OT: iphone factory life....

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by mistermo

Please don't misread my comment. Our education system, is failing us. No argument there. I lay much of the blame for this on our culture, and sense of entitlement. That's another story.



I work in biotech. Nearly all of our scientists are Asian. They come to the US because our culture, our environment, is still tops in the world at innovation. They can accomplish here, what they can't accomplish there. Without these foreign workers, I wouldn't have a job. I need them, they need me. If we veto their visas, and send them home, the US loses.



Yes, it's a pity US workers in this area aren't as plentiful. But the US is still the innovation king across the world. From a young age, we are taught to be competitive in ways that we, as Americans, don't even recognize. Our culture is steeped in competition and individualism. These, in my view, do not excuse poor education, or laziness, but are compensating for it. For now.



I didn't like Ayn Rand's book, Atlas Shrugged, but it touches upon the value of, and coat tail effect of innovators.

That's very nice. There's a lot of abuses in this system, primarily companies hiring foreign workers to save money. Read this article where the University of California hires foreign IT workers http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...108-story.html

[bicycletricycle]

That articles is rough, the visa abuse is a bummer. Even without that visa program you will still see those jobs leave, the article claims that they few workers brought in with the h1b are just temp. and the end goal will be for all that labor to be in India.

I guess revoking or policing the h1b program can slow that trend. Hard to see it reversing the tide though, economic forces are tough to fight. Cheap labor is cheap labor.

A lot is said about our ability to mine the best and the brightest from the rest of the world and the huge economic effect it has. It seems to me that the h1b system is an important part of that. That and the university system.

Policing the h1b system to keep it closer to its original intention would be great, as long as it doesn't make it so hard to use that companies just give up. The burden to a company for sponsoring/hiring a foreign worker is already big.

Originally Posted by MikeD

That's very nice. There's a lot of abuses in this system, primarily companies hiring foreign workers to save money. Read this article where the University of California hires foreign IT workers http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...108-story.html

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

That articles is rough, the visa abuse is a bummer. Even without that visa program you will still see those jobs leave, the article claims that they few workers brought in with the h1b are just temp. and the end goal will be for all that labor to be in India.



I guess revoking or policing the h1b program can slow that trend. Hard to see it reversing the tide though, economic forces are tough to fight. Cheap labor is cheap labor.



A lot is said about our ability to mine the best and the brightest from the rest of the world and the huge economic effect it has. It seems to me that the h1b system is an important part of that. That and the university system.



Policing the h1b system to keep it closer to its original intention would be great, as long as it doesn't make it so hard to use that companies just give up. The burden to a company for sponsoring/hiring a foreign worker is already big.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for excuses like American workers are lazy, have a sense of entitlement, blah, blah as an excuse to hire foreign workers. It's the failure of management failing to motivate their employees that is the problem. Read the teachings of Deming and Juran. The American worker is the most productive in the world. The purpose of the H1B visa program is for the recruitment of skilled foreign workers where there is a shortage of US ones, not to replace slackers with cheap, foreign labor. So then the unemployed US worker has to be supported by the US taxpayer and our society as a whole loses. I really hope the Trump administration puts the screws down on this program and stops these abuses of the system.

[Tickdoc]

Makin money and Savin money kinda go hand in hand.

Off topic a bit, but I just noticed something the other day that is an example of just brilliant design regarding apple products. My old iMac needed batteries in the cordless keyboard.

It takes two aa batteries that are cleanly hidden in the top of the aluminum head of the keyboard.

You remove the battery end cap with a coin (or your fingernail if not on tight).

The end cap has a slot in it, like for a coin or large screwdriver. The slot looks like a minus sign. The batteries go in + side first. I've been swapping batteries out on this keyboard since 2007 or 2008 and never noticed that before. You know how confusing it can be to try to make sure your aa and aaa batteries are in the right way?

So simple and so brilliant. I wish I could design stuff like that.

Doesn't have much to do with where the keyboard was made, but the design is spot on.

Btw, the mouse is designed with as much design savvy as the keyboard.

[mistermo]

Originally Posted by fuzzalow

I didn't misread your comment, I addressed it succinctly. This is a friendly discussion on this topic so I find your ad hominem response admonishing about me misreading your reply as cheap and unnecessary and frankly, a poor rebuttal.

Here's the problem with your stance that culture is a key component of US competitiveness: culture is a touchy-feely, indistinct term that can mean too many things to whatever somebody wants it to be. Any government, corporation or business cannot be managed & run on ambiguous, touchy-feely something-or-other as something to work with as either in calling culture a guiding principle or as claiming culture as competitive asset. What you are proposing as a keystone of American competitiveness in the form of culture is something no one can readily define and that no one can put to use.

What is mandatory is a structure and policy that reflects implementation of means and methods to achieve an objective of economic opportunity and growth. Doing this will require the business structure to be formalized by public policies supported and enforceable by laws. Such as: tax treatment of investment, definition and treatment of capital gains, H1B visa provisions & immigration laws, intellectual property rights and enforcement of same, systems of capital formation, workforce skillset reading comprehension at 12th grade levels and greater, etc etc etc.

Please don't read my response as a tempestuous one, we're just talkin' here. Maybe you're on to something I just don't see - to me it sounds like denial which is a way to keep kickin' the can down the road.. 'Cos if you're right, then you might explain how anybody could act on your approach and what to do next.

Nice talkin' with you.

I didn't misread your comment, I'll address it succinctly. This is a friendly discussion on this topic so I find your ad hominem response admonishing about me misreading your reply as cheap and unnecessary and frankly, a poor rebuttal.

If you think my comments implied that our culture excused our educational shortcomings, as you wrote, then indeed, you misread my remarks.

We lost our educational advantage decades ago. We both agree. So why do we remain the innovation king of the world? Solely because of our regulatory structure, public policies, and capital markets? While I agree those are of significant importance, you think that's all there is to it?

Could there be something else?

I'm offering that in addition to this, our innovative culture ALSO plays a significant role (at least for now).

Culture may seem touchy feely to you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and doesn't play a role in American success. And I'd argue that culture CAN be defined and measured.

Corporations spend countless amounts to develop and measure their cultures. I've worked for all sorts of companies that spend significant resources developing a set of cultural beliefs. Most recently, I worked for a multi billion $ Swiss corporation that realized it wasn't innovating rapidly enough. What did they do? They moved development to the US (from Germany). They embarked upon a mission to change the corporate culture from valuing the status quo, to rewarding risk and change. Who did they tap to change this culture? An American!

Many international corporations move development to the US. Why? Certainly our regulatory and policy environment, play a role. But if that's all that was important, there are better options than US.

I am not asserting that culture is the ultimate determiner of success, but to imply that it doesn't exist, can't be defined or measured, and therefore doesn't play a role, is shortsighted.

Please don't read my response as a tempestuous one, we're just talkin' here. Maybe our innovative culture is all phooey and I just don't see it. To me it sounds like giving all the credit to our regulatory climate and access to capital is a way to keep kickin' the can down the road..

[fuzzalow]

Originally Posted by mistermo

I didn't misread your comment, I'll address it succinctly. This is a friendly discussion on this topic so I find your ad hominem response admonishing about me misreading your reply as cheap and unnecessary and frankly, a poor rebuttal.

If you think my comments implied that our culture excused our educational shortcomings, as you wrote, then indeed, you misread my remarks.

We lost our educational advantage decades ago. We both agree. So why do we remain the innovation king of the world? Solely because of our regulatory structure, public policies, and capital markets? While I agree those are of significant importance, you think that's all there is to it?

Could there be something else?

I'm offering that in addition to this, our innovative culture ALSO plays a significant role (at least for now).

Culture may seem touchy feely to you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and doesn't play a role in American success. And I'd argue that culture CAN be defined and measured.

Corporations spend countless amounts to develop and measure their cultures. I've worked for all sorts of companies that spend significant resources developing a set of cultural beliefs. Most recently, I worked for a multi billion $ Swiss corporation that realized it wasn't innovating rapidly enough. What did they do? They moved development to the US (from Germany). They embarked upon a mission to change the corporate culture from valuing the status quo, to rewarding risk and change. Who did they tap to change this culture? An American!

Many international corporations move development to the US. Why? Certainly our regulatory and policy environment, play a role. But if that's all that was important, there are better options than US.

I am not asserting that culture is the ultimate determiner of success, but to imply that it doesn't exist, can't be defined or measured, and therefore doesn't play a role, is shortsighted.

Please don't read my response as a tempestuous one, we're just talkin' here. Maybe our innovative culture is all phooey and I just don't see it. To me it sounds like giving all the credit to our regulatory climate and access to capital is a way to keep kickin' the can down the road..

You've got your opinions and your causalities and I've got mine.

I can see some of what you are getting at even if I don't agree with you on it. Conversely, you oversimplify and exaggerate some of my arguments and positions which thereby strip the nuance in some of my arguments, which is another of your cheap shots in this repartee we've enjoyed. Nice of you to mock my writing style and patter. I can take a joke.

The good thing is, it's not likely I'll ever try discussing with you anything more than the time of day, if even that. Now that would be a waste of time. Later for you.

[mbrtool]

Please...you two guys (Fuzz,Mistermo) should keep talking about this...ad hominem or not...this is an important topic and you guys can express your ideas quite well. I think both of your viewpoints are true based on your reference point. I make hardened tooling for a living so I have a perspective. I don't think the factory jobs that were off-shored to China in the '90's and 00's will come back intact to the US. That was ten to twenty years ago. If a manufacturer is making his product the same way it did twenty years ago...it's not going to survive much longer.

Ray

[alterergo]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

With no manufacturing base? Seems like the arc is.

Sorry, I don't quite understand your comment. If you have access to global market, you specialize. That has been the secret of growth since Adam Smith.

Some will specialize in manufacturing and build an impressive manufacturing base but with heavy polluting factories, clouds out of smog, and rampant environmental degradation.

Otherwise will specialize in services: tourism first and foremost, banking, education. They will also make nice watches, and some high precision machinery, but the base of the economy will still be services. No heavy manufacturing base, no problem! Just enter international trade.

(would you like to guess the countries?)

[alterergo]

Originally Posted by Tony T

That is true, however, Bill Gates and Microsoft never did that. Honestly, I believe Bill Gates personally held back personal computing for a decade.

Thank you for such an interesting perspective and the book suggestion (looks super interesting!) Actually, I had Steve Jobs in mind when I wrote that comment. I don't know if you would agree, as he also seemed to use all available tools at his disposal (patenting and court system, e.g.) to further his goals.

Regarding monopoly, there is a long standing argument that you need to give temporary monopoly protection to innovators. Otherwise none will take the risk of innovating, because imitation is so much easier. The million dollar question is then what is "temporary..."

[Tony T]

Originally Posted by alterergo

Actually, I had Steve Jobs in mind when I wrote that comment.

Yes, your quote does apply to Jobs, also keep in mind one of his quotes (from the 1996 documentary I referenced:

"Picasso had a saying — 'good artists copy; great artists steal' — and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." https://youtu.be/CW0DUg63lqU

[bicycletricycle]

All countries implied are in economic turmoil, in an economic union in turmoil, populations shrinking, far right parties on the rise, in economic stagnation. Sure maybe an exaggeration to say "all" but certainly you can't pretend that the specialization you speak of is not reaching some kind of boiling point.

Banking and watch making are jobs for the few, a society needs to provide jobs to the masses.

The specialization has been active for some time but as a long term trend it seems flawed to me.

Originally Posted by alterergo

Sorry, I don't quite understand your comment. If you have access to global market, you specialize. That has been the secret of growth since Adam Smith.

Some will specialize in manufacturing and build an impressive manufacturing base but with heavy polluting factories, clouds out of smog, and rampant environmental degradation.

Otherwise will specialize in services: tourism first and foremost, banking, education. They will also make nice watches, and some high precision machinery, but the base of the economy will still be services. No heavy manufacturing base, no problem! Just enter international trade.

(would you like to guess the countries?)

[ultraman6970]

I think you are right, visas for specialized workers had been abused for the longest time and a good example of what is going on is like 12 people that work in the same thing I do and all of them had their masters, zillions of degrees that had been fired from their corporations and cant find a job. Even 5 told me that they would had been happy to take a cut in their pay just to keep the job, IT and Banking IT related job BTW. But they were fired and so far they are happy driving a bus but the reality is that they were replaced for younger people and even 2 told me that they were replaced by newcomers.

Money is money and corporations will try to have it the best they can to increase their income, if the law's help they will take the options, I do not blame them, is the right thing to do?? IMO no.

My wife works for a corporation and pretty much all the help desks were moved to asia (india in specific) even the local managers were fired and they brought guys from india here to replace them. And is not the 1st case we hear about because is happening all over the place.

In short sucks the abuse of the system, but i do not blame them (corporations) for being so greedy.

As for jobs for the masses, well... you can't live with that if you dont have too much education and pretty much what is going on is that those jobs are being taking for specialized workers aswell... then you have the population that doesnt want to work aswell... remember the Iron Maiden when she taxed youngs so they put their butts to work??? She was not loved but somehow it worked.


[QUOTE=bicycletricycle;2161957

Banking and watch making are jobs for the few, a society needs to provide jobs to the masses.

The specialization has been active for some time but as a long term trend it seems flawed to me.[/QUOTE]

[fuzzalow]

Originally Posted by alterergo

If you have access to global market, you specialize. That has been the secret of growth since Adam Smith.

Dunno what is meant by specialize. I am guessing this is a reference to the desire for all economies engaged in open trade to exploit and maximize their respective comparative advantage. As underpinning the OP story on iPhone factory life, then for China it is/was a fairly simple model to utilize & exploit a vast inexpensive labor pool for the past 3 decades. But all economies are dynamic and even their cost advantage curve is flattening which puts the Chinese at the early stages of managing their economic transition from labor to diversify and integrate higher forms of economic capital. One might think the transition should be easier for the Chinese under a system of state run capitalism but success could never be assured as the populace still needs to partake, cooperate and believe in a new economy predicated to consumption.

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

All countries implied are in economic turmoil,

Agree except they are all along different points of their respective curves. Economies are not nimble and there are infrastructures built around them which create both inertia and cost considerations in rebalancing or changing economic emphasis and trajectories. In other words, once the economic toothpaste has been squeezed outta the tube, it is impossible to get things back to where it once was. Which reflect my opinion of nativist, isolationist Brexit-like populist fervor as being a terrible strategy to undergo but appealing in its naive simplicity. But that doesn't change the reality that all democracies will cast votes to destroy systems they no longer feel vested into. Unfettered, free market global capitalism isn't entirely correct because that model is too savage to lower skilled citizenry. And in stable, sustainable economies there has to be an accommodation for some distribution of wealth & benefit. In essence, we are at the end stage of Globalism ver 1.0 and are trying to figure out what Globalism ver. 1.5 looks like.

I don't mean to sound glum, but I think an entire generation of workers will be sacrificed in the transition from ver. 1.0 to ver. 1.5. Not only is it too late to retrain them but there is not enough job infrastructure to slot them into. The mortal danger here, on the horizon, is that an American workforce poorly served by public K-12 education will also miss the wave for rev. 1.5 by being poorly educated and unqualified to step up to whatever a 1.5 economy becomes. The only thing we know for damn sure is things will never go back to what it once was.

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by fuzzalow

I don't mean to sound glum, but I think an entire generation of workers will be sacrificed in the transition from ver. 1.0 to ver. 1.5. Not only is it too late to retrain them but there is not enough job infrastructure to slot them into. The mortal danger here, on the horizon, is that an American workforce poorly served by public K-12 education will also miss the wave for rev. 1.5 by being poorly educated and unqualified to step up to whatever a 1.5 economy becomes. The only thing we know for damn sure is things will never go back to what it once was.

I think this is true, who knows how nations will find a balance in the future. The hyper mobility of labor in a world with vastly different standards of living is currently a mess.

[verticaldoug]

The real problem is the shift in view that employees no longer deserve to benefit from growth in a company. A larger portion of earnings accrue to the capital holders of a company. From the reduced amount leftover for employees, a larger portion accrues to top management. How can a company justify increasing executive pay faster than the average and faster than the company actually grows.

Money which primarily shapes policy to benefit money, not the average Joe. Until this is addressed, nothing changes. Unfortunately, with the current administration refusing to release White House visitor logs, this will only get worse.