wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:15:15 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:48:50 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:55:34 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

There is no rationale for the federal government to do it. That is
very clear.

private industry hasn't. so they've failed. it's time for the american
people to do what the rich refuse to do for us.

Are all of those out of work people going to form large corporations
that can compete in a global market? That is how you are going to get
good jobs again.

nope. because the world financial managers packaged the same lies and
sold them to each other. the meltdown is pretty much worldwide except
in some of the more unionized countries like australia which has full
employment.

you right wingers just keep ignoring this. so i'm going to ram it down
your throats over and over again

in the last 10 years, productivity went up 30%. and NONE of that went
to the middle class

Productivity went up because they laid off so many people.
That makes the ones left look more productive.

No, that's not accurate. Those who remain are required to increase their
productivity to make up for those who've been laid off. It's not about
appearance, it's about an actual increase in their productivity.

Of course some of that is simply the fact that computer controlled
equipment replaced workers. Robots don't complain, don't call in sick
and don't file grievances because of working conditions.

Ummm.... that happened and will continue to happen.

The guys who operate them don't need near as much skill as the worker
they replaced and the robot does a more consistent job.

Not necessarily. The person who now controls a whole production line from a
control room has to be highly skilled.


so you tell me: how does the middle class spend money it does not
have?

You are starting to see why I fear for out future.
The idea that you can get employers to pay workers more when the
product cost can't go up is not going to happen.

Well, fear is the operative word. Product cost can go up if the quality is
better and/or it has better features/functionality.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:23:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The guys who operate them don't need near as much skill as the worker
they replaced and the robot does a more consistent job.

Not necessarily. The person who now controls a whole production line from
a
control room has to be highly skilled.


That is said by a person who doesn't understand how long it takes to
learn to be a machinist or even a good welder.
The computer operator can learn his job in a week. Most of the
processes are actually monitored by another computer. There are
usually a couple of techs around who have a bit of training but not as
much as you would suspect. These machines are like most of the
computer industry. It is cheaper to replace whole assemblies than to
fix them.
We called it "cut open the box" technology.

I don't think you know me well enough to make such a statement. There is
extensive training for many, many professions, including computer "operator"
(sounds like you're not to familiar with those requirements).



so you tell me: how does the middle class spend money it does not
have?

You are starting to see why I fear for out future.
The idea that you can get employers to pay workers more when the
product cost can't go up is not going to happen.

Well, fear is the operative word. Product cost can go up if the quality is
better and/or it has better features/functionality.


That has not been the trend. The American public does not appreciate
quality, nor demand service. In the late 80s, IBM and most other
industries started a "quality quest" with quality circles, Six Sigma
and ISO 9000. The holy grail was to emulate Sony.

Actually, that has been the trend, whatever that means. There are lots of
American made, high quality products that sell fine.

That was quickly replaced with a philosophy of "market driven quality"
and the model became WalMart. We were all marched into a room, given a
bag of M&Ms and told to evaluate them. It turned out there were not
even the same number in each bag and there were defects in at least
half of them,. (true story) Everyone was still happy with the quality
and was not interested in paying more for better quality control.
The whole company was moving in that direction. We even got new hats
http://gfretwell.com/electrical/mdq.jpg

It's easy to id an anecdote and claim that is the general case, but that
doesn't make it so.

The lesson was clear. The American public values a lower price more
than quality, service or even saving American jobs.
I ask you, do you go to Sam's/BJs/Costco? It is certainly not for the
service or even the quality. It is for the price.

Actually, I go to Costco because of the customer service. If something
breaks, they don't hassle you at all. The quality is pretty much the same as
you would find elsewhere, especially for things like cameras/computers, even
some clothing. Most people go there for the wholesale quantities.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:58:20 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:23:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The guys who operate them don't need near as much skill as the worker
they replaced and the robot does a more consistent job.

Not necessarily. The person who now controls a whole production line
from
a
control room has to be highly skilled.


That is said by a person who doesn't understand how long it takes to
learn to be a machinist or even a good welder.
The computer operator can learn his job in a week. Most of the
processes are actually monitored by another computer. There are
usually a couple of techs around who have a bit of training but not as
much as you would suspect. These machines are like most of the
computer industry. It is cheaper to replace whole assemblies than to
fix them.
We called it "cut open the box" technology.

I don't think you know me well enough to make such a statement. There is
extensive training for many, many professions, including computer
"operator"
(sounds like you're not to familiar with those requirements).

I have spent more time in computer rooms that you have on the planet.

Yet, you claim that someone who is minimally trained can operate an assembly
line system? I don't think so.




so you tell me: how does the middle class spend money it does not
have?

You are starting to see why I fear for out future.
The idea that you can get employers to pay workers more when the
product cost can't go up is not going to happen.

Well, fear is the operative word. Product cost can go up if the quality
is
better and/or it has better features/functionality.


That has not been the trend. The American public does not appreciate
quality, nor demand service. In the late 80s, IBM and most other
industries started a "quality quest" with quality circles, Six Sigma
and ISO 9000. The holy grail was to emulate Sony.

Actually, that has been the trend, whatever that means. There are lots of
American made, high quality products that sell fine.


What would they be?

Without really thinking about it, how about planes? Plenty besides that.
I'll let you do the research.

That was quickly replaced with a philosophy of "market driven quality"
and the model became WalMart. We were all marched into a room, given a
bag of M&Ms and told to evaluate them. It turned out there were not
even the same number in each bag and there were defects in at least
half of them,. (true story) Everyone was still happy with the quality
and was not interested in paying more for better quality control.
The whole company was moving in that direction. We even got new hats
http://gfretwell.com/electrical/mdq.jpg

It's easy to id an anecdote and claim that is the general case, but that
doesn't make it so.


see below

The lesson was clear. The American public values a lower price more
than quality, service or even saving American jobs.
I ask you, do you go to Sam's/BJs/Costco? It is certainly not for the
service or even the quality. It is for the price.

Actually, I go to Costco because of the customer service. If something
breaks, they don't hassle you at all. The quality is pretty much the same
as
you would find elsewhere, especially for things like cameras/computers,
even
some clothing. Most people go there for the wholesale quantities.


OK so how many people do you think they employ per customer and do you
really think those people understand the products they sell?

Which has nothing to do with customer service in the case cited.

Maybe you are not old enough to remember stores that specialized in
various products and had people who actually knew a little more about
them but which aisle they are on.

I have a friend who owns a family fireplace insert store. They do just fine,
sell high quality products that are US made, and they service them
themselves.

Big box stores are great if they have what you want but they only
stock things they can get in bulk and that they have the best margin
on at a cheap price.

We were talking about customer service. I don't shop in Wal-Mart even though
they have great prices. I don't like their lack of customer service for one
thing.

On Jul 26, 8:21*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:58:20 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:23:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The guys who operate them don't need near as much skill as the worker
they replaced and the robot does a more consistent job.

Not necessarily. The person who now controls a whole production line
from
a
control room has to be highly skilled.

That is said by a person who doesn't understand how long it takes to
learn to be a machinist or even a good welder.
The computer operator can learn his job in a week. Most of the
processes are actually monitored by another computer. There are
usually a couple of techs around who have a bit of training but not as
much as you would suspect. These machines are like most of the
computer *industry. It is cheaper to replace whole assemblies than to
fix them.
We called it "cut open the box" technology.

I don't think you know me well enough to make such a statement. There is
extensive training for many, many professions, including computer
"operator"
(sounds like you're not to familiar with those requirements).

I have spent more time in computer rooms that you have on the planet.

Yet, you claim that someone who is minimally trained can operate an assembly
line system? I don't think so.


It would depend on the assembly line, D'Plume. I'm sure you would know
how to run a simple punch press. However I wouldn't bet the wad on it

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Jul 26, 8:21 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:58:20 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:23:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The guys who operate them don't need near as much skill as the
worker
they replaced and the robot does a more consistent job.

Not necessarily. The person who now controls a whole production line
from
a
control room has to be highly skilled.

That is said by a person who doesn't understand how long it takes to
learn to be a machinist or even a good welder.
The computer operator can learn his job in a week. Most of the
processes are actually monitored by another computer. There are
usually a couple of techs around who have a bit of training but not
as
much as you would suspect. These machines are like most of the
computer industry. It is cheaper to replace whole assemblies than to
fix them.
We called it "cut open the box" technology.

I don't think you know me well enough to make such a statement. There
is
extensive training for many, many professions, including computer
"operator"
(sounds like you're not to familiar with those requirements).

I have spent more time in computer rooms that you have on the planet.

Yet, you claim that someone who is minimally trained can operate an
assembly
line system? I don't think so.


It would depend on the assembly line, D'Plume. I'm sure you would know
how to run a simple punch press. However I wouldn't bet the wad on it

No... really? You're a moron. I'd suggest not trying to bet on much.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:31:33 -0400, wrote:


That has not been the trend. The American public does not appreciate
quality, nor demand service.

well we DO but the right wing, under deregulation, allowed monopolies
like comcast, etc. to spring up with their '**** the consumer'
attitude.

and with 34% of americans being conservative, they're convinced that
god wants them to be poor so they can give their money to the rich


In the late 80s, IBM and most other
industries started a "quality quest" with quality circles, Six Sigma
and ISO 9000.

those programs are still active


The lesson was clear. The American public values a lower price more
than quality, service or even saving American jobs.

that's because the rich having taken ALL the increase in america's
wealth for themselves over the past 30 years, left NOTHING for the
middle class to spend.

where the hell do you get this stuff?

I ask you, do you go to Sam's/BJs/Costco? It is certainly not for the
service or even the quality. It is for the price.

yep. if i made more money i'd go elsewhere. but the right wing has
everyone convinced that the rich need to be protected and the middle
class needs to be starved into submission

you see it here with canuck telling us how worthless the middle class
is...