An apocryphal aside on the subject of the influences of a large organisation on a local community. Many years ago, when double eagles were legal tender and available, but not very common, there was a USAF base near a small town. The commander of the base was getting loads of complaints about aircraft noise and the behaviour of his troops on Sat night to the extent that the town was trying to get the base closed. He arranged that for the next two months all his troops and all of the bills were paid in cash with double eagles. After a couple of months he called a meeting of the local dignitaries and asked about the frequency of double eagles in their cash registers; there were many complaints about the inordinate quantity they were having to deal with. He then pointed out that they all originated at the base. The complaints stopped there and then!
John Weller 01380 723235 07976 393631 > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kenneth Kixmoeller/fh > Sent: 17 December 2006 17:57 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [NF] SMB, was microsoft_antipiracy... > > > > On Dec 15, 2006, at 6:13 PM, MB Software Solutions wrote: > > > But Chet's point *is* valid---there are more SMBs than big dog > > enterprises. SMBs make up most of the economy, iirc. > > Sorry for the OT drift, but comments like these are so common that a > bit of reality is to the common good. I have been an economic > development prefeshonall, so this stuff isn't just off the top of my > head: > > Yes, major corporations don't employ many folks in the greater scheme > of things. Also, when one is talking about their own employment, they > do not create many *new* jobs, either. Politicians love to blabber > that small business is what is important, as they generate 80% of new > jobs. True enough, but not the whole story. > > Major corporations, research universities and manufacturing companies > (in the broadest definition, including extraction-based industries) > are economic engines. Tourism comes next, and behaves like an > extraction-based industry. They drive the economy of a community. A > vast proportion of the "virtuous" small businesses serve to feed the > beasts as contract manufacturers and service companies. Of these, a > large corporate headquarters has by far the greatest short-term > economic impact. Research universities, long-term. Retailers, > consumer services and non-profits feed off all of them and are on the > bottom of the food chain for creating jobs, but they are the most > vulnerable and therefore a good economic indicator. > > Also, most of the next generation of major corporations spin off from > the older "majors," so a healthy large business community is the best > single indicator of a community's future economic health. > > So a large corporate HQ doesn't create many of it's own jobs, but it > has a vastly disproportionate impact on a community's and therefore a > country's economy. > > (I'll save Chet the trouble: "Big corporations are evil." Happy?) > > > Ken > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
