Also have those who've only ever lived off of inherited trust funds and investments stop blaming said tree-huggers for the world's economic problems. The rhetoric from both sides has grown tiresome.
Silly, those who've only ever lived off of inherited trust funds and the tree-huggers are the same people
I would propose hiring more people to work shorter shifts -- it has been indicated previously that there is no shortage of labor. There won't be any reduction in supply, problem solved.
I believe that workers will in fact sign up voluntarily. I don't think they should be allowed to.
If there's reasonable limits on the number of hours one can work in a week, in a single shift, and a minimum amount of time between successive shifts, then it shouldn't be a problem. But yeah, I realize that's asking a lot...
Where is all the righteous indignation for workers in the US who are similar situations?
Well HOPEFULLY, if we are nice to the Chinese, the righteous indignation and human rights pressure will be coming from China in the future. WE won't be able to ship them cars made with child labor for $.99 an hour.
Face it; WE used to be the champions of justice, sending investments and schools instead of bombs.
Now we send troops to Australia to somehow threaten China with a whopping 2,500 men, and China buys shipyards, funds schools, and builds hospitals in the Caribbean.
Now it's our turn to be the bombers not bridge builders -- and the Chinese will make movies about heros who beat up douche bags with thick American accents plotting to destroy the world, or at least pollute a drinking well in the village.
Other companies like Samsung have much better labor practices: they tell journalists “no comment” and make sure not to invite audits/investigations. Problems that are covered up don’t sell ads for “journalists,” so they aren’t real problems
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner
Now it's our turn to be the bombers not bridge builders -- and the Chinese will make movies about heros who beat up douche bags with thick American accents plotting to destroy the world, or at least pollute a drinking well in the village.
It’s sad to see times change, but as long as SOMEONE is making movies about beating up douchebags, I guess it’s still a world I can live in.
Please take the trouble to actually read the posts. Thanks.
The original article said that there was reduced supply doe to labor shortages:
Quote:
Demand for Apple's new iPad remains strong, but production of the device has reportedly been limited by ... a new focus on employees at Foxconn that has resulted in worker hours being cut.
Please take the trouble to actually read the articles. Thanks.
So, you predicted that the current labor shortage would lead to worker layoffs? How does that make any sense?
I have heard that while labor costs re cheaper in third world hellholes, other costs, such as energy, are higher than they are here in the US. I have heard that companies are bringing back production to the US due to overall favorable economics.
if true, the problem may fix itself. What if it became true that the US was the very best place to manufacture, despite the need to pay workers a somewhat larger amount?
What other factors would need to be in place? Keep in mind that labor economics, while important, are only one piece of the puzzle.
There are few situations where overall economics of manufacturing are more favorable in the US. The few situations are related to specialized skills. But that advantage is never permanent. I can get synthetic chemistry (once a specialized skill), molecular biology (also once a specialized skill), CNC machining, rapid prototyping (also once a specialized skill) all done cheaper AND faster in China. Imagine that, Chinese suppliers can deliver machined parts, synthetic DNA and synthesized compounds all faster than most suppliers in North America, even given their distance. The quality is generally rather good too, once you try out a few vendors to filter out the bad ones (which does not take long). More and more Chinese vendors are setting up sales offices in N.A. or simply relying on their web storefront for transactions. So the process is really, really convenient.
Higher input price will mean higher product price will mean lower demand for the product will mean lower demand for labor. Or cutting back on their more expensive Chinese workforce and moving production elsewhere, e.g., Vietnam, India. The question to you was whether you thought that would be a good thing.
The original article said that there was reduced supply doe to labor shortages:
Demand for Apple's new iPad remains strong, but production of the device has reportedly been limited by ... a new focus on employees at Foxconn that has resulted in worker hours being cut.
Please take the trouble to actually read the articles. Thanks.
So, you predicted that the current labor shortage would lead to worker layoffs? How does that make any sense?
Wow, talk about pulling that out of your..... hat. Your quote reminds me of the pathetic, selective cut-and-paste jobs that you see in movie ads when they quote critics that panned the work.
Since you are dissembling or have a comprehension problem, let me explain to you: The AI article, quoting Shaw Wu, pointed to two separate issues impacting iPads: (i) Retina display shortage for Samsung (which has nothing to do with labor shortage); (ii) Higher labor costs for Foxconn (which has nothing to do with the retina display shortage).
The article says (this is the correct quote, not your version of it: "production of the device has reportedly been limited by supply of Retina displays."
Neither I nor the article said anything about labor shortages. Run along and go bother someone else with your ridiculous posts.
Higher input price will mean higher product price will mean lower demand for the product will mean lower demand for labor. Or cutting back on their more expensive Chinese workforce and moving production elsewhere, e.g., Vietnam, India. The question to you was whether you thought that would be a good thing.
I assume we're talking about the cost of labor. The difference in input price should be negligible, since the labor supply is rather elastic, if previous reports are to be trusted. Also, why do you assume automatically a higher product price? The current profit margins (between Apple and Foxconn) surely allow for the same end-product prices with slightly lower profits. So, I don't believe production needs to be moved just to meet the currently discussed changes. I may be wrong though, having neither all the original data nor that much confidence with microeconomics.
The difference in input price should be negligible, since the labor supply is rather elastic, if previous reports are to be trusted.
If Foxconn is forced to raise its wages relative to competition in China -- because of external public pressures, i.e., not labor productivity or labor supply/demand -- that would have nothing to do with elasticity of labor supply. I am not following your argument here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
Also, why do you assume automatically a higher product price? The current profit margins (between Apple and Foxconn) surely allow for the same end-product prices with slightly lower profits.
Apple has margins to maintain, and its goal (as is that of every other for-profit business) is to maximize profits. Its market value depends on that. We can't presume to tell what margins Apple should or should not make. Why not then tell Apple to make zero (and Foxconn to pay its Chinese workers US wages)? Why stop at "slightly"?
There are few situations where overall economics of manufacturing are more favorable in the US. The few situations are related to specialized skills. But that advantage is never permanent. I can get synthetic chemistry (once a specialized skill), molecular biology (also once a specialized skill), CNC machining, rapid prototyping (also once a specialized skill) all done cheaper AND faster in China. Imagine that, Chinese suppliers can deliver machined parts, synthetic DNA and synthesized compounds all faster than most suppliers in North America, even given their distance. The quality is generally rather good too, once you try out a few vendors to filter out the bad ones (which does not take long). More and more Chinese vendors are setting up sales offices in N.A. or simply relying on their web storefront for transactions. So the process is really, really convenient.
I've heard that energy prices are lower in the US than in other manufacturing economies. The article claimed that the energy savings more than made up for labor costs, and that as a result, certain manufacturing was returning to the US.
If the article is correct, it would be easy to see a production increase in things like aluminum, or anything where the ongoing marginal costs (other than raw materials) consist of mainly energy and labor.
If Foxconn is forced to raise its wages relative to competition in China -- because of external public pressures, i.e., not labor productivity or labor supply/demand -- that would have nothing to do with elasticity of labor supply. I am not following your argument here.
You have a point here -- but Foxconn isn't directly forced to raise wages, only to decrease working hours for some workers, while paying them the same wage per hour. In order to keep the same level of productivity, it may need to hire more workers at slightly higher wages, in what seems to be a monopsonic labor market.
Quote:
Apple has margins to maintain, and its goal (as is that of every other for-profit business) is to maximize profits. Its market value depends on that. We can't presume to tell what margins Apple should or should not make. Why not then tell Apple to make zero (and Foxconn to pay its Chinese workers US wages)? Why stop at "slightly"?
I stop at "slightly" because I see this as a balance between the interest of the shareholders and the interests of society, much like described in this article:
There are few situations where overall economics of manufacturing are more favorable in the US. The few situations are related to specialized skills. But that advantage is never permanent. I can get synthetic chemistry (once a specialized skill), molecular biology (also once a specialized skill), CNC machining, rapid prototyping (also once a specialized skill) all done cheaper AND faster in China. Imagine that, Chinese suppliers can deliver machined parts, synthetic DNA and synthesized compounds all faster than most suppliers in North America, even given their distance. The quality is generally rather good too, once you try out a few vendors to filter out the bad ones (which does not take long). More and more Chinese vendors are setting up sales offices in N.A. or simply relying on their web storefront for transactions. So the process is really, really convenient.
There's one sustainable advantage to US manufacture - lead times for custom products.
I used to have a company which manufactured a safety product which was made to order. The variations were essentially infinite and demand was unpredictable, so stocking was impossible. Since the product needed to be available for a plant to run, replacements were often emergencies - it was not uncommon for us to ship a product within hours of receiving an order (at a hefty premium, of course). In many cases, the flight time from China to the US would have been enough to completely wipe out any potential cost savings since the customer had to shut down their plant while waiting for a replacement.
Of course, that situation only applies in a very tiny number of cases.
I stop at "slightly" because I see this as a balance between the interest of the shareholders and the interests of society, much like described in this article:
That article is every bit as misleading and biased as the argument they are trying to refute.
In reality, an officer of a company has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders and must act in the best interests of the shareholders. While your article is correct that there's no 1:1 connection between 'best interests' and 'maximized profits', there is a very close connection. If a corporation wants to do something which harms shareholder profits, they'd better have a pretty good justification unless they want to face shareholder lawsuits.
There are, of course, exceptions. In some cases, companies are very open and public about their actions. Ben and Jerry's, for example, acknowledges that they buy 'green' milk which costs more money. Since they are public about it, shareholders would have a hard time suing. Similarly, if a company says "we're going to donate a significant percentage of profits to charity" in their incorporation documents, a shareholder can't sue.
Then, of course, you get into the much broader situation where the officers have to interpret what's best for the company. For example, a company may decide to donate money to charity because they perceive the PR value as being greater than the cost. A shareholder could try to make an issue of that, but unless the amount is very large and the corporate justification is very poor, the shareholder complaint won't go anywhere.
I don't believe for a second that labor changes have slowed production for longer than it takes to hire and train new shifts. They have no shortage of applicants.
I do believe it's in the interests of anti-labor interests to make us believe improving the quality of life over there will reduce the quality of life over here.
Comments
Also have those who've only ever lived off of inherited trust funds and investments stop blaming said tree-huggers for the world's economic problems. The rhetoric from both sides has grown tiresome.
Silly, those who've only ever lived off of inherited trust funds and the tree-huggers are the same people
I would propose hiring more people to work shorter shifts -- it has been indicated previously that there is no shortage of labor. There won't be any reduction in supply, problem solved.
At a higher input price?
If there is reduced supply due to labor shortages, how will reduced supply lead to workers being laid off?
Who said anything about a labor shortage?
Please take the trouble to actually read the posts. Thanks.
I believe that workers will in fact sign up voluntarily. I don't think they should be allowed to.
If there's reasonable limits on the number of hours one can work in a week, in a single shift, and a minimum amount of time between successive shifts, then it shouldn't be a problem. But yeah, I realize that's asking a lot...
Where is all the righteous indignation for workers in the US who are similar situations?
Well HOPEFULLY, if we are nice to the Chinese, the righteous indignation and human rights pressure will be coming from China in the future. WE won't be able to ship them cars made with child labor for $.99 an hour.
Face it; WE used to be the champions of justice, sending investments and schools instead of bombs.
Now we send troops to Australia to somehow threaten China with a whopping 2,500 men, and China buys shipyards, funds schools, and builds hospitals in the Caribbean.
Now it's our turn to be the bombers not bridge builders -- and the Chinese will make movies about heros who beat up douche bags with thick American accents plotting to destroy the world, or at least pollute a drinking well in the village.
Now it's our turn to be the bombers not bridge builders -- and the Chinese will make movies about heros who beat up douche bags with thick American accents plotting to destroy the world, or at least pollute a drinking well in the village.
It’s sad to see times change, but as long as SOMEONE is making movies about beating up douchebags, I guess it’s still a world I can live in.
At a higher input price?
Why, yes, if they have to.
Who said anything about a labor shortage?
Please take the trouble to actually read the posts. Thanks.
The original article said that there was reduced supply doe to labor shortages:
Demand for Apple's new iPad remains strong, but production of the device has reportedly been limited by ... a new focus on employees at Foxconn that has resulted in worker hours being cut.
Please take the trouble to actually read the articles. Thanks.
So, you predicted that the current labor shortage would lead to worker layoffs? How does that make any sense?
I have heard that while labor costs re cheaper in third world hellholes, other costs, such as energy, are higher than they are here in the US. I have heard that companies are bringing back production to the US due to overall favorable economics.
if true, the problem may fix itself. What if it became true that the US was the very best place to manufacture, despite the need to pay workers a somewhat larger amount?
What other factors would need to be in place? Keep in mind that labor economics, while important, are only one piece of the puzzle.
There are few situations where overall economics of manufacturing are more favorable in the US. The few situations are related to specialized skills. But that advantage is never permanent. I can get synthetic chemistry (once a specialized skill), molecular biology (also once a specialized skill), CNC machining, rapid prototyping (also once a specialized skill) all done cheaper AND faster in China. Imagine that, Chinese suppliers can deliver machined parts, synthetic DNA and synthesized compounds all faster than most suppliers in North America, even given their distance. The quality is generally rather good too, once you try out a few vendors to filter out the bad ones (which does not take long). More and more Chinese vendors are setting up sales offices in N.A. or simply relying on their web storefront for transactions. So the process is really, really convenient.
...The quality is generally rather good too, ...
Of course it is, generally. There are exceptions, hopefully nothing fatal.
Why, yes, if they have to.
Higher input price will mean higher product price will mean lower demand for the product will mean lower demand for labor. Or cutting back on their more expensive Chinese workforce and moving production elsewhere, e.g., Vietnam, India. The question to you was whether you thought that would be a good thing.
The original article said that there was reduced supply doe to labor shortages:
Demand for Apple's new iPad remains strong, but production of the device has reportedly been limited by ... a new focus on employees at Foxconn that has resulted in worker hours being cut.
Please take the trouble to actually read the articles. Thanks.
So, you predicted that the current labor shortage would lead to worker layoffs? How does that make any sense?
Wow, talk about pulling that out of your..... hat. Your quote reminds me of the pathetic, selective cut-and-paste jobs that you see in movie ads when they quote critics that panned the work.
Since you are dissembling or have a comprehension problem, let me explain to you: The AI article, quoting Shaw Wu, pointed to two separate issues impacting iPads: (i) Retina display shortage for Samsung (which has nothing to do with labor shortage); (ii) Higher labor costs for Foxconn (which has nothing to do with the retina display shortage).
The article says (this is the correct quote, not your version of it: "production of the device has reportedly been limited by supply of Retina displays."
Neither I nor the article said anything about labor shortages. Run along and go bother someone else with your ridiculous posts.
Higher input price will mean higher product price will mean lower demand for the product will mean lower demand for labor. Or cutting back on their more expensive Chinese workforce and moving production elsewhere, e.g., Vietnam, India. The question to you was whether you thought that would be a good thing.
I assume we're talking about the cost of labor. The difference in input price should be negligible, since the labor supply is rather elastic, if previous reports are to be trusted. Also, why do you assume automatically a higher product price? The current profit margins (between Apple and Foxconn) surely allow for the same end-product prices with slightly lower profits. So, I don't believe production needs to be moved just to meet the currently discussed changes. I may be wrong though, having neither all the original data nor that much confidence with microeconomics.
I assume we're talking about the cost of labor.
Yes, the cost of labor.
The difference in input price should be negligible, since the labor supply is rather elastic, if previous reports are to be trusted.
If Foxconn is forced to raise its wages relative to competition in China -- because of external public pressures, i.e., not labor productivity or labor supply/demand -- that would have nothing to do with elasticity of labor supply. I am not following your argument here.
Also, why do you assume automatically a higher product price? The current profit margins (between Apple and Foxconn) surely allow for the same end-product prices with slightly lower profits.
Apple has margins to maintain, and its goal (as is that of every other for-profit business) is to maximize profits. Its market value depends on that. We can't presume to tell what margins Apple should or should not make. Why not then tell Apple to make zero (and Foxconn to pay its Chinese workers US wages)? Why stop at "slightly"?
There are few situations where overall economics of manufacturing are more favorable in the US. The few situations are related to specialized skills. But that advantage is never permanent. I can get synthetic chemistry (once a specialized skill), molecular biology (also once a specialized skill), CNC machining, rapid prototyping (also once a specialized skill) all done cheaper AND faster in China. Imagine that, Chinese suppliers can deliver machined parts, synthetic DNA and synthesized compounds all faster than most suppliers in North America, even given their distance. The quality is generally rather good too, once you try out a few vendors to filter out the bad ones (which does not take long). More and more Chinese vendors are setting up sales offices in N.A. or simply relying on their web storefront for transactions. So the process is really, really convenient.
I've heard that energy prices are lower in the US than in other manufacturing economies. The article claimed that the energy savings more than made up for labor costs, and that as a result, certain manufacturing was returning to the US.
If the article is correct, it would be easy to see a production increase in things like aluminum, or anything where the ongoing marginal costs (other than raw materials) consist of mainly energy and labor.
Yes, the cost of labor.
If Foxconn is forced to raise its wages relative to competition in China -- because of external public pressures, i.e., not labor productivity or labor supply/demand -- that would have nothing to do with elasticity of labor supply. I am not following your argument here.
You have a point here -- but Foxconn isn't directly forced to raise wages, only to decrease working hours for some workers, while paying them the same wage per hour. In order to keep the same level of productivity, it may need to hire more workers at slightly higher wages, in what seems to be a monopsonic labor market.
Apple has margins to maintain, and its goal (as is that of every other for-profit business) is to maximize profits. Its market value depends on that. We can't presume to tell what margins Apple should or should not make. Why not then tell Apple to make zero (and Foxconn to pay its Chinese workers US wages)? Why stop at "slightly"?
I stop at "slightly" because I see this as a balance between the interest of the shareholders and the interests of society, much like described in this article:
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/the_...older_fallacy/
There are few situations where overall economics of manufacturing are more favorable in the US. The few situations are related to specialized skills. But that advantage is never permanent. I can get synthetic chemistry (once a specialized skill), molecular biology (also once a specialized skill), CNC machining, rapid prototyping (also once a specialized skill) all done cheaper AND faster in China. Imagine that, Chinese suppliers can deliver machined parts, synthetic DNA and synthesized compounds all faster than most suppliers in North America, even given their distance. The quality is generally rather good too, once you try out a few vendors to filter out the bad ones (which does not take long). More and more Chinese vendors are setting up sales offices in N.A. or simply relying on their web storefront for transactions. So the process is really, really convenient.
There's one sustainable advantage to US manufacture - lead times for custom products.
I used to have a company which manufactured a safety product which was made to order. The variations were essentially infinite and demand was unpredictable, so stocking was impossible. Since the product needed to be available for a plant to run, replacements were often emergencies - it was not uncommon for us to ship a product within hours of receiving an order (at a hefty premium, of course). In many cases, the flight time from China to the US would have been enough to completely wipe out any potential cost savings since the customer had to shut down their plant while waiting for a replacement.
Of course, that situation only applies in a very tiny number of cases.
I stop at "slightly" because I see this as a balance between the interest of the shareholders and the interests of society, much like described in this article:
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/04/the_...older_fallacy/
That article is every bit as misleading and biased as the argument they are trying to refute.
In reality, an officer of a company has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders and must act in the best interests of the shareholders. While your article is correct that there's no 1:1 connection between 'best interests' and 'maximized profits', there is a very close connection. If a corporation wants to do something which harms shareholder profits, they'd better have a pretty good justification unless they want to face shareholder lawsuits.
There are, of course, exceptions. In some cases, companies are very open and public about their actions. Ben and Jerry's, for example, acknowledges that they buy 'green' milk which costs more money. Since they are public about it, shareholders would have a hard time suing. Similarly, if a company says "we're going to donate a significant percentage of profits to charity" in their incorporation documents, a shareholder can't sue.
Then, of course, you get into the much broader situation where the officers have to interpret what's best for the company. For example, a company may decide to donate money to charity because they perceive the PR value as being greater than the cost. A shareholder could try to make an issue of that, but unless the amount is very large and the corporate justification is very poor, the shareholder complaint won't go anywhere.
I do believe it's in the interests of anti-labor interests to make us believe improving the quality of life over there will reduce the quality of life over here.