China Starts Outsourcing From ... the US

hackingbear writes: Burdened with Alabama's highest unemployment rate, long abandoned by textile mills and furniture plants, Wilcox County, Alabama, desperately needs jobs. And the jobs are coming from China. Henan's Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group opened a plant here last month, employing 300 locals. Chinese companies invested a record $14 billion in the United States last year, according to the Rhodium Group research firm. Collectively, they employ more than 70,000 Americans, up from virtually none a decade ago. Powerful forces — narrowing wage gaps (Chinese wages have been doubling every few years), tumbling U.S. energy prices, the rising Yuan — up 30% over the decade — are pulling Chinese companies across the Pacific. Perhaps very soon, Chinese workers will start protesting their jobs being outsourced to the cheap labor in the U.S."

Comments

First post

[GameboyRMH]

Welcome Chinese overlords!

Re:First post

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Cue worker migration and Star Spangled Red-and-White Peril in China.

Re:First post

[wisnoskij]

I think you mean: (Hunyíng zhngguó bàzh!)

Re:First post

[Karmashock]

Actually we've seen this happen in the US for many years with a lot of foreign companies. Often because US companies fail to resolve labor or regulatory issues and a foreign company cuts through the issue to find a way to produce products in the same place without incurring many of the previous costs.

Toyoda for example has done this repeatedly and been able to produce cars more cheaply in the US then many of their American competitors using the same labor.

A lot of it boils down to legacy corporations that have grown too large and inefficient.

Things need a reboot on occasion. Many large companies should go through a serious reorganization top to bottom including the renegotiation of all contracts to take into consideration new opportunities and concerns.

Re:First post

[wisnoskij]

OK a lot of the characters disappeared when that was posted. It should look something closer to "Huanyíng zhongguó bàzhu!"

Re:First post

[petermgreen]

Sometimes what they do is set up in the US but in a different part of the US. This allows them to sidestep protectionist import restrictions while also drawing from a different labour pool and avoiding existing unions.

Toyota has a number of factories in the US but none in detroit or even in mitchagan.

Re:First post

[DerekLyons]

Toyoda for example has done this repeatedly and been able to produce cars more cheaply in the US then many of their American competitors using the same labor.

Toyota has been building new factories in depressed areas, low wage areas, and union free areas. Their American competitors aren't quite so free to do so.
 

Many large companies should go through a serious reorganization top to bottom including the renegotiation of all contracts to take into consideration new opportunities and concerns.

That is... not nearly so simple as you imagine. Especially if unions are involved.

Re:First post

[Noah Haders]

actually, it's not so much about being domestic or international as it is where you build your shizz. Car manufactuirng is exploding in the South, across KY, TN, AL, and many other states. it's all the major companites. toyota, honda, hyundai, GM, Mercedes, BMW. The plants in the south are non-unionized. and its especially appealing for foreign automakers cuz then their cars are "made in america" for the purposes of taxes and international trade issues.boeing also wanted to move from WA to the south, I forget where, but the thing was held up because the unions went to Obama. I forget how that turned out.

simple fact is, it's hard to build cars in the midwest, nobody wants to do it. a lot of legacy stuff is there, and a lot of things are bound by contractual relationships and institutional knowledge, but if you're starting fresh then might as well put the plant in the best location.

Re:First post

[Penguinisto]

A lot of it boils down to legacy union shops that have grown too large and inefficient.

I don't normally do a "FTFY", but this one sort of needed it.

Most car companies are on par with each other insofar as management and the organization thereof, with a few degrees of slop either way. The big variable is that the Toyota/Kia/Hyundai/etc plants in the US are generally non-union shops in "Right to Work" states. The advantage of that is while they still pay a decent wage, they don't have to pay the massive UAW-blessed wage and headcount demands, let alone the added drag of bureaucracy, negotiations, etc.

Re:First post

[SourceFrog]

"Toyoda for example has done this repeatedly and been able to produce cars more cheaply in the US then many of their American competitors using the same labor."

Good at building cars, they are! Follow the dark side, they do not.

Re:First post

[Karmashock]

Well... the point is that the legacy contracts in the rust belt are not competitive.

Those contracts either need to be renegotiated such that they are competitive or the wise business move will be to sunset ALL operations in those areas and relocate elsewhere.

To keep everything on an even keel they're going to want to do it slowly so they don't disrupt their supply chain. However, if the unions do not get reasonable very quickly they're going to die.

Period. Full stop. Negotiate or operations will be terminated. End of story.

Re:First post

[Karmashock]

They are free to do it. Just as free as Toyota was to do it.

Will the Unions whine? Its a question of rights. The unions have a right to whine. They don't have a right to stop it.

If the unions want to buy the car company and then decide how to run it, that is fine... buy the car company.

If they want to have no investment in the car company and just work for it like employees... then that is what you are... an employee. You don't decide as an employee where a company builds a factory.

Full stop.

Now through the labor department unions can use special interest politics to make life difficult for companies. But those companies can't be forced to keep factories open. Open a new factory some place the labor department isn't going to stop... if that means another country then that's what you have to do... then you shut down the factories in the union areas. Utterly shutter them.

Its not a question of whether something is easy or not. Its an existential threat to the company. They don't have a choice. They must do things in a competitive fashion or die.

Must.

Do or die.

If the unions refuse to cooperate then they can't be involved in the company's future. Retaining them in that position means accepting death. The only companies that will survive are the ones that either get a new contract with the unions that is competitive or that cut the unions out entirely one way or another.

I suppose you could get a lot of back door government handouts... but then your business is less about selling cars and more about getting corrupt politicians to give you subsidies.

Which is fine as far as it goes... just be honest about your business model at that point. You're a subsidy company at that point... not car company.

Re:First post

[Karmashock]

No one has to pay that though. Ever.

Its a choice. As a company, it is your money. You can do what you want with it. You can invest where you want. You can employ who you want. You can pay them what you want.

The government can invalidate contracts but they can't force you to sign contracts or force you do things you don't want to do.

You just have to be willing to call their bluff. This means in many cases shutting down operations or relocating because local officials are interfering with local business activities.

imagine if you had a farm where you grew tomatoes and every so often bandits came through and stole your tomatoes and raped your wife. Well... you don't have to grow tomatoes there. once you've figured out that there is an undesirable pattern of behavior in the area you can conclude that you might be better off going somewhere else that the bandits aren't going to steal your tomatoes and rape your wife.

Detroit is not a great place to run a business for a lot of reasons. Everyone should leave. Everyone. Empty the city until all that is left is stray dogs.

Then start over. So many places just need a reboot.

And if we're fair, we'd have to recognize that the only reason Detroit hasn't gone through a reboot is because we keep giving them money. Stop doing that. Let them sink or swim on their own. They'll drowned of course... leading to an exodus from the city... which will leave a much more humble and reasonable city thereafter that can have a hope of restarting.

Re:First post

[Karmashock]

A baseless insults is not a rebuttal, constructive criticism, or even technically an argument or thought.

Its just a bit of animal noise you decided to type into your browser and then send through the internet to waste my time and patience.

Please stop wasting bandwidth or stop wasting oxygen.

Re:First post

[infinitelink]

The government can invalidate contracts but they can't force you to sign contracts or force you do things you don't want to do.

You missed the batshit Obamacare ruling, didn't you?

Re:First post

[dbIII]

Toyoda for example has done this repeatedly and been able to produce cars more cheaply in the US then many of their American competitors using the same labor.

Considering what the US car industry became with the protection of a 20% tariff and no need to innovate or operate efficiently that is no surprise. Even GM and Ford were managing their overseas operations far better than their US ones - old process lines, obsolete designs and poor work practices in the US while their overseas operations were competitive and producing better products without that 20% of protection - even in places with much higher wages and more militant unions.
The US car industry is a prime example of what happens when you stop seeing Henry Ford as a good manager and instead think trust fund babies that do not want to change anything (eg. Edsel Ford) are good managers - even if they need government help to protect their poor management against well managed competition. Because it's nearly impossible to go broke selling cars to Americans no matter how badly you run things it was seen as a success and something to emulate. Sadly that cancer spread throughout US industry which resulted in the clueless MBA culture that seems to be based on attention deficit disorder.

Re:First post

[rtb61]

Actually, it is the perfect way to insert espionage agents from China into the US as well as establishing control over elements of the US government. China has paid attention to the machinations of Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UK and ever so quietly Japan. It also establishes the basis for more leverage able connections with lobbyists. Russia needs to pay attention and start doing the same thing, hmm, perhaps with aero-space technology for example like space launch engines or far more cost effective and reliable jets.

Re:First post

[Karmashock]

If executive contracts were the problem then the foreign companies would not do better in the US then American companies.

They are and so the common denominator are those contracts which are uncompetitive.

The logic while politically inconvenient and economically upsetting is nonetheless inescapable.

As to executives sucking every last dime out of a company, that is true in some situations, however you'll find that if you total up the total budget spent on executive compensation... especially on senior management... and compare that to the amount spent on practically any other portion of the labor pool you're generally looking at a tiny fraction of the company's total budget.

You could in most cases pay the executives literally nothing and not change the economic standing of the company.

An old and I think witty comment from William Randolf Heist was as follows:

A man sent Mr Hearst a letter saying that he had so much money while so many had so little. He said that Mr Hearst should divide his money up amongst the people of America and raise all our standards of living by sharing.

Mr Hearst responded by sending the man a check for 10 dollars saying "here is your share".

The point is that while some people are very wealthy or are paid a great deal more then others those same people are also uncommon. Divide their gains amongst us all and you'll find it doesn't amount to much. This is especially true if you want to talk about an automotive company that employs tens of thousands of factory workers while having a relative handful of executives.

Oh sure, you can cite the mid level executives if you want to get higher numbers but those people are also not paid a great deal more then your factory workers.

I'm sorry... I don't like coming to the conclusion... its just logic. You can deny it if you want but I say this as someone that feels friendly to your sentiment... you are deluding yourself. That is not an insult but rather empathy. I feel the same frustration you do... I really do... but you can't point at the sky and deny the Sun. It is.

You deal with the problem first by admitting you have it.

My personal solution to this issue is massive automation.

The unions will say that means lower employment as factories will lay off people and replace them with robots.

That's absolutely true assuming production remains fixed and no new industries come out of it and if we assume that the US economy will not lose all its factories if it does not evolve.

I do not make those assumptions.

I rather assume that companies will produce as much as they can produce and that more efficient production always leads to more production. As such factories that employ 2000 people might still employ 2000 people but with ten times the production.

Even if you do have fewer people working in the factory you might have more factories or the wealth generated by having those factories be so efficient might open other jobs in other industries.

Look at what the industrial revolution did for agriculture. We used to have about 70 percent of our labor force in agriculture. Today, its perhaps 5 percent while production of food is far higher.

Suggesting we stay with outmoded factory labor policies is as unsustainable as suggesting that we go back to small family owned farms with manual labor tilling the fields.

The sort of factory the unions want is dead already. Its gone.

This attempt to sustain it merely weakens the companies and loses us the opportunity to jump on the future.

I further assume that new industrial models will be better for new companies that want to make things in the US. Lots of things that can't be made here now could be in the future if we can have enough automation to make it practical.

I don't suggest we pay people poorly. I believe in win win situations. I think we can pay people as well or better so long as we have higher per employee production. If every employee produces 10 times what they produce no

Re:First post

[Daemonik]

Yes, you can literally pay the executives nothing, because most executives earn most of their compensation through stock options. Which means they no longer care about the long term health of the company they are running, their only concern is their short-term stock options and their golden parachute when they bail out after running the company into the ground. Foreign companies don't give their executives anything close to the kinds of compensation American CEO's demand.

To top off the outrage, if the American CEO is a really special kind of a-hole executive, they'll arrange to buy up the company they just destroyed for bargain basement prices and sell off the pieces to other companies for a healthy profit!

You also might want to conceive of the fact that corporations have more responsibilities than just to efficiency & stock holders, despite how most try to downplay any such ideas, a company has responsibilities to it's community and it's workers too. There is nothing appealing about the notion of companies constantly roving the globe destroying their environments as they suck every last bit of profitability out of the populace before moving on to the next new cheap labor pool. It's funny how the great industrialists had more of a sense of community contribution than most modern CEO's.

Re:First post

[Daemonik]

Actually, the big differentiator is that American companies owe their older union employees the pensions they are contractually obligated to pay for, but the CEO's pissed all the pension funds away on failed buyouts in the 80's/90's. The CEO's that made those choices aren't even running the companies anymore, so the new guys are left holding the bag all the way around.

The foreign companies coming here are starting out with fresh labor forces that don't have that kind of drain on their resources.

Re:First post

[Daemonik]

This! So much this! This is why Ford makes fuel efficient diesel engined cars in Europe but won't import them into America.

Re:First post

[Karmashock]

Why would a CEO care less about a company if paid in stock options rather then paid in a straight salary?

I mean... if paid in a salary he can literally tank a company WHILE working for it and not lose money until he's fired.

Where as a CEO paid in stock options has to keep the value of the company high at least until he can sell his stock options which tend to mature at least a couple years in the future.

While I agree with you that many CEOs are irresponsible that is more the fault of the current investment model.

I think we have too many small investors in big companies. It creates a problem where in the board of directors is frequently filled with people that don't really represent anyone or care about the company.

Disney for example put some school teachers on their board of directors as well as some other random people. They weren't major share holders and so they both lacked influence and interest in the well running of the company. You see this in many companies and it isn't how it used to work.

In the past, members of the board represented or literally were major share holders. They had leverage because they could sell their stock which would have an impact on the share price given that they were major share holders. What is more, many of them held voting shares which meant they could literally vote CEOs out of their seats.

Today, the boards of directors are typically meaningless. They don't really represent shareholders or have any power. And this leads to CEOs getting out of control because they're basically in charge without any accountability. The only thing that brings them down is if they piss off the shareholders enough that they form a lynch mob OUTSIDE of the board of directors and then organize to vote the CEO out. Very little of this is done from within the boards of directors these days because they're puppets with no strings... they're just a for show pageant without meaning.

As to the responsibilities of a corporation to the community and the workers etc... that's nonsense.

If I start a sandwich shop, I don't have a responsibility to my community or to the guy I hire to make sandwiches. That is unless you think providing healthy sandwiches to the public and paying the wages of the kid I hire doesn't cover my responsibilities. Because those are my responsibilities in that situation.

I don't see where I agreed to do more then that. And I don't see where you get to suddenly claim that companies are responsible for the economic well being of people that aren't even investors in that company.

Its all about contract and property law. The companies never signed contracts or made agreements to do what you're saying they should do... They do that sort of thing on occasion but they don't have to do it.

They do it because companies are made up of people and people care about other people. Also it is justified on the basis of employee and community relations... and is seen as being cheaper then the consequences of not doing it. That said, extorting the companies to do it ultimately comes out of their bottom line and that can make them leave an area if your definition of "community support" means them failing to make a profit.

Companies that can't make a profit... die. Or the government bails them out endlessly due to incestuous political entanglements... which just means other profitable american businesses are being robbed to bail out unprofitable ones...

Don't fuck with the market... it will give you face herpes every time.

Re:First post

[Karmashock]

You can always terminate operations. Not a great option but it is an option.

If companies have the courage to do this it can stop these pushes.

They don't want to drive companies out of business. They want to control them.

If you make it clear that you're a "live free or die" type of company... they have to make a choice... do they want to kill your company or leave you alone and collect taxes?

Because if you make it clear that the price of trying to control you is that you self destruct... there is little point in trying to control you.

It is only by submitting that they get what they want.

Re:First post

[luis_a_espinal]

Toyoda for example has done this repeatedly and been able to produce cars more cheaply in the US then many of their American competitors using the same labor.

Toyota has been building new factories in depressed areas, low wage areas, and union free areas. Their American competitors aren't quite so free to do so.

Many large companies should go through a serious reorganization top to bottom including the renegotiation of all contracts to take into consideration new opportunities and concerns.

That is... not nearly so simple as you imagine. Especially if unions are involved.

Yes, they are. They are free to open factories in at-will states just like Toyota, BMW and several others have done so.

Re:First post

[Daemonik]

How can executives sabotage their company for the stock benefits? Primarily because stock prices are in no way effected by a company's profitability. The biggest movers of stock price are layoffs, mergers and expected growth.

Layoffs can seem to be due to efficiency but you can also layoff the wrong people who were the core of your business, or layoff too many employees. Then they hire contract workers with no stake in the company's success or temp workers to fill the gaps, neither of which group has the institutional knowledge of how the company functions to perform their jobs well, but it looks nice on a balance sheet at the quarterly review.

As for mergers, so many company's have been wrecked by poorly considered mergers it's not even something you can question.

Then there's the favorite 'expected' growth vs actual growth, and the demands that businesses become omniproducing ever growing conglomerations while getting further and further from the core proficiencies that made them successful in the first place. The expectation of growth is what typically drives the layoffs and the mergers. A company can be phenomenally successful in it's niche and it's stock will actually drop, unless they can project constant and unreasonable growth in their market.

There are a lot of companies that have had excellent stock gains, right to the point where they implode and everyone looses out, except of course the insiders.

Re:First post

[AmiMoJo]

Toyota in Japan and the UK maintains good relations with its workers because it realizes that is the best way to get a productive workforce. Generally speaking Japanese companies see their staff as an asset, and are constantly undervalued by western investors who see things like wages and concessions as a liability. The proof is in the pudding though - Japan has more 50+ year old companies than any other developed nation.

Maybe they do things differently in US Toyota factories. Maybe the workers vs. company mentality is still there. That's not usually how Japanese companies work though.

Re:First post

[Karmashock]

I'll grant you all that. I think that's a fair criticism. That said, the foreign companies are dealing with the same issue in most cases and this is how they get profitable.

And indifferent to the obvious problems with many corporate management cultures, the way we've organized factories in the past is not how we'll organize them in the future.

Saying management is full of incompetents and frauds is not an argument against that point. Its a different point and a different problem. A problem I'll side with you on for what that's worth to you.

But it doesn't negate or diminish the labor issue which believe it or not is a bigger problem then the management issue in most manufacturing companies. You either deal with this problem or it buries you.

Re: First post

[grep_rocks]

I doubt unions are the problem Germany makes lots of cars with very expensive labor - in my experience US management sucks (literally) - management at a lot of US companies is just focused on looting the company by transferring any value created into their bonus and not reinvesting in new products and not paying to keep skilled labor - of course the profits look great for a while until there is nothing left but a dry husk of the company left - usually just marketing, sales and service teams are all that is left in the end state....

Re:First post

[david_thornley]

You are assuming there is an existential threat to the company. I'm not seeing where that came from.

Re: First post

[Karmashock]

German labor is more automated then a lot of american labor... what is more germany enjoys quite a bit more protectionism then anything the US has had in a long time...

its complicated you can't make apples to apples comparisons across national lines easily.

Focus rather on comparisons within nations of different types of companies.

Re:First post

[Karmashock]

uncompetitive cost and production models are an obvious existential threat.

Re:First post

[Karmashock]

Plus 5 insightful for me and -1 for you... suck it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

oh boy

[k6mfw]

can't wait for those whining on the forums, "damn Americans stealing jobs from hard working people."

Re:oh boy

[bluelip]

China's downfall in production will come when the factory workers start having unions that are too powerful.

Re:oh boy

[ultranova]

China's downfall in production will come when the factory workers start having unions that are too powerful.

Isn't it strange how success is always the accomplishment of awesome management but failure is never the fault of incompetent one?

In any case, you're wrong. The world is running out of hellholes that tolerate slave labour, so those companies that can't turn profit without it have nowhere to go and no future save bankruptcy auction. That should make this the time of great opportunity for every businessman who can actually live up to their own hype; based on the amount of whining we're hearing instead of eager expectation, I guess most of them know the truth about themselves...

Re:oh boy

[TheDarkMaster]

...The world is running out of hellholes that tolerate slave labour, ...

This. Exactly that. People are not made to work like machines until they die of exhaustion, people are made to live as people. And the work is only a means to live, not the reason of the life.

Re:oh boy

[dywolf]

Ma, the anti union troll is talking again.

Re:oh boy

[cyberchondriac]

I think that's a bit optimistically premature. When Asia finally does eventually get around to stopping that practice, Africa will probably be the next, last bastion for poor and oppressed labor. It's always been the way of third world countries trying to compete in a global market.

Re:oh boy

[Citizen of Earth]

The world is running out of hellholes that tolerate slave labour

And you're saying that's a bad thing? It tends to point out the complete failure of charity, well-wishing, and flowery language to lift people out of absolute poverty and the massive success of the invisible hand of capitalistic greed accomplishing this social good without even wanting to.

Re:oh boy

[jellomizer]

The problem is while the money is going back to the US. It isn't a 1 for 1 improvement in American jobs.
American Companies are efficient, they are getting damn too efficient for the average working Joe.
Automation, electronic quality checks in the like. Means a a factory 30 years ago needed 500 people to keep up with demand needs about 50 people to today. Most of these 50 people are paid more, however there will be some at minimum wage too.

Re:oh boy

[sjames]

The inevitable result of an exploitative management.

Re:oh boy

[blue9steel]

The world is running out of hellholes that tolerate slave labour, so those companies that can't turn profit without it have nowhere to go and no future save bankruptcy auction.

Ahh, Capitalism at work! The nice thing about Capitalism is that it often ends up doing the right thing (lifting people out of poverty in this example) for all the wrong reasons. Never fear though, there is still a whole new continent (Africa) that needs to experience the joys of low paid slave labor before we're really done with that part of things.

Re:oh boy

[DM9290]

...The world is running out of hellholes that tolerate slave labour, ...

This. Exactly that. People are not made to work like machines until they die of exhaustion, people are made to live as people. And the work is only a means to live, not the reason of the life.

you can work now and die in a few years of exhaustion, or else not work and die in 3 weeks from starvation. What did you say about human beings? I couldn't hear you over the sounds of all the other people lining up to beg for your job.

Re:oh boy

[u38cg]

GÄisÇ dà mÄiguà rén, cÃng xÄnqÃn gÅngzuà de rén tÅu de gÅngzuÃ

Re:oh boy

[Gr8Apes]

The problem in Africa is that there is no semi-stable large state. Until a stable and large enough state exists to support the infrastructure and provide security for shipping goods internationally, I doubt you'll see a flocking of businesses to Africa. And then there's the political aspects.

Re:oh boy

[u38cg]

Oops. Forgot Slashdot and the 21st century don't mix so well.

Re:oh boy

[Firethorn]

Africa will probably be the next, last bastion for poor and oppressed labor.

I think India still has a few 'last gasps' for cheap labor, after that it's down to really small countries. But I agree, and consider this people:
China: 1.35B people
India: 1.24B
Africa: 1.07B

The ENTIRE continent, short of a population boom that puts any previous baby booms to shame, isn't going to be able to take on the demand for 'cheap labor' when China and India start looking to outsource for cheaper labor like the rest of the world did. And that's without addressing the stability issues Africa has. China at least had predictability and businesses didn't have to worry about gunmen holding the factories/supplies/finished product hostage.

As such, I figure 'insourcing' is going to be the 'next big thing' for a while. Domestic appliance manufacturers are already discovering that by outsourcing production they also outsourced their production knowledge, and while they were fine for a generation, they lost the ability to design appliances that could be manufactured effectively. By bringing stuff back in house and really nailing the automation they're actually making higher quality appliances using less labor at lower cost.

Re:oh boy

[Kjella]

In any case, you're wrong. The world is running out of hellholes that tolerate slave labour, so those companies that can't turn profit without it have nowhere to go

Oh there's plenty of hellholes left, but the remaining ones are mostly plagued by civil war, crazy dictators, massive corruption, lack of basic education and infrastructure or some other form of ethnic, religious, economical, social or political instability that make them unsuitable for running a business no matter how low the wages get. The extremely poor but stable countries are quickly running out, India is still lagging quite a bit behind China but after that if gets tougher and tougher.

Re:oh boy

[k6mfw]

It's been said Capitalism is where man exploits man. Communism it's the other way around.

Re:oh boy

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, the USA is the last hell hole on earth that tolerates slave labour. When the Chinese find exploiting american's more cost effective than exploiting Chinese, there might be something wrong in your backyard.

Re:oh boy

[reboot246]

Ma can't answer you. She's taking her mandatory union break. She'll get back to you some time tomorrow.

Re:oh boy

[Daemonik]

Ma is on her break laughing her butt off at the wage slave who's anti-union and working 10 times harder than she is for minimum wage & no benefits being a hater.

Re:oh boy

[ZenMonk]

Or at least she was, until her cash-hemorrhaging union-shop factory was shut down and operations relocated to a right-to-work state.

Re:oh boy

[AC-x]

China's downfall in production will come when the factory workers start having unions that are too powerful.

That's a bit of a leap, they don't even have unions!

...

If only the US didn't have unions, they could be in the same position as China; with a massive workforce of virtually slave labourers with no rights, huge polluting factories not bound by those damn profit sapping environmental laws etc.! What a wondrous future that would be! <tears>

Re:oh boy

[bluelip]

Unions are no longer necessary. If you don't perform, get fired. Unions are for socialism and extortion.

Funny ...

[gstoddart]

Powerful forces â" narrowing wage gaps (Chinese wages have been doubling every few years)

Funny, ours have been halving.

So it really is a race to the bottom.

Re:Funny ...

[alta]

As someone originally from Alabama, Thank you :)

Re:Funny ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather a race to the middle. It's all about balance. There's just no way for one group of people to earn more than another if not for their greater productivity. If a US worker can generate the same amount of wealth as a Chinese worker, or Vietnamese, or whatever, why should they earn more? You'll say because cost of living is higher. I'd say that's true, but so is your standard of living.

A meeting at the middle is eventually going to happen. Sucks for comparatively wealthy westerners, but it sure is great for all those poor people around the world being uplifted from poverty.

Re:Funny ...

[pushing-robot]

More like "dropped on average a few percent in real purchasing power from its peak a couple decades ago".

Considering how many of the world's problems are caused, enabled, or exacerbated by abject poverty, it seems a small price for bringing a couple billion people in the BRICS nations out of it.

Unless you're one of those who think you were born deserving more than everyone else in the world.

Re:Funny ...

[oh_my_080980980]

Spoken like a true dweeb who doesn't know the working conditions.

Re:Funny ...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

So it really is a race to the bottom.

No, it's just that at last, the Invisible Hand is taking all those historical inequities and smearing them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani bricklayer would consider to be prosperity.

Re:Funny ...

[gstoddart]

Oh, I have no problems with fighting poverty.

But I also think it's large multinationals who benefit the most, as they just shop around to find the people they can abuse for the least amount of money until they move on elsewhere.

It's the huge profits reaped by gutting your domestic workforce and applying a zillion times markup on your product like Nike does I dislike.

Because that's pretty much corporate serfdom.

Re:Funny ...

[jythie]

It also can not last. The reason multinationals are raking in such large profits from cheap labor is OTHER companies are still paying well. It only works as long as your target customer is well off but your own work force is poor, but if the pattern continues then the target customers will bit by bit also be replaced by poorer workers and that ripples though.

Re:Funny ...

[russotto]

A meeting at the middle is eventually going to happen. Sucks for comparatively wealthy westerners, but it sure is great for all those poor people around the world being uplifted from poverty.

Unfortunately, wrong. The actual middle is still abject poverty. No sooner will those poor people be uplifted than the next billion will drag them down.

Re:Funny ...

[pushing-robot]

Well, the rich have always benefited the most from business, and will most certainly continue to do so.

But corporate serfdom is a result of a lack of labor opportunities, from the mining towns and workhouses of the 1800s to sweatshops and factories in third world countries today. So I'll turn your idea on it's head: A world where labor pools can court business from all over the world is far better than one where workers are beholden to the local oligarchs.

Re:Funny ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize this is OT, but I spent a few years in Alabama and was shocked as just how cosmopolitan and open it is in many places.

The stereotypical backwards Alabama hick doesn't actually live in Alabama.

He lives in central Florida.

Re:Funny ...

[sjames]

Pay them well enough that they become consumers who, in turn, create more demand which requiring more decently paying jobs to keep up.

Re:Funny ...

[Daemonik]

I realize this is OT, but I spent a few years in Alabama and was shocked as just how cosmopolitan and open it is in many places.

Yeah, because once you get outside the larger city limits it's right back to banjo's and cross burnings until the next metropolitan oasis.

Re:Funny ...

[aprdm]

It's so funny, that your concept of Civilization is your country. How can you be so selfish? Your country has contributed to a lot of exploration and poverty around the world. It still does. Third world is a very bad concept and there are no "shitty cultures". We only have one world and everyone is a citizen of the planet earth.

Re:Funny ...

[alta]

You can go from Mobile to Huntsville and only see a little bit of that stuff.

Get off I-65 and it's anyone's guess.

There is the HUGE confederate flag looming over the interstate between Birmingham and Montgomery though, marking where to get off the interstate for the Confederate museum.

Get down in the Southeast corner and be afraid.

Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[Old VMS Junkie]

Businesses will continue to take advantage of poverty, wherever it exists and whoever it is. Greed is blind to creed and color. All it cares about is profit.

Re:Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternatively: Businesses will continue to reduce poverty, wherever it exists and whoever it is. Greed is blind to creed and color. All it cares about is profit.

Re:Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[roc97007]

I'm told that "least cost country" is used in manpower discussions so much now, it's been abbreviated to LCC to save time.

Re:Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[bjwest]

You would rather the unemployed remain so, rather than get a job, however little the pay? So long as we continue the fight to a living minimum wage (and win it), I see no problem here. Every dollar they earn is one less taxpayer dollar they receive.

Re:Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[cyberchondriac]

You can tell it's an election year. It's just desperate handwaving ("Bush! "Squirrel!") because polls indicate the democrats aren't looking too good, and they have nothing substantive to counter with.

Re:Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[synapse7]

I don't think so, if they could get people to labor for nothing they would. Think of the profit margin.

Re:Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[khallow]

So what? It remains that even in the complete absence of those regulations, that those businesses are still both the first line of defense against poverty and the primary sources of those taxes either directly or through wages paid. They're the ones paying for those services you claim they use.

Re:Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[sjames]

Minimum wage hikes is one of the regulations they are fighting the hardest. Next hardest is any regulation that would make them liable for the damage they inflict on everyone around them. Basically anything that doesn't keep people desperate and under-employed.

Re:Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[sjames]

What platform is the squirrel running on? We might have a winner!

Re:Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[Daemonik]

Most fortune 500 companies haven't paid taxes in the US since Reagan. From getting multi-decade tax abatements for moving from state to state to transferring all their profits to their foreign offices to avoid Federal taxes, they know every trick because they paid off Congressmen to write the tricks into the laws for them.

Re:Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[Daemonik]

That would be the same Communist revolution that forced China to industrialize in the first place? They were no great economic power before Communism either, in fact they spent quite a while as Europe's colonial bitch.

I think if the revolution hadn't happened, any revolution it didn't necessarily have to be Communist but it definitely needed to knock the status quo down, China would have become Africa 2.0

Re:Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[khallow]

Most fortune 500 companies haven't paid taxes in the US since Reagan.

From a report titled "The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes", we have this:

As a group, the 288 corporations examined paid an effective federal income tax rate of just 19.4 percent over the five-year period

And most of these companies paid taxes. 26 didn't pay taxes at all, but right there we have more than a majority of the Fortune 500 companies (262) who paid something in corporate taxes.

Now, this report in question does make other observations about the companies in question which indicate that these companies don't as a class pay much in corporate taxes, but that's a far cry from the claim you made.

Also, you haven't made a case for why most companies should pay taxes at all. As I note they also are responsible for considerable tax payments through indirect means. Sure, they use a lot of government services, some of which are actually worth paying for. But that doesn't mean that a good way to pay for those services is via a corporate tax.

Re:Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[Daemonik]

So not paying "much" in taxes isn't paying zero, which was obviously a bit of hyperbole without citations, but it doesn't really negate my point either. Corporations are never at a disadvantage in taxation, because they are the ones most capable of having their tax circumstances altered in their favor!

Why should corporations pay taxes? Are you 10? I suppose you would argue why anyone should pay taxes, while you take advantage of the numerous public benefits visible and invisible we receive from government. Corporations should pay taxes because they require workers with certain levels of health and education which are paid for through public programs. Because they need publicly paid for police to ensure their products aren't stolen before they can reach market, because they need a government to enforce their patents and protect them from foreign or domestic malfeasance. Corporations should pay taxes because they get perks such as access to governmentaly mandated right of ways, governmentaly secured resources, government courts, government research, government standards, government treaties.. and more.

Corporations should pay taxes because no country can last long while amoral parasites bleed all of it's resources and capital away for their own benefit while returning nothing back to it.

Re:Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[cyberchondriac]

The Bullwinkle party :-D

Re:Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[khallow]

Again, corporations result in a lot of tax revenue and other public benefits. I don't disagree that governments do provide some services of value. But as you claim, when you use public services you should pay for them. So who is paying for the public services provided by corporations?

Here, by public services, I don't mean that the corporation is a public organization, but rather that the corporation is providing a beneficial externality. For example, by employing people, that means tax revenue and less need for social services.

Re:Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[Firethorn]

Every dollar they earn is one less taxpayer dollar they receive.

Your ratio is poor. I prefer more like 4:1, even when I was mean I supported 2:1 - This results in a gradual weaning off of benefits, which actually encourages people to work.

If I get $10k in benefits a year, and get a part time job making $10k, reducing my benefits to $7500 means that the government is still $2.5k ahead, but I'm now $7.5k ahead, which makes it so I want to work as I see the benefits.

I get a 'decent' job making $40k* and the benefits finally go away, but at that point I'm not only above the poverty line I'm paying taxes. Whatever, somewhere between 4:1 and 2:1 should work well. You might need to make it progressive - IE the first $1000 is free, etc...

*Let's be nice and say that the $40k includes benefits so it's more like $30k/year, and the $10k included stuff like medical

Re:Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[Daemonik]

Oh! Corporations provide 'public services'! Is it a public service when corporations under employ their workers and force them to work 'flex' schedules requiring them to rely on Welfare services to make ends meet? But hey, that welfare is paid for through all those huge taxes corporations pay.. oh right! They don't pay, do they, corporations have convinced people like you to that it's your responsibility to take over their tax burdens!

But at least corporations provide the public with the things we can't live without, like High Fructose Corn Syrup. Glad to know someone is looking out for the public.

But at least they hire people! When they're not doing rolling layoffs so their workers never accrue benefits or any sort of seniority.

Yep! We'd all be so much better off if we just let corporations have free and unrestricted reign over our lives.. nothing would possibly go wrong with that.

Re:Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[khallow]

Is it a public service when corporations under employ their workers and force them to work 'flex' schedules requiring them to rely on Welfare services to make ends meet?

According to the premise of the article, "Workaholism In America Is Hurting the Economy", yes. And why are employers "underemploying" workers? They have an obvious preference for workaholics.

Yep! We'd all be so much better off if we just let corporations have free and unrestricted reign over our lives.. nothing would possibly go wrong with that.

I guess we better not do that then, if it is so bad. Fortunately, this particular straw man is completely irrelevant to my argument.

Re:Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[AC-x]

You would rather the unemployed remain so, rather than get a job, however little the pay?

United States unemployment: 6.3% minimum wage: US$7.25 per hour

Australia unemployment: 5.8% minimum wage: US$16.88 per hour

Re:Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[bjwest]

You would rather the unemployed remain so, rather than get a job, however little the pay?

United States unemployment: 6.3% minimum wage: US$7.25 per hour

Australia unemployment: 5.8% minimum wage: US$16.88 per hour

And your point is what? The argument isn't about the minimum wage level, it's about employing people. Employment, at any wage, should be preferable to unemployment. The minimum wage is an entirely separate argument, and you can see I'm for a livable minimum wage.

This I didn't expect.

[TigerPlish]

I was thinking some years ago "If all the jobs went to China because no one in the US wants the factory worker life, who is gonna build Chinese doohickeys when *they* get tired of the factory life?"

I was thinking India. Or Malaysia, or Chile or something..

But not the USA. I never even considered that possibility.

WTF. This world no longer makes any sense to me.

Re:This I didn't expect.

[kick6]

I was thinking some years ago "If all the jobs went to China because no one in the US wants the factory worker life, who is gonna build Chinese doohickeys when *they* get tired of the factory life?"

I was thinking India. Or Malaysia, or Chile or something..

But not the USA. I never even considered that possibility.

WTF. This world no longer makes any sense to me.

It makes perfect sense. After enough time of disparaging the factory life, Americans are finally realizing that it beats the alternative.

Re:This I didn't expect.

[Krishnoid]

WTF. This world no longer makes any sense to me.

You're apparently about ten years behind the times. But considering history probably repeats itself, you're likely also about ten years ahead of the times.

Re:This I didn't expect.

[roc97007]

I'm not sure how these thoughts connect, but I was thinking some years ago "If all the jobs went to China because it improves profit margins, who will be able to afford the products that are shipped back to the US?" I mean isn't outsourcing by its very nature a strategy that only work if you're riding the leading edge? Because what comes afterwards is a lot of companies fighting over a smaller and smaller pool of consumer discretionary income.

Re:This I didn't expect.

[TigerPlish]

It makes perfect sense. After enough time of disparaging the factory life, Americans are finally realizing that it beats the alternative.

I can make sense of it at an intellectual level, it's just my gut reaction to go "WTF" -- it's a bit counter-intuitive.

The news is welcome, I just wish American companies would start making things in USA again. I know we can do it. I suppose in time, we will.

Re:This I didn't expect.

[oh_my_080980980]

The only people who were disparaging manufacturing jobs were corporations who moved them overseas.

Re:This I didn't expect.

[Registered Coward v2]

It makes perfect sense. After enough time of disparaging the factory life, Americans are finally realizing that it beats the alternative.

I can make sense of it at an intellectual level, it's just my gut reaction to go "WTF" -- it's a bit counter-intuitive.

The news is welcome, I just wish American companies would start making things in USA again. I know we can do it. I suppose in time, we will.

Once you factor in productivity and transportation costs, amongst others, the cost gaps narrows and possibly even closes. They're not doing a 1 for 1 replacement of workers so hiring fewer, but more expensive and more productive US workers, begins to make sense. In addition, there can be political considerations as well.

Of course, being Alabama, they will promptly arrest and jail the Chinese managers who come over to check on the plant unless they can prove they are in Alabama legally.

Re:This I didn't expect.

[jythie]

In general the pattern has indeed been to move labor to places like India, this case is a bit of an anomaly or a change.

Re:This I didn't expect.

[bledri]

It makes perfect sense. After enough time of disparaging the factory life, Americans are finally realizing that it beats the alternative.

I can make sense of it at an intellectual level, it's just my gut reaction to go "WTF" -- it's a bit counter-intuitive.

The news is welcome, I just wish American companies would start making things in USA again. I know we can do it. I suppose in time, we will.

It's already turning around. Tesla builds its cars in Fremont, CA and they're planning to open a battery factory somewhere in the US. SpaceX makes rockets in Hawthorne, CA. SolarCity bought Silevo and is planning to build a solar panel factory in NY. Now we just need to convince someone besides Elon Musk (which is actually happening.)

Re:This I didn't expect.

[lister king of smeg]

Of course, being Alabama, they will promptly arrest and jail the Chinese managers who come over to check on the plant unless they can prove they are in Alabama legally.

its Alabama not Arizona

Re:This I didn't expect.

[LordLimecat]

Being richer than 95% of the world sure is a tough job, but someone has to do it. Plus, we get to complain about it the entire time, so theres that.

Re:This I didn't expect.

[Registered Coward v2]

Of course, being Alabama, they will promptly arrest and jail the Chinese managers who come over to check on the plant unless they can prove they are in Alabama legally.

its Alabama not Arizona

I know. Arizona arrests you for looking Hispanic, Alabama, so far, for driving while German. In the name of equal opportunity they may extend that welcome to the Chinese as well.

Re:This I didn't expect.

[Lodlaiden]

Are you from China?

Re:This I didn't expect.

[TheDarkMaster]

The good thing about Musk (and guys like him) is that profit is not the sole and exclusive purpose of the company. They are looking to do something well and profit is just a welcome consequence of this, not the sole purpose..

Re:This I didn't expect.

[TigerPlish]

The good thing about Musk (and guys like him) is that profit is not the sole and exclusive purpose of the company

This. We need more like this. But I fear even Tesla will fall to greed one day, when Musk cashes out and the MBAs take over and visualize, strategize, conceptualize and monetize every ounce of life out of that company.

Re:This I didn't expect.

[TheDarkMaster]

Look at that, fellow slashdotters. Here's an prime example of a being with such hatred of those who differ from the standard tea-party maggot, that anyone who agrees with how Musk do business is immediately and viciously attacked in the most Neanderthal way. Poor guy.

Re:This I didn't expect.

[Daemonik]

Alabama's laws are worse than Arizona's, and they allow local police to arrest and hold anyone without bond who they suspect of being an illegal. Which is pretty much anyone who isn't white with a confederate flag tattoo and open carrying an assault rifle.

Re:This I didn't expect.

[LordLimecat]

Im from the US, and you're out of your mind if you think the average Chinese is richer than the average American.

Re:This I didn't expect.

[david_thornley]

Factories aren't what they used to be. It used to be that lots of people would be in assigned places doing specific assigned tasks in an assembly line. The quality of labor didn't matter all that much, so it got outsourced to poorer countries. Nowadays, the specific assigned tasks tend to be done by robots, not humans acting like robots. This means that there's a lot fewer people, so their pay affects company finances less, and they tend to be more skilled. Skilled labor is going to be more expensive anywhere, and so there's probably less of a disparity.

This isn't a return to 1950s industry, that employed a vast number of people. It's good for the more skilled US workers, but not for the less skilled ones.

Shipping, Inventory/Delays & Management Costs.

[BoRegardless]

Are not trivial for moving heavy products from continent to continent.

Labor with automated systems is sometimes no longer a large expense.

2000 jobs and 2 billion dollars

[OzPeter]

Thats what is being touted for the Shandong Tranlin Paper Co. greenfield mill being built near Richmond VA, and to break ground in 2016

Chinese paper company to set up shop in Richmond suburbs

Sure I don't expect 2000 permanent full time jobs, but injecting $2 billion into a community ain't so shabby

Re:2000 jobs and 2 billion dollars

[PPalmgren]

Is this for recycled paper?

The amount of wastepaper sent to China is absolutely staggering, on the order of several billion dollars a year from the US. In sheer volume and weight that's several thousand containers on a ship a week.

http://www.gltaac.org/us-china...

Re:2000 jobs and 2 billion dollars

[Frosty Piss]

Sure I don't expect 2000 permanent full time jobs, but injecting $2 billion into a community ain't so shabby

The problem with your argument is that "2 BILLIOB" *WILL NOT* be "injected" into the Local Economy. Much of the design, contracting, and building supplies will come from elsewhere.

Sure, there are the shit wages that will be paid to the Paper Factory Serfs, but just about everything else will come from elsewhere. And by all means, let's not discount jobs in the South that pay little more than Dairy Queen...

Re:2000 jobs and 2 billion dollars

[Sarius64]

You're a fucking moron. Terry McAuliffe, the governor who made this deal, served as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 2001 to 2005, was co-chairman of President Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign, and was chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.

Re:2000 jobs and 2 billion dollars

[Frosty Piss]

But if you want, Frosty Piss, tell us what job you do?

I used to be a Database Admin. But for the last 8 years, I've been a mission planner for the US Sir Force.

I'm not sure what this has to do with your argument, though.

Re:2000 jobs and 2 billion dollars

[Frosty Piss]

Air Force mission planner huh? So you have multi-engine jet ticket? At least 1,000 hour in high performance aircrafts?

I said mission planner. Not pilot. Clearly you are an idiot.

Re:2000 jobs and 2 billion dollars

[Sarius64]

Obviously being the Chairman of the DNC is a DINO. Too funny!

Re:2000 jobs and 2 billion dollars

[Frosty Piss]

Just musing out loud that a mission planner apparently never been on a mission himself.

Ah, but you have no idea what kind of jet I plan for (or for that matter if it's even a jet, because before now, I haven't said), or what my background with the Air Force is.

For example, it is very possible that before retiring from the US Air Force, I could have been an Engineer on the C-141 and then a Loadmaster on the C-17 after the C141 went away (the C-17 does not have Engineers, computers took care of that). It's very possible that through that experience, I have a great deal of knowledge that applies directly to C-17 mission planning. It's possible that in addition to my database experience post-Active Duty Air Force, I spent a significant amount of time in various capacities with the Operations Group with a particular Reserve Wing before moving to Active Duty Current Operations (otherwise known as the "Barrel") as a civilian on the Active Duty side.

Quite frankly, your comments show your complete ignorance about how flying wings operate, how missions are generated, and the different pieces that fit into the mission planning pie.

I know you're trying to imply I'm full of shit, but you're only making yourself look more like a completely ignorant idiot. Such is to be expected from "Anonymous Cowards" such as yourself.

Re:2000 jobs and 2 billion dollars

[Frosty Piss]

By the way, yes, I very possibly had enough time to do these things, as I joined the Air Force in 19-fucking-85.

Have a nice day.

Race to the bottom worked...

[ZeroPly]

... and us Americans won! I'll never doubt a cheap labor conservative again.

So it starts......

[Anonymous Coward]

Soon Americans will be seeking jobs as au pairs in China....

Asia is the place to be. Asia is an exciting place: India, China. If you are young and have not visited these place the best advice you will receive is simply to go. Learn some Hindi or Mandarin. Drop any expectations. Just explore. Your future will be brighter for the experience.

Asia has a youthful population. The culture is alive. The Asian take / mix on American culture which produces endearing results. It is a bit of an over judgement but in America the youth are caught up in vanity, drugs. American youth are generally immature. In Asia the youth are hungry for knowledge. They have clarity in their eyes.

Re:So it starts......

[Sarius64]

Don't laugh. I've friends hired as translators for the prestige of employing an American. Crazy stuff.

theyre doing it for some very specific reasons.

[nimbius]

Sourcing manufacturing jobs in Georgia is like shooting fish in a barrel. OSHA and EPA inspections are basically nonexistent and the threat of meaningful unionization is basically the same as the PRC. The most important reason chinas looking to the US for sourcing jobs is not because their citizens are earning more, its because you are earning less. according to the social security national wage index the average take home yearly pay for a worker in 1977 was $9779. adjusted, thats $58,713 in 2013 dollars.
https://www.socialsecurity.gov...
http://adjustforinflation.com/
what this chinese company proposes is offering manufacturing workers $15 an hour, or around $31k a year. Things like health and dental insurance are probably not going to be provided by this company, and that would usually be OK because a state healthcare exchange would help but georgia hasnt passed any conforming legislation and does not to date have an exchange of its own, nor has it expanded medicare coverage.

Re:theyre doing it for some very specific reasons.

[WrongMonkey]

Check your math. I thought your inflation adjustment seemed a bit high and it turns out that the very calculator you link to agrees with me. $9779 in 1977 dollars is worth $37592.19 in 2013 dollars. Following the social security link that you provided, the national average wage index for 2012 was $44,321.67.

This could be political too

[guanxi]

The Chinese government is very strategic about creating 'soft power' (political, cultural, economic, and diplomatic influence; as opposed to 'hard power', which is typically military force or economic sanctions). Look up Confucius Institutes and the Three Warfares, for example. China also uses its market power to get what it wants politically; look up how Hollywood studios allow Chinese censors to edit their movies (and not just for Chinese distribution).

It's not a new idea to use jobs to create influence. Government contractors locate jobs in the districts of key members of Congress in order to get votes; when Japan's auto industry was viewed as a threat, the built factories in the U.S.

In the locations where Chinese companies are placing jobs, how likely is it that the people or their representatives will support sanctions, force, or any actions detrimental to China?

(China isn't the only country to do such things, of course, but they have a lot of money, an aggressive outlook, and their government has a lot of involvement with and influence over their businesses.)

Re:This could be political too

[rahvin112]

The Chinese government is TERRIBLE at soft power.

When the Philippines got hit by that Typhoon and they had the opportunity to inject soft power into the Philippines and offset public opinion about their territorial claims that are in conflict with the Philippines you know what they did? The offered a couple million dollars cheap tents that were probably worth less than a million dollars.

You know what the US did? We deployed a carrier group and starting rescuing people directly, feeding them, setting up housing and providing medical care onboard the navy ships including emergency surgery for those critically injured. That relatively cheap soft power exercise for the US bought long term good will in the Philippines, in fact they actually started talking about maybe letting us open a base there again (it's bared by their constitution). We didn't really spend that much more than the Chinese claim to have spent but we got 200000x the value from it.

The Chinese don't get soft power at all.

Re:This could be political too

[guanxi]

That's just one example, and they do make their mistakes (as does everyone). Here are some successes:

  * Bloomberg and other news organizations openly refuse to publish reports critical of the Chinese government.
  * Major US universities sacrifice academic freedom in order to get funding for Confucius Institutes
  * Hollywood films that you may have watched last night are written and edited to appease Chinese censors.
  * Norway's government refused to meet the Dalai Lama, to appease China.
  * Taiwan has diplomatic relations with few countries, because they don't want to anger China.

Re:This could be political too

[sjames]

They should do the same thing here.

Re:This could be political too

[TubeSteak]

This isn't soft power at all.
As the cost differential between Chinese manufacturing and US manufacturing decreases, it makes perfect sense to move the manufacturing closer to where the products will be consumed.

US companies have been slowly moving their manufacturing back to the USA (or to Mexico), because it isn't that much more expensive than China + the lack of language barriers and 12 hour time shift makes resolving problems easier.

The fact that the Chinese are now moving manufacturing to the USA means that cost differential has shrunk even more, to the point that the Chinese are willing to put up with the language barriers and 12 hour time difference.

Re:This could be political too

[hackingbear]

That's because Chinese people are complaining loudly that their government is too soft. (don't believe? read the Chinese news portals' user comments for some days.)

And, we are indeed very very good at soft power -- it is known as political marketing.

Re:This could be political too

[dk20]

As I read your post it confuses me.
So while many in the US do not have healthcare, their tax dollars was used to fund a "carrier group" (sounds costly?) to provide healthcare to foreign nationals?

In return for this, you got a "maybe" for building a base (doesn't sound like you are after "soft power") but yet you also state the constitution prohibits this? This makes me think of the classic "the check is in the mail" line. Hey, thanks for the help, we will consider letting you open a base even though it is prohibited by our constitution?

Are you saying funding a "carrier group" full of staff, and providing medical care was less then "a couple of million dollars in tents"?

If this is the case, why not spend "just a few million" to provide medical care to your own citizens who also need it?

Perhaps when the Philippines was hit by a typhoon China had their own problems to deal with and focused on those instead They later decided (pressured?) to give tents and such to try to be helpful without really expecting something in return (reopen military bases)?

Re:This could be political too

[khallow]

It works. That's an effective rebuttal to your snide insinuations.

Re:This could be political too

[khallow]

As I read your post it confuses me. So while many in the US do not have healthcare, their tax dollars was used to fund a "carrier group" (sounds costly?) to provide healthcare to foreign nationals?

It's worth noting here that an area that just got hit by a disaster is a far more serious health care problem than someone who can't be bothered to pay for their health care with their own money. People might die for the want of something simple like a meal or a clean bandage.

Re:This could be political too

[david_thornley]

Actually, the cases are more comparable than you may think.

A US carrier group is primarily intended for war, but warships have what are generally fairly extensive and well-equipped hospital facilities aboard (something about expecting people to get hurt by incoming ordnance). We can run one over to a disaster area and do some emergency treatment. I don't know what it cost, but considering we have bought and stationed the carrier group for other purposes entirely the operation probably didn't cost that horribly much.

Meanwhile in the US, if you're really bad off you can go to an emergency room and get patched up so you're at least stable.

Neither of these are particularly cost-effective ways of delivering health care.

oh boy

[Anonymous Coward]

Here it comes: The unboxer rebellion!

Is this really "outsourcing"?

[spitzak]

If the manufactured items stay in the USA (or are shipped to any place where it may be cheaper than shipping from China) then this is just putting the factory where the product is being used and is not really "outsourcing". The term "outsourcing" should be limited to when jobs move to follow cheap or available labor but otherwise defies any business logic.

The article is not clear on where the factory output is going, or where the raw materials come from. There is one mention of a glass factory who's "site puts Fuyao within four hours' drive of auto plants in Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana." All the others don't seem to say whether delivery to the USA is part of the reason for the relocation.

Temporary

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all temporary. Mass production is a passing fad. By the end of the 21st century everything will be made to order at the local additive fabrication shop or on your own 3d printer. Anything that can't be made that way will be fabricated by robots. Robots which are self repairing.

Re:Temporary

[wiggles]

Your timeline for that is a bit optimistic, I think. Robot factories - sure. Simple stuff like individual parts and toys from 3d printers - ok. For things like durable goods, there are too many dissimilar, complex parts made from varying materials, each processed in a different way, to make this a reality any time soon. You'd need a universal constructor - and that's at least 150 years out. We need to master far too many high level concepts first, like quantum physics.

Re:Temporary

[david_thornley]

Actually, the issue is more economic than technical. Suppose I could get a large 3D printer to print me a car. That's nice. I've now purchased a big and extremely complex device that doesn't get used much, and used a very general manufacturing technique to produce something specific.

Now, somebody builds a big factory designed to do nothing but produce cars. The specialization means that they can produce cars a lot cheaper than by 3d printing them, and their factory is heavily used so the cost gets amortized over very many cars. It's going to be a lot cheaper for me to buy a car from them than to print my own.

3D printing will be very useful for things not all that many people want. It will mean extreme versatility in the manufacturing industry. It will be uneconomical for things a whole lot of people want. I've seen some very impressive 3D printing, but the individual parts aren't cheap.

MOD PARENT UP

[Tailhook]

This is why Bush gave China Most Favored Nation trading status which eliminates almost all finished-good tariffs and port authority scrutiny.

Another language barrier?

[Overzeetop]

As if it wasn't hard enough to learn Chinese to talk to your suppliers directly, now you've got to learn to understand people in Alabama? That's fucked up.

Re:Another language barrier?

[dbIII]

Actually been there, done that, and some fuckwits put a forklift tine through my server when it was sent to Georgia (close enough to Alabama) to be repaired with replacement Chinese parts.

They'll just complain...

[phillk6751]

that we can't speak proper Chinese.

false choice

[globaljustin]

You would rather the unemployed remain so, rather than get a job, however little the pay?

that's a dumb dichotomy and it shows the weakness of your position

obviously, in a perfect world we wouldn't need any remediations...we'd all ***rather*** not have the problem at all

the minimum wage is the same as anti-trust laws...it plugs a hole in capitalism...just as a mononpoly is the antithesis of free market competition, so is it harmful when companies monopolize the factors of employment

we need anti-trust laws for the same reason we need minimum wage laws: unchecked corporate greed

Re:false choice

[bjwest]

You would rather the unemployed remain so, rather than get a job, however little the pay?

that's a dumb dichotomy and it shows the weakness of your position

You can't just take my first sentence out of context, call it weak, then babble on about the importance of minimum wage. You totally ignored the fact I say minimum wage is a good thing, and needs to be raised to a livable level.

The U.S. has a minimum wage, so the "however little the pay" will be what the law allows. We won't be inundated with workers making $1.00 a day.

Re:false choice

[khallow]

The hole here is that some people simply are not worth employing at minimum wage. Those people stay unemployed. You can call it a "hole in capitalism", but it wasn't a hole before it got regulated into existence.

Re:false choice

[sjames]

The problem is, nobody can unless they're getting a handout to fill the gaps.

Re:false choice

[david_thornley]

You're saying nobody was unemployable before minimum wage laws were enacted?

Re:false choice

[khallow]

You're saying nobody was unemployable before minimum wage laws were enacted?

I wouldn't say nobody is unemployable, just a very small portion of the adult population (I'm ignoring children). Instead, we have, for example double the number of African Americans being unemployed as Caucasian Americans and considerably higher unemployment among young adults than the general population. And for African Americans who also are young adults, the unemployment rate is around 25%. That huge difference is pretty nasty and I think, a direct result of minimum wage laws.

GOP troll straw man

[globaljustin]

hardcore socialists complaining about the theory that a rising tide lifts all boats (ie: Export wealth properly and everyone will benefit)

I know many "hardcore socialists" personally, and read/watch several public figures who are "hardcore socialists" in various media...and NONE make the argument you claim they make

no one says that

except GOP trolls creating a straw man...you're a GOP troll, trying to create a straw man

GOP troll straw man

[Anonymous Coward]

If you say it enough times then perhaps it will become true!

Success has many parents.

[jbeaupre]

Failure is an orphan.

Dollar

[raxhonp]

So, they sell tons of goods to US that pay them in dollar. What are they supposed to be doing with all that cash? Change it to yuan, that would be bad for the currency? Buy government bonds, at such a rate, no way! Buy gas to Russia, that's not done in dollar anymore. What's left? Investing all that money in the US maybe, that's still better than leaving idle on a reserve account. Yeah, why not.

not a solution to a non-problem

[globaljustin]

It guarantees that someone who can perform a job for less than the minimum wage doesn't get a job

which doesn't matter at all

the problem is unchecked corporate greed...that's what drives all of this

Re:not a solution to a non-problem

[khallow]

the problem is unchecked corporate greed...

There have been such things in the past and they have been very ugly, but there hasn't been a genuine case of unchecked corporate greed since the dissolution of the Congo Free State in 1908. So what's been going on since 1908 is insufficiently checked corporate greed, at least when it's happening and not just completely your imagination.

States are willing to bend over backwards on taxes

[timrod]

The likely reason the Chinese want to build factories here is that most states will bend over backwards to accommodate them. In this case, the town of Pine Hill is offering the Chinese factory a massive tax break - probably zero taxes for something like 20 years - and a place where their company has more financial freedom. I wouldn't be surprised if the town or state is also offering them tax money to stay. It's a problem all over the US: companies holding jobs hostage because someone else is offering them a better tax package.

Wouldn't that be "outsourcing to the US"?

[QuietLagoon]

When US companies outsourced their jobs, it was said that they outsourced the jobs to China, or to India.

.
Why, all of a sudden has the terminology changed?

Leverage the poor, whoever they are

[SourceFrog]

You realize that the reason a billion Chinese were poor in the first place is because of the Cultural Revolution, their violent Communist revolutionary past? But yeah, it's those "evil businesses". The main reason Chinese wages have been rising for the past few decades is because they partially ended the Communism and began partial market reforms.

It's also a helpful reminder of why the effect of Chinese wages on global inflation and wage inflation (e.g. flooding the world with cheap Chinese products) was largely a once-in-history thing. As they recover fully from Communism, their quality of life rises to be closer on par with developed nations. As the summary mentions, Chinese wages have been rising for some time, thanks to those evil businesses.

My dad made $15/hr, 30 years ago

[plopez]

Working in a refinery with health benefits. $15/hr, or $30K/yr, when adjusted for inflation would be about $30, or $60k/yr, these days. In contrast I am making a bit more than that but have paid off a number of student loans and pay far more for health care since then even with much more education than he ever had. He graduated the 8th grade and then got his GED.

Is this progress? I think not.

It was easy to see this coming. Seriously.

[Qbertino]

I predicted this sort of thing back in 2006. And let's be honest: It's not that suprising, is it? Globalisation is once around the globe by now. In the US, entire landscapes are out of jobs and glad for anything. In China more than a decades worth of 8%+ growth has started to saturate markets and upped the price for labor, shrinking the margins.

Next up will be robots. And they don't care where they stand, neither does the corp that owns them. They will be placed closest to the buyer to reduce transport costs. The avantgarde will start building modern factories in western countries now again. Like Tesla.

My 2 cents.

Re:It was easy to see this coming. Seriously.

[doccus]

Robot rights NOW! And R. Daneel Olivaw for union president...

Oriental knowhow and cheap American labor

[knorthern knight]

The ultimate combination

Or we could just stop racing to the bottom

[rsilvergun]

No? You're entire post is based on the idea that Unions are inherently bad. For a capitalist they are. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Marx predicted that capital would flow to where ever labor's cheapest in a constant race to the bottom, but all anyone can remember about him is that a few dictators borrowed one of his books for rhetoric.

Did it ever cross your mind that there is a _reason_ Unions formed? Have you ever heard the phrase "Nasty, brutish and short"? Have you seen pictures of the Mini-Guns used by "private" security employed by mines in the 70s to intimidate workers?

Whatever else you think, you _want_ Unions. You _need_ Unions. Unions are labor organized to seek better and safer working conditions. Nothing more or less. Hell, there's another story on /. here today talking about the death of the 40 hour work week in America. It's a statistical fact that wages have declined and productivity has increased. What in God's name are you planning to do by your little lonesome against multi-billion dollar corporations? Seriously, do you think Toyota is going to keep paying a living wage out of the kindness of their Hearts? It's the sacrifice of the Union man and the competition for those Union Jobs that's why Toyota is paying those wages in the first place. And before you bring it up, no, they don't need you to buy their cars. They have plenty of other buyers, and they really don't need that many. They can just raise the price and sell fewer.

I could go on, and on, and on, but seriously man. You don't know of what you speak. Go work in a meat packing plant for a decade and tell me you don't need Unions.

Re:Or we could just stop racing to the bottom

[hjf]

While i agree with you in general, you have a very romanticized view of unions.

They are ALL as corrupt as the government. Don't be a fool.

Re:Or we could just stop racing to the bottom

[Daemonik]

Unions are as equally corrupt as the company management or the government, but why do only two of those ever get the scorn of anti-union people like you?

Most companies are run by CEO's with no loyalty to the company beyond what their stock options are worth, and will actively sabotage their operations if it will drive up their short-term stock prices. How is that sort of behavior better?

Re:Or we could just stop racing to the bottom

[purpledinoz]

While I agree, the problem is power. Unions gain too much power and they abuse their situation, and become just as corrupt as the government. There always need to be a balance of power. I find unions in Germany operate far better. They actually work with the companies to make things better for everyone.

Re:Or we could just stop racing to the bottom

[hjf]

Easy there, union guy.

I said I agreed with the previous post. I'm not anti union. And I'm extremely critical of the government (I'm not american, if that matters).

But unions ARE corrupt, and they are as corrupt as the government. The ideals of unions are good. The problem is: they become giant and extort money from the company.

Here in Argentina the truck drivers union is preparing for a 2-day strike, demanding a 40% raise (after a 30% raise not even a couple months ago). Truck drivers are making more money than many professions (doctors and engineers for example). A truck driver doesn't spend 10 years of his life in college, yet he makes more money than a doctor here, thanks to the "truck drivers union" which paralyzes the country whenever it wants something. That's sheer corruption right there. In fact, that's the reason unions existed in the first place: to protect the "little guy" from the big guy. Except they're the big guy here, and they act like it.

Re:Or we could just stop racing to the bottom

[Karmashock]

As to racing to the bottom...

This is a strawman argument. No one is arguing that we race to the bottom. And it relies upon other various fallacies as well.

For one thing, you're assuming that all market conditions and business practices will remain the same.

For another you're assuming technological changes don't happen and that we stagnate in 1950's era industry forever. Which is absurd because we've already passed that a long time ago.

The issue with the unions is that the whole method of industry that gave them birth is becoming impractical. We don't have tens of thousands of largely unskilled or low skilled factory workers scurrying around giant dangerous facilities where people lose limbs and live hand to mouth.

That's gone.

Factories have been reducing the number of people needed to produce a given product for generations. Every generation it takes fewer workers to make the same good. Or if you prefer, every worker becomes more efficient being able to produce more then the past generation in the same unit of time.

This increase in productivity is ultimately transformative because it renders labor costs less and less relevant.

Added to that, the skill level required of these workers has also increased every generation. As such, rather then having a lot of unskilled replacable drones as in past generations we are increasingly using skilled labor and doing so productively enough that we can afford to pay people quite well.

Consider the unions for skilled labor. Notice how they're all less militant. Unions for electricians, carpenters, etc. None of them are running around banging the hammer and cickle because they have leverage simply by being skilled. You can't just replace them because you can't just find people that have those skills at less then their price. You simply can't. They don't exist. Now could I find people that can fetch and carry things as with the old school dock workers? Yes. Any illerate moron can do that. Which is why the dock worker's union is probably one of the most militant unions in the United States.

They are mellowing over time and a lot of that is due to their jobs requiring more skill in successive generations. They operate large cranes now that you have to be trained on and it takes a long time to get good with it. What is more, you don't need many crane operators as opposed to legions of guys that would literally carry everything off the boat by hand. Which is how boats used to be unloaded until the container ships started to become common.

Container ships spelled the doom of the dock worker's union. They're superfluous now. The labor at the dock doesn't need a union. They're skilled labor and we only need enough of it to run the cranes, some forklifts, some trucks, and do clerical work. For that you don't need a union.

And that's just half the issue. Not only do we not need the unions anymore, they're actively getting in the way of the transformation of our industry from something inefficient and outmoded to something internationally competitive and modern.

I'm not advocating workers get paid nothing and have no rights. To the contrary, I'm advocating that they get paid more and have the ability to get a job anywhere in the world in their industry at the drop of a hat.

How? By not interfering with the modernization of industry and allowing factory labor to transition fully to skilled labor. At which point they'll if anything get paid a good deal more and their skills will be so in demand anywhere in the world that they can live where ever they want, put their skills on a resume, get hired.

Everyone wins. The companies make more money. The workers are liberated from outmoded social and political models while making more money. And the consumer wins because it will lower the cost of goods, increase economic investment in the local economy, and provide more domestically produced goods.

Seriously... doing otherwise is stupid.

Would you suggest we farm the way we did 200 years ago? Think

Floating Slave Ships

[enter to exit]

Just build floating factories, sail to international waters and and breed slaves. Fuck paying people, what a waste!

It will save all this wage currency speculation and the burden on having to move once the host country has dried up. Hell, the elites could even live on an adjoined isand-ship and use the slaves for pleasure and work.

The biggest problem would be Energy, a floating nuclear reactor? Something to harness the power of the sea? Perhaps a sympathetic country will relinquish a portion of its offshore oil in exchange for the services a lawless island could provide? Maybe just breed more slaves to push the turbines?

It was already happening in 2006

[dbIII]

Toyota.

really dumb

[globaljustin]

there hasn't been a genuine case of unchecked corporate greed since the dissolution of the Congo Free State in 1908

i was astounded at the idiocy of your attempt at logic

the fact that you made a statement this faulty means further conversation is pointless

Re:really dumb

[khallow]

Then fuck off. I don't have time for people who choose not to argue sincerely.

How do you like it now?

[Anonymous Coward]

if you are American, you've never met a hardcore socialist

Re:Blame the Unions ..

[Karmashock]

Sales of their rivals are not that bad actually. So this argument is meaningless.

It's Official

[hyades1]

We all knew it was coming. Alabama has now officially joined the Third World.

The real reason

[Jumunquo]

"Tianjin Pipe, for instance, began building its Texas plant after the U.S. imposed sanctions against Chinese-made pipes in 2010, notes Thilo Hanemann, Rhodium's research director."
In reality, it's usually to get around tariffs, contract requirements, or for sales purposes. Chinese labor is still super-cheap compared to the U.S.

Yes, but...

[skaaman]

"Perhaps very soon, Chinese workers will start protesting their jobs being outsourced to the cheap labor in the U.S" Yes but they will all be dismissed quietly to remote re-education camps...

Re:Yes, but...

[hyades1]

"Yes but they will all be dismissed quietly to remote re-education camps...

In Alabama...

;-)

Exactly as we might predict

[FreedomFirstThenPeac]

This is pretty consistent with economic models that claim we are all competing for the same jobs, with the attendant sloppy back and forth to equilibrium.

I bet I have...

[jsrjsr]

The guy I worked with who ran for Governor of Wisconsin on the Socialist Workers Party ticket seemed pretty hardcore.

Globalization

[NewYork]

is nothing but a Pyramid scandal

Fair play

[carys689]

"Turnabout's fair play" as the saying goes...