Hacker News Reader

> To be honest, I don't understand what efficiency gains this kind of globalization was supposed to bring anyways... A factory in China is just as efficient as a factory in Spain or USA.

A factory in China is just as efficient as a factory in Spain. But if China has most of the factories, and supporting industries, and supporting education, etc. it suddenly becomes more efficient. But then if China decides it doesn't like you, you're screwed. So it's the concentration of skill you mention, but also concentration of all kinds of relevant infrastructure.

As for cheaper workers - it's a temporary "efficiency" in financial terms, in forms of price arbitrage. Over time it evaporates. Even as the 2019 was coming to an end, China was already too expensive for many industries - being the world's factory enabled them to enrich their citizens, and suddenly there was a middle class that demanded humane working conditions and employee protection and what not. So suddenly poorer countries became of interest for future manufacturing...

>> To be honest, I don't understand what efficiency gains this kind of globalization was supposed to bring anyways... A factory in China is just as efficient as a factory in Spain or USA.

> A factory in China is just as efficient as a factory in Spain. But if China has most of the factories, and supporting industries, and supporting education, etc. it suddenly becomes more efficient.

But I'd argue that shouldn't be considered "globalization": there's nothing "global" about concentrating things in one country. It's just outsourcing.

> cheaper workers work for less, but that's not exactly efficiency

It is efficiency, really, because it's making better use of an underutilized resource. Over time, of course, the price of labor evens out because the resource is no longer underutilized.

> more a question of fairness

If it's fairness you want, telling companies to hire locally isn't going to cut it. That's the opposite of fairness, really—you would be subsidizing local workers whose wages are already higher at the expense of foreign labor that has more need for the income.

> Another potential advantage could be, factories are closer to natural resources, but it seems to me that that's not as much a question of efficiency, as it is of lax (enforcement of) environmental standards.

Locating factories near their required materials is a net gain even when ideal environmental standards are maintained. It's almost always cheaper (economically and environmentally) to ship end products where they need to go than it would be to ship raw materials around to distributed factories. Concentrating manufacturing in one area also makes it easier to confine the environmental impact.

> Over time, of course, the price of labor evens out because the resource is no longer underutilized.

The price would have evened out if labor could cross borders as freely as the goods that it produces - then it would flow to areas where it's in high demand. But with borders and immigration controls and different laws (esp. environment and labor) in different jurisdictions, it's not really a free market. Instead, it looks a great deal like a contraption that's deliberately designed to allow transnational corporations to extract massive economic rents from otherwise pointless brokerage (outsourcing).

> The price would have evened out if labor could cross borders as freely as the goods that it produces…

That would certainly speed up the process. However, labor prices are still gradually rising in China and other common outsourcing areas despite these restrictions. As are environmental standards. I'm not saying it's an ideal free market—there are governments involved, after all. But free or not, the trade is still advantageous for both sides.

> The price would have evened out if labor could cross borders as freely as the goods that it produces.

Not really, if that was the case for ex, everyone doing similar jobs would be getting paid the same in US or EU. I am not saying things dont get evened out to an extent, but people are harder to move than the goods they produce.

True. Still, though, it's drastically easier to move within a single country (or economic area like EU), then it is to move across the border with immigration controls - even if moving across the border is much closer geographically. You can bet there'd be a lot more Chinese workers competing for jobs directly in US if they could.

>> cheaper workers work for less, but that's not exactly efficiency

> It is efficiency, really, because it's making better use of an underutilized resource. Over time, of course, the price of labor evens out because the resource is no longer underutilized.

It's not efficiency at all, it's stagnation. Since the 80s instead of trying to innovate and automate production lines too many companies have been hopping from country-to-country looking for the cheapest labor pool. We lost 40 years of manufacturing innovations because they were economically unnecessary due to offshoring.

Can you blame them? It was cheaper to outsource than automate, so why wouldn't they have outsourced?

I can't blame them, just like I can't blame a company for becoming a monopoly. We need to regulate them like we do with antitrust, worker's rights, and other things. The free market unabated is terrible for humanity.

It's worse then that, we all live in a socialist society, it's just a corporate socialism. A free market would be a fantastic start. There is a real lack of competition and innovation in our socialist model.

Yes, a true free market can only exist via governmental regulation, as otherwise, companies tend towards monopolies and collusion. It would be nice to have such a market, but I do wonder how we'll get there with moneyed interests at the door.

I can't "blame" a corporation, because it's not a person.

But they are run by people, those people are the ones crafting the legal and regulatory environment that encourages this behavior, and we can certainly blame them.

I can't blame the workers either. They are driven by incentives, so of course they'll fulfill their incentives. Expecting them to do the right thing without incentivizing them to do so doesn't effect any change. If you want to change them, change their incentives, whether through money, government regulation, or other.

> If it's fairness you want, telling companies to hire locally isn't going to cut it. That's the opposite of fairness, really—you would be subsidizing local workers whose wages are already higher at the expense of foreign labor that has more need for the income.

It sounds to me like you're saying that it is unfair to strangers that you would help out your family first before helping them.

Most countries do subsidize local workers and industry. Should it be another way?

The United States actually does heavily subsidize foreigners for the benefit of the rich and powerful, at the expense of its citizens. Most work visa programs are an example of this.

This is the problem with the globalist mindset. Chinese workers are ultimately working for China. Chinese companies are always inclined to help Chinese people and the Chinese government. So telling domestic firms to be neutral in national loyalty is essentially telling them to be loyal to China.

A government not pressuring firms to hire and buy locally is deeply unfair to the point where I would argue it is a dereliction of their duty to the people.

> It sounds to me like you're saying that it is unfair to strangers that you would help out your family first before helping them.

Well, yes, it is unfair to the strangers that you're favoring the people you personally care about when others are worse off. Being unfair doesn't necessarily make it wrong. You're free to help whoever you want—with your own resources. However, organizations distributing resources they took by force, or enforcing their own rules on others, ought to be held to higher standards.

> Chinese workers are ultimately working for China.

Chinese workers are ultimately working for themselves and their own families, just like all workers everywhere. Not for the Chinese government. If you have a problem with the Chinese government forcibly and unjustly profiting from the labor of Chinese workers, great! So do I. The same goes for every other government, both foreign and domestic.

> Well, yes, it is unfair to the strangers that you're favoring the people you personally care about when others are worse off. Being unfair doesn't necessarily make it wrong. You're free to help whoever you want—with your own resources. However, organizations distributing resources they took by force, or enforcing their own rules on others, ought to be held to higher standards.

And I think that a government has an obligation to prioritize its own citizens before foreigners. And it appears that people here disagree with me.

Most governments do this. The Chinese government certainly does this for its own citizens. I wish that US government was as protectionist as the Chinese government is.

As it is now, American citizens pay taxes to subsidize our exploitation. The only people who benefit from the current immigration system are billionaires. The government is more concerned with the pursuit of capital for the elites than they are with the welfare of the people.

Thankfully, this administration has actually been enforcing the rules with H1-B visas. So lots of people I know have gotten great jobs in the last few years as visas are no longer rubber stamped. H1-B is nothing but a scam to help tech billionaires.

But yeah, putting outsiders above those you have a responsibility to care for is wrong. Volunteering at a soup kitchen does not excuse neglecting your own children. It brings me no comfort that the American middle class was eviscerated to help China. And yet that is trotted out whenever an American expresses frustration at how they have been harmed by globalization. It would be like if someone said: Sure, your bike was stolen, but at least the bike thief is happy, so it is ok.

Anyone care to respond instead of just downvoting?

i would disagree with you on two points

- work visas aren't subsidized. not even close. it costs a lot to sponsor and the workers pay taxes without benefits. not to mention the brain drain.

- you've grouped people as working for countries. people work for their own benefit and compete globally. as long as countries ensure their trading partners have humane working conditions, it's up to each person to remain globally competitive. your wage is a loose function of value generated for the employer.

> The only real advantage I can see is concentration of skill - e.g. people say that you basically have to develop electronics in Shenzhen, there's simply not enough talent in the US and EU - but I wonder if the efficiency gains are offset by innovation losses. Again, IMO it would be better to have a local high-skilled population of engineers & entrepreneurs.

There are probably advantages for many large corporations. e.g. Nike, Apple. Design in the US, manufacture in China (or equivalent), reap profits in the US

What perhaps we should be thinking about is the second order effects of unfettered globalization. In the good times we only see the advantages. Ultimately, it looks like it is better to have some redundancy (in certain areas/sectors at least) to be able to deal with situations like these

Why do the design in the US? Chinese engineers are doing great designs themselves, and for less than American salaries... And they can visit right there on the factory floor, talking to the manufacturers directly about how to make their designs, in the same time zone and the same language...

Are US engineers imagining the same ideas about being irreplaceable that an earlier generation of American machinists, tool-and-die experts, and manufacturing workers also did?

> Another potential advantage could be, factories are closer to natural resources, but it seems to me that that's not as much a question of efficiency, as it is of lax (enforcement of) environmental standards.

Not at all. Being close to your inputs means you don’t have to ship them as far to make use of them. And the shorter the distance you have to ship them, the less you will pay for shipping. Lower overhead equals higher efficiency.

It’s like, why were car factories in the U.S. clustered around the Great Lakes? Because car factories need steel, and the steel mills were in Pennsylvania. And why were the steel mills in Pennsylvania? Because steel mills need coal, and the coal mines were in Appalachia. You could theoretically build these factories anywhere, but the company that built close to their inputs would have an economic edge over the company that didn’t.

Shipping is very cheap in the era of globalization and containerized shipping so it doesn't mean much.

Companies focused on cost cutting, outsourcing and the like, but in doing so sacrificing agility and deep knowledge, and sometime even cost.

> The only real advantage I can see is concentration of skill - e.g. people say that you basically have to develop electronics in Shenzhen, there's simply not enough talent in the US and EU - but I wonder if the efficiency gains are offset by innovation losses. Again, IMO it would be better to have a local high-skilled population of engineers & entrepreneurs.

That's exactly the argument that Tim Cook used a few years ago. He said that an iPhone not manufactured in China would cost 30k USD...before quickly moving manufacturing out of China. These arguments sound nice, but are lies. When offshoring first started the cheap labor pool was the only thing that mattered, and it still is.

>The only real advantage I can see is concentration of skill - e.g. people say that you basically have to develop electronics in Shenzhen, there's simply not enough talent in the US and EU - but I wonder if the efficiency gains are offset by innovation losses.

This is why a factory in Spain or the USA is not as efficient as one in China (or vice-versa). Institutional knowledge has to be built up over time. You can't just start a factory in a place with no skilled labor for it. It's going to be way too expensive.

Just look at the US and compare to the EU. The EU has very few influential (or large) tech companies. The US has many of them. There's clearly some kind of concentration going on there and some of it probably is due to skill and thus efficiency. It's not that individual European developers are necessarily worse, but rather that as a collective (for some reason) they don't produce the same results as Americans do. I imagine that the same applies to factories.

I think the problem is in allowing capital to continuously seek out higher profits by finding places and people that they can exploit.

Unrestrained capitalism leads to slavery (J. Pournelle). So we have to regulate it so that it doesn't get to that state. Capitalism is built around exploitation; either workers, physical resources, or knowledge. This has the benefit of increasing prosperity over time, though at a cost. As unfortunate as these costs are, Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

(Apologies to Sir Winston Churchill)

> A factory in China is just as efficient as a factory in Spain or USA.

I'm not sure how you're defining efficiency, but in the Netflix special American Factory, it would seem like the chinese workers were not only cheaper but also more productive.

anecdotally, but comparisons of model 3s produced in China showed a much higher attention to detail than those in the US. There appeared to be a strong focus on the product as it represented those who built it. This level of "pride" if you want to call it that is a cultural issue that some nations have lost. While I am not saying workers should put the manufacturer before themselves many have taken that so far as to put themselves before their fellow employees as well.

that didn't happen overnight, that happened by politicians playing people against each other and invoking the all too common negative traits of envy, jealousy, and even anger. The mantras of you did not win life's lottery, its not fair, you deserve, they stole, has really done a number at not just manufacturing levels but in all aspects of life.

Totally agree. It take time and management skills to be a efficient factory.

> but in the Netflix special American Factory

A single, sensationalized data point.

1 > 0, but if you have details on why that is not indicative of reality please share.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

> cheaper workers work for less, but that's not exactly efficiency

Never thought of it this way, but you're right, at least in spirit. Efficiency is probably not the right word but I couldn't agree more. This drive towards ruthless efficiency actually hurts us in being more productive. We all need to rethink the endgame that capitalism, low cost - high efficiency systems inevitably leads us towards.

What about US based 3m workers going on strike at unfortunate moment?

Exactly. By outsorcing to China, they’re not actually seeking “efficiency”, they’re just seeking to skirt labour rights and other regulations.

Unions and strikes are a political topic, and we should probably figure out how to handle it better, probably some middle ground between fairness and efficiency (I’m not really well versed in the topic), but regardless companies bypassing the discussion completely by just having a factory in China is wrong and anti-competitive.