7 ms·

Just keep in mind that you will not find $10 workers in a mass factory setting. After you bring in labor unions + healthcare + workers comp + misc. addionals,

Just keep in mind that you will not find $10 workers in a mass factory setting. After you bring in labor unions + healthcare + workers comp + misc. addionals, it easily brings u.s based factory workers to $18+. This does not include the fact that you have to train people and have a plethora of workers to support this (hr, trainers, etc.) While everyone in the U.S. I think would agree that securing jobs for Americans would be great, you just can't bend the math enough to make it economical.

bsder 10y ago
> While everyone in the U.S. I think would agree that securing jobs for Americans would be great, you just can't bend the math enough to make it economical. Why? Everything in that plant is going to be automated anyway. Quoting a number of jobs at "30,000" is laughable. The only reason Foxconn would employ 30,000 people is because labor is so pathetically cheap in China. In reality, they will probably employ 300-500 so there is zero reason why they couldn't pay $18+ per hour. The idea that Foxconn would be automated less than a steel mill is absurd: http://triblive.com/business/headlines/9409484-74/ati-workers-mill http://triblive.com/business/headlines/9409484-74/ati-worker... "Only 32 workers are needed to operate Allegheny Technologies Inc.'s new $1.2 billion hot-rolling mill in Harrison, company officials say." I am all for Foxconn having a plant here. We need to pull some of the semiconductor and electronics manufacturing back to the US for many reasons (keeping the knowledge, lower transport costs, quicker turnaround, etc.). Unfortunately, large numbers of jobs really isn't one of reasons.
- codeddesign 10y ago
  If you are going to quote me, please do it in the context of the conversation. I was making a reply to a comment of $10 am hour vs $3 in China, in which I stated it would be a lot more than $10 for a U.S factory working - amd - I don't think anyone disagrees with securing American jobs, but the math wouldn't make sense. The initial remark discussion and reply did not relate to Foxconn jobs vs automation.
  - sambeau 10y ago
    I think you may have forgotten that this is a conversation about an article. The article states: The facility would cost more than $7 billion and may create an eventual 30,000 to 50,000 jobs, the publication cited Gou as saying. …or did you not read it?
    - kesselvon 10y ago
      Weasel words that I'm almost positive are mostly secondary employment (i.e. a coffeeshop opens by the plant because of the workers there, etc). These kinds of numbers are also hugely inflated and based on the most optimistic metrics. source: worked in pr
jlarocco 10y ago
> While everyone in the U.S. I think would agree that securing jobs for Americans would be great, you just can't bend the math enough to make it economical. I'm not so sure in this particular case. People who buy Apple products are (usually) already choosing a more expensive product based on fashion and image. I can see Apple increasing the price a bit and having a big marketing campaign about being "Made in the USA." In general though, I don't know how it's expected to work. Ironically, I think a lot of the people making the biggest fuss about bringing back manufacturing jobs will be the ones least able to buy the products once the prices skyrocket.
- Clubber 10y ago
  That reminds me of when the CEO of Papa Johns was complaining about having to insure his employees via the ACA and the enormous cost the customers would have to bear: An extra 14 cents for a large pizza. These people just live in a different world. http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/11/12/breaking-down-centi-millionaire-papa-john-schnatters-obamacare-math/#439278951968 http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/11/12/breaking-d... In many cases, I would gladly pay a few percent more to have jobs back in the US. It has a cascading effect that truly "lifts all boats." A hell of a lot more than corporate tax breaks.
  - jlarocco 10y ago
    If you really believe the majority of people think that way then try to explain Walmart. Everybody will say they want jobs back here, but given two identical products made in China and the USA most people will pick the cheaper one.
    - mc32 10y ago
      In some cases it is long-run cheaper to buy the cheaper choice, other times it turns out cheaper in the long run to buy the expensive choice --however, this information is not easy to ascertain at the time of purchase and takes too much time for the average shopper to take into consideration when making a purchase. I'll pay for expensive jeans which will last over the cheap jeans which don't last a year. On the other hand, the fashion industry has a lot to answer for for making people always wanting the new and the trendy, even when it impacts the environment negatively (one pair of boots lasting 10 years vs one lasting a year, for example).
ChuckMcM 10y ago
I completely agree with you, but I also think that arguing the per hour per laborer rate is probably not going to be productive or inform the choice of a US factory or a Chinese one. The more interesting question is how much of the cost of a display on a per display basis is human labor costs and how much is material and facilities costs? 10 people with a fully loaded cost of $500/hr is the same labor cost as 100 people with a fully loaded labor cost of $5/hr. And if they can make the same number of displays per hour does it really matter what the humans are paid? I think it is completely reasonable to point out that US factories employ fewer employees per $ of production value than Chinese factories do so building a factory here will create fewer US jobs then building the same factory in China would create Chinese jobs. However I also agree that generally these discussions involve pulling out one piece of the puzzle and creating the appropriate narrative from that rather than to comprehensively analyze the economics of building the displays locally versus in China. From a policy perspective I expect a company could successfully argue to use money held overseas to pay an overseas general contractor to build a factory locally. If structured carefully this would allow for funds which are currently inactive to be repatriated without incurring a tax obligation by playing to the vanities of the current administration.

bsder 10y ago

> While everyone in the U.S. I think would agree that securing jobs for Americans would be great, you just can't bend the math enough to make it economical. Why? Everything in that plant is going to be automated anyway. Quoting a number of jobs at "30,000" is laughable. The only reason Foxconn would employ 30,000 people is because labor is so pathetically cheap in China. In reality, they will probably employ 300-500 so there is zero reason why they couldn't pay $18+ per hour. The idea that Foxconn would be automated less than a steel mill is absurd: http://triblive.com/business/headlines/9409484-74/ati-workers-mill http://triblive.com/business/headlines/9409484-74/ati-worker... "Only 32 workers are needed to operate Allegheny Technologies Inc.'s new $1.2 billion hot-rolling mill in Harrison, company officials say." I am all for Foxconn having a plant here. We need to pull some of the semiconductor and electronics manufacturing back to the US for many reasons (keeping the knowledge, lower transport costs, quicker turnaround, etc.). Unfortunately, large numbers of jobs really isn't one of reasons.

codeddesign 10y ago
If you are going to quote me, please do it in the context of the conversation. I was making a reply to a comment of $10 am hour vs $3 in China, in which I stated it would be a lot more than $10 for a U.S factory working - amd - I don't think anyone disagrees with securing American jobs, but the math wouldn't make sense. The initial remark discussion and reply did not relate to Foxconn jobs vs automation.
- sambeau 10y ago
  I think you may have forgotten that this is a conversation about an article. The article states: The facility would cost more than $7 billion and may create an eventual 30,000 to 50,000 jobs, the publication cited Gou as saying. …or did you not read it?
  - kesselvon 10y ago
    Weasel words that I'm almost positive are mostly secondary employment (i.e. a coffeeshop opens by the plant because of the workers there, etc). These kinds of numbers are also hugely inflated and based on the most optimistic metrics. source: worked in pr

jlarocco 10y ago

> While everyone in the U.S. I think would agree that securing jobs for Americans would be great, you just can't bend the math enough to make it economical. I'm not so sure in this particular case. People who buy Apple products are (usually) already choosing a more expensive product based on fashion and image. I can see Apple increasing the price a bit and having a big marketing campaign about being "Made in the USA." In general though, I don't know how it's expected to work. Ironically, I think a lot of the people making the biggest fuss about bringing back manufacturing jobs will be the ones least able to buy the products once the prices skyrocket.

Clubber 10y ago
That reminds me of when the CEO of Papa Johns was complaining about having to insure his employees via the ACA and the enormous cost the customers would have to bear: An extra 14 cents for a large pizza. These people just live in a different world. http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/11/12/breaking-down-centi-millionaire-papa-john-schnatters-obamacare-math/#439278951968 http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/11/12/breaking-d... In many cases, I would gladly pay a few percent more to have jobs back in the US. It has a cascading effect that truly "lifts all boats." A hell of a lot more than corporate tax breaks.
- jlarocco 10y ago
  If you really believe the majority of people think that way then try to explain Walmart. Everybody will say they want jobs back here, but given two identical products made in China and the USA most people will pick the cheaper one.
  - mc32 10y ago
    In some cases it is long-run cheaper to buy the cheaper choice, other times it turns out cheaper in the long run to buy the expensive choice --however, this information is not easy to ascertain at the time of purchase and takes too much time for the average shopper to take into consideration when making a purchase. I'll pay for expensive jeans which will last over the cheap jeans which don't last a year. On the other hand, the fashion industry has a lot to answer for for making people always wanting the new and the trendy, even when it impacts the environment negatively (one pair of boots lasting 10 years vs one lasting a year, for example).

ChuckMcM 10y ago

I completely agree with you, but I also think that arguing the per hour per laborer rate is probably not going to be productive or inform the choice of a US factory or a Chinese one. The more interesting question is how much of the cost of a display on a per display basis is human labor costs and how much is material and facilities costs? 10 people with a fully loaded cost of $500/hr is the same labor cost as 100 people with a fully loaded labor cost of $5/hr. And if they can make the same number of displays per hour does it really matter what the humans are paid? I think it is completely reasonable to point out that US factories employ fewer employees per $ of production value than Chinese factories do so building a factory here will create fewer US jobs then building the same factory in China would create Chinese jobs. However I also agree that generally these discussions involve pulling out one piece of the puzzle and creating the appropriate narrative from that rather than to comprehensively analyze the economics of building the displays locally versus in China. From a policy perspective I expect a company could successfully argue to use money held overseas to pay an overseas general contractor to build a factory locally. If structured carefully this would allow for funds which are currently inactive to be repatriated without incurring a tax obligation by playing to the vanities of the current administration.