Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmclnx | Hacker News Reader

This starts in the 50s and and seems they argue for Land Reform. Maybe that was part of it. But I say these are far better reasons:

1. A local government friendly to the US. Gov type did not matter.

2. US Workers starting to want medical benefits, by the late 60s, hardly anyone would take a job without benefits. This includes sick time.

3. Environment Controls starting in the 60s. I think this is a big one.

4. High Wages in the US

5. Improved intercontinental flights and cheap shipping. I think in the 60s the US merchant was quickly being outsourced to cheap countries.

6. An of course corporate greed and the rush to make Wall Street happy.

You just need to look at ROC in the 90s, lots of companies started moving manufacturing there because Japan and Taiwan was getting too expensive.

Now I think they are slowly moving out of ROC to places it SE Asia like Vietnam.

View on HN

Where you twice mention ROC, I think you instead meant PRC.

ROC is Republic of China, which is the government that started in 1911 and currently has its actual seat of government in Taipei, ruling over all of Taiwan province and some parts of Fujian province (Kinmen, Matsu). On paper, ROC still claims all the other provinces of China.

PRC is People's Republic of China, which is the government that started in 1949, currently has its seat of government in Beijing, and rules mainland China and most of Fujian province. On paper, PRC claims all provinces of China, including Taiwan province as well as the parts of Fujian province that are currently part of ROC.

Western outsourcing to ROC occurred much earlier than the 90s.

Correct, that is what I get typing this and running a test on a change I made at the same time :)

Your argument lays out a number of push factors as to why firms left the US, but there are numerous locales that are and were cheaper than the US. This article is about what cause industry to flourish in East Asia specifically.

None of the bullet points you laid out are specific to East Asia.

I think that's kinda the point. It's not EA specific but general economic forces with a large difference in development.

There’s nothing really general or abstract to what OP was stating though. Their argument is essentially “it has nothing to do with anything that East Asia did, it was essentially random that they ended up being the place where industrial development expanded to next” which doesn’t seem to be a strongly evidence based position in my view.

Extrapolate and combine 1,2,3,4,6: a government friendly with a rich post industrial nation that focuses on financialization as an end unto itself.

(that last trait is a bit more contentious than the former ones)

PRC?

ROC is Taiwan I believe.

Yes, I meant PRC :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com