Michael Hoover suggests (correctly, I think) that the fact that the jobs in the southern US didn't pay well meant that there were inadequate consumer markets in the South, so that there was no self-sustaining growth; the actual growth was jump-started by military-related spending. If we go further south (and east), the direct foreign investment in places like Indonesia doesn't face the same market problem. Transportation (and communication) costs are much lower than they were before WW II, so that people in Indonesia don't have to buy Nikes and similar products to sustain that country's growth. Of course, nowadays, the fear is that growth will pull wages up in Indonesia (or encourage strikes, as recently), undermining its competitive advantage in offering a low-wage labor force. (Heck, that sounds like Greenspan's fears!) Anyway, the point is that the move from the northeast US to the South is not exactly analogous to that of movements further south and east. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
