| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007 Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
but what be made cheaper in chicago than china? having lived in both, china is so much cheaper than chicago that it boggles the mind. chinese factory worker'll cost you about 800 RMB per month (thats 100 US$) INCLUDING 60+ hour work weeks. there is no overtime in china. they live on site. they eat cheap.
chicago (and by extension the US) simply cannot compete with china. GM and the gang shoulds simply shutter every NA factory north of the rio grande. build factories in china's NE. build a railroad to as far east in russia as they can get. ship them across and transit them down to NA markets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jhuntingtonus
Joined: 09 Dec 2008 Location: Jeonju
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:04 am Post subject: Re: Why Your World Is About To Get A Whole Lot Smaller |
|
|
see //inline//
| youtuber wrote: |
| jhuntingtonus wrote: |
| But the products with high value-to-weight ratios, not anywhere near diamonds, would need vastly higher oil prices to be prohibitive to ship, especially when oil prices affect the cost of making something in, say, California and shipping it to Chicago, too. |
How do you know it would need to be "vastly" higher? //Give me a break. If something weighs six ounces and it costs a penny to ship with today's oil costs (even forgetting about the other shipping expenses), oil would have to decuple to make that cost a dime.//
Where are you getting your information? // Tim Harford, The Undercover Economist (2005) // As we all know, China exports basically everything (high and low value to weight), so it is perfectly acceptable to talk about averages. They will probably take a big hit overall, but you are right, on some products, like high-end electronics, it won't matter as much. The point is that they will take a big hit overall. //Or they will just sell less to the US in some categories - no "hit," just more specialized business. //
And why ship something to Chicago when you can make it in Chicago for cheaper? // Give me a break! You propose each company have factories all over the US to cut shipping costs? // The choice doesn't have to be just between California or China. That is the whole point of the book.
And read what he thinks about emission tariffs (I wrote above). Do you honestly think that the West is not going to eventually penalize China for all of the coal it is burning? Why should the West have to control emissions but China does not? The economies of the West probably will level the emissions playing field by putting a tariff on dirty Chinese imports. That will be a double whammy on China's cost advantage. So perhaps Cali will be cheaper than China. //Again, see the Harford book. He shows clearly that the savings from manufacturing things in countries with poor environmental standards are dwarfed by other factors. // |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mc_jc

Joined: 13 Aug 2009 Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
One thing that must be realized is that China gets alot of its oil not just from the Middle East, but also from Russia and the Chinese are also drilling for oil in Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia.
I could see China actually building a merchant fleet in the near future that actually would rival many merchant shipping countries like Singapore and such.
However, regional trading blocs would be a good idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
youtuber
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anyways an interesting debate! I just like how Rubin goes against the conventional wisdom that China will be top dawg in the future.
I will definitely check out the Undercover Economist! Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
youtuber
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I read in the newspaper that 4 day work-weeks would significantly reduce the amount of energy consumption.
Wouldn't that be a cool idea? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|