Slashdot Mirror


Foxconn Sees New Source of Cheap Labor: The United States

hackingbear writes "Foxconn is planning to build manufacturing plants in the U.S., probably in cites such as Detroit and Los Angeles. 'Since the manufacturing of Apple's products is rather complicated, the market watchers expect the rumored plants to focus on LCD TV production, which can be highly automated and easier.' Foxconn chairman Terry Guo, at a recent public event, noted that the company is planning a training program for US-based engineers, bringing them to Taiwan or China to learn the processes of product design and manufacturing."

430 comments

  1. This is good for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Americans may have invented a lot of the manufacturing processes used for consumer electronics, but China and other Far Eastern countries have a big edge on us now. Let's put our egos aside and learn what we can from the Chinese.

    1. Re:This is good for the US by lucm · · Score: 2

      Irony is hard to detect over the interwebs.

      So I'm going to play it on the safe side and say: "Fuck the Chinese AND the Far East."

      Interwebs are indeed tricky, I was sure this was a thread about assisted suicide. Please also note that America IS China's Far East.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    2. Re:This is good for the US by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Oh, so you've been taking nationalism lessons from them! You are doing well, but still have a ways to go.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:This is good for the US by oztiks · · Score: 0

      Nice to think they will be hiring herebut still a fascinating insult to U.S. manufacturing prowess, dontcha think – the idea that actually making Apple products is a little too complicated for Americans to handle

      I don't agree with that statement, it has nothing to do with insulting the US, rather it's all about product control.

      If you look at the way the game is played it's simple. America bombs Arabs to control oil production. America can't bomb Asia, truth of the matter is America would love to have production things like iPhones. The manufacturing countries/companies out of Asia though love to splash horrible working conditions and pin buying an iPhone worse then buying blood diamonds though what it boils down to is that "they are in charge".

      Moving manufacturing back to the US has to be done by the vendors themselves, the process would take the better part of 10 years to get right in the meantime. That sweltering bank account Apple has, might be used for that, though it wont buy the time back Apple will lose to catch back up in the market to do so, You're basically telling your investors that you cant produce a worthy product till 2017+

    4. Re:This is good for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...as it will help bring the population down once Foxconn bring in their lemming policies for failing workers?

    5. Re:This is good for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know much about manufacturing, but what is it about an iPhone that we need 5+ years to learn to do here?

      We design a lot of that stuff here. We've got logistics nailed. There's fuckloads of capital here. Last I checked, we're still the world's largest manufacturer, so we don't have any cultural issues with manufacturing work. And presumably with an iPhone/iPad you can start by importing the components from Asia and doing assembly here as you get your component manufacturing built up.

      The thing I don't see working so well is cost. Americans are terribly expensive. Worse when unions get their grubby fingers in things. That's the one part of moving manufacturing here that I just don't see working.

    6. Re:This is good for the US by tsalmark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm torn as to which metaphor should have the honour of bludgeoning you, the buggy whip or the ostrich head. Progress marches on: keep up or stop for tea with Ozymandias.

    7. Re:This is good for the US by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Let's put our egos aside and learn what we can from the Chinese.

      Like maintaining our Social "safety net"?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:This is good for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Foxconn's suicide rate is lower than the average. The only reason they get bad press for it is they supply Apple.

    9. Re:This is good for the US by plover · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let's put our egos aside and learn what we can from the Chinese.

      Like maintaining our Social "safety net"?

      I think he meant specifically learning from Foxconn's experience. Like maintaining "safety nets" in the alleys around the factories.

      --
      John
    10. Re:This is good for the US by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know much about manufacturing, but what is it about an iPhone that we need 5+ years to learn to do here?

      1. Learn to earn as little as the Chinese workers.

      2. Learn to work 16 hours a day, standing.

      3. Learn to show up at work 3AM in the morning, on a 15 minute notice.

      Oh yes, they will give you a cup of tea and a biscuit when you show up to work at 3AM in the morning.

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    11. Re:This is good for the US by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      Screw that. Coffee and a doughnut or I'm staying in bed.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:This is good for the US by dadioflex · · Score: 2

      @tsalmark Best comment ever.

      And um, to add something, it's probably easier to train fresh engineers who haven't developed bad habits, than to hire expensive production engineers with experience. Undoubtedly the Chinese have a lot of experience in manufacturing, but it's not as if the West has been reduced to grubbing in the dirt with sticks - there's still a LOT of manufacturing going on in the US and elsewhere outside of China. If anything the Chinese are going to have to adapt to a whole bunch of new or different legislation and an entirely different breed of corrupt local official.

    13. Re:This is good for the US by jkflying · · Score: 4, Funny

      You clearly have much to learn, and Foxconn is willing to teach you.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    14. Re:This is good for the US by donscarletti · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've been working in China for 3.5 years, I get to sit for my 16 hour work day, and we get free dinner!

      Problem is, I have a Chinese boss who doubts my leadership skills when I point out that working employees to death is not good for the company.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    15. Re:This is good for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont know exactly how this is offtopic, since it was quoted from the TFA

    16. Re:This is good for the US by oztiks · · Score: 1

      Its not about learning it's about putting those resources to good use. How long did it take for the guys down the street to build the local shopping centre? times it by i don't know 100 and then you'll have an idea of what it may take to get the job done.

      Saying that you're moving is all well and good, having the intention of moving is good also, but doing it is an entirely different creature.

      Take the minerals trade for instance, it isn't a matter of one day going, okay lets dig holes and export this stuff. Training a fleet alone will take 6+ months, the preparation of training probably 6 months as well. Picking the right machinery, building the right infrastructure, approval for such infrastructure and the red tape associated. On and on and on ... and wait to get sued by someone that will slow you down in the entire process (or the million other possible things that could go wrong).

      The US has the brains and the brawn, it simply doesn't have a magic time machine which is what's missing. And on a final note, we're talking about the tech industry, it moves to fast, that's the key issue here.

    17. Re:This is good for the US by Lisias · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Au contraire, Foxconn's suicide rate being lower than the average is due they got all that bad press for being Apple's supplier.

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    18. Re:This is good for the US by cyberdime · · Score: 1

      2. Learn to work 16 hours a day, standing.

      That can cure a lot of couch potatoes. And after all the BigMacs, the cup of tea and biscuit can also do wonders for the beer belly.

    19. Re:This is good for the US by Combuchan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The first page of this new york times article basically answers your question.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html

      --
      "[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
    20. Re:This is good for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be a cop.

    21. Re:This is good for the US by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2
      It's always been much lower than the general population's rate. By a huge margin. But I don't know how revealing that is. These are young people with jobs. the overall rate in China is close to 15 per 100k per year. Foxconn has more than a million workers, and there have been how many suicides? 18? (I'm not sure). But whatever the number it's a tiny fraction.

      I'm not saying it's a good job to have. It's just not so bad you'd want to kill yourself rather than, say, quit and go home. That seems a more likely outcome.

    22. Re:This is good for the US by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      Foxconn's suicide rate is lower than the average. The only reason they get bad press for it is they supply Apple.

      That's because they shoot you when you threaten to jump.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    23. Re:This is good for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes, they will give you a cup of tea and a biscuit when you show up to work at 3AM in the morning.

      Cuppa cold tea.

    24. Re:This is good for the US by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      And if our most pressing concern when it comes to the curriculum stays whether we should teach that the great wizard in the sky made Earth, I guess China will easily overtake us by leaps and bounds.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    25. Re:This is good for the US by unixisc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why do you think that? If you don't work your current employees to death, how will the unemployed, or the fresh graduates ever find work?

    26. Re:This is good for the US by chill · · Score: 1

      Looks to me they probably were right in picking Detroit, then.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    27. Re:This is good for the US by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      Learn to earn as little as the Chinese workers.

      What we also need to remember is that we could triple the minimum wage and it still won't mean shit if the rate of decline of the dollar's buying power continues to increase.

    28. Re:This is good for the US by helix2301 · · Score: 1

      It's about time electronic manufacturing comes back to the US. Right now we need the jobs in this country. I will pay a little more for American build products Apples mark up is high enough to cover the cost.

    29. Re:This is good for the US by chill · · Score: 1

      Interesting angle. If they can snap off a headshot before you hit the ground, it technically doesn't count as a suicide.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    30. Re:This is good for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Safety nets"? What possible good would they do in the US? Every second person has a fully automatic Uzi or similar "to protect himself and his loved ones from criminals and the Government" (though most of said people clearly believe the latter a special case of the former...) - how is a safety net going to protect someone from one of those?

    31. Re:This is good for the US by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why does this keep getting spread? The US is the second largest manufacturing base in the world, second to only china and that just, just barely and despite having less than 1/3 the population and the presence of strong labor and environmentally laws. Just because the US doesn't make cheap (in terms of quality and type, not price) consumer products doesn't mean that the US doesn't know how to manufacture any more.

    32. Re:This is good for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting angle. If they can snap off a headshot before you hit the ground, it technically doesn't count as a suicide.

      If I learned anything from Law & Order, it's that intent follows the bullet.

    33. Re:This is good for the US by wildstoo · · Score: 1

      No way! I never get up before 3AM in the afternoon...

      wait...

    34. Re:This is good for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Foxconn's suicide rate is half of Italy's, which the lowest in Europe.

      And as we all know on slashdot, everything in Europe is right.

    35. Re:This is good for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Progress marches on: keep up or stop for tea with Ozymandias.

      Poor Ozymandias should not be accused of stopping for tea or falling behind.
      His shattered visage instead warns us about the future of our own Mighty works.
      One might even wonder, in that light, if perhaps we should stop for tea even more.

    36. Re:This is good for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    37. Re:This is good for the US by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      He's right. If one dies, there's ten waiting to take his place! Hauling off the bodies is not very expensive. Where's the problem? You should be pushing for 18 hour days... slackers.

    38. Re:This is good for the US by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It keeps being repeated because it's almost true. Manufacturing hasn't gone down in the USA, but manufacturing employment has. Just like in the first industrial revolution, the number of people required to manufacture goods has dropped considerably. China had a small short-term advantage because, for certain things, it was cheaper to use poorly-paid workers than machines, but even that's changing. Lots of people are talking as if Chinese factory workers are competing against American factory workers and winning because they're paid a fraction of the amount, but that's not really the case. 10-100 Chinese factory workers are competing against one American factory worker and a large automated assembly line. They were winning because they have lower capital costs, but higher operational costs. Now that companies like Foxconn have large amounts of capital to play with, they're starting to lose again.

      People keep talking as if bringing manufacturing back to the USA will make a difference for the local economy, but it won't. The mindset that a new factory will employ thousands of people and provide employment either directly or indirectly for an entire town is obsolete. This doesn't, of course, stop local governments giving companies millions of dollars in tax breaks to build a factory, and then acting surprised when it only creates a hundred or so new jobs.

      The first industrial revolution had a lot of social unrest because of the wealth-redistribution that the automation caused, concentrating it in the hands of the factory owners. This one is likely to have many of the same problems. Unfortunately, we didn't find a good solution last time.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    39. Re:This is good for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Score:4, Interesting)
      Well, I can see that Lex Luthor corporation, in association with Dr. Evil, clearly seems to be winning it on this planet. *whistles*
      *clocks out* I'm off to Mars folks..

      D'oh..

    40. Re:This is good for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      You are CRAZY amounts of insightful here. I really wish more people would understand these concepts.

      Manufacturing hasn't gone down in the USA, but manufacturing employment has.

      And that's progress. It's a good thing. It's a technological revolution. One guy and an army of robots can produce more than 10 guys could yesteryear. The machines are doing all the work for us. It's up to the rulers to decide if we want this to be a utopia where we're freed from labor or a dystopia where the excess unneeded masses of humanity are neglected. So are we a democracy or are we a corpocracy?

    41. Re:This is good for the US by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      You know, living in China as I do, I just find it dumbfounding that America has any manufacturing at all Seriously. It just knocks me out.

      Consider that you are an American company that announces you want to build a new factory in XXXX. What's the first thing that will happen? The environmental groups (funded by previous successful lawsuits against other corporations) will fight tooth and nail to stop you. They will hire other environmental groups (funded by the same) to find some sort of worm or bird endangered by your expansion. If necessary they will transplant some organism to make their case (it's happened, look it up). They don't have to make a case, all they have to do is to make it so expensive for you that you will look elsewhere, and that' s a win for them. What the hell do they care that they're halting job creation? They got theirs already, so fuck everyone else Sad, but true.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    42. Re:This is good for the US by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      It also makes funding retirement accounts a whole let less expensive.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    43. Re:This is good for the US by Mr.+White · · Score: 1

      You think this doesn't go on already? This is the CURRENT state of USA manufacturing already for many people, including my parents.

      Yes, all 3 points.

      16 hour days are considered optional overtime both in China and in the USA. Breaks are minimal and tightly controlled in both China and the USA.

      Read up on Foxconn practices and you will find that they are not that much different from non-union jobs in the USA.

    44. Re:This is good for the US by homb · · Score: 1

      Progress marches on: keep up or stop for tea with Ozymandias.

      Poor Ozymandias should not be accused of stopping for tea or falling behind.

      Absolutely. It's Montgomery who stands accused for all those Market Garden deaths.

    45. Re:This is good for the US by G00F · · Score: 1

      "Manufacturing hasn't gone down in the USA, but manufacturing employment has."

      I'm more than willing to go with the factories are more efficient with employess and need less, but then please explain why it is to hard to find products made in USA anymore?

      Tools, clothing, electronics, even freshwater fish at the local supermarket all come from china. It's like the only manufacturing we do anymore is food!

      And really, we have a whole lot more people now, so the amount of manufacturing should go up, as there are a lot more people who need the goods. So if that graph shows it flat, then in actuality it is down.

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    46. Re:This is good for the US by SmaryJerry · · Score: 1

      In most cases those tax breaks require a certain level of employement and if they don't have enough employees then they will lose them.

    47. Re:This is good for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, the Chinese are going to teach the Americans how to pay their workers less while at the same time forcing them to work longer hours in substandard factories, exposing them to dangers from hazardous chemicals and dangerous spinning things and "encouraging" the same workers to bring their children to the factory, under the guise of "bring your kid to work day", in order to teach them to work the same machines, thereby further increasing output while paying them even less! Wow... sounds great, let's do it!

    48. Re:This is good for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      double whoosh

      He(*) didn't need the link, he new about the safety nets, his comment was that around hear we don;t jump/fall
      out of windows/towers - we shoot! and nets don't stop bullets very well.

    49. Re:This is good for the US by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Americans would rather suck dick at a truck stop than work for FoxCon

    50. Re:This is good for the US by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised myself - it was meant to be black humor

    51. Re:This is good for the US by isorox · · Score: 1

      You get donuts? Where do I join!

    52. Re:This is good for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strong labor and environmental laws in comparison with Chine maybe. But compare those globally and the US is far behind.

      WalMart is the best example (for labor laws). They pay shit and treat people like shit. That is possible because of the "strong labor laws" in the US. They also tried to expand to Europe, e.g. Germany. They left because of the strong(er) labor laws and strong unions. Their tactics didn't work in Germany and they couldn't turn the kind of profit they wanted to.

    53. Re:This is good for the US by Lisias · · Score: 1

      In my humble opinion, there's some difference between a country and a company - however, this doesn't invalidated your opinion.

      I'll give it some research and think about.

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    54. Re:This is good for the US by Lisias · · Score: 1

      Well, we must be cautious here.

      Euthanasia, for example, is to be considered suicide?

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
  2. poor choices for locations by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They would do better to build their factories in flyover country, where cots of living are lower, average wage is lower, cost of utilities is lower, and all that jazz.

    The central US is well connected for large freight shipments by rail.

    1. Re:poor choices for locations by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes but detroit is a shit hole of desperation and low wages

    2. Re:poor choices for locations by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 4, Informative

      Detroit is centrally located, has very low wages and costs of living (compared to Los Angeles) and, thanks to the auto industry, has a very well developed distribution network via rail and the St. Lawrence Seaway. It also has a strong manufacturing history.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    3. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But think of it! Maybe this is how we finally get RoboCop!

      Oh, wait...

    4. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Choosing to build any plant in areas that are highly unionized is simply a crazily dumb mistake. Sure, they may get a year or two of cheap labor but it won't be long before the unions move in and they are paying $50/hr for unskilled labor.

      Flyover country is best. Utah is an incredible place to do business. Low taxes, low cost of living, little government interference. The same holds for Texas. A friend has a manufacturing operation in Las Vegas NV. He needed to build a new production facility. He figured it would cost $2,500,000 and would take about 70 inspectors. Instead, he opened up his production operation in Texas. It cost him $200,000 and he dealt with zero inspectors.

    5. Re:poor choices for locations by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Louisiana is flyover country? I think you meant to say "and all that bluegrass" or "all that country music".

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    6. Re:poor choices for locations by DirePickle · · Score: 2, Informative

      It doesn't go New York, Detroit, LA. There are a ton of other cities out in flyover land, many of which have solid manufacturing histories and currently healthy economies.

    7. Re:poor choices for locations by mlts · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Detroit has one thing that a lot of states are in desperate need of:

      Water.

      A lot of factories need fresh water, so locating near the Great Lakes does make sense. Anywhere else in the US risks water shortages.

    8. Re:poor choices for locations by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Insightful

          Actually, they could set up in *any* metro area in the US. Pay minimum wage. Make all the employees part time, so they don't have to pay benefits. 2 20hr/wk employees are cheaper than 1 40hr/wk or salary employee. They can maintain a barely OSHA compliant workplace, and items that are too expensive, they can just absorb the cost of fines. Their customers have financial and political leverage, so I'm sure lots could be ignored, especially if they're going to take a few thousand people off of the unemployment rolls, even though they'll make less working.

          Pretty much, they'll act just like Walmart. A whole bunch of employees who fall below the poverty line.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    9. Re:poor choices for locations by WarSpiteX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm afraid you're exactly right.

      When you start globalizing and opening yourself up to competition with countries that have no labour or environmental laws to speak of, you by default undercut your own industries to the point where they are not competitive.

      Free trade with developing countries is a horrendously bad idea for this reason. Tarriffs can be a mitigating factor - to a point, of course.

      --


      I'm a little segfault, short and stout.
    10. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It also is heavily unionized and being in a union is a way of life for some areas.

    11. Re:poor choices for locations by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Might want to check that Jazz history haruchai. N.O. Jazz is a distinct style.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also is heavily unionized and being in a union is a way of life for some areas.

      So your neightbors' houses burned down and your brother and aunt got stabbed last year, huh? And you still want to form a union? Ok, if you wish. We'll just move to Juarez then. Be well!

    13. Re:poor choices for locations by jd2112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes but detroit is a shit hole of desperation and low wages

      Foxconn will fit in perfectly there.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    14. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Chinese don't want THOSE people - they will fill the US midwest with south-of-the-border labor, to work for china style wages with all the distro network you mention. Who's gonna stop them? They own the place. (or will in 10-15 years).

    15. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Detroit has one thing that a lot of states are in desperate need of:

      Intelligent people? ;)

    16. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Free trade with developing nations is only bad for the developing nations (obviously, otherwise developed nations wouldn't push so hard for them). Developing nations import most of their industrialized goods, with free trade they're imported free of tariffs from the developed nation and kill both the almost non-existent local industry and a source of income for the government.

    17. Re:poor choices for locations by Formalin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, if I was looking to exploit workers and skirt regulations, I'd pick a backwater state, too.

      The people there are so stupid they'll even think you're doing them a favour.

    18. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unions aren't the problem. The problem with Detroit is that they counted on one industry to provide all the income. When the auto industry started to decline, they weren't able to attract any other industries. Seattle was in a similar situation during the '70s where most of the money was coming in from Boeing, timber and fisheries, all of which were in decline at that stage. We managed to diversify, attracting the tech industry and various other industries that require a highly educated work force.

      Industries that work with unions are better off. But, the truth is that if you really don't want the union in there, the best way is to ensure that employees are being well paid and treated well. It's mostly the shit hole states in the south of the US where you don't see any unionization.

    19. Re:poor choices for locations by gkndivebum · · Score: 1

      Or Zydeco

      --
      Breathe continuously
    20. Re:poor choices for locations by pwizard2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If they actually do all that, then the people running the place need to go to jail. Running a sweatshop-style operation may fly in China where officials may be easily bribed/never gave a shit in the first place. Here in the USA this type of thing would be absolutely forbidden if only the politicians weren't on the take from corporate interests and actually did their fucking jobs in regulating these bastards. Globalization is going to be the death of this country and our way of life. Sure, free trade allows you to buy a shitty TV for less than $200 now, but how are you going to pay for that when your job barely pays enough to keep you off the street? FSM help you if you need medical care in that situation. Americans were sold on globalism by being tolkd that our money would go further but it turns out the only real winners are the rich assholes who made it all happen at our expense. I'm seeing more and more of this type of shit... for example, rather than pay a wage people can survive on Walmart actually coaches their workers on how to apply for food stamps and welfare. Seriously. The government (i.e. the taxpayer) is subsidizing Walmart's unwillingness to pay a living wage while the people on top (Walton's heirs... who did NOT build that, by the way) make out like bandits. Even when the poorly-engineered shit is made in China people still have to pay first-world prices while living on third-world wages.

      if Foxconn is willing to pay the average manufacturing wage D.O.E. (and would not go out of their way to crush unionization efforts if it came to that) then it would be a whole different story.

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    21. Re:poor choices for locations by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      That's only for big tickets industrial goods (for example the stuff that Germany and Japan are good it). For labor intensive goods, the developing countries have an edge. Most of the developing countries you talk about that are getting a raw deal, for example in Africa, are in a poor situation due to the lack of stability and a good business environment, not to mention corruption.

    22. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You'll never pick anything because people like you will never own a company.

    23. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      True, but have you seen Hard Core Pawn? Now try and picture some of those "customers" working in Foxconn conditions...

    24. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem with OSHA fines is that they are rarely a set amount, and if you continue to actively ignore them they only get larger. I imagine the speed at which they get larger increases quite a bit if you habitually ignore multiple rules. Other than that you're probably about right. OSHA standards aren't hard to meet though.

    25. Re:poor choices for locations by aeortiz · · Score: 1

      Precisely their motivation to go there...low wages.

    26. Re:poor choices for locations by JWSmythe · · Score: 2

      Seriously. The government (i.e. the taxpayer) is subsidizing Walmart's unwillingness to pay a living wage while the people on top (Walton's heirs... who did NOT build that, by the way) make out like bandits. Even when the poorly-engineered shit is made in China people still have to pay first-world prices while living on third-world wages.

      As I understood it, Mr. Sam Walton was quite for America and American family values. There were community efforts, and things that you probably never noticed, like no alcohol sold in any stores. He wanted affordable products available to people who couldn't afford it. ... then he died.

      Now you can buy booze, prescriptions, and guns, all in one friendly (yet underpaid) location, while the oil gets changed in your urban assault vehicle.

      if Foxconn is willing to pay the average manufacturing wage D.O.E. (and would not go out of their way to crush unionization efforts if it came to that) then it would be a whole different story.

      Average manufacturing wage? ha! Unless that happens coincides with minimum wage, minus "docked" pay for not working 30 minutes before clocking in, looking at your manager funny, or wearing the wrong color shoes, or other arbitrary (and illegal) methods of reducing the effective pay rate. I've seen those methods are alive and well in modern America. They work better against younger workers who aren't familiar with the law.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    27. Re:poor choices for locations by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      OSHA standards aren't hard to meet though.

      Keep the employees off of ladders, try to keep the building from falling in on them, and put handrails on all the stairs.. Sounds tough. ;)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    28. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      sheesh, bigotrolls these days.

      all monkeys have opposable thumbs.

      Apes and gorillas too.

    29. Re:poor choices for locations by icebraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're not going to pay minimum wage. Didn't you read TFS? They're just going to use machines, and employ a couple of engineers to watch over the production line, just like most other American manufacturers.

      The real cheap labor is not labor at all.

    30. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with zero inspectors

      Boy, what could possible go wrong?

    31. Re:poor choices for locations by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Apparently Foxconn doesn't seem to care.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    32. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its only horrendously bad if your main aim of being in business is to employ people

    33. Re:poor choices for locations by dfenstrate · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The people there are so stupid they'll even think you're doing them a favour.

      The sophisticated urban elite, on the other hand, proudly live on the government dole.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    34. Re:poor choices for locations by ryzvonusef · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Genuinely curious, but how much water would a company like foxconn need, for making electronics?

      Could someone explain to me where water would come in the manufacturing process of LCDs?

      --
      I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
    35. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... NY has Snake Pliskin!
      LA too...

    36. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You'd be astonished at how many places water is used to manufacture without making it into the final product. For example the production of a middle class car takes about 70m^3 water compared to 10m^3 water for cleaning during its whole life.

    37. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the history of textile manufacturing - 250 year ago, you would have four artisans running one loom to make one tunic. Now, you have one technician downstairs supervising 15 automatic machines. Somewhere upstairs an artist will be using Photoshop to design the patterns for 100 custom items.

    38. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Forbidden? In the USA this type of this is called "OMG TEH FREE MARKET!!!111one(lim (x->0) ((sin x)/x))" and if you don't support it, you are "UNAMERICAN" and the DHS will throw you into one of their overseas gulags, without any right to a lawyer or court, for the rest of your life!

    39. Re:poor choices for locations by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Absolutely right. Michigan did end up going to Obama just the other day, after all.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    40. Re:poor choices for locations by perplexing.reader · · Score: 2

      Could someone explain to me where water would come in the manufacturing process of LCDs?

      LCD - "Liquid" crystal display, they intend to manufacture the cheap models, with water as Liquid.

    41. Re:poor choices for locations by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You must have never worked in a factory. You're right that they'll only employ a handful of engineers (actually, it'll be a handful of mechanics and maybe two engineers), but they will still need a couple hundred rednecks to load and unload trucks, make sure the parts hoppers are always full, and clear the backups on the line when a box goes into the heat shrinker sideways.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    42. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come 2016, those US citizens with insufficient pedigree and/or education to expatriate will start saying "The bigots were right all along!"

    43. Re:poor choices for locations by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Free trade with developing countries is a horrendously bad idea for this reason. Tarriffs can be a mitigating factor - to a point, of course.

      Free Trade could be a good idea, if a condition for a country to participate is, that they have to have legally protected workers' unions, worker safety protection regulation, minimum wage laws, and an enforcement body whose effectiveness is validated through unbiased 3rd party auditing

    44. Re:poor choices for locations by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If anything, this should show you that highly developed countries with a high living standard are in a very bad situation when it comes to free trade. Who really benefits is the large corporations, not the countries. The cost of living in the US is heaps higher than in China, and it's even worse for other countries. I've been to countries where tipping someone 5 bucks makes him (literally) fall to his knees and worship your feet for being so incredibly generous 'cause you just doubled his income. Add now that labour laws and environment laws even more are near nonexistent in large parts of this world.

      How should you sensibly compete with that? You cannot manufacture domestic goods competitively that way.

      Actually, BOTH, developing and developed countries lose big time in free global trade. The only winners are corporations who can pick the best of both worlds, cheap labour in developing countries and high prices in developed ones.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    45. Re:poor choices for locations by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      Couple of hundred at most, and only in places where the job is very low pay and a machine would be very expensive to use. The modern factory is turning an episode of the Jetsons, put material in one end and it poops out goods on the other end with minimal human involvement.

    46. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have not worked in a new factory recently. They have made advances in all those areas. I believe you need 1 forklift operator to load the semi. A couple to unload the supply trucks. Then the mechanics can be the ones to clear the line.

      This is a new age. Gone are the days of single skilled individuals. The mechanic is not going to sit there waiting for something to break, he/she might also be cross trained in how to use the forklift. Think about it.

    47. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This much:

      http://tinyurl.com/alfuaup

    48. Re:poor choices for locations by captbob2002 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and we have water, too.

    49. Re:poor choices for locations by captbob2002 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't treat your employees like shit and they won't want to/need to form a union.

    50. Re:poor choices for locations by dywolf · · Score: 1

      cause no one wants to live in those states.
      cause no one living there goes to college, or gets a masters in things like physics or engineering.

      city slicker moron flamebait troll gets modded insightful. shocking.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    51. Re:poor choices for locations by kcitren · · Score: 1

      The modern factory is turning an episode of the Jetsons, put material in one end and it poops out goods on the other end with minimal human involvement.

      And do you consider this to be a good or a bad thing? I can only think that's it's a very good thing, let the machines do the boring work and let the people do what the machines can't. Automation and reducing the effort required to perform some action is always a good thing (short term, I'm not talking about developing a 100% dependence on automation and losing the ability to perform those actions without the machinery (ala Homer declaration upon seeing an iron lung machine, "and here I am like a chump breathing all by myself")).

    52. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes Detroit may be a shit hole (to be kind), but the surrounding communities are not. If they build the factory in the Metro-Detroit area instead of downtown Detroit they'll find a large supply of skilled workers who are pretty desperate for jobs.

      Metro-Detroit area != Detroit. Michigan != Detroit. Most of us in Michigan would rather forget that Detroit exists.

    53. Re:poor choices for locations by ryzvonusef · · Score: 1

      Surely you jest, I recall near to nothing about my high school physics, and even I know "Liquid crystal" is a separate state of matter from Liquid (there were what, six states of matters?)

      --
      I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
    54. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the slavers ... erm ... pragmatic entrepreneurs at Foxconn would've put a "but" in that sentence.

    55. Re:poor choices for locations by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I would also wonder about unions. I've heard that at least for auto workers, they've either been dismantled or never existed in the south, hence some foreign car manufacturers opening up factories there. Doesn't seem like Foxconn's model would be likely to work it's... er... "magic" when the workers are organized and demand things like "not being forced into working."

    56. Re:poor choices for locations by khallow · · Score: 1

      I think the water problem is exaggerated. I wouldn't recommend building in Southern California, Arizona, or Utah, if you need a lot of water. But most of the mid-West and East should be good. Just park your factory by a river or lake.

    57. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people there are so poor ... you're doing them a favor.

      FTFY.

      1) The midwest has some extremely poor areas where a good barely-above-minimum-wage stable factory job is considered a very good thing that went away 10 years ago.
      2) You will be doing them a favor, just a small one.
      3) We spell it "favor" here, you damned brit.

    58. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best thing that could be done for Detroit would be to take some of the under utilized equipment from the closest strip mining operation and scrape it flat so you could start over again.:)

    59. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, as with Walmart, all of the individuals that decide to accept jobs with those conditions would be doing so because they judge it to be their best available option Which means: this would be a win-win, as with all voluntary arrangements in a free society. Your snide "even though they'll make less working" remark is non-sensical, when you take into account all forms of renumeration, including the renumeration of the pride of having a job (which I'm sure you discount). Indeed, it is obvious if you think about it that those OSHA regulations, minimum wage laws, benefit mandates and other interferences with the voluntary relationships MUST decrease overall opportunity.

      Your comment only makes any sense if you attribute stupidity to people that want these jobs.

    60. Re:poor choices for locations by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      As I understood it, Mr. Sam Walton was quite for America and American family values. There were community efforts, and things that you probably never noticed, like no alcohol sold in any stores. He wanted affordable products available to people who couldn't afford it. ... then he died.

      Sam at least pushed for "Made in America", then his money grubbing off-spring took over finished killing off thousands of small american businesses by shipping everything to China. Yep, Sam killed off local shop owners, for better or worse, he was responsible for at least as many destroyed livelihoods as his offspring were later. The only difference? Same didn't ship US jobs overseas.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    61. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Romney and the republicans would be a better choice for worker's rights and advocating for higher wages...

    62. Re:poor choices for locations by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 1

      It's mostly the shit hole states in the south of the US where you don't see any unionization.

      I bet you think you're well educated! Maybe its because most people down here, even the bosses, are very understanding and nice, cost of living is low, and the jobs pay well enough.

      There are tons of Detroit transplants where I live...bunch of mouth-breathing, low-energy piggies who are passive-aggressive; always saying weird shit just to watch you squirm. And they wonder why they have trouble getting respect and staying employed! :D

      And the weird part about the transplants is they flee to escape the mess they created, and they work to get the same thing going when they get here. Its like Rush Limbaugh saying Republicans need to talk more about killing stem-cell research and school prayer after they got their asses handed to them.

      <SouthernDrawl>People need to pull their little head out of the rear-end learn a little practicality</SouthernDrawl>

    63. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except your argument falls apart once you consider the sum of the standards of living of everyone. Basic economics. If the argument against free trade worked, then you could keep applying it to smaller and smaller regions, until you've argued us back to subsistance farming, which is absurd. (Do you think we need to bring back manufacturing jobs to Manhattan? If not, why not? Same reasoning will apply to international trade.)

      With free trade, the standard of living of the developing country goes up--they get money and can start to afford to import goods--AND the developed country--for less work, they get more stuff, by improting from the developing country.

      There are some issues with free trade, but economic progress is not one of them. The concerns are differences in regulations--violation of human rights and pollution in the developing country--and friction associated with the disruption of industries in the developed country--yes we'd be better off with cheap labor exported to China and everyone in the US having white collar jobs, but getting to that point may be painful.

    64. Re:poor choices for locations by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Assuming the sum of the standard of living is constant, right? But even that's not really even needed.

      If, and only if, production conditions are uniformly equal, your argument holds. Since they're not, it falls apart. The problem is that manufacturing where wages are low and selling where wages are high does not work out in the long run, because someone has to foot the bill. People need jobs to be able to buy. Now, one could of course argue that people "here" could do white collar work where they also earn more, and the blue collar jobs are shipped abroad. That's a nice idea until you realize that not everyone in a certain country is able to actually DO that job. And since it's quite unlikely that we'll import all the "white collar" Chinese while shipping over everyone too "dumb" for it, eventually we'll end up with quite a few people without a job, while the Chinese will eventually be able to take over the white collar jobs, they have the education, don't worry about that.

      So, still think we're the winners of global free trade? Hmm?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    65. Re:poor choices for locations by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      I currently work in a blending/bottling/packaging/bulk shipping facility that was built forty years ago, but has been upgrading and expanding the entire time - we just finished an expansion in January that houses a new gallon bottle line that does four times the volume the old gallon line did - but it needs six workers, while the twenty-year-old one only needs four. It's fewer employees per capita, but as we increase volume, we still need more workers. Hell, they've expanded the parking lot twice since I started there four years ago.

      The plant has three quart bottle lines, a 12-ounce line, the new gallon line (the old one has been mothballed, but will be pulled out next year for another quart line), a 2.5 gallon line, a five-gallon pail line, and a 55 gallon drum line. The eight lines together require about sixty people directly operating them over three shifts, four forklift drivers per shift (because we're loading multiple semis at a time), and about thirty people for the three shifts in the warehouse - about a hundred people for a facility that moves between one and two million gallons of product a week.

      For our fancy new 1.5 million dollar gallon line (bad photo taken in the dark because that's the only one I have on my phone), we have a person to operate the filler/check fill amounts, a person to fill the cap hopper, a person to clear backups, a person to do visual inspections (watching for leakers, bad labels, etc.), a person to break and load the pallets of bottles onto the line, and a person to break/load boxes onto the line.

      Gone are the days of single skilled individuals. The mechanic is not going to sit there waiting for something to break, he/she might also be cross trained in how to use the forklift. Think about it.

      I think calling our rednecks single-skilled individuals is being a bit too kind to them. "Open box, dump into hopper, break down box, repeat" doesn't qualify as a "skill" in my book. Maybe the delivery drivers count as skilled, but not the line workers.

      And our mechanics (four per shift) always have something to fix - our half-mile-long facility has something like 300 pumps, almost a thousand automatic valves, a mile or so of conveyors, a dozen or so miles of pipes, automated control systems for the blending/pumping systems, and things like the goddamn entrance gate that breaks down EVERY time it rains. And then, of course, they also get the mundane tasks like changing lighting, doing safety inspections and testing the fire suppression system every week - that's where their down-time "cross-training" comes in. Companies that pay a mechanic $20/hr to do what they could pay Joe Six-Pack $10/hr to do don't stay in business long.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    66. Re:poor choices for locations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny? True! My in law is head of a manufacturing plant in east Germany. Austrian company, family owned up until recently. They never had not needed a union. Now they got sold to a Canadian multi nnational (previous owners are well into retirement age with no family heir to take over). They are getting unionized now... Guess why.

  3. So it's come to this. . . by mosb1000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Chinese companies are more willing to be self sufficient and train workers than American companies, who are constantly whining that the government should do it. And theyre from a communist country where the government is much more powerfull. Good job, assholes.

    1. Re:So it's come to this. . . by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't think you have any experience at all in the Chinese labor market. It is very difficult to retain labor. If an employee finds a job in another factory for an extra 25 cents a day, they just don't show up again. Turnover is terrible, even in highly skilled positions such as engineering. People don't wait around to be promoted - instead, they hop from job to job, earning small title and salary increases each time.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:So it's come to this. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chinese companies are more willing to be self sufficient and train workers than American companies, who are constantly whining that the government should do it. And theyre from a communist country where the government is much more powerfull.

      China is a communist country too, and the government there is somewhat powerful as well.

      Oh, wait...

    3. Re:So it's come to this. . . by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And theyre from a communist country where the government is much more powerful.

      This may very well be why they are trying to establish a base in the United States. The Chinese political situation is far from stable now, so things could go very bad very quickly, and they could lose their entire operations. Having a backup in the US is a good idea.

      Note also that Foxconn is a Taiwanese company, not Chinese, which makes them a convenient target for takeover if the Chinese government decides it needs a distraction. 'We've always been at war with Eastasia," China has always been at war with Taiwan.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:So it's come to this. . . by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Funny

      People don't wait around to be promoted - instead, they hop from job to job, earning small title and salary increases each time.

      Man, where have I seen that before?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    5. Re:So it's come to this. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would they wait around to be promoted in a job position that almost guarantees that they will NEVER be promoted? No one goes from working on the assembly line putting parts on a widget to plant manager (or higher) through "employee loyalty".

    6. Re:So it's come to this. . . by Gwala · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes and no - the less skilled the job, the harder you have to deal with employee turnover.

      For engineers though, providing you are running things well, you'll usually only have a big burst of turnover around the national holiday in March, when everyone gets paid a 13th salary as a bonus. The rest of the year though, everyone just waits until March so they don't lose their bonus. Turnover seems to be getting better too however - we only lost 2 from a team of 20 this past March (compared to 4-5 the previous year, and 5-7 the year before.)

      --
      #!/bin/csh cat $0
    7. Re:So it's come to this. . . by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The Chinese political situation is far from stable now

      Yes, their entire central government is about to change this year, just like it did ten years ago, and just as has been planned for the last ten years. In your other posts today you appeared to be awake and lucid. What happened?
      Anyway, the simple reality is a Chinese company expanding overseas just like they've been doing in Africa and everywhere else over at least the last decade. You guys just haven't noticed.

    8. Re:So it's come to this. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh? China is arguably the most stable country out there when it comes to internal security, just because it is swift and brutal.

    9. Re:So it's come to this. . . by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      History fail.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:So it's come to this. . . by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wait, so the problem is that the Chinese workers treat their companies the way US companies treat their employees?

    11. Re:So it's come to this. . . by zill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And theyre from a communist country

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    12. Re:So it's come to this. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being swift and brutal is pretty much a guaranteed way to cause revolts though (if history were to be believed atleast).

    13. Re:So it's come to this. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically you are saying all of the hardworking "Americans" of questionable documentation would be the perfect employees for Chinese factories in the USA?

    14. Re:So it's come to this. . . by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Hu received the sceptre of power in the first peaceful transfer in communist party history.

    15. Re:So it's come to this. . . by Formalin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Precisely this. The last Communist in China was Mao.

      Authoritarian is the word.

    16. Re:So it's come to this. . . by iserlohn · · Score: 2

      1. Foxconn is a Taiwanese company.
      2. Remember how Jiang Zemin came to power in 1989 replacing Zhao Ziyang (who championed the students).
      3. Planned for the last 10 years? Bo Xilai anyone?

    17. Re:So it's come to this. . . by afgam28 · · Score: 1

      I believe the correct euphemism is "Communism with Chinese Characteristics".

    18. Re:So it's come to this. . . by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      When have you seen this. Swift and brutal works fine.

    19. Re:So it's come to this. . . by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In your other posts today you appeared to be awake and lucid.

      Why, thankyou.

      Yes, their entire central government is about to change this year, just like it did ten years ago, and just as has been planned for the last ten years.

      It's not about the current transfer of power, the risk in that has probably already passed. It's about the growing realization among the Chinese people that the corruption in their government goes to the top, combined with no built-in mechanism for effecting change nonviolently. We are seeing more riots this year than in the past, and frustration over the nepotism is growing (like the Li Gang case, or Ling Gu). The nepotism isn't going to change. People won't submit to authoritarianism and censorship forever.

      Now, I'm not saying the country is going to explode today, but it's unstable. There might not be a massive change for another five years, or it might take 60 years (like in the USSR). It's wise to be prepared for it, and a lot of rich Chinese are preparing by moving money out of the country, or by moving themselves out.

      the simple reality is a Chinese company expanding overseas

      Foxconn is Taiwanese, not Chinese.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re:So it's come to this. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. People will put up with all sorts of crap, as long as their stomachs are full, and the brutality is not completely random (e.g. you know that as long as you don't do certain things the brutality is unlikely to happen to you and your family).

      That's why Dictators can stay in power so long.

      Guess what happened before the Arab Spring? Food prices went up, food shortages became more common. It certainly wasn't the dictators becoming more brutal than they were before.

    21. Re:So it's come to this. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And theyre from a communist country where the government is much more powerfull.

      Communist in name only. Practically it is a capitalistic fascism, even to a larger extent than the U.S.

      Democratic People's Republic of Korea is the full name of what is commonly known as North Korea, just because it is called democratic doesn't mean that it is.
      Same goes with communism, mostly it is just a fascism with a red flag.

    22. Re:So it's come to this. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, Taiwan is a Province of China. Foxconn's production facilities are, you guessed it, in mainland China.

      So yes, Foxconn is a Chinese company.

    23. Re:So it's come to this. . . by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's "socialism with Chinese characteristics".

      No "communist" country has ever called itself communist, because, according to their dogma, communism would be the final stage of the development of their society, and they were on their way there (hence the need for the state and the accompanying oppression machine). The parties called themselves communist since, in theory, their ultimate goal was achieving that mythical communist society; but the countries themselves were always referred to as socialist (hence why it was USSR and not USCR).

    24. Re:So it's come to this. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Err, 23 Million Taiwanese beg to differ... Foxconn is a Taiwanese company from a democratic-capitalistic country protected from a chinese invasion by the US.

    25. Re:So it's come to this. . . by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      People don't wait around to be promoted - instead, they hop from job to job, earning small title and salary increases each time.

      Sounds exactly like western executives, except they do it for a large salary+bonus increase.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    26. Re:So it's come to this. . . by skovnymfe · · Score: 1

      According to the Chinese, Taiwan is indeed a part of China.

    27. Re:So it's come to this. . . by constantnormal · · Score: 1

      OK geniuses, Foxconn is a Taiwanese company, operating manufacturing plants in China, Malaysia, India, Mexico, Brazil, Europe, Japan, and soon the US.

      Not only does he not know the meaning of the term "communist", he does not know which country Foxconn is from, or has plants in, or much of anything.

      Which is likely why the US is one of the last places they are willing to manufacture stuff. Too many assholes and idiots here.

    28. Re:So it's come to this. . . by unix_core · · Score: 0

      Ehm, have you heard of the Communist Party of China?

    29. Re:So it's come to this. . . by cheekyboy · · Score: 2

      or you could say Taiwan is the real China, and mainland China is the illegal communist imposter that hasnt left.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    30. Re:So it's come to this. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China? Communist? lol, good joke!
      Is that how the USA is also a "democracy"? lol.

      And they say North Koreans are brainwashed...

    31. Re:So it's come to this. . . by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      I was going to say elsewhere, Foxcon have plants everywhere , except back home in Taiwan?

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    32. Re:So it's come to this. . . by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I wasn't making any social commentary, just pointing out that the parent was full of hot air.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    33. Re:So it's come to this. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, so the problem is that the Chinese workers treat their companies the way US companies treat their employees?

      I bet Yakow Smirnoff would have something witty to say about that.

    34. Re:So it's come to this. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      66 Socialism with Chinese characteristics 99

      Effectively, it means "collectivism with collectivist tendencies". Redundant terms. Some may question my right to comment on these matters because I am cursed with the genes that permit normal metabolism of ethanol and [gasp!] INDIVIDUALISM!

    35. Re:So it's come to this. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny, so the ruling party isn't the communist party of china?

    36. Re:So it's come to this. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's suggested in many US companies as the way to go if you want to climb faster to a PM, VP and even sweet C positions.

    37. Re:So it's come to this. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taiwanese company from a democratic-capitalistic country protected from a Chinese invasion by the US.

      Taiwan protected from the Chicoms by the US? Who modded that "Informative?" It should have been modded "Funny." If the Chicoms invade Taiwan, the US will do absolutely nothing. Even if they could - they can't, there is no way in hell that the US will ever stand up to the Chicoms.

    38. Re:So it's come to this. . . by unix_core · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, my previous comment is completely stupid once one reads the previous comment correctly, sorry about that.

    39. Re:So it's come to this. . . by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've tried that, but even Taiwanese get confused when you try to tell them that. I think it's a lost cause.....

      Which is interesting because Mexicans definitely understand if you say California is Mexico.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    40. Re:So it's come to this. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does happen. My father started working at the bottom level in a factory after highschool. Worked through just about every positon, and knew the place better than anyone else, and got promoted due to hard work and institutional/field knowledge that no one else had. He retired as the manager of the plant. Granted, it doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

    41. Re:So it's come to this. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should they. Maybe they are getting a clue.

  4. Get rid of the unions by hessian · · Score: 0, Troll

    Unions are parasites that ruined American labor.

    When your workforce is so unstable that you might be crushed at any moment by a strike, you hide behind layers of bureaucracy. The system turns to chaos.

    Organized crime moves in with unions too.

    Check out these unions in action:

    http://www.phillymag.com/articles/busting-philly-unions-pestronk-brothers/

    With mincing steps, the non-union contractorâ"a middle-aged man in a blue short-sleeved shirtâ"tries to sneak in behind them, sidling through a narrow gap between a temporary chain-link fence and a stone wall. But the union men spot him, move toward the fence, and start to lean against it. Then we see four of them take turns pushingâ"using the fence like a microscope slide to fix the contractor against the wall. In one of the videos, you can hear the man start to cry out, his voice tremulous as heâ(TM)s crushed. Finally, he slumps to the ground.

    The most troubling part, though, isnâ(TM)t the sight of the men trapping the contractor; itâ(TM)s the brief glimpse of one of the protesters grinning as the contractor wails. And the way the union guys stroll casually away from the scene when their victim collapses.

    âoeItâ(TM)s standard for construction sites to have surveillance cameras,â says one of the two 30-something brothers responsible for capturing the incident on video, Michael Pestronk. âoeThe only novel thing we did, which just seemed obvious to me, was to post the videos on the Internet.â

    These are the people who killed American manufacturing.

    Foxconn will be doing great, and paying probably good wages, until the union parasites appear.

    Then they'll move the factory again.

    After all, that's why the American companies moved in the first place.

    1. Re:Get rid of the unions by Fishead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Gimme a break. Unions are the only thing that defends the middle class from the rich shareholders that demand ever increasing dividends.

    2. Re:Get rid of the unions by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're right, unions ruined everything, including child labor and slavery. Oh the good old days, when you could lock your workers in a factory, and watch them burn to death. (Actually happened)

    3. Re:Get rid of the unions by godrik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not sure how it works in the US. But in Europe a typical valid answer is "if management did not treat the workers like shit, they would not be unionized."

    4. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to brush up on some history. Things that you take for granted, like having toilets at work, are all thanks to unions. The alternative, not having unions, will result in a much worse average work day for you and I than any amount of bureaucracy can create.

    5. Re:Get rid of the unions by lucm · · Score: 1

      Unions are parasites that ruined American labor.

      When your workforce is so unstable that you might be crushed at any moment by a strike, you hide behind layers of bureaucracy. The system turns to chaos.

      Yeah, those Chinese are smug right now but wait until they face their first strike with unionized workers asking for hardwood chopsticks and extra lead in their toothpaste.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    6. Re:Get rid of the unions by rubycodez · · Score: 0

      what is a communist government like China's, but a giant labor union?

    7. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      For anyone that hasn't heard of this incident before...

    8. Re:Get rid of the unions by wiggles · · Score: 2

      Union strike? In China?

      We've all seen what happens when Chinese people rise up against the establishment.

    9. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Unions are the only thing that defends the middle class from the rich shareholders that demand ever increasing dividends.

      The rich shareholders of the union (union leaders) or the rich shareholders of the company?

    10. Re:Get rid of the unions by Kaenneth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The right to join and form a union is important; but I reject the idea of 'Union Shops', where you are required (if not literally, at least practically) to join, and pay.

      It's like flag burning and gun ownership; I have no interest in them now, but if you try take away my right to do so, I will just to protest.

    11. Re:Get rid of the unions by MrEricSir · · Score: 2

      Why stop there? Sure, you can make a lot more money without paying your employees well, but why pay them at all?

      Slavery greatly increases labor efficiency. Instead of providing a salary that your workers will inevitably waste on unnecessary items like iPhones and designer shirts, you simply provide your workers with the necessities directly.

      If you want to blame someone for killing American manufacturing, blame Lincoln.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    12. Re:Get rid of the unions by Zeussy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh yes, it's all the unions. Even though Germany has unions, pay's it auto works more, and their car industry is profitable, makes more cars, with large amounts of exports.

      Unions done wrong fuck the system up. Builds adversarial us (the workers) vs them (the management) mentalities. Unions done right, can and does work very well. It is collaborative, where everyone works together to make the company better, struggle through the bad times etc. This collaboration works both ways, if the company is hitting hard times, the board, management should be taking paycuts themselves, stopping bonuses. They have failed to lead the company into a properous position. Before they have the cheek to ask the workers to cut their salaries, they should be severely cutting their own pay first. Put their hands up in the air, and claim "Yes, we fucked up", so how can we get through this? The CEO has taken a paycut of 80% sacrificing $25 million saving about 300 jobs, can you guys cut 15% until we get through this?

      Both Germany and Japan after the second world war had written into their constitutions by Eisenhower, MacArthur and their aides various protections and rights for workers to bargain and act collectively. They both have become some of the biggest players in the automotive industry, and this is not by coinicendence, it is by design.

    13. Re:Get rid of the unions by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 3, Informative

      Citation for the parent post: Triangle Shirtwaist Company

      --
      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
    14. Re:Get rid of the unions by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      Right, like pension funds.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    15. Re:Get rid of the unions by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slaves make incredibly shitty workers. They only work hard enough to not get whipped. And you have to pay someone to stand behind them with a whip all day. The hard collar for draft animals basically ended slavery's economic viability. The rest was just social inertia.

      That is one of those inconvenient truths that some people don't want to hear. Free people, with lives and expenses, have a far greater labor efficiency then slaves.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    16. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's a damn shame, we used to get our sheets dyed yellow for free just by not letting the cotton mill workers have toilets.

    17. Re:Get rid of the unions by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Oddly enough, bad as it was, that's the sign of a turning point and things were a hell of a lot worse before that. One example is the famous bit of film of the guy that doesn't get run over by a tank because the driver keeps turning to avoid him. An example from before many readers here were born is a bit of a Godwin even if there's a bunch of us that heard about it at the time. Mao is long dead and things have been steadily improving in China since even if there is a long way to go before the reach the level of human rights we are used to in democratic countries.

    18. Re:Get rid of the unions by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      You need to brush up on some history. Things that you take for granted, like having toilets at work, are all thanks to unions. The alternative, not having unions, will result in a much worse average work day for you and I than any amount of bureaucracy can create.

      You need to brush up on some history. Things that you take for granted, like having toilets at work, are all thanks to unions. The alternative, not having unions, will result in a much worse average work day for you and I than any amount of bureaucracy can create.

      Yes, but that is history. Like so many other things, they may have outlived their usefulness. Unions were a godsend for workers at their beginnings, but that time is now past and there are many laws that take place of what the unions once accomplished. Yes we can thank what the unions accomplished for those laws, but that doesn't mean they are still needed. I don't know if they are a good or bad thing in modern times. Most union positions have great retirement packages. Unfortunately often times they are not sustainable and many union retirees end up losing it either shortly before retiring or even after retiring. Just look at the air lines. How many lost their retirements in the last five years in that industry alone? I can't imagine how awful that would be.

      I'm still not sure what to think about corporate unions, but public sector unions should be outlawed as far as I'm concerned.

    19. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hollow argument. Unions had their uses to drive these changes. Ok, the changes are there. Now unions are seen as driving the cost of labor beyond what the market can bear (note the recent restructuring of the american auto industry and dramatic drop off of onshore manufacturing), engaging in shady practices (requiring non-union workers to submit dues), and of course the ties to organized crime.

      If we get back to those awful dickensian times, I'm sure unions will become relevant again. In the meantime, they're about as relevant as buggy whips.

    20. Re:Get rid of the unions by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Laws can change. What makes you think they're permenant?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    21. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Though union leaders screw over the members occasionally, it's no where near as bad as what corporate executives do. In fact, unlike corporations, unions have government watchdogs. Union leaders are fiduciaries for their members, so both the members and the government regularly investigate and sue malfeasance. Corporate executives are principally fiduciaries for the corporation, and it's difficult for either the government or shareholders to ensure accountability.

      The notion that unions are corrupt, their members slothful knuckle-draggers, is political spin by the GOP and the business community which has unfortunately become common wisdom. Of course there was egregious corruption (and still is, but nothing like 50 years ago). But it wasn't just the unions, sadly. Union corruption is just more memorable. We can identify with stealing cigarettes from a truck, or scotch off a boat. Most people find it hard to wrap their heads around sophisticated corporate embezzlement schemes.

    22. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    23. Re:Get rid of the unions by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unions are parasites that ruined American labor.

      They were a necessary evil to combat the exploitive corporations killing workers for profit (usually through negligence, but occassionally through murder). The corporations started it, then complained when the playing field was leveled. If the companies didn't fight so hard against worker rights, the unions wouldn't have gotten to where they are.

    24. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They actually were. Indeed, looks like someone did sleep though their high school history class.

    25. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Huh? You can't be for unions, but against union shops. If unions didn't have enforceable contracts with companies to only employ union members, then companies simply would never employ union members.

      You have to understand the function of unions: to stabilize low-skilled, low-barrier-to-entry labor markets. There's no way to accomplish that stabilization without excluding some part of the labor market. They work by placing restrictions on the labor supply.

      It my seem inefficient when you listen to anecdotes, but its often more efficient writ large. You need employment and wage stability in order for people to be able to save and plan ahead. It makes them more productive. You then reroute some of that additional gain to folks who got screwed, in the form of welfare.

      That's the economic theory. Feel free to dispute the underlying premises, or debate the efficacy of the scheme. But its undoubtedly sound policy given the right circumstances.

    26. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay where's "For a free Internet" gone to rip into this guy ROFL.

    27. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, unions ruined everything, including child labor and slavery. Oh the good old days, when you could lock your workers in a factory, and watch them burn to death. (Actually happened)

      This isn't the 1950s. The medieval Islamic world gave us a lot of inventions too, but I wouldn't say that they are a model of global capitalism today.

    28. Re:Get rid of the unions by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      I hope the fire codes were improved. Unions do seem to be pointless in this particular case though.

    29. Re:Get rid of the unions by hendridm · · Score: 0

      Not sure how it works in the US. But in Europe a typical valid answer is "if management did not treat the workers like shit, they would not be unionized."

      Not sure how it works in Europe, but in the U.S. a typical valid comeback is "If unions didn't raise our cost of manufacturing to become globally anticompetitive, we wouldn't have to move to 3rd world countries for manufacturing."

    30. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tip: the company agrees to that contract which declares a closed shop.

    31. Re:Get rid of the unions by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Laws can change. What makes you think they're permenant?

      That's true of damn near everything until the heat death of the universe.

      If labor laws change for the worse, we have bigger problems to worry about. If the gov't ends up that far into the corporate pockets, they can use the military for strike busters. At that point unions are irrelevant and we're in deep shit.

    32. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's great. We had a Progressive movement 100 years ago that gave us things like minimum wage, child labor laws, and workplace safety standards that everybody has to follow.

      Guess what? When you walk into the door of an employer you get all that without paying dues to union bosses

      Guess what else? Workers still die in the fields of California's central valley. Just 20 years ago, such factory doors were routinely locked at chicken processing plants in the Carolinas. Where are the unions?

      50-50 splitting on NAFTA because some of them subscribed to the idea that they were truly International, which is communist bunk held over from the early 20th century. They actually thought that Free Trade could be used to spread American style union procedures to foreign countries. Were they naive or paid off?

      Where else were the unions? Protecting public employee pensions--six figure salaries ultimately paid for by real working people via taxation.

      You cite stuff that happened 100 years ago. Today's labor movement is anything but for the working man. A real labor movement would dispense with the corrupt Democratic Party machine politics, and lobby for an expanded minimum wage involving workplace standards in a region regardless of whether or not you paid dues.

      The unions are just like anything else. The ability to turn something into a profit center is irresistably corrupted. "Representing" and "negotiating" are nice jobs for union reps and lawyers. Today's labor movement is to labor what megachurches are to Christianity. They talk a good game, but it's ultimately all about the collection plate, and the preacher's Benz.

    33. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you could work for 3rd world class wages instead. There is a thing called balance, now you will still live like 3rd world people but not because of unions but because there is nothing that balances out corporate power.

      You are a corrupt people, and you have corrupt unions and corporations working for short term gains instead long term prosperity. Good luck with your greed and corruption.

    34. Re:Get rid of the unions by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also no one today was alive when the union movement got started. No one has in fact experience the actual violence and murder perpetrated against early unions who were lobbying for safer working conditions (such as not being forced to work in carbon monoxide polluted environments where people were routinely dying).

    35. Re:Get rid of the unions by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's worth noting that union influence on an industry also benefits non-union members. When you're required to adopt good practices and certain wage levels, it drags the bottom up.

    36. Re:Get rid of the unions by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      You're right, unions ruined everything, including child labor and slavery. Oh the good old days, when you could lock your workers in a factory, and watch them burn to death. (Actually happened)

      This isn't the 1950s. The medieval Islamic world gave us a lot of inventions too, but I wouldn't say that they are a model of global capitalism today.

      No but you're naive if you think the fundamentals of human nature have somehow changed that it could never happen again. It happens in China and other countries all the damn time. Child labor is a massive issue which India is only just starting to get under control. The situation improved because of the union movement.

    37. Re:Get rid of the unions by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      That's a false argument. The reason that Chinese manufacturing is less expensive is because you have lost of rural people from the villages willing to work for pennies. American and the rest of the industrialized world just can't compete. The average pay for a factory worker in China is ~$270 per month. How can you compete with that?

    38. Re:Get rid of the unions by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Yeah things like the 40 hour work week and paid overtime just destroyed US manufacturing. They were doing much better when they paid 3 dollars a day for 16 hours labor and you shopped at the company store on credit so you couldn't quit for another job because you owed the store 5 months of your pay. Oh for the good old days.

    39. Re:Get rid of the unions by Turminder+Xuss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The answer is not to get rid of unions in America, but to encourage them in China.

      --
      You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle.
    40. Re:Get rid of the unions by purpledinoz · · Score: 2

      Although I have no problems with unions, I think the unions in north America like the UAW, need to change. They work against the very company that is providing them a living. I've heard enough stories from auto factories that make me cringe. A friend of mine interned at Ford, and he wasn't allowed to plug his computer into the socket, because that's the electricians job. Union workers who just goofed off and screwed things up all the time couldn't get fired, they just got moved to a position where they did nothing and still got paid. A friend of mine was forced to join the union after repeatedly being threatened.

    41. Re:Get rid of the unions by Rolgar · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What about the right of the other unemployed individuals who would be glad to have that same job at the lower wage to get started and develop a work history? Is it better to have 2 employed at $12 per hour and 1 unemployed or 3 employed at $8? Shouldn't the business owner be able to make the decision of employing fewer highly skilled/quicker and more expensive workers or more lower skilled lower paid workers? If it's inefficient because of turnover and chaos in the company, the business owner is the one shooting his business in the foot, and his competitors will figure out they can make a different decision and come out ahead.

      Consider this model: 10 potential workers, each equally productive if employed. The economy has $20,000 to pay the workers. Is it better to pay 10 workers $2000 or 8 workers $2500, tax the workers the $500 and pass it to the two unemployed men so they can get along? In both scenarios, each employee has $2000, but are the two situations identical? No, if each of the workers are equally productive, and each worker can produce 1000 units of goods per month, and everybody spends all of their money, then the situation with all 10 employed is better, because the economy has 10,000 units to distribute at $2/unit. In the 8 worker situation, we get 8000 units at $2.50 a unit. In the first situation, everybody gets 1000 units of economic goods available to consume and in the second you only get 800.

      Think about if you started with the second situation, and tried to move to the first by cutting wages from 2500 to 2000, eliminated unemployment, and provided the economy with a productivity boost that could drive economic expansion? People would scream bloody murder about wage cutting even though eliminating unemployment would improve everybody's overall situation.

      Also, the Union v. Ownership dichotomy is the wrong way to go about getting the employees a larger cut of the revenue pie. The true way toward helping the workers out is for them to become owners. Once the business is in the hands of the employees, the union is unneeded since the employees aren't likely to exploit themselves. I'd encourage a policy of preventing the owner from selling his business to a competitor or conglomerate, but instead allowing the business owner to keep his income taxes in exchange for turning the business over to his employees, although it would take several years to transfer the entire company. This would basically be the government buying the business through reduced tax revenues, although the employees union could put their dues toward purchasing the business faster if the owner were selling. Improvements under this system: More and smaller businesses, which would provide more competition both for customers, and for workers. If you aren't happy working for X, go work for Y.

    42. Re:Get rid of the unions by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      Instead of providing a salary that your workers will inevitably waste on unnecessary items like iPhones and designer shirts

      Hehe, also, Foxconn would be out of luck if the workers no longer had money on unnecessary items like iPhones.
      Not sure if Foxconn makes designer shirts.

    43. Re:Get rid of the unions by slew · · Score: 1

      The function of unions is not to exclude some part of the labor market and limit the labor supply. That is a choice that some unions have made in order to put upward pressure on wages.

      Unions could instead promote safety and productivity advantage that result in a union member being higher net value to employers (and that is what some have done in the past and claim they do now, but sadly it is somewhat of a historical artifact). In a typical union-shop where a company must pay essentially the same wages to union and non-union members, there would be no net financial advantage to hiring the non-union employee if they were of lower quality and eventually that person would be forced to join the union anyhow.

      Instead unions have generally forced the seniority pill on most of the union-shops using pre-hire agreements which effectively excludes parts of the labor market. I guess the people that get screwed by this get to go on welfare in your world. Sure perhaps historically one tool to help keep the company in line to not attempt to hire lower-skill employees for higher skill jobs (and bring down wages), but it's basically just the union paying back people who have contributed union due for a longer period of time. It has little to do with overall wage stability for union members and might be considered a borderline pyramid scheme for union members.

      That's my economic theory. Feel free to dispute the underlying premises.

    44. Re:Get rid of the unions by happyhamster · · Score: 1

      This is republican troll. The global American policies, lobbied by corporations, allowed for offshoring, and companies jumped on cheap foreign labor. It had nothing to do with unions. Actually, we still need unions to protect American jobs. Unions provide a semi-balance of power which is otherwise shifted toward employers.

    45. Re:Get rid of the unions by mvdwege · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And guess what else? Ever since the union-busting really took off, working conditions and the share of the revenue going to the workforce have declined.

      Smart people would notice the correlation.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    46. Re:Get rid of the unions by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      A real labor movement would dispense with the corrupt Democratic Party machine politics, and lobby for an expanded minimum wage involving workplace standards in a region regardless of whether or not you paid dues.

      Something for nothing? I thought that's what Socialism was for!

    47. Re:Get rid of the unions by Schmorgluck · · Score: 1

      Yup. The French Revolution abolished slavery out of principles. Then Napoleon reinstated it because he could, it seemed convenient at the time, and you don't become a controversial history figure without doing, well, controversial stuff.

      Then in 1948 it was abolished again, in a move still driven by principled people (like Victor Schoelcher), but the reason it stuck that time is that it had become pretty clear that slavery was inefficient as an economic model (as had been stated by many eighteenth century philosophers). And colonialism was the big craze at the time anyway, which is another matter entirely.

      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
    48. Re:Get rid of the unions by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Huh? You can't be for unions, but against union shops. If unions didn't have enforceable contracts with companies to only employ union members, then companies simply would never employ union members.

      In Europe the law usually says you can't even ask if someone is a member of a union before employing them, and can't fire them for being one. Most people join unions because it is in their interest to be part of collective bargaining, but it is illegal to require joining to work somewhere.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    49. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unions are parasites that ruined American labor.

      Tell that to the Germans, with possibly the strongest unions in the world.

    50. Re:Get rid of the unions by Schmorgluck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Chicken and egg question here. I don't know much about Japan, but from my French perspective German unions do an awesome job, and are probably one of the reasons (though not the sole) why Germany still does pretty well economically compared to other EU countries.

      By contrast, the situation is pretty shitty in France. Polls have shown that among the OECD, French people put a higher value to work than most, but also that they tend to hate their workplace. Interestingly, French workers show less insatisfaction when they work for foreign companies. Some economists pin this on the fact that French economy is largely based on inheritance, and it results in a fundamental lack of trust between the various strates of workplace hierarchies. The workers, the middle management, the bosses, no one trusts another.

      In the light of what you say about post-WWII, I wonder if Germany didn't ultimately benefit from getting rid of their higher ups, most of which having been in bed with the Third Reich.

      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
    51. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why not just hire the three for $1000 instead and tell them to go starve unless they like that option? And if the $1000 isn't enough offer them another job with $500 so they end up having 60h weeks? You are aware of that a lot of people are sporting two (or even three) jobs and have a hard time paying their bills with the regulations present? And do you honestly think that all of a sudden these companies will nice up if there are fewer rules? If you haven't read Nickel and Dimed it's a very interesting read.

      It almost sound like you think companies are in some way striving to do good, or even that they are trying to take a long term responsibility. I think that's pretty far from how they work, and that it's going downhill all the time. Companies nowadays have crazy pressure to constantly increase profits for short term winnings for the stock market.

    52. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Low-skilled, low-barrier-to-entry labor markets?

      Is that why so many government workers are in unions?

    53. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard enough stories

      A friend of mine

      A friend of mine

      Life pro-tip: Don't tell anecdotal stories based on third hand knowledge. It's bullshit and makes you look stupid.

    54. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Running out of a burning factory when you haven't met your quota is like stealing from the company.

    55. Re:Get rid of the unions by captbob2002 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Where I work our contract includes "fair share" for non members. You DO NOT have to join the union, but YOU DO have to pay your "fair share" portion of the union dues that pays for the operation of the union. Why? Because you benefit from the contract that the union negotiated for the entire group, because BY LAW the union MUST represent you whether you are a member or not.

      Time and again the most loud-mouthed, union-bashing, "I make my own way" complainers about the fair share fee were always the first ones in my office wanting to know what the union was going to do to fix their problem, to help them deal with a disciplinary issue, fix their poor performance issues or fight their pending layoff. Suddenly wasn't it nice that there was someone to help them in their time of need? As much as I would have liked to tell them to go deal with it on their own I was bound by law to represent them

      I never wanted to work where there was a union, but I was the first one in my area to sign an organizing card - I was tired of getting screwed over. I spent 12 years as a steward with eight of them as chief steward as well as being on the negotiating team. Unlike many on /. that comment on unions I have first hand experience working somewhere that went through the stages of organizing and running a union.

      I remember a labor relations professor saying that firms get the unions they deserve. That makes sense. Treat people well and FAIRLY why woul dthey ever want to form a union? Treat people like crap and they will be receptive to a union organizers speech.

    56. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your argument is that we don't need unions because if government changes the laws it will be because they are purchased by corporate folks, who would instantly call in the military to bust up the strike? I can't tell if you're a troll or just retarded.

      Do you know why we don't have on-going nuclear war? It's because we're all terrified of being the first guy to push the button that ruins everything. It's the same with unions and corporations. Neither like the situation, but they both know that fact and are okay with it. Neither side wants to be the one to fuck up the world. Labor unions exist to make conditions good enough that you can be the posh little twat that you are - you're welcome.

      In other words, your argument is stupid, and you should be embarrassed.

    57. Re:Get rid of the unions by captbob2002 · · Score: 1

      You noticed that? Shame more people don't. Seems to pretty much start with Reagan busting PATCO signaling open season on unions to the business community. Now those lines on the graph keep getting further and further apart.

      Funny that with the dramatic decline in union membership and strength Unions are still blamed for everything that is wrong with manufacturing in the USA.

    58. Re:Get rid of the unions by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Theres good unions and theres bad unions jus likes theres good companies and bad factories.
      and unions had jack all to do with slavery.

      they did however have a lot to do with the avg teacher in chicago making >75k a year in salary (more than engineers with masters), and with the average auto worker, even the guy who just tightens the same bolt all day, making >130k a year in total compensation. the guy who tightens two bolts all day gets 160k in compensation.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    59. Re:Get rid of the unions by dywolf · · Score: 1

      He means being forced to join THE union. no choice. even when they fail to represent you and go against your wishes. want to set up your own competing union that better represents you and your fellow workers? TOO BAD.

      That's what he means. Dont be so ignorant Mr AC.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    60. Re:Get rid of the unions by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      The notion that unions are corrupt, their members slothful knuckle-draggers, is political spin by the GOP and the business community which has unfortunately become common wisdom.

      Sorry, but this has come from current major unions such as the UAW, ILA, and ILWU. It takes years, sometimes decades of negotiations to get technological improvements tp processes that have existed for decades overseas, and the guys get paid sometimes an order of magnitude more than their non-unionized white collar bosses to put twist locks in a corner. It is not a myth, it really does happen.

    61. Re:Get rid of the unions by dywolf · · Score: 1

      there are bad unions and good ones.

      mine is bad from laziness. why im not a member, though they get to negotiate the CBA that i do fall under. they're negotations only "got us" the mandatory 3% raise mandated by the contract with the government anyway. congratualtion guys, you got us something already garunteed to us.

      the detroit ones are bad because they drive up auto prices. sure, dude's hourly wage may be "normal". but tack on retirement and medical benefits worth >100k a year and you see where it comes from. (for reference, my medical benefits are very generous (premium entirely paid by the company), and only total ~14k a year) total compensation for a guy whose only job is to insert a bolt here and here all day exceeds 130k a year. not bad for a blue collar low skill job. the same guy at a plant outside detroit makes closer to 40-50k a year.

      previous place i worked had a "good" union. they emphasized worker safety, made reasonable demands (no 20% pay raises and 5 month vacation a year), usually got what was wanted, and also emphasized worker productivity so that we earned or justified the added expense ("we cant demand these benefits if we have no justification").

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    62. Re:Get rid of the unions by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Unions are the only thing that defends the middle class from the rich shareholders that demand ever increasing dividends.

      Which is probably why Hessian called them parasites. Well, that and the fact that Hessian is an asshole who has clearly swallowed way too much GOP propaganda about "job creators."

    63. Re:Get rid of the unions by Fishead · · Score: 2

      Poor union workers are a sign of a manager without the balls to do his job properly!

      My union contract (IBEW) has a lot of room to get yourself fired. Right now the big item is personal cell phone use. If I am caught using my personal cell phone at work, I can be fired. Simple as that. The union has even told us flat out that it cannot defend us if we break the corporate policy.

      Useless middle managers who won't do their job are the problem. If a manager won't make the workers under him do their job, how is it the fault of the union?

    64. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been a hundred years and this STILL makes me angry.

    65. Re:Get rid of the unions by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Actually happened, and still happening. Some more recent examples. http://wsws.org/articles/2012/may2012/phil-m10.shtml

    66. Re:Get rid of the unions by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      because starvation is a much scarier whip than one made with leather

    67. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to understand the function of unions:...

      You forgot the true function of unions, to fund the DNC.

    68. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      The economy has $20,000 to pay the workers. Is it better to pay 10 workers $2000 or 8 workers $2500, tax the workers the $500 and pass it to the two unemployed men so they can get along? In both scenarios, each employee has $2000, but are the two situations identical? No, if each of the workers are equally productive, and each worker can produce 1000 units of goods per month, and everybody spends all of their money, then the situation with all 10 employed is better, because the economy has 10,000 units to distribute at $2/unit. In the 8 worker situation, we get 8000 units at $2.50 a unit. In the first situation, everybody gets 1000 units of economic goods available to consume and in the second you only get 800.

      Sure... or they'll hire 6, pay $1500, force unpaid overtime or unsafe working conditions to make 1000 units, and still sell for $2.50, and talk about record profits they pass on to share holders. And if one of them refuses? Hey, 4 other guys that would jump at the chance.

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
    69. Re:Get rid of the unions by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      By contrast, the situation is pretty shitty in France. Polls have shown that among the OECD, French people put a higher value to work than most, but also that they tend to hate their workplace. Interestingly, French workers show less insatisfaction when they work for foreign companies. Some economists pin this on the fact that French economy is largely based on inheritance, and it results in a fundamental lack of trust between the various strates of workplace hierarchies. The workers, the middle management, the bosses, no one trusts another.

      It might also be related to the grandes ecoles (with all the extra accent markers I don't feel like adding), which I've been told ends up amounting to a caste system of sorts. If you're in a French business, you're locked into your job with little upward or downward mobility based on where you went to school. Japan can be similar, as can the U.S., where the right school certainly gives you a significant advantage in a hiring process, but you can also get your own work experience and move up based on that.

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
    70. Re:Get rid of the unions by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      So you're posting as Anonymous so YOU don't look stupid?

    71. Re:Get rid of the unions by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      For the UAW in particular, I understand that it's really difficult to fire somebody, regardless of their behaviour. They also have massive bureaucracy and rules that make workers very inflexible. I'm not against unions, I'm actually for them, but the unions themselves have to be reasonable. The UAW is probably one of the main reasons there is a large anti-union movement. I'm glad to hear that not all unions are like the UAW.

    72. Re:Get rid of the unions by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Do you know why we don't have on-going nuclear war? It's because we're all terrified of being the first guy to push the button that ruins everything. It's the same with unions and corporations.

      Do you know why we don't have on-going nuclear war? It's because nuclear weapons have spread around so much that if one of the holders decides to go bat-shit crazy and push the button, everybody else on the planet will turn their country into radioactive glass. It's called Mutual Assured Destruction. What do you think keeps the Israelis from glassing Damascus?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    73. Re:Get rid of the unions by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Well d'oh. Adam Smith already pointed out that Unions are a necessity, because the employers sure as hell do form covenants, so if we forbid the workers to do so, we use the power of the State to oppress one part of the population on behalf of the others.

      It is fairly obvious that the US Republican Party has been on a Union-busting spree of unprecedented viciousness in the Western world since Reagan; and in the same time the income disparity has increased. Correlation may not always be proof of causation, but it sure as hell implies a causation, and a smart person starts doing research to see if a causation exists or the issue is a confounding factor.

      If leading philosophers of Capitalism point out such a possible causation, then the onus is on the opposition to disprove it.

      And as for those that want to point at the failure of Detroit to blame the UAW: the fact that Detroit kept making bad quality land yachts in times the populace was crying out for better cars that the Japanese and Europeans were willing to supply has nothing to do with the decline of the US car industry; it's all the Unions' fault.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  5. Gotta post AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Detroit (Flint as well) is on the list, L.A. is maybe for managing offices, but the largest plant is going to be in the south. Most likely northern Alabama or possibly Louisiana. How do I know? I work in one of the State Governors office and there has been Foxconn AND Pegatron groups in and out since at least, roughly, Christmas 2011

    1. Re:Gotta post AC by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the largest plant is going to be in the south. Most likely northern Alabama or possibly Louisiana. How do I know? I work in one of the State Governors office and there has been Foxconn AND Pegatron groups in and out since at least, roughly, Christmas 2011

      How ironic (and fitting) that a land where people who still to this day wish for the good old days of slavery and cotton farms to return will soon be working in the modern equivalent of the cotton farm.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Gotta post AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there any cheap prison labour near by?

      That is the modern work around for slavery, in fact with government subsidies and public investment it is not only cheap but profitable for all the "middle men"

    3. Re:Gotta post AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But think of the internship programs!

    4. Re:Gotta post AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumb bitch in training desu.

    5. Re:Gotta post AC by operagost · · Score: 2

      Does it bother you to wake up every morning and realize that you're an intolerant jackass?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:Gotta post AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flint? Really?
      I lived in Flint for a while. It was an armpit.
      Although Foxconn could probably rent out a bunch of empty factories for a nickel.

    7. Re:Gotta post AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but then he forgets on his way to the mailbox to look for his government check.

    8. Re:Gotta post AC by khallow · · Score: 1

      How ironic (and fitting) that a land where people who still to this day wish for the good old days of slavery and cotton farms to return will soon be working in the modern equivalent of the cotton farm.

      Where would this land be? You aren't speaking of Alabama or Louisiana.

    9. Re:Gotta post AC by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      Where would this land be? You aren't speaking of Alabama or Louisiana.

      Really? They were both Confederate states. Read a history book once in awhile.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    10. Re:Gotta post AC by captbob2002 · · Score: 1

      Right to work for less states.

      so much easier than just treating your employees well and fairly - but that might cut into someone's bonus

    11. Re:Gotta post AC by khallow · · Score: 1

      They were both Confederate states.

      And they aren't Confederate states now. It's almost 150 years since the end of the Civil War. Things have changed.

      It amazes me how people can become so stuck in the past.

    12. Re:Gotta post AC by dywolf · · Score: 1

      and another woefully ignorant flamebait post from girlsintraining

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    13. Re:Gotta post AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's it.

      The next time someone uses "ironic" incorrectly, I'm going to burn a dictionary.

    14. Re:Gotta post AC by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Haha it will be delicious, they'll never unionize and probably won't even like to complain. This might come close to realizing my dream of sending those who glorify the pre-New Deal US to the world they love so much...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    15. Re:Gotta post AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How sad that this type of elitist comment gets up-voted. The people living in the south today had absolutely nothing to do with slavery and why our nation continues to propagate the white guilt is beyond me. Especially when it comes from supposedly educated people.

      The people there now are generally poor below the national average which means they spend more on welfare when they should be spending more on education. The anti-religious will be quick to blame religion, but ignore that the Jews are doing quite well. It's the education, stupid, and they are victims of poor investment. To spite them for slavery while holding your nose high does nothing to raise the national dialog in what could be a great nation.

    16. Re:Gotta post AC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have fun in your decaying northern urban centers when the govt goes bankrupt and hordes or angry poor flood your gentrified neighborhoods and rape/murder you, you sanctimonious cunt.

  6. PR Coup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, this is definitely one way to get some favorable opinions in the United States.

  7. Re:Big mistake by foniksonik · · Score: 1, Funny

    Ha ha hahahahahahaha... Sorry not laughing with you. Oh and your ignorance is showing, might want to put that away before you scare someone.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  8. labor costs vs cost of pissing off your customers by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    Everyone seems to overlook this factor when talking about stuff like this! Last time I custom ordered a laptop from Toshiba Direct, they decided to build it and ship it out of Shanghai, China without really warning me. It took 11 days to build and about 4 more to ship and my customer was PISSED! I was twice as pissed! That long of a delay is unacceptable! If I want something from anywhere in the US, I can get it in 1 day. Remember the Nintendo Wii shortage? Yeah, with a 3 week delay in build and ship time, you're going to lose millions and make all your customers mad. Oversease production and shipping is NOT fast enough for today's businesses and they will not order from another country at any price if they can avoid it. That's the real reason things need to be made here.

  9. Learn design in Asia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was really confused until I realized there has been a mistranslation. Replace the word 'design' with the word 'copying', and then the summary makes much more sense.

    1. Re:Learn design in Asia? by aliquis · · Score: 1, Informative

      Joke all you want but I bet today you'd be happy if the Japanese copied American cars rather than designing their own?

      And regarding the Lenovo vs Toshiba post above yours remember where each country is from.

      And while their new stealth jet may be copying of an American design and they got their high speed train designs by building parts and later copying them now they build their own. And got fast trains.

      They own what was once our Volvo cars. Huawei is about the same size as Ericsson. They do high voltage designs, construction equipment and so on.

      They are of course not inferior to any other people. They are many and they are up and raising.

      Soon you'll wish they was copying your designs rather than build better products.

    2. Re:Learn design in Asia? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Oh, and ignorancy is a bliss.

      I suppose. Or a huge mistake?

    3. Re:Learn design in Asia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replace the word 'design' with the word 'copying',

      I think Apple has a patent on that.

  10. Re:Big mistake by lucm · · Score: 0

    If this is über-sarcasm, kudos. Otherwise I think Fouad could teach you a few things.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  11. poor choices for enforcement. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    But...but...you have Robocop!

    1. Re:poor choices for enforcement. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      And that shoe seller we all know and love :)

      And Peggy doing the shopping!

    2. Re:poor choices for enforcement. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chicago

    3. Re:poor choices for enforcement. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Doh.

      Close enough?

      Not even the same state it seems.

      Damn :)

      Oh well, they sound the same! To me :D

      I think cars and somewhere *removed due to ashamed from googling it*

    4. Re:poor choices for enforcement. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we had Robocop it wouldn't have taken so long to throw our last mayor in jail.

  12. Shipping costs are rising that much? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I guess high priced oil is working in our favor for once. Considering the majority of their market is here, they might even be realizing consumers with money buy stuff. Who'da thunk.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:Shipping costs are rising that much? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I thought the Chinese was the people with the money. Whereas you was mostly buying on debt?

    2. Re:Shipping costs are rising that much? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      China exports about 20% to the USA. A significant amount, certainly, but not "the majority" of their market. We need them more than they need us.

    3. Re:Shipping costs are rising that much? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      Does that mean I don't need money to buy Chinese stuff? It tends to fall apart after about a week for me so that sounds like a good deal.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    4. Re:Shipping costs are rising that much? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      You are correct. The EU buys 2% more stuff from them. Anyway. I don't think either of us "need" the other. If you want to sell something to someone it helps for that someone to have money. It is one of those annoying facts.

      http://www.starmass.com/china_review/imports_exports/china_top_trade_partners.htm

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    5. Re:Shipping costs are rising that much? by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      It's 20% now, because the EU is picking up the slack to being China's biggest export market. We used to be 25% upwards of 30% in the past... while we are not their top market at the moment, if they lost our market, it would still be a significant problem for China. Even 20% is nothing to sneeze at. Thank goodness they only hold 8% of our debt. :)

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    6. Re:Shipping costs are rising that much? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      We are about 14% of their exports (and falling), and they are about 18% of our imports (and growing). If the trade ended tomorrow, the US would get the worst of it. Though, most anything that eliminated US buying from China would likely domino to Europe, and that would take down China.

    7. Re:Shipping costs are rising that much? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      It tends to fall apart after about a week for me so that sounds like a good deal.

      The (Foxcon made) iPhone?

      Would it really hold together longer if it was put together in the US?

  13. Re:labor costs vs cost of pissing off your custome by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

    That's why you are supposed to order from Lenovo -- then it will be a better laptop, shipped from Shanghai faster.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  14. Re:Big mistake by phantomfive · · Score: 0

    I think he's saying that in fact Obama can, and likely will, still blame Bush for things. After all, people are still blaming Reagan and Eisenhower for the problems we have today.

    So if you think Obama can no longer blame the previous administration, you are in fact ignorant.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  15. Re:Big mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, Sparky.

  16. Nice troll piece by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Interesting

    First off, it is Apple, an American company who outsourced all its production to China. It is Americans who think iPhone production is to complex for Americans.

    Second, building a highly automated plant is NEVER about labor costs. It is about avoiding import duties. Assemble it in the US and it is a US product exempt from import duties and hence cheaper. If Americans were normal people it would also generate some good will, creating jobs in a down economy, that is of course terrible! How dare they insult you? This from the same Forbes that cheers all outsourcing. Damn those Chinese, how dare they outsource back to you! Next thing you know people will actually be having jobs and not leeching from the state!

    You will note if you follow the articles, that it is Market Watchers (people who didn't see the crash coming) who talk about iPhone production being to complex. It ain't even for sure yet what will be produced or if the factory will come at all but hey, market watchers already know why it will be producing X and not Y. Even if they don't know what X is.

    As for training... gosh... maybe they will train the Americans in English so they can choose between city or sites and not make up new words. Oh wait I forgot, training on the job. BAD. People should have all the required skills from the start or you will bitch you can't find any workers locally and have to import them or outsource.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Nice troll piece by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      1. highly automated plant = few new jobs and more competition for local companies who will then automate their plants..
      2. last thing I want is to be taught in engrish how to snap two pieces of plastic together without leaving prints.

      The real question is this: do we want to live like the chinese do? if so, roll out the carpet like we're doing and let them come in and rebuild our society in their image with the force of economics. If not, for fucks sake get them out of here!

    2. Re:Nice troll piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slight amendment. Apple subcontracted to Foxconn who outsourced the work to their China factories. I seriously doubt any company would care where their devices were produced as long as they are delivered on time.

    3. Re:Nice troll piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2. last thing I want is to be taught in engrish how to snap two pieces of plastic together without leaving prints.

      You'll be OK, it's not as challenging as you think.

    4. Re:Nice troll piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you want to pay the higher prices when the US starts slapping tariffs on domestically designed / foreign made items?

      Eh you'll pay it anyway; they'll just make more profit.

      I wonder if US domestic shanzhai will happen.

    5. Re:Nice troll piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that 'complex' doesn't mean the iPhone is a really hard lego puzzle for people to put together, it means that the ecosystem of supplies that exists in China because of outsourcing is decades beyond what is found here for electronic components and integrating a lone plant in America with such a system is complex by its very nature.

  17. I guess you wanted this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, sure, you'll have factories exploiting your cheap labor and destroying your livelihoods... but at least you don't have to worry about any of those evil unions.

  18. On site dorms likely will be a no go in the USA by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    On site dorms likely will be a no go in the USA or they will not be able to force people to live in them or change you so you pay drops under the min wage.

  19. Exploitation, unions, and you. by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You jabber on about how unions are bad, how they destroyed this country, but you couldn't be more mistaken. The reason we became a world superpower was because of unions, not in spite of them. When the industrial revolution first made land fall, people left the farms to move into urban factories. There was no health care, no OSHA, no retirement or social security, no educational system, and no child labor laws. Workers would get chewed up by machines and that was that. No lawsuits, no nothing -- your livelihood was destroyed. Quite possibly, you later died of starvation. All of the problems that are present in China today were there at the start of our industrial revolution as well: Corruption, environmental contamination, worker abuse, long hours, low pay, and massive wealth inequity.

    Then the unions came, and with it; OSHA, social security, public education, child labor laws, overtime compensation. And you know what happened then? Civilization didn't collapse. In fact, it prospered: The roaring 50s. A single man could now drive a car and live in a house he paid for, in full, and support a wive and two kids, working only 40 hours a week. It was the first generation to grow up with public education, and that literacy reflected in every area of american living; Anyone could invent something new and sell it. America became the land of opportunity. Immigrants flocked to the stars and striped by the millions. The middle class grew, and upward mobility was something just about anyone could achieve. For the first time in modern history, hard work nearly guaranteed a comfortable living. And work hard we did. When Europe was devestated by the world wars, it was american industry and ingenuity that pulled their ass out of the fire, and I'm not talking about the unparalleled capacity to produce ships, tanks, guns, and planes either. We didn't just build our own country -- we rebuilt a dozen others as well in post-war reconstruction. And after all that, you know what we did then? We went to the fucking moon.

    Even Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations pointed out that one of the essential duties of government is to provide for the safety and well-being of its citizens. In other words, the work force. America's investment in its labor force resulted in economic gains far in excess of anything even the largest mega-corporations of today can match. And then it all went wrong.

    It started with the Boomers. Having been given everything by their parents, they didn't understand the price paid by their predecessors. They assumed that this temporary equilibrium, this golden age, was a permanent feature of America. They felt entitled to it, instead of thankful. And when they seized power in the 70s and 80s, they cut social security, education, defunded OSHA, deregulated... and for a time, it was good. But in the shadows consumer debt piled up. The cost of an education skyrocketed, and illiteracy creeped back in. Our scientific and technological progress peaked, then rapidly deflated as the careers of scientist, engineer, inventor, were removed from public prestige and replaced with ridicule and scorn.

    Today, our media holds illiterate opinions as equal to the most established of scientific truths. Our children are unable to afford an education, and we're witnessing the lowest graduation rates from all levels of education that anyone alive can remember. Our economy is in ruins, the middle class is rapidly evaporating, and the few wealthy compete amongst each other to auction off our civil infrastructure and institutions. The bridges and roadways our grandparents built with pride that enabled our economy to prosper grow increasingly deficient, falling into rivers or eating tires and vehicles. Our railway and roadway networks are so badly mangled that the idea of bringing back blimps has been floated a few times as a way of getting goods around. Our air space is managed by state of the art technology... or it was, in 1965.

    No, unions made us a super power. And we're going to lose that status because we took what they gave us for granted.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Way to totally ignore any negative experience regarding unions...at all. They're the reason our jobs left. I know a fellow here in China from Carolina doing furniture manufacturing. His company told the unions that the price had to come down, they were getting killed by competition from overseas. Union wouldn't budge one inch. Guess what happened? Closed down the factory and moved it lock, stock, and barrel to China. Surprise! Reality.

      Let's also totally ignore the union thugs who came out to bust Cesar Chavez and his workers. Let's ignore the unions that refused help after the hurricane because keeping their own power was more important. Let's ignore the fact that in some states, you can't even work without being forced to join a union. Let's ignore all the union bosses in prison (I didn't even bother to cite specific links as Google is continually populated with new stories on the topic). Let's ignore the racism and sexism of the white male union rank-and-file.

      I can't help but notice all the union achievements you list are 50 years old. Once upon a time, there were genuine problems that unions solved. That time has passed.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Wait a second, you are telling me without unions we would have no public education? Are you retarded?

      No what I think was said is unions allowed people to be paid proper wages by proxy afford to give their kids what they could not afford, a real education. Never mind them dying from working in coal mines..

      >Now I know you've lost it. We went to the moon because of unions?

      We actually did go to the moon because of unions. A large amount of that work was done directly by someone in a professional union.

      >You must be high or retarded. Perhaps both?

      I could be both right now but I would do more research on the history of unions in the United States. Hell you realize you can't even act in a play or play music in a band professionally unless you join a union? For good or bad they transformed the country.

      BTW, I'm personally not a fan of unions at all my dad owns a construction company.

    3. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No thanks. I am absolutely certain that if my profession were unionized, my $150k/yr would be more like $60k and I'd be dealing with twice the bureaucracy. They served a brief purpose, but have little to offer any longer except an additional layer of corruption and self-interest (of those within; not those supposedly protected by it). It's bad enough dealing with two corrupt entities working against me (the government and my employer). The last thing I need is a third.

    4. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wait a second, you are telling me without unions we would have no public education? Are you retarded?

      No, my good and simple-minded detractor, I am simply aware of the fact that the people who ran the factories were the kind of people who, upon seeing a worker get mutilated by the machinery were simply led out the back door as their replacement walked in the front. If they don't value your life they aren't going to consider your education important.

      Now I know you've lost it. We went to the moon because of unions?

      No, you malignant ball of happy brain death... we built a strong industrial base and developed a large number of highly educated scientists and engineers because of unions, which allowed us to spend money on things like going to the moon, as well as having the expertise to do so.

      And he was unionized, I suppose? Just that single person inventing things and selling them, a unionized island to himself.

      Without an education, I doubt he'd be inventing much of anything besides idiosyncratic political viewpoints held in such low esteem by the author he wouldn't even pen his name to it. Or perhaps he lost his name in the bottom of a bottle while searching for his misplaced wits...

      The unions had nothing to do with that. Union employes always had PENSIONS (well, you would like to think) that keep them from needing social security.

      In days of old, when economies were bold, and monies were aplenty... it might be true, these words from you, if a public education you did not benefit. Alas our tale begins, in the darkened days of nineteen thirty two, whereupon there were many old, and the economy had foresaken. Fifty percent, the elderly were, homeless and in need, no pensions had they, no prospects too, when Sir Rosevelt made them all a Deal. He said to them, "I shall save you too, and you, and you, and you!" And with a mighty heave of his pen, he did create pensions for all, where none had existed before.

      Most of these people have never had a union, except for certain engineers (and no, I'm talking professional engineer, sanitation engineers have a union, but they ain't real engineers, are they?) and scientists working for a university (and only sometimes then).

      Not to put too fine a point on it, you keenly lacking invertebrate of questionable mental faculties and breeding, but they didn't have jobs either.

      You must be high or retarded. Perhaps both?

      On the internet, asking if someone else is either of those is basically admitting the character defect being accused. Or put in terms your juvenile nature can relate to, "the person who smelt it, dealt it." Good day sir!

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    5. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unions did many good things. Thing about people like you though is that you don't understand what unions are.

      Unions are a symptom. A symptom of tight labor supply. If there are 10 potential scabs for every potential union member there is no union. China won't see tight labor supply for a long time yet because they've still got 700,000,000 peasants (10% of the species) to draw on. The US didn't have that, so labor supply got tight and unions appeared.

      If you like unions then you need to learn to like growth. Growth in energy, growth in "resource recovery", growth of pollution. If you can't tolerate these things, and the US along with most of the Western world has made it perfectly clear it can't, then you can't have strong unions.

      But you and most everyone else has been trained to hate all that shit. Capitalists wrecking the planet. So forget your union dreams. You won't live to see it because you don't really want it.

    6. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't the 1950s.

      Unions = higher cost of production. Production moves to non-unionized areas/countries. Fat union workers are out of a job, but continue to bitch about corporate evil while their mortgages are foreclosed on, while fat executives continue to play golf. Meanwhile, the rest of the country's non-unionized workers are confused why the union pukes are surprised that their anti-competitiveness resulted in layoffs.

      You have to be competitive or DIE.

      Live in the fucking NOW.

    7. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Way to totally ignore any negative experience regarding unions...at all. They're the reason our jobs left. I know a fellow here in China from Carolina doing furniture manufacturing. His company told the unions that the price had to come down, they were getting killed by competition from overseas. Union wouldn't budge one inch. Guess what happened? Closed down the factory and moved it lock, stock, and barrel to China. Surprise! Reality.

      And way to totally ignore the good portion of unions. The celebrated evils of unions (the mafia) happened because they were dealing with the de-emphasized massive evils of the corporations. Some of the things unions have done are bad, but they had to be that way due to what they were dealing with.

    8. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Unions done for us?

    9. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by mister_playboy · · Score: 2

      This isn't the 1950s.

      So true. In the 50s Americans were smart enough to look out for their own self-interest rather than shill for big business and the free trade religion.

      Trickle down economics are going to be having a reckoning, and soon. Enjoy the tailend of the Reagan world order while it lasts.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    10. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by mister_playboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Jobs left the US because shareholder profits came to be considered much more important than paying employees enough to afford the products they made. The concept of noblesse oblige has been entirely replaced by amoral asocial asshattery. Greed became the greatest virtue and our equitable society faded away.

      Slashdotters love to fancy themselves as 1%ers (Look at me, I make 70K a year!) and are thus especially useful idiots for big business.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    11. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BWAHAHAH

      You are such a brainwashed idiot.

    12. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your story doesn't make sense. If the union were told the company was capable of moving to China, the union would be forced to negotiate. It doesn't make sense for them to have certain loss of their jobs on one side, and reduced pay on the other, and take the job loss. Either your friend is full of shit (likely), or the company was too stupid to understand it was in a good position to negotiate.

    13. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Then the unions came, and with it; OSHA, social security, public education, child labor laws, overtime compensation. And you know what happened then? Civilization didn't collapse. In fact, it prospered:

      Yes, this is why General Motors and Detroit are doing so well these days!

      Unions aren't necessarily evil, but all too often they turn into these cancerous lesions that do nothing for their members and suck the lifeblood out of their companies until they fail.

    14. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      Way to totally ignore any negative experience regarding unions...at all. They're the reason our jobs left.

      Citation needed? The reason our jobs left was globalization, not unions. It wouldn't matter if there was a union or not -- you can't compete with slave labor that costs $2 a year.

      know a fellow here in China from Carolina doing furniture manufacturing. His company told the unions that the price had to come down, they were getting killed by competition from overseas. Union wouldn't budge one inch. Guess what happened? Closed down the factory and moved it lock, stock, and barrel to China. Surprise! Reality.

      It would have happened anyway. Blaming the union was just an excuse.

      Let's also totally ignore the union thugs who came out to bust Cesar Chavez and his workers.

      His "thugs" campaigned against police brutality against the latino community. You may not be aware of this, but most of your produce is picked by mexican immigrants, the very people he was passionate about helping. They get no health care, below minimum wage pay, and the working conditions are so terrible that when several states passed anti-immigration laws they found they couldn't pay americans enough to work the fields. Did I mention they're breathing in pesticides and other chemicals that can cause all kinds of severe neurological disorder? Nobody wanted to do it, regardless of pay, and they still don't. Chavez organized the workers and forced lawmakers to address the problems. Oh, and those "thugs" you mentioned? He championed non-violent activism and considered Ghandi one of his personal heroes. But I mean, who cares -- it's just a bunch of fucking brown people. Throw 'em under a bus, right?

      Let's ignore the fact that in some states, you can't even work without being forced to join a union.

      Do these states have a name? Perhaps some kind of law, or something, you could point out for us all?

      Let's ignore all the union bosses in prison (I didn't even bother to cite specific links as Google is continually populated with new stories on the topic).

      Yes, because when someone pisses off a business, they're clearly moral degenerates, and the government never goes after people that are politically problematic for the wealthy -- they're totally fair an impartial.

      Let's ignore the racism and sexism of the white male union rank-and-file.

      As opposed to the racism and sexism of the non-union rank-and-file?

      Once upon a time, there were genuine problems that unions solved. That time has passed.

      Once upon a time, the United States helped win World War II. But since it's 50 years old, I suppose we can cancel Memorial Day. I mean, what have they done for us lately?

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    15. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Jobs left the US because shareholder profits came to be considered much more important than paying employees enough to afford the products they made."

      What the hell are you talking about? Shareholder profits are the PURPOSE of the corporate form of organization, and always have been. Employees were, are, and always will be a means to an end. The problems enter in when the employees try to move themselves to the center through rent-seeking, etc. Their well-being isn't the primary purpose.

      "Greed became the greatest virtue and our equitable society faded away."

      Which era in American history are you being nostalgic about, exactly?

    16. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Moses48 · · Score: 1

      Most people I know would take the job loss. Union workers especially. During a job loss you pick up unemployment and you have health insurance saved up from your union dues. Why make less at your current company when you can lose your job take an unemployment vacation (and yeah as a union worker you get on a list and don't even look for work) and be picked up by another company down the road. The only reason they would have negotiated is if they saw NO prospects for future job markets.

    17. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to totally ignore any negative experience regarding unions...at all. They're the reason our jobs left.

      Yep, left to countries with higher rates of unionization then the US.

      Not all the jobs went to China.

      Once upon a time, there were genuine problems that unions solved.

      And boy have things gotten better since then.

    18. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's ignore the racism and sexism of the white male union rank-and-file.

      Yeah, that worthless racist sexist filth, they do nothing all day except to see other people as stereotypes - women, minorities, you name it. Those guys are all the same, I tell you! Why can't they just realize that other people are real people too and not a stereotype? I just don't understand. Totally with you there.

    19. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Way to totally ignore any negative experience regarding unions...at all. They're the reason our jobs left.

      No, they left because the companies didn't adapt to the changing market place. Look at Germany as an example. Strong labour laws and a strong manufacturing sector. They produce high quality products at reasonable prices because they didn't get into a race to the bottom with China, and all while paying a reasonable living wage. They even managed to absorb the East German economy in the process.

      What do you honestly expect workers who are told they must compete with 3rd world labour on wages to do? Default on their mortgage, get a second and third job, pimp out the wife? They were right, cutting wages to unrealistic levels is not the answer, and if you accept it you are even more screwed than if you don't.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Jobs left the US because shareholder profits came to be considered much more important than paying employees enough to afford the products they made.

      That's part of it - but not a large part. We've been importing cheap shit from overseas for the better part of a century now, long before the bean counters came to rule the corporations.

      Jobs didn't leave because of unions, or OSHA, or the 1%, or bean counters in the boardroom - they left because Americans are cheap bastards. They left because the 98% by-and-large make their purchasing decisions based on the sticker price.

      There's a reason why Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in the US, and why practically every other retailer has all but bankrupted themselves trying to compete.

    21. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the unions came, and with it; OSHA, social security, public education, child labor laws, overtime compensation. And you know what happened then? Civilization didn't collapse. In fact, it prospered: The roaring 50s. (...)

      No, unions made us a super power. And we're going to lose that status because we took what they gave us for granted.

      Best I can recollect, roughly half of the world's industrial capacity got destroyed during WWII. Most of the other half was located in the US... Along with the money. Methinks this might have played a more significant role in making the US a superpower than the fact that it was more unionized.

    22. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      The "boom" of the 1950s was due to unions?

      Funny, I'll mention that to WW2 next time, I'm pretty sure he thought that wrecking the world (except the US) and forcing people to pretty much rebuild everything was the reason we were prosperous.

      --
      -Styopa
    23. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by rmstar · · Score: 1

      Which era in American history are you being nostalgic about, exactly?

      Hard to say, but perhaps it's postwar America, where tax rates where significantly higher, especially for the rich, and there was a lot less inequality. Of course it had other problems, but...

    24. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      There's a reason why Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in the US, and why practically every other retailer has all but bankrupted themselves trying to compete.

      A large part of that reason is that they treat their employees like dirt. Are you suggesting we should allow this in the name of "prosperity"? If wal-mart was forced to allow unionization I wonder if they would be able to stomp the competition (other job creators) as much. I also wonder if they would still be reasonably successful.

    25. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're [unions] the reason our jobs left.

      Um, yeah, that's why Germany has no manufacturing - they're so unionized, with high wages and vacation time and stuff. No manufacturing there at all.

      Not the responsibility of the executives that outsourced jobs, gave themselves bonuses, and now wonder why the US market has shrivelled up.

      Idiot.

    26. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >No, my good and simple-minded detractor, I am simply aware of the fact that the people who ran the factories were the kind of people who, upon seeing a worker get mutilated by the machinery were simply led out the back door as their replacement walked in the front. If they don't value your life they aren't going to consider your education important.

      This gets sillier by the comment. You said public education. Now you're talking about on-the-job training. Now, maybe they do things differently where you live, but in my country (Canada, and also the USA) public education and factories are different institutions, with different budgets, and different people running them, and the only overlap is that schools encourage their students to get an education "or else you'll be working in a factory".

      >No, you malignant ball of happy brain death... we built a strong industrial base and developed a large number of highly educated scientists and engineers because of unions, which allowed us to spend money on things like going to the moon, as well as having the expertise to do so.

      Scientists and engineers don't tend to be unionized. I thought we went over that?

      >Without an education, I doubt he'd be inventing much of anything besides idiosyncratic political viewpoints held in such low esteem by the author he wouldn't even pen his name to it. Or perhaps he lost his name in the bottom of a bottle while searching for his misplaced wits...

      Interesting that most people consider the height of development of new stuff to be Edison's time. You know unions were just starting to gear up at that point, right? That they really didn't have much control over anything?

      >In days of old, when economies were bold, and monies were aplenty... it might be true, these words from you, if a public education you did not benefit. Alas our tale begins, in the darkened days of nineteen thirty two, whereupon there were many old, and the economy had foresaken. Fifty percent, the elderly were, homeless and in need, no pensions had they, no prospects too, when Sir Rosevelt made them all a Deal. He said to them, "I shall save you too, and you, and you, and you!" And with a mighty heave of his pen, he did create pensions for all, where none had existed before.

      So, hold on, now we have a president because of unions? Roosevelt was elected because of unions? Jesus, look, if I accept that, that's HORRIBLE. Presidents are supposed to be elected by the people, not by organized labour groups commanded by a few leading many!

      >Not to put too fine a point on it, you keenly lacking invertebrate of questionable mental faculties and breeding, but they didn't have jobs either.

      Scientists and engineers didn't exist before unions? Really? Newton? Volta? Ampere? Babbage? Need I go on?

      >On the internet, asking if someone else is either of those is basically admitting the character defect being accused. Or put in terms your juvenile nature can relate to, "the person who smelt it, dealt it." Good day sir!

      Look, I say you've lost your mind because of this:

      - Unions invented public education (yet it existed before any serious unionization in the USA)
      - Unions voted in a president (if it's true, again, that's horrible)
      - Unions invented scientists (But what about the scientists before then? Time paradox?)
      - Unions invented engineers (But what about all the engineering that went into the railroads?)
      - Unions invented social security (But why would they need it if their payers have pensions?)
      - Unions invented space travel (That's batshit insane)
      - Unions invented the mind (Well, according to you people are so goddamn stupid they can't figure out to quit a dangerous job...)
      - Unions existed before they existed

      And so on. Your stories are so ludicrous it doesn't take anything more than a juvenile to see through them.

      Truly, though, I am enjoying this. There's people out there who think my a

    27. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, and pretty much zero knowledge of the history of retail in the US. Get back to me when you obtain some reading comprehension, and learn the difference between relevant facts and clueless bias.

    28. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      No, we were talking about the busloads of Teamsters who arrived to put brown people like Cesar Chavez in his place. Look it up. It happened.

      It's called the "closed shop" law and is a reality in many states. Look it up. It happened.

      Union bosses are regularly imprisoned for crimes committed while in the employ of legitimate unions. Click on the link, you won't like what you see.

      Unions and their blind supporters (like you) hold unions to a high standard. They should be beyond racism and sexism. And yet, walk past a union worksite wearing a miniskirt and heels. You won't like what you see. Inconvenient truth...

      Indeed, a lot of modern people would like to cancel Memorial Day as it celebrates the American warrior. Just ask Oliver Stone, who thinks that "Saving Private Ryan" encouraged the Iraq invasion. Seriously, you can't make this shit up.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    29. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Nope! The union didn't negotiate. Surprise! Guess what, reality has many unpleasant surprises for those who don't know unions firsthand.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    30. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germans work hard to make money which German banks lend to basket cases like Greece so the Greeks can buy BMWs to employ the Germans who are making the loans. Which works great until the Greeks can no longer make their interest payments on the loans, at which point the whole thing collapses.

    31. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      I get your point. People want cheap shit and they don't care who loses their job to pay for it. My point (which still goes unaddressed) is that we could collectively restrain ourselves from such economically destructive behavior. No need to be rude.

    32. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for daring to speak the truth. Nowadays conservatives spew endless hate about unions, because unions force businesses to operate in a semi-moral and legal way, and protect the workers from being shafted. Big business wants to maximize profit, which means screwing the workers as hard as possible, and unions get in the way of that.

      There are certain conditions where unions get too powerful and let shitty workers retain their job and absolve them of any wrongdoing no matter how wrong they are, but this is a small minority of unions and is not indicative of all unions in America. Nevertheless, those few unions are the ones that conservatives make into the centerpiece about what's wrong with unions today.

      When you look at what conservatives want, they want a uneducated poor workforce (including children; they are trying to repeal child labor laws now) that can't organize and can't protest their treatment. They essentially want slavery because that's the cheapest form of labor and that's where maximum profit comes from. Unions are literally the only thing that stops that; which is why business has always backed anti-union politicians.

      About a response: DNS-and-BIND is just having a kneejerk reaction. He wants to blame the world's ills on unions and has to describe them in the most negative way possible. We don't live in an ideal world, and without protection from being abused we will be abused. Unions aren't the ideal solution, but they are the only current solution.

    33. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Sollord · · Score: 1

      Jobs left because you can't pay someone $30+ an hour and hope to compete with someone in asia being paid $5 a week or even $5 a hour in mexico among other things. Shareholder profits are a small part of the problem but everyone loves to place all the blame on the owners of a business for wanting to make money if you aren't allowed to make a profit might as well not bother. Besides most companies can't afford to run year after year in the red they aren't the federal government or California.

    34. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      True, this factor is way too big to be glossed over. WW2 was like C4C for all American businesses on a global scale.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    35. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Tyndmyr · · Score: 1

      The boom of the fifties was for a much different, and simpler set of reasons. First, you had an economy adapted to wartime that suddenly got all it's men back from the war. Second, you had a sudden lifting of long-in-place rationing. Thirdly, the war took place on other people's land. That sucked for them, but made us shine in comparison. So, you've suddenly got an influx of workers, a spike in demand, and a lack of overseas competition(and spikes in their demand). That's a great economical mix.

      --
      Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
    36. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Slashdotters love to fancy themselves as 1%ers (Look at me, I make 70K a year!) and are thus especially useful idiots for big business.

      You DO realize that 70k/yr is nowhere close to the 1%ers, right? That's only just in the top 30%.

      $100k+ is in the top 15%, and you have to go up over earnings of $250k/yr to hit the top 1%.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Household_income

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    37. Re:Exploitation, unions, and you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marginal tax rates were higher, but they certainly didn't go toward entitlements or social programs, so I'll surmise that ain't it. Maybe he was referring to the historically lower differential between absolute top and bottom earners (or non-earners, as the case may be). It's hard to pick out the "equitable society" he referred to. Equity is hard to define, making it pretty limp and diffuse as ideals go.

  20. Re:Big mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty much. No different than how 3 years after Bush cancelled Clinton's CRA rules 3 years after Clinton left office, Clinton's CRA rules caused the banks to implode. Because of course the banks (and other unregulated companies making up 50% of the subprime market) only lent money out because the government was there holding a gun to their head forcing them to make billions of dollars.

    I'm sure Obama's supporters will start coming up with similarly ridiculously twisted mind-boggling excuses.

  21. Re:Big mistake by lucm · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It was a well-known fact that Democrats are sore losers, now we discover they are also sore winners. Plus they don't got a sense of humor.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  22. Partly by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In Holland the Big 11 (largest employers) have actually said they want the strong unions of the past decades back because although they didn't always agree, at least they could negotiate and sort things out. The big companies want "The polder model" back and preferably without the 3rd party, the government, messing things up again.

    It is outside north-west Europe (England excepted) that unions seem to have such a terrible relationship, it is an English/Italian thing, to snobby to admit you are just a wage slave at the mercy of your boss and to corrupt to handle money and power. You can't compare a NW European union with an American one but then the relations between workers and bosses are totally different, Romney would not have gotten 50 of the votes in Europe, he would have been seen as the total asshole he is and be spitted out by anyone who works for a living.

    You might have noted that in America, many of the working class, call themselves middle class. Here is a hint: If you live paycheck to paycheck and getting fired is going to be an economic disaster, you are working class. Lower class your economy is already a disaster even with a paycheck. Middle class is financially comfortable. And that doesn't mean you can just avoid your credit cards from being canceled each month but that if something major happens, it isn't an immediate issue, loose job, take a year to find a new one. Upper class means you are comfortable for life even if something major happens.

    Quick test for Americans: Did it surprise you to find out that YOU are part of the 47% Romney considers to be a leech? Did you even dare to find out if you are in that group?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Partly by dbraden · · Score: 2

      I don't think most Americans would agree with your definitions of lower/working/middle/upper classes. I think most consider the classes are more of a lifestyle and materials thing, rather than a stability thing.

      Quick test for Americans: Did it surprise you to find out that YOU are part of the 47% Romney considers to be a leech? Did you even dare to find out if you are in that group?

      I'd be willing to bet that a large majority of American Slashdot readers aren't part of the 47% that pay no federal taxes. I think the bigger question is: why do 47% pay no federal taxes?

    2. Re:Partly by ianare · · Score: 1

      Middle class families in the US don't have the same level of financial assistance from the government in case of layoffs as in Europe. Even for someone with a good position, losing a job is going to be a major problem much sooner than "within a year". More like a 2-3 months at best.

    3. Re:Partly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You can't compare a NW European union with an American one"

      Yes you can. The big difference is not in the unions but in the "union busting".

    4. Re:Partly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick test for Americans: Did it surprise you to find out that YOU are part of the 47% Romney considers to be a leech? Did you even dare to find out if you are in that group?

      Meanie.

    5. Re:Partly by dkf · · Score: 2

      It is outside north-west Europe (England excepted) that unions seem to have such a terrible relationship, it is an English/Italian thing, to snobby to admit you are just a wage slave at the mercy of your boss and to corrupt to handle money and power.

      Most unions in England are in many ways very similar to the model in the rest of NW Europe; generally trying to serve their members (and persuade non-members to join without the ability to force them) but not wanting to strike except when management have decided to be total jerks. Occasionally a union gets a more leftist executive and becomes more bolshie (with this being more likely in some industries than others for historical reasons) but that's mostly pretty rare as their members want to work and have their employer succeed as a business. (For a union to survive, it has to continually prove to its members and prospective members that it is doing things to help them. That's healthy.)

      The advantage for employers of having reasonably strong but optional unions is that consulting employees about changes they're making to the business becomes much simpler, and far fewer disputes need to reach the attention of a court. After all, you're not going to stop employees from talking to each other (not without destroying the business entirely).

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    6. Re:Partly by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I think the bigger question is: why do 47% pay no federal taxes?

      EITC. Earned Income Tax Credit. Take college students without jobs, stay at home parents, and working americans with a low enough income and enough kids and other deductions and you have quite a lot of people who don't pay taxes.

      Of course, that's because of how we've structured our income tax system, less as a source of a revenue and more of a system of incentives. It's the same for companies - do something the government likes, get a tax credit.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    7. Re:Partly by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Did it surprise you to find out that YOU are part of the 47% Romney considers to be a leech?

      This is rather inaccurate. I'm no Romney fan, but almost everybody gets this wrong, and its annoying.

      Romney's 47% was, by his definition, people who pay no income taxes. A certian amount of slashdot readers are probably full-time students, and a few will be retirees and/or active duty miltary, but otherwise almost everybody reading here is in Romney's other 53%.

      The part I found particularly apalling about his remarks wasn't the disrespect he showed (sadly, I'm used to that), but the sheer stupidity. A large portion of the "47%" are retirees, who are Romney's strongest demograpic. The next largest portion are active duty military, who back in the Bush era were also strong Republican supporters.

      So when he was "entitiled" people who pay no taxes, he was insulting mostly his own voters, and was too stupid to realise he was doing it.

      Thank whatever diety you pray to that the USA didn't end up with that delusional person as POTUS.

  23. That's just revolutionary jive by hessian · · Score: 1, Insightful

    But in Europe a typical valid answer is "if management did not treat the workers like shit, they would not be unionized."

    Europe's a mess. I'm sorry for not kissing your ass like a guilty American, but I've been there recently and over the last 20 years a lot has changed. Not for the better. Good luck to you all.

    Back to the topic. There are valid answers and then there are truthful ones.

    The truth in this is complex:

    1. Some employers treated their workers like shit, especially when the workers were from ethnic groups who came into the country in such huge numbers they reduced their average value to near nothing (Irish, Mexicans).
    2. Many employers treated their workers like shit because the workers, like 90% of humanity, were disorganized, lazy, slovenly, etc. and did a bad job.
    3. Most employers treated their workers well for the same reason most employers do today, which is that happy people paid at market rate and overseen by decent people will in turn produce the best labor.

    And then there's every total union, like the Soviet republic, where the workers were so not treated like shit that the economy fell apart.

    1. Re:That's just revolutionary jive by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      Europe's a mess like how America's a mess. Depends on where you look and who you visit. In general, however, the challenges that both America and Europe have are very similar - we are importing too much tat on the whole. In other words, it's due to a massive current account deficit and wealth is being hemorrhaging away to places like China through 'free' trade. The reason that countries like Germany is doing well is that it's high up on the manufacturing chain, so its products are needed to produce the cheap tat (industrial machinery) or high-ticket and premium such as luxury cars. The market for that is limited and it's also next to fall. German cars are already being produced in Mexico for the American market for example. Everything else is just local politics (including the Euro 'crisis', which is a ploy for forced European integration).

      Good for you travelling outside your country - that doesn't mean anything at all to anybody though. For me, I've lived in both Europe and North America (both US and Canada) for extended amounts of time and that doesn't give me any insight, not sure how just a trip abroad can give you any.

    2. Re:That's just revolutionary jive by cbope · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but having "been" to Europe doesn't qualify your stance at all. Have you actually lived here?

      As an American living in Europe for more than 12 years, I can unequivocally say that it is more stable and safe on this side of the Atlantic. I don't need to worry much about my job, and if I do lose it I can count on a social safety net while I look for another good paying job, rather than take the fist shit-job that happens along just so I can (almost) pay my bills. There are far too many Americans in this position today.

      I would also like to point out that the economic problems in most of Europe are not nearly in the same class as the USA. We did not have a housing market crash at the same time due to an unregulated mortgage system that was free to take huge risks with the people's money. The countries in Europe that have serious problems have mainly brought that on themselves, for example in Greece and Italy where tax avoidance is an art form and a large percentage of people pay zero tax. I hate to break it to you, but the economic systems do not operate when people and businesses do not pay their equal and fair share of taxes. Notice I said equal and fair share... when everyone contributes, the system will work. In the US, a major problem is that so many large multi-national corporations pay little or zero taxes (GE, I'm looking at you). Starbucks is under investigation in the UK and Germany for paying almost no corporate tax on billions in earnings there over the past decade. When companies do not pay their taxes, guess who has to make up the slack? This is the single biggest problem in US economics today, that companies are allowed and even encouraged to evade paying taxes. Until this loophole is fixed, the US economy will not recover.

      Did you realize that, when adjusted for inflation, the average middle income in the US has basically been unchanged for the past several decades? The "middle" class is not any better off today than they were in the 60's, it's stagnant. Do the research yourself, the numbers and facts are out there. At least in Europe, the middle-class is much better off over the same time period, and depending on where you live you are hugely better off (e.g. former Soviet republics, eastern Europe).

    3. Re:That's just revolutionary jive by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      You've been to all of Europe, quite an accomplishment!

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
  24. Now I have to... by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

    buy my Galaxy Note 10.1 before it doubles in price due to American workers. Well I was just waiting till Christmas to see if I could get my sister to get me one.

  25. Re:labor costs vs cost of pissing off your custome by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

    I agree, it's great that I was not born in US, got excellent education, and became an engineer.
    Just imagine what all random Internet trolls would become if they didn't live in a country ruled by greedy sociopaths, with culture rooted in religious extremism and slavery.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  26. Re:labor costs vs cost of pissing off your custome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure how relevant the Wii example is, as there is quite a difference between custom orders that can't be made until ordered, and a standardized unit that can be shipped continuously. The former is more an issue of latency, and the latter is about actual production speed.

  27. Opposite day! by zill · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Fucking Americans, stealing ours jobs everyday. My buddy was forced to train his American replacement. It's only a matter of time before my job is shipped overseas as well." -Random Chinese guy

  28. Re:Big mistake by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    After all, people are still blaming Reagan and Eisenhower for the problems we have today.

    Well, Reagan more than tripled the debt in his 8 years, starting the modern trend of cutting taxes while greatly increasing spending. And Eisenhower started the Vietnam war, which destabilized Southeast Asia still to today. And You might as well blame Truman for Fukishima, as using nukes in war set back the use and safety of them as power stations.

  29. Re:Big mistake by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

    If this is über-sarcasm, kudos.

    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  30. And the circle is now complete. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slavery here we come!

  31. Re:labor costs vs cost of pissing off your custome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are the exception. Most consumers (and businesses and corporations) want it CHEAP. They don't care if they can't customize it (look at Dell's downfall).

    That means Wal-Mart (and Dell, and HP) orders as many stock configurations from the lowest bidder in China as they think they can sell. Oh, it's $335 USD per unit for that model? No, we want you to sell it to us for $290 USD. Oh, you don't like our terms? Ok, we'll just go to the Chinese factory next door and demand. Of course, we don't care that the unit will shit the bed in under 3 months, because our "warranty" is only good for 1 month!

    (MOST) Consumers don't care about quality, they care about sales and Black Friday bargains. Corporations don't care about long-term profits, they care about short-term gain.

  32. Anybody who belives this story is an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LA, Detroit cheap labor places???? Yeah right.

  33. Why should the American workers learn Chinese? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's great for many reasons, but I'm wondering something.

    The Forbes article links to a digitimes article. The digitimes article says, "The program will give the engineers an environment to learn the Chinese language, first-hand expereince in the manufacturing process, and a training that can be helpful after they return to the US, he added."

    If the American workers will work in the US, why should they learn the Chinese language?

    1. Re:Why should the American workers learn Chinese? by slew · · Score: 1

      I think it's great for many reasons, but I'm wondering something.

      The Forbes article links to a digitimes article. The digitimes article says, "The program will give the engineers an environment to learn the Chinese language, first-hand expereince in the manufacturing process, and a training that can be helpful after they return to the US, he added."

      If the American workers will work in the US, why should they learn the Chinese language?

      Perhaps to communicate with Foxconn managers and Chinese suppliers more efficiently? Through my dealings with Chinese and Taiwanese companies, I've found that although many engineering/tech personnel in China have a minimal ability to communicate in English (although some only by email), almost none of the factory or production personnel nor tech employees at low-level parts suppliers have servicable English communication abilities (neither verbal nor email). In a production environment, good communication skills are very important. A manufacturing "lines-down" situation can means thousands of dollars going down the toilet every second.

      I'm sure this is just for supervisors and managers and product and quality engineers. They aren't gonna ship all the hourly assembly employees over to china/taiwan for training.

  34. patent battle defense? by mschaffer · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I wonder how much of this has to do with American labor and how much it has to do with not having thier product stopped at the border due to patent battles.

    1. Re:patent battle defense? by hazem · · Score: 4, Informative

      I suspect a significant part of this decision comes from supply chain considerations. Consider that the US is still one of the largest markets for the electronic gadgets they make. If they ship their products on the ocean from China to the US, it will probably take 4 to 5 weeks to arrive in the US warehouses. Even if they go by air, it may take up to 14 days by the time it clears customs.

      Now think about the volatile nature of the markets for these products - they are difficult to forecast accurately, and small things can cause large swings in demand... rushes on product that empty store shelves, or a popular review that points out some flaw in the product. Plus these products have a relatively short "shelf life" of being "hot". As an example, the Nexus 32 GB came out 6 months after the Nexus 8GB.

      4 weeks of slack in your supply chain represents 4 weeks of tied up capital that is not doing anything but costing money. Additionally, it makes you 4 weeks further from being able to respond to changes in the market. Let's say your product has a fatal (in terms of the market... you have to hold it "just so" to get reception) flaw and sales tank sortly after launch. You already have 4 weeks of product sitting on the water. On the other hand, let's say the product takes off far more than forecasted. Store shelves are empty and it's going to be 4 weeks before you can stock them up again.

      At the other end of it, because your supply chain is less responsive to the market changes, you have a greater risk of having more obsolete product at the end of its lifecycle. You can destroy it and write off the costs, or you can try to liquidate to make more revenue - but then you have old products competing against your new ones.

      You can mitigate some of these issues by moving some of your manufacturing capacity to "near shore" or "on shore" with respect to the market you're selling in. You can still use "cheaper" Chinese production to manufacture some large percentage of your product line at cheaper cost, then use the nearby manufacturing to be able to quickly respond to market changes.

      For a car analogy, 1 mile of train takes a long time to start and stop, but carries weight efficiently. 1 mile of trucks can start and stop much more quickly, but at greater cost. A combination of both probably gives you an optimal transportation mix - minimizing cost balanced with maximizing responsiveness.

    2. Re:patent battle defense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also a way to get in on U.S. government contracts by having a trusted supply chain within the U.S. (QA and other things can be more easily verified if parts production is in-country.) Whether or not that's the case is another question though.

    3. Re:patent battle defense? by peragrin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      actually what your describing is part of the supply chain problem.

      The supply chain right now is so tight time wise that any temporary disruption is felt the entire way down the chain. The problem is that items sitting on shelves isn't efficient. However there is little disaster planning. take a look at what happened to hard drives a couple of years ago.

      Or look at japan's car production lines shutting down for three months after the fuskisma earth quake. The factories were open but they couldn't get parts to build.

      We are heading toward just in time manufacturing. Where you it won't be built until you order it.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:patent battle defense? by hazem · · Score: 2, Informative

      We are heading toward just in time manufacturing. Where you it won't be built until you order it.

      You're right. JIT's an ideal for supply chain efficiency, but the problem is that many purchases are impulse buys. The customer goes into a store to buy toilet paper and suddenly decides to buy the tablet computer they've been thinking about.

      Plus, you can't do direct-to-the-consumer sales from China. Consumers have been made accustomed to getting the product they want right when the want it, which often means "now". When I finally decided to buy a tablet, I waited for the 32GB Nexus, then scoured around and finally bought from the company who could get it in my hands the fastest (turned out to be Staples). If I had to wait 2 weeks for it to come from China, I might just decide to cancel the order and wait for the next version - "I really don't NEED it". And that's the last thing you want your customers thinking.

      JIT's great for efficiency, especially for commodity products that have a steady demand flow, but it's not very great for resilience/robustness of supply chains, particularly for products that have short lifecycles and "spikey" demand.

      The hard part is getting organizations to consider the overall lifecycle costs of a product rather than looking only at the margin from the factory or landed cost. Sure, China will make and ship my widget for 50% of the cost of doing it locally, and that's what goes on the balance sheet of the P&L of part of the org that has the sourcing managers. But the 20% of lost sales due to an inability to meet demand doesn't get tallied at all, and while the discounted prices and lowered margins from the discount channel might show up on that P&L, the fact that you lost sales of your newer "full-price" products because customers bought the older cheaper older model don't. If you reward your sourcing managers for getting the lowest cost from the factory, and then reward factory store managers for being "profitable" selling discounted products, you've set up a perverse system of rewards that hurts your overall productivity.

      When JIT will really work at the consumer facing part of the supply chain is when they can get the product "while they wait" (print-on-demand books) or within 2 days - before they've had too much time to consider canceling their order.

    5. Re:patent battle defense? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The large number of customers makes it fairly predictable though. For everyone canceling his order there's an impulse buyer.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:patent battle defense? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Shipping speed from china has improved. It used to take 3 weeks to get electronics components I order off ebay from china. Now it takes about 3 days.

    7. Re:patent battle defense? by hazem · · Score: 1

      I wish our industry worked like that. You're either spectacularly good at forecasting or really lucky.

  35. Re:Big mistake by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Government (under Clinton) provided the groundwork for the subprime crisis to begin with by rewriting the CRA and reapplying it to REQUIRE a certain percentage of loans to go to those who would otherwise not qualify. Remember, the CRA was signed into law by Carter. The rules and regulations of the CRA were tweaked by successive administrations to reel it in, or in the case of Clinton, to let more line out so the artificial bubble he rode during his 2nd term was intact (by perception) when he left office. That plus the 2004 SEC allowing these banks to borrow against 30x their working capital did a number on the economy. To say the Shrub was solely responsible is just like Obama saying Shrub caused him to run up the deficit at 4x the rate Shrub did. The concepts of the subprime crisis cross party lines, because most of the regulatory response to the Progressives' mis-characterization of Wall Street "being above the law" have done and will do nothing to fix the underlying problem that government meddling in the banking system is never for the reasons stated.

    --
    It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
  36. Re:labor costs vs cost of pissing off your custome by operagost · · Score: 1

    What's yours rooted in? Xenophobia and mass murder by autocrats? Just a guess.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  37. Could just a threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Foxconn has enjoyed a lot of government support from the now departing Chinese government. (Think forced internships, tax breaks, etc.) Announcing these US factories may simply be a way of telling the new Chinese government to not mess with Foxconn.

  38. Re:labor costs vs cost of pissing off your custome by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

    if they didn't live in a country ruled by greedy sociopaths, with culture rooted in religious extremism and slavery.

    You mean Great Britain? No, France. Oh, wait... you meant Germany, surely.....

    --
    It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
  39. Bread for circuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China exports about 20% to the USA. A significant amount, certainly, but not "the majority" of their market. We need them more than they need us.

    They need our wheat more than we need their LCD screens.

    11.8 billion dollars worth so far this year. (via census.gov NAICS app)

    1. Re:Bread for circuses by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If the goods ended, we wouldn't care so much as the collapse of Dell and Apple from them not being able to sell anything. All the US companies failing because they depend on China goods would be the problem. If China stopped sending us things, what would be left for Wal-Mart to sell? Some chips and gum at the checkout lines?

  40. Re:labor costs vs cost of pissing off your custome by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

    Yeah -- it kept sane people from trying to get into the government or building empires around their person. Mildly oppressive government is far superior to ones that whores itself to the rich.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  41. Not a surprise. by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This should surprise nobody. Foxconn has developed as a large international manufacturing conglomerate, and the US has by far the largest manufacturing economy, manufacturing 1.7 trillion dollars a year, compared to China's 1.2 trillion dollars a year.

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  42. What's with all the Detroit boosting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First the article about it being the ideal destination for nerds who want to create self-driving cars, now this?

  43. Re:Big mistake by iserlohn · · Score: 1

    Gosh, people still buy into this stuff?

    The reason why we have sub-prime is because of CDOs, so that banks can hide their poor quality loans by bundling them together, and then slicing them up into different layers with different risk profiles. They then sold these off to investors so they could rinse and repeat.

    The maths behind them is all wrong and they didn't account for the fact that although you can spread the risk by bundling poor quality loans together, the distribution of the credit events is not random.

  44. Re:Big mistake by iserlohn · · Score: 1

    You must have missed election night coverage on Fox News. You can always catch up on the unintentionally funny parts by watching the Daily Show though.

  45. Going to China to learn manufacturing by Animats · · Score: 1

    They're right - who in the US today studies how to set up a production line? Who gets a degree in production engineering? Production engineering is a complex problem. Failure can occur in non-obvious ways. Mistakes can lead to a plant which looks great, produces good product, and costs too much per unit produced. Or a good plant which needs huge capital expenditures and a long shutdown to change to a different product. Apple, in their manufacturing days, made both those mistakes.

    1. Re:Going to China to learn manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of people. At my university, it was called Industrial and Operations Engineering. I tried taking one of the courses as part of my computer engineering degree, to meet a non-concentration engineering class requirement at 300 level or above. It was full of dumbbunnies. :P I ended up dropping the course due to a scheduling conflict, after my adviser told me they were changing the rules and my Thermodynamics class would qualify to fulfill the requirement. (A 200 level course far harder than anything in IOE.) But I can tell you at least one of the reasons why manufacturing has struggled in the US: while there are people who have the degree, they're far from the best and brightest.

  46. Re:Big mistake by GPierce · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course, almost none of the liars' loans made by the brokers and banks fulfilled the requirements of CRA, but it makes a good story for those who want to excuse the thieves and blame it on the government.

    I know one former investor who lost $3M dollars (75% of his net worth) because of what the banks did to him - and he wanted to blame it on Obama (who wasn't even in office when most of the theft occurred). I wouldn't care that much if you need your deluded beliefs, but your delusions keep the crooks out of jail and that is a shame.

    --

    When you are dancing with wolves, never limp
  47. Taiwan != China by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Taiwan has the GDP per capita of Germany, is a democracy, is not communist.
    Just saying.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    1. Re:Taiwan != China by ThePeices · · Score: 1

      Taiwan != China

      Try telling that to the Chinese, and see how far you get.

    2. Re:Taiwan != China by unix_core · · Score: 2
      In a way correct but a bit oversimplified. Though Hong Kong and Macau (part of the PRC) do have a rather high GDP per capita as well, just saying.

      You are right in that it has a political system of it's own without direct interference from Beijing, but it's status as a nation IS controversial and not many nations recognize them as such nor maintain official diplomatic relations with them. Also, some Taiwanese nationalists would agree that they are the same nation (but of course they think China should not be ruled by the CPC).

      Last time I went there, the official name of Taiwan was something like the Republic of China and I think it still is.

  48. There's a movie about this by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 1

    Ghosts With S*** Jobs. It's quite a brilliant movie.

  49. "Made in America" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I guess that's one way of getting things "MAde in America" again.

  50. union shops are against freedom by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Once you mandate union membership you lose the edge for the unions to actually be beneficial for their members. In effect, you'll be trading one bad overlord for another. Corrupt union directors will want to protect and grow their empire, not put their energy in representing their members. A union should be beneficial enough for people to want to join voluntarily. Several western European countries still have a healthy union culture, without being mandatory membership. These unions generally do a pretty good job negotiating collective things and have "free" legal representation in case an individual member has trouble with their employer. Union strikes are relatively rare, but tend to be influential enough to be feared by employers. In short, it's perfectly possible to have the unions make themselves useful without mandating membership.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:union shops are against freedom by Schmorgluck · · Score: 1

      My, I wish France had unions like that.

      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
    2. Re:union shops are against freedom by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      Corrupt union directors will want to protect and grow their empire, not put their energy in representing their members.

      Union directors are elected democratically by their members. I'm not saying this has never happened, but there's checks in place.

    3. Re:union shops are against freedom by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      In effect, you'll be trading one bad overlord for another.

      You completely ignore you vote on your union leadership. Whereas you don't vote on management.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:union shops are against freedom by captbob2002 · · Score: 1

      Can't have that in most states. The union MUST represent EVERYBODY whether they join or not. Why would folks want to pay union dies if they get the same benefits (contract, working conditions, etc) without having to pay the dues? That gets you a weak, useless union that is not in a position to help anybody.

      In my union we do NOT mandate membership, but non-members do have to pay a "fair share" fee to the union which is the portion of the union dues that runs the union - and does not go toward political activity. In our case it is the same since my union does not use any of the money coming out of dues for political activity.

      Not all unions are run the way the teamsters were in the seventies. Most unions do not have highly paid high mucky-mucks getting rich off of running the unions - leadership is elected by the union memebers from the location where you work

    5. Re:union shops are against freedom by dywolf · · Score: 1

      i dont see how you get to mandate that non members pay anything. if im not part of the union and have no interest in it, i aint paying jack schmitt.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    6. Re:union shops are against freedom by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      A union should be beneficial enough for people to want to join voluntarily.

      I don't understand this comment at all. If it costs me money to join the union, but I can reap all the benefits of working in a union shop for free, all the incentive is against joining the union, isn't it?

      It seems like mandating "open shops" is just a sneaky way to emasculate the unions by starving them to death with free riders.

  51. tool owners by nten · · Score: 1

    Historically in England, the middle class was the power wielding wealthy merchant class, and the upper class were the peerage, people with titles and hereditry land. Everyone else was lower class, or "common". In the US there has never been a solid definition of middle class, but one that is concise and reasonable is the following. The middle class own and use tools. The upper class hire people to use tools to fix their house and property, the lower class cannot afford to own tools or fix their house or property. It is a generalization and thus not 100% accurate, but it is still useful I think.

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
    1. Re:tool owners by Schmorgluck · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, this definition of "lower class" coincides perfectly with the Marxist definition of proletariat.

      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
  52. Won't work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Americans are too stupid.

  53. Yo dawg, i heard you like outsourcing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..so we outsourced your outsourcing so you can outsource while you outsource.

  54. Re:labor costs vs cost of pissing off your custome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you'll find those countries expelled all their lunatic religious nutcases a long time ago...around 300-400 years to be exact.

    I wonder where they all went ??..

    Hmmmm.....

  55. which part of the GIANT Afrika by cheekyboy · · Score: 0

    Dude, do you know how giant afrika is? Its bigger than MARS.

    Its not all utterly putrid and poor.

    They do get 3G there too. And airlines do fly A380s.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:which part of the GIANT Afrika by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't Mars bigger than earth?

    2. Re:which part of the GIANT Afrika by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's much smaller than Earth. Earth has almost 7 times as large as Mars.

  56. Large amounts by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't know about LCDs, but most industrial processes need a lot of cleaning fluid. Electroplating and other coating and surface treatment processes often have to have metal contents in the effluent down in the parts per billion. There is a limit to what filtering, treatment and precipitation can achieve, and often the simplest solution (literally) is to use lots of water. (Before anybody gets uptight about nasty pollution from industry, the worst water pollution is actually the crap manufacturers put in shampoo, shower gel and the like, along with the hormones and antibiotics we and our farm animals leak out into the rivers and sewage systems).

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  57. you mean WoboCop CCCP by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Wobocop in a Mau suit.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  58. Really? by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mao was a Maoist. The last Communist in Indo-China was Ho Chi Minh, and he only was a Communist because the Americans wouldn't support his proposals for a moderate socialist Government (he lived in England for a while and wanted something like the Labour Party).

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Really? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Mao was a Maoist.

      You don't say! Next thing you know, you're going to be claiming that Marx was a Marxist and Lenin was a Leninist!

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  59. as much as California is part of mexico by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    or Alaska belongs to Russia.

    Man that has to be the bargain of the millenium, hahaha, so cheap!.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  60. 16 hours a day. by leuk_he · · Score: 1

    I bet it is more efficient than having a second job just to pay the bills.

  61. They're just hiring in the 3rd world by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    They're just moving their operations to the 3rd world like US firms did.

    Have you been to Detroit lately?

    There are parts that would give Mogadishu a run for its money. What they're going to find is that - like the actual 3rd world - they'll have to keep the local politico's happy, or the corrupt cops and admins will destroy them.

    --
    -Styopa
  62. Re:Big mistake by DarenN · · Score: 1

    And Eisenhower started the Vietnam war

    Good lord - this could not be more wrong. Eisenhower refused to get troops involved in SE Asia, despite intense pressure from the French who were being kicked around the place by the Viet Cong.

    --
    Rational thought is the only true freedom
  63. Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't they report a plan to replace all the Chinese workers with robots over the next few years. If they are building it in the US and using robots it would cut down on the cost of shipping goods increasing the profits.

  64. Re:Big mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True, but if the government had not required it, the banks would not have made such a huge amount of low quality loans in the first place. 'Bundling' of risk, and playing shell games with the loans, were certainly key causes of the crisis. However the government is not blameless - they came up with the idea to force the creation of the loans in the first place. If they were going to meddle with lending, they should have watched more closely (regulations).

  65. Re:Big mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was a well-known fact that Democrats are sore losers, now we discover they are also sore winners. Plus they don't got a sense of humor.

    Not here in reality. Not really sore losers, Obama was extremely gracious in his victory speech, and non-GOP-fascists have the best comedy.

    However you seem to be exhibiting classic sore loser characteristics. Project much?

    Guys like you give the other side so much ammunition for their humour.

  66. Proximity by PPalmgren · · Score: 2

    It cost more to rail a container from LA to NY than it does to ship it from China to NY. The rail networks are laid out in a way that there isn't much capacity for this 'flyover country.' Major rail lines connect LA, Chicago, Houston, and Newark. Everywhere not in close proximity to one of these cities is expensive as hell to ship to and from.

  67. Re:Big mistake by lucm · · Score: 1

    Did you see that video (How Obama Got Elected in 2008): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8

    Many of the "informed" people who appear in the video mention the Daily Show as a source for news. So bash Fox News as much as you want, but clearly (Everything - Fox News) is not doing such a good job of informing people either. Those people don't know who is Nancy Pelosi or who controls the Congress, but they know who got 50k worth of clothes or who has a pregnant teenager. Proud, informed voters.

    My first post in this thread was a joke but it is now clear that Obama is like Muhammad, if you make a single reference to him that is not a praise all the cult members go nuts. This is beyond sad because the people with an ideology and a church are supposed to be the Republicans. You people behave exactly like O'Reilly who labeled anyone who disagreed with Bush as "anti-american". Shame on you.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  68. The Simpsons Did It by animpaul · · Score: 1

    THE SIMPSONS: This reminds me of when Springfield's nuclear power plant became too expensive to run, (due to wages, health care benefits, etc), so Mr. Burns outsourced the town's electricity to a low wage plant in India. Homer was sent to manage the staff there and was surprised there were no safety measures, no break rooms, no benefits... so he implemented them all even including child care! You know what happened, the staff there grew used to the good life & became more demanding and expensive so... Mr. Burns restarted the local Springfield power plant because it was cheaper HaaHaaa!

  69. A weak dollar is not a bad thing by sjbe · · Score: 1

    What we also need to remember is that we could triple the minimum wage and it still won't mean shit if the rate of decline of the dollar's buying power continues to increase.

    A "weak" currency is not the bad thing that many people suppose. A weak currency makes buying imports more expensive but it makes selling exports more competitive. Japan's currency is very strong right now and so they are having difficulty being competitive on cars they export from Japan. A strong yen and a weak dollar makes Japanese cars more expensive. A weak dollar makes is more cost effective for companies to locate production in the US and for US companies to export abroad. Part of the problem with trading with China is that China has taken steps to keep their currency "weak" on purpose which makes their exports cost less to buy. This is 100% intentional on the part of China and is a significant factor in why goods can be made cheaply in China. (the other big factor is their cheap labor)

    Regarding minimum wage, that has little to do with the relative strength or weakness of the currency. Increasing minimum wage could affect product prices but that is independent of exchange rate costs.

  70. Never been to Detroit have you? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Yes but detroit is a shit hole of desperation and low wages

    Really? Oakland County which neighbors Detroit City is one of the 10 wealthiest counties in the US.

  71. Sources? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    It cost more to rail a container from LA to NY than it does to ship it from China to NY

    Source? My own experience says that is nonsense. I run a manufacturing company that buys stuff from Japan and China as well as domestically. I've worked doing global sourcing from Mexico, China and India. Domestic freight is almost always cheaper and always considerably faster. Furthermore you probably aren't going to use rails to ship stuff domestically, you'll probably use a LTL or FTL truck, not a container so it is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.

    The rail networks are laid out in a way that there isn't much capacity for this 'flyover country.' Major rail lines connect LA, Chicago, Houston, and Newark

    No capacity? BNSF, CSX, Union Pacific and the rest will be very surprised to hear that.

    Everywhere not in close proximity to one of these cities is expensive as hell to ship to and from.

    Demonstrably not true.

    1. Re:Sources? by PPalmgren · · Score: 2

      I work in the ports industry and have visibility into nationwide container movement. The issue here is an electronics manufacturing facility is going to be getting all its parts from asia, so youre going to have them come into LA, ship inland, then have to ship them to coastal cities because thats where all the big box dsitribution centers are. The inland rail depot competition collapsed in 2007 so most low pop locations are natural monopolies. While they are still cheaper than OTR, trucks movement more than 200 miles from a deep water terminal is expensive in its own right.

      Yes, i was oversimplifying things in regards to those rail depots, but what Im getting at is they'd be doubling their distribution costs by going too far away froma population center. Given that this is likely to be highly automated, that offsets labor and construction cost savings by using one of those areas.

  72. Automation by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Second, building a highly automated plant is NEVER about labor costs.

    I'm a certified cost accountant and that is complete nonsense. Decisions regarding automation are almost always about labor costs. Above a certain volume of production it (often) becomes cheaper to automate production than to hire additional labor. Classically you have a high up front tooling cost but production is much cheaper once the line is running.

    It is about avoiding import duties. Assemble it in the US and it is a US product exempt from import duties and hence cheaper.

    Import duties are typically less of an issue (depending on the product - there are exceptions) than exchange rate risk. Japan builds a lot of cars in the US primarily because it eliminates exchange rate risk to them. It's a form of built in hedge. The Yen is very strong right now so it is expensive to export cars made in Japan to the US. Build them in the US and this problem goes away. If the Yen was cheap relative to the Dollar they would make more cars in Japan.

  73. Re:Big mistake by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    Eisenhower sent the first American troops to Vietnam, resulting in the first American dead soldiers. That they were "advisors" and not "infantry" doesn't change the first death of a US military person in Vietnam was under Eisenhower. Eisenhower also encouraged and supported South Vietnam to not participate in the elections, out of fear the democratic process could elect someone Eisenhower didn't personally approve of. If Eisenhower had just said "sort it out yourself" to Vietnam, the world would have been better off.

    Eisenhower materially supported the south's rebellion from the north, and Eisenhower sent the first American to be killed there. That fits my definition of "he started it".

  74. Looks like by illestov · · Score: 1

    Among other things, China is developing a pretty good sense of humor

  75. Yes, the US needs more remedial jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we can't "fix this econonmy" (aka make the richer rich) by putting more people in factory jobs that pay very little.

    keep it up america. I mean euro-america

  76. Please read before you post by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I was replying to the poster above that was making noise about Chinese stability. I did not state or even come close to implying that Foxconn is not a Taiwanese company

  77. the solution to pollution is dilution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    indeed. its fascinating to consider that because of international law making it illegal to dump many toxins and heavy metals at sea instead we define "drinking water" to be water with less than a particular level of these substances and hence many but not all industries require vast amounts of water so they can dilute their pollutants.

    there is a famous quote, "the solution to pollution is dilution."

    one problem is that some animals are more sensitive than humans, and where do you really draw the line with elements like polonium. in the EU and some other countries there are elements that are not legal to put into water in any amount. It stands to reason considering the toxicity of radioactive elements which are present ores and coal.

    in Canada they are finding out that salmon despite being able to live in salt water require particularly pure water for spawning, and the populations are being significantly reduced by what is classified as drinking water.

    Electronics is a major user of halogens, in particular fluoride. Honeywell (the name is ironic if you think about it, a honeywell is a euphemism for a shit hole) is one of the largest suppliers of HF acid and other fluoride, in quantities that would astound you, at around 250 thousand tonnes a year. with an average abundance of ~900ppm in the earths crust, fluoride is more abundant than carbon. That doesnt change the fact that it is a cellular stressor and all living organisms have been devising means to protect them selves from it since life began. as the most electronegative element F^- is close in weight and size to OH- and so in ionic form it diffuses and mixes with water extremely well, with simple filtering it is close to impossible to separate from water because of the similarity between OH- and the F- ion.

    Oxygen is extremely reactive and our entire metabolism is based around the cycling of Oxygen. Biology has devised a way of utilising one element to antagonise the effects of another. Superoxide radical is turned into the less harmful h202 by Superoxide dismutase and Glutathione which utilises sulphur in the form of cysteine.

    F plays no essential role in any organism, although we have discovered that even bacteria have sensitive RNA riboswitches specifically to sense F and compensate for its damaging effects. It is interesting to hypothesise that we too may have systems to compensate for the presence of F.

    One of the nucleotides Thymidine is a part of DNA and BrdU, an analogue, is often used to indicate the presence of DNA synthesis and cellular division.

    The methyl in the 5 position of Thymidine is a book keeping device and distinguishes a T from a deaminated Cytosine. Spontaneous deamination of Cytosine is the most frequently occurring mutation, and is induced intentionally in white blood cells as part of the randomisation of antibodies. When Cytosine is deaminated it turns into a Uracil, these U's are excised and fresh Cytosines are inserted in a process of DNA repair that is performed continuously. If this is not done properly when the DNA is duplicated instead of a G being conjugated with the original C an A would be coded and so there would be mutation.

    Because of the methyl T can be distinguished from an original C which has degraded into a U.

    In RNA Uracil is used rather than Thymidine, this mechanism which provides protection against corruption is absent. Due to the cost of methylating U's to produce T and because RNA is only a temporary cache of information Uracil is sufficient.

    Large amounts of T are required during DNA synthesis, which is performed quickly so as to minimise the window for disruption. Checkpoints are used to ensure all preparation has been performed before initiation of synthesis. During the checkpoint dTMP is produced from dUMP by the enzyme Thymidylate synthase.

    because of the size of the bromine atom 5BromoUracil is an analogue of T and will be integrated into DNA, likewise with 5IodoUracil and the other halogens. In the case of Fluorine, it smaller size means

  78. Too much taxation, too many Gov services, too much by Vince6791 · · Score: 1

    Government controls the economy through taxation and regulations. If the government got rid of business double taxation(((7hr is really 14 since company pays an extra 7hr))) it would probably bring back some manufacturing. Or better yet, just stop taxing business altogether since they provide the jobs and just tax personal income. Roads are built from gas sales tax, public schools through property taxes. The federal government and states really need to get rid of pension plans for government workers and just put them on SS like the rest of us. Stop with all this overseas strategic military plans the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990's, Germans are fine, Japanese are fine, even the Chinese, we don't need the u.s to start causing issues in Europe especially what happened between Georgia and Russia. Cut military spending and stop feeding the military industrial complex for crying out loud. If housing, apartment rentals, gas, electricity, water, were priced as low as they were in the 1990's people would not have to ask for higher salaries, but instead, today, we get ridiculous high prices and low income especially here in NYC(queens, brooklyn, staten island, bronx), manhattan is a special case.

    I wouldn't mind making 20k-30k if living costs were down but now I need 55k-60k(also save some money) just to live in brooklyn or queens, 1 bedroom apt jump from $1100 -> $1400 no utilities included while 2 bedroom jumped from $1400 -> $1800 no utilities included, shitty basements $1100. And of course people are inflating home prices at ridiculous levels again so we might have another housing bubble in 5 - 10 years again. a shitty home build for $25k now goes for $1 million.