3 ms·
This narrative is largely false. Both because nothing was "outsourced" and because american manufacturing is at an all time high. Automation ended the vast maj
by mjburgess 5y ago
This narrative is largely false. Both because nothing was "outsourced" and because american manufacturing is at an all time high.
Automation ended the vast majority of high-labour manufacturing. What was left was only economical to do without automation at extremely low labour costs.
In the next decade, china itself will see large segments of its manufacturing labour gone to automation.
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y agoYes and no. It depends on what is being manufactured. We manufacture big, expensive things. I have friends that run Garment District companies, and they are pretty much a Bellwether for this kind of thing. > In the next decade, china itself will see large segments of its manufacturing labour gone to automation. I agree. It will be slower than Japan and Korea, because China has a much larger population of poor folks that will work 996, but, one day, we will see a very different China. It will be a consumer powerhouse. If you think America is a consumeristic society, just wait until China becomes mostly middle-class. There's a reason why so many corporations are abasing themselves so much for entry into the Chinese market.
- mjburgess 5y agoI suspect, based on a type of ecological-thermodynamic reasoning, that china will never be middle class. I think the "global class structure" we have today might be the peak of history. The relevant calculation: Annual US Energy Consumption per Capia: 7,000 kg oil equivalent. China: 2,000 kg. So you're looking at +5,000kg per capita * 1.4bn people annual. So you'll need to add that energy capacity to the world, ie., a c. 10 trillion kg oil eqv. -- it's not clear we can do this.
- username90 5y agoGermany is 3,800 kg oil equivalent, USA is a huge outliner on this. China reaching Europes level isn't that infeasible.
- mjburgess 5y agoI think there's something here about how dense countries are. I believe most of the reason the US looks higher is the extremely low density and correspondingly high transportation/communication/etc. costs. I'm not sure how to factor density into this.
- boomlinde 5y agoThis doesn't look at the potential causes for high energy use. The geographical and infrastructural conditions of the US don't necessarily apply elsewhere.
- cableshaft 5y agoOh, we'll do it. And then everyone will die off or be living near the Arctic Circle or in Antartica. But by golly, we'll get it done.
- refurb 5y agoI’m wondering about that too but for another reason - the aging population. There are article in Asian about “China getting old before it gets rich”. Basically the small group of younger workers are going to have their wealth siphoned off to support the much larger older population who doesn’t have financial means to support themselves. Not a big deal when it’s 5 workers to one retired. Huge deal when it’s 2 to 1. The expectation is that will stall growth for decades. China will be richer, but stuck in a lower income range until they come out the other side. It’s an interesting theory.
- seanmcdirmid 5y agoChina is hitting a demographic wall, so the changes will happen much faster than many expect. 996 is more of a tech worker thing, not lower skilled manufacturing labor.
- sokoloff 5y ago> Nothing was ‘outsourced’. What do Foxconn and TSMC (and 100s of others) do then? * - first relevant factory operations in 1988 and 1987, respectively.