Subject: Re:Great American Wealth Transfer (2nd rejoinder to McQ)

From: [email-masked] (Richard Clark)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 95 15:48:32 -0800

Article: soc.culture.usa.46041
First 20 lines:
 Bruce McQuain says, "Percapita GNP is . . quite indicative of standard 
 of living...and is a direct result of productivity."
 However, there is much that makes up our quality of life other than 
 GNP!  And much more goes into GNP than our productivity (i.e. dollars 
 worth of output per hour, per worker).  Other factors that need to be 
 considered: what percentage of the population is employed, and how 
 many hours each year do they work.
 ___________________________
 Bruce says, "the point isn't that service is some new type market sector,
 it's been the dominant sector for decades. 
 However, the service sector has been "dominant" only in that it has 
 contained the largest number of employees.  In terms of which sector has 
 generated the most revenue---actually produced the goods that we sell 
 both here and abroad, it has been manufacturing and engineering that 
 has been most important to our success.  Engineers and service workers
 don't mean a damn thing unless marketable products are 
 _manufactured_.  Service workers only support and supplement that key 
 process.
 _______________________________
 Bruce says "there is no more productive worker in the industrialized 

Original from: ixnews2.ix.netcom.com --> soc.culture.usa.46041

---

From: [email-masked] (Lance Visser)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 95 15:48:32 -0800

Article: soc.culture.usa.46044
First 20 lines:
 In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Richard Clark) writes:
 +>____________________________________
 +>Bruce claims that "federal housing expenditures increased in EVERY 
 +>YEAR but '89 for the decade of the '80s ('80-'90) and every year but '85 
 +>at a state and local level.
 +>Yet on p. 40 of Z Magazine's Jan. '94 issue, Holly Sclar reports that 
 +>funding for housing for the poor was cut by more than 80% between 
 +>1978 and 1991.
 	That depends on how you define a "cut".  HUD's dollar-budget
 increased every year from 1980-1990 (ex. 1989).  The 80% figure is
 determined from what HUD thinks its budget OUGHT to be.  I dont
 consider HUD not getting the levels of increases that it thinks
 its entitled to as being the same thing as budget cuts.  The program
 did spend more money every year.
 	If the same thinking were applied to the defense department,
 the cuts there would be several hundred percent over the last 
 decade. 

Original from: mikey.convex.com --> soc.culture.usa.46044

---

From: [email-masked] (Richard Clark)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 95 15:48:32 -0800

Article: soc.rights.human.12436
First 20 lines:

Original from: ixnews2.ix.netcom.com --> soc.rights.human.12436

---

From: [email-masked] (Lance Visser)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 95 15:48:32 -0800

Article: soc.rights.human.12440
First 20 lines:

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
For help information, send email                     NetNews Filtering Server
with word 'help' in message body                      [email-masked]
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Original from: mikey.convex.com --> soc.rights.human.12440