🚀 go-pugleaf

"Bill Ruggles" <wolf@easystreet.com> wrote in message...
> "Anthony H" <mapant@usa.com> wrote in message...
>  
> > In my pet theory of the economy, the service industry or service
> > sector of the economy expands to pick up those people whose jobs have
> > been shed by the manufacturing or production part of the economy
> > because of increases in efficiency and technology

> Then wouldn't it be necessary that the service jobs were paid competitively
> as compared to manufacturing?

Ideally, a service job should be paid just as highly as a
manufacturing job.    However, it is not "necessary" to the
functioning of a balanced economy for this to be so.

The reason, as I see it, why people don't have as high a regard for
the service job (and as a result do not get paid as highly for it) as
they do the manufacturing job is because manufacturing jobs are in
general more essential to the sustinence of a society than service
jobs, and are thus accorded more respect.  Also, the product of a
service job is, in most cases, not tangible as it is with a
manufacturing job.  Generally, it is easier to see and measure the
fruits of labor in a manufacturing job than it is to measure the
fruits of labor of say, a waiter's/waitress job.  But workers in both
sectors should get the same amount of pay, since they are both putting
in the same amount of man-hours in contribution to the overall wealth
of an economy.

> Actually, it seems that software develepment
> jobs are getting the better pay, manufacturing is shrinking, and those who
> used to have good income jobs are now existing to serve those who are in the
> money.

Are you saying that those with manufacturing jobs are "in the money"
and those with service jobs are existing to "serve" those in the
manufacturing jobs?  I disagree.  Is a flight attendant who buys a car
"serving" the auto factory worker anymore than an auto factory worker
who takes a trip on an airplane "serving" the flight attendant?

People seem to regard those in the service sector as lesser than those
in the manufacturing sector.  It is true that the manufacturing sector
is more essential to the sustinence of a society than the service
sector, but that does not mean that one should be paid less than the
other.  Both are contributing equally to the wealth of an economy in
terms of inidividual man-hours worked.  In my opinion, the wealth of
an economy can be measure by the size of its  service sector.  Look at
any wealthy economy -- is it's service sector not large?  Look at a
poor economy, is it's service sector not relatively small?

> Also, don't you have to account for the value of labor vs. the value
> of capital?  While jobs are moving out of manufacturing and into service,
> the owners of capitol are retaining larger and larger percentages of the
> profits.

I think economists are too pre-occupied with capital (ie assets).  In
my opinion, the health of an economy is dictated by the smooth flow of
spent money, ie its flow from producer to consumer and back again. 
Wealth held in capital that is not actively doing anything, such as
sitting in a bank account, tied up in stocks, or in real estate, has
no affect on the economy until its spent on produced goods/services.

But don't listen to me, I'm just a high school grad.