4 ms·

Why was this downvoted? If there's a factual error it's better to explain it as readers like myself won't know about it otherwise. Everything started here seems

by tgb 11y ago

Why was this downvoted? If there's a factual error it's better to explain it as readers like myself won't know about it otherwise. Everything started here seems to be supported by the article.

csours 11y ago
Maybe downvoted because both links were about the company I work for - so it's kinda spammy. I originally wanted to link steel and textiles, but I don't have actual sources for that. Both steel and textiles went overseas for price considerations, but I think that if US management and labor would have focused on improving quality and cost for each of those they would still be in business in the US (and Britain, etc). In the 1970's GM and Ford started the steps of getting out of the vertical integration business. This meant that their components could come from anywhere - competition was based on cost and quality; but mainly cost. Some perverse metrics here meant that internal suppliers drove themselves out of business because they did not improve quality. For example: for a very long time, automotive components were produced on an Inspect and Reject scheme, where a large lot of material was built up at one site (internal or external) and then inspected at point of use. The manager at the component production site was compensated based on number of units produced, effectively driving down quality. The manager at the point of use was also compensated based on number of units produced, again driving defects into production units as bad material was used in production. People who work mainly with code would do well to remember that physical production is hard. Also, incentives will always have perverse outcomes over a long enough timeframe. There's no way to list all of your assumptions when you set up incentives. Anyway, I'd love to hear stories like this from other physical products (like textiles and steel for instance).
- rhodin 11y ago
  It had a disclaimer, so should be fine. Regarding the competitiveness of the US car industry: Vaclav Smil makes a slightly different case in "Made in the USA: The Rise and Retreat of American Manufacturing", where he points out that "For too long the machines stayed too large, too inefficient, and, on average, too unreliable." Add two oil crisis to that, quality problems and high prices and you get a perfect storm. The NUMI story from This American Life was a great listen.

by tgb 11y ago

Why was this downvoted? If there's a factual error it's better to explain it as readers like myself won't know about it otherwise. Everything started here seems to be supported by the article.

csours 11y ago

Maybe downvoted because both links were about the company I work for - so it's kinda spammy. I originally wanted to link steel and textiles, but I don't have actual sources for that. Both steel and textiles went overseas for price considerations, but I think that if US management and labor would have focused on improving quality and cost for each of those they would still be in business in the US (and Britain, etc). In the 1970's GM and Ford started the steps of getting out of the vertical integration business. This meant that their components could come from anywhere - competition was based on cost and quality; but mainly cost. Some perverse metrics here meant that internal suppliers drove themselves out of business because they did not improve quality. For example: for a very long time, automotive components were produced on an Inspect and Reject scheme, where a large lot of material was built up at one site (internal or external) and then inspected at point of use. The manager at the component production site was compensated based on number of units produced, effectively driving down quality. The manager at the point of use was also compensated based on number of units produced, again driving defects into production units as bad material was used in production. People who work mainly with code would do well to remember that physical production is hard. Also, incentives will always have perverse outcomes over a long enough timeframe. There's no way to list all of your assumptions when you set up incentives. Anyway, I'd love to hear stories like this from other physical products (like textiles and steel for instance).

rhodin 11y ago
It had a disclaimer, so should be fine. Regarding the competitiveness of the US car industry: Vaclav Smil makes a slightly different case in "Made in the USA: The Rise and Retreat of American Manufacturing", where he points out that "For too long the machines stayed too large, too inefficient, and, on average, too unreliable." Add two oil crisis to that, quality problems and high prices and you get a perfect storm. The NUMI story from This American Life was a great listen.