Sometimes the automated prelies don't work too good.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 15:17:46 -0500
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
----- Transcript of session follows -----
While talking to curlew.cs.man.ac.uk:
>>> RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<<< 550 Unknown local user 'PEN-L%EDU.CSUCHICO.ECST.BOBBY'
550 [EMAIL PROTECTED] User unknown
----- Unsent message follows -----
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 15:16:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood>
Subject: Re: Running further with those shoes
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
They may be a relatively small portion of overall costs, but they're the
easiest ones to cut. Can't cut debt service, land costs, the price of raw
materials, etc., by 90% the way you can by moving from a unionized
plant in Ontario or a non-unionized one in Tennessee to one staffed by
transient teenage women in Malaysia.
Doug
Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)
On Wed, 2 Mar 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If labour costs were such a small proportion of overall costs why
> relocate production at all?
>
> Maybe like a lot of "global goods" there's a world wide marketing price
> policy so the price is perhaps falling in places like German (to counteract
> revaluation of Mark or recession) but not in the US. I'd opt for closer
> scrutiny of the extent of the market and the price of running in different
> currency areas.
>
> I'm bored with running myself.
> Penny Ciancanelli
> Manchester
