Tweet
Because you like us! 
Or at least you don't seem to hate us.
Or at least you don't seem to hate us.
-
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891 -
Ok, I'll care, but only because you do, keep that in mind.
(where did all these lovely smilies suddenly come from?)
About something completely different, where is Microsoft heading to? MS has been taking on Sony with their console, SAP by purchasing a competitor of theirs, AOL TW by engaging in broadband, instant messaging and entertainment applications, and also Nokia in handset software. This is admittedly somewhat exaggerated but who's next? General Electric? MS seems be fond of taking on the giants in their respective businesses lately. It's an impressive company but this looks a bit like imperial overstretch.DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.Comment
-
I have been quite impressed with MS lately. They are choosing their shots and most of the initiatives you mention are right down their alley--software and operating systems.
*X-Box is a better console than Sony's and MS should win out in this market in the 4-6 year timeframe -- Asian low-cost, outsourced manufacturing base, American hardware and software IP, by and large
*MS has chosen an excellent way of selling their OS for handsets. Not that creating generic reference designs is a new concept, but it should work extremely well in the current commodity manufacturing environment; MS should have a sizeable slice of this market in the 3-5 year timeframe, if they execute, and the Taiwanese contract manufacturers will be rich because of it -- Lowest cost manufacturing base, American hardware and software IP
*Embedded XP should continue to pick up contracts here and there; big battle between it and Linux, but this is the type of market where it's difficult to dominate and could become a market where everybody wins
One of the only areas where I'm skeptical where they're heading is MSN dial-up and broadband. The US market is mature for dial up; broadband is too expensive to hit mass appeal. Don't know where they're going to get big numbers.
But I'm not at all concerned with imperial overstretch, as long as they keep to their core competency. Don't know too much about the SAP angle. Perhaps you could enlighten?
Its financials are stunning.Last edited by DanS; December 6, 2002, 19:02.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
None, at least no more than the justification for using GDP per hour in the Business sector.Originally posted by DanS
What's the justification for using GDP/worker rather than GDP/hour worked?
However if you are going to compare different economies then you should definately use the same measure of productivity for both - and data for GDP per worker is more readily available (the only data I have seen for average hours is for 1979, 1990 and 1997-2001 for selected countries).
It also shows how a lot of the rise in recent years has been due to falling average hours.
The US has good productivity growth, sluggish employment, falling labour-force activity and falling average hours.
It's most strange that Europe and America seem to have changed places in terms of their labour-markets and productivity.19th Century Liberal, 21st Century EuropeanComment
-
Hmmm... Snow as the new Treasury Secretary. Salesman for a new round of tax cuts upcoming.
Adam Smith: Do you have anything to say about him?
I'm glad that Bush didn't give in and go for a Wall Street banker. I seem to remember meeting him at a political fundraiser at Union Station about 10 years ago, although I can't remember for sure.
ef: Taking your spreadsheet and doing some 5-year averages, I note that the late 90s hasn't been beaten since the 60s.
On both hours and participation rate, the reductions seem modest to me overall. BLS says that the workweek reduction over a couple of decades is about 50 hrs per annum total. I would be interested in knowing Europe's reductions. And the employed/pop ratio seems to always go down at a recession (see attached). The participation rates don't show such nice distinct hills and valleys.
We might see a repeat of the "jobless recovery" of the 90s. Also, the 60s and 90s look awful similar on this chart.Attached FilesLast edited by DanS; December 9, 2002, 02:18.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
-
Yup......this has been evident for some time now. Of course, resilient productivity growth makes this scenario more likely. Productivity growth is a double edged sword, because it increases the amount demand has to grow to close the output gap, and return unemployment to NAIRU.Originally posted by DanS
We might see a repeat of the "jobless recovery"Comment
-
AS:
"Why would EU use either measure?"
There are measures per hour, too. However, labour market stats are extremely unreliable. The BLS is using a fudge factor of 100k-200k per month for the payrolls, and does big revisions. A change in german social security law lead to almost 2 million employed showing up, mostly in the low wage/few hours category. The nr of hours is even less reliable, so it's just a funny number guessing.
"Attributing all productivity gains to labor overstates labor productivity. Why not use multifactor?"
Well the BLS labour productivity figures are output/hour, too.
As for US labour force growth, it's been growing very fast through the 90s. Most of that extra growth was artificial, the bubble economy drew in marginal workers. Now it's being corrected.
As for treasury, I'm surprised they don't bring in a Rubin clone. But looks like a package deal - at least the econ adviser will be a speculator *****.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Sorry Roland but that's incorrect.Originally posted by HershOstropoler
AS:
"Why would EU use either measure?"
As for US labour force growth, it's been growing very fast through the 90s. Most of that extra growth was artificial, the bubble economy drew in marginal workers. Now it's being corrected.
Using the latest estimates of population the US's activity rate (workforce/population aged 15-64) was static between 1992 and 1997 (at 76.2%) - so no 'marginal' workers were being taken in and boosting the labour force growth.
However since 1997 the activity rate has fallen to 74.8% - reversing some of the rise seen in the 1980's.19th Century Liberal, 21st Century EuropeanComment
-
Payroll growth was about 2 %, some of that may have been revised away. "Marginal" is a bit lose to describe what I mean; the couple million in extra immigration also owe partly to the bubble, and I think we can expect some reversal there.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Maybe it has since you looked at the data - the average growth in employment in 1995-2000 was 1.6% in the US, it was above 2% only in 1997.Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Payroll growth was about 2 %, some of that may have been revised away.
Well, the population estimates show that the peak of growth for population was in the early 1990's, not during the boom years.Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Marginal" is a bit lose to describe what I mean; the couple million in extra immigration also owe partly to the bubble
Already happened - didn't you seem my post earlier (on page 5) about the US's falling population growth? (it's now down to 0.9% from 1.3% in the early 1990's)Originally posted by HershOstropoler
and I think we can expect some reversal there.19th Century Liberal, 21st Century EuropeanComment
-
I haven't had the time to go through the numbers in detail, but 1.6 % looks about right.
"Well, the population estimates show that the peak of growth for population was in the early 1990's"
I have the census office guesstimates:
Jan 1990: 248.8
Jan 1995: 264.8
Jan 2000: 280.7
That looks pretty even. Also those nrs are recalculated; given that they erred by a couple million for their 2000 estimate, I do not put much faith in their reconstruction of the annual developments.
"Already happened - didn't you seem my post earlier (on page 5) about the US's falling population growth?"
I saw it, and the point was an explanation for the falloff in labour supply growth. But you're right, after the census and BLS revisions the picture looks a lot less clear.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Re the falling population growth, I would need a lot more corroborating evidence to believe it. The US Census Bureau hasn't been known to keep good tabs on immigration and there are a lot of ways for extra people to be hidden in the good old US of A (by conscious compromise design, I'm convinced).
If there's a dip in the growth rate, I would say it has a lot more to do with 9/11 and subsequent documentation crackdowns than the bubble economy.Last edited by DanS; December 9, 2002, 11:41.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
DanS,
If 9/11 were to blame then you would expect the slowdown to have happened since then, however:
Growth in population over last year:
1998 Q3: 1.2%
1999 Q3: 1.2%
2000 Q3: 1.1%
2001 Q3: 0.9%
2002 Q3: 0.9%
So the slowdown happened at the same time the bubble started to deflate and in fact was fully complete by 9/11 - I would say the evidence is far more supportive for it being bubble-induced than terror-induced.19th Century Liberal, 21st Century EuropeanComment
-
And like Roland, I would put zero stock in those numbers, as these growth rates were probably just smoothed in order to close the books. The Census Bureau originally pegged population growth at 0.9% for the 90s too.
You put way too much confidence in our government's ability and desire to report accurate numbers for immigration. There's a reason why they didn't get it right the first time, you know.Last edited by DanS; December 9, 2002, 12:16.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Now that's far more likely - and a more worthy counter than the old chesnut of '9/11 is the cause of everything bad'.19th Century Liberal, 21st Century EuropeanComment
Comment