5 ms·

> In fact to hear him tell it those capabilities are simply not available elsewhere. This is a huge overlooked factor in all of the debate regarding the supply

> In fact to hear him tell it those capabilities are simply not available elsewhere. This is a huge overlooked factor in all of the debate regarding the supply chain. You can't "just move" manufacturing capabilities from one place to another, and debate the labor costs. Rather, probably more importantly, there's actually a _skills supply_ problem.

leereeves 4y ago
People will learn the skills if the demand exists. That's what China did and Americans can do it too if multinational companies support US manufacturing.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  America doesn't allow the labor or environmental manufacturing conditions that allow China to compete so effectively. We need border adjustments such that goods coming from countries with lesser labor or environmental protections cost more and those coming from countries with better labor/environmental protections cost less (it also has to be transitive so China can't just launder their products through the Czech Republic--i.e., the Czech Republic would have to have a similar border adjustment policy in order to qualify).
  - leereeves 4y ago
    Companies don't have to buy from the lowest bidder. Apple could choose to support manufacturing in countries with better labor/environmental protections without any new laws. I think border adjustments are also a good idea, but I won't give Apple a free pass for choosing to support such poor manufacturing conditions just to make more profit.
    - praptak 4y ago
      No, because then they'd get easily undercut by competition without such ethical scruples. This is a tragedy of the commons problem, you need central enforcement.
      - leereeves 4y ago
        Apple would get easily undercut by competitors with lower prices? Many have tried. But yes, that could happen to other companies, which shows that consumers share responsibility for ignoring the labor and environmental conditions.
        throwaway894345 4y ago
        Consumers don't have any transparency into labor or environmental conditions. We can't even see a bill of materials for our products much less information on the labor or environmental conditions. The problem is systemic--the rules incentivize bad outcomes; litigating blame is pointless and distracting: fix the rules and move on.
        leereeves 4y ago
        That is not true. We all know China has poor environmental protections and low wages, and yet we choose to buy products made in China. And the consumers who don't care are also voters who don't care, so the rules won't be fixed. But a few powerful people could create huge changes all on their own. Holding them responsible is not pointless, it's our best hope for change.
        throwaway894345 4y ago
        > That is not true. We all know China has poor environmental protections and low wages, and yet we choose to buy products made in China. It's 100% true, and we often buy from China because overwhelmingly there simply aren't alternatives, the alternatives are prohibitively difficult to find, the alternative is another developing country with similar labor and environmental policies, or the alternative is laundered through a country with good regulation (a car is "manufactured" in America but all of its components--the bulk of its value--are produced in developing countries without regulation). > And those consumers are also voters. The rules won't be fixed because most people don't care either as consumers or as voters. Right, but they don't have the same access to politicians that corporations do. This is a different and worse systemic problem. Moreover, corporations run campaigns to shift public opinion away from effectual policy. In the 70s bottling companies ran campaigns which argued, as you are arguing, that litter was a consumer problem rather than a industrial problem (e.g., the "crying Indian" advert). The cigarette industry ran a campaign that insisted that the high rate of home fires are caused by a deficiency of highly carcinogenic flame retardants in home furnishings. Similarly, the fossil fuel industry currently runs campaigns which seek to make climate change an issue of personal responsibility ("we don't need legislation, we just need consumers to decide to switch to veganism and give up their cars"). > But a few powerful people could create huge changes all on their own. Hold them responsible is not pointless, it's our best hope for change. I strongly disagree. Our best hope for change is public policy, notably border adjustments. If you want to protest at Cupertino, be my guest but that's wholly inadequate.

leereeves 4y ago

People will learn the skills if the demand exists. That's what China did and Americans can do it too if multinational companies support US manufacturing.

throwaway894345 4y ago
America doesn't allow the labor or environmental manufacturing conditions that allow China to compete so effectively. We need border adjustments such that goods coming from countries with lesser labor or environmental protections cost more and those coming from countries with better labor/environmental protections cost less (it also has to be transitive so China can't just launder their products through the Czech Republic--i.e., the Czech Republic would have to have a similar border adjustment policy in order to qualify).
- leereeves 4y ago
  Companies don't have to buy from the lowest bidder. Apple could choose to support manufacturing in countries with better labor/environmental protections without any new laws. I think border adjustments are also a good idea, but I won't give Apple a free pass for choosing to support such poor manufacturing conditions just to make more profit.
  - praptak 4y ago
    No, because then they'd get easily undercut by competition without such ethical scruples. This is a tragedy of the commons problem, you need central enforcement.
    - leereeves 4y ago
      Apple would get easily undercut by competitors with lower prices? Many have tried. But yes, that could happen to other companies, which shows that consumers share responsibility for ignoring the labor and environmental conditions.
      - throwaway894345 4y ago
        Consumers don't have any transparency into labor or environmental conditions. We can't even see a bill of materials for our products much less information on the labor or environmental conditions. The problem is systemic--the rules incentivize bad outcomes; litigating blame is pointless and distracting: fix the rules and move on.
        leereeves 4y ago
        That is not true. We all know China has poor environmental protections and low wages, and yet we choose to buy products made in China. And the consumers who don't care are also voters who don't care, so the rules won't be fixed. But a few powerful people could create huge changes all on their own. Holding them responsible is not pointless, it's our best hope for change.
        throwaway894345 4y ago
        > That is not true. We all know China has poor environmental protections and low wages, and yet we choose to buy products made in China. It's 100% true, and we often buy from China because overwhelmingly there simply aren't alternatives, the alternatives are prohibitively difficult to find, the alternative is another developing country with similar labor and environmental policies, or the alternative is laundered through a country with good regulation (a car is "manufactured" in America but all of its components--the bulk of its value--are produced in developing countries without regulation). > And those consumers are also voters. The rules won't be fixed because most people don't care either as consumers or as voters. Right, but they don't have the same access to politicians that corporations do. This is a different and worse systemic problem. Moreover, corporations run campaigns to shift public opinion away from effectual policy. In the 70s bottling companies ran campaigns which argued, as you are arguing, that litter was a consumer problem rather than a industrial problem (e.g., the "crying Indian" advert). The cigarette industry ran a campaign that insisted that the high rate of home fires are caused by a deficiency of highly carcinogenic flame retardants in home furnishings. Similarly, the fossil fuel industry currently runs campaigns which seek to make climate change an issue of personal responsibility ("we don't need legislation, we just need consumers to decide to switch to veganism and give up their cars"). > But a few powerful people could create huge changes all on their own. Hold them responsible is not pointless, it's our best hope for change. I strongly disagree. Our best hope for change is public policy, notably border adjustments. If you want to protest at Cupertino, be my guest but that's wholly inadequate.