More bad economic news...

[Mr. Ray]

Productivity gains roll at their fastest clip in 31 years
By Del Jones and Barbara Hansen, USA TODAY
Still sweating the economy? Many are. Despite numbers showing the economy in a major growth pattern and, at last, an increase in jobs, there still is a lot of angst.
Rest easy. Productivity, the closest thing to Superman for the economy, has burst from the phone booth to initiate a rescue.

Government productivity statistics, revised this month, show productivity increasing 5.5% over the last 12 months, matching the fastest productivity gains in 31 years. And USA TODAY's fourth annual exclusive look at the productivity gains made by the nation's largest 100 companies shows that the country is on a multiyear roll not seen since just after World War II.

MORE bad news HERE [img]smile.gif[/img]

[curious]

Yup, good news, depending on where you stand, and how you define "the economy" in broader terms.

If productivity benefits everyone -- owners, consumers and workers -- it is a good thing.

But when productivity means more profits for the investor class by squeezing workers and reducing the qualtity and quality of employment, it is only a Recovery for the Elite.

From the above link:

"..History says the gains will come to an end, but so far, there is little sign of that happening as companies employ programs such as Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing to find ways to do more with less.

McKesson is a good example. The giant distributor of pharmaceuticals to drugstores and hospitals has been mapping and flow-charting every step it takes to get something done. They figure out when a machine can do it, or the exact way it is most efficiently accomplished by human hand.

How successful has it been? Last year, it sold $7 billion more in product than in 2002, and it did it with only 500 more workers. In other words, it increased revenue $14 million for every warm body it added. There is more to harvest where that came from, says McKesson CEO John Hammergren...."

End Excerpt

Yep, get rid of those "warm bodies" and drive those who remain employed harder for the sake of "productivity." And if you can slash the wages of those Human Production Units and drive them harder, so much the better.

Someday, I hope we will reach the point where the Economy is seen in a more three-dimensional form, instead of just how ruthlessly efficient the elite investor class can be as the measurement of success.

[curious]

And speakinbg of Good News....


http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/14/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

Trade gap hits record $48.3 billion

Gap between U.S. imports and exports rises to new record, well above forecast of decline.
June 14, 2004: 10:24 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The U.S. trade deficit grew in April to a record $48.3 billion, coming in larger than Wall Street forecasts, a government report Monday showed.

The gap between U.S. imports and exports was up from the revised record of $46.6 billion posted in March, the Commerce Department said. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com forecast the trade gap would drop to $45.0 billion.

Imports edged 0.2 percent higher to about $142.3 billion from the previous record set in March, while exports fell 1.5 percent to roughly $93.9 billion. Exports of goods fell 2.3 percent while service exports edged 0.3 percent higher.

The higher deficit is likely to be a drag on second-quarter U.S. economic growth and may prompt some analysts to lower their forecasts.

The U.S. goods trade deficit with China jumped nearly 15 percent in April to $12.0 billion. The politically charged trade gap with China is expected to set another record in 2004, after reaching $124 billion last year.

The overall U.S. trade gap is also on track to break last year's record of $496.5 billion...

MORE

[TXNavy]

1.) Its more complex than the picture Curious is painting. I'll get back to it after finals.

2.) Suppose there is a mad trade gap. The answer is not to restrict foreign businesses. The answer is to make US companies more competitive. This is what's been dogging steel, shipbuilding, textiles...oh, you know the list by now, Curious.

Of course, competition makes the world go round. Its just that some people prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend that we can go on making buggy whips forever.

[Buckley]

But when productivity means more profits for the investor class by squeezing workers and reducing the qualtity and quality of employment, it is only a Recovery for the Elite.

Curious, you give me chest pains sometimes. [img]smile.gif[/img] The "investor class" includes many of us at "the bottom" (I aknowledge that I am probably near the bottom of the income ladder although I am perfectly happy with what I make - history makes few people rich), so when the "investor class" reaps rewards so do many of us who are certainly not a member of the "elite."

Yep, get rid of those "warm bodies" and drive those who remain employed harder for the sake of "productivity." And if you can slash the wages of those Human Production Units and drive them harder, so much the better.

Someday, I hope we will reach the point where the Economy is seen in a more three-dimensional form, instead of just how ruthlessly efficient the elite investor class can be as the measurement of success.

Those "warm bodies" have found jobs building the machines that replaced them I am willing to bet. Sadly (for the left, that is), there will never come a time when machines replace manpower completely. Moreover, last time I heard our unemployment rate was going down, and we are darn near at "full employment" according to those smarty pants economists who know about these things, allegedly. Despite decades of automation, men and women are not expendible yet.

I need to have some chamomile tea now.

-Buckley.

[Liberty]

Yup, good news, depending on where you stand, and how you define "the economy" in broader terms.

I love you Libs and your eternal optimism.

[curious]

Originally posted by Buckley:
]Curious, you give me chest pains sometimes. [img]smile.gif[/img] .....I need to have some chamomile tea now.

-Buckley.

Gosh I feel guilty now. Giving you chest pains was not my intent. I was only aiming at giving you a headache. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

But seriously, if you read my post, I did not say investors should not get a good return on their investment. Nor was I slamming all those who have investments, or benefit from investments through pension funds, etc.

But there needs to be a balance for a healthy economy in any system, including capitalism.

My belief (and that of many others, including many goopd capitalists) is that the balance has been tilted far too much in the direction of squeezing workers and otehr social factors in favor of a short-term gain for investors.

It's not even a matter of "liberal" policies like regulation. It also has much to do with the values of businesses today, and the overall dominance of the mentality that greed is good among society as a whole since the 1970's.

My brother, for example, works for a company that has become much more "productive" after being twice bought out by progressively bigger monopolistic copmpanies.

These already-profitable companies have been squeezing his division harder and harder -- both to goose the bottom line and to help pay back the tab for their acquisitions.

As a result of this mentality, his department has been shrink over the last several years from about 15 people to five....Before you say "Well that means the other people were not needed" the fact is that it is being done at the expense of the health and family life of people like my brother.

He is now requirted to work late every night and often on weekends to keep up. And he is being forced to reduce the quality of his work. The pressure and streess he is under has increased to an unhealthy degree.

As a result, he is technically more productive, but it is is ruining his health, placing his marriage under increased astrain and forcing him to neglect his kids....And before you say he should find anotehr job etc.etc. the problem is that he works so much he has no time to find another job. And he can't just walk away because he has to support his family -- and he has a daughter with diabetes, so he can't take a chance on losing his health benefits.

I'm not saying this to whine [img]graemlins/whinner.gif[/img] about my brother. He's just one example of a pattern that is happeing to people at many different levels throughout the economy.

It's the human side of "increased productivity" and -- in my opinion -- it is not what we should be considering as a healthy trend in the economy.

Now excuse me. You've driven me to the Pepto.

[curious]

Originally posted by Liberty:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yup, good news, depending on where you stand, and how you define "the economy" in broader terms.

I love you Libs and your eternal optimism. </font>[/quote]Please. That is such a tiresome cliche. It has a nice, catchy ring to it, but it is totally devoid of meaning.

If you want to contend that we are boneheads because of real disagreements, that's one thing.

But the right-wing talking point that people are optimistic if they agree with conservatives and pessimistic if they disagree with conservative policies and results is the most empty form of criticism possible.

[curious]

Originally posted by TXNavy:
1.) Its more complex than the picture Curious is painting. I'll get back to it after finals.

2.) Suppose there is a mad trade gap. The answer is not to restrict foreign businesses. The answer is to make US companies more competitive. This is what's been dogging steel, shipbuilding, textiles...oh, you know the list by now, Curious.

Of course, competition makes the world go round. Its just that some people prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend that we can go on making buggy whips forever.

TxNavy,
Of course it's more complex than that. We liberals are not the black-and-white thinkers you sometimes seem to think we are.

And, lest you think I'm being a partisanm and Bush-bashing in all this, it is not the case. Many peopel were making similar points in the 90's about the problems that were being glossed over and ignored, even during the "boom."


But to respond in brief to your points here....We've been hearing the "more competative" mantra ever since the mid 70's. It started with a legitimate effort to deal with the aftermath of the energy crisis and otehr disruptions of that time.

But it quickly became an all-purpose excuse to slash wages, bust unions, form monopolies, fire people and overturn many other social contracts. Eventually "more competative" became the justification for practices that hollow out the US economy and drive down the standard of living in order to "compete" with the poorest nations who will allow ANYTHING to bring in money.

(Ironically, eliminating competition by allowing monopolistic practices was one of the goals of those who espouse becoming more "competative.")

And, this elusive goal of competativeness advocaterd by the unfettered Darwinian free market is like the rabbits at a Greythound race -- always kept just beyond reach.

People like myself are NOT opposed to competition and international trade. But we believe it needs to be handled carefully.

And frankly, we're sick of the excuses that the Corporate Elite and Free Market Fundamentalists are always making to justify taking yet anotehr step downwards in the Race to the Bottom anhd replacing democracy with an elite oligarchy.


And -- to reply to what else I know you will say -- I am not just bashing Big Business. This is a deeper issue of values and choices we all make as we go along. That includes consumers and workers.

That's why I said above that I hope at some point we'll get to a point where economics is seen in more three dimensional terms. That includes looking at things outside of what we are all supposed to say because of our particular ideologies.

-

[Liberty]

Originally posted by curious:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Liberty:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yup, good news, depending on where you stand, and how you define "the economy" in broader terms.

I love you Libs and your eternal optimism. </font>[/quote]Please. That is such a tiresome cliche. It has a nice, catchy ring to it, but it is totally devoid of meaning.

If you want to contend that we are boneheads because of real disagreements, that's one thing.

But the right-wing talking point that people are optimistic if they agree with conservatives and pessimistic if they disagree with conservative policies and results is the most empty form of criticism possible. </font>[/quote]We love you too, Curious.