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."
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.
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.
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.
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
Gimme a break. Unions are the only thing that defends the middle class from the rich shareholders that demand ever increasing dividends.
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)
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."
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.
For anyone that hasn't heard of this incident before...
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.
Union strike? In China?
We've all seen what happens when Chinese people rise up against the establishment.
But...but...you have Robocop!
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.
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.
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.
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."
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
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.
Automation - The Car Company Tycoon Game
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
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.
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'
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.
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.
Why go that far back? Here's proof you still need unions today.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
"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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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'?
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
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
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."
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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".
Learn to love Alaska
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.