The Hidden Costs of Bargain Electronics

Fill Dirt writes "Mike Langberg of Knight-Ridder newspapers wrote an interesting article on the the hidden costs of bargain priced consumer electronics. I saw it in the Seattle Times business section with the title Can't lose with bargain DVD player, but low cost carries price ."

Comments

Pollution?

[grioghar]

Seems to me the biggest thing is the pollution generated by these bargain electronics. If it's dirt cheap, then if it dies, you throw it away, you buy more dirt cheap.

Not so good for our environment.

Re:Pollution?

[cgranade]

Of course, the same argument can be made for many things. I have the same feeling about American cars... you're likely to have a Ford or GM last 5 years. Now, before everyone floods me about how "my truck has been around for 40 years," let me pre-emptively defend myself: 1) trucks are a little bit different still, 2) there are always exceptions (I have a friend who loves his CyberHome brand DVD player) and 3) well, 20 or 40 years is a long time removed from now.
Getting back OT, it seems like the parent poster is right on, but I would extend this argument to a much larger scope of problems, and one that doesn't just affect China, but all nations.

Re:Pollution?

[dandelion_wine]

I know this sounds obnoxious, but I can't say it better than she can. Read Naomi Klein's "No Logo" if you want an inside look at how the export of manufacturing "aids" developing countries. She makes many technical (but important) observations about how the system is set up to take advantage but not benefit these workers and these countries.

I'll make the simpler argument: you don't support change but supporting the status quo. Employers in the west never volunteered minimum wage, child labour laws, working hour restrictions, etc, etc, etc. It had to be fought for, and these people don't have a voice in the marketplaces where their goods are being sold.

Re:Pollution?

[shepd]

>She makes many technical (but important) observations about how the system is set up to take advantage but not benefit these workers and these countries.

Workers are only part of the system. Money going into a country at all is a big benefit, wether it goes to workers, a corporation, or a government.

Money is made to be spent. Eventually that money works its way into the hands of the workers, wether it's the company president getting themselves a new yacht built, or a politician buying a new jet. ;-)

>She makes many technical (but important) observations about how the system is set up to take advantage but not benefit these workers and these countries.

Of course it is. They're going (quickly) through the same steps that took us through the industrial revolution. Right now they're at the foothills of it, getting the short shrift.

>Employers in the west never volunteered minimum wage, child labour laws, working hour restrictions, etc, etc, etc. It had to be fought for, and these people don't have a voice in the marketplaces where their goods are being sold.

I'll argue the other point: Did a voice in the marketplace even make the slightest difference to getting companies to implement these policies? Or, was it in fact mob rule (Unions) that did it?

I'd hedge my bets on the latter. The people of the US, as a whole, really don't (and never really did) care if their ketchup was made by a unionized Heinz or a non-Unionized local company.

There's so many more workers in China it's only a matter of time (and very little at that compared to the US, IMHO) before workers there demand more, and decide to demand it in groups.

Re:Pollution?

[netsharc]

Look who didn't read the article. The author mentioned this woman and says now it has come to light that she's a former Wal-Mart employee, and has a history of "slip and fall lawsuits" and worker compensation claims.

Re:Pollution?

[HawkPilot]

Look who didn't read the article.

You must be new here.

Re:Pollution?

[Gramie2]

Workers are only part of the system. Money going into a country at all is a big benefit, wether it goes to workers, a corporation, or a government.

Yeah, that must be why the people in the Phillipines and Zaire/Congo enjoy such fantastic living conditions. Oh wait, that's right. Ex-presidents Marcos (Phillipines) and Mobuto (Zaire/Congo) stole all that money, spent it on (foreign) military hardware and put most of the rest in Swiss bank accounts, and none of it trickled down.

Re:Pollution?

[aled]

Money going into a country at all is a big benefit, wether it goes to workers, a corporation, or a government.
In my country the foreing companies took out more money than they put in, a lot of money also was gone in corruption (that's how does companies hadn't problems) so I wouldn't coun't on that happening magically.

Re:Pollution?

[jefeweiss]

The real funny part of this discussion is that you are discussing workers forming a union in a supposedly socialist country. Which is supposed to be a "Worker's Paradise." So much for that idea. But really China isn't any more successful then any other country at implementing socialism, the wealthy still want to hold on to what they have, and the poor still can't get any of it. Employee stock options are the most successful form of communism going, and those have taken a beating lately.

Re:Pollution?

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Eventually that money works its way into the hands of the workers, wether it's the company president getting themselves a new yacht built, or a politician buying a new jet. ;-)

I don't know if you are being serious or not (with your sarcastic face)... Assuming you are serious, with your reasoning, kings hoardings resources helped the peasents prosper. Unfortunately, that was never the case. Something that you fail to realize is that those that hoard wealth also hoard power. With these powers, the wealthy elites can pretty much keep the lower classes as quasi-slaves.

Of course it is. They're going (quickly) through the same steps that took us through the industrial revolution. Right now they're at the foothills of it, getting the short shrift.

hmmm... industrial revolution and "globalization" have nothing in common.

Did a voice in the marketplace even make the slightest difference to getting companies to implement these policies? Or, was it in fact mob rule (Unions) that did it?

Obviously you don't know history. It was worker movements that were responsible for the benefits that western societies accrued. The marketplace plays no role in these things. If anything, capitalist markets are the ones that worsen the social conditions. For instance, capitalists are against minimum wage. They are also against taxing the wealthy and the corporations at a higher rate (ie. progressive tax system). They are also against worker safety regulations. Obviously you have a skewed understanding of history. I suggest that you lay off your Ayn Rand and Adam Smit and study real history for a while...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Pollution?

[smchris]

>There's so many more workers in China it's only a matter of time (and very little at that compared to the US, IMHO) before workers there demand more, and decide to demand it in groups.

>>Well, now you're talking sense. Because an overabundance of workers in our workforce certainly translates to power for those workers. Oh wait, it doesn't. 10 workers for every job usually means that if you even hint at unhappiness with your lot, they can find others to do it without complaint.

Both of these viewpoints have some truth. Which is why I'm driven crazy by the U.S. neocons and libertarians who want to take us back to the glorious 19th century and equally by the slave reparation people who want to be paid off because their ancestors were slaves.

Doesn't anybody have a basic knowledge of the less glorious underbelly of U.S. history? On the latter point, let's "get medieval" in a butal, 19th century kind of way. Hell, a slave was property. An owner was stupid if he didn't take care of his quite expensive "investment". On the other hand, a nineteenth-century factory worker could be worked to death in much the same conditions that prevail in third-world factories today. Let him die. The factory owner didn't have an investment in him. There was always another Irish potato famine refugee to take his place.

Obviously, the juxtiposition isn't to promote slavery as the lesser evil (which is perhaps worth pointing out to a handful of countries the internet could touch), but merely to highlight the unforgivingly brutal position of the U.S. worker in the 19th century that is so often neglected. Upton Sinclair's book , The Jungle c. 1900, has a chapter where a worker falls into a meat grinder and the foreman doesn't shut it down. That didn't promote sympathy for worker safety regulation. It promoted sympathy for better food inspection. The worker's movement took more than another decade to get rolling -- with no small inspiration from Lenin.

Even then, President McKinley wasn't above calling out the Guard to kill striking workers. There is no reason to believe China will be any prettier.

So even though both people above are right, the conditions are not entirely dissimilar from 19th century America. There were ample replacements willing to be worked to death then too. Therefore, the cycle has to be broken by resistance from the people. Rather amusing when one first thinks of China, in name a "people's democracy", isn't it?

This line of reasoning only superficially sounds communist or revolutionary to current U.S. tastes. Probably one of the reasons things went so well for so many for so long in the latter half of the 20th century in the first world is that capitalist governments said, "Well, you aren't getting communism, but we will support, and even promote, unions." Hence, a somewhat "pure" socialist government presence that encouraged wealth distribution without necessarily promoting the government programs conservatives abhor. In no way "communist" but also in no way "pure, unbridled capitalism".

Now, if one _really_ wants to cause trouble: the average secretary, generally non-unionized, with a computer today is doing the work of ten secretaries with typewriters? Her relative wage compared to the company owner today is at what percentage.......???

This speaks for itself.

[Animats]

All DVD players are now made in China, so there's no "Made in the U.S.A." option.

Re:This speaks for itself.

[dafoomie]

It's cheaper in China because of the near slave labor conditions, lack of labor, safety, and minimum wage laws, and China's artificial (and illegal) manipulation of its currency. We shouldn't have to compete with that. Unfortunately we do. But I might actually -want- to play a little more for a DVD player made in the USA, or at least a country with better working conditions, to 'vote with my dollars' against this stuff. Theres nothing wrong with it not being made in the USA, but there IS something wrong with how things are in China right now.

Re:This speaks for itself.

[dafoomie]

>China's artificial (and illegal) manipulation of its currency. Care to elaborate?

Sure. I think this testimony to a Senate Committee should explain it well enough. Some key excerpts (make that some long-ass paragraphs):

Chinese exchange rate policy is an important special case which spells currency manipulation in a different way. The Chinese currency has a fixed rate to the dollar but is nonconvertible on capital account. Over the past year, there has been a $25 billion trade surplus, a $45 billion net inflow of foreign direct investment--which also puts upward market pressures on the exchange rate--and over $50 billion of central bank purchases of foreign exchange. In this case, the central bank purchases offset almost three-quarters of market-generated upward pressure on the yuan from the trade surplus and the FDI inflow combined. Moreover, these official foreign exchange purchases may have been even larger except for an unfolding financial scandal involving billions of dollars of missing reserves.

Based on the IMF definition, China has clearly been manipulating its currency for mercantilist purposes. The Bank of China has made protracted large scale purchases of foreign exchange--$150 billion since 1995--in order to maintain a large trade surplus as an offset to poor growth performance in the domestic economy. A direct measure of the manipulation is not possible because of the nonconvertible fixed exchange rate. There is no doubt, however, that if the central bank had not purchased $50 billion in 2001, there would have been strong upward pressures on the yuan in formal and informal markets. The bottom line is that the Chinese yuan is substantially undervalued and should certainly not be devalued as the Chinese government occasionally threatens to do.

The unique form of Chinese currency manipulation provides a mix of benefits and costs for China and for the United States. The most direct result is a larger trade surplus for China, which means more export-oriented jobs in the Chinese economy. From the U.S. point of view, of course, it means a larger trade deficit with China and the loss of export-oriented and import-competing jobs. In 2001, U.S. imports from China were $102 billion, or more than five times larger than the $19 billion of U.S. exports to China.
...
A similar conclusion can and should be drawn about China as an economic aid "graduate." There is no longer any justification for China to receive several billion dollars per year in long-term loans on favorable terms from the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and some bilateral donors, when there are $220 billion of unutilized funds stashed away in the central bank. And yet the development banks continue to lend large sums to China!
...
Finally, and more speculatively, China at some future point could use its official dollar holdings as foreign policy leverage against the United States by threatening to sell large quantities of dollars on the market, or merely shift its reserves away from dollars and into euros and yen. This will not happen anytime soon because the result would be a decline in the dollar and an adverse impact on Chinese exports. At some future point, however, if China were to become less dependent on exports to the United States for economic growth, such a threat could become credible. For example, the threat of substantial Chinese sales of dollars, with its implications for a disruptive decline in the dollar and the U.S. stock market, especially during a downward phase in the U.S. economy and/or an election year, could influence the course of U.S. policy toward Taiwan. Chinese military officers, in fact, in their studies of nonconventional defense strategies, include reference to George Soros and his attack on the British pound in 1992 as a template for disrupting a rival's (i.e., the United States) economic system.

Re:This speaks for itself.

[nsda's_deviant]

It's cheaper in China because American workers demand higher wages since American has better facilities to build high capital goods. China doesn't build high quality cars even though it has cheap labor. You know why? Because they can't. They don't have the investment, there is no accessible infastructure and the resources simply don't exist. Yet.

The point of the matter is, China has abilities to manufacturer goods and so does the USA but each has very different competitive advantages. USA can build cars, China can not build an equally good car. China can build cheap small electronics and the USA can too but why build cheap electronic goods when the USA can build cars? By nature of today's economic model, China is better suited for making goods that the USA isn't.

Your making an assumption that anything manufactured in China is a problem because "of the near slave labor conditions, lack of labor, safety, and minimum wage laws, and China's artificial (and illegal) manipulation of its currency." Perhaps its missed by too many people that every modern and industrialized country in the world went through that sort of ordeal thirty to a hundred years ago. Maybe it can be avoided but maybe not. Plus, you have no way of knowing that your $40 DVD could have been better helping the world at large if it was made in the US. Why is it that a Chinese manufactured DVD player is the product of unfair labor practices and that a US one couldn't be unfair? Isn't it equally likely that your purcahse of a Chinese made DVD player helps that manufacturing plant and the workers with a new oppertunity to work in an industrialized economy instead of an agrigarian economy?

China may or maynot be manipulating their currency but isn't it important to note that it positivelly impacts far more American's than it does negatively? That currency benefits ALL Americans, just step into WalMart and think about that $9 toaster or $49 tv.

There is nothing wrong with 'vote with my dollars' and the social/moral speak but you can't conclusivelly say that China is causing a great malice in America. How are the lower cost goods manufactured in China, that have become more accessible to ALL Americans which effectivelly makes those Americans better off, be that bad? The things in China are nurturing this incredible enviroment for Americans, I think a few people may stick around and enjoy those benefits.

Re:This speaks for itself.

[shepd]

>So if a factory worker in China makes 5 cents an hour (a high estimate),

It's far more than that. Minimum wage laws (where they exist in certain Chinese cities) specify about much more pay. For an example, Guangzhou city's minimum wage is $61.80 a month. Assuming the usual (5 days/7 hours/4 weeks) we get... $0.44 an hour. Assuming the worst (7 days/12 hours/4 weeks) we get... $0.18 an hour.

>and the minimum wage in my state is 6.75

If only! It's actually $2.13 per hour.

So, let's do the math:

US workers are paid about 4.84 times what Asian "slave" workers are paid for the same amount of work.

4.84 times $2.13 = $10.31 an hour.

In Luxembourg, the minimum wage is 46,275 LUF, or $1,445.15 monthly. Assuming 7 paid hours daily, 5 days a week, 4 weeks a month, that's $10.32 an hour.

So yes, as far as pay goes, America *should* look to Europeans like China looks to Americans. It should look like slave labour. Hopefully Europeans will despise American worker treatment so much that they will refuse to purchase any and all American goods. That should certainly fix the problem.

Oh wait. That would suck. Badly.

So why do we want to do this to China, again? I'm missing where China would benefit from us not buying their products.

Re:This speaks for itself.

[dafoomie]

China may or maynot be manipulating their currency but isn't it important to note that it positivelly impacts far more American's than it does negatively? That currency benefits ALL Americans, just step into WalMart and think about that $9 toaster or $49 tv.

A trade deficit as massive as ours is with China is never a good thing. Sure we're getting cheap electronics a lot cheaper, but how are you going to afford that $40 DVD player if you're out of a job? And with China keeping their currency low, it makes it almost impossible to export goods into their market, even if otherwise we had a 'competitive advantage'

Re:This speaks for itself.

[C10H14N2]

Denon manufactures DVD players in Fukushima, Japan. Linn manufactures DVD players in Scotland and Krell does so in Connecticut.

So no, you can't waltz into Wal*Mart and find a non-chinese model, but if you truly do want to support labor standards with your purchases, you DO have choices. Of course, to purchase a DVD player manufactured by Krell in Connecticut, you will have to cough up $8000, not $80. The Scots will provide you with a Linn model for around $2200 and Japanese labor will produce a Denon for an average of around $800, with the cheapest being about $300.

So, really, how dedicated are you to the cause?

Re:This speaks for itself.

[dafoomie]

If only! It's actually $2.13 per hour.

Eh, no. It's 6.75 per hour. The $2.13 per hour minimum your looking at is for tipped workers, who make a very high percentage of their income from tips. And if the employee's tips + wage is less than their hours * the real minimum wage ($6.75), the employer must pay the difference. So yes, in either case, the minimum wage in this state is $6.75, and it's not the highest in the country either. I think Washington state has the highest at $8.

The minimum wage in China that you're referring to, is only for ONE CITY. A major city. Not even its suburbs. Other places recieve far less. But that aside, the fact remains that there are no child labor laws, very little safety requirements, and no overtime. And you're basing that 44 cents an hour on a 35 hour workweek. A typical Chinese workweek exceeds 60 hours and often will exceed 80+. But I'll play along - lets take that 44 cents an hour, and divide 6.75 by it. We get about 15. 15 * 6.75 is 101.25. Even with your inflated hourly rate, there is still no comparison between the US and China, and the US and Luxembourg, who I assume you chose because it had a disproportionately high minimum wage.

Let's look at Spain's minimum wage - less than 2 Euros an hour. The average minimum wage in the EU is about 5.65 EU, or approximately $7. Looks very similar to my minimum wage.

I'm not saying we should stop buying Chinese products totally. But we need to end these unfair (and illegal) trade and labor practices. We can't compete with that. No one can.

cheap products

[oateater]

This must be the same way a store like "Steve and Barry's" can sell all new clothes and the like for under $13(US). I never knew how it all worked, however..

Fatwallet

[BoldAC]

I have seen the real hidden costs of bargin equipment!

As many great deals that I have found in fatwallet forums, I'll be damned that it seems I get more and more broke everytime I visit there...

Of course, whenever my bookoo of rebate money rolls in, I'll be doing much better.

Damn you fatwallet! :)

AC

not really "our" environment

[Tirel]

It all goes to China, where it's disassembled by teens in makeshift tents looking for a quick way to earn a buck (and perhaps die because of the dangerous toxins in CRT screens.)

Life is just grand, isn't it?

Re:not really "our" environment

[ChipMonk]

Unless you just dump it in the local landfill.

Apex...

[Lordfly]

Apex DVD players are junk... and so are Cyberhome, for that matter.

I sell them at a national department store, and roughly 80% of them sold come back defective... usually the drive door breaks, or it eats a dvd, or the components come loose in the back.

Not worth it. Spend 50 bucks and get a decent one.

Josh

Re:Apex...

[BoldAC]

I was a huge fan of apex DVDs previously. They were inexpensive and had ton of functions.

However, it died. Dead as a doornail.

Opening it up, I found several leaking transistors...

My "n of 1" is that I agree. Cheap Apex DVDs suck.

AC

Re:Apex...

[ajagci]

I sell them at a national department store, and roughly 80% of them sold come back defective... I think you are making that up. Even if 100% of them were DOA, you wouldn't get 80% return rates--at those prices, half the people won't even bother driving back to the store. I am using a Cyberhome player (cheapest I could find) and have been happy with it. It seems to use the same drives everybody else is using and it plays everything I put into it just fine.

Re:Apex...

[Skuld-Chan]

I still use my AD-660A (which I paid about a hundred bucks for - a deal at the time 3 year ago) - rarely it locks up when coming out of standby (I just switch it on and off) other than that it works like a top.

Re:Apex...

[DJStealth]

It seems to me that the Apex players I've seen are more reliable than the Toshiba, Sony, and JVC players that seem to freeze on a lot of DVD's.

Re:Apex...

[NotAnotherReboot]

Oh, come now, 80%?

I have dealt with a number of Apex players, and even have a Cyberhome player. All of them have functioned without problem.

I have no doubt that a number of them will fail, but, I would be surprised if more than 10% of the total sold are returned defective. The idea is that you get it so cheap that if it does break after awhile, you can buy another and be at the same point. Odds are that the first won't break, and I would wager that the odds of both breaking before the time a player that costs twice as much is lower.

Re:Apex...

[WoTG]

My first question would be, is Apex that bad, or does it look bad because of the volume?

Apex gear sold like hotcakes... didn't they have about 1/3 of the DVD player market for a while? A palette of returned Apex's doesn't sound necesarily bad...

FWIW, most folks I know have various off-brand DVD players. I've heard of few, if any problems.

Re:Apex...

[Bloodmoon1]

I personally will take back anything I have, no matter the cost of the item, if it breaks within its warrenty through no fault of my own.

That being said, you grossly misunderestimate how cheap people are. Having worked many a shitty electronics retail job, I promise you, people will bring back anything that has broken if they think they have even the slightest chance of getting money/exchange/repair/anything.

Doesn't matter if their DVD player (or anything else, for that matter) ran out of warrenty 3 years ago, their kid spilled a 2 liter of 7 Up in it and their dog somehow managed to take a shit in the open drive bay, they'll bring it back. And then they'll get mad at you personally when you refuse to give them anything. I've seriously nearly got into physical fights with people over my refusal to do anything for them in accordance with whatever store's (Circuit City, Best Buy, etc.) policies. Seriously.

And then you have the true top 1% of humanity who brings back stuff they think is broken but they just didn't turn on the power switch in back or turned down the brightness and contrast all the way, etc.

Re:Apex...

[wrmrxxx]

Quality mechanics are what really makes the difference between a good electronic product and crap. If you're going to buy cheap, this is where you'll feel it.

DVD players, CD players, tape decks, hard drives and VCRs all have complicated mechanics as well as complicated electronics - but it is the mechanical parts that will fail first. Compared to a spinning metal shaft or moving piece of plastic, a transistor doesn't wear out or break down at all.

So True

[rhetoric]

(from the article) " If we all stopped buying DVD players tomorrow, conditions in China would probably get worse rather than better." And this folks, is where the real issues can be glimpsed.

Re:So True

[dandelion_wine]

Sad, but probably true. But then leaving an abusive lover could make things worse rather than better -- in the short term. Supporting an oppressive but stable status quo is always safer. That isn't a reason to not try for change.

Re:So True

[Afrosheen]

That has to be the most insightful yet resigned statement I've read all year.

Does this mean that if we buy MORE dvd players, the Chinese folks making them will have a better life? Maybe this is a rare instance where the opposite isn't true.

Re:So True

[heironymouscoward]

"the only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited"

Very insightful. People forget the origin of the word "exploit", which means simply to use. China has become the factory for the world, producing much more than just cheap DVD players.

People have been poor forever, and working on an assembly line for $2 per day is better than slowly starving to death in a field somewhere. The fact is that China has become the second largest importer of goods (after the US) largely on the back of the huge middle class created by the export industry. The poorest workers are still terribly poor. But as the whole country gets more wealthy, they too get wealthier.

There is no crime in producing sub-$30 DVD players in China. The crime would be to refuse to buy these on grounds of "exploitation".

Long live free trade. It is the ultimate leveller and the only hope for the poor countries of the world.

People won't change.

[Denyer]

The only thing which will make a difference is legislation penalising companies which deal with off-shore producers who flout human rights.

that article

[dandelion_wine]

was a strange mix of negative comments -- horrific near-slave working conditions in China, coupled with... no S-video output? Cause if it had the S-video connection, I'd be in there!

Seriously, though, as we insist on human rights (never mind fair wages and conditions)as the basis for the entire world, not just our citizens (and not just out mid/upper classes), prices will go up. That's as it should be. We have arrived at a time of unprecedented purchasing power, and have done so at the cost of people we don't have to see or hear on a daily basis. No labour rallies in the streets or our factories, and no one (including my country, Canada) seems willing to cut ties with a powerful trade nation such as China over a little thing like human rights. As long as they're not crushing people with tanks, of course. That upsets the missus.

Re:that article

[Zork the Almighty]

Choice quote : "Maybe, in the end, it's enough to be aware of what's happening behind the scenes as we enjoy this cornucopia of bargains."

[Insert cynical comment here]

Re:that article

[Bios_Hakr]

Not sure about Canada, but the US got where it is today by:

1. Stealing land from others.
2. Using slave labour on that land.
3. Cutting down the trees to drive the industrial revolution.
4. Employing child labour to cheaply replace slaves.

Now we want to bitch about other countries doing the same thing? If you LIVE in the US, you are partaking of the fruit made sweet by the sins of our fathers. Even if you are an ultra-PETA-Human Rights-hippie-on-a-reservation, you are still reaping the bounty made avalible from the deaths of countless slaves, children, trees, and animals.

Leave the rest of the world alone you fucking hypocrites. Stop trying to be your brothers' keeper. Just live and be happy knowing full well that in several hundred years China will come arround to our way of thinking....Or maybe we to theirs.

Re:that article

[dandelion_wine]

I agree 100% with your first paragraph, but this is not (for me) about superiority in the marketplace, preventing equalization of an advantage that was certainly ill-gained. If you got that anywhere from my comments, I'd be surprised.

I am, however, not a country, but a person. I am not responsible for what others have done, but I am responsible for what I do, and what a nifty way to avoid responsibility to say that we've done wrong and it would be hypocrisy to act now. I'm not talking about the U.S. bombing anybody. I'm talking about consumers making choices on the basis of something other than their wallet. For those people who have done wrong, it is never hypocrisy to admit mistakes and change, and in this case we're not talking about former slave owners. I'm sorry, but I don't inherit the guilt of my forefathers. I didn't choose to be born here any more than someone chose to be born in China, but that is the root of our responsibility toward change. We are a product of our times; I'm not saying that we in the age of exploration would have done so much better or kinder. But we can. TODAY.

Re:that article

[Andy_R]

You did steal it from us British people though, and didn't even have the decency to let us build deregulated casinos in the bits you didn't want!

Re:that article

[SoupIsGood Food]

This is a common misunderstanding... the same formula didn't work out too well for the Brazillians. Matter of fact, it didn't work out too well for us... the deep south, haven to slavery and the grossest theft of Native American lands was as close to a third-world backwater as you could find in the industrialized world until the past few decades.

And, if you take a closer look at it, Germany, which didn't have any colonies until really late in the game and couldn't figure out how to exploit them, dominated Europe economically until the first world war, and was probably more than a match for the US on its own. It had no slaves or child labor, but an educated and well compensated working class.

After the Unions took on the Gov't and corporate America to improve working conditions and wages across the board, productivity skyrocketed... we literally buried the fascist societies of the second world war with war materiel, and did so with a sorely depleted workforce as men were mustered to war.

But apart and aside from that, your notion of ethics is peculiar. If it was wrong and evil for "our fathers" (even those of us whose fathers immigrated a generation or so ago) to get ahead using evil means, why is it now acceptable for others to do the same? If you don't find those tactics reprehensible, why bother complaining about them?

We recognize what was done was wrong, and we now wish to make sure other people aren't victimized in the same way. This is not hypocracy, this is a coherent and rational ethical reaction completely consistent with our beliefs. Unless you believe that you should be punished for your father's crimes, which is unethical and hypocritical in and of itself.

SoupIsGood Food

Re:that article

[Bios_Hakr]

>I am not responsible for what others have done, but I am responsible for what I do

I agree completely. But, the US got where it is today by slavery, child labour, pollution, and basicly just being dicks. If you live in the US, you are enjoying a lifestyle brought to you by these things.

>I'm sorry, but I don't inherit the guilt of my forefathers.

How can you inherit the good without the bad. You have to take it all. There is nothing wrong with enjoying your lifestyle. Just understand that the reason you are posting on /. is that it was brought to you by sins committed in the past.

We cannot sit in out comfortable houses sipping our bottled water and reading /. and speak badly of people trying to get where we are by any means possible.

Re:that article

[dandelion_wine]

Sorry, but you're still missing a crucial point.

I'm Canadian, so let's say that my advantages came partly from British oppression rather than American. My being born here, however, has not a thing to do with it. Not to get overly philosophical -- I mean, obviously, genetically, here was the place for "me" to be. But as an accident of birth, I cannot be born into guilt, only things. Do I recognize the barbarity that put these things here in this way? (cleared the land of Natives, allowed my parents and grandparents to farm here, erm, kept the manifest destiny hounds at bay) Absolutely. But I did not partake in it, and in no way is any of it my "fault".

Now, the flipside of this is, I could have been born in China. In poverty. In Africa, with AIDS. In Sierra Leone, or East Timor, or Afghastan or Palestine. The way I see it, I owe some blood and effort and cold hard cash to try to settle that score. Not because I'm "guilty" through my birth but because my birth has nothing to do with it. I don't intrinsically "deserve" the wealth of my forefathers any more than I deserve their guilt.

I can see where you're coming from regarding the "imposition" of human rights on the third world. It's a little like telling other nations: sorry, no experimentation with nuclear weapons, because we've already done all ours (at least, that was true until recently). There are many voices in the developing world making your claim, and it's important to recognize just what a head start achieves in terms of capital (and the ability to set the agendas of your trading partners, quite importantly), not to mention impose relationships and deals through an imbalance of power. That is seldom recognized, as many on "my" side of this debate see it as imposing the same human rights regime across the board (rather than your observation of past to present).

When it comes down to it, we know that the Earth cannot sustain western living for 6 billion+, each family with its own refridgerator, car, air conditioner. There's a lot of pretense about the "developing world" and how far they will be permitted to go before it adversely affects our standard of living. But surely human rights, however, comprise a bedrock of standards that cross that line. If it's about competition aka money, well it wouldn't be beyond belief if deals were made and money offered on the basis of adherence to basic codes of conduct. For that to happen, however, we need to be more concerned about those rights than we are about those dollars, and so far, I don't see it balancing out that way.

buying more expensive items won't help

[ajagci]

Yes, working conditions in China probably can be poor, even hazardous. But if the fashion industry is any indication, many of the more expensive items are made under similarly bad conditions. With electronics, often, the high price and low price items are just minor variations on the same design anyway.

And what is the alternative? Do you think the Chinese that work in those shops are going to be any happier if you don't buy their products and they are out of a job? If they had an alternative, they'd probably take it.

Europe and the US went through periods of horrendous exploitation and abysmal working conditions before workers demanded, and got, improvements. China will probably follow the same path if given a chance.

Re:buying more expensive items won't help

[James in Iowa]

Europe and the US went through periods of horrendous exploitation and abysmal working conditions before workers demanded, and got, improvements. China will probably follow the same path if given a chance.

Amen! Although I would say that the reason developed countries' workers received improvements is due to increased productivity; i.e. the workers were more valuable then the pitence that they were paid.

Same thing should happen in China and other third world countries if the US, Canada and Europe give them a chance. The Chinese workers will gain some skills on the assembly line and then they'll protest for and get higher pay or better working conditions.

Now before I get flamed for being naive or what not, I must point out that this is happening in the Chinese toy industry. Workers their have to master the skills to put together the current "hot" toy whether it is a Furby or an XBox. They've gained some skills in doing this and now they have better working conditions. The Economist had an article about this a couple of years ago.

Re:buying more expensive items won't help

[ajagci]

What the different is the fact that the current Chinese government is much more powerfull in respect to it's people then the US or the typical European country was in the 18th and 19th century.

The US? A nation that still had legalized slavery and where women couldn't vote? Britain? Home of child labor, coal mines, the industrial revolution, and Dickens? France and Germany, nations with the most elaborate bureaucracies known to man, this side of China? I think you have a pretty naive view of 18th and 19th century America and Europe.

Sometimes you get what you pay for

[Richard M. Nixon]

Sometimes you get what you pay for, but you have to pay attention.

One thing the article doesn't seem to mention is that it is usually the no-name less expensive DVD players that allow you to play other region DVDs.

Is there a middle ground where you can get a cheaper DVD player that plays foreign DVDs, doesn't allow blocking of skipping commercials that some DVDs force you to watch, and is made with "fair-trade" labor practices?

Being able to play PAL formats as well as divx cdrs would be nice too.

Oh, and if you buy a cheap DVD player, or whatever, and it doesn't work then take it back.

Law of the Cheapest

[PRES_00]

Those "hidden" costs (strange, it says made in china on it) exist on most of the electronic appliances we buy. Why should we start worrying now? Even if it had that "made in USA" sticker on it, u might still miss the little disclaimer that says "with parts from -insert poor countrie's name here-. So, even that's not certain.

I'm glad that digital stuff can reproduce media without any loss in quality due to hardware (compared to magnetic mediums).

I would go even as far as encouraging China's non proprietary video format which can be played on royalty-free hardware thus lowering the price even more.

Besides, all the big brand names in digital devices are Japanese. Isn't this outsourcing too?

You know..

[boomgopher]

Shit is so cheap these days, I actually feel bad when I shop now. I'd rather pay a lot more for niceties like DVD players knowing that they weren't built by slave labor. Workers in China are treated like shit, but what the hell do you do? Every damn thing you see is made there these days...

Below is a response I recieved from the CEO of an american toy company I contacted after I read about the conditions of a factory used by them in China. It reeks of bullshit, but what can you say in response?:

Dear Mr. XXXXX:

We were very concerned to read your e-mail regarding some misinformation you
may have received regarding our manufacturing practices.

We are a global provider of game and toy brands for children, and the
conditions under which our products are manufactured are a matter of serious
and long-term concern to XXXX. We are committed to ensuring that our
products are manufactured under safe, humane and non-exploitative
conditions.

In fact, as early as 1993, XXXX established its Global Business Ethics
Principles ("Code of Conduct"). Participation in the XXXX program is
mandatory for all of our suppliers and vendors. Among many important areas,
the Code of Conduct governs:

* child labor --no person younger than 15 or younger than the age for
completing compulsory education in the country of manufacture (where such
age is higher than fifteen) may be employed to produce XXXX products -- In
China the minimum school age is 16;

* working hours and compensation --employers must comply with all
applicable wage and hour laws or, if prevailing industry wage standards are
higher, then employers must comply with or exceed these standards --In
China, minimum wages are set by province or by city, which may cause some
confusion, when reported by those unfamiliar with the process.

* forced, prison, or indentured labor --any person employed to produce
XXXX products must be voluntarily employed, except that rehabilitative
programs which provide for employment may be assessed by XXXX on a case by
case basis;

* health and safety --employers must operate facilities in a healthy
and safe manner, including, but not limited to, providing fire prevention,
first aid, and hazardous waste disposal;

* abuse and discrimination --employers must treat employees with
dignity and respect and shall not subject employees to abuse, cruel or
unusual disciplinary practice, or discrimination;

* freedom of association --employees have the right to choose (or not)
to affiliate with legally sanctioned organizations without unlawful
interference; and

* monitoring by XXXX --XXXX has the right to conduct periodic
on-site visits of working and living conditions, audit the production
records and practices of the employers, and require employers to promptly
address compliance issues or face termination by XXXX. Following initial
audits to approve use of a factory, XXXX conducts unannounced follow-up
audits.

As indicated above, XXXX's Code of Conduct clearly sets forth the
standards under which vendors may manufacture XXXX products, with auditing
and monitoring rights for XXXX. All factories located in the Far East
manufacturing XXXX products are audited by XXXX and by independent firms
hired by XXXX

Over the years, XXXX has successfully worked with its manufacturers to
correct any unacceptable practices discovered during the course of our
audits. New factories must correct any audit findings before they are given
any XXXX orders, and existing vendors must correct any findings within a
specified time frame depending upon the severity of the issue. Although
serious violations or failures to make corrections are rarely experienced,
XXXX has in fact terminated vendors for failure to comply.

XXXX has also been a leader in the worldwide toy industry as a member of
the Toy Industry Association, Inc. ("TIA") and

Re:You know..

[sofakingl]

You know, you could have mentioned the company's name. If you are so against their ways, then it would help to let other slashdotters know what company you mean.

Re:You know..

[metlin]

It does not matter, because if this article is any indication, almost all US Toy companies are guilty of bad practices - Hasbro, Walmart, Mattel, Fischer-Price, Tommy, Toys-R-Us, McDonald's, Disney, etc.

The alternative...

[TheSync]

...is to work in a rice paddy, and make under $1 per day.

Cheap But Won't Be Durable

[Qweezle]

There's something to be said for buying a name-brand DVD player at a respectably high price...I mean a good model over or around $100.

While you could buy one of these cheaper DVD players, considering that it has fewer features anyway than the higher-end, and more expensive models, when it won't last long, why would you?

It reminds me of the Mac vs. PC cost debate, because Macs need less overall maintenance and therefore end up being the same cost or cheaper than competing PCs.....

So I say, go for a higher-end model from a name brand manufacturer like Sony, Philips, etc. and have something that you can enjoy for years(with much better support from the company and industry), instead of something that will work for a while and eventually break down after 6-12 months because of bad parts....that's not a nice thing to have happen.

Re:Cheap But Won't Be Durable

[danielsfca2]

I wouldn't buy a Sony. I used to buy their products until I realized they fell apart/were defective out-of-box at an alarming rate considering their price. I'd go with middle-of-the-road DVD players. My friends and I have Sanyo, Go-Video, Samsung, and recently, Daewoo, DVD players. We've had nothing but good results with them. If I wanted to go top-of-the-line, I'd probably go with Panasonic. IMHO, Sony isn't of a higher quality than the "Bargain" brands this article is about.
I wouldn't buy an Apex or similar, especially since they are known to not play VCDs well.

Dunno bout the "no more mom and pop stores" thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the average joe is fine getting their electronics at WalMart or Kmart or S-Mart or whatever... but some folks (like me) still want to go somewhere there are authorities.

I mean, walk into a Future Shop and ask the minimum wage sales clerk what the difference between two $100 DVD players are and he'll spend 5 minutes studying the boxes, shrug and say "Uh. This one's better." "why?" "uh... it costs more?" or at best just read the features off the box.

I'd rather go into a "mom and pop" or specialty store. Here in Toronto, we have places like Bay-Bloor radio (or in Hamilton, East Hamilton Radio). A little more expensive perhaps, but they really know their stuff - these guys read the manuals on their lunch breaks. And they'll ask you what brand and model your TV is and if you give them a figure, explain what model is the best bang for your buck... or if you'd be willing to spend the extra $50 you could get [brand X] and why its good. Oh, you only have [brand Q] stereo? Well perhaps not this, but this other model since your stereo can't make use of [feature F]

What is the point of this article?

[today]

What a lightweight piece. It tells us to beware of these hidden costs, with no facts to back that warning up. Then concludes by saying if we did pay attention to these hidden costs, conditions in China would get worse. Huh?

If they could afford to pay the workers more, they'd probably move production up the chain to Singapore or Korea or Mexico or Canada or the US or Japan, depending on just how high those wages would be. China is probably not going to get those jobs unless the labor is as cheap as absolutely possible.

Also not mentioned is that poor people (not dirt poor) around the world are able to afford TVs and DVD players because of cheap labor. Paying $250 for a DVD player doesn't affect me and my middle class paycheck very much. It would have a huge impact on the working poor in richer countries and the middle class in other countries.

BTW, I was sure that the US Customs Service would certainly block any inbound shipments that hadn't paid their ransom to the DVD Forum. How do these "untaxed" units sneak through?

no svideo average person doesnt give a damn.

[cyrax777]

The average consumer doesnt care they just want unit that plays dvds. and as far as the cheapies breaking in a couple years at there price pick it up throw it away and get another one. I love my Apex works great plays all region dvds and best of all if it breaks im I can get another one for sub 50 bucks.

Most low-cost DVD players are unlicenced.

[shakey_deal]

Philips, which along with Sony and Pioneer has hundreds of patents covering all aspects of the DVD system, is administrating the granting of licences and the collection of royalties, which are then shared equally between the three manufacturers.

The Dutch electronics giant has set up a dedicated website -- www.licensing.philips.com -- which features a list of licensed manufacturers from its licensee database. Philips maintains the website is kept up-to-date with the latest licensing information.

A leading importer of DVD players, who asked not to be named, told ERT Weekly: "This is big news. We have found most low-cost DVD players do not hold the necessary licences.

A Philips spokesman said: "There are a number of manufacturers that don't have the necessary licences.

IIRC but cost of a licence is around $25.

Re:Most low-cost DVD players are unlicenced.

[abhisarda]

I was going to post a comment on this very question. If they are unlicensed, is it not possible to ask the chains to stop selling them or sue them?

Take a look at the licensing website of philips. There are 76 licensees of dvd players in china.
Would it not be easy to spot the licensed and unlicensed players from their price difference itself?
Take a look at this article-nytimes.

Re:Most low-cost DVD players are unlicenced.

[shione]

I think the reason they don't have the necessary licences is due to them not qualifying for them rather than the cost of obtaining them.

Found this little tidbit on the web
pdf
about another license that is needed to build dvd players. It says:


In order to manufacture any sort of DVD related item, whether it be DVD discs (i.e. the movies) or the players (DVD Players or DVD-ROM's), the manufacturer must obtain a license from the DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA). The DVD CCA is a non-profit organisation responsible for licensing CSS to such manufacturers. It is not possible to use the DVD logo, or even the word DVD without this licence.


When the manufacturer make players that can skip/ fast forward anywhere, advertise prominently how to change the region code etc, they can have their license revoked. In reality this only really prevents them from using the logo and the word dvd. Like your article mentions it doesnt stop grey importing of these products.

The CSS license is more expensive too, at $15,000 a year.

look at point 3 here

Hidden costs of slashdot

[venicebeach]

But there are hidden costs. Horrific working conditions on assembly lines in China...

And what makes slashdot so cheap are those barrels of trained elephants that make the homepages....

Intercept a Fry's clerk and insist on the item

[robogun]

From the article: First stop was the Fry's Electronics in Sunnyvale, Calif., shortly before 11 a.m., where I discovered early-bird shoppers already had snapped up the Mintek models at $26.99.

Fry's stocks the loss leaders throughout the day. It pays to ask a clerk if there are more in the back (using the tone of voice that you KNOW there are more). Last week they had 250gb WD drives on sale for $149 after rebate ($219 OTD). Of course the shelf was empty when I got there. I asked the clerk and hung out 20 minutes, until he brought out four more from the back (spying the screen, I saw they had 140 units on hand).

After burn-in (do NOT cut out the UPC for rebate until after burn in) I realized I had no way to back up a drive this size. So two days later I went back and got another, using the above process.

Wages

[rjamestaylor]

Complaints of low wages usually come from higher-paid workers in modern countries. In Cambodia, for example, those well-publicized Nike sweat house jobs are highly sought after by Cambodians looking for work. But US workers wouldn't want to work there, no doubt. I know I wouldn't. How can you compete against cheap labor? Quality. What if quality difference is minor? Legislation!

And this is newsworthy?

[Grimster]

So the guy gives a small sum up of how capitalism works and then some vague unsubstantiated arguments that "oh well it'd just get worse" if we didn't buy cheap shit and then that's that.

I don't buy a $30 dvd player, or $119 25 inch tv or a $299 computer expecting quality, I buy it because it's cheap. My 3 year old has a $39 AMW DVD player in his room, it plays dvd's on the 8 year old 27 inch tv I put in there (well 8 years ago I bought it used from a pawn shop, no clue how old it really is) and well, that's about it, if he slides a piece of cheese in there I'm not gonna get pissed about it and he doesn't need optical outputs or S Video or composite or progressive scan or none of that jazz, he wants to see Nemo in bright orange and Spongbob in yellow and he's happy as a clam. Down in the living room it's a Panasonic progressive scan with all the trimmings on a 57" Hitachi wide screem, neither of which are the cheapest (or most expensive) in their class.

My wife's car is a nice mini van with high safety ratings leather seats, blah blah blah. She does a lot of running around and my kid is in there a lot as well, safety is a huge issue and I want them safe in a newish car that isn't likely to break down. My car is a 1997 Geo Tracker beer can on wheels, I put about 3K miles on it per year, I don't NEED a good car, I need a pos I can run to Staples in when I need some blank DVD's. If it breaks down I park it on the side of the road and call my wife on my cell to come get me.

Do I or you need to be told that "cheap stuff tends to be cheap" and furthermore do I need to be told that "working conditions in China aren't good" and that "WalMart doesn't pay employees much"? Sheesh man use a little common sense, this is why #1 I only buy the cheap shit when I have a reason for buying it (as in letting a 3 year old watch DVD's in his room) #2 I am glad I don't live in China, and #3 I'm glad I don't work at WalMart.

Still the part about the name brands and the off brands going down the same assembly line surprised me, oh wait, no it didn't, how many rebadged Lite-On CD's and BTC's marked as Creative or other "big name" brand does one need to see to realize it's often the same cheap shit under the hood?

No, Don't wait.

[waferhead]

You are right, you get what you pay for---Unless you buy a Dell/Gateway or something.

If you make an educated purchase list based upon several of the great HW sites out there, wou can have a killer machine for $600, using all name-brand, respectable hardware that will last for years.

Modern hardware (usually) just works.

Or you can get that $1000>$3500 Dell/Gateway, which will be full of the lowest common denominator, bottom of the barrel hardware, even if you get the topline machine.

You will not find a std retail MB in these machines, no Abit, Asus--- You will get a "custom" MB made for Dell in one of those sweatshops, and pay 2-3x more for low performing junk most likely.

If you are lucky, you'll be able to swap it out and at least reuse the $20 case, and maybe the power supply.

More $$ != more quality, just sometimes.

Consumer electronics is a LITTLE better, but only to a point.

Chinese economics

[Leto-II]

From the article:
no assembly-line workers in China able to enter that country's growing middle class

Yes, the companies hiring these people are really holding them back. Just imagine if they couldn't find a job how quickly they could join the growing middle class!

Please, give me a break. The economy in China is completely different than what this 'journalist' is used to. The number of people living here just boggles the mind. I would say that over 90% of China's problems can be traced back to the fact that it's population is FAR too high. Too many people, not enough schools. Too many people, not enough jobs. Too many people, not enough land. If the workers had something past a middle school education, then yah, maybe they could enter the so called middle class. But they don't. Usually the workers are glad they have a job at all. If they don't want the job there's plenty of other people who would be glad to take their place.

Even though their wage is well below the poverty line in the west, they usually have an average salary for the area they're living in. For instance, at the kindergaten I'm working at now the Chinese teachers get around $100-120 USD / month. The cleaning staff gets perhaps around $70-80, I forget exactly. And these are considered good wages for the job they are doing. Hell, I don't think there's a single person at the school who doesn't have a mobile (cell) phone! And remember this is in a large metropolitan Chinese city, not out in the country where most of the manufacturing plants are. The cost of living is even lower where most of the plants are.

DVD Comes On Everything These Days.

[shadowcabbit]

Yes, I didn't invert the title-- it's practically impossible to get away from DVD drives nowadays. They're almost standard on new computers-- and really only a $20-$30 upgrade if you build your own or customize an existing setup, so most people who've bought computers within the last year or so has one. PS2s and XBox have capabilities to play DVDs, so if you're a gamer you probably have another player. Not to mention the fact that some TVs have them built-in (like the old TV/VCR combos, which are surprisingly popular of late). The odds are good, then, that any given American household has a DVD player of some sort.

This raises an interesting point-- it's no wonder manufacturers are dropping the prices on their players to next to nothing; the market is saturated and people aren't likely to shell out $60+ on something "they already have".

I did, in all fairness, pick up a DVD player (as opposed to my PS2 etc.) in May of last year, but only because it was a feature of the 5.1 stereo "receiver" (actually a bookshelf changer-type system) that was on clearance anyway ($200). If the system had been full-priced (about $400) I would have said "screw it" and gone with the $250, 5.1, non-DVD-playing system sitting next to it. Both were by Sony, and I think the DVD system is no longer being produced. The point is that with all the el-cheapo DVD players floating around, I still went with a name-brand because it was "included" with the other item I wanted.

Re:DVD Comes On Everything These Days.

[Mac Degger]

"DVD Comes On Everything These Days"

Dude....ewww!

Re:I'm sorry, but this just does not surprise me.

[wrmrxxx]

just ask someone knowledgeable about the widely acknowledge low quality of the 555 timer chip

A 555 timer chip is not a quality problem. It is a relatively old but very common device - it is good example of "tried and true". They have been in production for decades, and compared to more complicated chips are extremely reliable and rugged.

You are also increasingly unlikely to find such a device in a DVD player or in other modern consumer electronics. Complex modern consumer equipment tends to revolve around either a CPU/microcontroller or other highly integrated digital electronics, combined with the minimum amount of analog circuitry required to interact with the real world. The kind of functions a 555 timer might have performed (one shot timing or oscillation) are dealt with in the digital domain, and this functionality is developed as software. Using a 555 is the expensive way, not the cheap way, as hardware is expensive compared to the cost of software, which approaches zero for sufficiently large production runs.

There are quality factors in consumer electronics - it's not all the same - but it's not so simple as the use of a single device. Factors include:

• quality of passive components (e.g. are those electrolytic capacitors going to leak?)
• printed circuit board materials
• printed circuit board design (e.g. layout affects noise performance)
• component specs
• software including custom chip design
• assembly (bad soldering? poor case design?)

With increasingly high levels of integration, more of the product is dependant on software (either in a CPU or as a way of describing custom silicon). Quality depends extremely heavily on design. Now, much of the complicated design isn't even performed by a hardware manufacturer. For example, take a look at the many usb key type MP3 players on the market. Notice how they're all almost identical in specifications? This is because the manufacturers don't start from scratch each time, but use the same chip set as all their competitors and often the same reference design from the chip designers. The guts of one of these players is just as good as the next, but one may be better overall due to better design and construction of the case, or a better user manual, or better headphones, etc.

Mass production electronics...

[JRHelgeson]

Sony used to be renowned for the quality of every single device they produced. That is why, back in 1996 I shelled out nearly $1,000 for a then state-of-the-art Sony SVHS VCR. That thing still works as well today as it did when I bought it.

The reason they had that level of quality was they pre-tested and stress tested each component that went into the production of their consumer electronics. They spent literally billions of dollars on test equipment from companies like Aetrium and others.

As soon as Sony (and other electronics manufacturers as well) started seeing serious competetion coming from cheap Chinese imports, the easiest way to add to their bottom line was, among other things, to cut out the pre-testing.

The failure rate of each individual electronic component is pretty small, but when you have several thousand components that go into a VCR or camcorder, each component having a .001% chance of failing, the combined failure rate of all the components amounts to 1-2%. Now, when a particular component fails, the unit may not die, but something marginal like picture quality will suffer.

Sales at companies that sold test equipment plummeted - I know from personal experience.

Nowadays, a Sony VCR is pretty much just as crappy as a cheap Chinese import. The premium you pay goes to marketing, product design and adding sometimes unique and hopefully useful features - which usually backfires and winds up being a bloated and unusable product.

The lower cost leads to higher failure rates in a shorter time span, but now the technology has become disposable and it is not uncommon to replace these cheap items every 3-5 years instead of 5-7.

Think about it: When was the last time you actually took an electronic item in for repair?

I bought a camcorder last year. The tape handling sucks, it will casually eat the occasional tape. The batteries that came with it? Lets just say that I've had erections that have lasted longer. Its not a problem with the battery, but something about the unit is just sucking the juice.

When I inquired about warranty repair I was told that the unit had a 90 DAY WARRANTY! And YES, it was purchased NEW, not a refurb. I was, needless to say, shocked - but what else should I expect from our new, disposable goods economy.

Re:Mass production electronics...

[Jarnis]

EU is on the right track here;

All durable goods (well, at least electronics, computers etc - I'm pretty sure it covers lots of other products as well) have 2 year 'warranty' pretty much required by law. Basically the law states that regardless of actual warranties given by the manufacturer/importer, the retailer is responsible for the product to last the expected life of such product. If it fails earlier, it's assumed that the product had a manufacturing and/or desing defect, and the consumer is entitled for a repair, replacement or (as the last resort), refund. For consumer electronics and computers this period has been translated to 'two years' - obiviously excluding such consummables as batteries, ink cartridges etc.

Unsurprisingly not many retailers carry POS chinese 'no brand' crap, because if the manufacturer does not offer a solid 2-year warranty, the retailer will end up paying the replacements out of his own pocket. That, or they get blasted to bits by the consumer watchdog organization. So for manufacturers to do business in the EU area, they have to give 2-year warranty, or retailers won't stock their stuff.

Which is good for the consumer, as you can realistically expect certain durability from the stuff you buy.

Of course in the USA, your legislators could never pass such pro-consumer laws. The manufacturers would pay off any such attempts so they can keep churning out the cheap crap that is designed to last three months and then blow up.

Re:Mass production electronics...

[Triskele]

Sorry dude but we're civilised people over here in Ol' Europe and we don't like being ripped off or discovering we've bought a POS which dies 91 days after we bought it and have no recourse. You may like the Wild West attitude of 'every man for himself' - fine, no skin off my nose - we don't ok.

Noone forced this down our throats. We forced it down the throats of the rip-off manufacturers and retailers. They did not like it at all. We did. This happened in Britain long before the EU even existed - and (amazingly) was introduced by a right-wing govt before you rant about us pinko liberals.

Contrary to what you might think the market is not god and there are more rational ways to run a society than the mob rule of the market (or as more usually happens corporate rule...).

I don't get him...

[pe1chl]

He states that the personel in those stores get absolutely low wages, that the DVD players they sell are too cheap, yet he is not informing himself when he buys one without S-video (I would not think S-video is good enough, get RGB instead!) and then he "returns it for a full refund".

Now THAT I call cheap! The store already had to take a loss on it, and now he returns the whole unit, which will most likely not be sold again, and takes a refund. Of $32. Sheesh...

He also worries about patent licenses not being paid. Well, that is not a problem for the consumer, right? This is an issue between the manufacturer and the patent holder, and probably the law in China does not require the holder of a US patent to be paid by a Chinese manufacturing company.

There is a market for high-end expensive stuff, for those that are prepared to pay too much, and there is a market for this kind of things.
When you don't think so, then don't advocate a free market. It has lots of complications like this, but it seems to be the favorite of Americans.

and the biggest hidden cost is...

[lxs]

The worst thing of these cheap players is their lack of decent region locking. Unwitting consumers may be exposed to content from all over the world. This must stop immediately.

Parts ultimately use US or 1st world technology.

[openmtl]

Pull apart a DVD. You'll find usual metals, plastics and components you'd expect in a high tech product. Reduce each of those parts to its raw materials and you'll find gold, copper, oil, iron, aluminum and a whole range of other more complex raw materials.

These raw materials will have been abstracted from many parts of the world using a mixture of Japanese, European and US mining technology. Many of the companies would be US influenced even if its for geological technology (assaying, and other high tech geophysics fields like seismics, microgravity).

The chips are probably fabricated in a plant that uses US technology even if its physically located in a cheaper country like Malaysia.

Metal pressing plants maybe Japanese or Korean but stamping dies may be cut with tool bits from Europe using US origin CAM. You wouldn't know unless you looked at a specific plant but you can be certain that the computers were probably not Chinese and most precision machine tools are not Chinese.

The semi/finished parts shipped from wherever to China using Korean or Japanese made ships. Flagged as Liberian or Panama using British officers but cheap locals. Ship runs on Saudi fuel traded out of Singapore using US made computers to settle transactions. Trucked from dockside to wherever in China and now its assembled in factories. The factory conditions may not be perfect by US middle class standards but its a job. That ship could equally easily drop off those parts in any country in South east Asia and the local truckers would be happy to transport those parts. Thats an important point !

Assembled, boxed and shipped to US. Trucked from US (LA) dockside to transhipping warehouses, then to stores. All the way US labour used at US ports, trucks and warehouses. No one questions the LA dockers pay conditions !

The author is just looking at one or two intermediate steps in the whole of the product life cycle in what looks like a political agenda. The whole system is tuned to shift the parts to any country at the drop of a tool. This is capitalism (well Adam Smith's form of competitive advantage) and it works because the alternatives have been repeatedly shown to not work. Eventually China will be too expensive and work will flow to even cheaper countries. Until that time you'll do a lot more harm by denying the Chinese labour force their cut because you don't feel you could stomach that work.

He seems quite happy to try to export US labour laws into China but I imagine there would be a bit of a cry from him if Europeans tried to export EU labour laws to the US !

Short term, yes. Long term?

[sterno]

But the problem is that in a globla economy, production of these items is a race to the bottom. The country that can produce the items for the cheapest wins. Money moves into china because they can make it cheaper than Taiwan or Japan. Then it moves to vietnam, then somewhere else.

The way you win this battle to the bottom is by keeping your costs as low as possible. If you pay people a pittance, give them no health care, retirement, etc, then you can make things cheaper. If they unionize or otherwise try to increase your costs, you move the operation to someplace cheaper.

This is a forumla for making the rich richer and the poor poorer in the long run. That's not good for anybody.

What? No Research before Buying?

[Dolemite_the_Wiz]

If this reporter had done his research he would have known BEFORE entering the store wether or not S-Video or JPEG disc would have worked or not on the Cheap-O DVD Players.

Let's take a look at the models he bought:

1) AMW-S99

http://www.a-mw.com/products/dvd/s99.htm

Nope. I don't see S-Video mentioned here.

2) Sylvania DVL 100C

http://www.funai-corp.com/02_images/dvl100c.pdf

This PDF could have told you that JPEG discs can't be played.

You get what you pay for. If you don't research the products before you buy, then it's your own fault.

Dolemite
_______________________

Re:Short term, yes. Long term?

[shepd]

>This is a forumla for making the rich richer and the poor poorer in the long run.

I won't disagree with your argument at all (it's very correct), except this point.

Doesn't it seem obvious that this is a formula for improvement? The "bottom" will always get higher. Heck, look at minimum wage. Most people measure minimum wage for Chinese workers in cents. Imagine getting paid like that at the start of the industrial revolution in the US! You'd be a tycoon!

As these manufacturers look for cheaper wages, the bottom will rise. The fact is that in life there is always a bottom and a top (unless you live in a communist country, like Cuba, and even then that's not at all true). That's the way things go. The best you can do is improve living for the bottom while you improve living for yourself.

That's what this formula does. When China unionizes, it will be *because* of this formula. Other countries a little slow on the start of the revolution have already been forced to improve workers rights, for example, look at Japan. This formula will be what forced China to get workers rights. Without this formula that would never have happened! And then, the next country it "preys" on will benefit. And then another, and another, and so on. The amazing synergy continues.

It really is a miraculous system, when you think about it.

What a load of rot.

[kyz]

Globalising companies are not expanding to the third world to "send much needed money into the country". They are looking to exploit the quality-of-life and legislative differential between 1st and 3rd world countries. Corporations don't like anti-exploitation, safety laws, environmental protection laws -- it cuts potential profits.

Corporations only exist and only work towards making a profit for their owners. That is all they do. Ethics do not come into it. All ethical behaviour has to come from:

a) the people who directly control the corporation
b) the people who control the environment of the corporation (i.e. the government)

If you live in a 3rd world country, the only way your life will get better when the factory comes is if those in charge (your government, elected or not) demand support for you as a condition of building the factory.

If a government does not demand that corporation build houses, schools and hospitals as part of the factory deal, the corporation won't do it. It's not a charity. It's not an international development agency. It's a corporation. Corporations only exist to make profits for their owners.

The problem some third world countries are having is that they are run by tinpot dictators who will let the corporations rape and pillage their fertile lands as long as the corporation gives them a backhander or builds them a new mansion. I don't like to assign "blame" in these situations, because it's tricky. The corporation is only doing what corporations do best -- get the best possible deal for the cheapest price. The tinpot dictator was probably installed there by the US anyway, so the pitiful serfs are stuck with that until the US empire crumbles.

Re:What a load of rot.

[Gramie2]

And your last comment of "The tinpot dictator was probably installed there by the US anyway, so the pitiful serfs are stuck with that until the US empire crumbles." shows just how much of a tool you are.

Ummm. Pinochet? The Shah of Iran? Marcos? Mobuto? Noriega? The House of Saud? Countries like Guatemala? El Salvador?

Re:Stupid tax law

[Inebrius]

In the US, sales tax varies by state, and sometimes even city/county. It is around 5-8% in most parts of the US.

I would rather see the sales tax as an add on so I know what the retailer is charging before the government gets their cut.

Our gasoline taxes are always included in the advertised price. Gas is about $1.70 a gallon right now. $.18 is included as federal tax and another $.184 is state. Then there is also sales tax (7.25% where I live). With everything included, most people don't realize how much they are paying in taxes per gallon (over 25%).

Point is, keeping the tax separate from the price of the item makes it stand out more and is a good thing.

Slashdot and China just cracks me up

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that making sweeping generalizations based on no evidence whatsoever is a Slashdot tradition, so I take it with a grain of salt. But with worsening economic conditions in the US, it seems that we are seeing more and more resentful misinformation being repeated here. Sometimes it's India, sometimes it's China.

Well, as it happens, I *live* in China. I'm American, and I've lived and worked all over the world. And frankly speaking, when you guys talk about China, 99% of the time you sound like complete and utter morons, or worse yet, complete and utter biggoted racist morons. It depends on the post.

It seems, reading Slashdot (and other American news, too, actually, and even some European papers) that it's quite in vogue to bash China for a) illegally manipulating its currency, b) having slave-labor-like working conditions c) not respecting human rights.

I'm not even going to get into the notion of illegal currency manipulation. As annoying as not being able to freely trade RMB is for me, living here, the currency is China's and they can do whatever the hell they want with it. It always amuses me when we Americans cry "international law", given our track record. International law? What international law? See Iraq. And don't give me an BS about the IMF. We are the IMF, and given the way we're currently being raped by China economically, if we wanted to pull aid or threaten pulling aid or anything like that, we could. That we haven't simply means that it's not in our best interest at this point in time. The only thing close to interational law in the world is the UN, and we've let everyone know in no uncertain terms how much we respect it as a governing body. Or then there's the international war crimes tribunal in the hague which we refuse to support for fear that an American might be brought to trial there. But I digress.

As for slave labor, it's funny that my countrymen are so quick to forget their own history. I'm not even going to get into the actual, institutionalized slave labor that existed here. Let's look at paid workers. Back in the old days, when the US was the libertarian paradise that so many Slashdotters seem to want to go back to, we had child/slave labor, no minimum wage laws, sweat shops, no unions, etc, etc. We worked our butts off for almost no compensation and you can forget about a dental plan. Why? Because we were developing, but we called it something else -- the industrial revolution.

Rich and poor were incredibly polarized then -- the days of the rich yeoman farmer were long behind us, and great cities of the US like New York were built on the sweat of the poor and the oppression of the working class. Deny it all you want, but that's how it was.

Before some idiot starts spouting about how much more free than China the US is, take a good peek in your history books at what happened to the first union organizers in this country. Don't fool yourself, the US was then and is still a plutocracy, where the rich buy power and influence. It's sickening. Sure, we have rights, and I commend the spirit in which they were written, but ask any young African American being harassed by cops in the ghetto what sorts of rights he has.

I used to be a rich little sniveling white boy growing up in the burbs of Silicon Valley, spouting Libertarian rhetoric and talking about how any one, given enough resolve, can work his way up in this great country of ours. And then I went and checked out how the other half lives. Let me tell you, it's not pretty. And the poor are born poor and they die poor, and that's the way of it. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't been there, or at least hasn't bothered to look at the statistics. Did you know that socialist europe has more class mobility than the US?

China is dirt poor, but they are working their asses off to better themselves, just like we did. And one day, mark my words, they will be wealthy, just as we are. And the scarcity of resources on this planet will mean simply that

Re:Slashdot and China just cracks me up

[fisternipply]

marvelous post, fscking marvelous! my anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, anti-development hippie friends don't seem to understand that Asia is *hungry* for a piece of our pie and they are busting their asses to get it. The western lifestyle is what everyone else is striving for, even as some of us here reject it, having become "enlightened" to the evils of development. The second-world is going through the same growing pains every other first-world developed nation went through, and the crucial point is that they *want* to. There's a net increase in standard of living coming to these places like India, China, southeast Asia.

The interesting part is what will happen when the resources just aren't there anymore. Humanity will run out of natural resources to easily consume...and places to safely lock away the waste. Thought about the sheer number of people in India and China? What will it take for all of them to have their own DVD player? If every Chinese family is a two-car family, what will that mean for energy use and pollution generation?

Technologists can take a glance at history and comfort themselves (and argue back to their hippie buddies) with the reality that without advances in technology this growth simply will not be possible--because it won't be economical. As they already have, advances in technology will continue to increase efficiency in use of energy and resources, and will continue to reduce the production of waste as we learn how to handle it more effectively. That will be the true beauty of globalization: to eventually reduce or eliminate these refuges of cheap labor and resources that are the enabling factors in the continuation of the international exploitation game, thereby economically driving technological advancement in efficiency and waste management.

-fister

Re:Slashdot and China just cracks me up

[kongjie]

I know the way you feel--I lived in China for a while and it didn't take long for me to develop similar feelings.

Then my enchantment with China quickly wore off. I realized that just because our history is filled with mistakes and injustices, it didn't justify the Chinese doing the same fucking thing.

A lot of Chinese leaders and even intellectuals take the position that, to pick just one possible example, because Western countries raped their environment during most of the twentieth century, it is okay for China to do that in order to reach the same economic level as the Western industrialized countries.

Bullshit meter on HIGH!

How about learning some lessons? How about finding new ways to do things? And what the hell is wrong with the West saying, erm, maybe that's not a good idea, because we've been there and it went really badly? Sure, I'd be the first person in line to say that the US government operates on a system of HUGE double standards. But just because we wiped out OUR indigenous peoples doesn't mean we should stand by while OTHER countries attempt to do the same thing NOW.

And, no, I wasn't necessarily talking about Tibet. Just an example.

Oh, and by the way, speaking about racism: I assume you can speak Chinese. Why don't you start up casual conversations with taxi drivers and people on the street, in parks etc and find out their ideas about Africans, hell, you can ask a good number of Chinese their opinions about the Japanese and they'll tell you they HATE the evil demons. Perhaps it has changed in the ten years since I lived in China, but at that time many, many Chinese thought that Africans living in Beijing were lusty animals who couldn't control themselves and would have sex with Chinese women the minute they had an opportunity. I care a lot about China and had many friends there, but I have to say they were the most racist people I had ever met in my life. Should we smile and excuse them because we used to have slaves? We can understand the reasons why they might have certain opinions, but that doesn't mean we can't say WHOA, that's not acceptable in international discourse in 2004.

What can be done by anybody...

[Absurd Monkey]

From the article, "Maybe, in the end, it's enough to be aware of what's happening behind the scenes as we enjoy this cornucopia of bargains."

This seems to be a rather apathetic and cynical closing statement. Awareness by itself can't do anything. It is not enough to simply be aware of it if someone is in need of help. I would say that while it's likely impossible to avoid products with hidden costs in the modern world, one thing that anybody can do is help support your favorite non-profit, non-governmental organization that is working on behalf of people in dire need, worldwide. Examples include:
Amnesty International , Human Rights Watch , and Oxfam International .

It's no overstatement to say that if you can afford a twenty-dollar DVD player, you can afford to give twenty dollars to charity. You can donate online, with your credit/debit card, right now. So what is stopping you from helping out?

Feh.

[shepd]

>Globalising companies are not expanding to the third world to "send much needed money into the country"

True.

>They are looking to exploit the quality-of-life and legislative differential between 1st and 3rd world countries.

False. Why do I have to explain Chinese Labour Law to everyone here? No, Chinese law doesn't allow for 16 hour days (Article 36), 12 year old workers (Article 15), forced labour(Article 56) and 5 cents an hour (well, in general there is no minimum wage there, but it'd be a rare sight to find a 5 cent an hour worker).

They may be exploiting the quality of life there, but, as a massive choice, people there have chosen to work at factories than work on farms. The question nobody who wants to denounce globalisation ever wants to ask is Why? Why did they choose to work at a factory than work where they did before? Why? Chinese factories do not go to cities with guns and tell people to work or die. They offer a certain compensation for labour, and people choose to accept it.

>Corporations don't like anti-exploitation, safety laws, environmental protection laws -- it cuts potential profits.

True. However, as a generalisation, most people find a lot to dislike about many laws. So this is really applicable to all, not just corporations.

>Corporations only exist and only work towards making a profit for their owners. That is all they do. Ethics do not come into it.

True.

>All ethical behaviour has to come from:
>a) the people who directly control the corporation
>b) the people who control the environment of the corporation (i.e. the government)

False. You are missing c:

c) The employees working for the corporation.

The Chinese aren't the mindless automatons you may think they are. They have brains. They can reason their way out of situations they aren't happy with. There are no guns held to heads at Chinese factories.

>If you live in a 3rd world country, the only way your life will get better when the factory comes is if those in charge (your government, elected or not) demand support for you as a condition of building the factory.

Yes and no. But I'll take that and run with it:

Life certainly wasn't getting any better before the factory, so if you're suggesting it could, at all, possibly, get better because of the factory, so be it.

>If a government does not demand that corporation build houses, schools and hospitals as part of the factory deal, the corporation won't do it.

False. I'd provide a bunch more links, but I think you can clearly see what you're saying isn't true.

>It's not a charity.

True. Companies will build the hospitals, schools, etc, if they feel they can benefit from it. That's where your wallet (ie: vote) comes into play.

>The problem some third world countries are having is that they are run by tinpot dictators who will let the corporations rape and pillage their fertile lands as long as the corporation gives them a backhander or builds them a new mansion.

Now that is true, and I won't disagree.

However, only the people can fix that problem. No amount of money, wether it be a lack of it, or too much, is going to change that. If every country all of a sudden chose to quit buying Chinese tomorrow, China would not suddenly become a democracy.

Re:Feh.

[jefeweiss]

"They may be exploiting the quality of life there, but, as a massive choice, people there have chosen to work at factories than work on farms. The question nobody who wants to denounce globalisation ever wants to ask is Why? Why did they choose to work at a factory than work where they did before? Why? Chinese factories do not go to cities with guns and tell people to work or die. They offer a certain compensation for labour, and people choose to accept it."

Well I'm not sure about China, but in a lot of places they can't work on the farm anymore because the farms are not econmically sustainable. You see, the US subsidises agriculture to the tune of umpteen billion dollars. This may not seem like too much to Americans, but to the poor farmers in poor countries it is a formidable disadvantage. Especially when you consider that the majority of these subsidies go to big corporate farms that grow products that compete rather directly with the poor farmers. Free Trade and all that. So these poor farmers can't farm, so what are they to do? Perhaps they can go to work in the factories. I'd say that answers fairly well the question of why they work in factories instead of farms.

And I'd say you haven't really been paying much attention to what the critics of globalisation have been saying if you didn't realize it. You probably just said to yourself "Globalization is good, Dan Rather says so, Tom Brokaw says so, Fox News says so, the New York Times says so. With all those authoritative voices saying the same thing how can they be wrong?" And so it goes.

P.S. I'm not really sure what the Campbellsville link has to do at all with corporations providing schools for children whose parents work in third world sweatshops, near as I can tell it's some kind of kids camp somewhere in the midwest.

Re:Feh.

[16K Ram Pack]

However, in the economic sphere there is not so much that really holds people back from attaining absolute economic power except perhaps anti-trust.

There's always competition.

Microsoft are a little exceptional in that they not only control the cars, but the roads too. Successive US governments have failed to address this properly. And knowing how to technically write a word file is much more dangerous than say knowing the formula for Coca-Cola.

I can't actually think of that many monopolies with considerable power left in the world. De Beers? Well, do you really *need* cosmetic diamonds?

In most cases, a big company who sits on its laurels will get slaughtered by the competition.

As for people controlling their own lives, we'd do much better if people stopped frittering their money away on the latest garbage, and instead bought from small, local producers and bought ethically. The extra cost of buying fairtrade bananas and coffee that guarantee a good living to the producer is more important to me than being able to buy a phone with polyphonic ringtones.

Re:Stupid tax law

[jez9999]

With everything included, most people don't realize how much they are paying in taxes per gallon (over 25%).

Hehe :-) You're talking to a resident of the country with the highest level of tax per gallon/litre on 'gas' in the world (over 600%).

DVD players constructed outside China do exist

[James Youngman]

The article states that all DVD players are constructed within China. Certainly mine was. However, there are some high-end manufacturers that assemble the final product outside China (no doubt at least partly from components manufactured inside China). Of these, the first one to come to mind is the legendary HiFi manufacturer, Linn (see this article about how their factory works). Of course, that makes them much more expensive than the stuff assembled in China. Take for example their UNIDISK 2.1 player, which plays every disc format (e.g. CD, SACD, DVD-Audio) and could well be the best-sounding player available anywhere. But it costs $8064 (more if you want the silver finish) rather than $30.

There are other UK manufacturers who almost certainly assemble their own DVD players. These include Arcam and Roksan.

Re:Excuse me?

[DigiShaman]

40% of the wealth and counting down. You are forgetting that when you consume goods made in another country, you are also investing in that country as well. Eventually, America wont be anymore wealty then the rest of the world. Yet irronically, the world as a whole will have a much better standard of living...including the US. Funny how ecconimics plays par for the course, eh?

Re:Short term, yes. Long term?

[BillsPetMonkey]

> Other countries a little slow on the start of the revolution have already been forced to improve workers rights, for example, look at Japan.

I too, agree with everything you've said apart from this.

Workers rights during a boom are not such an issue - when everyone's making money, there's no need to unionize. If you're talking about the official "abolition" of the six day week in Japan, then that was not at the behest of the workers but in response to the lack of money being spent on leisure in Japan.

Even now, if a typical Japanese worker had their way, they'd work Saturdays too (many still do anyway). If you don't know why they'd want to do that, then you're not familiar enough with Japan to comment on it's workers rights.

Re:Short term, yes. Long term?

[Gramie2]

if a typical Japanese worker had their way, they'd work Saturdays too

As someone who has lived and worked in Japan, I'd like to correct this. No one I knew enjoyed all the unpaid overtime. They did it because they felt compelled to by their company.

Actually, there was one programmer who would have worked even if the boss/company hadn't demanded it, but the other 500+ would gladly have taken the time off.

In fact, in seven years, I met three people who told me they enjoyed their work. One was the aforementioned programmer, the other two were the presidents of their companies.

All this amazing amateur macroeconomic knowledge..

[hexatron]

Should we be looking at some economics website for the true poop about software design, OS's, and driver compatibility questions?
No, they would probably be anecdotal, thinly analyzed, and full of obvious errors no one working in the field would ever make.
And so is most of the macroeconomics discussed here.

Blah

[Julian Morrison]

Just the usual leftist whining about sweatshops. When will people realise, sweatshops are how a developing economy bootstraps?

Big Biz outsources to pesthole country X, paying locals much more than they could hope to earn from any local employer, even if it is only a few dollars a month. The locals save up, gain skills, gain reputation, and soon enough X isn't anymore a pesthole but a thriving hub of business, and the locals can raise prices. See the recent discussions of rising outsource costs in India.

Globalization may "rush to the bottom" - but it quickly fills in that bottom. Making, I'll add, improvements that leftist redistribution consistently fails to do, and sweatshop-boycotts actively reverse!

So I say again: blah.

We're killing our own (U.S.) economy...

[Dairyland.Net]

...with our insatiable appetite for bargain prices. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal just had an excellent article on this subject. One item to note from the article is how Wal-mart ran a "Buy American" campaign through the 1980's, and now, if Wal-Mart were a nation, it would be China's eighth-largest trading partner, ahead of Britain and Russia. Kiss your American job goodbye!

Re:Short term, yes. Long term?

[C10H14N2]

It isn't "miraculous" at all. It's obvious and the last two centuries have largely shown determined efforts to prevent this from happening because it is so obvious.

There are only so many things that can be imported. Take, for instance, Kuwait. 95% of Kuwaiti exports are in petroleum, which makes up over half of GDP, since it is essentially their only natural resource. Nearly 100% of food is imported as agricultural capacity is nearly zero. The United States, on the other hand, has no reason to import anything except to lower the price. There are very, very limited exceptions, mostly in precious and semi-precious metals used in manufacturing where trading is based on necessity. Relying on unnecessary imports (note that something being "cheaper" does not make it "necessary") creates a succession of structural unemployment, depressed wages and/or government subsidy to keep uncompetitve sectors from producing millions of homeless people. At some point you simply must accept that the guy across the street in New York will not be able to produce anything for you at the price available in New Delhi and that some services must be provided in terms of your local economy, unless you envision a future at the homeless shelter.

Realize what is happening: production is MOVING not dramatically INCREASING. If production moves and is not quickly replaced, your GDP suffers because, obviously, you're no longer PRODUCING. We haven't found anything yet to replace what we're shipping offshore, so hey, if you've got any ideas on the "next big thing" that can only be produced here, you just fire away.

The total global economy is now about $110 Trillion, or about ten times that of the United States. The total global population is about 6 billion. That's an average GDP per capita of $18,333/year, which is HALF the current GDP/capita of the United States, but it is twice that of Poland and nearly five times that of China and almost ten times that of India. Now, considering the amount of production moving to China and India, which represent a third of the world population, and that the United States represents 10% of the global economy, one can assume that for every $1000 increase in GDP per capita in China and India, it will cost the United States $868 in GDP per capita. Why? Getting India and China to $18k/capita through exports would take transfers of $34,000,000,000,000 per year in production, 10% of which by definition would come out of the United States (in reality the US takes 20% of their exports, while India imports half as much and China practically nothing), unless new production is created, which to date has not happened (remember all the talk of "jobless recovery?"). That $3.4 Trillion would represent nearly a third of our economy, say, equivalent to losing California, New York and Texas.

Since 1983, GDP in real terms has only increased by about 18% while imports have increased from 8% to roughly 14% of GDP. In current dollars, that's $750 billion in production already shifted, equal to $2,900 in GDP/capita. The minimum wage of $3.80 in 1983 would require $5.70 today, but that wage is now only $5.15, which is a loss of 11% in standard of living, or about $1100/year. Since this is generally the wage we pay our manufacturing line workers, do you think these things are unrelated?

I don't reject the idea of equalizing incomes globally through trade. However, the current pace is suicidal especially when thinking in terms of moving production to countries with more than five times the human resources and one tenth the cost of labor already used to export to the United States three times what is imported. That kind of relationship cannot possibly be mutually beneficial to any sustainable degree. We already have a trade deficit of nearly $550 billion, which is $2000/year for every man, woman and child in the country, thus a family of four is already supporting $8,000 in trade-related waste. Escaping that scenario would take a miracle that cannot be imported from China.

Some of you just don't get it

[ShahJehan]

It seems quite obvious from reading responses to this article from members of the community that you simply do not understand the simple principle of economy of scale.

Countries like China (with over 1 BILIION people) and India (with over 1 BILIION people) are able to keep mass production costs low ( and thereby keep their manufactured products ultra competitive against 'Western' nations) because they have a larger segment of population who are willing to work for lower wages.

There are numerous reasons why wages are lower in China and India:
1) Their domestic currencies are kept artificially low to encourage foreign investments and export based industries.
2) The cost of living is significantly lower than the 'West'.
3) There are very few powerful labour unions and labour union based disputes are relatively few and far between.
4) Their government's keep the prices of raw source materials (including water and electricity) low for industry and the infrastructure costs (sewage, garbage disposal) are also kept low.

The bottom line is that India and China will not simply disappear because Vietnam decides they can match prices. The simple fact is that both China and India have BILIION + populations and that population (including their relative growth rates) can far exceed the supply of other competing nations like : Vietnam, Indonesia or Romania. These countries may try to pose a threat to the India or China but, they simply can not match populations (larger populations = larger segment of population that will work for lower wages).

In the West we can see this in competitive industries: there are always people or pockets of population who will work for less money than you or I will.

What few people understand at Slashdot is that India and China will simply not disappear from the manufacturing world because they are being challenged by South Africa or a country as such. Both India and China have booming economies because they have booming populations..chock full of people who that keep labour prices ultra-competitive (sometimes as is the case in China..this translates into gross humanitarian violations - something we mostly forget when shopping for bargains).

I am always amazed as to where people in here think India and Chian will go once Vietnam decides to challenge either or both on the basis of lower labour rates?! China and India outnumber other countries and therefore, challenge directly the power of other nations to compete in the labour market for manufacturing jobs.

Just look at what is happening in the programming world. How many jobs have been sent to India (India pumps out an astonishing 25 000+ programmers yearly). You simply can not compete against this ( no matter how much we complain that are quality levels are better in the 'West' there are still companies who will outsource to India or China simply because they save $).

Please remember that history tells us that the 'West' came looking for the 'East' and not the other way around.

I once had a very smart University Professor who warned about the power of India and China. He simply said that if everyone in the USA drank one coke can each/day this would translate into 250 million+ cans per day. But if either India or China were to do the same, this translates into 1 Billion+ cans/day ( if both do then we are talking about 2 Billion + cans consumed). This is why he argued, the West will always want market share in India and China and why 'Western' nations view these countries in terms of economics when setting foreign policy regarding them.

Cars are among the most recyclable product made.

[Shivetya]

There are very few products that are as recycable as automobiles.

Evil as linux

[smchris]

What's more, many Chinese DVD manufacturers don't pay the $10 to $15 in royalties due per unit for patented technologies -- penalizing established consumer-electronics companies that honor intellectual-property rights.

So, if I get this straight, people who buy cheap DVD players should be hunted down like dogs by the RIAA because they are the same filthy commies as linux users who want to _play_ a DVD on their computers?

Re:Fair comparison?

[C10H14N2]

However, the ability to flood the market with goods produced without tariff from such vastly cheaper locations is a recent development. At some point you must question the ability of an unemployed population to purchase anything at any price rather than buying what they have produced themselves because not even the Chinese can produce a DVD player for free. The problem is that money being a store of value essentially representing labor, if a product is produced with local labor, it will be inherently affordable to that local population. Once production is shifted to locations so drastically cheaper, there is a downward pressure on the cost of labor in the local economy. Thus, those things that _can_ be imported become much more affordable, but those things that cannot, like land, housing, and by extension education and entrepreneurialism in general, quickly become too expensive for all but the wealthiest and you have a population of indentured servants.

So, sure, if you envision a United States where the wealthy support a massive underclass employed purely for mutual personal service, then allowing this to go uncontrolled is fine. I'd prefer a different future where those around me are skilled at something more than wiping my ass for me. Some things, I just don't want to outsource.

Even expensive Sony electronics now unreliable

[swb]

I bought a Sony Grand Wega III LCD Rear Projection television this fall. Within a week it had failed, and as I learned on the AVS Forum ("GWIII buzz" thread, still active), many other people have had the same problem.

At the current time nobody knows what's REALLY wrong with these sets, since Sony isn't saying -- their customer service people continue to deny problems and offer the typical scripted responses about unplugging, resetting or "normal" behavior (like degaussing, which an LCD set would never do...).

At this point, there's a service bulletin but at least to forum participants have had the "fix" NOT fix their TVs, and there's a strong (but, of course, unverifiable through Sony) rumor that they have gotten so many returns on this set that they have actually halted production in order to figure out what's wrong.

What's appalling about this is that it's not a $89 VCR or DVD player, but televisions costing as much as $8000 that are failing! It's apparent that the design engineering and reliability testing is nonexistant or is the equivilent of selling the sets as betas to unsuspecting customers in order to figure out what's REALLY going to break on them.

Of course this hasn't prevented them from still selling the sets from production runs known to be rife with problems, denying the problem to customers and failing to inform people about multu-thousand dollar televisions which are like ticking time bombs.

I have a 12 year old Sony Trinitron that still looks as good as the day I got it as an open-box showroom special. I replaced the power supply last summer when it blew out as I knew that I'd never buy another set as well made as this for even 3 times the cost of repair.

Sony used to mean quality, now it seems like its been infected by the crappy US manufacturing standards and business leadership we all know and loathe.

Re:Short term, yes. Long term?

[C10H14N2]

Manufacturing has not doubled. In twenty years it has added about 60%. That's not even 2.5% per year. Inflation over the same period was 3.1% per year. Besides, the concern is that as a function of per capita GNP, which is obviously a function of popluation, is changing and not in an upward direction. You've failed to site direct references to authoritative sources, so here's mine:

http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn2/gpoc.htm

You will notice that we have dropped from total manufacturing being about 18% of GNP to 14% of GNP between 1987 and 2001. You will also notice that we have added roughly 30 million in population. In terms of electronics manufacturing, we've lost nearly 30% in that sector just between 1994 and 2001 (.020% of GNP to .014% of GNP). "Soaring" my ass. YES, GNP has increased so that .014% of X may be greater than .020% of Y, but the real gains were in finance and services. YES, absent huge increases in unemployment that means we are shifting jobs around. However, as you have keenly noted, "blue-collar" jobs often pay around the median (read: not "well," just not "badly"). Service jobs usually pay at or near the minimum wage, which is $2.33 where I live.

As for your statement about "bogus zero-sum economics," well, having studied economics, and given the above facts, I see no problem with what is an accepted model in such obvious cases. Ask any unemployed software engineer if he thinks Indian outsourcing is a zero-sum game and I'm sure you'll get a "yes." He loses a job, India gains a job. It may be part of a larger game, but at that level of analysis, it is a zero-sum game and it is perfectly reasonable to view it as such. In terms of trade deficit, if China exports twice as much as it imports, it IS a zero sum game. They win, we lose. Make no mistake, trade deficits are -bad-.

The median income, that is the maximum of what the bottom 65 Million Americans earn, is $28,117 per year. That's $13.50 per hour. I'm not sure where you got your figures, since you didn't bother to provide a reference, so here's one of mine:

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886 ,0 0.html

Of that, 13 million make less than $5,121. So we have 78 million out of 130 million taxpaying, working adults who make less than your purported "average blue-collar wage."

Admittedly, it is quite difficult to really see the entire picture in a /. post. Econometrics are far too complex for this venue. However, it is safe to say, things are not so rosy as you seem to hope.

Re:Dunno bout the "no more mom and pop stores" thi

[Reziac]

Tho just because it's a mom and pop doesn't mean you'll *necessarily* get any better value for your money.

Example: A friend was shopping for a digital camera. She went to the local shop and was looking at an Olympus and a Pentax (which cost $100 more). The shop owner went on and on about how much better the Pentax was. A bit of independent research revealed that the Pentax was in fact a cheap HP camera body with a Pentax lens tacked on the front. Our conclusion was that the Pentax is a much more *profitable* item, because it sure as hell isn't any *better* than the Olympus. Hence the shop owner's enthusiasm for the Pentax.

Any time someone earns a direct commission on the merchandise (and if you're the shop owner, ALL of your income is effectively "direct commission"), there is incentive to push the most profitable item rather than the best item. Some mom and pop shops are honest enough to push the best item regardless, but many aren't, or can't afford to be when competing against the likes of Walmart.

Re:Dunno bout the "no more mom and pop stores" thi

[FerretOnMountDew]

You can get the same thing in any competitive environment.

I work in electronics retail and am paid commission for my sales. Yeah, I have an incentive to push the higher end, higher priced products. But you can gain a person's trust (and subsequently their money) if you can speak intelligently on their problems or issues. Being able to chat shop with the guys who want the best sounding speakers for a specific setup and show the people who haven't a clue how to connect their DVD player have made me numerous sales since I've started working here.

But there's a problem with my situation: I get paid to sell, not know. And people abuse it constantly. You can bet those "mom&pop" stores feel the same abuse, too. People will come in, ask near every question on a product or product line, and as soon as they know all the parts they need to set up their home network (or what have you) they leave and go to a Wal*Mart or other super discount store and buy it all there.

I hate selling for my competitor, but at least it's better than clerking.

Oh, and I picked up a CyberHome DVD player last year. Only thing it's lacking is an optic out for surround sound speakers -- and it's been working fine so far. And I've only had one ever returned broken.

CAD vs. Sliderules - why stuff doesn't last long

[BigBlockMopar]

Of course, the same argument can be made for many things. I have the same feeling about American cars... you're likely to have a Ford or GM last 5 years.

For sure! The design is a little less "optimized" by finite element analysis than a typical Japanese car. Ever notice how a domestic car always feels heavier and more solid than a comparable Japanese model?

I blame scientific calculators, CAD and finite element analysis for the whole feeling of "they don't build 'em like they used to".

With a sliderule, you could only work to three or four significant figures. Every calculation, you'd have to round up forces and round down material strengths. As a result, your final design was always stronger and heavier than it "needed" to be.

With scientific calculators which hold 12+ sig figs in memory - CAD, Matlab, etc. even more - the design can be optimized more. Finite element analysis allows the design to be broken into millions of almost infinitely small points and the forces on each one of those points can be analyzed in minutes or hours with a computer, a job which would have taken years with a sliderule. Armed with this knowledge, the manufacturer can use (thinner, cheaper) 22 gauge sheetmetal instead of the 20 gauge you would have chosen with sliderule calculations. The net effect is that the car/washing machine/VCR/whatever is cheaper to manufacture and cheaper to ship. If it's a car, this also translates into better acceleration and better gas mileage.

But the problem is that the thinner sheetmetal and other heavily-optimized parts makes the design less forgiving of the real-world crap which occurs. A pair of jeans gets stuck under the washing machine's agitator. A videocassette gets jammed angrily into the VCR by a couple of kids who've just argued about what to watch. A guy takes his car to Home Depot and instructs the guy to put 600lbs of fertilizer bags into the trunk.

Real world abuse is not considered in the optimization process. And as a result, the machine breaks.

Now, before everyone floods me about how "my truck has been around for 40 years," let me pre-emptively defend myself: 1) trucks are a little bit different still,

Less so. Full-frame American-made rear-wheel-drive cars (like the Caprice Classic and the Crown Vic) are made of box-section steel frames while pickups are generally C-channel steel frames with comparable gauge steel. The drivetrains are generally exactly the same. Real SUVs (like the Durango/Grand Cherokee, Blazer, Explorer, etc. in contrast to the silly little toys like the RAV-4 and the CR-V) are built similarly. In fact, the only reason I'd buy an SUV is because they don't make the Caprice Classic anymore.

Having said that, if you take a wander through a wrecking yard, you might want to start looking at the cars there carefully. Take a very close look at the cars which don't have obvious accident damage - ie. the cars which were worn out. Wander around and note who built the car, the mileage and the year. Some of each will have had better owners than others. But if you take an average, you'll start to see a pattern emerging.

Whatever it is, they don't build 'em like they used to. A new VCR may sell for $59, and you might be tempted to buy the $200 model from the same brand, reasoning that it will last longer. Flip open the cassette door and point the MAG light in there before you buy it. Typically, it'll use the same mechanism as its cheaper cousin - you're spending the $141 extra for software which enables a few more features.

Washing machines? Mine's a 1954 Maytag. When the spin bearing in the bottom finally let go after 49 years of cleaning dirty underwear, I took apart the transmission to see if it was worth rebuilding. There was no appreciable wear to any of the gear surfaces, etc. So I spent a couple of hundred bucks on bearings, gaskets, hoses and seals. Most of them were perfectly fine when I swapped 'em. I could have spent $147 on the Roper

Recycled cars

[fm6]

If you think of a car in terms of the metals and plastics that make up 90% of its weight, then yeah, it's mostly recyclable. (Though I recall having trouble disposing of an old Buick back in '86, when there was a scrap metal glut.) But there's other stuff -- tires, brake pads, the exotic metals in you anti-smog muffler -- that are difficult to recycle.

Tires are a particular problem -- 270 million tires are discarded every year. Except for truck tires, there's no market for retreads any more. Extracting the metal and rubber for reuse is not economically feasible. You can't throw them in landfills, because they don't compress, and they also tend to "float" above the other trash, destroying the landfill cover. They make dandy fuel, but nobody wants to live next to a tire incinerator. About the only thing you can do with them is grind them up for building material, a market that doesn't use more than a small fraction of them. Which is why a billion tires are stored illegally, causing groundwater pollution and breeding mosquitoes in the trapped water.

Also, as with computers, cost and laziness prevent proper recyling of car stuff. When you have a mechanic change your oil and other fluids, he sends it off to a recycling service -- for which he pays a fee. But lots of people change their own fluids, and avoid the hassle and cost by pouring their waste down a storm drain, where it kills wildlife and screws up the water supply.

I have to go back to the original topic and mention another aspect of electronic gadgets -- batteries. All batteries, especially rechargables, count as hazardous waste, and need to be recycled accordingly. But how many consumers even know about this? And even the ones that do won't find a convenient place to dump their old batteries.

Re:However...

[Trailwalker]

Historically, they did. In Europe, pre Industrial Revolution, it was common. Until relatively recent times, there were few ways for women to earn a living. Unmaried adult lower class females became unpaid domestic servents for the family, were shoved into a convent, or sent to do whatever they could. In the early US, the factory system developed quickly and provided an alternate means of earning money. The New England textile factories were run almost exclusively on the labor of young women, who were exploited in the usual ways. Prostitution was more wide spread during the Depression in the US. Simply put, it is an available choice for poorly educated, unskilled people who have no alternatives, such as assembly line jobs. This is in any country. A fine example in literature would be "Crime and Punishment" The whole point of my post was that low paid jobs are sometimes the better alternative. Many people have never seen or understood the dispiriting horror of real poverty and its consequences. Even in "advanced" nations, there are undeveloped areas where poverty presents its unpleasant choices. These areas are seldom visited by the protesting types.

Re:CAD vs. Sliderules - why stuff doesn't last lon

[drinkypoo]

Somewhat OT, but unibody cars are more rigid than full-frame cars. Full-frame cars are notorious for twisting and flopping around under stress. High-powered full frame cars need the frame "boxed" if they have C-shaped rails, which they usually do; A boxed frame is just a semi-monocoque design, though, where the load is transmitted to its skin, or in other words, a bad parody of unibody.

This is why sports cars were amongst the earliest vehicles to go unibody. There are some exceptions, such as backbone-chassis cars like many Lotuses, but those vehicles are not exactly designed for crash safety, either. (Until you install a cage.) They're designed for minimum weight; YES, there is something lighter than a unibody.

Given a lack of collisions, and with all else equal, a unibody car will last longer than a full frame one because the full frame car is less rigid and simply has more places to fall apart. It's often considered desirable in trucks because a unibody does not offer significant weight savings over a full frame vehicle when it comes to a frame that rigid and full-frame is cheaper. Of course in a unibody car the frame of the car still exists, it's just been moved inside the unibody. Unibody is more expensive to manufacture, but in light-duty vehicles it saves so much weight that it's an essential part of modern automotive design.

Finally, China will eventually wake up and have environmental laws, when the people can afford it. Right now most of them are worried about subsistence.

Re:Short term, yes. Long term?

[Ironica]

Manufacturing output in the United States has doubled in the last twenty years. See this.

I saw it. Those weren't per-capita numbers, so they're not comparable to the previous poster's info. Here's the per-capita data:

1970: Exports $787.01; Manufacturing GDP not listed
1980: Exports $1765.65 (Wow, a 124% increase!); Manufacturing GDP $3531.29
1990: Exports $1708.44 (a 3% decrease); Manufacturing GDP $4421.84 (a 25% increase)
2000: Exports $2060.96 (a 20% increase); Manufacturing GDP $5685.41 (a 28.5% increase)

So the increases are heartening, except that during the same time period, the gap between the top quintile and the bottom quintile in income in the US grew. So the gains are concentrated with the wealthiest individuals, and those at the bottom actually lost ground.

Still, at no time in the past 20 years have we anything like doubled our on a per-capita basis. Manufacturing GDP went up 61% from 1980 to 2000, and exports went up only 17%. And, if we compared the US data to the same data for other countries, we'd probably find that globally, we're falling behind.

This is completely bogus zero-sum economics. It has no correspondence to reality.

Except that the numbers come from reality. Maybe you'd like to explain what you mean a little more? If production moving to China and India doesn't come *from* somewhere, is there some way the magic production fairies can be manufactured and bottled here in the US and sold for a profit overseas?

What are you talking about? Fewer than 5% of adult full-time workers earn minimum wage. The average blue-collar wage is $14.51/hour. For the category "machine operators, assembers, and inspectors", the average is $12.94/hour. The lowest wage occupation in this category is "laundering and dry cleaning machine operators", who still average $8.49/hour. So your comment about the minimum wage has zero relevance.

Where are your numbers from? Blue-collar traditionally doesn't include the fastest-growing segment of the working world... so-called "pink collar" or service-industry jobs. Those blue-collar workers earning an average of $14.51/hour are a shrinking population. The country's (the world's?) largest employer is Wal-Mart, not Ford. And I notice that you qualify that with "full-time," so the increasing trend toward hiring more part-time workers to avoid paying benefits conveniently ignores a lot of people. The underemployment rate is becoming as big a problem as the unemployment rate. (BTW, I don't suppose these figures include people who work two jobs at minimum wage for a total of 40 hours or more per week?)

Besides which, to show just how out-of-whack the minimum wage is, let's look at the numbers you gave:

$14.51/hour: $30,180.80/year, at full-time employment for the whole year. This isn't too bad. You can live on this in most parts of the country, though in many you wouldn't want to try to support a whole family on it.

$12.94/hour: $26,915.20/year. Still doing all right, not that much lower.

Looks like the current median home price in the US is about $160,000. With a 10% down payment (not sure how you save up more than half your annual salary for a home, but I'm being generous here) and a 5% interest rate, which is pretty doable these days, on a 30-year fixed mortgage you're paying $773/month for your home. Ok, that's about a third of your $12.94/hour wage, which is decent.

Now let's look at that $8.49/hour person. Coincidentally, $8.50/hour is the average wage for Wal-Mart employees... which possibly includes the executives, but almost certainly includes the store managers. That person is making $17,659.20, or about $1,471.60 a month. They would be paying more than half their gross pay to try to buy a home, so they're renting, which means no wealth accumulation. They can't afford the typically $150/month for an individual health plan (much less the $400 or so for a family plan), so we're paying for them to visit the emergenc

Hidden Costs for What?

[LuYu]

It seems from the article that the "hidden costs" that apply to the cheap models also apply to the expensive ones. The expensive ones are even manufactured in the same factories. So, even if one were to buy an expensive model, that extra money would just go into the pocket of the person owning the expensive label and "slave labor" would continue in China. Also, we all know that Walmart is never going to pay their employees better.

In the end, the only ones that cost more are the ones with the higher price tag. Unless everyone buys expensive ones exclusively. Even then, it is more likely that such a practice will just lead the electronics companies to spend more money on trademark litigation in order to milk their brands for all they are worth.

Low profit margins are a sign of a healthy capitalist market (as opposed to an unhealthy monopolist market) and strong competition.

Re:CAD vs. Sliderules - why stuff doesn't last lon

[dbIII]

Armed with this knowledge, the manufacturer can use (thinner, cheaper) 22 gauge sheetmetal instead of the 20 gauge you would have chosen with sliderule calculations.

This paticular bit is bullshit - the world has moved on - the crap sheetmetal of the past has been replaced by high strength low alloy steel. Since the stuff is a lot stronger, and really cheap (it's the same as the old stuff only cooled at a controlled rate - so stronger for around the same price if all else is the same), you don't need as much of it to carry the same load, and with anything that moves it is a good idea to save weight where you can. While it is stronger, it flexes the same amount (elastic modulus), so it's easier to push in a thin sheet of really strong steel than a thick sheet of very low quality steel - but the thin steel will spring back. This flex makes the car feel a lot less solid - lean against a panel and it will bow in, doors are a lot lighter etc.

With a sliderule, you could only work to three or four significant figures. Every calculation, you'd have to round up forces and round down material strengths. As a result, your final design was always stronger and heavier than it "needed" to be.

I suspect what you are saying here is that a handmade conservative design is better than an optimised one. Back in the days of slide rules there were also incredibly bad designs when safety factors were not applied correctly - the Liberty ships, airliners with square windows, the Ford Pinto - but modern design methods make it a bit harder for that to happen. Optimisation allows the production of machines at a much lower cost. If you want something that can go beyond design limits, you need to go out and get that sports car or whatever, which is designed to a different spec. The cars of the 1950's were not designed to be as cheap for the day as the current low end vehicles are.

Cars are also designed for different things now. They are designed to crumple now in collisions, so the car takes the energy that would otherwise be doing awful things to your neck in a relatively low speed collisions. With the event of airbags hospitals are seeing injuries they didn't see before, simply because those sort of injuries were usually on people with fatal head injuries.

To mechanics, the death-knell of the Japanese car was always the clunk-clunk-clunk of the CV joints getting loose. Don't change 'em! Scrap the car and buy a new one.

CV joints are cheap - that's just stupid. If cars are getting junked after 6 years in the area you are in then people are spending way too much on new cars. There's still Datsun 120Y cars around, and if someting that poorly made is still around now, the far more relaible cheap cars should last a few years.

I can't really comment on American cars, the only ones around here are for enthusiasts - things with lots of fins, wood panelling on the side or F100 trucks. Outside the USA, if you want something for a decent price, you buy asian cars, and if you want extra quality you get something from europe - but if you get something from the USA you get the price without the quality. Fuel is cheap in the USA, which has encouraged a lot of designs that are very expensive to run outside of the USA, so why get a big chunky car when you can get a Mercedes for for less extra than you would pay for the difference in a years fuel?