Slashdot Mirror


Dell Closes Ireland Plant; 2nd Largest Employer

Wide Angle writes in with a PBS report on tough economic news from Ireland: Dell announced that it will relocate its manufacturing plant in Limerick, Ireland to Lodz, Poland. "Dell's announcement... is a severe blow to the Irish economy, which has been hit hard and fast by the global economic crisis. Dell is Ireland's second-largest corporate employer and the country's largest exporter. Nineteen hundred shift workers will lose their jobs. ...Dell's closing is not a result of the economic downturn, but of a pattern all too familiar in the United States — corporations' perennial search for cheaper labor. Since 2000 several companies, such as Procter & Gamble, Intel, Gateway, and NEC Electronics, have moved manufacturing jobs from Ireland to China, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere. When Poland joined the European Union in 2004, it became an attractive place for companies to set up manufacturing plants. ... However, Ireland has managed to maintain and attract... 'knowledge-intensive jobs.' Google's European headquarters are based in Dublin, and Facebook announced late last year that they would locate their international headquarters there. But the overall economic picture for Ireland is bleak."

18 of 494 comments (clear)

  1. willingness to relocate by bugs2squash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps Eire should have factored in that companies agile and willing enough to relocate once to Ireland would likely be sufficiently agile and willing to move to follow the sun again.

    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re:willingness to relocate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Everyone in Eire with half a brain knew this was coming anyway...
      Those relatively low tech manufacturing jobs were only ever going to be useful as a means of bootstrapping ourselves into a properly high tech economy.
      Not sure the government knew this, but everyone smart working in tech did.

    2. Re:willingness to relocate by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is what happens when capital and goods can freely cross borders but people can't. Capital will simply chase poverty in a never ending circle around the globe. When one poor, desperate country starts to get wealthy, corporations will simply move to the next one, and let the first slip back into poverty.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:willingness to relocate by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is what happens when capital and goods can freely cross borders but people can't. Capital will simply chase poverty in a never ending circle around the globe. When one poor, desperate country starts to get wealthy, corporations will simply move to the next one, and let the first slip back into poverty.

      So what's the solution? If you get rid of the restrictions on people moving you destroy national sovereignty and identity. If you get rid of free trade/adopt protectionism you drag the economy down a few pegs and probably destroy at least as many jobs as you save.

      I hate what we've become but I'm at a loss for how to fix it. Ideas?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:willingness to relocate by lee1026 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Problem is, the number of poor countries that are stable enough to invest in is not large, and once a country becomes a wealthy, it rarely slides downwards very far. Thus, this should end relatively soon, as soon as corporations run out of countries.

    5. Re:willingness to relocate by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You say "destroy national sovereignty" (and all of the restrictions therein) like it's a bad thing.

      You see restrictions where I see freedoms. Globalization has already created a race to the bottom for labor and environmental standards. Will our freedoms and rights be next in line? Will the United States be forced to adopt European restrictions on free speech? Will Europe be forced to adopt Islamic restrictions on free speech? Will the United States, Finland, Switzerland and Norway be forced to adopt stricter gun control laws?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:willingness to relocate by Bertie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually Limerick's at least as much of a poverty-stricken dump as many places in Poland, and stuff like this will only make it worse.

      Ireland has seen a lot of development and increased prosperity over the last while, but things like this show how transient that can be if you're too dependent on outside sugardaddies providing that prosperity. It's easy come, easy go for the organisations providing the jobs - if somebody else turns up with a bigger development grant and a workforce with lower wages, moving won't cost them a thought.

      The trick is to take the inward investment and use it to build up your skills base so that ultimately you can stand on your own two feet, but that's a whole lot easier said than done. Places like Taiwan have done it rather beautifully, and Estonia, financial troubles apart, seems to be on the right track, but it's tough.

    7. Re:willingness to relocate by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You say "destroy national sovereignty" (and all of the restrictions therein) like it's a bad thing.

      You see restrictions where I see freedoms. Globalization has already created a race to the bottom for labor and environmental standards. Will our freedoms and rights be next in line? Will the United States be forced to adopt European restrictions on free speech? Will Europe be forced to adopt Islamic restrictions on free speech? Will the United States, Finland, Switzerland and Norway be forced to adopt stricter gun control laws?

      What really bothers me about governments and large organizations in general is that they fail to understand the saying, "no matter how far down the wrong path you have travelled, turn back." Governments almost never say "this sounded like a good idea at the time but it's just not working, things are getting worse, time to abandon this idea and try something else." If they do say that, it's over the course of decades or sometimes centuries even though the knowledge of better solutions (or at least that this solution isn't working) has been around for a long time.

      I wish there were some type of initiative/referendum that citizens could use to challenge laws, not because they are unconstitutional or otherwise legally invalid, but because they have failed to deliver the results that were promised. If there were a way to get rid of otherwise legally valid laws that can be objectively proven to be counterproductive, not because enough voters put enough pressure on the legislators to repeal the law, but because at least one citizen can rigorously prove that it has failed, this would represent real progress.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    8. Re:willingness to relocate by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      eems like by preventing jobs from leaving the country, the company itself may not earn as much, but you've saved jobs within your own country. That's in my eyes, and anyone who is not a shareholder in said company and selfish, more important. Assuming that the company is going to use the money it saves to reinvest in your home country is not a sure thing to me.

      Here's the problem. Assume a company employes 50 people making widget X. It costs the company Y$ so they sell it for Y$ + % profit. Widget X is used by the whole country.

      Now, it's suddenly cheaper to make widget X in another country, so the company moves its operations. By doing this the 50 people lose their jobs, but now the entire country gains the use of widget X for a lower price than before. For a short time it sucks for those 50 people, but in aggregate society is paying less for an item which frees up more money for investing that one hopes would lead to jobs that would hire back those 50 people + more.

      If you don't let the making of widget X move (or tax it so it's like it didn't move) you continue to support an inefficiency. The entire economy now supports this inefficiency for the perceived benefit of 50 people, when in the long run it's better for the whole economy and probably for those 50 people to lower the price of widget X.

      It can be argued that this cycle is not one that can go on indefinitely, but it's a cycle that has risen the standard of living around the world for quite a long time.

  2. That's fine by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's fine as long as you have a job to pay for it. If all the manufacturing and knowledge based jobs end up in the cheaper locations then can the Western Economies keep going. I know that many economists say that it is the beginning of the service economy, and we can all be rich in the west by buying and providing services for each other but I am rather skeptical. If a whole country consists of PR teams, lawyers, restaurant owners and so on can they really "generate" enough money to be able to buy their "real" things from cheap overseas sources?

    1. Re:That's fine by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The distinction between "manufacturing" and "service" jobs is somewhat artificial. Every step in the manufacturing process is a service. Finding raw materials is a service. Getting them out of the ground is a service. Refining them is a service. Transporting them from place to place is a service. Assembling them together into a finished product is a service. Making the machines to do so is a service. All of these are services; "manufacturing" is simply a convenient shorthand to describe those services whose end result is an assembled physical product, as opposed to the many other services whose end result is not.

      Thus, the fact that we have a service-based economy is not in and of itself a problem, provided that our services are sufficiently valued in world markets to purchase the manufactured goods we need as well as the other necessities and wants of life. It is a problem ONLY if our skills, or the products that are created using those skills, are no longer sufficiently valuable to earn us the kind of living we want, in which case, the obvious remedy (which scales up) is to learn new skills.

    2. Re:That's fine by bugs2squash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess one of the criticisms leveled at geeks is that they think they know everything...

      So in that spirit, here's my "expert" analysis of world economic matters !

      Isn't manufacturing computers just a service ? If you were Martha Stuart, you'd just get up early and grind-up the sand from the beach yourself to make your own CPU.

      To my mind there's scant economic difference between a janatorial service and a manufacturing "service".

      Furthermore; a janitor's job has to remain local and the janitor must be retained to keep the place sparkly, as opposed to a one-time manufacturing process for a durable item.

      Janitors are an extremely high-value service, that's why so many of us have a personal computer built for us but don't have our houses cleaned for us.

      --
      Nullius in verba
  3. Good for Poland by exhilaration · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Poland has very high unemployment rate, one of the highest in Europe, and is also one of the poorest countries in Europe.

    I realize that this sucks for Ireland but Poland is in far worse shape and needs the jobs just as badly if not more.

  4. Make 'em pay by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact is, since China has the unfair advantage of near-slave labor, the rest of the world as a whole needs to have stiff import tariffs to equalize this imbalance.

    This really shouldn't be completely about the "world economy" and if it can be done cheaper in China, "why not"? It is completely fair to take into account other factors such as China's complete disregard for workers rights and environmental issues, not to mention truth in labeling with regards to all the poisons they put in food products.

    Make 'em pay, it's the only way to get their attention.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  5. Re:I don't care who slaps together my inspiron by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Having spent over an hour and a half on the phone with Dell Canada on Monday just to get a quote (and a quote for twenty computers I might add), I'd say there is such a thing as "too cheap".

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  6. Re:The Race to the Bottom by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We the consumer, demand cheaper priced products, why should we be surprised when manufacturers look for methods of reducing their costs? You don't exactly see them firing up manufacturing plants in Tokyo or Manhattan.

    Corporations also demand more profit. Reducing costs helps that bottom line. Whether moving manufactoring locations ends up positive on that bottom line or not isn't always clear at the outset.

    It's a Global Economy, get used to it.

    It's been a global economy for decades. That's not the change.

  7. Less taxes. by diskis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The 10 year discount is up. That's why they are moving, and Dell isn't the only corporation doing this. Ireland has a low corporate tax, and discounts it even further for the first 10 years a corporation operates there.

  8. The basic problem by Moryath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The basic problem is that "free trade" never is.

    "Free trade" concerning commodities that are easily made (or grown) in an area, like tropical fruit towards northern climates, is one thing.

    "Free trade" based on paying workers shit wages, or based on the fact that one country (*coughmexshitcocough*) has absolutely crappy evironmental protection laws while their neighbors don't, doesn't - it temporarily drives down "costs" while ensuring that the environment gets ruined and poverty is taken advantage of.

    The solution is "fair trade" instead - place tariffs on any and all imported goods from countries whose labor protection and environmental laws are inferior to our own, such that the cost to produce them there and them import is the same (or better yet, slightly more expensive) as doing the production either here, or in a country with proper worker and environmental protection standards. If the USA/Canada/European countries would do that, then the countries with shit worker protection and environmental laws will have to fall in line and we can actually get things addressed.