Nike, again

[Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sometimes the automated prelies don't work too good.





---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 15:17:46 -0500
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@xxxxxxxxx>
To: dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
While talking to curlew.cs.man.ac.uk:
>>> RCPT To:<PEN-L%EDU.CSUCHICO.ECST.BOBBY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<<< 550 Unknown local user 'PEN-L%EDU.CSUCHICO.ECST.BOBBY'
550 PEN-L%EDU.CSUCHICO.ECST.BOBBY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx User unknown

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 15:16:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood>
Subject: Re: Running further with those shoes
To: CIANCANELLI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

They may be a relatively small portion of overall costs, but they're the
easiest ones to cut. Can't cut debt service, land costs, the price of raw
materials, etc., by 90% the way you can by moving from a unionized
plant in Ontario or a non-unionized one in Tennessee to one staffed by
transient teenage women in Malaysia.

Doug

Doug Henwood [dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)


On Wed, 2 Mar 1994 CIANCANELLI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> If labour costs were such a small proportion of overall costs why
> relocate production at all?
>
> Maybe like a lot of "global goods" there's a world wide marketing price
> policy so the price is perhaps falling in places like German (to counteract
> revaluation of Mark or recession) but not in the US. I'd opt for  closer
> scrutiny of the extent of the market and the price of running in different
> currency areas.
>
> I'm bored with running myself.
> Penny Ciancanelli
> Manchester