Saturday, April 03, 2004

Posted here Saturday, April 03, 2004 at 6:37:58 PM     The wal-mart phenomena, largest employer in the US, largest foundation, main instigator of the voucher system, motivated to dpo away with any welfare, dive down wages and sell chinese made product. It is jut a large scale reational model. Be the best at paying the least for wages and product, and sell at a profit. I don't see it so much as a synister operation, but one that had to emerge, given the rules of the current economy.Someone had to play the role of cheap wages, cheap buying and cheap selling, taking advantage of the differences between the US and China. It was ripe for a monopolistic company, because someone had to do better than others, and in doing so, made the others have to fail.  http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=672_0_1_0_C ********

Posted here Saturday, April 03, 2004 at 3:19:58 PM     This is helpful in understanding these figures. http://www.drsohn.com/04pres/sohn/2004/MarEmployment.pdf Employment Report for March 2004  Sung Won Sohn Wells Fargo Bank 612 667 7498 Summary Responding to economic strength, payroll employment rose 308,000 in March. The jobless rate edged up to 5.7 percent from 5.6 percent as more people joined the labor force. The total employment for January and February was revised up as well. Analysis The final piece of economic recovery is in the process of falling in place. Finally, jobs are responding to economic expansion. Employment gains were broadly based. Manufacturing stopped shedding jobs for the first time in 44 months. The labor force participation rate has stabilized at 65.9 percent. Productivity gains are slowing, Severl things are striking. First is that beibg laid off too long leads eventually to getting a part time job. (see the New Yorker, THE CHURN Creative destruction in a border town. http://newyorker.com/nrintah1e/7fact/040329fa_fact for a vivid portrayal of how this works in specifics), and second, that when a worker starts looking, they are counted as unemployed, whereas before looking, they were not. note the very striking "labor force" participation at 65.9. The smae kind of difference as between non registered and non voting registered voters. ********