Live data from Hacker News

Business Is Booming

prospect.org

1–10 of 36 posts

Re: Business Is Booming

#2
Fundamentally, the businesses (outside of technology focused firms) are nothing more than middlemen that add little value.

I'm waiting for Foxconn or similar to start making their own commodity items and selling them directly - you can, for example, already buy SFF computers with the Foxconn label on them.

It's just a matter of time for the profit engines that US corporations have created to be cloned and have the entire profit center go overseas.

Re: Business Is Booming

#3
> According to a survey this summer from the National Employment Law Project, only a third of the jobs lost in 2008-2009 were in industries paying less than $15 an hour, but fully three-quarters of the job growth in 2010 came in these same low-wage industries. Among the industries that grew in 2010, the top three occupations were retail sales clerks, cashiers, and food preparers with a median hourly wage of less than $10.

So? It takes longer to hire higher waged staff. Hiring higher waged staff is ceteris paribus more of a risk so you'd expect it to pick up later in the recovery.

Re: Business Is Booming

#4
The author of this article has internalized some Keynesian assumptions so deeply that he doesn't realize the story he is writing directly falsifies one of them. A major assumption of Keynesian economics is that employment scales with production. Thus, if you stimulate aggregate demand, you will increase production, and thereby increase employment. This hasn't happened - aggregate demand and production have recovered, but employment has not.

The fact is, our economy is a lot more complicated than it used to be. Workers are not interchangeable cogs and expanding profits does not necessarily involve expanding employment. Stimulating demand in retail will not raise the employment of construction workers or realtors. Many employees produce nothing directly, but merely improve the value of capital [1] - increased profits don't demand hiring more employees, and reduced profits don't demand firing them.

Until economics catches up with the times, all we will get are silly ideas like "invest in infrastructure" and "stimulate demand". Really, you think jobs are moving to India because of their infrastructure? Lets get real here. I've done a little work for someone who created about 30 jobs in Pune. He drives for 2-4 hours on crappy roads to get from his house in Bombay to the office, only to discover that the power is out and no work can be done today. You think he'll come back to the US if you widen a few highways?

[1] I'm a good example. My labor is directly worth nothing - all of my companies profits are directly attributable to capital (a trading system + money in the brokerage account). My employment is an investment - I have a significant probability of increasing the value of that capital.

Re: Business Is Booming

#5
in capitalism, if you own, you don't have to work with hands. the nation in general owns plants abroad, so everything okay :) in general :)

(just don't stop to spend on military, or the ownership right could be questioned)

Re: Business Is Booming

#7

The author of this article has internalized some Keynesian assumptions so deeply that he doesn't realize the story he is writing directly falsifies one of them. A major assumption of Keynesian economics is that employment scales with production. Thus, if you stimulate aggregate demand, you will increase production, and thereby increase employment. This hasn't happened - aggregate demand and production have recovered,…

Investing in infrastructure isn't silly if it is a large project that only government could afford, addresses a current or near future problem, and has favorable return on investment.

Widening highways and filling potholes has been more about giving states a short-term bailout under the name of stimulating the economy.

Re: Business Is Booming

#8
post #2

Fundamentally, the businesses (outside of technology focused firms) are nothing more than middlemen that add little value. I'm waiting for Foxconn or similar to start making their own commodity items and selling them directly - you can, for example, already buy SFF computers with the Foxconn label on them. It's just a matter of time for the profit engines that US corporations have created to be cloned and have the en…

The businesses that "add little value" are envied in China because they have access to demand, and he who owns demand is key. The Chinese are making it a priority to advance their marketing, design, etc. abilities to compete in the West's consumer culture. While you may not like marketing, it brings in the money - and in our consumerist economy that's our GDP...

I'd like to see Foxconn try to replace Apple - hell even Dell. Lenovo had to buy their business from IBM to get the marketing / brand support to be successful beyond their manufacturing capabilities.

It's hard to market from a culture from the outside. VW made their German designers live with US families - which is when they figured out why we want cup holders so badly ;-)

Re: Business Is Booming

#9

The author of this article has internalized some Keynesian assumptions so deeply that he doesn't realize the story he is writing directly falsifies one of them. A major assumption of Keynesian economics is that employment scales with production. Thus, if you stimulate aggregate demand, you will increase production, and thereby increase employment. This hasn't happened - aggregate demand and production have recovered,…

Well, yes and no on the relevance of Keynesian / neo-K policy. It's true that the current pot-hole filling projects are just ways for congressmen to get money for their district while claiming they're stimulating the economy.

However, there are certainly projects out there with high multiplier affects. For instance, in PA the "Ben Franklin Partnership", who invest in early stage startups, claims a 5x multiplier of economic value over its funding. This is the type of infrastructure spending I could get behind.

Certainly, a lot of our human capital needs investment as well. Anyone who claims this isn't a partially structural recession is living in a fantasy land or is blatantly supporting the status quo. School reform as a long-term plan and some type of incentive for retraining the existing workforce would seem to have a high multiplier affect as well.

FWIW

Re: Business Is Booming

#10

The author of this article has internalized some Keynesian assumptions so deeply that he doesn't realize the story he is writing directly falsifies one of them. A major assumption of Keynesian economics is that employment scales with production. Thus, if you stimulate aggregate demand, you will increase production, and thereby increase employment. This hasn't happened - aggregate demand and production have recovered,…

"The fact is, our economy is a lot more complicated than it used to be."

Or, our economy is actually just not the top of the heap anymore, and probably never will be unless Asia suddenly slides off and sinks into the Pacific. If it weren't for anomalously successful companies like Apple or Wal-Mart, multi-nationals will eventual write-down the US market as dying and move everything overseas. If KFC can make more money in China than here, we're not really going to recover and be their #1 market again, unless we just open the immigration floodgates (even then, that adds 100 million TOTAL Mexicans, which is a drop in the bucket in comparison). GM sells more cars in China than in the US. You think that's ever going to "pivot" back to us, no matter if we build infrastructure or let it crumble?

It's simpler than you think. Multi-nationals will continue to benefit from the stable political structure and docile and manipulable populace, executives from said companies will continue to live here with its favorable individual tax and seasonal climate (not everyone can stomach the heat in Singapore no matter how tax advantageous it may be) and liquid assets can be increasingly secreted away in wherever pleases them (Caymans, Switzerland, etc.). The only thing that actually changed is that their money makes the world flat.

This is the end of the empire, whether by brute force (Chinese market and labor force) or by increasing political and military irrelevance. We used to own all the money and guns. Now everyone's got guns and everyone's getting money. Now we're just 300 million people pointing fingers at each other.

It's not complicated; there just isn't going to be any solution that we want to hear.

Post reply on HN