On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Tavis Barr wrote:
>
> What amazes me is this: The system that I put together probably cut the
> non-production workforce (people with the fairly mundane jobs of keeping
> track of inventory and filling out and keeping track of purchase orders
> and payments on bills) by a factor of three or four (no layoffs
> necessary since it was a growing company though I'm sure I would have
> been a hatchet boy in another situation). This seems the natural
> effect of any IB system. And yet it's the non-production workforce in
> manufacturing that's been growing and the production workforce that's
> been shrinking. Any thoughts? Is it that most businesses simply haven't
> implemented IB systems (I have this impression, or at least the
> impression that they're not as fully implemented as they could be)? Or
> is there a really exploding ratio of non-production work that's simply
> been tamed by the computer revolution?
>
Isn't it possible that the growth of a "non-production workforce" in
manufacturing simply reflects the transition from some of these companies
out of manufacturing into finance? Isn't the purpose of US Steel to
enhance the share value of its equity rather than make steel?
Louis Proyect
