← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Centinel
Thread ID: 3745 | Posts: 26 | Started: 2002-11-29
2002-11-29 08:45 | User Profile
From Business Week, available online at: [url=http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2002/nf20021127_4108.htm]http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas...021127_4108.htm[/url]
NOVEMBER 27, 2002
STREET WISE By Amy Tsao
**Will Wal-Mart Take Over the World?
First it gobbled the mom-and-pops, then mauled discount department stores. What's the insatiable chain's next target? You name it **
In the old days, there were shops of all kinds -- bakeries, shoe stores, pharmacies, and the like. Then came Wal-Mart. And the fear that the giant all-in-one store would come to small towns and squash mom-and-pop operations turned out to be real. American consumers find the Bentonville, (Ark.)-based discounter, which topped $226 billion in revenues in 2001, irresistible for its convenience, selection, and low prices. As local stores have continued to close, Wal-Mart has grown to 2,780 outlets in the U.S. alone. And that breakneck expansion shows little sign of slowing, despite the rough economy.
Now, Wal-Mart (WMT ) is outmuscling big-name retailers. The outfit's incomparable efficiency already has sounded the death knell for second-tier discount retailers like Ames (AMESQ ), Caldor (CLDRQ ), and Bradlees (BRADQ ). Kmart's (KM-T ) future is looking iffy after the company filed for bankruptcy protection earlier in 2002. And Wal-Mart is eyeing new categories to dominate, says Ira Kalish, chief economist for Retail Forward, a retail consultant. "Wal-Mart's aggressive rollout of [retail gas] stations could be followed closely with the company selling used cars, financial services, home improvement, and food service." The retailer also says it is considering adding a new section to its stores to compete more vigorously with so-called "dollar format" retailers such as Family Dollar (FDO ).
HAPPY CUSTOMERS. The implications of such moves are enormous. Because of its buying power and savvy technology, Wal-Mart is a highly cost-efficient operator in a business with tight margins. And customers couldn't be happier. "These innovations allowed the company to pass its savings on to customers," writes Brad Johnson with McKinsey Consulting in a recent report, "The Wal-Mart Effect." Wal-Mart succeeds on two counts: Being such a huge buyer, it can negotiate the best wholesale prices. And it is such a huge seller that it can offer customers the lowest prices and make up the difference in volume.
Meanwhile, less-efficient competitors selling the same goods must ask higher prices to earn the same profit. Still, competitors do slash prices, hoping, often in vain, that increased sales will make up for lost margins. "What has happened to the discount department-store segment over the past decade will now play out in food over the next couple of years," says Carl Steidtman, retail-sector economist at Deloitte Research. Translation: Expect big grocery chains to consolidate or disappear. The pain is being felt by all competitors. In just a few short years, Wal-Mart has nabbed the top spot in grocery sales, beating out the Kroger (KR ) supermarket chain, the long-time leader.
All this explains why many investors are bullish on Wal-Mart. At around $53, shares are down about 6.5% year-to-date, but that's considerably less than the 15.5% hit the shares of retailers as a group have endured. In part, Wal-Mart has fared better because of the outfit's reliable performance, no matter the health of the economy. With analysts projecting double-digit earnings growth for the next several years, they see it remaining a stable holding for the long-term.
PLAYING MONOPOLY. It's hard to name a retail segment that's immune from Wal-Mart-inspired pressures. For instance, Wall Street recently cheered strong quarterly results from Toys "R" Us (TOY ), but the good news may be short-lived. Toys "R" Us "will face great promotional pressures this year in its overwhelmingly important fourth quarter," Jefferies & Co. analyst Don Trott warned in a recent report. The long-term problem for the toy retailer, which is No. 2 in market share to Wal-Mart, is that its rival is much more nimble. While Toys "R" Us must stock toys, -- highly seasonal products -- throughout the year, Wal-Mart can pull back or step up inventory and shelf space as demand dictates.
Other Wal-Mart targets of opportunity are likely to be apparel and consumer electronics. On the clothing front, the chain this fall unveiled a line of women's career clothing under the label George, which it acquired in its acquisition of U.K.-based retailer ASDA. And it has also signed a deal with Levi's to sell $30 jeans. If Wal-Mart succeeds in convincing shoppers to view it as a destination for fashion needs, the impact will spread quickly. Among the first likely to feel the heat are department stores, teen clothiers such as Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF ), even "shabby chic" discounter Target (TGT ).
Consumer electronics is in for similar treatment. Wal-Mart has been taking sales away from consumer electronics retailers for years -- mainly on lower-priced products. These days, the price of hot products falls so fast that Wal-Mart can afford to jump in and handle them much earlier in the product cycle, says Colin McGranahan, retail analyst at Bernstein Research. This means Best Buy (BBY ), Circuit City (CC ), and higher-end stereo-equipment retailers like Tweeter (TWTR ) have a shorter window in which to charge a premium for the latest gadgetry, says McGranahan.
SHARPENING THE EDGE. All this is a boon for consumers -- and for U.S. productivity in general. Wal-Mart is the nation's largest single importer and a major force in lowering the price of apparel and general merchandise, says Deloitte's Steidtman. Its general-merchandise market share soared from 9% in 1987 to 27% in 1995, says McKinsey's Johnson.
Wal-Mart's aggressive adoption of information technology to improve logistics and back-office efficiency has also been a major driver of productivity. While suppliers scrambled to meet Wal-Mart's demands, competitors big and small followed the retailer's lead and ratcheted up productivity by 28% from 1995 to 1999, Johnson says. But because of its early adoption, Wal-Mart reaped the most gains and continues to enjoy an edge over competitors.
There are plenty of other ripple effects, too. For instance, the difficult economy of the last two years has been a major factor in the traffic fall-off at shopping malls. But there's little question Wal-Mart has picked up long-term market share from the malls as well, says Michael Baker, director of research at the International Council of Shopping Centers. The mass migration to Wal-Mart effectively takes shoppers away from venues that contain dozens of specialty apparel outlets and mall-based department stores. "Mom-and-pop stores are gone, regional chains are gone, and the national retailers are thinning out," says Al Norman, anti-sprawl activist and author. "We're left with only the very big players at the top now that Wal-Mart has chewed right up the food chain."
SURVIVAL TACTICS. How can other retailers survive the Wal-Mart juggernaut? The answer is, and has always been, differentiation. Baker cites the good job Target has done setting itself apart with marketing and merchandising that attracts a more affluent demographic. He also lauds Safeway's (SWY ) efforts to attract wealthier consumers. Best Buy's solution, according to spokeswoman Julie Keslik, is educating its salespeople about the gadgets and accessories it carries, as well as keeping them on top of the innovations that most interest customers.
Brave strategies one and all. But it's clear that big retailers of all kinds are facing the same perils that have wiped out a lot of mom-and-pop stores over the last 25 years. That's good for consumers and good for the economy. And it's best of all for Wal-Mart and its shareholders.
Tsao covers financial markets for BusinessWeek Online in New York
"Wal-Mart is the nation's largest single importer and a major force in lowering the price of apparel and general merchandise..."
Yeah, not too diffifult to undercut domestic production when your goods are made by Chinese slaves in squalor at a fraction of the cost for American materials and labor. Wal-Mart and its fellow travellers are the most damning argument against "free trade" I can think of. They've utterly destroyed this nation's productive capacity and have mortally wounded local communities.
Think about it...the circular effect of a dollar that stays in a local economy passes hands several times. Every time a taxable good is sold the state and the city get sales tax revenue. When something is bought at Wal-Mart, it's rung up by a clerk paid low wages, the state and town get their sales tax once, and the money is sucked off to Wal-Mart's corporate treasury in another state. The chain stores may very well have a part in the revenue crises our states are experiencing these days.
I could have some sympathy for Wal-Mart if they were merely leveraging economies of scale while still buying American goods made by American workers with American materials, at least to the greatest extent possible. But they've become the poster child for GOP-style globalism window dressed as "free trade."
What's next? Vertical Integration? Are they going start buying the factories outright in China? Maybe they already have. Will we have to send our kids to China just to get a job in the future?
2002-11-29 14:48 | User Profile
Good article, Centinel.
I'm a Roman Catholic, and as such have been greatly influenced by Catholic social teaching.
Chesterton and Belloc developed "Distributivism" as a sort of Catholic alternative to the competing ideologies of Capitalism and Socialism. Today's gargantuan Walmart would have drawn GKC's rhetorical fire as much as collectivized agriculture in the former USSR.
I am very attracted to the basic notion of creating a large yoemanry of small business owners and the abolition of monopolies like Walmart - the problem is that I have no idea how to attain that goal.
Any ideas?
Remember that we're dealing with a company that has $226 [u]BILLION [/u]in revenues. How does one even begin to resist that particular Leviathan?
Walter
2002-11-29 17:11 | User Profile
But again, we get back to one simple point: why are consumers going there?
They go b/c the prices are ridiculously low. It's not about low prices....it's something more. See, when an American works he gets paid an average of $15/hour. With that money he buys stuff.
If he can buy $15 of stuff at Wal-Mart for the same amount $30 costs at independent stores, he's not saving money per se: he is saving TIME. And that is a huge part of what this is all about.
The less I pay for services, the less I have to work. Or make. So, when you say you can't find a high-paying job, consider that you also don't pay as much for goods. My grandfather spent 25% of income on food. I laughed when I told him I spent no more than 10%.
(just playing devil's advocate)
-Jay
2002-11-29 19:24 | User Profile
Walter Yannis:
Any ideas?
Well, speaking for myself, I don't shop there anymore. Some communities are very anti-Wal-Mart, while others just roll over and die. There's nothing in a Wal-Mart I can't get somewhere else or simply do without.
Have you ever tried to find a local gunsmith lately? Is it really worth saving 50 cents on a box of shells if you eventually don't have skilled tradespeople to do gun repairs in your local area? That's just one example, but I can think of others where high-service (maybe more expensive) local businesses have been displaced by no-service retailers like Wal-Mart, and then everyone laments the poor quality of service.
The general observation I've made is that strong communities support local businesses out of loyalty even if it means paying more sometimes, because one back scratches another. Weak communities flock to the chain stores. That's why many military gate towns are a morass of Wal-Marts and fast food franchises. The transient populations could care less about the local community. BTW, guess how much illegal aliens who wire cash south of the border generally care about the communities they settle into <_<
2002-11-30 23:10 | User Profile
[url=http://money.cnn.com/2002/11/30/news/companies/walmart.reut/]http://money.cnn.com/2002/11/30/news/compa...s/walmart.reut/[/url]
Record day for Wal-Mart
World's biggest retailer sells $1.43 billion worth of goods on "Black Friday."
November 30, 2002: 3:53 PM EST
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's biggest retailer, Saturday reported record one-day sales for the day after Thanksgiving, and one poll found sales at all retailers are up more than 12 percent over last year.
Wal-Mart said it racked up $1.43 billion in sales Friday at its thousands of U.S. stores, which include Sam's Clubs. This compares to day-after Thanksgiving Day sales of $1.25 billion last year. The day after Thanksgiving is one of the biggest shopping days of the year.
"Wal-Mart continues to amaze me despite the fact that they are already so big," said consumer expert Britt Beemer.
Friday is the biggest single-day sales figure for the retailer giant.
Separately, an independent poll found retail sales up 12.3 percent Friday, compared to the same day last year, according to ShopperTrak.
By contrast, this time last year, sales grew about 2.7 percent over 2000, as consumers and retailers felt the effects of the Sept. 11 attacks, according to ShopperTrak.
Retailers have been forced to trim expenses all year to make up for slack sales and analysts are expecting a mediocre holiday season as consumers fret over layoffs and a possible war with Iraq.
Another hurdle for retailers is the calendar: this year's holiday shopping season is six days shorter compared to last year.
Top sellers include toys, electronics and goods to furnish the home, mall managers said.
The ShopperTrak poll relies on 22,000 terminals in malls throughout the U.S. to gauge shopping trends.
Mall managers are grateful for chilly weather in the Northeast and Midwest, which is spurring sales of sweaters, coats and scarves. That contrasts with last fall, when an unusually warm winter ate into sales.
Retailers, though, are offering up deep discounts to lure wary consumers in. That will likely eat into profits.
"This is not going to be a big margin Christmas for retailers," said Beemer, chairwoman of consumer research firm America's Research Group.
2002-12-01 19:25 | User Profile
Centinal:
Interesting posts about an interesting subject.
I'll only add that I think it's unfortunate that more Americans have not read Sherman Skolnick's series of articles on Walmart's historic cuddle-up to the Red Chinese secret police.
America's major contribution in the winning side of two world wars was our industrial strength. (For good or ill.) Thanks to US corporate investors, that capacity and more is all in China now. 25 years ago Norman Podhoretz (of all people!) worried that "playing the China card might create a nightmare for our grandchildren." I understand Norman now has grandchildren and the nightmare may come right on schedule.
Contrary to wishful libertarians (one of which I was, a long-ago early translator of Ludwig von Mises) there is no such thing as industrial capacity that sticks to "consumer goods only". Industry can change from consumer goods to war material in a weekend; read some documents on American war production in World War II -- between 1939 and late-41, when we were allegedly neutral. Henry Ford's ailing tractor plants were knocking out tanks well before Pearl Harbor; my guess is that sold-on-the-cheap Ford auto plants in China are already making combat arms. (Ford Motor Company had a vehicle that was not selling up to par in the US. Like the steel companies a decade ago, Ford shipped the goods to China to help defer costs of a billion-dollar tire recall. The recall was due to Japanese mis-management in the American Midwest where critical industrial jobs were filled by minimum wage temps. Welcome to the New World Order!)
At an engineer's confab a year ago the topic under discussion was how low can consumer electronics go? One of our members had spent a decade in the Far East including the People's Republic and his answer was grim. The economics of scale for DVD players, for instance, is so incredible that China can afford to sell them in the West for about 12 bucks a piece and still make a profit.
Anyone not brainwashed by the Wall Street Journal knows what that means. That's advanced capacity to do whatever China wants. This is not good news for the consumer if the consumer lives in a country, like America, that no longer has the internal steel capacity to serve its own markets. In case of war, rap stars and burger flippers might not be a very realistic substitute for old Henry's tank plants (which are now in China too, come to think of it.)
2002-12-01 19:39 | User Profile
At an engineer's confab a year ago the topic under discussion was how low can consumer electronics go?
If you're familiar with the computer components biz and know where most of the world's motherboards (not to memtion memory) come from, it's understandable why we're so committed to protecting Taiwan.
Imagine our IT-dependent economy not being able to get computer parts because the Red Chinese took over Taiwan and slapped an embargo on the US.
2002-12-01 21:35 | User Profile
Centinel,
[url=http://quicksitebuilder.cnet.com/sartrejp/WRACK/id54.html]The Wal-Mart we all know and love - 5/18[/url]
This issue is the reason that Lew Rockwell won't work with us. TARIFFS are the answer. Pat Buchanan has always been dead on with his advocacy for a rebuilding our own domestic economy. That is the essence of America First - a self sufficient and independent economic base where Americans can earn a living wage.
SARTRE :ph34r:
2002-12-01 21:45 | User Profile
"Great Value" is the WalMart brand of groceries. If you watch people checking out with groceries at WalMart, you will find a large and growing percentage of their groceries are Great Value brand. Not only is WalMart putting the hurt on local retailers, but also on competing suppliers. The Great Value brand is a great value.
2002-12-02 08:43 | User Profile
This issue is the reason that Lew Rockwell won't work with us. TARIFFS are the answer.
I don't even know if tariffs are the answer, SARTRE...at least not the whole answer. Until Americans rediscover a sense of community and national identity, there is no way this nation's productive capacity can be rebuilt. Until people care more about keeping the local hardware store in business and making sure that a shirt stitcher in Tupelo gets her paycheck than saving a buck or two on imported junk from the chain stores, it ain't gonna happen.
I think that's why Wally World does best in towns of 50,000 or so on up. People can blend into the background with relative anonymity. There is far less community. They don't know their neighbors. And they don't feel a responsibility to help the local economy.
I remember in the 70s and 80s how some people would still buy American cars even though Detroit's quality control wasn't up to par with the Japanese, just because they wanted to help keep American workers employed. Have Americans gone so far into the Homer Simpson mode where they just want their beer and television that they want to be oblivious?
2002-12-02 16:39 | User Profile
"1) A dollar spent at a Wal-Mart goes to Bentonville, Arkansas, the corporate HQ. A dollar spent at a local store gets deposited in a local bank and spent again in the community a couple more times." This is not correct. Anyone who has visited Bentonville Arkansas knows all the money isn't going there. Also, one of the complaints that Mom and Pop stores have about WalMart is that WalMart sells goods for less than Mom and Pop can buy them. Thus, if you buy at WalMart you keep more of your money for yourself and in your community, ironically.
"I think that's why Wally World does best in towns of 50,000 or so on up. People can blend into the background with relative anonymity." I don't know anyone who shops at WalMart who feels the need to be anonymous. WalMart stores need a large customer base to be effective.
WalMart is partly the result of economies of scale. The bigger the store the less overhead per item. That you cannot change. Mom and Pop is Horse and Buggy. WalMart is partly the result anti-America government policy, excessive government regulation, and other anti-productivity forces (unions). For this latter group, instead of focusing on WalMart you should be focusing on the causes of these other problems. For example, instead of rewardomg companies for moving away from America, replace corporate income tax with tariffs?
2002-12-02 19:55 | User Profile
Centinal:
That hi-tech dependency should be a national security issue, but what can you say about a country that makes critical fighter jet parts in Mexico? This subject is the most frustrating in America right now and it's mostly invisible. It's been years since the prestige press has carried an industrial article that even makes sense.
SARTRE:
I agree about tariffs. Until we get a national interest trade policy of some sort, it's the only way to keep what industry we have left from joining machine tools and opticals in the Pacific Rim. I suspect a crisis of some sort will focus people's minds soon enough.
This is really not a union issue. Most of the union activity in the US right now is public employees (teachers, postmen, etc) and this can be ended with one public order. Lots of men in the old trade unions didn't think teachers should have been allowed to organize in the first place.
As far as industrial unions are concerned, their wage-advantage was totally overstated by Republican activists. At the moment union and non-union wages are about even, with a tilt in favor of non-union. Highly unionized countries like Germany never understood America on this issue. On the one hand we have "professional organizations" for lawyers and doctors that outrageously inflate costs for these services -- to the point that many of us can no longer afford them. Yet if a boiler crew wants to organize for a contract and eleven bucks and hour, Republicans scream "Communism!"
America's reflexive anti-worker is all the more frustrating for anyone who knows the story of how we beat the Reds time and again during the Cold War. When "Big Ed" Sadlowsky was running for president of the steelworkers union in the seventies, us younger workers shut him out because he was too cozy with the Reds. Four years later we got Reagan and the union-busters for our trouble. Italian and British union men told us American consumers were selfish prigs who would sell us out no matter what we did, and the foreign boys were right.
But this is a dead issue. There are barely enough industrial unions in the states to matter. America's no-union utopia is already here. Just take a look at America now without and remember that labor's peak decade was the 1950s. Big difference.
2002-12-02 20:02 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ragnar@Dec 2 2002, 13:55 **As far as industrial unions are concerned, their wage-advantage was totally overstated by Republican activists. At the moment union and non-union wages are about even, with a tilt in favor of non-union. Highly unionized countries like Germany never understood America on this issue. On the one hand we have "professional organizations" for lawyers and doctors that outrageously inflate costs for these services -- to the point that many of us can no longer afford them. Yet if a boiler crew wants to organize for a contract and eleven bucks and hour, Republicans scream "Communism!" **
Excellent point and excellent post, Ragnar. Thank you.
2002-12-02 21:12 | User Profile
Ragnar,
Human nature being what it is, the bottom line in consumer purcharses is the lowest price for items of acceptable quality. Since the average wage earner will never get rich, they are more concerned about their own ability to purchase goods of necessarity.
Public policy is the issue. Up until now the only way to compete against the corporate giants was to become one of them. By definition that means you must become an APPROVED player.
Wage scales are not the real issue, when viewed domestically. The intent of all of the FREE Trade scams has been the de-industrilization of America. Now that same process is directed at retail.
When the power politics issues are viewed as the source of the problem, then it becomes obvious none of this was an accident.
It a big part of the master plan. Tariffs are the means to correct the designed inbalances. But no one who makes policy will ever allow any such solutions.
America needs to think and act consistent with survival mode. That's why normal people buy what they need at places that offer the best price.
SARTRE :ph34r:
2002-12-03 17:50 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ragnar@Dec 2 2002, 19:55 **On the one hand we have "professional organizations" for lawyers and doctors that outrageously inflate costs for these services -- to the point that many of us can no longer afford them. Yet if a boiler crew wants to organize for a contract and eleven bucks and hour, Republicans scream "Communism!"
**
Medicine and laywers are not so expensive because of their professional organizations. Medicine is expensive because the person paying the bills (the insurance company) has little say in the services bought (and, the patient is blissfully ignorant that he paid over $2000 in premiums for his $20 office visit). Send me a signed blank check so I can buy what I want for myself and then you'll understand. Lawyers are so expensive because they get to make the rules (e.g. many in Congress are lawyers, all judges are lawyers). And, it's strange that you should complain about the Republicans when the Democrats doing all they can to run up the cost of medicine and law.
Many companies, if allowed, would treat their employees like dirt (although, the employee can get another job if he's not being treated right and if all the employees had this attitude then the employer would have to treat employees well to retain them). Maybe unions can be defended for such things as protecting employees against wrongful termination for pushing for a fair amount of the income. But, you need to be realistic. Modern unions are mostly bullies with no concern for if an employee deservers to be terminated or how much money a company can afford to pay employees. Further, unions are nothing less than the sworn enmey of WORKERS who do not want to be in a union.
Look at how big and fat the protectionism has to be to protect the steel worker salaries... Men with no skills getting paid very big bucks screws the whole country (other workers and consumers). (The state university doesn't offer degrees in boiler operation, the local technical college has no classes on boiler operation nor on hamburger flipping)
The end result of the union's bullying is that any job that can leave the country is leaving the country. No, it's not the whole fault of the union but don't keep playing the victim when there's blame to go around.
If he could ship teacher and baseball umpire jobs overseas, I'd be all for it -- all because of the inferior performance in these industries resulting from unions.
2002-12-03 18:41 | User Profile
Originally posted by Happy Hacker@Dec 3 2002, 17:50 **
Look at how big and fat the protectionism has to be to protect the steel worker salaries... Men with no skills getting paid very big bucks screws the whole country**
Many common misconceptions here.
"Big and fat protectionism" was too-little-too-late government intervention when the Iron and Steel institute told Bush how hollowed-out our steel capacity was. We are literally dependent on places like France and Indonesia for basic steel, never mind the specialty steel that mostly comes from Japan and China now.
Being dependent on foreign suppliers in the long run might be more dangerous than paying a living wage right here, but from steel to vegetables American's hate their working class so much they'd rather be dependent. This is going to make for some interesting problems up the road. The "oil shocks" of the seventies were mostly political entirely because we let ourselves get dependent on foreign oil. Next time we'll have gotten ourselves dependent on nearly everything else. (My local grocer had a sale on brocolli last week. Had a choice between Mexican-grown and Guatamalan-grown.)
About us no-skilled types screwing the country, I will not comment except to say the last time I worked hands-on at the blast furnace I was making $11.40 per hour. That was ten years ago. If that screwed a country where Elvis Presley's widow makes 20 million a year in marketing royalties, the country don't take too much to get screwed.
And an open question to the dittoheads: Do you really think it takes "no skills" to run a blast furnace? Can I turn you loose in one for an hour? Even men with years of experience have gotten killed doing that job, men I have known.
This points up the problem Ravi Batra called the "agrification" of industry, where so few people work these jobs that it's an unknown area of the economy, which The Wall Street Journal peddles fantasies about. The professional elite in this country have done a fine job brainwashing themselves into believing that all factory and farm work is for dummies and peasants. I think a wake-up call is on the way.
2002-12-03 19:17 | User Profile
Ragnar,
Consider a read of the [url=http://quicksitebuilder.cnet.com/sartrejp/varyingverity/id3.html]Tariffs[/url] topic on the Varying Verity series.
SARTRE :ph34r:
2002-12-04 17:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by SARTRE@Dec 3 2002, 19:17 **Ragnar,
Consider a read of the [url=http://quicksitebuilder.cnet.com/sartrejp/varyingverity/id3.html]Tariffs[/url] topic on the Varying Verity series.
SARTRE :ph34r:**
Thank you SARTRE!
I've always thought the right view on tariffs were the ones the classic economists held: If there is a strategic reason, throw 'em on! Whether it's "infant industry" or national security, some industries are necessary in this world and no one should be shy about protecting them.
There's really only one country on earth that thinks "protectionism" is a dirty word. The one that's eliminating it's base population and importing new and exciting diseases on a daily basis. Maybe there's logic to that.
Anyone read this nonsense? It's related, but notice how they completely ignore the French report indicating all this immigration for the good of the economy is baloney:
**Greatest wave of migrants drives US engine
Huge influx in the 1990s plugs gap in labour force**
*Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington Tuesday December 3, 2002
The Guardian*
America's economic boom of the 1990s was created on the back of foreign workers and a decade that saw the highest number of immigrants in the country's history, a new study says.
"We would not have been able to fuel the economic expansion of the 1990s with our labour supply in the absence of that foreign immigration," Paul Harrington, associate director of the Centre for Labour Market Studies at Boston's Northeast University and one of the authors of the study, said yesterday.
"We need to recognise that part of our economic strength and prosperity is associated with our ability to get a high level of labour supply."
The study estimates that more than 13.5 million people immigrated to the United States in the 1990s, arriving in even greater numbers than the three decades of the "Great Wave" of immigration at the turn of the 19th century, and accounting for 40% of America's population growth.
But because of America's ageing population and the high number of job seekers among their ranks, the new immigrants accounted for an even greater share of the growth of the labour market, more than 50%.
As the baby boom in America fizzles out, the new workers are younger than the average American.
They stepped in to help fill the gap left by the 4.5 million decline in the number of workers aged between 25 and 34. Some 2.8 million foreign workers in that age group joined the economy during the 1990s. Without them, the labour force in that key age group would have declined by 21%.
In contrast, relatively few of the new immigrants were elderly, and male workers outnumbered women more than among native-born Americans.
Nearly 4.7 million of the newcomers gravitated towards the west, with 3.3 million settling in California alone. Some 4.1 million others moved to the southern states of the eastern seaboard.
Although fewer newcomers arrived in the north-east, they accounted for the bulk of the population growth in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the study finds.
Were it not even for these arrivals, which provided the engine for growth, the north-eastern states would have had a much smaller share of the boom, Mr Harrington argues.
"Really New England is increasingly becoming an economic backwater because we haven't been able to generate new labour supply."
The study does not explore where the new workers came from, although the general pattern of immigration has shown an increase in arrivals from Asia and Central and South America.
It also estimates that 9 million of the 13.5 million arrivals were undocumented workers, living in the US illegally.
That shadowy status, and a lack of education, forced many of the new immigrants into low-skilled and low-paid jobs, driving down wage rates, the study finds. A third of the new immigrants arrived in America without finishing secondary school. Unlike their native-born American counterparts, they were more successful in finding jobs, in the manufacturing industry and in the low-end service occupations.
But their arrival saw the return of a phenomenon unknown in America since the depression years of the 1930s: the street corner labour exchanges where men line up in the early morning waiting for day labouring jobs.
The better educated had an easier landing, the study finds. Some 27% of the new immigrants arrived with degrees and found private sector jobs in services, health, engineering, and business. They were over-represented in science, engineering and IT, and under-represented in teaching.
Mr Harrington argues that the study shows the need for America to adopt an immigration policy that takes into account the needs of the job market, as do Canada and other countries.
He also says the study suggests the need for continued immigration even during times of economic slowdown, and that those imperatives should not be sacrificed to security concerns that could limit further immigration.
"Even if we are going to achieve the modest rate of growth forecast for the next 10 years we are going to have to see a substantial level of immigration," he said.
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,852505,00.html]http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1227...,852505,00.html[/url]
2002-12-04 18:37 | User Profile
I think Union workers are fat and happy and unskilled. You can disagree, Ragnar, but making 11.40/hr in 1990 is the equivalent of making about $18/hr today. And I bet you had health, benefits, and I guarantee you had more job security than a salesman or white collar worker.
The union slobs want things both ways: high pay, low risk. That's bullshit. Risk & reward should go hand-in-hand. If you want to make $70K, you should have to take a risk to get it. Fat-ass unionites don't want the risk, so they organize and threaten.
Look at the flap over Bush freezing fed worker raises. Note: he did not CUT salaries, he merely kept the increase at 3%. In an economy of .5-1% inflation, they're getting an effective REAL increase anyway!
I have nothing but contempt for unionites and fed workers. Look at how F-A-T they are. Tell me they are having money problems when you see them at every NFL game and wearing size 46 jeans.
-J
2002-12-04 19:35 | User Profile
Jay,
Haters are gonna hate I guess.
No, we didn't have security, we were working on spec and it was slightly less predictable than construction work. It's why I moved on for family reasons.
NFLers are all union & fat? How is it you can tell by looking?
Most comments of this ilk fall into that same category: Practically no direct knowledge but lots of vitriol. Believe it or not, I've never heard union men talk about "professionals" the way they talked about us. Jim Hightower had it right: Class warfare in America is mostly directed from the Middle toward the Lower.
Again, it's mostly a dead issue. Industrial unions are all but gone. Hope you're happy in the world you've made.
2002-12-04 20:33 | User Profile
The reason Mr. Hightower might imply that the middle class would be "vitriolic" towards the unionites is because they don't like the way they DEMAND things. The middle class worker is not guaranteed jack squat, and he doesn't like to be told by unionites that these extra special people should have 100% job security.
Now, I actually agree with you that our manufacturing base is hollow. And I think that oppressive job losses dictated by "shareholder concerns" are bogus. However, I am tired of unionites thinking that the rest of society (the consumer, like me, or the taxpayer, like me) should somehow underwrite THEIR jobs.
Bogus. Bogus, bogus. My friend's father said he's in a union because "who the hell is gonna hire a 55yr old guy?" Votes straight DEM because of HIS job security (damn the rest of society)
Well, there are legions of non-unionites that worry too. What makes him so special? He votes his interest, and non-unionites should be allowed to vote ours too.
-J
2002-12-04 21:09 | User Profile
*I'm a Harlan Man Went down in the mine when I was barely grown It was easy then ââ¬ËCause I didn't know what I know now But I'm a family man And it's the only life that I've ever known But I'm a Harlan Man Just as long as my luck and lungs hold out
I'm a mountain man Born in east Kentucky and here I'll stay And if it's the good Lord's plan I'll wake up in the mornin' and find I'm lookin' at the end Of another long week and I can draw my pay ââ¬ËCause I'm a Harlan Man Never catch me whinin' cause I ain't that kind
**I'm a union man Just like my daddy and all my kin I took a union stand No matter what the company said I got me two good hands And just as long as I'm able I won't give in ââ¬ËCause I'm a Harlan Man A coal minin' mother ââ¬Ëtil the day I'm dead ***
2002-12-04 21:38 | User Profile
But I'm a Harlan Man Just as long as my luck and lungs hold out
And when they don't, his wife Wanda will be the 1st to find a NYC lawyer to sue Big Tobacco. Loser: Other smokers paying higher prices Winner: government bureaucrats and lawyers.
Of another long week and I can draw my pay
At least he has a job. It's guaranteed. The 2M Americans laid off this year? They're not so lucky.
ââ¬ËCause I'm a Harlan Man Never catch me whinin' cause I ain't that kind
Unless of course, Bush proposes a 3% rise in salary even tho inflation is 1%. Then I'll complain. (that's for FED workers, a union to me).
He'll whine anytime the GOP wins an election.
He'll whine anytime someone starts a business and becomes wealthy (no, he won't take any risks, thank you)
I took a union stand No matter what the company said
Yeah, like you're doing at United Airlines. Company is going broke, and you won't listen to anyone. You'll let that ship sink as long as the Teamsters tell you to.
You helped kill the US steel industry b/c you won't listen to anyone. Made it uncompetitive. Now you cry to daddy Bush for handouts.
**A coal minin' mother ââ¬Ëtil the day I'm dead **
I respect those dudes. Not the FEDs, auto or steel guys.
-Jay
2002-12-05 03:09 | User Profile
Texas Dissident:
Great one! I'm thinking a collection of the old movement songs would be interesting since it's almost all gone now. We have a generation of young men who never heard of Joe Hill.
I ran a store in the 70s and I told everyone to back Cesar Chavez. We were all Republicans then and nobody could figure out my logic. I told them if the farm union bid the ag rates high enough, family farms will be competative again. That's how I learned the hard way that Republicans are rarely conservative.
2002-12-06 10:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ragnar@Dec 5 2002, 03:09 **Texas Dissident:
Great one! I'm thinking a collection of the old movement songs would be interesting since it's almost all gone now. We have a generation of young men who never heard of Joe Hill.
I ran a store in the 70s and I told everyone to back Cesar Chavez. We were all Republicans then and nobody could figure out my logic. I told them if the farm union bid the ag rates high enough, family farms will be competative again. That's how I learned the hard way that Republicans are rarely conservative.**
I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
Alive as you and me Says I "but Joe, you're 10 years dead!" "I never died," says he.
"The Copper Bosses killed you Joe, They killed you Joe," says I. "It takes more than guns to kill a man," says Joe, "I didn't die."
"From San Diego, up to Maine And in every mine and mill, Where workers strike and organize," says he, "You'll find Joe Hill."
2002-12-06 18:16 | User Profile
Walter:
Another history buff! We are fewer and fewer.
For a true piece of America now gone, there's a Joe Hill website that includes his stuff, along with the things others wrote about him. (It includes real curiosities such as "Nearer my Job to Thee" and "Casey Jones the Scab".) Most of this is about a century old and probably as alien to our world as Dorothy Day and the pyramids of Mars.
Joe Hill's website:
[url=http://www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/parton/2/hill.html]http://www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/parton/2/hill.html[/url]