturing in the US. Can you imagine that, out
>> of 350 million people only 9 million of them make things in factories
>> anymore.
>>
>
>
> There are three reasons for that:
> 1) manufacturing is far more productive than it used to be, with several
> times more being created per worker than in the past, and
> 2) the smart money has moved on, into newer things with larger margins, and

"smart money"? japan and germany are both high cost* nations,
manufacturing large quantities of low margin product. and yet they can
manufacture, ship, distribute and sell here and make a profit that our
"smart" m.b.a. educated business leaders can't chasing "high margins".
i'd call that "dumb" in fact, but hey.


> 3) the Chinese government provides ultra-cheap labor to the rest of the
> world, so why waste your money paying First-World labor rates when it can
> be used elsewhere to greater effect?
>
> Similarly, there's only a tiny fraction of Americans working in the farming
> industry compared to what there was in 1950, and nobody's worried about
> running out of food anytime soon.
>

* high cost is a very real problem in both germany and japan. both
nations have higher effective corporate tax rates compared here, both
have higher infrastructure and energy costs, and both have higher
employment and benefits costs. yet we can't make a profit selling a
$50k suv with 1800's suspension "technology" and cast iron crankshafts.
that's f-ed up.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 10:31:07 -0700, jim beam > wrote:

>On 09/15/2011 07:33 PM, bob urz wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykBSanSCS9k
>> bob
>>
>>
>
>yeah, dirty, dangerous, and inefficient. serious injuries were a
>regular occurrence, and the effects on health of those working
>conditions were a disgrace. and the quality of output was highly
>inconsistent and unreliable.
>
>re other comments, it's not that we employ fewer people in manufacturing
>that's the biggest issue [although it is a significant problem with
>substantial "down the road" impact], it is in my opinion one of national
>security. both military and financial.
>
>big picture is that if we don't manufacture here, we can't prepare for a
>sudden war. and certainly not a large scale one.
>
>secondary to that is the financial impact. manufacturing creates
>wealth. sure, other forms of employment move money about, but
>manufacturing creates it [literally] from the ground up. if we don't
>have manufacturing, long term, our economy is going to be that of
>polishing other people's boots. and there's no long term future in that.
>
>now, manufacturing is an evolving endeavor. industry constantly
>improves its knowledge and its abilities. and automation is the
>inevitable product of that. it is pointless and ridiculous to hearken
>back to the dark days of having humans do dirty dangerous repetitive
>mundane b.s. jobs a machine can do faster, cleaner, safer, and without
>the repetition causing it to fall asleep on the job and possibly kill
>itself. manufacturing employment will naturally decline if output
>remains constant. however, retaining the manufacturing capacity here
>ensures those that do work in manufacturing can be better paid, safer,
>healthier, and much more importantly, their wages stay here, and our
>capacity stays here. that means the nation remains long term secure,
>and long term wealthy. if we're wealthy, all the service industries
>[that really add no value, just shuffle it about], can survive and take
>up some of the slack.
>
>[as an aside, wtf are we thinking with current employment practices
>where everybody is working 50, 60, 70 hours a week? much better to have
>more people working fewer hours. more people get to have a job. is
>that such a hard concept?]
>
>although it has its problems, germany is the poster child of not losing
>sight of the benefits of retaining production capacity. at this time,
>it's carrying the HUGE financial burden of the rest of the e.u., based
>on the wealth creation of its manufacturing sector. and its capable of
>paying for a public health system and employment benefits that shame us,
>and all while remaining competitive on the world stage.
>
>and let's not forget, germany is germany. it doesn't need a large
>standing army. they can manufacture and go to war in a matter of
>months. even if the rest of the world is watching, nobody else can
>mobilize and arm as quickly as germany could. it's actually quite a
>scary thing if you happen to be a neighbor. and this is precisely why
>china has targeted manufacturing growth as its #1 long term strategic
>goal. with that manufacturing capacity, it is now the #1 threat in the
>region, and on its current trajectory, to the world.
>
>anyway, we should embrace the technology, keep manufacturing at home,
>and keep our wealth at home. and thus, retain our strength. right now,
>it seems we're hell-bent on shooting ourselves in the head, and the only
>people getting fat are the wall st vultures stripping the carcasses.

You haven't heard about Globalization? Where have you been hiding?
I just bought a new 2011 car recently.

Parts content information:

For vehicles in this carline:
U.S../CANADIAN PARTS CONTENT: 2%
MAJOR SOURCES OF FOREIGHT PARTS
CONTENT: KOREA 80%

Note: Parts content does not include final
assembly, distribution, or other non-parts costs.

FOR THIS VEHICLE:
FINAL ASSEMBLY POINTS:
BUPYUNG GU, IN KOREA
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN:
ENGINE: KOREA
TRANSISSION: JAPAN

On 09/17/2011 11:28 AM, Nicholas wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 10:31:07 -0700, jim > wrote:
>
>> On 09/15/2011 07:33 PM, bob urz wrote:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykBSanSCS9k
>>> bob
>>>
>>>
>>
>> yeah, dirty, dangerous, and inefficient. serious injuries were a
>> regular occurrence, and the effects on health of those working
>> conditions were a disgrace. and the quality of output was highly
>> inconsistent and unreliable.
>>
>> re other comments, it's not that we employ fewer people in manufacturing
>> that's the biggest issue [although it is a significant problem with
>> substantial "down the road" impact], it is in my opinion one of national
>> security. both military and financial.
>>
>> big picture is that if we don't manufacture here, we can't prepare for a
>> sudden war. and certainly not a large scale one.
>>
>> secondary to that is the financial impact. manufacturing creates
>> wealth. sure, other forms of employment move money about, but
>> manufacturing creates it [literally] from the ground up. if we don't
>> have manufacturing, long term, our economy is going to be that of
>> polishing other people's boots. and there's no long term future in that.
>>
>> now, manufacturing is an evolving endeavor. industry constantly
>> improves its knowledge and its abilities. and automation is the
>> inevitable product of that. it is pointless and ridiculous to hearken
>> back to the dark days of having humans do dirty dangerous repetitive
>> mundane b.s. jobs a machine can do faster, cleaner, safer, and without
>> the repetition causing it to fall asleep on the job and possibly kill
>> itself. manufacturing employment will naturally decline if output
>> remains constant. however, retaining the manufacturing capacity here
>> ensures those that do work in manufacturing can be better paid, safer,
>> healthier, and much more importantly, their wages stay here, and our
>> capacity stays here. that means the nation remains long term secure,
>> and long term wealthy. if we're wealthy, all the service industries
>> [that really add no value, just shuffle it about], can survive and take
>> up some of the slack.
>>
>> [as an aside, wtf are we thinking with current employment practices
>> where everybody is working 50, 60, 70 hours a week? much better to have
>> more people working fewer hours. more people get to have a job. is
>> that such a hard concept?]
>>
>> although it has its problems, germany is the poster child of not losing
>> sight of the benefits of retaining production capacity. at this time,
>> it's carrying the HUGE financial burden of the rest of the e.u., based
>> on the wealth creation of its manufacturing sector. and its capable of
>> paying for a public health system and employment benefits that shame us,
>> and all while remaining competitive on the world stage.
>>
>> and let's not forget, germany is germany. it doesn't need a large
>> standing army. they can manufacture and go to war in a matter of
>> months. even if the rest of the world is watching, nobody else can
>> mobilize and arm as quickly as germany could. it's actually quite a
>> scary thing if you happen to be a neighbor. and this is precisely why
>> china has targeted manufacturing growth as its #1 long term strategic
>> goal. with that manufacturing capacity, it is now the #1 threat in the
>> region, and on its current trajectory, to the world.
>>
>> anyway, we should embrace the technology, keep manufacturing at home,
>> and keep our wealth at home. and thus, retain our strength. right now,
>> it seems we're hell-bent on shooting ourselves in the head, and the only
>> people getting fat are the wall st vultures stripping the carcasses.
>
> You haven't heard about Globalization? Where have you been hiding?
> I just bought a new 2011 car recently.
>
> Parts content information:
>
> For vehicles in this carline:
> U.S../CANADIAN PARTS CONTENT: 2%
> MAJOR SOURCES OF FOREIGHT PARTS
> CONTENT: KOREA 80%
>
> Note: Parts content does not include final
> assembly, distribution, or other non-parts costs.
>
> FOR THIS VEHICLE:
> FINAL ASSEMBLY POINTS:
> BUPYUNG GU, IN KOREA
> COUNTRY OF ORIGIN:
> ENGINE: KOREA
> TRANSISSION: JAPAN
>
>

reading comprehension: FAIL
information content: FAIL

and to whoever were your teachers at school: FAIL


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 11:52:13 -0700, jim beam > wrote:

>On 09/17/2011 11:28 AM, Nicholas wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 10:31:07 -0700, jim > wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/15/2011 07:33 PM, bob urz wrote:
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykBSanSCS9k
>>>> bob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> yeah, dirty, dangerous, and inefficient. serious injuries were a
>>> regular occurrence, and the effects on health of those working
>>> conditions were a disgrace. and the quality of output was highly
>>> inconsistent and unreliable.
>>>
>>> re other comments, it's not that we employ fewer people in manufacturing
>>> that's the biggest issue [although it is a significant problem with
>>> substantial "down the road" impact], it is in my opinion one of national
>>> security. both military and financial.
>>>
>>> big picture is that if we don't manufacture here, we can't prepare for a
>>> sudden war. and certainly not a large scale one.
>>>
>>> secondary to that is the financial impact. manufacturing creates
>>> wealth. sure, other forms of employment move money about, but
>>> manufacturing creates it [literally] from the ground up. if we don't
>>> have manufacturing, long term, our economy is going to be that of
>>> polishing other people's boots. and there's no long term future in that.
>>>
>>> now, manufacturing is an evolving endeavor. industry constantly
>>> improves its knowledge and its abilities. and automation is the
>>> inevitable product of that. it is pointless and ridiculous to hearken
>>> back to the dark days of having humans do dirty dangerous repetitive
>>> mundane b.s. jobs a machine can do faster, cleaner, safer, and without
>>> the repetition causing it to fall asleep on the job and possibly kill
>>> itself. manufacturing employment will naturally decline if output
>>> remains constant. however, retaining the manufacturing capacity here
>>> ensures those that do work in manufacturing can be better paid, safer,
>>> healthier, and much more importantly, their wages stay here, and our
>>> capacity stays here. that means the nation remains long term secure,
>>> and long term wealthy. if we're wealthy, all the service industries
>>> [that really add no value, just shuffle it about], can survive and take
>>> up some of the slack.
>>>
>>> [as an aside, wtf are we thinking with current employment practices
>>> where everybody is working 50, 60, 70 hours a week? much better to have
>>> more people working fewer hours. more people get to have a job. is
>>> that such a hard concept?]
>>>
>>> although it has its problems, germany is the poster child of not losing
>>> sight of the benefits of retaining production capacity. at this time,
>>> it's carrying the HUGE financial burden of the rest of the e.u., based
>>> on the wealth creation of its manufacturing sector. and its capable of
>>> paying for a public health system and employment benefits that shame us,
>>> and all while remaining competitive on the world stage.
>>>
>>> and let's not forget, germany is germany. it doesn't need a large
>>> standing army. they can manufacture and go to war in a matter of
>>> months. even if the rest of the world is watching, nobody else can
>>> mobilize and arm as quickly as germany could. it's actually quite a
>>> scary thing if you happen to be a neighbor. and this is precisely why
>>> china has targeted manufacturing growth as its #1 long term strategic
>>> goal. with that manufacturing capacity, it is now the #1 threat in the
>>> region, and on its current trajectory, to the world.
>>>
>>> anyway, we should embrace the technology, keep manufacturing at home,
>>> and keep our wealth at home. and thus, retain our strength. right now,
>>> it seems we're hell-bent on shooting ourselves in the head, and the only
>>> people getting fat are the wall st vultures stripping the carcasses.
>>
>> You haven't heard about Globalization? Where have you been hiding?
>> I just bought a new 2011 car recently.
>>
>> Parts content information:
>>
>> For vehicles in this carline:
>> U.S../CANADIAN PARTS CONTENT: 2%
>> MAJOR SOURCES OF FOREIGHT PARTS
>> CONTENT: KOREA 80%
>>
>> Note: Parts content does not include final
>> assembly, distribution, or other non-parts costs.
>>
>> FOR THIS VEHICLE:
>> FINAL ASSEMBLY POINTS:
>> BUPYUNG GU, IN KOREA
>> COUNTRY OF ORIGIN:
>> ENGINE: KOREA
>> TRANSISSION: JAPAN
>>
>>
>
>reading comprehension: FAIL
>information content: FAIL
>
>and to whoever were your teachers at school: FAIL

IMO, You're one crazy mother ****er. You can't get your head out of
your ass long enough to see what's transpired over the years.

What you're really telling me is that YOU don't want to accept things
the way they are, and are going to throw a hissy fit about it. See a
child psychologist. I don't get paid for this ****.

Lg