4 ms·
Is cheap labor the driving factor, though? I vaguely recall that the labor cost alone in China has not been the largest competitive advantage as the cost has be
by hintymad 4y ago
Is cheap labor the driving factor, though? I vaguely recall that the labor cost alone in China has not been the largest competitive advantage as the cost has been increasing steadily over years. Instead, it was the complete supply chain in China that out competes other countries.
Bloomberg also reported an incident: Jobs wanted to change the cheap plastic screen to glass, and Foxconn was able to recruit more than 8000 workers overnight and completely reconfigured their assembly line to fulfill such request. This level of efficiency used to belong to the US. I really hope US can revolutionize its manufacturing for this century.
- markdown 4y ago> ...This is level of efficiency used to belong to the US. I doubt that.
- hintymad 4y agoRelatively speaking? In WWII, the US produced 300K planes, 130 carriers, 80 tanks every day on average, increased its steel output to 80M tons in 1944 alone, more than other countries combined. And hundreds of destroyers, corvettes, and submarines. Not that we need to do the same now, but it shows that how capable the US manufacturing industry can be.
- zx8080 4y agoWas that ability a result of the recent Great Depression and desperate needs of workers?
- nine_k 4y agoMore like colossal wartime spending. A fighting army (and navy, and airforce) is one hell of a market; they almost always would like more than you can manufacture.
- markdown 4y agoI said nothing about how capable US manufacturing was or is. I was addressing the point that you China could hire 8000 new workers overnight. > In WWII, the US produced 300K planes, 130 carriers, 80 tanks every day on average, increased its steel output to 80M tons in 1944 alone, more than other countries combined At what cost? What did that labour pool stop producing in order to produce machines of war?
- hintymad 4y agoThe entire nation was mobilized for war, so the cost was high for sure. My point was that the US then could produce so much because their manufacturing sector was amazingly strong -- the same reason that Yamamoto Isoroku predicted, years before the US turned into a war machine, that Japan would lose to the US.
- andrekandre 4y ago> Foxconn was able to recruit more than 8000 workers overnight...This level of efficiency used to belong to the US. is that efficiency or just control/desperation of workers? i'm not sure i'd like to see that come to the u.s...
- surement 4y ago
- andrekandre 4y ago> Otherwise they have a choice of how they earn a living. what is their choice? be homeless/impoverished or work in a factory... doesnt sound like much of a choice to me...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- surement 4y ago
- sumedh 4y ago> Foxconn was able to recruit more than 8000 workers overnight Isnt that the same company which has suicide nets so that its employees wont kill themselves.
- surement 4y ago> This level of efficiency used to belong to the US. I really hope US can revolutionize its manufacturing for this century. The US consistently increases its manufacturing output through improved automation. US workers are also significantly more productive than other countries', though US labor costs often cancel that advantage.
- hintymad 4y ago> US workers are also significantly more productive than other countries I certainly hope so. Is it true, though? Obama's documentary, American Factory, says that Chinese workers are more efficient than their US counterparts. I also read somewhere that the average age of workers in shipyards were 55 years, IIRC, and it's harder to find qualified workers who can build heavy machineries in the US than in China, partly because the manufacturing sector shrank so much in the US.