4 ms·

“Offshoring is quick and easy. Onshoring is a completely different kettle of fish.” Offshoring is onshoring in the opposite country, so this makes no sense.

by cudgy 4y ago

simonblack 4y ago
Offshoring is onshoring in the opposite country, so this makes no sense. Offshoring is the loss of your own workers and expertise. Onshoring back to your own country is hopefully a regain in workers and expertise. But as I said, that is a completely different kettle of fish. Onshoring overseas manufacturing back to your own country doesn't happen because all those workers and expertise that your country used to have in the past, before those manufacturing companies were offshored have been lost. Onshoring to the opposite country means that opposite country is the country which gains in both skilled workers and also expertise. Their gain is your loss. Their economy grows, your economy dies. Their workers get richer, your workers have to go on the dole. Once upon a time, in the 1980s, I had relatives who worked in a Paper factory in Michigan. I wonder where those guys from that town are working now. I wonder how many people, if any, that Paper factory employs now. Oops. Seems that paper mill was shutdown in 1994 and demolished in 2002. China is today's biggest paper producer. Who coulda foreseen that? https://www.swmpc.org/downloads/mill_historysignfinal.pdf https://www.swmpc.org/downloads/mill_historysignfinal.pdf
- cudgy 4y ago
  You said that off-shoring is fast and easy, but on-shoring is difficult (and slow I presume). My point is that this cannot logically be true and creates a paradox: for the other country (China for example), the on-shoring to china from the off-shoring from the USA would be fast and easy, but the off-shoring from china to the on-shoring to the USA would be difficult. This violates your basic rule, since China would then have fast and easy on-shoring but slow and difficult off-shoring. I would argue that the US can on-shore quickly just like China did over the last 20-30 years, if it actually wanted to do it. Unfortunately, there is no political will to do so, but the capability is there.
  - simonblack 4y ago
    I would argue that the US can on-shore quickly just like China did over the last 20-30 years Nope. Onshoring back to the US is not now cost-effective. The US is not (at present) a low-wage alternative, like China was in the 1990s. The only way the US will become a low-wage alternative is if/when the US Dollar collapses. That probably won't be for another 5-10 years.
    - cudgy 4y ago
      OK. I assume you recognize the fallacy in your statement. As for the statement regarding low wages being the primary driver, you are ignoring the impact of protectionism. The Chinese do it now, and they did it through the whole process of on-shoring jobs in the United States. The United States traditionally has done it as well, with the exception of the recent decades of globalism, hence the huge reduction of jobs overseas. Furthermore, there have been cheaper workers around the world compared to United States workers for as long as the United States has been in existence. If lower wages always determined the number of jobs in the United States, how did the US grow at incredible rates in the 20th century given the fact that cheaper wages were available around the world?

“Offshoring is quick and easy. Onshoring is a completely different kettle of fish.” Offshoring is onshoring in the opposite country, so this makes no sense.

by cudgy 4y ago

“Offshoring is quick and easy. Onshoring is a completely different kettle of fish.” Offshoring is onshoring in the opposite country, so this makes no sense.

simonblack 4y ago

Offshoring is onshoring in the opposite country, so this makes no sense. Offshoring is the loss of your own workers and expertise. Onshoring back to your own country is hopefully a regain in workers and expertise. But as I said, that is a completely different kettle of fish. Onshoring overseas manufacturing back to your own country doesn't happen because all those workers and expertise that your country used to have in the past, before those manufacturing companies were offshored have been lost. Onshoring to the opposite country means that opposite country is the country which gains in both skilled workers and also expertise. Their gain is your loss. Their economy grows, your economy dies. Their workers get richer, your workers have to go on the dole. Once upon a time, in the 1980s, I had relatives who worked in a Paper factory in Michigan. I wonder where those guys from that town are working now. I wonder how many people, if any, that Paper factory employs now. Oops. Seems that paper mill was shutdown in 1994 and demolished in 2002. China is today's biggest paper producer. Who coulda foreseen that? https://www.swmpc.org/downloads/mill_historysignfinal.pdf https://www.swmpc.org/downloads/mill_historysignfinal.pdf

cudgy 4y ago
You said that off-shoring is fast and easy, but on-shoring is difficult (and slow I presume). My point is that this cannot logically be true and creates a paradox: for the other country (China for example), the on-shoring to china from the off-shoring from the USA would be fast and easy, but the off-shoring from china to the on-shoring to the USA would be difficult. This violates your basic rule, since China would then have fast and easy on-shoring but slow and difficult off-shoring. I would argue that the US can on-shore quickly just like China did over the last 20-30 years, if it actually wanted to do it. Unfortunately, there is no political will to do so, but the capability is there.
- simonblack 4y ago
  I would argue that the US can on-shore quickly just like China did over the last 20-30 years Nope. Onshoring back to the US is not now cost-effective. The US is not (at present) a low-wage alternative, like China was in the 1990s. The only way the US will become a low-wage alternative is if/when the US Dollar collapses. That probably won't be for another 5-10 years.
  - cudgy 4y ago
    OK. I assume you recognize the fallacy in your statement. As for the statement regarding low wages being the primary driver, you are ignoring the impact of protectionism. The Chinese do it now, and they did it through the whole process of on-shoring jobs in the United States. The United States traditionally has done it as well, with the exception of the recent decades of globalism, hence the huge reduction of jobs overseas. Furthermore, there have been cheaper workers around the world compared to United States workers for as long as the United States has been in existence. If lower wages always determined the number of jobs in the United States, how did the US grow at incredible rates in the 20th century given the fact that cheaper wages were available around the world?