11 ms·

> With India’s labour cheaper compared with China, and the gradual expansion of its supplier base here, Apple will be able to use the country as an export hub

> With India’s labour cheaper compared with China, and the gradual expansion of its supplier base here, Apple will be able to use the country as an export hub While there are negatives, I appreciate how globalization of manufacturing helps lift poorer economies (albeit it slowly and not always agreeing with the politics of the newly-built middle classes). One might expect manufacturing in mid-Africa in two decades.

bergstromm466 6y ago
> I appreciate how globalization of manufacturing helps lift poorer economies I really think we have to move to a Commons-based peer production paradigm. Ask yourself, would I want to work for Foxconn assembling $1k iPhones for meager pay? [1] And I am not asking you from a hypothetical standpoint where you pretend to be an Indian in the context of the country India. My question is: would you accept a job starting work at Foxconn today, in the place where you are living? If not, why not? I believe the Precariat revolt is imminent. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-forbidden-city-longhua-suicide-apple-iphone-brian-merchant-one-device-extract https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-l...
- blackoil 6y ago
  I work in a high paying plush job. I will also not work in fields growing crops, neither in a call center, not even in a software service company paying me meagre ₹35 lakh/a. But what doed that mean?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - testiness 6y ago
    Is ₹35 lakh/a that bad? While it's not the top 5%, it still goes a long way, even in Tier 1 cities.
  - bergstromm466 6y ago
    > But what does that mean? It means that you are in the dying Salariat class. “At the top are a plutocracy and an elite, earning rentier incomes and wielding enormous political power. Way below them, in income terms, is a salariat, a shrinking group with employment security and an extensive array of non-wage enterprise benefits such as pensions, paid holidays and medical leave.“ [1] You write: > I will also not work in fields growing crops, neither in a call center, not even in a software service company paying me meagre ₹35 lakh/a Guy Standing’s got you: “If you are in the precariat and become unemployed, and manage to obtain benefits, you face a marginal tax rate of over 80% in taking the sort of low-wage job you are likely to be offered. It may be over 100%. Then you are called rude names if you decline to take such jobs. No member of the salariat would get out of bed if faced by such tax rates, except perhaps to take to the streets to protest. But that is what politicians have forced on the precariat.“ [2] Your comment makes sense and your view from this privileged position is common for the Salariat. If you’re interested to explore further, I love Guy’s work in ‘Plunder of the Commons‘, as well as ‘The Corruption of Capitalism: Why Rentiers Thrive and Work Doesn’t Pay’. Looking at the future, the most compassionate vision I’ve found is described (separately) by Kevin Carson, Arthur Brock and Eric Harris-Braun. They describe an open source world through Commons-based peer production. Together with Holochain currencies (mutual credit and reputation currencies [Ceptr.org]), these things make me feel incredibly inspired and hopeful. [1][2] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/precariat-global-class-rise-of-populism/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/precariat-global-clas...
- neximo64 6y ago
  > I believe the Precariat revolt is imminent. References article about event 10 years ago.
h0l0cube 6y ago
> While there are negatives, I appreciate how globalization of manufacturing helps lift poorer economies Let's be real about those negatives. It seems as though it's always just the next country in line taking it's turn to provide subsistence-wage labor. The likes of Steve Pinker may argue that living standards continue to trend upwards across the board, but it seems like people are just becoming more and more time-poor (happy to be proven wrong on this point). If we follow this pattern, once every country has lifted itself up by the bootstraps, the end-game would not be some poorer nations providing the subsistence-wage labor, but the poor population of each country providing subsistence-wage labor. Their living standards might be much higher, but they will pay in hours, or having to give up freedoms, like living on-site at Foxxcon. Why? Because those holding power have the upper hand, and would hardly be motivated to cede their power. Replace power with capital if you want. The only possible countervailing force being collective action, say in the force of democratic institutions, and a socially-minded polity. But eventually, automation will outcompete everyone... at this point we're then forced to resort to either welfare or artificial means of population control. It seems more humane to consider policy on population and welfare sooner rather than later, but that's just my humblest of opinions. EDIT: Cowards who downvoted me, might you refute any of my points?
- kodablah 6y ago
  > If we follow this pattern, once every country has lifted itself up by the bootstraps, the end-game would not be some poorer nations providing the subsistence-wage labour, but the poor population of each country providing subsistence-wage labour. Nah, it's too politically unsafe to hire cheap in your own backyard and there'll always be country-level wage gaps on the bottom end, I'm just glad they're (slowly) reducing. No need attempting to run the simulation to a hypothetical end because there either is no end or it's unpredictable (could just as easily be a rise in extreme protectionist tariffs to discourage offshoring thereby re-widening the gap).
  - h0l0cube 6y ago
    > Nah, it's too politically unsafe to hire cheap in your own backyard There's two options, hire overseas at a lower labor cost (lower currency/lower minimum wage), or lower the minimum wage or currency of your own economy. If the labour costs of the rest of the world increase as their economy develops, it will make sense to employ locally again. So subsistence wage moves from overseas, back local again... and why pay more than the subsistence wage if there's no government to compel you to do so? Edit: Keep in mind, the US is a western democracy, and the largest economy, but has plenty of people living on subsistence wages. > could just as easily be a rise in extreme protectionist tariffs to discourage offshoring thereby re-widening the gap Protectionism may not re-widen the gap. Many populations starve because all their arable land is used for overseas exports.
pankajdoharey 6y ago
Actually I think, the most ideal countries to expand manufacturing to are African countries, they have some of the same advantages once china had. 1. Mineral Resources. 2. Cheap Labour. 3. High Density of Lanthanide and Actinide group minerals. China also has a fourth advantage which is a good mix of Production, Manufacturing and Electronics Engineers. Which Africa doesn't have. On the other hand India doesn't have the raw mineral resources required to do long term manufacturing. For instance India doesn't have the ideal coal quality to produce steel, India imports 90% of its Anthracite from Australia. So the ideal situation in my view would be to setup manufacturing hub in African countries. Hire Chinese/Indian/American/Russian manufacturing Engineers and the rich mineral resources in African countries. This would fuel the growth of the world for next few decades. Though one thing to notice African countries may or may not have the rare earth metals but the probability if explored is quite high.
- tesseracted 6y ago
  Chinese people are also relatively intelligent. That is relevant, I think.
  - hungryhobo 6y ago
    I think it has more to do with the culture around emphasis on education rather than pure intelligence
    - tasogare 6y ago
      And culture around work too. I’ve a family member who worked on setting up a factory in an African country in post-colonial time and the project advanced very very slowly. Why? Because the workers and locals were stealing some pipes that were mandatory for the project. Also the second any worker was not under surveillance he was goofing around. Part of his job was literally to wake up workers and tell them to work. From what I’ve seen in Asia, this is not a problem.
  - wow_no 6y ago
    This is grade A racism
agumonkey 6y ago
Africa as an industrial hub would probably be better than a lot of poverty and exploitation yet somehow it breaks the usual picture of that continent :)
- dhd7r7eu3 6y ago
  Better in what sense? India might be poor (not a bad thing for attracting investment) but it's stable compared to Africa. South Africa is sort of stable but not compared to India and overall there's just no reason to invest in a region where you might have all of your equipment lost or stolen. Altruistic investors might feel differently of course but by definition they care less about returns then most other investors.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Countries with incompetent governments like Argentina also routinely do weird things like nationalize companies if they are mostly owned foreign investors. It's not like Argentina is a self sufficient economic powerhouse. They have lots of problems yet they keep executing strategies that can only drag the country down.
peroporque 6y ago
That's was the entire idea of globalized manufacturing for the past fifty years. Africa however will be much more difficult as a whole. But there are individual countries that will maybe be able to benefit from it some day. For now, it's more lucrative in most cases to "receive aid" instead of "produce things". In that sense, "aid" has similar effects as natural recourses have.
hola1231 6y ago
It would be amazing to see economies improve, but I am really worried about the wildlife and the environment of Africa if factories move there.

bergstromm466 6y ago

> I appreciate how globalization of manufacturing helps lift poorer economies I really think we have to move to a Commons-based peer production paradigm. Ask yourself, would I want to work for Foxconn assembling $1k iPhones for meager pay? [1] And I am not asking you from a hypothetical standpoint where you pretend to be an Indian in the context of the country India. My question is: would you accept a job starting work at Foxconn today, in the place where you are living? If not, why not? I believe the Precariat revolt is imminent. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-forbidden-city-longhua-suicide-apple-iphone-brian-merchant-one-device-extract https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-l...

blackoil 6y ago
I work in a high paying plush job. I will also not work in fields growing crops, neither in a call center, not even in a software service company paying me meagre ₹35 lakh/a. But what doed that mean?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- testiness 6y ago
  Is ₹35 lakh/a that bad? While it's not the top 5%, it still goes a long way, even in Tier 1 cities.
- bergstromm466 6y ago
  > But what does that mean? It means that you are in the dying Salariat class. “At the top are a plutocracy and an elite, earning rentier incomes and wielding enormous political power. Way below them, in income terms, is a salariat, a shrinking group with employment security and an extensive array of non-wage enterprise benefits such as pensions, paid holidays and medical leave.“ [1] You write: > I will also not work in fields growing crops, neither in a call center, not even in a software service company paying me meagre ₹35 lakh/a Guy Standing’s got you: “If you are in the precariat and become unemployed, and manage to obtain benefits, you face a marginal tax rate of over 80% in taking the sort of low-wage job you are likely to be offered. It may be over 100%. Then you are called rude names if you decline to take such jobs. No member of the salariat would get out of bed if faced by such tax rates, except perhaps to take to the streets to protest. But that is what politicians have forced on the precariat.“ [2] Your comment makes sense and your view from this privileged position is common for the Salariat. If you’re interested to explore further, I love Guy’s work in ‘Plunder of the Commons‘, as well as ‘The Corruption of Capitalism: Why Rentiers Thrive and Work Doesn’t Pay’. Looking at the future, the most compassionate vision I’ve found is described (separately) by Kevin Carson, Arthur Brock and Eric Harris-Braun. They describe an open source world through Commons-based peer production. Together with Holochain currencies (mutual credit and reputation currencies [Ceptr.org]), these things make me feel incredibly inspired and hopeful. [1][2] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/precariat-global-class-rise-of-populism/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/precariat-global-clas...
neximo64 6y ago
> I believe the Precariat revolt is imminent. References article about event 10 years ago.

h0l0cube 6y ago

> While there are negatives, I appreciate how globalization of manufacturing helps lift poorer economies Let's be real about those negatives. It seems as though it's always just the next country in line taking it's turn to provide subsistence-wage labor. The likes of Steve Pinker may argue that living standards continue to trend upwards across the board, but it seems like people are just becoming more and more time-poor (happy to be proven wrong on this point). If we follow this pattern, once every country has lifted itself up by the bootstraps, the end-game would not be some poorer nations providing the subsistence-wage labor, but the poor population of each country providing subsistence-wage labor. Their living standards might be much higher, but they will pay in hours, or having to give up freedoms, like living on-site at Foxxcon. Why? Because those holding power have the upper hand, and would hardly be motivated to cede their power. Replace power with capital if you want. The only possible countervailing force being collective action, say in the force of democratic institutions, and a socially-minded polity. But eventually, automation will outcompete everyone... at this point we're then forced to resort to either welfare or artificial means of population control. It seems more humane to consider policy on population and welfare sooner rather than later, but that's just my humblest of opinions. EDIT: Cowards who downvoted me, might you refute any of my points?

kodablah 6y ago
> If we follow this pattern, once every country has lifted itself up by the bootstraps, the end-game would not be some poorer nations providing the subsistence-wage labour, but the poor population of each country providing subsistence-wage labour. Nah, it's too politically unsafe to hire cheap in your own backyard and there'll always be country-level wage gaps on the bottom end, I'm just glad they're (slowly) reducing. No need attempting to run the simulation to a hypothetical end because there either is no end or it's unpredictable (could just as easily be a rise in extreme protectionist tariffs to discourage offshoring thereby re-widening the gap).
- h0l0cube 6y ago
  > Nah, it's too politically unsafe to hire cheap in your own backyard There's two options, hire overseas at a lower labor cost (lower currency/lower minimum wage), or lower the minimum wage or currency of your own economy. If the labour costs of the rest of the world increase as their economy develops, it will make sense to employ locally again. So subsistence wage moves from overseas, back local again... and why pay more than the subsistence wage if there's no government to compel you to do so? Edit: Keep in mind, the US is a western democracy, and the largest economy, but has plenty of people living on subsistence wages. > could just as easily be a rise in extreme protectionist tariffs to discourage offshoring thereby re-widening the gap Protectionism may not re-widen the gap. Many populations starve because all their arable land is used for overseas exports.

pankajdoharey 6y ago

Actually I think, the most ideal countries to expand manufacturing to are African countries, they have some of the same advantages once china had. 1. Mineral Resources. 2. Cheap Labour. 3. High Density of Lanthanide and Actinide group minerals. China also has a fourth advantage which is a good mix of Production, Manufacturing and Electronics Engineers. Which Africa doesn't have. On the other hand India doesn't have the raw mineral resources required to do long term manufacturing. For instance India doesn't have the ideal coal quality to produce steel, India imports 90% of its Anthracite from Australia. So the ideal situation in my view would be to setup manufacturing hub in African countries. Hire Chinese/Indian/American/Russian manufacturing Engineers and the rich mineral resources in African countries. This would fuel the growth of the world for next few decades. Though one thing to notice African countries may or may not have the rare earth metals but the probability if explored is quite high.

tesseracted 6y ago
Chinese people are also relatively intelligent. That is relevant, I think.
- hungryhobo 6y ago
  I think it has more to do with the culture around emphasis on education rather than pure intelligence
  - tasogare 6y ago
    And culture around work too. I’ve a family member who worked on setting up a factory in an African country in post-colonial time and the project advanced very very slowly. Why? Because the workers and locals were stealing some pipes that were mandatory for the project. Also the second any worker was not under surveillance he was goofing around. Part of his job was literally to wake up workers and tell them to work. From what I’ve seen in Asia, this is not a problem.
- wow_no 6y ago
  This is grade A racism

agumonkey 6y ago

Africa as an industrial hub would probably be better than a lot of poverty and exploitation yet somehow it breaks the usual picture of that continent :)

dhd7r7eu3 6y ago
Better in what sense? India might be poor (not a bad thing for attracting investment) but it's stable compared to Africa. South Africa is sort of stable but not compared to India and overall there's just no reason to invest in a region where you might have all of your equipment lost or stolen. Altruistic investors might feel differently of course but by definition they care less about returns then most other investors.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Countries with incompetent governments like Argentina also routinely do weird things like nationalize companies if they are mostly owned foreign investors. It's not like Argentina is a self sufficient economic powerhouse. They have lots of problems yet they keep executing strategies that can only drag the country down.

peroporque 6y ago

That's was the entire idea of globalized manufacturing for the past fifty years. Africa however will be much more difficult as a whole. But there are individual countries that will maybe be able to benefit from it some day. For now, it's more lucrative in most cases to "receive aid" instead of "produce things". In that sense, "aid" has similar effects as natural recourses have.

hola1231 6y ago

It would be amazing to see economies improve, but I am really worried about the wildlife and the environment of Africa if factories move there.