Slashdot Mirror


Tech Manufacturing Is a Disaster Waiting To Happen

Hugh Pickens writes "Peter Cochrane writes that since globalization took hold, geographic diversity has become distorted along with the resilience of supply so we now have a concentration of limited sourcing and manufacture in the supply chain in just one geographic region, south-east Asia, amounting to a major disaster just waiting to happen. 'Examples of a growing supply-chain brittleness include manufacturers temporarily denuded of LCD screens, memory chips and batteries by fires, a tsunami, and industrial problems,' writes Cochrane. 'With only a few plants located in south-east Asia, we are running the gauntlet of man-made and natural disasters.' Today, PCs, laptops, tablets and smartphones are produced by just 10 dominant contract manufacturers, spearheaded by Foxconn of Taiwan — which manufactures for Apple, Dell, HP, Acer, Sony, Nokia, Intel, Cisco, Nintendo and Amazon among others. The bad news is that many of the 10 big players in the IT field are not making good profits, so economic pressure could result in the 10 becoming seven."

13 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Cost of some where other than South-East Asis by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's almost an irrelevant question as the real reasoning behind it means that a CEO can put more money in his/her pocket. The entire decision process is about how much money they can get their fat greedy paws on RIGHT NOW. The fact that it could all fall down tomorrow doesn't come into the equation. This is yet another corporate culture problem.

  2. Re:Cost of some where other than South-East Asis by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The prices for the consumer could stay the same. It would cut Apple's profit margin from "obscene" to "above average" however.

  3. Re:Floods by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You mean *gasp* it could have just been plain old fashioned greed and profiteering?!?! Well, knock me over with a feather!

  4. Willingness to pay by Jazari · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Redundancy costs money. So the real question is: "Are customers (consumers) willing to pay?"
    Or perhaps a better idea is: You will pay either way. Chose: (1) Pay money now for redundancy and a guarantee of supply; or (2) "Pay" later through the unavailability of products.

  5. Re:Cost of some where other than South-East Asis by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The better question is how much more would they cost if we were paying the true cost of manufacturing, regardless of where it is being made...

  6. Re:Cost of some where other than South-East Asis by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This idea that we can't "afford" to make anything here anymore is ludicrous. For decades we managed to do so just fine, during our boom years of 1945-1980, when most everyone that was willing to work could find a decent paying job that afforded them a living wage. My grandfather drove a truck for a large portion of that period and was able to make enough money to buy a modest house, get a new car every couple years, support himself, his wife, and their four children, pile said kids into the woodie every summer for a road trip/vacation, and put something away for both his retirement and his kid's college educations. He didn't even get a high school diploma until his later life, having dropped out to enlist and do his duty.

    What I want to know is what happens when even China isn't cheap enough to prop up those hyper-inflated executive salaries. What is the next area we're going to be exploiting? Africa, probably. Hell, all they'd have to do is not be murderous blood diamond warlords and the African people will probable weep tears of joy at the opportunity to poison themselves and their environment for 3 cents a day, and the "job creators" will talk up how goddamned benevolent it all is. By that point the US economy should be thoroughly dead and they'll just bring the sweatshops back home, and we will weep our own tears of joy at the opportunity to be slave laborers...

  7. Re:Cost of some where other than South-East Asis by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't agree with everything that Michael Moore says, but on CNN one time he had a very important point.

    When GM was doing well it was making something like $14 billion a year. Yet they were still laying off workers. What is so wrong with making $13 billion a year and keeping the workers, especially those that gave a significant part of their lives to that company.

    There is no incentive for a corporation to treat its workers with respect. The unions gave that incentive but their own decadence has greatly ruined their own power. Couple that with the fact when you put in huge golden parachutes and pay millions of dollars to upper management a year there is no incentive for them to care if the enterprise is even there after they are gone. If a huge cluster-fsck.

  8. Re:Cost of some where other than South-East Asis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not to mention the fact that, oh let's say there was a crash in every consumer-oriented supply chain next year...

    The majority of end-users and consumers won't REALLY be on the hook for about 5 years, at which point in time, we'll all come to realize that we never actually even needed 64GB of RAM, 25TB hard drives, 96 core 233GHz CPUs, 10 exabit network cards, 65536px wide by 36864px high flat panel displays, and that we were able to "limp" along with our crappy, dumpy 16GB of RAM, 2TB hard drives, 4 core 3GHz CPUs, gigabit network cards, 1600px wide by 900px high flat panel displays, all of which are probably lasting well beyond the manufacturers warranties once we start actually caring for them as if we had to buy new ones for $1,000...

    Oh boo-hoo!

  9. Re:Floods by ivoras · · Score: 4, Insightful

    HDD prices are now higher providing an incentive for another player to enter the market with manufacturing outside that geographic area (or one of the existing players to bring up some manufacturing there).

    Higher prices make is economically feasible especially considering the payoff bonus of that region gets flooded again.

    ...except if you have external factors such as patents which effectively prohibit anyone truly new entering the industry ever again...

    --
    -- Sig down
  10. Re:Floods by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If these devastating market crashes and massive wealth disparities are what capitalism does when it's working, then can we try turning it off?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  11. Additional problems on top of the above by dbIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you start government-subsidizing large parts of your industry

    Like sugar, steel and automotive manufacturing for instance? The "start" happened a while ago, and each of those industries I've mentioned have suffered or caused problems that are directly due to them being protected. Uncompetitive steel prices moved manufacturing offshore, a protected car industry produced almost unsellable crap even when overseas branches of the same companies were making quality designs and local sugar priced itself out of the market so the USA got twice as fat on corn syrup as it would have on sugar.
    It's not just about getting others upset. It's about shooting yourself in the foot.

  12. Re:Cost of some where other than South-East Asis by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lastly, things like environmental laws (which did not exist until the 1970s) have a huge impact. In the US, when an electronics manufacturer pollutes the groundwater, they are made to clean it up, and a huge cost. No so everywhere else in the world.

    I'm hoping that I'm not picking up criticism of our environmental laws. There are numerous examples of what happens when there are no regulations concerning pollution. The only reason why these consumer goods are so cheap in China and elsewhere is because we've externalized all of these costs to societies where the average citizen has no power whatsoever to do anything about it.

    If the U.S. enforced labor and environmental standards with its imports in the same way it regulated domestic production, we wouldn't be in this mess right now. The only reason any of that offshoring bullshit is possible is because we allow it to occur. The race to the bottom is completely unsustainable. Like I said, what happens when even China isn't cheap enough to manufacture our consumer crap? What happens when oil finally gets so scarce that the cost of bringing the shit here is prohibitive in itself? I refuse to believe that the only answer is "Well, we'll just have to get over this whole "clean air, land, and water thing, and be willing to work like a slave laborer" and that's precisely what I keep hearing needs to happen, especially by people that are financial secure enough that their own existence won't be tainted by that bullshit.

  13. Re:Floods by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We do not yet have the technology to support an economic system that is better than Capitalism.

    Really!? We have an economic system right now that is better than Capitalism.
    Maybe you've just never heard of a "mixed market economy"?
    A mixed market is what you get when laissez faire capitalism is tempered with regulation and social supports.

    The truth is that naked capitalism signed its own death warrant over a 100 years ago as a result of its excesses.
    The "good old days" of banking panics, raw industrial runoff in your drinking water, monopolies, child labor,
    unsafe working conditions, starvation wages, etc etc etc are thankfully gone. Anyone who wants that back is an idiot.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!