The outlines of a national manufacturing policy -- as contrasted with an "industrial policy" -- are beginning to emerge. The U.S. needs to make manufacturing a priority, and that means changes in tax policies and other incentives designed to encourage investment in the types of flexible manufacturing needed for small and medium-sized plants. Others in this thread have weighed in on whether the U.S. should seek to again build up its capacity to manufacture consumer electronics. Perhaps those days are gone. But the auto industry model remains relevant, and can serve as a template for a new manufacturing base with a "multiplier effect" that creates other supply chain and service jobs.
The US has never tangled with a country of the size of China. If anything, the xfer of US technology ( developed within the US at US public ( Govt. ) expense ) to China has only accelerated recently, championed by CEOs like GEs Immelt, who Obama picked for his job czar (??????? ).
All past assumptions as to who will come out ahead are invalid.
Germany and China have intelligent National industrial / trade policies, the US does not and keeps pretending it is still so big and powerful that the so - called free market private enterprise will be able to take care of it.
Those who make huge profit by outsourcing ( which generates China's trade surplus that they invest against US interests ) make sure that they keep this myth going within the US and they incite the gullible here by pushing various buttons even if those same folks have been hurt by such one - sided trade ( the so called Kansas effect ).
I think the definition of "cheap" in relation to Chinese labor has fundamentally changed over the years. It used to be associated with "low quality" but I don't think many feel that way anymore. The current reference to "cheap labor" is in relation to the costs of the labor. And yes, efficiency is one method of decreasing costs, so I have to agree with you there. I think the largest differences are the costs of living (to the local standard) and the political, regulation, and economic systems, of which the differences are very great. And which contribute greatly to the costs of producing a product.
holy shit, all this nonsense conversation back again.
let me repeat it 1 more time.
the chinese way is efficiency, not cheap labor.
efficiency of energy, land etc.
chinese workers live in high rise apt, commute with bus/e bike.
the chinese apt made with concrete have better insulation, use less energy compared with a american wood one,
these are the foundation of chinese competency.
If you all over look this fact you will never grow.
As I mentioned several times in the past, the exodus starts with low-value manufacturing, then medium value manufacturing, then high-value manufacturing, then some designs, then, high-value designs, then some simple product development (basicallally adding simple changes to existing products, then next-gen product development, then to cutting-edge R&D. We are now in the last stages of this 'globalization'. This was the story with black&white tvs, now lcd/led tVs, and smart-phones..
There is no way to stop this under current "free market globalization". The only short term solution is government intervention and stimulus such as next-generation products such as smart energy, space programs, and the like,and even some heavy-handedness on managing R&D tax credit, giving it only to those that truly commit to to R&D in the US.
My Mom the Radio Star Max MaxfieldPost a comment I've said it before and I'll say it again -- it's a funny old world when you come to think about it. Last Friday lunchtime, for example, I received an email from Tim Levell, the editor for ...
A Book For All Reasons Bernard Cole1 Comment Robert Oshana's recent book "Software Engineering for Embedded Systems (Newnes/Elsevier)," written and edited with Mark Kraeling, is a 'book for all reasons.' At almost 1,200 pages, it ...