When will corporations bring jobs back to the USA? (1 Viewer)

[Mario Kart]

http://news.yahoo.com/michael-jordan-loses-china-trademark-suit-report-070900502.html

We all know China "steals" product blueprints and uses them to make counterfeits to sell cheaply to people of China as well as countries close by. The Chinese are given the blueprints from the corporations that hire them to make their goods as cheaply as possible so they can make the most profit.

However, are some or many corporations going to get wise and protect their copyrights/trademarks/patents by making their products where they will be protected by the law? Air Jordan's brand took a hit with the article posted but what about Apple and other computer companies? What about other brands that have cut corners by going to China for cheaper labor/costs?

Is their brand more important than profits at some point? Is the counterfeit business not affecting the bottom line as much as they want us to believe? Do some companies counteract the counterfeits in Asia by raising prices here instead?

 

[Apple Jack]

I'd settle for an option for accents in the automated menu.

 

[Thunderlips]

I think companies would allow the "integrity" of their brand to take a hit here if it means that they're able to sell X amount more of units in China while having access to cheap Chinese labor/relaxed regulations etc. etc. Complaints about the quality of their product here can always be alleviated by putting a new hat on it and allowing their rabid fans to push a positive narrative.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

TPP ain't gonna help.

 

[Mohawk]

Only when it is profitable for them to do so.

 

[Rove!]

Cost equilibrium needs to be reached

It involves a number of things like currency manipulation, labor supply, transport cost, quality control, labr skillset, logistics of time zones and cultural/language differences and political environments...

 

[Dentist]

TPP

yeah, you know me!

 

[PIK95]

Never.

 

[James Daulton]

When robots are cheaper than foreign labor. Are jobs held by robots still called jobs? If yes, then my post applies, if not, then please ignore. And my answer then would be never.

 

[lombardi]

It's going to be interesting when 3D printing matures, how much starts getting created in house and locally as opposed to shipping in containers from China. As the machines and materials get cheaper the cost will begin to be comparable.

Why would I need to have a 20 year old auto part tooled, machined, packaged, and shipped in a container from China when I can just print it in my shop?

 

[DocHolliday]

When it makes sense financially. We cannot compete with many foreign countries due to our safety and environmental regulations, permitting fees, taxes, and most of all, labor costs.

 

[avoiding injuries]

When Trump brings them back

 

[Mile High]

Never. Lots of corporations don't give a #### about American workers, just about how much money they make.

 

[Mario Kart]

Why would I need to have a 20 year old auto part tooled, machined, packaged, and shipped in a container from China when I can just print it in my shop?

You will need to buy the blueprints for the printing though.

 

[johnnycakes]

You NEED to go to the Silk Market in Beijing. High-quality knock-offs of everything under the sun. Including women.

 

[Fat Nick]

http://news.yahoo.com/michael-jordan-loses-china-trademark-suit-report-070900502.html

We all know China "steals" product blueprints and uses them to make counterfeits to sell cheaply to people of China as well as countries close by. The Chinese are given the blueprints from the corporations that hire them to make their goods as cheaply as possible so they can make the most profit.

However, are some or many corporations going to get wise and protect their copyrights/trademarks/patents by making their products where they will be protected by the law? Air Jordan's brand took a hit with the article posted but what about Apple and other computer companies? What about other brands that have cut corners by going to China for cheaper labor/costs?

Is their brand more important than profits at some point? Is the counterfeit business not affecting the bottom line as much as they want us to believe? Do some companies counteract the counterfeits in Asia by raising prices here instead?

The crux is the bold part above, and the short answer is NO. There are very very very few, if any, companies that are driven by anything other than profit. There may be a predisposition to try and do good by employees AND profit, but if the choice must be made, profit wins. Every time. I guess this may not be the case for a privately held company, but no publicly traded company exists and performs well because it keeps jobs in the US...unless it also profits because of this.

If you don't profit as the CEO of a public company, you get fired, the shareholder elected board votes you out, and replaces you. So...the answer is much much more complicated. In order to profit by keeping jobs in the US, you have to fight against China's favorability with regards to minimum wage, and all salaries in general, all the employee health and retirement benefit expense costs, site and real estate costs, etc. Basically nearly everything is more expensive here. So when the sum of all those expenses < the money that can be lost should some China knock-off dilute your brand equity, you'll see jobs start coming back...but I think we're a long way from that. Truthfully, before that happened, I think we'd see companies try another country for manufacturing. Mexico is an obvious choice in my opinion. They're much more likely to submit to US patent enforcement. The biggest challenge is there's a lack of skilled labor. Unskilled is there, but you're not going to fill a factory with electrical engineers or something.

Unfortunately, the existence and success of stores like Harbor Freight, which sells knock-off tools made in China, corresponding with the decline of strong "American" brands such as Sears/Craftsman, has effectively shown that many US Consumers aren't willing to pay the premium for US-made quality even when the choice exists. We all complain about how crappy China made goods are, but when faced with the choice, we still choose the China knock-off at 60% of the price a majority of the time. Until people are willing to actually PAY a premium for the quality, and not just talk about it, nothing will change here...in fact, I'd argue that as China's manufacturing prowess is perfected, you'll see the knock-offs get closer in quality to the real thing, and if anything rather than the price gap closing, the quality gap will close, which is advantage China.

 

[msommer]

As mentioned before in a few different ways: When it maximizes shareholder value to do so.

 

[jwb]

The "jobs" are never coming back. Ever.

When we talk about "good jobs" in a societal / political sense, we really mean "solid middle class wages for low skill work". Factories, etc. Those jobs are gone. And even if they *did* come back, and a factory went up in your town, it'd be largely robotic. They'd hire a few smart computer people (probably half foreign, because little Johnny's humanities degree is pretty useless), and a few janitors (there you go, Johnny).

The days of house-buying wages for low skill work are gone forever.

 

[msommer]

The "jobs" are never coming back. Ever.

When we talk about "good jobs" in a societal / political sense, we really mean "solid middle class wages for low skill work". Factories, etc. Those jobs are gone. And even if they *did* come back, and a factory went up in your town, it'd be largely robotic. They'd hire a few smart computer people (probably half foreign, because little Johnny's humanities degree is pretty useless), and a few janitors (there you go, Johnny).

The days of house-buying wages for low skill work are gone forever.

Can't really fault the corporations for Johnny's lack of marketable skills

 

[jwb]

The "jobs" are never coming back. Ever.

When we talk about "good jobs" in a societal / political sense, we really mean "solid middle class wages for low skill work". Factories, etc. Those jobs are gone. And even if they *did* come back, and a factory went up in your town, it'd be largely robotic. They'd hire a few smart computer people (probably half foreign, because little Johnny's humanities degree is pretty useless), and a few janitors (there you go, Johnny).

The days of house-buying wages for low skill work are gone forever.

Can't really fault the corporations for Johnny's lack of marketable skills

Oh indeed. The whole "jobs" discussion makes me laugh. Even if they came, the people clamoring for them wouldn't be able to fill them.

 

[Politician Spock]

Most large corporations are international, even one's headquartered in the US. Not only are the jobs not going to come back, but our sovereignty as a country is being shaved away year by year because US sovereignty (and any national sovereignty for that matter) impedes international corporations' pursuit of profit. The fact that international corporations are allowed such great influence in our political system is a HUGE flaw in it.

 

[Fat Nick]

Most large corporations are international, even one's headquartered in the US. Not only are the jobs not going to come back, but our sovereignty as a country is being shaved away year by year because US sovereignty (and any national sovereignty for that matter) impedes international corporations' pursuit of profit. The fact that international corporations are allowed such great influence in our political system is a HUGE flaw in it.

I'm not getting the connection between the last sentence and the first part of your statement. Can you elaborate?

Completely agree that most large corporations are international, even if they're US-based. I'm not getting the connection between international corporations having influence on our political system being such an impactful thing. Are you noting that a multi-national company based outside the US can subsequently have an impact on who sits in office? i.e. the conflict of interest there?

Many domestic companies have realize that there are significant tax savings available if they are able to effectively shift their tax liability overseas (See Pfizer-Astrazenica failed acquisition from a few months back). Savings on your effective tax rate goes straight to your bottom line, and into your EPS, which impacts your market valuation. I guess if anything, I feel like we should be more worried about our domestic companies moving abroad, and taking their tax liabilities elsewhere, more than worrying about the possibility of elected officials being in the pocket of a large multi-national...I feel like the latter is as much a threat when the company is domestic as it is when it's international.

 

[jon_mx]

I am confused. Is Mario worried about corporations ripping off other corporations. The whole OP seems like a walking contradiction. How are corporations maximizing profits when cheap knockoffs are being produced by other companies stealing their trademarks? And if we can stop that, will that being jobs back here? Seems like we are just trading one foreign labor force for another.

 

[Slapdash]

When our labor is cheaper either through reduced taxation, less regulation, transition to single payer health care, a weaker dollar, or some combination of the above.

It is pretty much a moot point though because of the TPP. The TPP will extend our awful IP protections to many countries with cheap labor allowing them to move production from China without onshoring it back here.

 

[Fat Nick]

There are too many Spock avatars here...

 

[Politician Spock]

Most large corporations are international, even one's headquartered in the US. Not only are the jobs not going to come back, but our sovereignty as a country is being shaved away year by year because US sovereignty (and any national sovereignty for that matter) impedes international corporations' pursuit of profit. The fact that international corporations are allowed such great influence in our political system is a HUGE flaw in it.

I'm not getting the connection between the last sentence and the first part of your statement. Can you elaborate?

Completely agree that most large corporations are international, even if they're US-based. I'm not getting the connection between international corporations having influence on our political system being such an impactful thing. Are you noting that a multi-national company based outside the US can subsequently have an impact on who sits in office? i.e. the conflict of interest there?

Many domestic companies have realize that there are significant tax savings available if they are able to effectively shift their tax liability overseas (See Pfizer-Astrazenica failed acquisition from a few months back). Savings on your effective tax rate goes straight to your bottom line, and into your EPS, which impacts your market valuation. I guess if anything, I feel like we should be more worried about our domestic companies moving abroad, and taking their tax liabilities elsewhere, more than worrying about the possibility of elected officials being in the pocket of a large multi-national...I feel like the latter is as much a threat when the company is domestic as it is when it's international.

US based international corporations have "personhood" in our political system. They have as much political influence as a US resident does, at least in theory. When money is considered in their political influence, they have far more influence than a US resident does. A US based international corporation's interest are no more US focused than a non-US based international corporation. Their interests are global, not national.

 

[Fat Nick]

When our labor is cheaper either through reduced taxation, less regulation, transition to single payer health care, a weaker dollar, or some combination of the above.

It is pretty much a moot point though because of the TPP. The TPP will extend our awful IP protections to many countries with cheap labor allowing them to move production from China without onshoring it back here.

So basically, given that the average Chinese private worker makes about $5,000/year, the jobs will never come back.

Completely agree re. the second point. The jobs will go to another country before they come back here...I think increased logistics and shipping costs, and general national security concerns will push both regulations, and logical next choices to countries in the Americas (North/South) in the future.

 

[Slapdash]

When our labor is cheaper either through reduced taxation, less regulation, transition to single payer health care, a weaker dollar, or some combination of the above.

It is pretty much a moot point though because of the TPP. The TPP will extend our awful IP protections to many countries with cheap labor allowing them to move production from China without onshoring it back here.

So basically, given that the average Chinese private worker makes about $5,000/year, the jobs will never come back.

Completely agree re. the second point. The jobs will go to another country before they come back here...I think increased logistics and shipping costs, and general national security concerns will push both regulations, and logical next choices to countries in the Americas (North/South) in the future.

It is less about bringing those jobs back that fostering an environment that creates new ones and retains ones that are already here. We're not just competing with China and don't really want to turn parts of our country into this.

 

[Fat Nick]

Most large corporations are international, even one's headquartered in the US. Not only are the jobs not going to come back, but our sovereignty as a country is being shaved away year by year because US sovereignty (and any national sovereignty for that matter) impedes international corporations' pursuit of profit. The fact that international corporations are allowed such great influence in our political system is a HUGE flaw in it.

I'm not getting the connection between the last sentence and the first part of your statement. Can you elaborate?

Completely agree that most large corporations are international, even if they're US-based. I'm not getting the connection between international corporations having influence on our political system being such an impactful thing. Are you noting that a multi-national company based outside the US can subsequently have an impact on who sits in office? i.e. the conflict of interest there?

Many domestic companies have realize that there are significant tax savings available if they are able to effectively shift their tax liability overseas (See Pfizer-Astrazenica failed acquisition from a few months back). Savings on your effective tax rate goes straight to your bottom line, and into your EPS, which impacts your market valuation. I guess if anything, I feel like we should be more worried about our domestic companies moving abroad, and taking their tax liabilities elsewhere, more than worrying about the possibility of elected officials being in the pocket of a large multi-national...I feel like the latter is as much a threat when the company is domestic as it is when it's international.

US based international corporations have "personhood" in our political system. They have as much political influence as a US resident does, at least in theory. When money is considered in their political influence, they have far more influence than a US resident does. A US based international corporation's interest are no more US focused than a non-US based international corporation. Their interests are global, not national.

Got it. So in essence, it's the "monetization" of interests, where (really dumb-ed down) $3 to corporation X at the expense of $1 to the USA is an acceptable outcome, that kind of drives things in a bad direction?

 

[Politician Spock]

Most large corporations are international, even one's headquartered in the US. Not only are the jobs not going to come back, but our sovereignty as a country is being shaved away year by year because US sovereignty (and any national sovereignty for that matter) impedes international corporations' pursuit of profit. The fact that international corporations are allowed such great influence in our political system is a HUGE flaw in it.

I'm not getting the connection between the last sentence and the first part of your statement. Can you elaborate?

Completely agree that most large corporations are international, even if they're US-based. I'm not getting the connection between international corporations having influence on our political system being such an impactful thing. Are you noting that a multi-national company based outside the US can subsequently have an impact on who sits in office? i.e. the conflict of interest there?

Many domestic companies have realize that there are significant tax savings available if they are able to effectively shift their tax liability overseas (See Pfizer-Astrazenica failed acquisition from a few months back). Savings on your effective tax rate goes straight to your bottom line, and into your EPS, which impacts your market valuation. I guess if anything, I feel like we should be more worried about our domestic companies moving abroad, and taking their tax liabilities elsewhere, more than worrying about the possibility of elected officials being in the pocket of a large multi-national...I feel like the latter is as much a threat when the company is domestic as it is when it's international.

US based international corporations have "personhood" in our political system. They have as much political influence as a US resident does, at least in theory. When money is considered in their political influence, they have far more influence than a US resident does. A US based international corporation's interest are no more US focused than a non-US based international corporation. Their interests are global, not national.

Got it. So in essence, it's the "monetization" of interests, where (really dumb-ed down) $3 to corporation X at the expense of $1 to the USA is an acceptable outcome, that kind of drives things in a bad direction?

Not sure why you are trying to simplify the issue down to just dollars and cents. The establishment of corporate personhood in the 19th century, and the rise of international corporations in the 20th century, has turned the constitutional democratic republic of this country established in the 18th century into a democratic plutocracy in the 21st century. The international corporations own both political parties. The people just choose between two people the international corporations have vetted out in their political party system. The result of this is far greater than just dollars and cents. Our sovereignty as a country is slowly melting away year after year because of this.

 

[Fat Nick]

When our labor is cheaper either through reduced taxation, less regulation, transition to single payer health care, a weaker dollar, or some combination of the above.

It is pretty much a moot point though because of the TPP. The TPP will extend our awful IP protections to many countries with cheap labor allowing them to move production from China without onshoring it back here.

So basically, given that the average Chinese private worker makes about $5,000/year, the jobs will never come back.

Completely agree re. the second point. The jobs will go to another country before they come back here...I think increased logistics and shipping costs, and general national security concerns will push both regulations, and logical next choices to countries in the Americas (North/South) in the future.

It is less about bringing those jobs back that fostering an environment that creates new ones and retains ones that are already here. We're not just competing with China and don't really want to turn parts of our country into this.

Ugh. I just Google satellite viewed that place. That's awful. You can see that sludge lake easily, along with many pipes feeding God-knows-what into it from all over the place.

 

[timschochet]

Ultimately the answer is to increase the purchasing power of consumers in other countries. For instance there are millions of Iranians who want to buy our products.

 

[Rove!]

When our labor is cheaper either through reduced taxation, less regulation, transition to single payer health care, a weaker dollar, or some combination of the above.

It is pretty much a moot point though because of the TPP. The TPP will extend our awful IP protections to many countries with cheap labor allowing them to move production from China without onshoring it back here.

So basically, given that the average Chinese private worker makes about $5,000/year, the jobs will never come back.

Completely agree re. the second point. The jobs will go to another country before they come back here...I think increased logistics and shipping costs, and general national security concerns will push both regulations, and logical next choices to countries in the Americas (North/South) in the future.

thus is why currency manipulation is a major issue

 

[DocHolliday]

Ultimately the answer is to increase the purchasing power of consumers in other countries. For instance there are millions of Iranians who want to buy our products.

That is a great thought but is not true any longer. Too many other countries make the same products for less money. Those Iranians will be buying products from China as soon as the nuclear deal is signed. Iran will be open for business for China and Russia.

 

[ffldrew]

Ultimately the answer is to increase the purchasing power of consumers in other countries. For instance there are millions of Iranians who want to buy our products. Kill us

Fixed your post

 

[timschochet]

Ultimately the answer is to increase the purchasing power of consumers in other countries. For instance there are millions of Iranians who want to buy our products.

That is a great thought but is not true any longer. Too many other countries make the same products for less money. Those Iranians will be buying products from China as soon as the nuclear deal is signed. Iran will be open for business for China and Russia.

Then we need to come up with new products to sell.

 

[DocHolliday]

We are always coming up with new products to sell. Unfortunately, when manufacturing the product is studied, it is determined that it is cheaper to manufacture those products outside of the good ol' USA.

People that keep clamoring for manufacturing jobs to come back need to come to grips with the fact that the ship has sailed and is never coming back. The reasons have already been supplied a few times in this thread. We got the global economy. We get to buy cheap stuff made outside of the US.

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

Never. Lots of corporations don't give a #### about American workers, just about how much money they make.

Kind of goes to the whole capitalism thing we believe so deeply in no?

 

[mquinnjr]

Never.

Unfortunately, this is the correct answer. Foreign labor costs, infrastructure costs to build for manufacturing, negotiated tax rates with foreign governments and advantageous transfer pricing rules have all but sealed the fate of manufacturing ever coming back to the US. It's not a good thing, but US based companies got a taste of how it looks on their P&L's, and the reality is it's just never coming back.

ETA: Big US companies can literally go into a Western EU country and say, "Hey (country), we're going to build a manufacturing facility with local labor at market prices. We're also going to employ 5,000 of your people to work there. We infuse your economy via construction and employment, where you get the tax revenue from those workers. You're going to charge us 0% tax rate for the next 15 years on our income. Deal?" "Deal." And that money never gets touched by the US government, since it will be reinvested in a treasury center that sits outside the US for that company. And that's at EU market labor, cost savings are even greater in underdeveloped nations.

 

[Gr00vus]

Most large corporations are international, even one's headquartered in the US. Not only are the jobs not going to come back, but our sovereignty as a country is being shaved away year by year because US sovereignty (and any national sovereignty for that matter) impedes international corporations' pursuit of profit. The fact that international corporations are allowed such great influence in our political system is a HUGE flaw in it.

I'm not getting the connection between the last sentence and the first part of your statement. Can you elaborate?

Completely agree that most large corporations are international, even if they're US-based. I'm not getting the connection between international corporations having influence on our political system being such an impactful thing. Are you noting that a multi-national company based outside the US can subsequently have an impact on who sits in office? i.e. the conflict of interest there?

Many domestic companies have realize that there are significant tax savings available if they are able to effectively shift their tax liability overseas (See Pfizer-Astrazenica failed acquisition from a few months back). Savings on your effective tax rate goes straight to your bottom line, and into your EPS, which impacts your market valuation. I guess if anything, I feel like we should be more worried about our domestic companies moving abroad, and taking their tax liabilities elsewhere, more than worrying about the possibility of elected officials being in the pocket of a large multi-national...I feel like the latter is as much a threat when the company is domestic as it is when it's international.

US based international corporations have "personhood" in our political system. They have as much political influence as a US resident does, at least in theory. When money is considered in their political influence, they have far more influence than a US resident does. A US based international corporation's interest are no more US focused than a non-US based international corporation. Their interests are global, not national.

Got it. So in essence, it's the "monetization" of interests, where (really dumb-ed down) $3 to corporation X at the expense of $1 to the USA is an acceptable outcome, that kind of drives things in a bad direction?

Not sure why you are trying to simplify the issue down to just dollars and cents. The establishment of corporate personhood in the 19th century, and the rise of international corporations in the 20th century, has turned the constitutional democratic republic of this country established in the 18th century into a democratic plutocracy in the 21st century. The international corporations own both political parties. The people just choose between two people the international corporations have vetted out in their political party system. The result of this is far greater than just dollars and cents. Our sovereignty as a country is slowly melting away year after year because of this.

That and automation mean those jobs are never coming back. And in truth, the impact of automation is going to outstrip the impact of cheap human labor much sooner than we think. Economies built on, and nations whose societal stability depends on cheap labor are going to have real problems very soon.

We really need to get a broader focus on what good post capitalism economic/societal approaches look like.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

When will corporations bring jobs back to the USA?

Ok, let's answer this with another question:

- what would attract businesses to stay and come to the USA; and

- what would incentivize them to build factories or foster other entrepreneurial, launchpad development that would employ a lot of people?

Hm, what do businesses like, what do they like... let's think about that.

 

[mquinnjr]

When will corporations bring jobs back to the USA?

Ok, let's answer this with another question:

- what would attract businesses to stay and come to the USA; and

- what would incentivize them to build factories or foster other entrepreneurial, launchpad development that would employ a lot of people?

Hm, what do businesses like, what do they like... let's think about that.

As little operating expense as possible, as much net income as possible, and as high of an EPS as possible.

None of which correlates to bringing manufacturing jobs back into the US. The tax code would have to be changed before it's even a realistic discussion.

 

[Slapdash]

When our labor is cheaper either through reduced taxation, less regulation, transition to single payer health care, a weaker dollar, or some combination of the above.

It is pretty much a moot point though because of the TPP. The TPP will extend our awful IP protections to many countries with cheap labor allowing them to move production from China without onshoring it back here.

So basically, given that the average Chinese private worker makes about $5,000/year, the jobs will never come back.

Completely agree re. the second point. The jobs will go to another country before they come back here...I think increased logistics and shipping costs, and general national security concerns will push both regulations, and logical next choices to countries in the Americas (North/South) in the future.

thus is why currency manipulation is a major issue

Every country "manipulates" their currency

 

[Fat Nick]

That and automation mean those jobs are never coming back. And in truth, the impact of automation is going to outstrip the impact of cheap human labor much sooner than we think. Economies built on, and nations whose societal stability depends on cheap labor are going to have real problems very soon.

We really need to get a broader focus on what good post capitalism economic/societal approaches look like.

There's a reason why more developed economies rely more heavily on service-related revenues and less heavily on physical goods and manufacturing. As your workforce becomes more educated, and your factories become more automated, the value of an unskilled worker becomes less and less. Basically, once you can automate someone's job, the person that used to do that job is worthless...it basically pushes the "lowest wage at which a person is a better alternative than a robot" lower and lower. It's already at a point where that line is below what it's legal to pay people in the US.

I agree that at some point, that line will go below China wages as well. The only way to keep employment up is to "skill" the unskilled. The thing robots still can't do well is think and strategize. Smart people will still be needed to design future plants and robots. Smart people will still be needed to figure out what to manufacture, design products, etc.

It really is a bleak future for the truly unskilled, uneducated folks out there. Both here and overseas at some point.

 

[msommer]

When our labor is cheaper either through reduced taxation, less regulation, transition to single payer health care, a weaker dollar, or some combination of the above.

It is pretty much a moot point though because of the TPP. The TPP will extend our awful IP protections to many countries with cheap labor allowing them to move production from China without onshoring it back here.

So basically, given that the average Chinese private worker makes about $5,000/year, the jobs will never come back.

Completely agree re. the second point. The jobs will go to another country before they come back here...I think increased logistics and shipping costs, and general national security concerns will push both regulations, and logical next choices to countries in the Americas (North/South) in the future.

Not necessarily. The vessels plying that trade are a lot more expensive per container (smaller, so less economy of scale)

 

[Fat Nick]

When our labor is cheaper either through reduced taxation, less regulation, transition to single payer health care, a weaker dollar, or some combination of the above.

It is pretty much a moot point though because of the TPP. The TPP will extend our awful IP protections to many countries with cheap labor allowing them to move production from China without onshoring it back here.

So basically, given that the average Chinese private worker makes about $5,000/year, the jobs will never come back.

Completely agree re. the second point. The jobs will go to another country before they come back here...I think increased logistics and shipping costs, and general national security concerns will push both regulations, and logical next choices to countries in the Americas (North/South) in the future.

Not necessarily. The vessels plying that trade are a lot more expensive per container (smaller, so less economy of scale)

But is that just because the scale isn't there yet, or due to some other reason?

Assuming volume is equal (i.e. let's say the Americas had the same potential volume of cargo destined for the US as China), it's got to be cheaper to ship from there simply due to geographic proximity.

Sure it will take some volume to warrant the same size ships, but that's something that can happen.

 

[msommer]

When our labor is cheaper either through reduced taxation, less regulation, transition to single payer health care, a weaker dollar, or some combination of the above.

It is pretty much a moot point though because of the TPP. The TPP will extend our awful IP protections to many countries with cheap labor allowing them to move production from China without onshoring it back here.

So basically, given that the average Chinese private worker makes about $5,000/year, the jobs will never come back.

Completely agree re. the second point. The jobs will go to another country before they come back here...I think increased logistics and shipping costs, and general national security concerns will push both regulations, and logical next choices to countries in the Americas (North/South) in the future.

Not necessarily. The vessels plying that trade are a lot more expensive per container (smaller, so less economy of scale)

But is that just because the scale isn't there yet, or due to some other reason?

Assuming volume is equal (i.e. let's say the Americas had the same potential volume of cargo destined for the US as China), it's got to be cheaper to ship from there simply due to geographic proximity.

Sure it will take some volume to warrant the same size ships, but that's something that can happen.

Not only scale but also a hell of a lot of work dredging existing ports or building new ones, connected by new roads to the new factories etc.

And it is really a chicken/egg situation (yes I know, chicken came first). Few companies will relocate their factories to a place where someday there is supposed to be a really cool and modern port with excellent infrastructure and connections but today is a quagmire connected with bad roads to inefficient ports served infrequently by small inefficient vessels.

Personally I think it is more likely that factories move to the US than to Central or South America. Obviously that assumes that the interstates can handle the extra traffic somehow.

No matter what, the driver will be overall cost and service advantages (reliability, agility, robustness of the supply chain) that can be made into real tangible benefits that the customers appreciate.

 

[Gr00vus]

That and automation mean those jobs are never coming back. And in truth, the impact of automation is going to outstrip the impact of cheap human labor much sooner than we think. Economies built on, and nations whose societal stability depends on cheap labor are going to have real problems very soon.

We really need to get a broader focus on what good post capitalism economic/societal approaches look like.

There's a reason why more developed economies rely more heavily on service-related revenues and less heavily on physical goods and manufacturing. As your workforce becomes more educated, and your factories become more automated, the value of an unskilled worker becomes less and less. Basically, once you can automate someone's job, the person that used to do that job is worthless...it basically pushes the "lowest wage at which a person is a better alternative than a robot" lower and lower. It's already at a point where that line is below what it's legal to pay people in the US.

I agree that at some point, that line will go below China wages as well. The only way to keep employment up is to "skill" the unskilled. The thing robots still can't do well is think and strategize. Smart people will still be needed to design future plants and robots. Smart people will still be needed to figure out what to manufacture, design products, etc.

It really is a bleak future for the truly unskilled, uneducated folks out there. Both here and overseas at some point.

There will only be the need for a relatively few "smart people" to do these jobs. It doesn't have to be a bleak future if we can figure out a way to get people acclimated to the notion that we're approaching a post scarcity society (and that especially includes easily copied things like media) in which everyone needn't work for pay while still having their needs covered.

 

[jwb]

That and automation mean those jobs are never coming back. And in truth, the impact of automation is going to outstrip the impact of cheap human labor much sooner than we think. Economies built on, and nations whose societal stability depends on cheap labor are going to have real problems very soon.

We really need to get a broader focus on what good post capitalism economic/societal approaches look like.

There's a reason why more developed economies rely more heavily on service-related revenues and less heavily on physical goods and manufacturing. As your workforce becomes more educated, and your factories become more automated, the value of an unskilled worker becomes less and less. Basically, once you can automate someone's job, the person that used to do that job is worthless...it basically pushes the "lowest wage at which a person is a better alternative than a robot" lower and lower. It's already at a point where that line is below what it's legal to pay people in the US.

I agree that at some point, that line will go below China wages as well. The only way to keep employment up is to "skill" the unskilled. The thing robots still can't do well is think and strategize. Smart people will still be needed to design future plants and robots. Smart people will still be needed to figure out what to manufacture, design products, etc.

It really is a bleak future for the truly unskilled, uneducated folks out there. Both here and overseas at some point.

There will only be the need for a relatively few "smart people" to do these jobs. It doesn't have to be a bleak future if we can figure out a way to get people acclimated to the notion that we're approaching a post scarcity society (and that especially includes easily copied things like media) in which everyone needn't work for pay while still having their needs covered.

Don't see this ever happening. There will have to be a lot less people for this to work.

Prettymuch all of history is "unskilled = fairly poor". It's only part of the 20th century where that changed for the masses - where the unskilled could live like (relative) Kings and Queens (house, car, 2 kids, vacation, color tv, etc.)

 

[Thunderlips]

That and automation mean those jobs are never coming back. And in truth, the impact of automation is going to outstrip the impact of cheap human labor much sooner than we think. Economies built on, and nations whose societal stability depends on cheap labor are going to have real problems very soon.

We really need to get a broader focus on what good post capitalism economic/societal approaches look like.

There's a reason why more developed economies rely more heavily on service-related revenues and less heavily on physical goods and manufacturing. As your workforce becomes more educated, and your factories become more automated, the value of an unskilled worker becomes less and less. Basically, once you can automate someone's job, the person that used to do that job is worthless...it basically pushes the "lowest wage at which a person is a better alternative than a robot" lower and lower. It's already at a point where that line is below what it's legal to pay people in the US.

I agree that at some point, that line will go below China wages as well. The only way to keep employment up is to "skill" the unskilled. The thing robots still can't do well is think and strategize. Smart people will still be needed to design future plants and robots. Smart people will still be needed to figure out what to manufacture, design products, etc.

It really is a bleak future for the truly unskilled, uneducated folks out there. Both here and overseas at some point.

There will only be the need for a relatively few "smart people" to do these jobs. It doesn't have to be a bleak future if we can figure out a way to get people acclimated to the notion that we're approaching a post scarcity society (and that especially includes easily copied things like media) in which everyone needn't work for pay while still having their needs covered.

Don't see this ever happening. There will have to be a lot less people for this to work.

Prettymuch all of history is "unskilled = fairly poor". It's only part of the 20th century where that changed for the masses - where the unskilled could live like (relative) Kings and Queens (house, car, 2 kids, vacation, color tv, etc.)

IMO, there's a couple of problems with this line of thinking....

1) For much of history, there were "release valves", be it war or expansion into the various frontiers (be it The Americas, then the American movement West) that allowed an ambitious poor (an oxymoron to many on this board I'm sure.....but think of the young person, ready to come of age being raised by poor people) a chance at a future. These things were high risk/high reward.....but they did exist. I don't know if they exist anymore.

2) It'd be kind of hard to convince people that the 20th Century American Way ISN"T the way that it should or could be. "House, Car, 2 kids, vacation, color tv, etc." is, I imagine an world wide accepted view of how things (with a modicum of work and risk) should be.

3) Our government allows these people to make changes. If unskilled and poor are pushed to quickly and hard off the cliff, they're going to grab the hand that's pushing them and pull them too.