Why are we stuck on "Industry," we're Service Based now

[Kelzie]

Kelzie,

Services are not exported.

Some of them are. And a lot of service involves dealing with industrial goods. Computer, technology, medecine. There's a lot of services that are traded.

The recent trend that shows steady decline in the industry sector is I believe largely due to the consumers' desire for cheaper prices. I guess it's all our fault haha

In a way it is. If you can somehow convince people to pay more that they have to, there would be no incentive to find cheaper work.

I apologize for your misunderstanding. I meant that the realty is exactly what you wrote above, but in my opinion i strongly think that this trend does not benefit the U.S. You claim it from the consumer perspective. What benefit does industry get from this?

They can sell more cause people can buy more. What proof do you offer that it doesn't benefit the US?

I am not favorable towards free trade? I am a big fant of free trade, and for my profession, i am always very concerned about America's trade policies. I feel it is extreme to be totally certain in the theory of comparative advantage and in an effort to celebrate free trade around the world we should careless about our industry die off? Where is the limit?

Why not? Here's an example. Say that Colorado and Florida have tarriffs (I realize they can't). For Florida to export oranges to Colorado it costs 20$/pound even though it only costs $1/pound to produce.. So they start growing oranges in the hot houses of Colorado which they can sell the Coloradans for 15$/pound. Two hundred years pass. A couple people in Colorado think this is kind of a stupid policy. If it wasn't for the tarriffs, CO could get their oranges for a buck a pound AND Florida orange growers could sell more. But the hout house orange growers in CO have a fit. They claim their industry will be ruined. Which it will be, because it never should have been there in the first place.

Industry in the US is a lot like that. Other places can do it better, which benefits the consumer and overseas producer. It's just tradition that's holding us back.

 

[oldreliable67]

Personal stuff aside, a very interesting thread!

Services are not exported.

Of course they are. India especially has led the way in providing many services off-shore that were previously considered impossible to relocate to a cheaper source. Had an X-ray or cat-scan interpreted lately? Might have been in India!

Heretofore, when we spoke of 'off-shoring, we generally thought of relocating a manufacturing process to an area of abundant labor with relatively low wage rates. An attendant assumption was often one of low educational attainment and a workforce limited to predominately manual labor (e.g., assembly line or piece goods work).

However, increasingly we are seeing a much higher intellectual content, if you will, to jobs sent off-shore. Countries like India with generally high educational standards produce so many workers with considerable educational levels that 'white collar' jobs, jobs with high 'knowledge content' are growing quite rapidly.

 

[alphieb]

Because China can do it cheaper. Which means we can buy it cheaper. Which benefits everyone, both Chinese workers and US consumers. If you control the rate at which industry as being transferred to China, you should have no ill effects from the temporary displaced workers.

Healthcare is a seperate issue. Tying it to your job is a strange concept anyway. Think about it, they don't pay for your fire or car insurance. Why should they pay for your health insurance? We just need to nationalize it. It's much more efficient that way.

I do agree with your second paragraph completely. We most diffently need to nationalize it. However, that will NEVER happen unless we get a democratic majority. As it stands now we have to basically rely on employers for that or pay privately out of pocket.....OUCH, thats too expensive.

 

[alphieb]

Gosh, there really is no easy answer to this. After thinking about, with no competition, prices would sky rocket and that would hurt the economy too. I'm speaking of what Kelzie has alluded to.

 

[Kelzie]

I do agree with your second paragraph completely. We most diffently need to nationalize it. However, that will NEVER happen unless we get a democratic majority. As it stands now we have to basically rely on employers for that or pay privately out of pocket.....OUCH, thats too expensive.

It'll never happen without a revolution. Here's a scary fact. 2/3 of Americans have wanted stricter gun control for 60 years. Also never going to happen. The NRA gives to much money to BOTH parties. As do the AMA and insurance companies to make sure national health care will never happen.

Gosh, there really is no easy answer to this. After thinking about, with no competition, prices would sky rocket and that would hurt the economy too. I'm speaking of what Kelzie has alluded to.

No competition in what? Health care or industry? We could actually organize national health care so that it's competitive. Canada does a pretty good job of it.

I'm thinking you're talking about no competition in industry. There would most certainly still be. That's what free trade is all about. Different firms would still be competing for consumers regardless of where they got their workforce, they would both be charging lower prices though if they produced where it was most efficient.

 

[alphieb]

It'll never happen without a revolution. Here's a scary fact. 2/3 of Americans have wanted stricter gun control for 60 years. Also never going to happen. The NRA gives to much money to BOTH parties. As do the AMA and insurance companies to make sure national health care will never happen.



No competition in what? Health care or industry? We could actually organize national health care so that it's competitive. Canada does a pretty good job of it.

I'm thinking you're talking about no competition in industry. There would most certainly still be. That's what free trade is all about. Different firms would still be competing for consumers regardless of where they got their workforce, they would both be charging lower prices though if they produced where it was most efficient.

Oh, I guess I didn't clarify myself. No competition if we did not have trade. If everything was made here in the US, prices would be outrageous. For an example, Ford and GM played that game and look at them now as opposed to Toyota.

As far as healthcare, I think it is ridiculous that Docs don't have to advertise their prices. You can't really call around and say "how much for this surgery", because it is all over the map.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Everything seems to be made "in China" why not here? If we don't watch we will be surpassed in wealth and development if we already are not.

Things are made by the current "Asian Tigers" because they are the third wave of industrializing countries, their economies are currently based on manufacturing (secondary industry or "Industry") and ours are not. This does not mean that they possess any more "wealth" or are more developed than we are. They are just on the "Industry" (secondary industry) phase of the economic transformation and we are in the Post-"industry" phase.

For you information, the current "Asian Tigers" (China, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Malaya, and Vietnam) are the third wave of "industrialization," in my opinion, after Europe and US (the first wave), and the former "Asian Tigers" (the second wave, Japan South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong).

Also, just a thought, look at what FDR did during the great depression by creating jobs. Some of it was make work, but in fact work that put food on the table and got us out of the depression. I'm not just talking about the "war" aspect.

How does this tie in with everything else?

I apologize for your misunderstanding. I meant that the realty is exactly what you wrote above, but in my opinion i strongly think that this trend does not benefit the U.S. You claim it from the consumer perspective. What benefit does industry get from this?

A farmer can work all season and get thousands of dollars, a factory worker can work all year and make 5 figure thousands, but a service industry worker can make 5 or 6 figure thousands (and has the potential for millions). Those who work in real-estate, high tech, and scientific research, IT, franchising, consulting, health-care and entertainment are more productive in terms of profit than manufacturing.

Compare a room full of potatoes, or SUVs to a single high-end real-estate contract in worth.

Here's a scary fact. 2/3 of Americans have wanted stricter gun control for 60 years.

Very interesting, I hope you aren't too annoyed if I ask for a source so I could read some more???

 

[Kelzie]

Very interesting, I hope you aren't too annoyed if I ask for a source so I could read some more???

The only one I could find was the Harris poll of 2004 where 57% wanted stricter control on handguns

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/gunvote.htm

I got the 2/3 off some info from a stat program at school. I'll try and get it for you if I remember it. I believe it was the 2000 NES.

 

[V.I. Lenin]

I believe it was the 2000 NES.

I believe the NES came out in 1985...I still have Duck Hunt in my living room :mrgreen:


Kelzie, what is with this sudden adovacation of revolution? I leave for a couple months and suddenly you become Che Guevara:smile:

 

[128shot]

It'll never happen without a revolution. Here's a scary fact. 2/3 of Americans have wanted stricter gun control for 60 years. Also never going to happen. The NRA gives to much money to BOTH parties. As do the AMA and insurance companies to make sure national health care will never happen.



No competition in what? Health care or industry? We could actually organize national health care so that it's competitive. Canada does a pretty good job of it.

I'm thinking you're talking about no competition in industry. There would most certainly still be. That's what free trade is all about. Different firms would still be competing for consumers regardless of where they got their workforce, they would both be charging lower prices though if they produced where it was most efficient.

you're becoming quite a realist.




Here is an issue I have with National healthcare, it is strictly cost. Which, if you have ever seen me moan about taxes, I would actually support.


However in places with NH, the populations have normally been under 200 million no? What would be the large cost of free , adequate, up-to-date, consistantly changing, healthcare, cost?

 

[-Demosthenes-]

The only one I could find was the Harris poll of 2004 where 57% wanted stricter control on handguns

Ah, handguns. I can see that.

 

[Kelzie]

I believe the NES came out in 1985...I still have Duck Hunt in my living room :mrgreen:

That was a great game. I'd always cheat though and stand right next to the screen. :lol:

Kelzie, what is with this sudden adovacation of revolution? I leave for a couple months and suddenly you become Che Guevara:smile:

Yeah, and don't think I'm not miffed at you for taking off. Next time ask for my permission, hmm?

 

[Kelzie]

you're becoming quite a realist.

I know. It's embarrassing.

Here is an issue I have with National healthcare, it is strictly cost. Which, if you have ever seen me moan about taxes, I would actually support.


However in places with NH, the populations have normally been under 200 million no? What would be the large cost of free , adequate, up-to-date, consistantly changing, healthcare, cost?

If anything it would be cheaper in a larger population because you would get an increase of the bulk affect. Here's some numbers for you. Canada spends roughly $3,000 per person per year on health care. The US pays roughly $6200 per person...and a large number of people don't even have insurance! It makes no sense that we don't have it. Oh wait, insurance companies are some of the biggest donators to the government. Guess it does make sense.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

If anything it would be cheaper in a larger population because you would get an increase of the bulk affect. Here's some numbers for you. Canada spends roughly $3,000 per person per year on health care. The US pays roughly $6200 per person...and a large number of people don't even have insurance! It makes no sense that we don't have it. Oh wait, insurance companies are some of the biggest donators to the government. Guess it does make sense.

I don't doubt that Canada spends much less than the US for health care, but I doubt they are that drastic. If the government spent $62,000 on each person in the US each year they would be spending about $1,860,000,000,000 annually. I'm not going to say that this is impossible, just very, very unlikely

Canada spends about 25% less than the US per person per year (about $1550 compared to about $2150), which is amazing considering the amount of services the Canadian government pays for compared to that of the United States government. Socialized medicine is obviously more efficient than the current US system.

I think we should toss out the "questionable" (I don't want to say insane ) numbers that has the US spending $1,860,000,000,000 a year on medicine. Which is about one trillion eight-hundred and sixty billion on just health care, which is about 2/3's the nation's budget . The US spends about a third of that, about $650,000,000,000 on health care. which is a lot of more than usual, and certainly much more than Canada. Even when taking into account population.

 

[Kelzie]

I don't doubt that Canada spends much less than the US for health care, but I doubt they are that drastic. If the government spent $62,000 on each person in the US each year they would be spending about $1,860,000,000,000 annually. I'm not going to say that this is impossible, just very, very unlikely

Canada spends about 25% less than the US per person per year (about $1550 compared to about $2150), which is amazing considering the amount of services the Canadian government pays for compared to that of the United States government. Socialized medicine is obviously more efficient than the current US system.

I think we should toss out the "questionable" (I don't want to say insane ) numbers that has the US spending $1,860,000,000,000 a year on medicine. Which is about one trillion eight-hundred and sixty billion on just health care, which is about 2/3's the nation's budget . The US spends about a third of that, about $650,000,000,000 on health care. which is a lot of more than usual, and certainly much more than Canada. Even when taking into account population.

I'm sorry, I phrased that wrong (and apparently added an extra zero :doh ). 3,000 is spent on each Canadian a year. Through the government. 6200 is spent on each American a year. Through the government also, but largely through personal spending.

Here's my source for US health spending

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealt...highlights.pdf

Sorry bout that.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

The "..." in the middle of the link messed it up.

 

[Kelzie]

The "..." in the middle of the link messed it up.

Here you go

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp#TopOfPage

Click on "Highlights"

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Wikipedia and the World Health organization give me around $2,100 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared) to $2,400 (http://www3.who.int/whosis/core/core_select_process.cfm) for the US and Canada at about $1550 (http://www3.who.int/whosis/core/core_select_process.cfm).

 

[Kelzie]

Wikipedia and the World Health organization give me around $2,100 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared) to $2,400 (http://www3.who.int/whosis/core/core_select_process.cfm) for the US and Canada at about $1550 (http://www3.who.int/whosis/core/core_select_process.cfm).

I trust a .gov site more than wikipedia. Although I do have love for wiki.

 

[Kelzie]

I trust a .gov site more than wikipedia. Although I do have love for wiki.

Ah I see the problem. The wiki article just has gov. spending, not private, which is the largest source of medical spending in the US.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

The $6,200 figure is what is spent privately and publicly? That makes sense, and is probably a more useful figure.

But the point is the same: Socialized medicine is more efficient than privatized medicine.

 

[Kelzie]

The $6,200 figure is what is spent privately and publicly? That makes sense, and is probably a more useful figure.

But the point is the same: Socialized medicine is more efficient than privatized medicine.

Can't argue with that.

 

[justone]

3,000 is spent on each Canadian a year. Through the government. 6200 is spent on each American a year.
.

It is very interesting. My question is how much of product I get paying 6200,
and how much of product A Canadian gets paying 3000. I mean if I pay 6200 do I get 6200 worth of healthcare, or I get the same value as A Canadian gets paying just 3200?

 

[Kelzie]

It is very interesting. My question is how much of product I get paying 6200,
and how much of product A Canadian gets paying 3000. I mean if I pay 6200 do I get 6200 worth of healthcare, or I get the same value as A Canadian gets paying just 3200?

I would certainly not say that a Canadian is getting half as good of service as an American. Quality of care is hard to measure cause it's subjective. One good indicator is infant mortality, which Canada has a much lower incidence of.

 

[justone]

. Quality of care is hard to measure cause it's subjective.

Well , I have no clue. I just choose a doctor based on my subjective taste and money I am willing to spend.. Do Canadians choose in the same way?

. One good indicator is infant mortality, which Canada has a much lower incidence of.

So what is statistics? And what is statistics vs. birth rate? Just want to see if it worth 6200 vs. 3000