Manufacturing returning to the US

[CowboyMcCoy]

good sign- and I do not think there is another 'china' around as there has been for the last 40 years or so (first Japan, then Taiwan, etc with China being the last) where there was very cheap labor and the infrastructure built to support it. India is too messed up; and there is really nowhere else that looks like it could rise to challenge. So this might very well be a continuing trend.

Are you forgetting Brazil?

 

[khiladi]

It will last until they find some other population willing to work for fractions of a dollar per hour. Then they'll move out.

This happened with India in IT, but demand raised praises as well as constant TO for higher pay. And all this happened, while quality turned to garbage. Call centers are another example of crappy quality from India.

 

[dropdeadfred5]

Are you forgetting Brazil?

They do not seem to be able to cash in on the opportunity. Like India, not organized or developed enough to act on it. Taiwan, Korea, Japan, China, Etc were all ready for the chance and cashed in. India and Brazil do not look like they have their act together. Frankly looking around the world no other country is ready to step in. That might change in 5 years but right now no.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

They do not seem to be able to cash in on the opportunity. Like India, not organized or developed enough to act on it. Taiwan, Korea, Japan, China, Etc were all ready for the chance and cashed in. India and Brazil do not look like they have their act together. Frankly looking around the world no other country is ready to step in. That might change in 5 years but right now no.

I think Brazil would be up for the task. It's a process.

 

[CashMan]

I think Brazil would be up for the task. It's a process.

Not really. What do all those countries he listed have in common? Communism/Emperor ruled.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Not really. What do all those countries he listed have in common? Communism/Emperor ruled.

And China isn't???

 

[CashMan]

And China isn't???

China is a Communist nation, just like all of the others. But this call it a "Republic".

 

[Cowboy Brian]

Not really. What do all those countries he listed have in common? Communism/Emperor ruled.

Reasoning behind that is simple - their government provided for the infrastructure necessary for a massive manufacturing buildup.

 

[dropdeadfred5]

First Japan, then Taiwan, Singapore, Korea, China. Each got organized and with massive government help got it done. Then 20 years or so down the road the people wanted more and got it; and labor rates and other expenses sky rocket. So the next country got the business. Now there does not seem to be any other country that is getting ready to take advantage so the jobs are coming back to the US. Not in huge numbers but still significant.

 

[vlad]

Moves are being made into Vietnam and I think phillipines as lower cost alternatives.

I think only high margin products will be viable here in a macro sense since most people do not want to pay for the cost of labor.

Hopefully I'm wrong on the 2nd paragraph...

 

[dropdeadfred5]

those are possibilities but I doubt the infrastructure is there to really do much

 

[khiladi]

China is a Communist nation, just like all of the others. But this call it a "Republic".

China is communist in politics, but capitalist in economics...

 

[BigStar]

good sign- and I do not think there is another 'china' around as there has been for the last 40 years or so (first Japan, then Taiwan, etc with China being the last) where there was very cheap labor and the infrastructure built to support it. India is too messed up; and there is really nowhere else that looks like it could rise to challenge. So this might very well be a continuing trend.

I would say Japan's demographics, conflicts with China, and reliance on US military as their national Army has more to do with their decline (though they are still heavily sound/respected)

 

[ScipioCowboy]

De-industrialization is not always the boogeyman it's made out to be. It's part of a thriving and healthy global economy. It means products are being made more efficiently, leading to more products being made and greater availability, which is a good thing since ultimately products pay for products.

 

[BigStar]

De-industrialization is not always the boogeyman it's made out to be. It's part of a thriving and healthy global economy. It means products are being more efficiently, leading to more products being made and greater availability, which is a good thing since ultimately products pay for products.

Agree completely, the President has been the first to say it to the voting public but got chastised for it. Those jobs don't NEED to come back and won't as technology improves and occupations evolve. If we really want to be the hard nosed, "tough" Americans we want to perceive ourselves as, we need massive education reform and kinda gotta spend money on it (infrastructure).

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Agree completely, the President has been the first to say it to the voting public but got chastised for it. Those jobs don't NEED to come back and won't as technology improves and occupations evolve. If we really want to be the hard nosed, "tough" Americans we want to perceive ourselves as, we need massive education reform and kinda gotta spend money on it (infrastructure).

I'm not familiar with any statements Pres. Obama has made about outsourcing. In the 1990s, I remember Pres. Clinton telling the steelworkers union to go take a flying flip on this issue.

 

[RastaRocket]

Giants are not playing this week so I have more free time.

Why pick quality over US made products?

My money goes to a US company or a US worker.

Your money goes to a foreigner no matter what.

At some point, you have to favor your country over quality.

Did Japanese used American cars after World War 2? Did Korean used American products after the big war?

The hell with quality. I side with companies owned by Americans or products made by Americans.

The world is a global economy now it really doesn't matter if you buy American or not. You should buy wherever you get the best quality for the least money. Cheaper products = more money to spend on other products = higher demand for other products = more jobs producing other products. Like others are saying, you should save the crap jobs for the other countries and open up more high paying opportunities in America.

 

[CashMan]

The world is a global economy now it really doesn't matter if you buy American or not. You should buy wherever you get the best quality for the least money. Cheaper products = more money to spend on other products = higher demand for other products = more jobs producing other products. Like others are saying, you should save the crap jobs for the other countries and open up more high paying opportunities in America.

I agree with most of this, but not the last sentence. Lower the cost of living.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Clinton did start this with NAFTA, castrating unions and allowing those on "assistance" to be pegged as the burden on society while we are raked over the coals, as well as general deregulation....Clinton was one of the most conservative Democratic presidents of our time. People love his personality and wrongly assume he is liberal. The Democrats of today are the Republicans of 20 years ago...sorry just wanted to point out that Obama isn't some crazy Marxist, etc. his policies are not as liberal as Reagan's, for the most part.

To avoid even the hint of political discussion (which is forbidden around here), I will stick to making statements that are more general and avoid implications of rightness and wrongness.

I would describe the economic philosophy of Reagan and Clinton as supply-side. The tax reforms enacted by Reagan, deregulation, the capital gains tax cuts enacted by Clinton, the free trade agreements signed by Clinton--these eased the means of production.

I would describe Obama's economic philosophy as Keynesian. His policies are intended to stimulate demand.

 

[Kevinicus]

Clinton did start this with NAFTA, castrating unions and allowing those on "assistance" to be pegged as the burden on society while we are raked over the coals, as well as general deregulation....Clinton was one of the most conservative Democratic presidents of our time. People love his personality and wrongly assume he is liberal. The Democrats of today are the Republicans of 20 years ago...sorry just wanted to point out that Obama isn't some crazy Marxist, etc. his policies are not as liberal as Reagan's, for the most part.

I think I disagree pretty strongly with everything there...but no politics.