4 ms·

Not sure I follow how the location of manufacture of fittings matters. Is it your assertion that domestic manufacture is inherently of higher quality, and there

Not sure I follow how the location of manufacture of fittings matters. Is it your assertion that domestic manufacture is inherently of higher quality, and therefore in less need of regulation? There’s just some inbuilt good old Americanness in those 1950s US-made fittings that meant an untrained homeowner could reliably construct a sturdy and safe home without screwing it up, in a way that is just not possible when the parts are made overseas?

ceejayoz 3y ago
You're probably a little less likely to make shoddy parts if you're in reach of the recipient's legal system. Which most Chinese factories are not when selling to Americans.
- jameshart 3y ago
  Anyone selling parts to US homeowners to build houses out of is well within the reach of US regulation.
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    No? You’re suggesting a scale of international regulation (or embargo) that would be difficult or impossible to enforce.
    - gizmo686 3y ago
      This is literally the point of customs. Otherwise, literally any product regulation would be toothless as foreign companies would simply sell us products that meet the requirements of their country, not the US. Since that does not happen at scale, it would seem that US customs does have some ability to enforce US regulations on foreign sellers.
      - the_sleaze9 3y ago
        What does customs have to do with it? If I were to say, purchase 100,000 gpu's direct from a chinese manufacturer, and half of them were dead on arrival, what is my recourse? Where does customs fit into that recourse? Now if I were to purchase them from an american company, I may have an opportunity to sue.
        henriquez 3y ago
        You could sue the Chinese-owned American shell company that imported the GPUs. I’m sure they didn’t wire the money away and close up shop immediately, like plenty of Amazon importers caught selling counterfeit or downright dangerous electronics.
        jameshart 3y ago
        If you tried to build a house out of them, the government would have plenty to say about it.
andrew_ 3y ago
While I don't like the language you chose, and the way it presents your reply as snide, I'll ablige. I addressed that already. "The increase in number and specificity of building codes has come in-part due to foreign-made building materials and poor QC." Quality Control from foreign made building materials was far less than those components manufactured in the U.S. at the time. I grew up in a pipefititng and piping wholesale family, which is closely adjacent to steel manufacturing. You're welcome to dive in if you're genuinely curious, there's tons of reading material available. I'd recommend starting with the decline in fitting production and consolidation in the U.S. in the 90s with the introduction of Korean-made fittings. Chinese-made cast iron is another one to poke at. Starting in the 70s, Chinese-made cast iron was widely imported and was used widely in underground piping, namely sewer and sanitary. Cast iron failure was a huge problem for 20 years. If you're looking for a xenophobe angle to argue, it's simply not there.
- jameshart 3y ago
  You don’t mean ‘foreign made’, you mean ‘cheaply imported’. Your complaints aren’t directed at Swedish steel or German fittings. They’re directed to Asian sourced parts imported by American companies. The regulatory context that permitted self assembly of houses seems wholly orthogonal to parts supply chains for professional manufacture.
  - fosk 3y ago
    Yes you are correct, but they are foreign made because they are cheaply imported in the first place. Otherwise they would be both made and purchased in the US.
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    You are restating the obvious point of the original statement, just with the addition of trying to pillory the GP for not choosing to make the obvious point in as many words as you’d prefer…?
    - jameshart 3y ago
dmbche 3y ago
I think it's more that cheap, low quality labor was not available for manufacturers at the time, whereas when it did become available they used it. The difference being that labor in the US is "high quality" in the sense that it is more regulated than what can be found elsewhere. So a cheap and bad option appeared on the market it was only from overseas, not domestic. It's not an issue of where it's made - just different qualities made available.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
> There’s just some inbuilt good old Americanness in those 1950s US-made fittings that meant It's not what was built in here per se, it what wasn't - not back then at least - cut out to shave a penny (or a buck) off costs. On the other hand, to break into a new market (lower) price - often with lower quality - is a known entry path Along the same lines, look at American made cars back then. Sure there were sloppy manufacturing issues. But no one accused any individual part of skimping, cutting corners, etc. Believe it or not, things were noticeably different back then.
- greedo 3y ago
  Car manufacturers never skimped on QC? Take a look at the wonderful Corvair. Or the Pinto. So much of this is survivor bias or just nostalgia. Some things were better back in the 50s, some weren't. Somethings in the 50's seemed great but in hindsight were pretty bad (asbestos, thalidomide, DDT, aluminum wiring). And some of the "American Exceptionalism" was also a response to WW2. I know an entire generation who would never buy anything made in Japan because of Pearl Harbor. And I had an uncle who flew in the 8th AF who would go into a rage whenever he saw a VW Beetle on the road. In electronics, Japanese-made used to be a slur, until they dominated electronics. My first home was a Sears home. It was small but seemed okay for a first home. It had new siding, and the previous owner had replaced the aluminum wiring. I don't know if the plumbing had been replaced, but it was, as most houses are, a House of Theseus.
  - Ichthypresbyter 3y ago
    Thalidomide is actually a weird example where American exceptionalism is accurate- the FDA refused to approve it for morning sickness, despite the manufacturer's pressure on the reviewer, Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey. It was approved basically everywhere else in the industrialized world, including Kelsey's native Canada.
    - kalleboo 3y ago
      The US was "lucky" in that they had the elixir sulfanilamide scandal a while earlier which pushed them to adopt medicine approval standards. France was another country that avoided Thalidomide since they had their Stalinon scandal a few years earlier which had spurred them into stricter regulation as well. Sadly, everyone had to learn this lesson "the hard way", the timelines were just different.

ceejayoz 3y ago

You're probably a little less likely to make shoddy parts if you're in reach of the recipient's legal system. Which most Chinese factories are not when selling to Americans.

jameshart 3y ago
Anyone selling parts to US homeowners to build houses out of is well within the reach of US regulation.
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  No? You’re suggesting a scale of international regulation (or embargo) that would be difficult or impossible to enforce.
  - gizmo686 3y ago
    This is literally the point of customs. Otherwise, literally any product regulation would be toothless as foreign companies would simply sell us products that meet the requirements of their country, not the US. Since that does not happen at scale, it would seem that US customs does have some ability to enforce US regulations on foreign sellers.
    - the_sleaze9 3y ago
      What does customs have to do with it? If I were to say, purchase 100,000 gpu's direct from a chinese manufacturer, and half of them were dead on arrival, what is my recourse? Where does customs fit into that recourse? Now if I were to purchase them from an american company, I may have an opportunity to sue.
      - henriquez 3y ago
        You could sue the Chinese-owned American shell company that imported the GPUs. I’m sure they didn’t wire the money away and close up shop immediately, like plenty of Amazon importers caught selling counterfeit or downright dangerous electronics.
      - jameshart 3y ago
        If you tried to build a house out of them, the government would have plenty to say about it.

andrew_ 3y ago

While I don't like the language you chose, and the way it presents your reply as snide, I'll ablige. I addressed that already. "The increase in number and specificity of building codes has come in-part due to foreign-made building materials and poor QC." Quality Control from foreign made building materials was far less than those components manufactured in the U.S. at the time. I grew up in a pipefititng and piping wholesale family, which is closely adjacent to steel manufacturing. You're welcome to dive in if you're genuinely curious, there's tons of reading material available. I'd recommend starting with the decline in fitting production and consolidation in the U.S. in the 90s with the introduction of Korean-made fittings. Chinese-made cast iron is another one to poke at. Starting in the 70s, Chinese-made cast iron was widely imported and was used widely in underground piping, namely sewer and sanitary. Cast iron failure was a huge problem for 20 years. If you're looking for a xenophobe angle to argue, it's simply not there.

jameshart 3y ago
You don’t mean ‘foreign made’, you mean ‘cheaply imported’. Your complaints aren’t directed at Swedish steel or German fittings. They’re directed to Asian sourced parts imported by American companies. The regulatory context that permitted self assembly of houses seems wholly orthogonal to parts supply chains for professional manufacture.
- fosk 3y ago
  Yes you are correct, but they are foreign made because they are cheaply imported in the first place. Otherwise they would be both made and purchased in the US.
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  You are restating the obvious point of the original statement, just with the addition of trying to pillory the GP for not choosing to make the obvious point in as many words as you’d prefer…?
  - jameshart 3y ago

dmbche 3y ago

I think it's more that cheap, low quality labor was not available for manufacturers at the time, whereas when it did become available they used it. The difference being that labor in the US is "high quality" in the sense that it is more regulated than what can be found elsewhere. So a cheap and bad option appeared on the market it was only from overseas, not domestic. It's not an issue of where it's made - just different qualities made available.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

> There’s just some inbuilt good old Americanness in those 1950s US-made fittings that meant It's not what was built in here per se, it what wasn't - not back then at least - cut out to shave a penny (or a buck) off costs. On the other hand, to break into a new market (lower) price - often with lower quality - is a known entry path Along the same lines, look at American made cars back then. Sure there were sloppy manufacturing issues. But no one accused any individual part of skimping, cutting corners, etc. Believe it or not, things were noticeably different back then.

greedo 3y ago
Car manufacturers never skimped on QC? Take a look at the wonderful Corvair. Or the Pinto. So much of this is survivor bias or just nostalgia. Some things were better back in the 50s, some weren't. Somethings in the 50's seemed great but in hindsight were pretty bad (asbestos, thalidomide, DDT, aluminum wiring). And some of the "American Exceptionalism" was also a response to WW2. I know an entire generation who would never buy anything made in Japan because of Pearl Harbor. And I had an uncle who flew in the 8th AF who would go into a rage whenever he saw a VW Beetle on the road. In electronics, Japanese-made used to be a slur, until they dominated electronics. My first home was a Sears home. It was small but seemed okay for a first home. It had new siding, and the previous owner had replaced the aluminum wiring. I don't know if the plumbing had been replaced, but it was, as most houses are, a House of Theseus.
- Ichthypresbyter 3y ago
  Thalidomide is actually a weird example where American exceptionalism is accurate- the FDA refused to approve it for morning sickness, despite the manufacturer's pressure on the reviewer, Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey. It was approved basically everywhere else in the industrialized world, including Kelsey's native Canada.
  - kalleboo 3y ago
    The US was "lucky" in that they had the elixir sulfanilamide scandal a while earlier which pushed them to adopt medicine approval standards. France was another country that avoided Thalidomide since they had their Stalinon scandal a few years earlier which had spurred them into stricter regulation as well. Sadly, everyone had to learn this lesson "the hard way", the timelines were just different.