3 ms·

The manufacturing problem in any first world country has the same problem, if anything USA has been the last to have the problem because they kept cheap workers

The manufacturing problem in any first world country has the same problem, if anything USA has been the last to have the problem because they kept cheap workers cheaper for longer. Look at Germany, they have both but that's partly the vertical companies being ethical and patriotic.

pm90 15y ago
In the case of Germany, they did the smart thing of promoting their products as "High Quality". Even today, German manufactured goods command a premium in the market (automobiles, power-tools etc). The British had an excellent legacy of quality engineering, I guess they have squandered it. (Although not related to manufacturing, I am reminded of a quote about British Civil Engineering I had read that said that "Americans build for 50-100 years, but the British build forever". This is quite true in India; a lot of the infrastructure laid down by the British is still in use) EDIT: In responses asking for examples, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mumbai#City_development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mumbai#City_developm... . The British were responsible for merging the many Islands of Mumbai to get what it is today. Also, the pipelines supplying fresh water to Mumbai were built by the British and are being augmented only in the last decade or so.
- rmc 15y ago
  This is quite true in India; a lot of the infrastructure laid down by the British is still in use How much of the continued re-use is due to it being so superior, or the government being so cash poor that they can't pay for any replacements?
  - gaius 15y ago
    They can pay for nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers and a space programme; India is not a poor country.
    - rmc 15y ago
      There are loads of countries that squander money on military and things like that, while people starve, or the infastructure falls apart.
    - cabalamat 15y ago
      Possibly the Indian government doesn't consider railways to be as sexy as those things.
    - blasterford 15y ago
      Why does the UK give India £295m a year in aid? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12607537 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12607537
- jbarham 15y ago
  > This is quite true in India; a lot of the infrastructure laid down by the British is still in use I think that says more about India than it does about British engineering.
  - omonra 15y ago
    I think you'd have to demonstrate commensurate projects taking place after the Brits have left to make your point (fyi I'm neither :)
- DanBC 15y ago
  Indian railways is one of the third largest employers in the world (the Chinese Army and the UK National Health Service are the other two) and yet they are well known for being bloody awful. EDIT: Forgot to add: The engineering might be good, but the middle management was often really poor and the build quality of mass-produced items was usually sub-optimal. Combined with post-war poverty here and post-war subsidies there (Japan) the UK had a weird combination of factors.

pm90 15y ago

In the case of Germany, they did the smart thing of promoting their products as "High Quality". Even today, German manufactured goods command a premium in the market (automobiles, power-tools etc). The British had an excellent legacy of quality engineering, I guess they have squandered it. (Although not related to manufacturing, I am reminded of a quote about British Civil Engineering I had read that said that "Americans build for 50-100 years, but the British build forever". This is quite true in India; a lot of the infrastructure laid down by the British is still in use) EDIT: In responses asking for examples, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mumbai#City_development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mumbai#City_developm... . The British were responsible for merging the many Islands of Mumbai to get what it is today. Also, the pipelines supplying fresh water to Mumbai were built by the British and are being augmented only in the last decade or so.

rmc 15y ago
This is quite true in India; a lot of the infrastructure laid down by the British is still in use How much of the continued re-use is due to it being so superior, or the government being so cash poor that they can't pay for any replacements?
- gaius 15y ago
  They can pay for nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers and a space programme; India is not a poor country.
  - rmc 15y ago
    There are loads of countries that squander money on military and things like that, while people starve, or the infastructure falls apart.
  - cabalamat 15y ago
    Possibly the Indian government doesn't consider railways to be as sexy as those things.
  - blasterford 15y ago
    Why does the UK give India £295m a year in aid? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12607537 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12607537
jbarham 15y ago
> This is quite true in India; a lot of the infrastructure laid down by the British is still in use I think that says more about India than it does about British engineering.
- omonra 15y ago
  I think you'd have to demonstrate commensurate projects taking place after the Brits have left to make your point (fyi I'm neither :)
DanBC 15y ago
Indian railways is one of the third largest employers in the world (the Chinese Army and the UK National Health Service are the other two) and yet they are well known for being bloody awful. EDIT: Forgot to add: The engineering might be good, but the middle management was often really poor and the build quality of mass-produced items was usually sub-optimal. Combined with post-war poverty here and post-war subsidies there (Japan) the UK had a weird combination of factors.