Bain Capital sends more jobs to China, Romney profits

[Windpower]

"Actually the computer revolution did begin in the 70's."

and you are correct

But there is a world of difference between "begin" and make any peceptible difference in productivity

The PC world of even 1980 showed world wide sales of about 500,000 units and almost half of those were Radio Shack TRS 80's  (or Trash 80's as they were 'fondly' called)

200,000  TRS 80's in the world most certainly did not cause a boom or revolution in worker productivity




What about 1985 (11 years after wages dropped relative to productivity in 1974):   About 3,000,000 PC's sold in the world. Again, the impact on averge worker productivity was very small

(interesting history/chronology of PC's here starting with the Hewlett-Packard HP 35  pocket calculator (rumored to be designed to fit Bill Hewlett's shirt pocket) which sold for $395 or about $2150 in 2012 $)



http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/comphist/comp1972.htm


bottom line: PC's didn't have any noticable effect on worker productivity in the 70's

so yeah, the 'computer revolution' began in the 70's but had no dramatic impact on producivity for a long time -- well into the late 80's and 90's -- 10 to 15 years after corporations decided pay less money for more productivity in the mid 1970's

[NM_Shooter]

A legitimate source that shows differing data.  But it shows diversion between productivity and wages.... OK......

So what is the point of this argument?  That pay raises should be MORE than inflation for doing the exact same work?

Why?  A sense of entitlement?  BS!

If you want to get paid more, take some risk, educate yourself and learn new skills, or work harder.  If not, then an inflation raise is exactly where you need to be. 

Workers have not changed.  The method used by a single person to carry something from point a to point b is exactly the same as it was 10,000 years ago.  Factories now purchase capital equipment to assist productivity.  Why should the hourly worker be paid more when it is the owner of the factory who is increasing the productivity through capital improvement?

PCs did not effect productivity until later, but they continued to fuel the diversion in the 80's. 

What has changed is factory automation.  The use of microcontrollers, microprocessors and semiconductor devices built upon the relay ladder logic that was exceptionally expensive.   

http://www.jimpinto.com/writings/automationhistory.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation

From above :

"The term automation, inspired by the earlier word automatic (coming from automaton), was not widely used before 1947, when General Motors established the automation department. At that time automation technologies were electrical, mechanical, hydraulic and pneumatic. Between 1957 and 1964 factory output nearly doubled while the number of blue collar workers started to decline.[2]"

The single biggest contributor to these diverging lines is Moore's law. 

I'm curious... is this chart any different in any other flourishing country?  It would be interesting to see what Germany's chart looks like, as well as Greece's.

[NM_Shooter]

Here.  This is interesting.  Unit labor costs of some Euro countries compared to Germany.  Note that this is total labor, not hourly wages. 

Notice anything unusual about Greece?

Source : http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_651.pdf



I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with Bain and sending jobs offshore. 

If we want to keep jobs here, we have to make it MORE profitable for our companies who are here.  Not less.  We should celebrate that US businesses experience success while allowing non-exempt employees to make wages that keep up with inflation. 

If they want to earn more, we have great post secondary education available to them. 

[Canvasman]

bottom line: PC's didn't have any noticable effect on worker productivity in the 70's

PC may not have, but computerization sure did. I was programming numerically controlled cutting machines in the late 70's. Sure was inprovement from cross slide turntables.
Eric

[Windpower]

Of course it was an improvement. There were all kinds of improvements in productivity from 1948 right up to the present.  There were tremendous improvements in the US infrastructure l(largely paid for by US tax payers) 4 lane highways, air travel, almost unlimited electric power, education, etc etc all of this helped productivity.

What changed in 1974 is that this productivity increase no longer was shared with 'workers' 

the graph shows a continuous LINEAR improvement in productivity from 1948 to 2010 -- there is no big bump or increase from microprocessor controlled machine or anything else that I can see -- just a continuous fairly constant improvement.

What that means is companies increased their profits and workers wages increased as well -- at least until that stopped in 1974.

I find it sad that many people in the US continue to lick the boots of the corporations that are sending their jobs out of the US and sucking the life out of the economy and ruining the future of our children.

Sad

[NM_Shooter]

What changed in 1974 is that this productivity increase no longer was shared with 'workers' 

If a company invests in automation that allows the worker to be more productive without working more, why does that company owe the worker any additional compensation? 

[Native_NM]

The PC is only one portion of the semi-conductor revolution.  Mainframes increases back-office productivity tremendously.  Banking was revolutionized in the 60's and 70's.

Embedded electronics also increased productivity.

[MountainDon]

What changed in 1974 is that this productivity increase no longer was shared with 'workers' 

If the company is  co-op then there may be good reason to share more with workers. If it is a privately or publicly held for profit organization then the owners and shareholders get to share the increased profits. They also get to share in any losses.  Hmmm... if the non co-op company looses money should the workers have to pay back some of their salary?   

[Huge29]

Windpower you are clearly clueless!  What is your experience in running a business?  So, when your competition puts you out of business as  your costs are way too high, especially if you are in an area in which you are mobbed into using union employees, do you just close shop or do  you look for an alternative?  In being consistent and not being a hypocrite, look at the labels of the last 20 things you bought tell me that no less than 10 of them are from China.
In further disproving your hypocrisy, please tell me that if your candidate did not directly appoint a CEO that is moving jobs to China faster than he can hand out food stamps.  take a look at your own Obama appointed CEO of GM's in China, please reconcile for me your original comments vs an entity that Romney formerly operated. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvl5Gan69Wo

[Windpower]

Huge

You seem kinda new here so I will spell this out


I AM NOT A SUPPORTER OF OBAMA

So please don't call me clueless or a hipocrite



The beginning story of this post was that Bain Capital (from which Romney still profits) sent 170 jobs to China closing a company that was profitable and increasing its sales