6 ms·

> If Apple et. al. wanted to pay 'American wages' for most of that activity, then major clusters of those skills would develop here. They would, but you're sti

> If Apple et. al. wanted to pay 'American wages' for most of that activity, then major clusters of those skills would develop here. They would, but you're still talking about a 10-20 year gap. First for masses of people to get the adequate education, apprenticeships, get good at their jobs, and then for these people to mentor the second cohort 8-12 years later to get the kind of volume China and Germany have.

philwelch 6y ago
I feel like “and Germany” gives it away. Germany, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea are all developed countries that don’t have “cheap labor” anymore. They found and are holding their niches. Even in terms of “cheap labor”, China’s losing out to places like Bangladesh. A lot of these excuses for why America can’t compete in manufacturing sound like sour grapes to me.
- the-dude 6y ago
  I feel like you are missing the point about Germany a bit. Vocational and apprenticeships are still a thing there.
  - philwelch 6y ago
    I’m not missing the point. That is the point. The US wasn’t undercut by countries with cheaper labor; we just stopped caring about making things because our business, educational, political, and social culture all devalue it.
  - jsjohnst 6y ago
    > Vocational and apprenticeships are still a thing there. Exactly. But it’s the “American dream” to send their kids to college, even if that’s the completely inappropriate thing to do for that child’s future prospects.
ericmay 6y ago
> They would, but you're still talking about a 10-20 year gap. Sure. That’s ok. It’ll take time to see a return on investment. I don’t see this “but X” as a counterpoint or really an issue at all.
- philwelch 6y ago
  Who exactly is going to make these investments and can afford to wait 20 years to see any return on them? Why would such an investment be made when more competent countries already have the capacities needed today, not twenty years from now?
  - ericmay 6y ago
    Well, there's a lot of nuance here so I'll speak quite generally in that the United States could certainly afford to wait 20 years to see a return on investment (we do this with many, many programs and policies even today - NASA for example, food stamps, education) and I'd also argue that a country to the extent possible would tend toward valuing the ability to produce goods in the event that the supply lines of goods being imported is shut off. Further, you could make investments now that exceed current capacities and capabilities today with an eye to the future.
    - philwelch 6y ago
      I want to clarify that I’m 100% in favor of such a policy, in principle. It’s the implementation that’s hard. Actually the US does a lot of good manufacturing in some fields, like arms. But in other fields, well-intentioned protectionist policies like have backfired. For instance, rather than subsidizing US shipyards, the Jones Act protects them from foreign competition which has led them to significant decline over the past century. US policy to rebuild or improve US industry has a very mixed history in terms of results. It probably doesn’t help that a lot of these efforts are focused on bailing out the same old manufacturers over and over again to save jobs in battleground states.
jariel 6y ago
Those jobs are not really coming back, there are too many specialised things in China. And then you have the 'raw labour' - you still need factories with workers making very little, treated like crap. The bottom 10% of Americans will not do that. For what it's worth. Now - there is the possibility for 'full automation'. Sony Playstation in made in Japan by this amazingly automated assembly line. America could feasibly do this if they wanted for some things, but it will take innovation. The revolution will be: a 'pair of hands'. When robotics and AI becomes sophisticated enough that you can buy a 'pair of robot hands' for $100K and very easily train them to do 'anything' ... then this will enable automation in rich countries and it could really damage the entire developing world economies.
- WorldMaker 6y ago
  > And then you have the 'raw labour' - you still need factories with workers making very little, treated like crap. > The bottom 10% of Americans will not do that. For what it's worth. OR you need to find other ways to bolster margins without skimping on labor costs at the bottom end. Intelligent cuts to C-Suite pay and golden parachutes could easy pay for thousands of workers at a living wage at the bottom of any company. The top 10% of Americans will not do that. For what it's worth.
  - jariel 6y ago
    The 10th percentile in America is not earning that-that much. Nothing will make up for the low wages in China. America could push up minimum wage some, but it won't change the dynamics of export/import.
    - WorldMaker 6y ago
      The Top 1% alone is making more than enough in earnings. The fact that billionaires exist at all is proof enough that far more money exists that could be spent on living wages at the bottom end than currently ever is. Whether or not the rest of the Top 10% contributes nearly as much to labor costs disparity as the Top 1% is mostly academic at that point, especially if all it does is serve to prop up the Top 1%, which is more than fitting for a terse reply in the pattern of the poster before me. > Nothing will make up for the low wages in China. China's wages aren't even that low anymore. Maybe you are thinking of Bangladesh or somewhere that China is now themselves outsourcing "cheap labor" to? > America could push up minimum wage some, but it won't change the dynamics of export/import. Correct, it's not a labor cost issue at the end of the day. As I said, companies are more than capable of finding margins that work and still pay labor what it owes them. There's too many externalities companies are willing to, and legally allowed to, ignore that keep them from feeling any pressure or need to actually do so. The point I tried to make is that is not "low wages exist in China" keeping jobs outside of the US. That's a solvable problem with honest dealing with the labor market. Companies just have no interest to solve it. (The labor market isn't a fair market, for what that is worth, and has almost no liquidity. Corporate structures impact the labor market a lot more than the labor market affects corporate structures, whether or not you agree that the modern American "gentry" are playing too selfish a game with the American labor market and getting away with it.)

philwelch 6y ago

I feel like “and Germany” gives it away. Germany, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea are all developed countries that don’t have “cheap labor” anymore. They found and are holding their niches. Even in terms of “cheap labor”, China’s losing out to places like Bangladesh. A lot of these excuses for why America can’t compete in manufacturing sound like sour grapes to me.

the-dude 6y ago
I feel like you are missing the point about Germany a bit. Vocational and apprenticeships are still a thing there.
- philwelch 6y ago
  I’m not missing the point. That is the point. The US wasn’t undercut by countries with cheaper labor; we just stopped caring about making things because our business, educational, political, and social culture all devalue it.
- jsjohnst 6y ago
  > Vocational and apprenticeships are still a thing there. Exactly. But it’s the “American dream” to send their kids to college, even if that’s the completely inappropriate thing to do for that child’s future prospects.

ericmay 6y ago

> They would, but you're still talking about a 10-20 year gap. Sure. That’s ok. It’ll take time to see a return on investment. I don’t see this “but X” as a counterpoint or really an issue at all.

philwelch 6y ago
Who exactly is going to make these investments and can afford to wait 20 years to see any return on them? Why would such an investment be made when more competent countries already have the capacities needed today, not twenty years from now?
- ericmay 6y ago
  Well, there's a lot of nuance here so I'll speak quite generally in that the United States could certainly afford to wait 20 years to see a return on investment (we do this with many, many programs and policies even today - NASA for example, food stamps, education) and I'd also argue that a country to the extent possible would tend toward valuing the ability to produce goods in the event that the supply lines of goods being imported is shut off. Further, you could make investments now that exceed current capacities and capabilities today with an eye to the future.
  - philwelch 6y ago
    I want to clarify that I’m 100% in favor of such a policy, in principle. It’s the implementation that’s hard. Actually the US does a lot of good manufacturing in some fields, like arms. But in other fields, well-intentioned protectionist policies like have backfired. For instance, rather than subsidizing US shipyards, the Jones Act protects them from foreign competition which has led them to significant decline over the past century. US policy to rebuild or improve US industry has a very mixed history in terms of results. It probably doesn’t help that a lot of these efforts are focused on bailing out the same old manufacturers over and over again to save jobs in battleground states.

jariel 6y ago

Those jobs are not really coming back, there are too many specialised things in China. And then you have the 'raw labour' - you still need factories with workers making very little, treated like crap. The bottom 10% of Americans will not do that. For what it's worth. Now - there is the possibility for 'full automation'. Sony Playstation in made in Japan by this amazingly automated assembly line. America could feasibly do this if they wanted for some things, but it will take innovation. The revolution will be: a 'pair of hands'. When robotics and AI becomes sophisticated enough that you can buy a 'pair of robot hands' for $100K and very easily train them to do 'anything' ... then this will enable automation in rich countries and it could really damage the entire developing world economies.

WorldMaker 6y ago
> And then you have the 'raw labour' - you still need factories with workers making very little, treated like crap. > The bottom 10% of Americans will not do that. For what it's worth. OR you need to find other ways to bolster margins without skimping on labor costs at the bottom end. Intelligent cuts to C-Suite pay and golden parachutes could easy pay for thousands of workers at a living wage at the bottom of any company. The top 10% of Americans will not do that. For what it's worth.
- jariel 6y ago
  The 10th percentile in America is not earning that-that much. Nothing will make up for the low wages in China. America could push up minimum wage some, but it won't change the dynamics of export/import.
  - WorldMaker 6y ago
    The Top 1% alone is making more than enough in earnings. The fact that billionaires exist at all is proof enough that far more money exists that could be spent on living wages at the bottom end than currently ever is. Whether or not the rest of the Top 10% contributes nearly as much to labor costs disparity as the Top 1% is mostly academic at that point, especially if all it does is serve to prop up the Top 1%, which is more than fitting for a terse reply in the pattern of the poster before me. > Nothing will make up for the low wages in China. China's wages aren't even that low anymore. Maybe you are thinking of Bangladesh or somewhere that China is now themselves outsourcing "cheap labor" to? > America could push up minimum wage some, but it won't change the dynamics of export/import. Correct, it's not a labor cost issue at the end of the day. As I said, companies are more than capable of finding margins that work and still pay labor what it owes them. There's too many externalities companies are willing to, and legally allowed to, ignore that keep them from feeling any pressure or need to actually do so. The point I tried to make is that is not "low wages exist in China" keeping jobs outside of the US. That's a solvable problem with honest dealing with the labor market. Companies just have no interest to solve it. (The labor market isn't a fair market, for what that is worth, and has almost no liquidity. Corporate structures impact the labor market a lot more than the labor market affects corporate structures, whether or not you agree that the modern American "gentry" are playing too selfish a game with the American labor market and getting away with it.)