|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 11 2015 09:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 06:36 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 05:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 05:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 05:26 WhiteDog wrote:Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data. Yes that was the point of the discussion, and you trying to change the subject show time and time again how useless it is to discuss with you. "Full stop" lol. I never argued that it increased margin, I never used the term margin in those posts, I said it was social dumping, and that labor cost was a small part of the production costs. Please, respond to points I make, not some secondary point that you thought you read between the lines. Lowering production costs would increase margin. Mathematically saying 'lower labor costs' and 'increase margin' is the same thing. No ? You can increase other costs - capital, transport, whatever. It can be a trade off. Anyway it is irrelevant to the point at hand, which is that you discuss something that I don't care about and that is not at all important to what was discussed at the time. At no point in that discussion Apple margin were discussed, what was discussed is the reason behind delocalization, which is social dumping - whatever the intensivity in labor or capital of the production. You just wanted to discuss something else because you remembered your favorite textbook had a chapter on something that was more or less on the same subject. Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Also, you did discuss margin: + Show Spoiler +On April 14 2015 17:05 WhiteDog wrote:Jonny I'm seeing this as an economist not a businessman, you're right about that. Intensive in labor mean labor cost take a high % of total costs. If we could cut the production in many pieces, all production process would be intensive in labor : you can say that this specific part of the production process is intensive in labor, but not that phone production is intensive in labor. And again, it's entirely irrelevant to my point, that was that delocalisation's goal is to decrease the cost of labor an improve competitiveness. Margin on iphone is almost 55 % - they could produce in the US and still make profit, they don't because their goal is the highest margin possible, not because they don't have the infrastructures to build up their products.+ Show Spoiler +Nyxisto how does Germany bear the risk ? I'm not saying it's a machiavellian plot, it's the normal game of capitalism. We, the french, did it a lot during the colonialism, where we basically bought half the world (and we still participate, to a lesser extent). The british did it even better. It's almost entirely risk free, because the financial market are made this way, and because all european institutions are ready to support and bought back all assets that would lose too much value, as the last crisis proved us. Who's the country that suffered from Spain's drawbacks ? Not really Germany.
But if your point is that it is not sustainable in the long run because you need to grow their demand for your export oriented economy I totally agree. It's not at all a strategy from Germany, it's just the normal evolution of a country oriented to export and who refuse to reinvest what it gained in growing it's demand : they're not going to sleep with their money, so they invest it in foreign assets. It wasn't from a textbook. It was from "Regional Powerhouse: The Greater Pearl River Delta and the Rise of China". Good job digging a two month old post just because you're frustrated abou getting schooled every now and then. When did I get schooled? You made nonsense arguments then, and you make nonsense arguments now. Show nested quote +I'll just try to give you back on track : the subject back then was the question of intensivity in labor or capital in relation to the desire of delocalisation. You argued that it was because of labor intensivity that firm desired to delocalize, I didn't care about this because I was arguing that intensive or not in labor, firm delocalized to reduce costs. There's nothing to argue on that, everybody agree that delocalization is made in order to lower costs. So there you have it : an argument over nothing just because you wanted to say something irrelevant. The post you linked was at the end of the conversation, after like three or four posts saying that your points are irrelevant. There are at least five post before the post you linked where I clearly state that your points are not important in relation to what is discussed but you continued arguing like a chicken without its head.
We could discuss the rest - details - but I do not wish to do so with you. And as I pointed out, the manufacture of iPhones was never delocalized. Apple never manufactured iPhones nor had the capacity to do so if it wanted. The decision to use Asian CM's was largely driven by the simple fact that the electronic manufacturing industry is located in Asia. In other words, your entire premise that 'Apple went to Asia to save costs' is wrong because that is not what Apple actually did. Now, why the industry is located in Asia is very relevant to the labor intensity of the work. And for the industry as a whole, we are not talking about small increases in margin / labor costs. Show nested quote +Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Here is a small part of the answer for a young student in econ like you : outsourcing and transaction costs. What about them? You outsource, either domestically or internationally, because it is cheaper and / or you have a strategic reason to do so. Transaction costs would also tend to make outsourcing less profitable, so I'm not sure why you brought that up.
You don't even know what transaction costs are. You think all transaction costs are monetary ? Ridicule. How about you stop boring me for secondary matters.
On May 11 2015 10:57 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 07:38 IgnE wrote:On May 11 2015 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 11 2015 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 02:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 10 2015 21:09 WhiteDog wrote:On May 10 2015 13:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 10 2015 09:49 WhiteDog wrote:
Jonny never read any economic book, and never read any marx. Just some textbook. Yes, those horrible things they use in those white, cis, male, capitalistic, and patriarchal institutions known as universities. Truly the tools of oppression T.T On May 10 2015 11:57 Slaughter wrote:
Pretty sure several disciplines in the social sciences still draw upon some of Marx's ideas. Though in Anthropology at least researchers seem to be moving away and onto newer perspectives a bit (but what do I know what those sociocultural anths do~ heh) They demonstrate that black lives matter of course. lol, if you'd read any economic book, you'd know textbook, while very useful, greatly simplify theories. They're the only kind of book that can push someone to believe an author like Marx is complete garbage. Yes, they simplify but they're also useful tools for learning. I'm reminded of our trade discussion in the EU thread. I scanned a page from a book that showed empirical data on contract manufacturing in China. You stuck to your simplistic ideas, no citations to be found. I don't think I said Marx was complete garbage, only that Marx is an intellectual dead end (true) and that the commie talk IgnE was pushing is crazy talk (also true). Lol. You're funny, like I'm the one with the simplistic ideas. Coming from someone who can't do anything aside from insulting everytime he is wrong (and it happen everytime we argued together). Your argument on china was irrelevant, and it only shows that you can't read whatever you have in the hand. It's pretty obvious that firms that localize part of their production in china do it because the labor costs are low. And I don't need you misunderstanding words to know I'm right on that. Your irrelevant argument had only one goal and it is to suggar coat this reality (it's not social dumping but efficient international division of labor lol). And I'm sure you'll respond to this post with another irrelevant and completly off topic comment, like you always do. Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data. It's also not off topic to respond to an accusation that I don't read books by citing a time where I demonstrated that I do read books. Some people like to work on their homes and make improvements, but IgnE will tell you that's false, because he knows how those people feel better than they do. That's nuts! Lol you're nuts. Do you even know anything about Marx ? To Marx labor is a fundamental aspect of human life, not something negative... I do know that, actually. Marx also complained that the capitalist mode of production robbed workers of the joy of labor. A sentiment that IgnE echoed in his post. And is supported by actually talking to workers. Your position here is laughable. A full 24% are what Gallup calls “actively disengaged,” meaning they pretty much hate their jobs. They act out and undermine what their coworkers accomplish.
Add the last two categories and you get 87% of workers worldwide who, as Gallup puts it, “are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive.” In other words, work is more often a source of frustration than one of fulfillment for nearly 90% of the world’s workers. That means that most workplaces are less productive and less safe than they could be and employers are less likely to create new jobs. SourcePeople are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get. Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not. US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic. + Show Spoiler + The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data. The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like. None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point. Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation?
Irrelevant to marxism ? Marx never argued that people thought economically, socially and politically in terms of class conciousness and labor exploitation ? He argued it was reality, and famously made a distinction between the existence of class and the conciousness about that fact (built through political action).
And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor?
Do you know what is at the core of the law of the tendancy of the rate of profit to fall ? The replacement of the "living work" by the "dead work", which is the automation. So how is it that the theory of exploitation somehow opposed the automation ? I wonder. You misunderstood the theory of exploitation.
I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs.
So does Marx ? Ever heard about the reserve army of the capital ? Unemployment was at the core of Marx analysis : unemployment permit capitalists to push wage down. Again it's not opposed to the theory of exploitation at all. Marx was not for leisure...
We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms.
Yeah and that idea - thinking about the economics in darwinian terms - dates back to Townsend's island with sheep and dogs - and he died two years before the birth of Marx. Is it relevant ? Not every economists believe the economy has a natural course, in fact, considering the importance of a state as an economic actor in modern economy, I'd say quite the opposite.
|
On May 11 2015 16:09 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 16:00 puerk wrote:On May 11 2015 15:49 Wolfstan wrote:On May 11 2015 13:27 Wegandi wrote:On May 11 2015 12:28 puerk wrote:On May 11 2015 11:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 11:06 puerk wrote:On May 11 2015 10:57 coverpunch wrote:On May 11 2015 07:38 IgnE wrote:On May 11 2015 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not. US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic. + Show Spoiler + The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data. The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like. None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point. Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation? And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor? I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs. We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms. Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get? They get shit on by high-minded liberals who think they're better. Why would i think i am better? You totally misunderstand my issue: people are only worth to live if they get valued marginally enough by a capitalist. Not i am doing the value judgement on them but the capitalist value system, values them least amongst men. Nobody wants to work those jobs, they are only done because people are forced to sustain themselfs. Currently jobs that have huge value to society (healthcare, elderly care, maintenance, cleaning and upkeep of our settlements) are paid like shit, because they have low barrier of entry and people have no other choice than to take up work. A basic income guarantee would drastically trim down bullshit low entry jobs (like callcenters etc) raise the wages in important fields (care/upkeep) and it would even free up peoples minds and time to pursue higher callings for themselfs than the basic necessities of the daily struggle to continue existing. I am poor and unemployed, so in the discussed frame of reference i am the most worthless of all humans and deserve to die (by the standards of millitron wegandi and clutz). I do not think i am better than someone who works to survive. How many scrooge caricatures do you conjure in your head and believe they're real life embodiments lmao? First of all, for me, most of the poverty and misery that exists in our society IS the result of economic exploitation, but we see the exploited being the people robbed by the monetary system (legal tender laws, federal reserve, et. al), the folks under the heel of political power via taxation, regulation, and the like (the political vs the economic means), etc. Libertarian class analysis was around before Marx and Engels, which they ended up appropriating for themselves and bastardizing from Comte and Dunoyer. You see, for people like yourself, you awake thinking that 'we' (libertarians, lockeans, whatever label you want to give us, etc.), believe that our current society is just and the approximation of our ideological triumphant. It's really comical all the times when we're blamed for blights of current society when we have 0% policy influence. Anyways, perhaps you should bone up on working ways to help the less fortunate instead of acting haughty and defending the state administrative bureaucracies which enrich themselves and the poors expense just like most of the charities around today (go read up on how little actually ends up in the hands of the needy). No, local institutions like Mutual Aid societies and P2P direct giving is shunned and derided. Between individuals coming together amongst themselves and having different value systems for those amongst them (can't really mooch forever when you're part of a MA society - that it's there to help you get back to where you can support yourself, etc.), and society being much better off materially so there are less poor makes for a wonderfully better world than where everyone are a mere blip of the borg. But go ahead, if it makes you feel morally and emotionally superior to think our motives are nefarious and cold. I'm sure, I'd be one of the first killed by the mass mob for uncouth borgeiousie ideals of freedom, liberty, justice, and Lockeanism. Love the bolded, real conservatives are waiting for a better iteration. I will defend what we have currently because its awesome, but certainly will implement best practices that other jurisdictions try out with positive data. Keep fighting the good fight liberals we need more people thinking outside the box and we will try to poke holes in your ideas. But it is utterly wrong. I don't believe a slightest bit that Wegandi sees the current US as his utopia. I actually fully believe him in his quest for his own informed and well literate version of minarchism (or what ever is the best fitting description for it). But as he would say himself, wanting to do good and actually doing it are widely different concepts, and as he constantly thinks to remind me: well intentioned ideas can go horribly wrong. I do not disagree with his motives, but with his naiveté about human fairness. That's why jurisdictions have borders and laws and constitutions can be changed. I will be with you arguing against radical libertarianism just as I will argue against you regarding radical socialist policies like guaranteed basic income. I'm that guy who loves things the way they are but will listen to data from those jurisdictions that opt out of what we currently have.
I can sympathise with your viewpoint, but i have the feeling that it is highly predicated upon you having found your place in that society.
|
On May 11 2015 15:51 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 15:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 15:33 puerk wrote:To add to Jonnys (regularly brought up point) about pre and after transfer income numbers: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/04/explaining-us-inequality-exceptionalism+ Show Spoiler +To correct for this possible problem, they recalculated the numbers for households containing only persons under age 60, getting Figure 2. The US remains the most unequal nation (after taxes and transfers), but now a main driver of that inequality is market inequality. In this figure, the US (along with Ireland and the UK) has market income inequality substantially higher than the rest of the countries. In other words, it is the distribution of wages and income from capital, independent of the fiscal system, that makes the US comparatively unequal. Indeed, America also does less redistribution than several other rich countries, European countries in particular, so that’s still part of the story, but it’s not the whole story or even most of it. ![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2015/05/04/opinion/050415krugman3/050415krugman3-tmagArticle.png) I don't think that adds anything that I didn't already bring up, but charts are always nice, so thanks. it introduces a new variable that changes the picture: working age. Your graphs and data were along the lines of the classical picture of figure 1, figure 2 draws a different picture, and brings genuine new value to the discussion.
Like what?
|
On May 11 2015 16:18 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 09:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 06:36 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 05:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 05:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 05:26 WhiteDog wrote:Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data. Yes that was the point of the discussion, and you trying to change the subject show time and time again how useless it is to discuss with you. "Full stop" lol. I never argued that it increased margin, I never used the term margin in those posts, I said it was social dumping, and that labor cost was a small part of the production costs. Please, respond to points I make, not some secondary point that you thought you read between the lines. Lowering production costs would increase margin. Mathematically saying 'lower labor costs' and 'increase margin' is the same thing. No ? You can increase other costs - capital, transport, whatever. It can be a trade off. Anyway it is irrelevant to the point at hand, which is that you discuss something that I don't care about and that is not at all important to what was discussed at the time. At no point in that discussion Apple margin were discussed, what was discussed is the reason behind delocalization, which is social dumping - whatever the intensivity in labor or capital of the production. You just wanted to discuss something else because you remembered your favorite textbook had a chapter on something that was more or less on the same subject. Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Also, you did discuss margin: + Show Spoiler +On April 14 2015 17:05 WhiteDog wrote:Jonny I'm seeing this as an economist not a businessman, you're right about that. Intensive in labor mean labor cost take a high % of total costs. If we could cut the production in many pieces, all production process would be intensive in labor : you can say that this specific part of the production process is intensive in labor, but not that phone production is intensive in labor. And again, it's entirely irrelevant to my point, that was that delocalisation's goal is to decrease the cost of labor an improve competitiveness. Margin on iphone is almost 55 % - they could produce in the US and still make profit, they don't because their goal is the highest margin possible, not because they don't have the infrastructures to build up their products.+ Show Spoiler +Nyxisto how does Germany bear the risk ? I'm not saying it's a machiavellian plot, it's the normal game of capitalism. We, the french, did it a lot during the colonialism, where we basically bought half the world (and we still participate, to a lesser extent). The british did it even better. It's almost entirely risk free, because the financial market are made this way, and because all european institutions are ready to support and bought back all assets that would lose too much value, as the last crisis proved us. Who's the country that suffered from Spain's drawbacks ? Not really Germany.
But if your point is that it is not sustainable in the long run because you need to grow their demand for your export oriented economy I totally agree. It's not at all a strategy from Germany, it's just the normal evolution of a country oriented to export and who refuse to reinvest what it gained in growing it's demand : they're not going to sleep with their money, so they invest it in foreign assets. It wasn't from a textbook. It was from "Regional Powerhouse: The Greater Pearl River Delta and the Rise of China". Good job digging a two month old post just because you're frustrated abou getting schooled every now and then. When did I get schooled? You made nonsense arguments then, and you make nonsense arguments now. I'll just try to give you back on track : the subject back then was the question of intensivity in labor or capital in relation to the desire of delocalisation. You argued that it was because of labor intensivity that firm desired to delocalize, I didn't care about this because I was arguing that intensive or not in labor, firm delocalized to reduce costs. There's nothing to argue on that, everybody agree that delocalization is made in order to lower costs. So there you have it : an argument over nothing just because you wanted to say something irrelevant. The post you linked was at the end of the conversation, after like three or four posts saying that your points are irrelevant. There are at least five post before the post you linked where I clearly state that your points are not important in relation to what is discussed but you continued arguing like a chicken without its head.
We could discuss the rest - details - but I do not wish to do so with you. And as I pointed out, the manufacture of iPhones was never delocalized. Apple never manufactured iPhones nor had the capacity to do so if it wanted. The decision to use Asian CM's was largely driven by the simple fact that the electronic manufacturing industry is located in Asia. In other words, your entire premise that 'Apple went to Asia to save costs' is wrong because that is not what Apple actually did. Now, why the industry is located in Asia is very relevant to the labor intensity of the work. And for the industry as a whole, we are not talking about small increases in margin / labor costs. Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Here is a small part of the answer for a young student in econ like you : outsourcing and transaction costs. What about them? You outsource, either domestically or internationally, because it is cheaper and / or you have a strategic reason to do so. Transaction costs would also tend to make outsourcing less profitable, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. You don't even know what transaction costs are. You think all transaction costs are monetary ? Ridicule. How about you stop boring me for secondary matters.
So because of transaction costs that don't cost money, Apple moved production to China to increase said non-monetary transaction costs.
Great analysis 
|
On May 11 2015 16:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 16:18 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 09:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 06:36 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 05:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 05:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 05:26 WhiteDog wrote:Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data. Yes that was the point of the discussion, and you trying to change the subject show time and time again how useless it is to discuss with you. "Full stop" lol. I never argued that it increased margin, I never used the term margin in those posts, I said it was social dumping, and that labor cost was a small part of the production costs. Please, respond to points I make, not some secondary point that you thought you read between the lines. Lowering production costs would increase margin. Mathematically saying 'lower labor costs' and 'increase margin' is the same thing. No ? You can increase other costs - capital, transport, whatever. It can be a trade off. Anyway it is irrelevant to the point at hand, which is that you discuss something that I don't care about and that is not at all important to what was discussed at the time. At no point in that discussion Apple margin were discussed, what was discussed is the reason behind delocalization, which is social dumping - whatever the intensivity in labor or capital of the production. You just wanted to discuss something else because you remembered your favorite textbook had a chapter on something that was more or less on the same subject. Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Also, you did discuss margin: + Show Spoiler +On April 14 2015 17:05 WhiteDog wrote:Jonny I'm seeing this as an economist not a businessman, you're right about that. Intensive in labor mean labor cost take a high % of total costs. If we could cut the production in many pieces, all production process would be intensive in labor : you can say that this specific part of the production process is intensive in labor, but not that phone production is intensive in labor. And again, it's entirely irrelevant to my point, that was that delocalisation's goal is to decrease the cost of labor an improve competitiveness. Margin on iphone is almost 55 % - they could produce in the US and still make profit, they don't because their goal is the highest margin possible, not because they don't have the infrastructures to build up their products.+ Show Spoiler +Nyxisto how does Germany bear the risk ? I'm not saying it's a machiavellian plot, it's the normal game of capitalism. We, the french, did it a lot during the colonialism, where we basically bought half the world (and we still participate, to a lesser extent). The british did it even better. It's almost entirely risk free, because the financial market are made this way, and because all european institutions are ready to support and bought back all assets that would lose too much value, as the last crisis proved us. Who's the country that suffered from Spain's drawbacks ? Not really Germany.
But if your point is that it is not sustainable in the long run because you need to grow their demand for your export oriented economy I totally agree. It's not at all a strategy from Germany, it's just the normal evolution of a country oriented to export and who refuse to reinvest what it gained in growing it's demand : they're not going to sleep with their money, so they invest it in foreign assets. It wasn't from a textbook. It was from "Regional Powerhouse: The Greater Pearl River Delta and the Rise of China". Good job digging a two month old post just because you're frustrated abou getting schooled every now and then. When did I get schooled? You made nonsense arguments then, and you make nonsense arguments now. I'll just try to give you back on track : the subject back then was the question of intensivity in labor or capital in relation to the desire of delocalisation. You argued that it was because of labor intensivity that firm desired to delocalize, I didn't care about this because I was arguing that intensive or not in labor, firm delocalized to reduce costs. There's nothing to argue on that, everybody agree that delocalization is made in order to lower costs. So there you have it : an argument over nothing just because you wanted to say something irrelevant. The post you linked was at the end of the conversation, after like three or four posts saying that your points are irrelevant. There are at least five post before the post you linked where I clearly state that your points are not important in relation to what is discussed but you continued arguing like a chicken without its head.
We could discuss the rest - details - but I do not wish to do so with you. And as I pointed out, the manufacture of iPhones was never delocalized. Apple never manufactured iPhones nor had the capacity to do so if it wanted. The decision to use Asian CM's was largely driven by the simple fact that the electronic manufacturing industry is located in Asia. In other words, your entire premise that 'Apple went to Asia to save costs' is wrong because that is not what Apple actually did. Now, why the industry is located in Asia is very relevant to the labor intensity of the work. And for the industry as a whole, we are not talking about small increases in margin / labor costs. Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Here is a small part of the answer for a young student in econ like you : outsourcing and transaction costs. What about them? You outsource, either domestically or internationally, because it is cheaper and / or you have a strategic reason to do so. Transaction costs would also tend to make outsourcing less profitable, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. You don't even know what transaction costs are. You think all transaction costs are monetary ? Ridicule. How about you stop boring me for secondary matters. So because of transaction costs that don't cost money, Apple moved production to China to increase said non-monetary transaction costs. Great analysis
I was not talking about Apple at this point ? Do you have trouble staying on one topic ? Take the time to read a little about transaction costs and then go to sleep.
|
On May 11 2015 16:00 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 15:49 Wolfstan wrote:On May 11 2015 13:27 Wegandi wrote:On May 11 2015 12:28 puerk wrote:On May 11 2015 11:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 11:06 puerk wrote:On May 11 2015 10:57 coverpunch wrote:On May 11 2015 07:38 IgnE wrote:On May 11 2015 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] And is supported by actually talking to workers. Your position here is laughable. [quote] SourcePeople are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get. Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not. US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic. + Show Spoiler + The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data. The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like. None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point. Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation? And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor? I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs. We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms. Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get? They get shit on by high-minded liberals who think they're better. Why would i think i am better? You totally misunderstand my issue: people are only worth to live if they get valued marginally enough by a capitalist. Not i am doing the value judgement on them but the capitalist value system, values them least amongst men. Nobody wants to work those jobs, they are only done because people are forced to sustain themselfs. Currently jobs that have huge value to society (healthcare, elderly care, maintenance, cleaning and upkeep of our settlements) are paid like shit, because they have low barrier of entry and people have no other choice than to take up work. A basic income guarantee would drastically trim down bullshit low entry jobs (like callcenters etc) raise the wages in important fields (care/upkeep) and it would even free up peoples minds and time to pursue higher callings for themselfs than the basic necessities of the daily struggle to continue existing. I am poor and unemployed, so in the discussed frame of reference i am the most worthless of all humans and deserve to die (by the standards of millitron wegandi and clutz). I do not think i am better than someone who works to survive. How many scrooge caricatures do you conjure in your head and believe they're real life embodiments lmao? First of all, for me, most of the poverty and misery that exists in our society IS the result of economic exploitation, but we see the exploited being the people robbed by the monetary system (legal tender laws, federal reserve, et. al), the folks under the heel of political power via taxation, regulation, and the like (the political vs the economic means), etc. Libertarian class analysis was around before Marx and Engels, which they ended up appropriating for themselves and bastardizing from Comte and Dunoyer. You see, for people like yourself, you awake thinking that 'we' (libertarians, lockeans, whatever label you want to give us, etc.), believe that our current society is just and the approximation of our ideological triumphant. It's really comical all the times when we're blamed for blights of current society when we have 0% policy influence. Anyways, perhaps you should bone up on working ways to help the less fortunate instead of acting haughty and defending the state administrative bureaucracies which enrich themselves and the poors expense just like most of the charities around today (go read up on how little actually ends up in the hands of the needy). No, local institutions like Mutual Aid societies and P2P direct giving is shunned and derided. Between individuals coming together amongst themselves and having different value systems for those amongst them (can't really mooch forever when you're part of a MA society - that it's there to help you get back to where you can support yourself, etc.), and society being much better off materially so there are less poor makes for a wonderfully better world than where everyone are a mere blip of the borg. But go ahead, if it makes you feel morally and emotionally superior to think our motives are nefarious and cold. I'm sure, I'd be one of the first killed by the mass mob for uncouth borgeiousie ideals of freedom, liberty, justice, and Lockeanism. Love the bolded, real conservatives are waiting for a better iteration. I will defend what we have currently because its awesome, but certainly will implement best practices that other jurisdictions try out with positive data. Keep fighting the good fight liberals we need more people thinking outside the box and we will try to poke holes in your ideas. But it is utterly wrong. I don't believe a slightest bit that Wegandi sees the current US as his utopia. I actually fully believe him in his quest for his own informed and well literate version of minarchism (or what ever is the best fitting description for it). But as he would say himself, wanting to do good and actually doing it are widely different concepts, and as he constantly thinks to remind me: well intentioned ideas can go horribly wrong. I do not disagree with his motives, but with his naiveté about human fairness.
Yes, I agree that wanting to do good and implementing it are vastly different, but I simply disagree that Lockeanism doesn't accomplish this goal both morally, and empirically, at least better than any alternative. I vehemently disagree that political power can ever be used for good. Giving anyone or any institution a monopoly that Governments claim to (like the mob) are so disastrous for the human consciousness and being that I still can't believe educated people cling to its mythos. Industrial society is so vastly superior I can't begin to express in words aptly enough.
Anyways, I don't believe innately in human fairness, I do believe however competition through Lockean property rights produces the best outcomes. We do need courts, security, defense, and the like; all market anarchists agree upon this and there are even some good Tucker quotes out there, but the fact is that where you see competition as a negative sum expression, I see competition as providing incentive for the betterment of society through things like creative destruction, price discovery, and to prevent all the ills of an actual monopoly (most notably Government/State). Also, competition defined is by access to markets without artificial and/or rent-seeking barriers to its entrance. The great pity is that the reason we have such large and inefficient corporations like GE, Northropp Grumann, Goldman Sachs, et. al. are because of the system of laws, regulations, and privileges afforded by State-power through restriction of competition and/or positive advantage. These things don't exist in the market, they're fictions created by Government.
|
On May 11 2015 16:09 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 16:00 puerk wrote:On May 11 2015 15:49 Wolfstan wrote:On May 11 2015 13:27 Wegandi wrote:On May 11 2015 12:28 puerk wrote:On May 11 2015 11:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 11:06 puerk wrote:On May 11 2015 10:57 coverpunch wrote:On May 11 2015 07:38 IgnE wrote:On May 11 2015 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not. US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic. + Show Spoiler + The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data. The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like. None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point. Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation? And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor? I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs. We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms. Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get? They get shit on by high-minded liberals who think they're better. Why would i think i am better? You totally misunderstand my issue: people are only worth to live if they get valued marginally enough by a capitalist. Not i am doing the value judgement on them but the capitalist value system, values them least amongst men. Nobody wants to work those jobs, they are only done because people are forced to sustain themselfs. Currently jobs that have huge value to society (healthcare, elderly care, maintenance, cleaning and upkeep of our settlements) are paid like shit, because they have low barrier of entry and people have no other choice than to take up work. A basic income guarantee would drastically trim down bullshit low entry jobs (like callcenters etc) raise the wages in important fields (care/upkeep) and it would even free up peoples minds and time to pursue higher callings for themselfs than the basic necessities of the daily struggle to continue existing. I am poor and unemployed, so in the discussed frame of reference i am the most worthless of all humans and deserve to die (by the standards of millitron wegandi and clutz). I do not think i am better than someone who works to survive. How many scrooge caricatures do you conjure in your head and believe they're real life embodiments lmao? First of all, for me, most of the poverty and misery that exists in our society IS the result of economic exploitation, but we see the exploited being the people robbed by the monetary system (legal tender laws, federal reserve, et. al), the folks under the heel of political power via taxation, regulation, and the like (the political vs the economic means), etc. Libertarian class analysis was around before Marx and Engels, which they ended up appropriating for themselves and bastardizing from Comte and Dunoyer. You see, for people like yourself, you awake thinking that 'we' (libertarians, lockeans, whatever label you want to give us, etc.), believe that our current society is just and the approximation of our ideological triumphant. It's really comical all the times when we're blamed for blights of current society when we have 0% policy influence. Anyways, perhaps you should bone up on working ways to help the less fortunate instead of acting haughty and defending the state administrative bureaucracies which enrich themselves and the poors expense just like most of the charities around today (go read up on how little actually ends up in the hands of the needy). No, local institutions like Mutual Aid societies and P2P direct giving is shunned and derided. Between individuals coming together amongst themselves and having different value systems for those amongst them (can't really mooch forever when you're part of a MA society - that it's there to help you get back to where you can support yourself, etc.), and society being much better off materially so there are less poor makes for a wonderfully better world than where everyone are a mere blip of the borg. But go ahead, if it makes you feel morally and emotionally superior to think our motives are nefarious and cold. I'm sure, I'd be one of the first killed by the mass mob for uncouth borgeiousie ideals of freedom, liberty, justice, and Lockeanism. Love the bolded, real conservatives are waiting for a better iteration. I will defend what we have currently because its awesome, but certainly will implement best practices that other jurisdictions try out with positive data. Keep fighting the good fight liberals we need more people thinking outside the box and we will try to poke holes in your ideas. But it is utterly wrong. I don't believe a slightest bit that Wegandi sees the current US as his utopia. I actually fully believe him in his quest for his own informed and well literate version of minarchism (or what ever is the best fitting description for it). But as he would say himself, wanting to do good and actually doing it are widely different concepts, and as he constantly thinks to remind me: well intentioned ideas can go horribly wrong. I do not disagree with his motives, but with his naiveté about human fairness. That's why jurisdictions have borders and laws and constitutions can be changed. I will be with you arguing against radical libertarianism just as I will argue against you regarding radical socialist policies like guaranteed basic income. I'm that guy who loves things the way they are but will listen to data from those jurisdictions that opt out of what we currently have.
How can you love the way things are? I suppose being a Canadian you don't see the descent into tyranny and Statism the US has leaped into? Serfs got to keep more of their property than US 'citizens' today do, and on top of that, they didn't have the ideological chains of the social contract thrust upon them in the womb and by mere existence in the geographic territories claimed by Governments. Blegh.
|
On May 11 2015 16:37 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 16:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 16:18 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 09:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 06:36 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 05:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 05:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 05:26 WhiteDog wrote:Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data. Yes that was the point of the discussion, and you trying to change the subject show time and time again how useless it is to discuss with you. "Full stop" lol. I never argued that it increased margin, I never used the term margin in those posts, I said it was social dumping, and that labor cost was a small part of the production costs. Please, respond to points I make, not some secondary point that you thought you read between the lines. Lowering production costs would increase margin. Mathematically saying 'lower labor costs' and 'increase margin' is the same thing. No ? You can increase other costs - capital, transport, whatever. It can be a trade off. Anyway it is irrelevant to the point at hand, which is that you discuss something that I don't care about and that is not at all important to what was discussed at the time. At no point in that discussion Apple margin were discussed, what was discussed is the reason behind delocalization, which is social dumping - whatever the intensivity in labor or capital of the production. You just wanted to discuss something else because you remembered your favorite textbook had a chapter on something that was more or less on the same subject. Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Also, you did discuss margin: + Show Spoiler +On April 14 2015 17:05 WhiteDog wrote:Jonny I'm seeing this as an economist not a businessman, you're right about that. Intensive in labor mean labor cost take a high % of total costs. If we could cut the production in many pieces, all production process would be intensive in labor : you can say that this specific part of the production process is intensive in labor, but not that phone production is intensive in labor. And again, it's entirely irrelevant to my point, that was that delocalisation's goal is to decrease the cost of labor an improve competitiveness. Margin on iphone is almost 55 % - they could produce in the US and still make profit, they don't because their goal is the highest margin possible, not because they don't have the infrastructures to build up their products.+ Show Spoiler +Nyxisto how does Germany bear the risk ? I'm not saying it's a machiavellian plot, it's the normal game of capitalism. We, the french, did it a lot during the colonialism, where we basically bought half the world (and we still participate, to a lesser extent). The british did it even better. It's almost entirely risk free, because the financial market are made this way, and because all european institutions are ready to support and bought back all assets that would lose too much value, as the last crisis proved us. Who's the country that suffered from Spain's drawbacks ? Not really Germany.
But if your point is that it is not sustainable in the long run because you need to grow their demand for your export oriented economy I totally agree. It's not at all a strategy from Germany, it's just the normal evolution of a country oriented to export and who refuse to reinvest what it gained in growing it's demand : they're not going to sleep with their money, so they invest it in foreign assets. It wasn't from a textbook. It was from "Regional Powerhouse: The Greater Pearl River Delta and the Rise of China". Good job digging a two month old post just because you're frustrated abou getting schooled every now and then. When did I get schooled? You made nonsense arguments then, and you make nonsense arguments now. I'll just try to give you back on track : the subject back then was the question of intensivity in labor or capital in relation to the desire of delocalisation. You argued that it was because of labor intensivity that firm desired to delocalize, I didn't care about this because I was arguing that intensive or not in labor, firm delocalized to reduce costs. There's nothing to argue on that, everybody agree that delocalization is made in order to lower costs. So there you have it : an argument over nothing just because you wanted to say something irrelevant. The post you linked was at the end of the conversation, after like three or four posts saying that your points are irrelevant. There are at least five post before the post you linked where I clearly state that your points are not important in relation to what is discussed but you continued arguing like a chicken without its head.
We could discuss the rest - details - but I do not wish to do so with you. And as I pointed out, the manufacture of iPhones was never delocalized. Apple never manufactured iPhones nor had the capacity to do so if it wanted. The decision to use Asian CM's was largely driven by the simple fact that the electronic manufacturing industry is located in Asia. In other words, your entire premise that 'Apple went to Asia to save costs' is wrong because that is not what Apple actually did. Now, why the industry is located in Asia is very relevant to the labor intensity of the work. And for the industry as a whole, we are not talking about small increases in margin / labor costs. Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Here is a small part of the answer for a young student in econ like you : outsourcing and transaction costs. What about them? You outsource, either domestically or internationally, because it is cheaper and / or you have a strategic reason to do so. Transaction costs would also tend to make outsourcing less profitable, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. You don't even know what transaction costs are. You think all transaction costs are monetary ? Ridicule. How about you stop boring me for secondary matters. So because of transaction costs that don't cost money, Apple moved production to China to increase said non-monetary transaction costs. Great analysis I was not talking about Apple at this point ? Do you have trouble staying on one topic ? Take the time to read a little about transaction costs and then go to sleep.
"because transaction costs yo!" is not an argument.
|
On May 11 2015 16:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 16:37 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 16:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 16:18 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 09:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 06:36 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 05:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 05:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 05:26 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Yes that was the point of the discussion, and you trying to change the subject show time and time again how useless it is to discuss with you.
"Full stop" lol. I never argued that it increased margin, I never used the term margin in those posts, I said it was social dumping, and that labor cost was a small part of the production costs. Please, respond to points I make, not some secondary point that you thought you read between the lines. Lowering production costs would increase margin. Mathematically saying 'lower labor costs' and 'increase margin' is the same thing. No ? You can increase other costs - capital, transport, whatever. It can be a trade off. Anyway it is irrelevant to the point at hand, which is that you discuss something that I don't care about and that is not at all important to what was discussed at the time. At no point in that discussion Apple margin were discussed, what was discussed is the reason behind delocalization, which is social dumping - whatever the intensivity in labor or capital of the production. You just wanted to discuss something else because you remembered your favorite textbook had a chapter on something that was more or less on the same subject. Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Also, you did discuss margin: + Show Spoiler +On April 14 2015 17:05 WhiteDog wrote:Jonny I'm seeing this as an economist not a businessman, you're right about that. Intensive in labor mean labor cost take a high % of total costs. If we could cut the production in many pieces, all production process would be intensive in labor : you can say that this specific part of the production process is intensive in labor, but not that phone production is intensive in labor. And again, it's entirely irrelevant to my point, that was that delocalisation's goal is to decrease the cost of labor an improve competitiveness. Margin on iphone is almost 55 % - they could produce in the US and still make profit, they don't because their goal is the highest margin possible, not because they don't have the infrastructures to build up their products.+ Show Spoiler +Nyxisto how does Germany bear the risk ? I'm not saying it's a machiavellian plot, it's the normal game of capitalism. We, the french, did it a lot during the colonialism, where we basically bought half the world (and we still participate, to a lesser extent). The british did it even better. It's almost entirely risk free, because the financial market are made this way, and because all european institutions are ready to support and bought back all assets that would lose too much value, as the last crisis proved us. Who's the country that suffered from Spain's drawbacks ? Not really Germany.
But if your point is that it is not sustainable in the long run because you need to grow their demand for your export oriented economy I totally agree. It's not at all a strategy from Germany, it's just the normal evolution of a country oriented to export and who refuse to reinvest what it gained in growing it's demand : they're not going to sleep with their money, so they invest it in foreign assets. It wasn't from a textbook. It was from "Regional Powerhouse: The Greater Pearl River Delta and the Rise of China". Good job digging a two month old post just because you're frustrated abou getting schooled every now and then. When did I get schooled? You made nonsense arguments then, and you make nonsense arguments now. I'll just try to give you back on track : the subject back then was the question of intensivity in labor or capital in relation to the desire of delocalisation. You argued that it was because of labor intensivity that firm desired to delocalize, I didn't care about this because I was arguing that intensive or not in labor, firm delocalized to reduce costs. There's nothing to argue on that, everybody agree that delocalization is made in order to lower costs. So there you have it : an argument over nothing just because you wanted to say something irrelevant. The post you linked was at the end of the conversation, after like three or four posts saying that your points are irrelevant. There are at least five post before the post you linked where I clearly state that your points are not important in relation to what is discussed but you continued arguing like a chicken without its head.
We could discuss the rest - details - but I do not wish to do so with you. And as I pointed out, the manufacture of iPhones was never delocalized. Apple never manufactured iPhones nor had the capacity to do so if it wanted. The decision to use Asian CM's was largely driven by the simple fact that the electronic manufacturing industry is located in Asia. In other words, your entire premise that 'Apple went to Asia to save costs' is wrong because that is not what Apple actually did. Now, why the industry is located in Asia is very relevant to the labor intensity of the work. And for the industry as a whole, we are not talking about small increases in margin / labor costs. Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Here is a small part of the answer for a young student in econ like you : outsourcing and transaction costs. What about them? You outsource, either domestically or internationally, because it is cheaper and / or you have a strategic reason to do so. Transaction costs would also tend to make outsourcing less profitable, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. You don't even know what transaction costs are. You think all transaction costs are monetary ? Ridicule. How about you stop boring me for secondary matters. So because of transaction costs that don't cost money, Apple moved production to China to increase said non-monetary transaction costs. Great analysis I was not talking about Apple at this point ? Do you have trouble staying on one topic ? Take the time to read a little about transaction costs and then go to sleep. "because transaction costs yo!" is not an argument.
Because you thought we were arguing ? You're cute.
|
On May 11 2015 16:50 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 16:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 16:37 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 16:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 16:18 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 09:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 06:36 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 05:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 05:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Lowering production costs would increase margin. Mathematically saying 'lower labor costs' and 'increase margin' is the same thing. No ? You can increase other costs - capital, transport, whatever. It can be a trade off. Anyway it is irrelevant to the point at hand, which is that you discuss something that I don't care about and that is not at all important to what was discussed at the time. At no point in that discussion Apple margin were discussed, what was discussed is the reason behind delocalization, which is social dumping - whatever the intensivity in labor or capital of the production. You just wanted to discuss something else because you remembered your favorite textbook had a chapter on something that was more or less on the same subject. Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Also, you did discuss margin: + Show Spoiler +On April 14 2015 17:05 WhiteDog wrote:Jonny I'm seeing this as an economist not a businessman, you're right about that. Intensive in labor mean labor cost take a high % of total costs. If we could cut the production in many pieces, all production process would be intensive in labor : you can say that this specific part of the production process is intensive in labor, but not that phone production is intensive in labor. And again, it's entirely irrelevant to my point, that was that delocalisation's goal is to decrease the cost of labor an improve competitiveness. Margin on iphone is almost 55 % - they could produce in the US and still make profit, they don't because their goal is the highest margin possible, not because they don't have the infrastructures to build up their products.+ Show Spoiler +Nyxisto how does Germany bear the risk ? I'm not saying it's a machiavellian plot, it's the normal game of capitalism. We, the french, did it a lot during the colonialism, where we basically bought half the world (and we still participate, to a lesser extent). The british did it even better. It's almost entirely risk free, because the financial market are made this way, and because all european institutions are ready to support and bought back all assets that would lose too much value, as the last crisis proved us. Who's the country that suffered from Spain's drawbacks ? Not really Germany.
But if your point is that it is not sustainable in the long run because you need to grow their demand for your export oriented economy I totally agree. It's not at all a strategy from Germany, it's just the normal evolution of a country oriented to export and who refuse to reinvest what it gained in growing it's demand : they're not going to sleep with their money, so they invest it in foreign assets. It wasn't from a textbook. It was from "Regional Powerhouse: The Greater Pearl River Delta and the Rise of China". Good job digging a two month old post just because you're frustrated abou getting schooled every now and then. When did I get schooled? You made nonsense arguments then, and you make nonsense arguments now. I'll just try to give you back on track : the subject back then was the question of intensivity in labor or capital in relation to the desire of delocalisation. You argued that it was because of labor intensivity that firm desired to delocalize, I didn't care about this because I was arguing that intensive or not in labor, firm delocalized to reduce costs. There's nothing to argue on that, everybody agree that delocalization is made in order to lower costs. So there you have it : an argument over nothing just because you wanted to say something irrelevant. The post you linked was at the end of the conversation, after like three or four posts saying that your points are irrelevant. There are at least five post before the post you linked where I clearly state that your points are not important in relation to what is discussed but you continued arguing like a chicken without its head.
We could discuss the rest - details - but I do not wish to do so with you. And as I pointed out, the manufacture of iPhones was never delocalized. Apple never manufactured iPhones nor had the capacity to do so if it wanted. The decision to use Asian CM's was largely driven by the simple fact that the electronic manufacturing industry is located in Asia. In other words, your entire premise that 'Apple went to Asia to save costs' is wrong because that is not what Apple actually did. Now, why the industry is located in Asia is very relevant to the labor intensity of the work. And for the industry as a whole, we are not talking about small increases in margin / labor costs. Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Here is a small part of the answer for a young student in econ like you : outsourcing and transaction costs. What about them? You outsource, either domestically or internationally, because it is cheaper and / or you have a strategic reason to do so. Transaction costs would also tend to make outsourcing less profitable, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. You don't even know what transaction costs are. You think all transaction costs are monetary ? Ridicule. How about you stop boring me for secondary matters. So because of transaction costs that don't cost money, Apple moved production to China to increase said non-monetary transaction costs. Great analysis I was not talking about Apple at this point ? Do you have trouble staying on one topic ? Take the time to read a little about transaction costs and then go to sleep. "because transaction costs yo!" is not an argument. Because you thought we were arguing ? You're cute.
You aren't speaking English.
|
On May 11 2015 16:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 16:50 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 16:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 16:37 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 16:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 16:18 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 09:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 06:36 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 05:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
No ? You can increase other costs - capital, transport, whatever. It can be a trade off. Anyway it is irrelevant to the point at hand, which is that you discuss something that I don't care about and that is not at all important to what was discussed at the time. At no point in that discussion Apple margin were discussed, what was discussed is the reason behind delocalization, which is social dumping - whatever the intensivity in labor or capital of the production. You just wanted to discuss something else because you remembered your favorite textbook had a chapter on something that was more or less on the same subject. Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Also, you did discuss margin: + Show Spoiler +On April 14 2015 17:05 WhiteDog wrote:Jonny I'm seeing this as an economist not a businessman, you're right about that. Intensive in labor mean labor cost take a high % of total costs. If we could cut the production in many pieces, all production process would be intensive in labor : you can say that this specific part of the production process is intensive in labor, but not that phone production is intensive in labor. And again, it's entirely irrelevant to my point, that was that delocalisation's goal is to decrease the cost of labor an improve competitiveness. Margin on iphone is almost 55 % - they could produce in the US and still make profit, they don't because their goal is the highest margin possible, not because they don't have the infrastructures to build up their products.+ Show Spoiler +Nyxisto how does Germany bear the risk ? I'm not saying it's a machiavellian plot, it's the normal game of capitalism. We, the french, did it a lot during the colonialism, where we basically bought half the world (and we still participate, to a lesser extent). The british did it even better. It's almost entirely risk free, because the financial market are made this way, and because all european institutions are ready to support and bought back all assets that would lose too much value, as the last crisis proved us. Who's the country that suffered from Spain's drawbacks ? Not really Germany.
But if your point is that it is not sustainable in the long run because you need to grow their demand for your export oriented economy I totally agree. It's not at all a strategy from Germany, it's just the normal evolution of a country oriented to export and who refuse to reinvest what it gained in growing it's demand : they're not going to sleep with their money, so they invest it in foreign assets. It wasn't from a textbook. It was from "Regional Powerhouse: The Greater Pearl River Delta and the Rise of China". Good job digging a two month old post just because you're frustrated abou getting schooled every now and then. When did I get schooled? You made nonsense arguments then, and you make nonsense arguments now. I'll just try to give you back on track : the subject back then was the question of intensivity in labor or capital in relation to the desire of delocalisation. You argued that it was because of labor intensivity that firm desired to delocalize, I didn't care about this because I was arguing that intensive or not in labor, firm delocalized to reduce costs. There's nothing to argue on that, everybody agree that delocalization is made in order to lower costs. So there you have it : an argument over nothing just because you wanted to say something irrelevant. The post you linked was at the end of the conversation, after like three or four posts saying that your points are irrelevant. There are at least five post before the post you linked where I clearly state that your points are not important in relation to what is discussed but you continued arguing like a chicken without its head.
We could discuss the rest - details - but I do not wish to do so with you. And as I pointed out, the manufacture of iPhones was never delocalized. Apple never manufactured iPhones nor had the capacity to do so if it wanted. The decision to use Asian CM's was largely driven by the simple fact that the electronic manufacturing industry is located in Asia. In other words, your entire premise that 'Apple went to Asia to save costs' is wrong because that is not what Apple actually did. Now, why the industry is located in Asia is very relevant to the labor intensity of the work. And for the industry as a whole, we are not talking about small increases in margin / labor costs. Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Here is a small part of the answer for a young student in econ like you : outsourcing and transaction costs. What about them? You outsource, either domestically or internationally, because it is cheaper and / or you have a strategic reason to do so. Transaction costs would also tend to make outsourcing less profitable, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. You don't even know what transaction costs are. You think all transaction costs are monetary ? Ridicule. How about you stop boring me for secondary matters. So because of transaction costs that don't cost money, Apple moved production to China to increase said non-monetary transaction costs. Great analysis I was not talking about Apple at this point ? Do you have trouble staying on one topic ? Take the time to read a little about transaction costs and then go to sleep. "because transaction costs yo!" is not an argument. Because you thought we were arguing ? You're cute. You aren't speaking English.
Doing my best tho.
It's the first comment that you made in a while that actually had a use. Congratz.
|
On May 11 2015 16:39 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 16:00 puerk wrote:On May 11 2015 15:49 Wolfstan wrote:On May 11 2015 13:27 Wegandi wrote:On May 11 2015 12:28 puerk wrote:On May 11 2015 11:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 11:06 puerk wrote:On May 11 2015 10:57 coverpunch wrote:On May 11 2015 07:38 IgnE wrote:On May 11 2015 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not. US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic. + Show Spoiler + The US practices state-directed capitalism and has for the last century. Your feelings about how "capitalistic" the US is are completely irrelevant to the data. The fact that a larger minority of the population find satisfaction in their work in the US is not unexpected, given the fact that the US is at the apex of a globalized capitalist economy. More workers in the US economy are part of the petit bourgeoisie than in probably any other economy, except maybe parts of the EU, and those kinds of workers have historically been just as pro-capitalist as the capitalists themselves. The skill, respect, and autonomy in a lot of the professional level jobs in the US all provide a certain satisfaction that compensates for the level of labor exploitation going on. An accountant at PWC or a lawyer at a firm also has the potential, however slim, to actually become a partner and gain ownership stake in their workplace. Small business owners might also be expected to take more pride in their work. Not to mention that the top quartile or quintile of the US population has investments of its own, perhaps their 401k or the like. None of this discounts 1) that a growing majority of Americans are disaffected workers are becoming more and more conscious of their exploitation and 2) the world economy as a whole is what has to be considered. These Rah Rah America! arguments are completely beside the point. Honestly, what percent of employees at any level actually think economically, politically, or socially in terms of class consciousness and labor exploitation? And it's pretty interesting to declare Americans are feeling exploited when the unions spend every trade negotiation wringing their hands about the hollowing out of manufacturing in the United States and every investor meeting worrying about being replaced by automation. What is factory labor if not THE exploitation of labor? I would also note our politics of economic news is dominated by the unemployment rate and labor participation. We want MORE people to apparently work and be exploited and we worry when people can't find jobs. We're far more likely in to think in Darwinian terms about economics, where growth is life and stagnation is decay, than we are to think in Marxist terms. Factory labor is great when you compare it to the new economy of callcenters, retailers, and marketeers eating your soul up while producing nothing tangible of value. A person working at a car manufacturing plant will usually have a high satisfaction with his job, as he produces something lasting to be proud of, but what does a walmart greeter or bag-packer get? They get shit on by high-minded liberals who think they're better. Why would i think i am better? You totally misunderstand my issue: people are only worth to live if they get valued marginally enough by a capitalist. Not i am doing the value judgement on them but the capitalist value system, values them least amongst men. Nobody wants to work those jobs, they are only done because people are forced to sustain themselfs. Currently jobs that have huge value to society (healthcare, elderly care, maintenance, cleaning and upkeep of our settlements) are paid like shit, because they have low barrier of entry and people have no other choice than to take up work. A basic income guarantee would drastically trim down bullshit low entry jobs (like callcenters etc) raise the wages in important fields (care/upkeep) and it would even free up peoples minds and time to pursue higher callings for themselfs than the basic necessities of the daily struggle to continue existing. I am poor and unemployed, so in the discussed frame of reference i am the most worthless of all humans and deserve to die (by the standards of millitron wegandi and clutz). I do not think i am better than someone who works to survive. How many scrooge caricatures do you conjure in your head and believe they're real life embodiments lmao? First of all, for me, most of the poverty and misery that exists in our society IS the result of economic exploitation, but we see the exploited being the people robbed by the monetary system (legal tender laws, federal reserve, et. al), the folks under the heel of political power via taxation, regulation, and the like (the political vs the economic means), etc. Libertarian class analysis was around before Marx and Engels, which they ended up appropriating for themselves and bastardizing from Comte and Dunoyer. You see, for people like yourself, you awake thinking that 'we' (libertarians, lockeans, whatever label you want to give us, etc.), believe that our current society is just and the approximation of our ideological triumphant. It's really comical all the times when we're blamed for blights of current society when we have 0% policy influence. Anyways, perhaps you should bone up on working ways to help the less fortunate instead of acting haughty and defending the state administrative bureaucracies which enrich themselves and the poors expense just like most of the charities around today (go read up on how little actually ends up in the hands of the needy). No, local institutions like Mutual Aid societies and P2P direct giving is shunned and derided. Between individuals coming together amongst themselves and having different value systems for those amongst them (can't really mooch forever when you're part of a MA society - that it's there to help you get back to where you can support yourself, etc.), and society being much better off materially so there are less poor makes for a wonderfully better world than where everyone are a mere blip of the borg. But go ahead, if it makes you feel morally and emotionally superior to think our motives are nefarious and cold. I'm sure, I'd be one of the first killed by the mass mob for uncouth borgeiousie ideals of freedom, liberty, justice, and Lockeanism. Love the bolded, real conservatives are waiting for a better iteration. I will defend what we have currently because its awesome, but certainly will implement best practices that other jurisdictions try out with positive data. Keep fighting the good fight liberals we need more people thinking outside the box and we will try to poke holes in your ideas. But it is utterly wrong. I don't believe a slightest bit that Wegandi sees the current US as his utopia. I actually fully believe him in his quest for his own informed and well literate version of minarchism (or what ever is the best fitting description for it). But as he would say himself, wanting to do good and actually doing it are widely different concepts, and as he constantly thinks to remind me: well intentioned ideas can go horribly wrong. I do not disagree with his motives, but with his naiveté about human fairness. Yes, I agree that wanting to do good and implementing it are vastly different, but I simply disagree that Lockeanism doesn't accomplish this goal both morally, and empirically, at least better than any alternative. I vehemently disagree that political power can ever be used for good. Giving anyone or any institution a monopoly that Governments claim to (like the mob) are so disastrous for the human consciousness and being that I still can't believe educated people cling to its mythos. Industrial society is so vastly superior I can't begin to express in words aptly enough. Anyways, I don't believe innately in human fairness, I do believe however competition through Lockean property rights produces the best outcomes. We do need courts, security, defense, and the like; all market anarchists agree upon this and there are even some good Tucker quotes out there, but the fact is that where you see competition as a negative sum expression, I see competition as providing incentive for the betterment of society through things like creative destruction, price discovery, and to prevent all the ills of an actual monopoly (most notably Government/State). Also, competition defined is by access to markets without artificial and/or rent-seeking barriers to its entrance. The great pity is that the reason we have such large and inefficient corporations like GE, Northropp Grumann, Goldman Sachs, et. al. are because of the system of laws, regulations, and privileges afforded by State-power through restriction of competition and/or positive advantage. These things don't exist in the market, they're fictions created by Government.
The biggest issue is: you have your fixed a priori principalistic view of what property is (how do you deal with the failure of the Lockean proviso?) and therefore cherry pick reality to fit your assumptions, rather than informing yourself to learn.
You tout strong welfare states with property rights violations that go against everything you ever said and believe in as the holy grail of free markets at work.
Then you claim everyone can be the tax haven of somebody else to become wealthy.
It is the typical "every country can run a big current account surplus"-fallacy.
How can you love the way things are? I suppose being a Canadian you don't see the descent into tyranny and Statism the US has leaped into? Serfs got to keep more of their property than US 'citizens' today do, and on top of that, they didn't have the ideological chains of the social contract thrust upon them in the womb and by mere existence in the geographic territories claimed by Governments. Blegh.
Complain to your parents, they forced this upon you, not society or governments.
|
On May 11 2015 17:01 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 16:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 16:50 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 16:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 16:37 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 16:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 16:18 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 09:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 06:36 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 05:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Also, you did discuss margin: + Show Spoiler +On April 14 2015 17:05 WhiteDog wrote:Jonny I'm seeing this as an economist not a businessman, you're right about that. Intensive in labor mean labor cost take a high % of total costs. If we could cut the production in many pieces, all production process would be intensive in labor : you can say that this specific part of the production process is intensive in labor, but not that phone production is intensive in labor. And again, it's entirely irrelevant to my point, that was that delocalisation's goal is to decrease the cost of labor an improve competitiveness. Margin on iphone is almost 55 % - they could produce in the US and still make profit, they don't because their goal is the highest margin possible, not because they don't have the infrastructures to build up their products.+ Show Spoiler +Nyxisto how does Germany bear the risk ? I'm not saying it's a machiavellian plot, it's the normal game of capitalism. We, the french, did it a lot during the colonialism, where we basically bought half the world (and we still participate, to a lesser extent). The british did it even better. It's almost entirely risk free, because the financial market are made this way, and because all european institutions are ready to support and bought back all assets that would lose too much value, as the last crisis proved us. Who's the country that suffered from Spain's drawbacks ? Not really Germany.
But if your point is that it is not sustainable in the long run because you need to grow their demand for your export oriented economy I totally agree. It's not at all a strategy from Germany, it's just the normal evolution of a country oriented to export and who refuse to reinvest what it gained in growing it's demand : they're not going to sleep with their money, so they invest it in foreign assets. It wasn't from a textbook. It was from "Regional Powerhouse: The Greater Pearl River Delta and the Rise of China". Good job digging a two month old post just because you're frustrated abou getting schooled every now and then. When did I get schooled? You made nonsense arguments then, and you make nonsense arguments now. I'll just try to give you back on track : the subject back then was the question of intensivity in labor or capital in relation to the desire of delocalisation. You argued that it was because of labor intensivity that firm desired to delocalize, I didn't care about this because I was arguing that intensive or not in labor, firm delocalized to reduce costs. There's nothing to argue on that, everybody agree that delocalization is made in order to lower costs. So there you have it : an argument over nothing just because you wanted to say something irrelevant. The post you linked was at the end of the conversation, after like three or four posts saying that your points are irrelevant. There are at least five post before the post you linked where I clearly state that your points are not important in relation to what is discussed but you continued arguing like a chicken without its head.
We could discuss the rest - details - but I do not wish to do so with you. And as I pointed out, the manufacture of iPhones was never delocalized. Apple never manufactured iPhones nor had the capacity to do so if it wanted. The decision to use Asian CM's was largely driven by the simple fact that the electronic manufacturing industry is located in Asia. In other words, your entire premise that 'Apple went to Asia to save costs' is wrong because that is not what Apple actually did. Now, why the industry is located in Asia is very relevant to the labor intensity of the work. And for the industry as a whole, we are not talking about small increases in margin / labor costs. Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Here is a small part of the answer for a young student in econ like you : outsourcing and transaction costs. What about them? You outsource, either domestically or internationally, because it is cheaper and / or you have a strategic reason to do so. Transaction costs would also tend to make outsourcing less profitable, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. You don't even know what transaction costs are. You think all transaction costs are monetary ? Ridicule. How about you stop boring me for secondary matters. So because of transaction costs that don't cost money, Apple moved production to China to increase said non-monetary transaction costs. Great analysis I was not talking about Apple at this point ? Do you have trouble staying on one topic ? Take the time to read a little about transaction costs and then go to sleep. "because transaction costs yo!" is not an argument. Because you thought we were arguing ? You're cute. You aren't speaking English. Doing my best tho. It's the first comment that you made in a while that actually had a use. Congratz.
Seems like you gave up on the discussion and you're just trolling now.
|
On May 11 2015 17:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 17:01 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 16:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 16:50 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 16:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 16:37 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 16:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 16:18 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 09:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 06:36 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Good job digging a two month old post just because you're frustrated abou getting schooled every now and then. When did I get schooled? You made nonsense arguments then, and you make nonsense arguments now. I'll just try to give you back on track : the subject back then was the question of intensivity in labor or capital in relation to the desire of delocalisation. You argued that it was because of labor intensivity that firm desired to delocalize, I didn't care about this because I was arguing that intensive or not in labor, firm delocalized to reduce costs. There's nothing to argue on that, everybody agree that delocalization is made in order to lower costs. So there you have it : an argument over nothing just because you wanted to say something irrelevant. The post you linked was at the end of the conversation, after like three or four posts saying that your points are irrelevant. There are at least five post before the post you linked where I clearly state that your points are not important in relation to what is discussed but you continued arguing like a chicken without its head.
We could discuss the rest - details - but I do not wish to do so with you. And as I pointed out, the manufacture of iPhones was never delocalized. Apple never manufactured iPhones nor had the capacity to do so if it wanted. The decision to use Asian CM's was largely driven by the simple fact that the electronic manufacturing industry is located in Asia. In other words, your entire premise that 'Apple went to Asia to save costs' is wrong because that is not what Apple actually did. Now, why the industry is located in Asia is very relevant to the labor intensity of the work. And for the industry as a whole, we are not talking about small increases in margin / labor costs. [quote]
Here is a small part of the answer for a young student in econ like you : outsourcing and transaction costs. What about them? You outsource, either domestically or internationally, because it is cheaper and / or you have a strategic reason to do so. Transaction costs would also tend to make outsourcing less profitable, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. You don't even know what transaction costs are. You think all transaction costs are monetary ? Ridicule. How about you stop boring me for secondary matters. So because of transaction costs that don't cost money, Apple moved production to China to increase said non-monetary transaction costs. Great analysis I was not talking about Apple at this point ? Do you have trouble staying on one topic ? Take the time to read a little about transaction costs and then go to sleep. "because transaction costs yo!" is not an argument. Because you thought we were arguing ? You're cute. You aren't speaking English. Doing my best tho. It's the first comment that you made in a while that actually had a use. Congratz. Seems like you gave up on the discussion and you're just trolling now.
You understand that now ? You dig out a topic that has 2 month, that even back then I refused to discuss because it was irrelevant to the subject talked then, and you still argue. At this point I strongly believe there is something that does not go well in that head of yours.
|
On May 11 2015 17:49 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 17:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 17:01 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 16:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 16:50 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 16:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 16:37 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 16:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 16:18 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 09:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
When did I get schooled? You made nonsense arguments then, and you make nonsense arguments now.
[quote]
And as I pointed out, the manufacture of iPhones was never delocalized. Apple never manufactured iPhones nor had the capacity to do so if it wanted. The decision to use Asian CM's was largely driven by the simple fact that the electronic manufacturing industry is located in Asia. In other words, your entire premise that 'Apple went to Asia to save costs' is wrong because that is not what Apple actually did.
Now, why the industry is located in Asia is very relevant to the labor intensity of the work. And for the industry as a whole, we are not talking about small increases in margin / labor costs.
[quote]
What about them? You outsource, either domestically or internationally, because it is cheaper and / or you have a strategic reason to do so. Transaction costs would also tend to make outsourcing less profitable, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. You don't even know what transaction costs are. You think all transaction costs are monetary ? Ridicule. How about you stop boring me for secondary matters. So because of transaction costs that don't cost money, Apple moved production to China to increase said non-monetary transaction costs. Great analysis I was not talking about Apple at this point ? Do you have trouble staying on one topic ? Take the time to read a little about transaction costs and then go to sleep. "because transaction costs yo!" is not an argument. Because you thought we were arguing ? You're cute. You aren't speaking English. Doing my best tho. It's the first comment that you made in a while that actually had a use. Congratz. Seems like you gave up on the discussion and you're just trolling now. You understand that now ? You dig out a topic that has 2 month, that even back then I refused to discuss because it was irrelevant to the subject talked then, and you still argue. At this point I strongly believe there is something that does not go well in that head of yours.
You insulted me and now you're butt-hurt that I defended myself. Delicious.
|
On May 11 2015 18:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2015 17:49 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 17:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 17:01 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 16:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 16:50 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 16:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 16:37 WhiteDog wrote:On May 11 2015 16:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 11 2015 16:18 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
You don't even know what transaction costs are. You think all transaction costs are monetary ? Ridicule. How about you stop boring me for secondary matters. So because of transaction costs that don't cost money, Apple moved production to China to increase said non-monetary transaction costs. Great analysis I was not talking about Apple at this point ? Do you have trouble staying on one topic ? Take the time to read a little about transaction costs and then go to sleep. "because transaction costs yo!" is not an argument. Because you thought we were arguing ? You're cute. You aren't speaking English. Doing my best tho. It's the first comment that you made in a while that actually had a use. Congratz. Seems like you gave up on the discussion and you're just trolling now. You understand that now ? You dig out a topic that has 2 month, that even back then I refused to discuss because it was irrelevant to the subject talked then, and you still argue. At this point I strongly believe there is something that does not go well in that head of yours. You insulted me and now you're butt-hurt that I defended myself. Delicious.
Do you want me to quote everytime I told you that this discussion is irrelevant ? Back then and now ? I'm not butt hurt at all, I'm watching you struggle against yourself, nothing more. At no point did I showed any desire to argue with you over delocalization, I stated plenty of time that what you discuss is irrelevant to the point that where made back then.
And I didn't insult you, I stated facts (unlike you who actually inslted me plenty times out of frustration for getting schooled). Isn't it true that you never read any book from Marx ? lol
|
Jonny so fail, didn't even write the books of Marx....
sorry but WhiteDog, you make a pretty agitated appearance, maybe you should consider slowing down your posting, to have a chance to read it again before deciding that you really want to post that
|
On May 11 2015 18:34 puerk wrote:
Jonny so fail, didn't even write the books of Marx....
sorry but WhiteDog, you make a pretty agitated appearance, maybe you should consider slowing down your posting, to have a chance to read it again before deciding that you really want to post that
Are you dumb ?
This is a serious question. I really think that a normal - non stupid - person would have understood that I wrote the wrong word.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
you wrote the wrong word because you posted to fast, which i took as an indicator of agitation, which is why i recommended you to calm down... which you obviously did not take very well and lashed out further....
|
On May 11 2015 18:43 puerk wrote:
you wrote the wrong word because you posted to fast, which i took as an indicator of agitation, which is why i recommended you to calm down... which you obviously did not take very well and lashed out further....
I posted fast because this discussion has no interest - as I've said since the first answer I gave to jonny. This is not an indicator of agitation, at least not more than your previous comment being an indicator of stupidity. Now don't butt in in a useless discussion to fuel it with more useless comments and just let it die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/rly7fx4r6ucjby0emu9hiw.png)
