Spot on prediction for Dec, 2008 (6.7% Unemployment)

Employers cut 533K jobs in Nov., most in 34 years

By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer – 44 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Skittish employers slashed 533,000 jobs in November, the most in 34 years, catapulting the unemployment rate to 6.7 percent, dramatic proof the country is careening deeper into recession.

The new figures, released by the Labor Department Friday, showed the crucial employment market deteriorating at an alarmingly rapid clip, and handed Americans some more grim news right before the holidays. The net loss of more than a half-million jobs was far worse than analysts expected.

As companies throttled back hiring, the unemployment rate bolted from 6.5 percent in October to 6.7 percent last month, a 15-year high.

"These numbers are shocking," said economist Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economics Advisors. "Companies are sharply reacting to the economy's problems and slashing costs. They are not trying to ride it out."

The unemployment rate would have moved even higher if not for the exodus of 422,000 people from the work force. Economists said many of those people probably abandoned their job searches out of sheer frustration. In November 2007, the jobless rate was at 4.7 percent.

The U.S. tipped into recession last December, a panel of experts declared earlier this week, confirming what many Americans already thought.

Since the start of the recession, the economy has lost 1.9 million jobs, the number of unemployed people increased by 2.7 million and the jobless rate rose by 1.7 percentage points. More evidence that the labor pain is far from over came Friday when General Motors Corp. said it will lay off another 2,000 workers as it cuts shifts at three car factories starting in February due to slowing demand for their products.

President George W. Bush, who used the word "recession" for the first time to describe the economy's state, pledged Friday to explore more efforts to ease housing, credit and financial stresses.

"There is still more work to do," Bush said. "My administration is committed to ensuring that our economy succeeds."

President-elect Barack Obama said the dismal job news underscored the need for forceful action, even as he warned that the pain could not be quickly relieved.

"There are no quick or easy fixes to this crisis ... and it's likely to get worse before it gets better," Obama said. "At the same time, this ... provides us with an opportunity to transform our economy to improve the lives of ordinary people by rebuilding roads and modernizing schools for our children, investing in clean energy solutions to break our dependence on imported oil, and making an early down payment on the long-term reforms that will grow and strengthen our economy for all Americans for years to come."

To provide relief, the Bush administration will continue to concentrate on ways to bust through a credit jam that is feeding prominently into the economy's problems, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez told The Associated Press in an interview. "We're going to stay focused on that like a laser," he said.

Elsewhere Friday, the Mortgage Bankers Association said a record one in 10 American homeowners with a mortgage were either at least a month behind on their payments or in foreclosure at the end of September. The percentage of loans at least a month overdue or in foreclosure was up from 9.2 percent in the April-June quarter, and from 7.3 percent a year earlier.

On Wall Street, stocks slid. The Dow Jones industrials were down 130 points in afternoon trading.

Job losses last month were widespread, hitting factories, construction companies, financial firms, retailers, leisure and hospitality, and others industries. The few places where gains were logged included the government, education and health services.

The loss of 533,000 payroll jobs was much deeper than the 320,000 job cuts economists were forecasting. The rise in the unemployment rate, however, wasn't as steep as the 6.8 percent rate they were expecting. Taken together, though, the employment picture clearly darkening.

The job reductions were the most since a whopping 602,000 positions were slashed in December 1974, when the country was in a severe recession.

All told, 10.3 million people were left unemployed as of November, while the number of employed was 144.3 million.

Gary Cope, 33, this week lost his communications job at Roanoke, Va.-based high-tech research and development company Luna Innovations Inc.

Cope was called into a meeting first thing Thursday morning with two administrators and a human resources representative. Their message: He was being laid off, for financial reasons, effective immediately.

He left with a box of his belongings and about two months' severance. As Cope walked out the door, all he could think was, "I have a 3-year-old son and I'm a single dad."

"I came home and did my initial pity party, then I got myself together, talked to my family and went right to work" rewriting his resume and sending it out, Cope said. "My family has been very supportive, they've let me know I'll get through this and they won't let me drown."

Job losses in September and October also turned out to be much worse. Employers cut 403,000 jobs in September, versus 284,000 previously estimated. Another 320,000 were chopped in October, compared with an initial estimate of 240,000.

Employers are slashing costs as they cope with sagging appetites from customers in the U.S. and in other countries, which are struggling with their own economic troubles.

The carnage — including the worst financial crisis since the 1930s — is hitting a wide range of companies.

In recent days, AT&T Inc., DuPont, JPMorgan Chase & Co., as well as jet engine maker Pratt & Whitney, a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp., and mining company Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. announced layoffs.

Fighting for their survival, the chiefs of Chrysler LLC, General Motors and Ford Motor Co. returned to Capitol Hill Friday to again ask lawmakers for as much as $34 billion in emergency aid.

Workers with jobs saw modest wage gains. Average hourly earnings rose to $18.30 in November, a 0.4 percent increase from the previous month. Over the year, wages have grown 3.7 percent, but paychecks haven't stretched that far because of high prices for energy, food and other items.

Worn-out consumers battered by the job losses, shrinking nest eggs and tanking home values have retrenched, throwing the economy into a tailspin. As the unemployment rate continues to move higher, consumers will burrow further, dragging the economy down even more, a vicious cycle that Washington policymakers are trying to break.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is expected ratchet down a key interest rate — now near a historic low of 1 percent — by as much as a half-percentage point on Dec. 16 in a bid to breathe life into the moribund economy. Bernanke is exploring other economic revival options and wants the government to step up efforts to curb home foreclosures.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, whose department oversees the $700 billion financial bailout program, also is weighing new initiatives such as tapping the second half of that rescue money to ease the economic crisis.

Obama, who takes office on Jan. 20, has called for a massive economic recovery bill to generate 2.5 million jobs over his first two years in office. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has vowed to have a package ready on Inauguration Day for Obama's signature.

The measure, which could total $500 billion, would bankroll big public works projects to create jobs, provide aid to states to help with Medicaid costs, and provide money toward renewable energy development.

At 12 months and counting, the recession is longer than the 10-month average length of recessions since World War II. The record for the longest recession in the postwar period is 16 months, which was reached in the 1973-75 and 1981-82 downturns. The current recession might end up matching that or setting a record in terms of duration, analysts say.

The 1981-82 recession was the worst in terms of unemployment since the Great Depression. The jobless raterose as high as 10.8 percent in late 1982, just as the recession ended, before inching down.

Given the current woes, the jobless rate could rise as high as 8.5 percent by the end of next year, some analysts predict. Still, the unemployment rate often peaks after a recession has ended. That's because companies are reluctant to ramp up hiring until they feel certain the recovery has staying power.

 

Get Rid of the Performance Review!

• OCTOBER 20, 2008

Get Rid of the Performance Review!

It destroys morale, kills teamwork and hurts the bottom line. And that's just for starters.

By SAMUEL A. CULBERT

You can call me "dense," you can call me "iconoclastic," but I see nothing constructive about an annual pay and performance review. It's a mainstream practice that has baffled me for years.

To my way of thinking, a one-side-accountable, boss-administered review is little more than a dysfunctional pretense. It's a negative to corporate performance, an obstacle to straight-talk relationships, and a prime cause of low morale at work. Even the mere knowledge that such an event will take place damages daily communications and teamwork.

The alleged primary purpose of performance reviews is to enlighten subordinates about what they should be doing better or differently. But I see the primary purpose quite differently. I see it as intimidation aimed at preserving the boss's authority and power advantage. Such intimidation is unnecessary, though: The boss has the power with or without the performance review.

And yes, I have an alternative in mind that will get people and corporations a great deal more of what they actually need.

To make my case, I offer seven reasons why I find performance reviews ill-advised and bogus.

TWO PEOPLE, TWO MIND-SETS

Let's start with an obvious reason: The mind-sets held by the two participants in a performance review work at cross-purposes. The boss wants to discuss where performance needs to be improved, while the subordinate is focused on such small issues as compensation, job progression and career advancement. The boss is thinking about missed opportunities, skill limitations and relationships that could use enhancing, while the subordinate wants to put a best foot forward believing he or she is negotiating pay. All of this puts the participants at odds, talking past each other. At best, the discussion accomplishes nothing. More likely, it creates tensions that carry over to their everyday relationships.

Then there are second-order problems. A subordinate who objects to a characterization of faults runs the risk of adding another to the boss's list: "defensiveness and resistance to critique." And the boss who gets her mind turned around by a subordinate's convincing argument runs the risk of having a bigger boss think she failed to hold the line on what had been decided and budgeted. Good luck to her when she next gets evaluated.

PERFORMANCE DOESN'T DETERMINE PAY

Another bogus element is the idea that pay is a function of performance, and that the words being spoken in a performance review will affect pay. But usually they don't. I believe pay is primarily determined by market forces, with most jobs placed in a pay range prior to an employee's hiring.

Raises are then determined by the boss, and the boss's boss, largely as a result of the marketplace or the budget. The performance review is simply the place where the boss comes up with a story to justify the predetermined pay. If the raise is lower than the subordinate expects, the boss has to say, "We can work to get it higher in the future, and here are the things you need to do to get to that level." Or the boss can say, "I think you walk on water, but I got push-back from H.R. and next year we'll try again."

In other words, too many lines spoken in a performance review are a cover story for the truth and have little to do with performance. Even when it's a positive review, the words spoken are likely to be aimed more at winning the subordinate's gratitude than at providing a candidly accurate description.

OBJECTIVITY IS SUBJECTIVE

Most performance reviews are staged as "objective" commentary, as if any two supervisors would reach the same conclusions about the merits and faults of the subordinate. But consider the well-observed fact that when people switch bosses, they often receive sharply different evaluations from the new bosses to whom they now report.

To me, this is just further proof that claiming an evaluation can be "objective" is preposterous, as if any assessment is independent of that evaluator's motives in the moment. Missing are answers to questions like, "As seen by whom?" and "Spun for what?" Implying that an evaluation is objective disregards what everyone knows: Where you stand determines what you see.

The absurdity is even more obvious when bosses -- as they so often do -- base their reviews on anonymous feedback received from others. This illogic is highlighted in the contemporary performance-reviewing fad called "360-degree feedback." Hate mail, I suppose, is similarly "objective." People are told, "I can't tell you who said this," as if the alleged truth-teller has no ax to grind and the allegation is unrelated to a specific motive or a disagreement in a relationship. Come on! Isn't "anonymous" just a slicker way for people to push what's in their political interests to establish, without having their biases and motives questioned?

What will it take for people to really understand that any critique is as much an expression of the evaluator's self-interests as it is a subordinate's attributes or imperfections? To my way of thinking, the closest one can get to "objective" feedback is making an evaluator's personal preferences, emotional biases, personal agendas and situational motives for giving feedback sufficiently explicit, so that recipients can determine what to take to heart for themselves.

ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL

Employees all come with their own characteristics, strong suits and imperfections that they orchestrate in every attempt to perform their best. Because no two people come similarly equipped, they draw upon the unique pluses and minuses they were endowed with at birth along with compensatory assets they subsequently developed.

And yet in a performance review, employees are supposed to be measured along some predetermined checklist. In almost every instance what's being "measured" has less to do with what an individual was focusing on in attempting to perform competently and more to do with a checklist expert's assumptions about what competent people do. This is why pleasing the boss so often becomes more important than doing a good job. Create a positive impression and the boss will score you high on any dimension presented.

Worse, bosses apply the same rating scale to people with different functions. They don't redo the checklist for every different activity. As a result, bosses reduce their global sentiments to a set of metrics that captures the unique qualities of neither the person nor the job.

Maybe, for instance, there's a guy who doesn't voice his viewpoint when he disagrees with something said. Does that mean he should be graded down for being a conflict-avoider -- as if the boss's in-your-face way of communicating is superior? He may be seen as doing a bad job based solely on an incompatibility of styles that may have little to do with actual performance.

PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT IS IMPEDED

The drive for improvement goes on in big and little ways at work. You would think that the person in the best position to help somebody improve would be his or her boss.

Yet, thanks to the performance review, the boss is often the last person an employee would turn to.

Why is that?

The No. 1 reason for that reluctance is that employees want to turn to somebody who understands their distinctive talents and way of thinking, or knows them sufficiently well to appreciate the reasons behind the unique ways they are driven to operate. By contrast, people resist help from those who they believe can't get them in proper focus, especially when they have tried on many occasions to tell them.

What's more, people don't want to pay a high price for acknowledging their need for improvement -- which is exactly what they would do if they arm the boss with the kind of personal information he or she would need to help them develop. It could all come back to haunt them in the performance review. No wonder the developmental discussions the boss wants to inject at the time of a performance review so often get categorized by subordinates as gun-to-the-head intimidation requiring false acquiescence, lip-service agreement and insincere, appearance-correcting actions.

DISRUPTION TO TEAMWORK

Managers can talk until they are blue in the face about the importance of positive team play at every level of the organization, but the team play that's most critical to ensuring that an organization runs effectively is the one-on-one relationship between a boss and each of his or her subordinates.

The performance review undermines that relationship.

That's because the performance review is so one-sided, giving the boss all the power. The boss in the performance review thinks of himself or herself as the evaluator, and doesn't engage in teamwork with the subordinate. It isn't, "How are we going to work together as a team?" It's, "How are you performing for me?" It's not our joint performance that's at issue. It's the employee's performance that's a problem.

All of which leads to inauthentic behavior, daily deception and a ubiquitous need for subordinates to spin all facts and viewpoints in directions they believe the boss will find pleasing. It defeats any chance that the boss will hear what subordinates actually think.

Here's a simple example: In a performance review, the boss cites a subordinate's missing a high-profile meeting as cause for a reduced rating. What if the reason was something personal -- perhaps a son picked up by the police -- that the employee doesn't want to reveal? Why not reveal it? Because one-way accountability inevitably creates distrust. Does the boss self-reflect and ask, "What did I do, or should I be doing, to build up the trust?" No, the boss faults the guy for secretiveness. It's a vicious cycle.

IMMORALITY OF JUSTIFYING CORPORATE IMPROVEMENT

I believe it's immoral to maintain the facade that annual pay and performance reviews lead to corporate improvement, when it's clear they lead to more bogus activities than valid ones. Instead of energizing individuals, they are dispiriting and create cynicism. Instead of stimulating corporate effectiveness, they lead to just-in-case and cover-your-behind activities that reduce the amount of time that could be put to productive use. Instead of promoting directness, honesty and candor, they stimulate inauthentic conversations in which people cast self-interested pursuits as essential company activities.

The net result is a resource violation, and I think citations should be issued. If it's a publicly held company, shareholder value gets decreased. If it's a governmental organization, time is lost that could be spent in pursuit of the public good. And what participants learn in the process has more to do with how to survive than with meaningful self-development.

I've often thought that every organization should be considered partially a public entity since they exist, in part, to provide meaningful activities for the people who work in them. Skills and mind-sets acquired at work go home with people to affect family, community, culture and even the world. The more positive an atmosphere we can create at work, the more positive an impact it has at home. In short, what goes around comes around.

SO, WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE?

The alternative to one-side-accountable, boss-administered/subordinate-received performance reviews is two-side, reciprocally accountable, performance previews.

Let me explain.

The boss's assignment is to guide, coach, tutor, provide oversight and generally do whatever is required to assist a subordinate to perform successfully. That's why I claim that the boss-direct report team should be held jointly accountable for the quality of work the subordinate performs. I'm sick and tired of hearing about subordinates who fail and get fired, while bosses, whose job it was to ensure subordinate effectiveness, get promoted and receive raises in pay.

Holding performance previews eliminates the need for the boss to spout self-serving interpretations about what already has taken place and can't be fixed. Previews are problem-solving, not problem-creating, discussions about how we, as teammates, are going to work together even more effectively and efficiently than we've done in the past. They feature descriptive conversations about how each person is inclined to operate, using past events for illustrative purposes, and how we worked well or did not work well individually and together.

The preview structure keeps the focus on the future and what "I" need from you as "teammate and partner" in getting accomplished what we both want to see happen. It doesn't happen only annually; it takes place each time either the boss or the subordinate has the feeling that they aren't working well together.

Realistic assessment of someone's positive qualities requires replacing scores on standardized checklists with inquiry. As a result, step No. 1 in giving effective feedback almost always involves "active questioning" inquiry. Inquiry contrasts with most performance reviews, which begin with how the evaluator sees the individual and what that boss has already decided most needs enhancing. Both participants need an answer to the most significant issue at hand: "Given who I am and what I'm learning about this other individual, what's the best way for us to complement one another in getting work accomplished with excellence?" If in the process the other person decides to change and develop, so much the better.

Bosses should be asking all the questions that occur to them in inquiring about how a subordinate thinks he or she can best perform the job. Then, after they have exhausted their questions, they should ask the subordinate for what else they need to know. At a minimum, they should be asking "How will you be going about it?" and "Specifically, what help do you need from me?" Why not get it all when, at the end of the day, the boss still has the authority to play ultimate decider?

Some of you may also ask if the performance review goes away, how do we prepare the groundwork if we want to fire somebody? For the better, I'd argue: Take away the performance review, and people will find more direct ways of accomplishing that task.

Substituting performance previews for performance reviews promotes straight-talk relationships for people who are up to it. It welds fates together because the discussion will be about what the boss-subordinate team accomplishes together, which I believe is the valid unit to hold accountable. It's the boss's responsibility to find a way to work well with an imperfect individual, not to convince the individual there are critical flaws that need immediate correcting, which is all but guaranteed to lead to unproductive game playing and politically inspired back-stabbing.

There are many bosses who would like to change that game, but they feel handcuffed by the rules already in play. I'd like to believe that if given the chance, they would embrace a system that allows them just as much authority -- but in a way that promotes trust, not intimidation.

Keep in mind, of course, that improvement is each individual's own responsibility. You can only make yourself better. The best you can do for others is to develop a trusting relationship where they can ask for feedback and help when they see the need and feel sufficiently valued to take it. Getting rid of the performance review is a necessary, and affirming, step in that direction.

—Dr. Culbert is a consultant, author and professor of management at the UCLA Anderson School of Management in Los Angeles. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by ourSubscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visitwww.djreprints.com (SOURCE:http://online.wsj.com)

Are Intel Chips made in U.S.A?

Frequently Asked Questions about Intel Manufacturing and Production-Related Services

Questions    

How many factories do you have worldwide, where are they located and what percentage of your workforce do they employ?

Intel has 15 wafer fabs in production worldwide at nine locations. Fab production sites within the United States are located in Chandler, Ariz.; Santa Clara, Calif.; Colorado Springs, Colo.; Hudson, Mass.; Rio Rancho, N.M.; and Hillsboro, Ore.; and outside the United States in Leixlip, Ireland; Jerusalem, Israel; and Kiryal Gat, Israel. Two new fabs are under construction at existing sites in Arizona and Israel.

The company has six assembly and test sites worldwide and is building a seventh, all of them outside the U.S. Assembly and test sites outside the United States are located in Shanghai, China; Chengdu, China; San Jose, Costa Rica; Kulim, Malaysia; Penang, Malaysia; and Cavite, Philippines. An assembly and testing site in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, is under construction. There is one testing facility and one assembly development facility inside the U.S.

About half of Intel’s total workforce is involved in production or production services.

What is the difference between a fabrication facility (fab) and an assembly and test facility?

Intel produces the silicon for its high-performance microprocessors, chipsets and flash memory components in fabs. After the silicon-based products are created, they are sent to Intel's assembly and test facilities where each wafer is cut into individual silicon dies, placed within external packages, and tested for functionality.

How many 65-nanometer factories are in full production currently?

Intel currently has three 65-nanometer fabs in full production. A fourth 65nm fab is expected to begin production in late 2006.

How many 300 mm fabs are in production?

Intel has five 300 mm fabs in production, including the three 65 nanometer facilities. Two more 300mm fabs are under construction with production expected in 2007 and 2008 using Intel’s 45 nanometer process.

How much money will Intel spend on building new fabs or improving current fabs this year, and why?

In 2006, Intel plans to spend about $6.2 billion on capital spending and $6 billion on research and development. Intel’s business requires constant reinvestment as technology advances.

I've heard that microprocessor factories can cost $3 billion or more. Why are they so expensive compared to other types of factories?

Semiconductor fabs perform the most complex tasks of any factory in the world, and, thus, only specialized construction crews, building materials and equipment can be used. Additionally, Intel's fabs are approximately twice as large as the industry's average-sized factory.

What factors are considered when Intel determines where to build future factories?

As standard procedure, Intel strategically evaluates locations around the world for potential future expansion. The due diligence required to effectively evaluate a location can require a team of experts to meet with a variety of people throughout the community. Intel uses this information to determine which locations might best meet our needs, but it should not be construed as confirmation that a particular location might be selected.

Intel's site selection process is very comprehensive and involves detailed assessments of several criteria, which include the land's physical characteristics or constructability, local utility infrastructure, transportation capability, technical workforce, construction and supplier capabilities, permitting and investment conditions.

What is Moore's Law and what is its importance?

Moore's Law states that the number of transistors on a given area of silicon will double about every 24 months, cutting in half the production cost per transistor. Smaller chips are cheaper to make, record faster clock speeds and operate with lower electrical power consumption. Maintaining Moore's Law fuels Intel's continued progress and investment in fabrication facilities and process technology.

What is lithography? What is Extreme Ultra Violet lithography?

Lithography is the process in which circuits—the pathways through which electrical current flows—are printed on silicon wafers. The current production light source wave length is 193 nanometers, which is used to “print” feature sizes of about 65 nanometers on silicon wafers. Extreme Ultra Violet (EUV) lithography is a future generation lithography technology and is expected to allow semiconductor manufacturers to print ever-smaller features on a wafer. EUV refers to a light source with a wave length below 19.3 nanometers. Intel engineers, in collaboration with others are working towards a complete EUV process, including equipment, process technology and materials, for possible use in making semiconductor devices with feature sizes of 22 nanometers and below.

What is 90-nanometer process technology?

90 nanometer process technology remains important to Intel’s overall production of logic products. This process was the first to combine the smallest, highest-performing transistors utilizing strained silicon, a one-square-micron SRAM cell, and high-speed interconnects that integrate copper with a new, low-k dielectric material. These attributes deliver very high performance processors at lower power consumption and prices. Ninety-nanometers represents the average feature size on a chip built on this process. In late 2005, Intel also introduced a 90-nanometer process for flash memory.

What is 65-nanometer process technology?

At the time it was demonstrated in November, 2003, Intel's 65-nanometer process technology was the world's most advanced chip-manufacturing technology, enabling microprocessors with increased capabilities and performance. In the second half of 2005, Intel began volume production on the 65nm process at least a year ahead of the rest of the industry. Intel's 65nm technology roughly doubles transistor density compared to the previous generation, and delivers industry-leading performance and power-reduction features. The additional transistors provide the foundation to deliver advanced capabilities—from dual- and multi-cores and improved cache, to innovative technologies such as virtualization and security that will enable feature- and performance-rich and energy efficient platforms. Among other products, Intel® Core™ 2 Duo processors are made on the 65nm process.

Why are larger wafers considered to be better?

Because hundreds of microprocessors are built on a single silicon wafer, larger wafers create cost savings. Simply, more chips can be produced per wafer at one time. Intel now manufacturers its most advanced microprocessors and chipsets on 300 mm wafers, which are approximately 12 inches in diameter. Because a 300mm wafer has more surface area, it is possible to put up to two and a half times more individual chips (called die) on a wafer than with an equivalent 200mm wafer. Capital cost typically is only about one and a half times greater so it is possible to recover the increased capital investment rapidly. Greater output per wafer means efficiency gains in the use of energy, materials and other resources. Production cost per die drops by more than 30% compared to a similar product and process on 200mm wafers.

What is a cleanroom and why are they prevalent in semiconductor factories?

Chips must be manufactured in an environment that precisely controls the air entering it. Cleanrooms are classified by the size and amount of particles allowed to be present in a cubic foot of air. Because the individual parts of integrated circuits are so small, any foreign matter, such as dust, smoke or skin flakes, is likely to cause damage, ruining individual chips. A cleanroom controls air by isolating particles of foreign matter in the air, constantly filtering the air, moving the air in laminar flow (from ceiling to floor), and regulating temperature and humidity.

What do you do with your factories once new, more modern facilities are built?

Intel's factory network is designed to accommodate a wide range of process technology generations. Additionally, Intel's factories are constantly retrofitted with upgraded equipment and facilities.

Intel's highest-volume products, the company's highest performing processors, typically are made in the company's most advanced facilities. When the newest, most advanced facilities come online, the next-to-the-newest facilities are then used to make other high-demand products, such as leading-edge chipsets and other performance processors. Older facilities may then be used to produce products that don't require the smallest circuitry, upgraded, or converted to other uses.

What is a microprocessor?

A microprocessor is an integrated circuit built on a tiny piece of silicon. It contains millions of transistors that are interconnected through extremely fine pieces of aluminum or copper. The transistors work together to store and manipulate data so that the microprocessor can perform a wide variety of functions.

How is a microprocessor made?

Microprocessors are built in layers on a silicon wafer through various processes using chemicals, gases and light. Making microprocessors is a complex, demanding process involving more than 300 steps. There are roughly 20 layers that are connected to form microprocessor circuitry in a three-dimensional structure. The exact number of layers on a wafer depends on the design of the microprocessor.

Hundreds of identical microprocessors are created in batches on a single silicon wafer. On the wafer, the microscopic circuitry of each and every microprocessor is tested. Then, the wafer is cut with a diamond saw, separating the microprocessors. Each processor is then inserted in a protective package that allows it to connect with other devices. The type of package depends on the type of microprocessor and how it will be used. Each packaged microprocessor is tested one more time, completing the last step in the chip-making process.

(SOURCE:http://www.intel.com)

Dow Performance since 1901 based on a Democrat or Republican as President

Is it a fact that Dow performs far better under a Republican president?

You decide

Dow Performance since 1901 based on a Democrat or Republican as President

Bob Kleyla | Tue, 11/04/2008 - 1:46pm | 

If we look at all of the years going back to 1901 through 2007 here are some facts depending on whether the President was a Democrat or Republican versus the Performance of the Dow.

Historically the Dow has had more up years (69% of the time) for a Democrat than when a Republican has been in office (61% of the time).

Meanwhile the Average Yearly Return when a Democrat has been in office is 8.9% while its 6.2% when a Republican is in charge.

	Positive	Negative	%	%	Total	Avg
	Years	Years	Positive	Negative	Return	Return
DEM	33	15	69%	31%	425%	8.9%
REP	36	23	61%	39%	362%	6.2%

Thus for whatever reasons the Dow has performed slightly better when a Democrat has been President.

Next here is a list of the best and worst performing years for the Dow when either party has been president.

Dem	Best		REP	Best
	Years			Years
12/30/1915	80.0		12/28/1928	47.7
12/29/1933	63.7		12/30/1908	44.5
12/30/1935	38.6		12/30/1954	43.3
12/29/1995	33.5		12/30/1904	42.8
12/30/1996	28.0		12/30/1975	41.3
12/30/1938	27.0		12/29/1905	37.8
12/28/1945	26.7		12/30/1958	34.7
12/30/1936	26.3		12/30/1925	32.0
12/30/1999	23.5		12/30/1919	30.6
12/30/1997	20.9		12/30/1985	28.8
Dem	Worst		REP	Worst
	Years			Years
12/30/1937	-32.7		12/30/1931	-52.7
12/30/1914	-30.3		12/30/1907	-36.9
12/30/1966	-18.5		12/30/1920	-33.6
12/30/1910	-17.9		12/30/1930	-32.3
12/30/1977	-16.8		12/30/1974	-28.9
12/30/1941	-15.0		12/28/1917	-24.1
12/30/1940	-12.6		12/30/1903	-23.3
12/28/1962	-10.9		12/30/1932	-21.9
12/30/1913	-10.3		12/30/1929	-18.7
12/30/1946	-8.4		12/30/2002	-17.8

Once 2008 ends I will update these statistics.

If interested in receiving our Free Weekly Newsletter by email you can sign up at http://www.amateur-investor.net/Newsletter.htm

SOURCE: http://www.themoneyblogs.com