5 ms·

I thought one of the reasons companies like carrier exported jobs to other countries was so that there would be more efficient in the supply market and less bot

I thought one of the reasons companies like carrier exported jobs to other countries was so that there would be more efficient in the supply market and less bottlenecks in manufacturing.

titzer 5y ago
Silly rabbit, they did it to maximize profit!
Aerroon 5y ago
Where's the problem? More efficient manufacturing means fewer components sitting around in warehouses waiting to be used. Fewer products sitting on shelves. It means having smaller buffers. An interruption to manufacturing of connivent, such as a factory shutdown, will translate into hiccups down the line due to small(er) buffers. It's actually not at all dissimilar to how many things in computers work.
- shuckles 5y ago
  I also don’t assume that manufacturing would have been more resilient during the pandemic if it had remained domestic, given the various public policy failures in this country over the last year: uncontrolled spread, laggard regulatory infrastructure, poorly designed labor incentives, etc.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    Logistics in the country recovered fairly quickly from the various national disasters, so that's at least one less problem.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  The problem is resilience. Our economy is now fragile, which is not great. And having no excess inventory doesn't mean having no inventory, since supply chain disruptions aren't necessarily immediate to recover from. Toyota, which pioneered lean manufacturing, is currently laughing its way to the bank; it has a stockpile of semiconductors, since the 2011 Tohoku quake and tsunami exposed how fragile its supply chain for semiconductors was.
  - Aerroon 5y ago
    Sure, but that still is less efficient when things are working fine. Any time you tie up resources that you don't absolutely have to is a loss of efficiency.
    - piva00 5y ago
      In this case isn't it needed to consider efficiency over the short and longer term? And for the long-term efficiency one of the parameters would be resilience to shocks, which affects the short-term efficiency (more inventory juggling) but is healthier over a longer span of time.
      - Aerroon 5y ago
        Short-term efficiency is there all the time. Shocks are not. If the space you're competing in has enough competition then the margins will be low. The companies that focus on short-term efficiency could end up outcompeting the companies that keep large buffers.
    - bobthepanda 5y ago
      And at the same time every order you're not filling because of an overzealously tight supply chain is a loss of business. Penny wise and pound foolish. If it makes sense to stockpile for the company that pretty much invented lean manufacturing as we know it, it's not without merit.
      - Aerroon 5y ago
        Cars are very high cost items. They probably have substantial margins on them. On the other hand, a product that has very low margins is going to find it much more difficult to stockpile.
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  Well I can't wait until we offshore all Programming jobs, or have AI powerful enough to kick those spoiled overpaid Programmers to the curb? (This is happening. Good luck finding a Programming job after 40.) Sometimes you want the talent close. Sometimes you want critical parts close. Sometimes you want your neighbor to have a job. Until there's a working Basic Income; I prefer keeping most jobs/products close.
  - hallway_monitor 5y ago
    Why just until then, if ever? Keep the money local. As for programming jobs, I think most people who have been in the field for a while have seen plenty of examples of how offshoring doesn't work, and from what I've seen this is known in the c suite as well.
    - imtringued 5y ago
      The fundamental problem with offshoring is that you always want to keep important products in house. If the product isn't important you can offshore it but you can also just not do it.
  - knz_ 5y ago
    Companies are already trying to flood the market with H1Bs to suppress wages and pushing people towards CS and STEM degrees in general. They don't need to do anything special, in 10 years the market will be flooded and you will be competing with someone who is willing to work 10+ hrs/day for half the wage.
    - thatguy0900 5y ago
      Sounds like what the game dev market already is.
    - nradov 5y ago
      There are problems with the H-1B visa program but it's hardly flooding the market. Congress has held the quota stable for the past several years. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/h1b-visa-program-fact-sheet https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/h1b-visa...
sp332 5y ago
I don't know if a global pandemic is really something that can be planned around.
icegreentea2 5y ago
Once you've eliminated all your bottlenecks, it means that every step is a bottleneck.
R0b0t1 5y ago
I know this is tongue in cheek, but they're exporting jobs and manufacturing to duck taxes. Not necessarily high wages -- sometimes it is that -- but it is usually just the large cost of keeping inventory.

I thought one of the reasons companies like carrier exported jobs to other countries was so that there would be more efficient in the supply market and less bottlenecks in manufacturing.

titzer 5y ago

Silly rabbit, they did it to maximize profit!

Aerroon 5y ago

Where's the problem? More efficient manufacturing means fewer components sitting around in warehouses waiting to be used. Fewer products sitting on shelves. It means having smaller buffers. An interruption to manufacturing of connivent, such as a factory shutdown, will translate into hiccups down the line due to small(er) buffers. It's actually not at all dissimilar to how many things in computers work.

shuckles 5y ago
I also don’t assume that manufacturing would have been more resilient during the pandemic if it had remained domestic, given the various public policy failures in this country over the last year: uncontrolled spread, laggard regulatory infrastructure, poorly designed labor incentives, etc.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  Logistics in the country recovered fairly quickly from the various national disasters, so that's at least one less problem.
bobthepanda 5y ago
The problem is resilience. Our economy is now fragile, which is not great. And having no excess inventory doesn't mean having no inventory, since supply chain disruptions aren't necessarily immediate to recover from. Toyota, which pioneered lean manufacturing, is currently laughing its way to the bank; it has a stockpile of semiconductors, since the 2011 Tohoku quake and tsunami exposed how fragile its supply chain for semiconductors was.
- Aerroon 5y ago
  Sure, but that still is less efficient when things are working fine. Any time you tie up resources that you don't absolutely have to is a loss of efficiency.
  - piva00 5y ago
    In this case isn't it needed to consider efficiency over the short and longer term? And for the long-term efficiency one of the parameters would be resilience to shocks, which affects the short-term efficiency (more inventory juggling) but is healthier over a longer span of time.
    - Aerroon 5y ago
      Short-term efficiency is there all the time. Shocks are not. If the space you're competing in has enough competition then the margins will be low. The companies that focus on short-term efficiency could end up outcompeting the companies that keep large buffers.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    And at the same time every order you're not filling because of an overzealously tight supply chain is a loss of business. Penny wise and pound foolish. If it makes sense to stockpile for the company that pretty much invented lean manufacturing as we know it, it's not without merit.
    - Aerroon 5y ago
      Cars are very high cost items. They probably have substantial margins on them. On the other hand, a product that has very low margins is going to find it much more difficult to stockpile.
hellbannedguy 5y ago
Well I can't wait until we offshore all Programming jobs, or have AI powerful enough to kick those spoiled overpaid Programmers to the curb? (This is happening. Good luck finding a Programming job after 40.) Sometimes you want the talent close. Sometimes you want critical parts close. Sometimes you want your neighbor to have a job. Until there's a working Basic Income; I prefer keeping most jobs/products close.
- hallway_monitor 5y ago
  Why just until then, if ever? Keep the money local. As for programming jobs, I think most people who have been in the field for a while have seen plenty of examples of how offshoring doesn't work, and from what I've seen this is known in the c suite as well.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    The fundamental problem with offshoring is that you always want to keep important products in house. If the product isn't important you can offshore it but you can also just not do it.
- knz_ 5y ago
  Companies are already trying to flood the market with H1Bs to suppress wages and pushing people towards CS and STEM degrees in general. They don't need to do anything special, in 10 years the market will be flooded and you will be competing with someone who is willing to work 10+ hrs/day for half the wage.
  - thatguy0900 5y ago
    Sounds like what the game dev market already is.
  - nradov 5y ago
    There are problems with the H-1B visa program but it's hardly flooding the market. Congress has held the quota stable for the past several years. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/h1b-visa-program-fact-sheet https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/h1b-visa...

sp332 5y ago

I don't know if a global pandemic is really something that can be planned around.

icegreentea2 5y ago

Once you've eliminated all your bottlenecks, it means that every step is a bottleneck.

R0b0t1 5y ago

I know this is tongue in cheek, but they're exporting jobs and manufacturing to duck taxes. Not necessarily high wages -- sometimes it is that -- but it is usually just the large cost of keeping inventory.