How to beat the Chinese…? [cheap labour Vs tech essentially]

[Amorphos]

How to beat the Chinese…? [cheap labour Vs tech essentially]

Michael Heseltine [a well respected conservative MP] said the other day that, the only way to compete with nations which employ mass cheap labour, is to massively mechanise and computerise our factories [use robot like machines etc]. I don’t always agree with tories as you know, but this seams a great idea and the way to go. I often watch documentaries about industry and I watch those fast little fingers of the Chinese [and the like] workers, then I wonder how we would ever compete with that.

Michael also noted that we would never get western people to work for similar wages [thank god], yet if the right investment was made [main problem here] machines can work far more efficiently than humans ever could.

If let us say, ‘the plan’ is being considered such that after the recession, the deficit would be lower and we would have a more efficient economy [less state/cost], then from that we could use investment funds [national debt and banks etc] to build these new factories.

It seams to me that through superior tech [which the west still has Imho [though this is not the part I wish to debate here lol]] and know-how, the west can continue and will continue to lead the world ~ or at least keep up!

Perhaps we could say that massive populations would be a detriment rather than a benefit in such a future scenario? The world has limited resources, so you cannot keep masses of people supplied by the same amount of production - naturally.

[Thorn777]

Dunno, but robots compete even harder with the British worker than the Chinese already. According to Hasseltine's plan are the British people also sharing in these robotic profits, or will it just trickle down like we're used to?

Seems more like a plan for the British elites to compete with Chinese elites.

[hellheaven1987]

Mechanized factory create a new problem - it means job size would be reduced as more works can be done by machine instead men, hence increase unemployment.

[Amorphos]

Dunno, but robots compete even harder with the British worker than the Chinese already. According to Hasseltine's plan are the British people also sharing in these robotic profits, or will it just trickle down like we're used to?

This is true, trickle down doesn’t work very well and the current politik is centralisation. Seams like a bit of socialism [and population reduction] would be in order.
We don’t have so much industry atm, so maybe it would add more jobs like technicians etc.

Seems more like a plan for the British elites to compete with Chinese elites.

Yes, though china and places with high populations would yield less elites per head ~ which is probably what they want.

----------

Mechanized factory create a new problem - it means job size would be reduced as more works can be done by machine instead men, hence increase unemployment.

Indeed, we could be looking at a future of mass unemployment!

[Thorn777]

Indeed, we could be looking at a future of mass unemployment!

Or the ultimate communist maxim of automation realized where we just conversate in space-ships all day, just like Spock and Capt Kirk and let Data do all the work.

That or some awesome future war between robots and men.

[Amorphos]

Or the ultimate communist maxim of automation realized where we just conversate in space-ships all day, just like Spock and Capt Kirk and let Data do all the work.

Well I expect you don’t need to many factories as they become more efficient, so we would all live in cottages by the river or something, maybe have mansion each lols

That or some awesome future war between robots and men.

We must ensure only to make robot arms firmly bolted to concrete. Its all about how we program them anyhow ~ until they have quantum computer brains, then they may claim to be alive as we are [even though they would be philosophical zombies]. I think nano tech is more worrying, and we already have black diamond disks for making ultra small components for the next gen of computers [small enough for such tech].

[Enemy of the State]

Mechanized factory create a new problem - it means job size would be reduced as more works can be done by machine instead men, hence increase unemployment.

What, is this the 19th century? Luddites are still around? Utterly depressing that people still don't grasp basic economics.

[Rolling Thunder]

What, is this the 19th century? Luddites are still around? Utterly depressing that people still don't grasp basic economics.

The problem is Timmy, people still have to be employed in some way or another. Even if we're producing ridiculous amounts of goods, it really does not matter unless we have people to sell them to. Not that I'm particularly worried about that - the reason we see a shift of labour from primary and secondary to tertiary labour sectors is because increasing mechanisation and miniaturisation means that less people are needed to produce, say, a car, but naturally people respond by moving to a service-based economy. As most likely a large chunk of the world will end up being - the end result of technological development could end up with nearly every person being, in effect, a producer as well as a consumer - back to a sort of super high-tech "cottage industry". Or maybe not. The possibilities are quite limitless.

[hellheaven1987]

The ideal solution is that if everyone receive free training and become engineers to control and maintain those machines - but not everyone has that quality, nor do people like to use tax money to pay other people's school fee.

[Bleda]

Mechanized factory create a new problem - it means job size would be reduced as more works can be done by machine instead men, hence increase unemployment.

That's the most tired old argument since the industrial revolution. "Hence increased unemployment" has never been the result of increased mechanization, or no one would have been left with a job after the 1980's. Increased unemployment at the plant in the immediate aftermath of installing the equipment, sure. But on the whole, innovations create wealth, expand the economic pie and enable the growth of new labor markets. Nevertheless unemployment until 2007 was floating around 4%, despite the inevitable encroachment of robots.

Once upon a time, we were told that mass production method would destroy the economy and leave millions without jobs. Did it? no.

With the advent of the agricultural revolution, society needed far far less farmers. Did that mean those people would be left with nothing to sustain themselves? No, it enabled the growth of the industrial revolution. So "pfffffff" is all we need to say to any fear of innovation.

[hellheaven1987]

That's the most tired old argument since the industrial revolution. "Hence increased unemployment" has never been the result of increased mechanization, or no one would have been left with a job after the 1980's. Increased unemployment at the plant in the immediate aftermath of installing the equipment, sure. But on the whole, innovations create wealth, expand the economic pie and enable the growth of new labor markets. Nevertheless unemployment until 2007 was floating around 4%, despite the inevitable encroachment of robots.

Once upon a time, we were told that mass production method would destroy the economy and leave millions without jobs. Did it? no.

With the advent of the agricultural revolution, society needed far far less farmers. Did that mean those people would be left with nothing to sustain themselves? No, it enabled the growth of the industrial revolution. So "pfffffff" is all we need to say to any fear of innovation.

Ya, I guess slaves are still count as employed.

[Thorn777]

Lets kill robots for fun!

[Exarch]

you're forgetting that
1) robotech would be so much more expensive than jsut shipping the factory to China or vietnam where production costs are lower.
2) there is the upside of having a factory in China which is being able to tap into the massive Chinese domestic market
3) of course as other ppl have noted-mass unemployment.
4) what makes you think companies or corporations will charge less for a robot made good than a chinese made product? they'll be factoring in maintenance costs, electricity etc etc

[Mr. Scott]

you're forgetting that
1) robotech would be so much more expensive than jsut shipping the factory to China or vietnam where production costs are lower.
2) there is the upside of having a factory in China which is being able to tap into the massive Chinese domestic market
3) of course as other ppl have noted-mass unemployment.
4) what makes you think companies or corporations will charge less for a robot made good than a chinese made product? they'll be factoring in maintenance costs, electricity etc etc

2 - China doesn't have that massive of a domestic market. 2 trillion $ China. 10 trillion $ - US. 10 trillion $ - US

3 - for the west, manufacturing has stopped becoming an employment sector. Despite its massive resurgence in the US since the recession, its only added around 100,000 jobs. Its now just a source for profit.

[Chukada1]

2 - China doesn't have that massive of a domestic market. 2 trillion $ China (and growing at a rate unfathamabole by Korean-Americans) 10 trillion $ - US. 10 trillion $ - US

Srsly, how hard is it to figure out that 1.3 billion not poor people is a big domestic market for consumption? Did you fail math or something?

[Mr. Scott]

Srsly, how hard is it to figure out that 1.3 billion not poor people is a big domestic market for consumption? Did you fail math or something?

10 trillion > 2 trillion.
Why can't you understand that?
It doesn't matter if china had 100 trillion people. The fact that 10 trillion is greater than 2 trillion still remains the same...

[Chukada1]

10 trillion > 2 trillion.
Why can't you understand that?
It doesn't matter if china had 100 trillion people. The fact that 10 trillion is greater than 2 trillion still remains the same...

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion...t_11382943.htm

Its private consumption today is only about 16 percent and 56 percent of that in the United States and Japan.

Here is the kicker. China is a growing economy that means that more people are getting money to buy stuff, which translates into growing consumption of goods, but alas. Scotty is living in the 2011's and we all know that next year won't happen. We also know that anybody with a brain and a million dollars only thinks about the 2011's when building their factory. Business is about not thinking about the future and not using long term strategic planning according to mr highschool student.

[Exarch]

2 - China doesn't have that massive of a domestic market. 2 trillion $ China. 10 trillion $ - US. 10 trillion $ - US

china's population: 1.3 billion and rising
USA's population:~ 300 million

it's clear which market is the largest

3 - for the west, manufacturing has stopped becoming an employment sector. Despite its massive resurgence in the US since the recession, its only added around 100,000 jobs. Its now just a source for profit.[

i'd say manufacturing is extremely important for an economy, but that's cuz i'm old school; look at germany's economy-there's a reason why Beijing wants to model itself on Germany's manufacturing reliant economy.
the problem with the US atm, is that it's unprofitable for US companies to have factories stateside; if US workers were willing to work more for less-and not even by that much-they might be able to become more competitive. german workers work as hard as anything-and judging by the wisconsin protests i dont think your average americna worker is willing to put up with the hard yards needed for the US manufacturing sector to be as competitive as their european peers.

[Mr. Scott]

china's population: 1.3 billion and rising
USA's population:~ 300 million

it's clear which market is the largest

Yeah in terms of # of people. In monetary value, its not worth that much relative to Europe or the US.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...8/b4032044.htm

Here's bloomberg, unless you don't trust them either.

I'd say manufacturing is extremely important for an economy, but that's cuz i'm old school; look at germany's economy-there's a reason why Beijing wants to model itself on Germany's manufacturing reliant economy.
the problem with the US atm, is that it's unprofitable for US companies to have factories stateside; if US workers were willing to work more for less-and not even by that much-they might be able to become more competitive. german workers work as hard as anything-and judging by the wisconsin protests i dont think your average americna worker is willing to put up with the hard yards needed for the US manufacturing sector to be as competitive as their european peers.

It certainly is important, but its just not a job-maker anymore. Nothing like it was in the past.
Also, America manufactures more than China or Germany, so it does have a pretty strong manufacturing sector. The problem is that even though it manufactures a lot, the US consumes too much.

[Exarch]

Yeah in terms of # of people. In monetary value, its not worth that much relative to Europe or the US.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...8/b4032044.htm

Here's bloomberg, unless you don't trust them either.

china's consumer class is probably the world's largest-concurrent with the size of their growing middle class. any market strategist worth his salt would be factoring in the massive size of the chinese middle class.
if you go to china, you'll find that all the name brands like nike, rivers, calvin klein KFC charge US prices for them. there is no change in prices and therefore no change in monetary value/profits to the shareholders or the owners of those brands.
that's why China is still the place to be if you've got a business looking to expand.
suffice it to say, not everyone succeeds in the China market either because they never did their homework and marketed their products to chinese or the chinese simply weren't interested in what they were selling. that's why bestbuy failed and why ikea is doing well.

It certainly is important, but its just not a job-maker anymore. Nothing like it was in the past.
Also, America manufactures more than China or Germany, so it does have a pretty strong manufacturing sector. The problem is that even though it manufactures a lot, the US consumes too much.

that's not the problem so much as a symptom; problem i see is that the US doesn't produce much that the chinese market is interested in; contrast that with the trade volume between germany and china; germany has products the chinese will pay top dollar to buy ranging from BMWs to hugo boss, not to mention the amount of business siemens does with the local governemnts in China.
If Washingotn wanted to fix the trade imbalance with China, they'd go about offering the Chinese things they actually wanted to buy; like satellite technology or various 'dual use' items and they'd best do it quickly before the chinese no longer feel the need for them.

oh and another thing; the chinese market was the only reason several US firms managed to stay afloat during the GR. GM being a fine example.
where americans are now focused on saving, the chinese have been encouraged to spend more and you can imagine what a billion, or even a fraction of that can do for a firm's bottom line