Asia making all the shit we can't

Toolmanmike

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
748
Reaction score
665
Location
Iowa
If wages are the driving force to sending jobs overseas why have foreign companies built factories here and are building more?
Low wages, no unions to negotiate higher wages and benefits (raising cost to produce), no EPA or OSHA which protects employees and the environment but which also raises cost to produce, and cheap raw materials.
 

fury fan

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
2,506
Reaction score
1,618
Location
Indianapolis
Compare this press to any of the crap made overseas and I wonder what those new press's will look like in 70 plus years.
If every disposable thing was made to last 70 years there would be zero need for advancements in manufacturing.
No CNC, no automation, no innovation. Just the same old manual machine, run by a person, making the same parts all day long, with far more variation and QC problems than we have now. Products would cost more than they do now but fail sooner. And there'd be smog down to your waistband.

It would be nice to turn human behavior back in time (pre-social media, etc) but technology should not stagnate. Nor should education and ambition passed down in families.
 

fury fan

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
2,506
Reaction score
1,618
Location
Indianapolis
Low wages, no unions to negotiate higher wages and benefits (raising cost to produce), no EPA or OSHA which protects employees and the environment but which also raises cost to produce, and cheap raw materials.
Seems you misread what you replied to?
 

MoPar Maniac

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
758
Reaction score
550
Location
St. Charles county, MO
Low wages, no unions to negotiate higher wages and benefits (raising cost to produce), no EPA or OSHA which protects employees and the environment but which also raises cost to produce, and cheap raw materials.
INCORRECT.
They have to abide by OSHA and EPA in this country just like American manufacturers.
And they pay as much or more.
And the workers don't want the unions.
 

rapidtrans

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
4,066
Reaction score
5,382
Location
MI
Automation has gotten rid of many jobs!
Unless you specialize in robotics!

Nearly all of the robots we sold were to replace workers in hazardous locations. Like paintshops, bodyshops, foundries etc. Many of these operations were deemed un-safe for a manned position by either their union or Osha. A lot of the workers grumbled about the automation yet hated the un-safe, un-healthy or noisy jobs. The smart ones chose to take our training course and learned to program and maintain their company’s robots.
 

1970FuryConv

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2014
Messages
3,675
Reaction score
3,828
Location
Richmond, VA
If wages are the driving force to sending jobs overseas why have foreign companies built factories here and are building more?
The question remains: which foreign countries are these factories coming from? If they are from Europe or Japan, wages may be higher at home than here, so there may be labor and transportation cost advantages that cause the companies to build factories in US as part of trading in our marketplace. I doubt you will find that Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and 3rd world nation companies are building factories here. (If you have info to prove differently, please submit it.)
 

Kippy

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
114
Reaction score
167
Location
USA
Cheap labor inside this country hasn't helped us either.
If you ever to compete or you actually do compete, you know what I mean
 

MoPar Maniac

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
758
Reaction score
550
Location
St. Charles county, MO
The question remains: which foreign countries are these factories coming from? If they are from Europe or Japan, wages may be higher at home than here, so there may be labor and transportation cost advantages that cause the companies to build factories in US as part of trading in our marketplace. I doubt you will find that Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and 3rd world nation companies are building factories here. (If you have info to prove differently, please submit it.)
So why don't those companies go to China, too?
 

Davea Lux

Old Man with a Hat
FCBO Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
8,918
Reaction score
8,074
Location
Cornelius Or
So why don't those companies go to China, too?

China requires technology sharing to locate there. The learn how to make stuff and then pirate the product and then under sell the companies they make products for and try to drive them out of business. Part of the sweat heart deals signed/negotiated and supported by Hunter Biden, Obama, The Clintons, John Kerry and many others. Buy the politician and screw the American worker. Companies go broke and that puts downward pressure on wages and then open the borders and let cheap immigrant labor in that puts more pressure on wages. Marvelous plan Joe Biden et all have.

Dave
 

MoPar Maniac

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
758
Reaction score
550
Location
St. Charles county, MO
There are other countries they could go to.
BTW doesn't GM have a plant in China?
As for manufacturing here, look at the steel industry. It seems to be booming.
And many of the foreign steel companies-among them Severstal, Russia; ThyssenKrupp AG,Germany; AK Steel, US/Japan; ArcelorMittal, India, have all sold their US operations to US companies.
I wonder why? I'll give a hint...5 letter word. Starts with T...
 

fury fan

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
2,506
Reaction score
1,618
Location
Indianapolis
China requires technology sharing to locate there. The learn how to make stuff and then pirate the product and then under sell the companies they make products for and try to drive them out of business.
And even if they copy your item but miss out on the 'special sauce', and create/sell an inferior product, it'll look so much like yours that it will harm your company's reputation anyway.
 

polara71

Old Man with a Hat
Joined
Nov 16, 2010
Messages
43,577
Reaction score
22,993
Location
5100 ft above sea level
:bs_flag:
f010e2491c4aaa24422ca06022f08089.jpg
5a23c202d852b63f36e7902b7e669a0d.jpg



My work boots are American made. $350 boots because they're made here.
I recently had the need for a hand tool for electrical work. Four brands on the shelf, three made in China under $20. One made in the states $30, i bought the one made here :usflag:.

It didn't disappear overnight, it can not return overnight but it needs the support of the American people or you'll be coding like Obama wanted.

Always Buy American where possible!
 

rags

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
1,581
Location
greater norwich metropolitan area
at a local Lumber yard I bought a Milwaukee saw.
this one?
007.JPG
$20.00 at the flea market at Mansfield, CT. i paid too much for it, but it was part of a package deal i made with a guy on an A/C vacuum pump that i wanted. second hand corded tools are dime a dozen now. all the pro's want battery stuff. and yeah it works great.
 

live4theking

Old Man with a Hat
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Messages
11,962
Reaction score
7,969
Location
Rockland; Venango County Pennsylvania
It didn't disappear overnight, it can not return overnight but it needs the support of the American people or you'll be coding like Obama wanted.

You are correct. I live in a very rural area. Places to shop are very limited. I wish that we would pass a national law that the nation of manufacture had to be plainly marked on the front of the package with the nations flag (1/2" square) and the Made in ??? in at least 12 point Arial font.
 

Mike66Chryslers

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
1,505
Location
Ontario, Canada
China requires technology sharing to locate there. The learn how to make stuff and then pirate the product and then under sell the companies they make products for and try to drive them out of business. Part of the sweat heart deals signed/negotiated and supported by Hunter Biden, Obama, The Clintons, John Kerry and many others. Buy the politician and screw the American worker. Companies go broke and that puts downward pressure on wages and then open the borders and let cheap immigrant labor in that puts more pressure on wages. Marvelous plan Joe Biden et all have.

Dave
If you're going to make this about red vs blue party, don't forget that until relatively recently the Republicans were more in favour of international trade deals, and the Democrats not in favour of increased globalization, being historically more pro-union. There have been exceptions by both parties, of course, and more recently the two parties seem to be reversing roles. But members of either party can be bought by powerful lobbyists representing big business, present administration included.

Cheap labor inside this country hasn't helped us either.
If you ever to compete or you actually do compete, you know what I mean
I think I know what you're getting at. Labour is a market subject to supply and demand, like other business inputs. Government has allowed businesses to merge in the interest of cost savings, but those cost savings have come at the expense of the businesses cutting duplicated departments and letting those workers go. That has reduced the need for workers, contributing to unemplyment and UNDERemployment, such as in some specialized fields which would have otherwise been high-paying occupations. For such specialized occupations, there may only be a couple remaining businesses which need their particular skills. Those businesses know that, and can suppress wages because they know that workers have no alternative.

The remaining businesses can also squeeze their suppliers on the input side, because they know that their supposed competitors won't pay any more the same raw materials. (E.g. slaughterhouses. Only a few companies own all the animal processing facilities across the US. This lack of competition suppresses wholesale livestock prices, driving down farmers' profits.) -- This flip-side of monopoly (excess demand but only one supplier) is called a "monopsony" (excess supply but only one buyer).

The genesis of this situation goes back to the Reagan administration. Prior to that, anti-trust laws were administered by considering citizens as workers, entrepreneurs, business owners, as well as consumers. Companies could be broken-up or mergers denied based on those metrics. Under the Reagan administration and afterwards, citizens are primarily treated as CONSUMERS only. Company mergers are generally allowed if they can successfully show that there would be a benefit to consumers.

This ultimately led to the current situation in many types of business where there is a small group of dominating businesses which are operating in a monopolistic fashion, and have extensive government lobbying powers. e.g. BIG pharma, BIG oil, airlines, telcos, etc. Their lobbying efforts are steering lawmaking, not necessarily what is best for consumers.
 

Fratzog

Old Man with a Hat
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
12,366
Reaction score
11,706
Location
Grimsby, Ontario, Canada
If you're going to make this about red vs blue party, don't forget that until relatively recently the Republicans were more in favour of international trade deals, and the Democrats not in favour of increased globalization, being historically more pro-union. There have been exceptions by both parties, of course, and more recently the two parties seem to be reversing roles. But members of either party can be bought by powerful lobbyists representing big business, present administration included.


I think I know what you're getting at. Labour is a market subject to supply and demand, like other business inputs. Government has allowed businesses to merge in the interest of cost savings, but those cost savings have come at the expense of the businesses cutting duplicated departments and letting those workers go. That has reduced the need for workers, contributing to unemplyment and UNDERemployment, such as in some specialized fields which would have otherwise been high-paying occupations. For such specialized occupations, there may only be a couple remaining businesses which need their particular skills. Those businesses know that, and can suppress wages because they know that workers have no alternative.

The remaining businesses can also squeeze their suppliers on the input side, because they know that their supposed competitors won't pay any more the same raw materials. (E.g. slaughterhouses. Only a few companies own all the animal processing facilities across the US. This lack of competition suppresses wholesale livestock prices, driving down farmers' profits.) -- This flip-side of monopoly (excess demand but only one supplier) is called a "monopsony" (excess supply but only one buyer).

The genesis of this situation goes back to the Reagan administration. Prior to that, anti-trust laws were administered by considering citizens as workers, entrepreneurs, business owners, as well as consumers. Companies could be broken-up or mergers denied based on those metrics. Under the Reagan administration and afterwards, citizens are primarily treated as CONSUMERS only. Company mergers are generally allowed if they can successfully show that there would be a benefit to consumers.

This ultimately led to the current situation in many types of business where there is a small group of dominating businesses which are operating in a monopolistic fashion, and have extensive government lobbying powers. e.g. BIG pharma, BIG oil, airlines, telcos, etc. Their lobbying efforts are steering lawmaking, not necessarily what is best for consumers.
Not often that we agree but here I think you've hit the nail on the head. The rise of globalism and globalisation has exposed the weakness of our current political economy. Our governments have forfeited their responsibility to maintain a competitive level playing field in capitalist markets. As a result our democratic institutions have been undermined through massively funded lobbying efforts along with campaign financing schemes.

In the US , the drafters of the 1st Amendment protection of political lobbying could not have foreseen our current world of NGOs with unlimited funding from hostile foreign governments and multinational corporations. It makes perfect sense for these organisations to do everything to undermine national governments and create chaos so when a shill organisation like the UN comes along offering global stability it looks attractive. IMHO that is the end game.
 
Last edited:

70bigblockdodge

Old Man with a Hat
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
13,065
Reaction score
10,415
Location
Avonmore Pa.
If you're going to make this about red vs blue party, don't forget that until relatively recently the Republicans were more in favour of international trade deals, and the Democrats not in favour of increased globalization, being historically more pro-union. There have been exceptions by both parties, of course, and more recently the two parties seem to be reversing roles. But members of either party can be bought by powerful lobbyists representing big business, present administration included.


I think I know what you're getting at. Labour is a market subject to supply and demand, like other business inputs. Government has allowed businesses to merge in the interest of cost savings, but those cost savings have come at the expense of the businesses cutting duplicated departments and letting those workers go. That has reduced the need for workers, contributing to unemplyment and UNDERemployment, such as in some specialized fields which would have otherwise been high-paying occupations. For such specialized occupations, there may only be a couple remaining businesses which need their particular skills. Those businesses know that, and can suppress wages because they know that workers have no alternative.

The remaining businesses can also squeeze their suppliers on the input side, because they know that their supposed competitors won't pay any more the same raw materials. (E.g. slaughterhouses. Only a few companies own all the animal processing facilities across the US. This lack of competition suppresses wholesale livestock prices, driving down farmers' profits.) -- This flip-side of monopoly (excess demand but only one supplier) is called a "monopsony" (excess supply but only one buyer).

The genesis of this situation goes back to the Reagan administration. Prior to that, anti-trust laws were administered by considering citizens as workers, entrepreneurs, business owners, as well as consumers. Companies could be broken-up or mergers denied based on those metrics. Under the Reagan administration and afterwards, citizens are primarily treated as CONSUMERS only. Company mergers are generally allowed if they can successfully show that there would be a benefit to consumers.

This ultimately led to the current situation in many types of business where there is a small group of dominating businesses which are operating in a monopolistic fashion, and have extensive government lobbying powers. e.g. BIG pharma, BIG oil, airlines, telcos, etc. Their lobbying efforts are steering lawmaking, not necessarily what is best for consumers.
It's all about the greed for increasing profits for X amount of quarters to receive their bonus. If India will do it cheaper than China they will move to that supplier. No loyalty among thieves. Just like countless movie's and tv shows, the squirrelly thief will flip flop and follow the money with not a gram of loyalty.
They give a $#!? less where it's made other side of the world or other side of the street so long as they make their number for their own pocket.
They don't need 40 possible years in a job they just need to look like they know what they are doing, bang a couple of companies like a hot bimbo and leave them in the middle of the night to fade away.

Greed!
 
Top