True, but Automation in a local domestic plant still requires some human
interaction to monitor and maintain equipment. Shipping jobs overseas to be
done cheaper is just reducing costs. Faced with replacing 10 U.S. workers
with a million dollar machine, or just finding 10 or 20 foreign laborers to
do the same job at a fraction of the salary of one U.S. worker, TODAY'S
companies are choosing the latter.
-----Original Message-----
From: Black, Cory [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 11:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Comments from Omaha
Manufacturing jobs will never be what they were in 52 or 62 or...
Automation is replacing them just as fast as offshoring.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0403070505mar07,1,1116097.story
-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Craig Lalley
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:09 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: OT: Comments from Omaha
I haven't had the time to research this, but aren't there more people
employed by the Federal, State and City goverments, than all of the
Manufacturing sector combined?
How does that compare to 1952? Since the Government doesn't pay taxes...
-Craig
--- Tim Cummings <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> <snip>
> Corporate income taxes in fiscal 2003 accounted for 7.4% of all
> federal tax receipts, down from a post-war peak of 32% in 1952. With
> one exception (1983), last year's percentage is the lowest recorded
> since data was first published in 1934.
>
> ...pay nothing close to the stated federal tax rate of 35%...
>
> In 1985, Berkshire paid $132 million in federal income taxes, and all
> corporations paid $61 billion. The comparable amounts in 1995 were
> $286 million and $157 billion respectively. And, as mentioned, we will
> pay about $3.3 billion for 2003, a year when all corporations paid
> $132 billion. We hope our taxes continue to rise in the future -- it
> will mean we are prospering but we also hope
> that the rest of Corporate America antes up along with us.
> <snip>
>
> Let's do the math:
>
> Is $132 million > $3.3 Billion ?
> Is $286 million > $3.3 Billion ?
>
> Seems to me that lowering the tax rates for Corporate America caused
> their businesses to grow and generate more taxes!
>
> Under the old tax scheme, tax revenues would have stagnated at the
> growth rate of 216% every 10 years. Instead, under the Bush
> Administration tax plan, tax revenues
> grew by 1153%.
>
> They may have paid a lower percentage rate in taxes, but they did pay
> much more in real dollars.
>
> Tim
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you're looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
DISCLAIMER:
**This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Lincoln National
Corporation proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or
subject to copyright belonging to the Lincoln National Corporation family of
companies. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or
entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of
this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to
this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received
this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently
delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. Thank
You.**
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
