I'm not at all sure about the Stacy Smith-as-rockstar commentary, but this is an interesting discussion with Intel's CFO.

Stacy asserts that Intel is a classic example of a company that invests primarily in the US and exports to other countries, stating that 3/4 of Intel's manufacturing takes place in the US, despite the fact that 3/4 of Intel's market exists outside the US, with 50% in emerging markets. That is very unusual for large US manufacturers these days. Furthermore, last week the company announced a $6-$8 billion investment in Oregon and Arizona to upgrade facilities and build a new plant. That is not the first such announcement in the past couple of years. To be sure, this isn't all about altruism. Intel clearly believes in American workers. They had other options, though.

On the job front...as a result of this latest announcement, Intel plans to add 800-1,000 permanent, high-tech jobs. These are high-end, high-paying positions. Beyond that, it's estimated that there will be 8 construction jobs created for each full-time position, and they will last for several years. In this video, it's noted that large plants tend to create 5-7 jobs in ancillary, smaller business for each one created in the new facility. Any way you look at it, that's a lot of jobs, when they are most needed.

Full disclosure:  I'm a former employee and current shareholder of Intel.

As I've been known to do, today I was scanning the barrage of information that comes out of The Motley Fool on a daily basis, and I came across an article that nicely articulates my view of the ongoing and rampant concern about unemployment.  I encourage you to read the article, but I'll summarize and share a few thoughts.

First, I want to point out that I'm as concerned about unemployment as much as the next person.  It's bad by any definition.  Furthermore, for most members of the unemployed right now, whether or not a job exists in the private or public sector is probably not hugely critical.  Nonetheless, I think it makes sense to look for silver linings at this point.  Our economic reality is largely a matter of confidence, or lack thereof.

The article points out that there is an important employment trend that tends to be ignored by the media.  So far this year, the private sector has added 650,000 jobs.  Not great, given where we started, but it's meaningful growth.  During that time, the government (local, state, federal) has eliminated 224,000 jobs.  It is commonly held that our last recession ended in October of 2001.  The recovery that ensued saw a decrease of 884,000 private-sector jobs in the subsequent two years, per the article.  During the same period, the government sector added 174,000 jobs.  Times have changed.

Certainly, the recession that ended in 2009 was longer than any since WWII, and the aftermath continues to be painful for a lot of people.  At all levels, governments in the US are struggling.  However, in many ways corporations are stronger than ever.  They'll hire again.  Many have already started.

I recently came across an article highlighting the fact that in May three siblings became the first set of triplets to graduate from the University of Michigan.  It got me wondering how often triplets attend college together.  In an earlier post I highlighted scholarship opportunities for twins and triplets.  It's not true in all cases, but most of those scholarhips require the twins or triplets to attend the same school, so the decision obviously has a financial dimension as well as a social one.

By way of contrast, at about the same time the Jankelovitz siblings were graduating from Michigan, another set of triplets was taking top academic honors at their high school in Nazareth, Pennsylvania.  The Biernat sisters are now attending three separate colleges.  My guess is that they've been able to secure some scholarship money based on their academic achievements, which would help to neutralize the financial part of the college decision.

In any case, these are noteworthy accomplishments.  Congratulations to both sets of triplets, and good luck in the future.

Yesterday's MarketBeat blog in the Wall Street Journal featured an entry titled Drumbeat for Dividends Grows, which highlights the fact that more and more analysts are calling for companies to raise their dividends in light of the historically low payout rates that current exist.  While we at Foothills Financial Planning and the Camelback Fund are pretty loathe to be aligned with what is trendy in the world of investing, we're not at all surprised that the world has woken up to the fact that many dividend companies are good values right now.  The fact that payout rates are relatively low underscores the fact that many dividend payors are perfectly capable of covering their dividends long into the future.

Also, note the recent performance of the S&P 500 companies whose dividend yields exceed the average yield on 10-year corporate debt.  Per the post, they have outperformed their S&P 500 peers by 700 basis points since April.

Wow.

And now for something completely different...

One day this past summer I was wandering around Chicago and I came upon a giant eyeball.  I'm pretty familiar with the city, and am duly interested (and sometimes revolted) when something new appears.  The eyeball commanded a fair bit of attention, particularly from those who appeared to be tourists, which probably described me at that point.  In any case, I quickly learned that the sculpture would be short-lived, which now means another month or so.  Catch it while you can.