The one number that stands out is Hungary at 1.0, cheaper than
Indonesia. Way cheaper than Poland.
Rob Schaap wrote:
> Table of international business operating costs
> LONDON, Dec 11 AAP|Published: Tuesday December 11, 10:33 PM
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/breaking/2001/12/11/FFX674JKCQC.html
Isn't the Gap on of the most intransigent sweatshop-dependent companies,
relying on Chinese workers that go to Guam on false pretenses and who then
live in barracks?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Rakesh Bhandari
>
>>the changing nature of work,
>
>Doug, have you had a chance to read Frederick Abernathy, John Dunlop,
>Janice Hammond and David Weil, A Stitch in Time: Lean Retailing and the
>transformation of mfg --lessons from the apparel and textile industries
>(oxford, 1999)? Hav
Why are the average growth calculations from peak to
peak, ie 1989 to 2000. these are base year sensitive,
but maybe he has something else in mind.
--- Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> the World Trade attack greatly reduced the
> attractiveness of Just-In-Time
> inventory reduction.
the World Trade attack greatly reduced the attractiveness of Just-In-Time
inventory reduction. But then business may have forgotten about it now
that the emergency has passed.
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 06:43:21PM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> > the changing nature of work...and the ideology o
> the changing nature of work...and the ideology of the New Economy
>(which I read as an exuberant variant on post-industrialism, a
>doctrine that's been ripening for at least 30 years).
Doug, any explicit discussion of this book:
Technology and Capital in the Age of Lean Production : A Marxi
>
> the changing nature of work,
Doug, have you had a chance to read Frederick Abernathy, John Dunlop,
Janice Hammond and David Weil, A Stitch in Time: Lean Retailing and
the transformation of mfg--lessons from the apparel and textile
industries (oxford, 1999)? Haven't read it. It seems to be
Carl Remick wrote:
>>From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>Michael Meerpol said that penners might be interested in Dean Baker's
>>The New Economy Goes Bust. I think that he is correct.
>>
>>http://www.cepr.net/new_economy_goes_bust.htm
>
>I notice the summary comment here, "Even the m
>From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Michael Meerpol said that penners might be interested in Dean Baker's
>The New Economy Goes Bust. I think that he is correct.
>
>http://www.cepr.net/new_economy_goes_bust.htm
I notice the summary comment here, "Even the most cursory review of the da
I tend to very suspicious of this sort thing, after the McMartin fiasco
and so on. Not that there is not a great deal of child abuse, and not
that it is not horrible and worthy of being fought. But exaggerating
the extent of it seems to be a basis for a lot of destruction of Civil
liberties.
Tod
Not impossible, but I would wait for some info on methodology and sample
size before accepting this as fact...
Jim Devine wrote:
>
> from SLATE, 9/10/01:
> >USA [TODAY] ... leads ... with a story nobody else fronts: A University of
> >Pennsylvania study out today estimating that about 325,000 U.
Again, I cannot put a number on it, but the ability to mark up goods looks
identical to productivity gains in the data, unless labor can regain lost
ground through comparable wage gains.
Jim Devine wrote:
> To what extent is the rise in labor productivity growth due to unmeasured
> (and unpaid)
To what extent is the rise in labor productivity growth due to unmeasured
(and unpaid) increases in the number of hours of work done, i.e.,
stretch-out, or due to increases in the intensity of labor (work done per
hour of work-time), i.e., speed-up?
At least one observer argued that the surge
Timework Web wrote:
> We are in for interesting times.
I believe there's an old proverb that goes something like,
"Woe to those who live in interesting times."
Carrol
Michael Perelman asked:
> The question is, how would this economy respond to collapse in stock
> market prices?
A glance at the historical stats on Nasdaq reveals that market valuation
quadrupled from a total of $1.5 trillion in 1996 to around $6 trillion in
February 2000. Using those figures a
>>> Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/03/00 11:36AM >>>
Bill did not address a question which occurred to me after his talk. In the
old days, boom and bust was very much related to the heavy capital
expenditures of industries that formed the core of American industry. For
example, the sharp
Louis's point is very interesting. The railroad industry relied heavily on the
bond market for its funds. In the new economy with the high flying stock
market, companies such as Cisco purchase other companies using its inflated
stock. Money that would go to pay executives comes from the stock o
17 matches
Mail list logo
