Chinese Factories Moving On Up
from the adding-value dept
Yesterday we discussed the surprising story that many Indian outsourcing firms were rejecting call center work in favor of higher-value activities. Now China's industry, which is more known for its manufacturing prowess, is taking a similar path. Faced with higher labor costs, Chinese factories are ramping up their investments in software and other technologies in the pursuit of advanced manufacturing. They're realizing, as the Indian firms have, that lower labor costs are not a sustainable competitive advantage. Some may worry that this only means more American workers and companies will be threatened by China, but the trend should be viewed the other way: if Chinese factories aren't competing on the basis of lower costs, there's little they can do that American companies can't either. Put another way, if American industry, with access to a very skilled workforce and the latest in high technology, can't be competitive, then there's something wrong that's bigger than just high labor costs.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Outsourcing for food
An interesting effect of outsourcing. We are helping to improve their impoverished lives by having them perform HARD WORK to move up in life.
And we do that without dropping bombs on them? Besides the fact that the first world nations will go broke in the process, what's wrong with this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Outsourcing for food
For example, Chinese consumers don't just buy chinese goods. In fact, rampant consumerism has given them the desire for many American products because they think our stuff is better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Umm... you do know that "second world" doesn't necessarily mean better than "third world", right?
These terms came out of the Cold War. "First World" was essentially the U.S. and it's allies.
"Second World" referred to the Soviet Bloc and it's allies, (basically all the Communist countries).
"Third World" were all the countries not allied with either group. So China's already "second world".
Whoops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thanks tho.
You got a better term for impoverished nations? (well.. er... besides impoverished nations....)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good job techdirt
You are right on target. Fact is companies want things done. Cheaply? Yes. But above all they want them done.
That usually means they're willing to pay for it. If us high-skilled first world types can supervise the up and coming second world types (I personally think the description is valid... we are talking about India, China, and Russia here), we all win.
Those with inflexible economies and rigid labor laws lose. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: outsourcing for food
outsourcing work to those countries would definately improve the local economy which would then begin demanding goods and services from all over the world so I highly doubt in the long term that your projections of the first world becoming poor because they provide for the 3rd world would stand up.
In fact it seems more plausible that by investing money in poor areas, and by helping them build a sustaining local economy the entire world would benefit....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: outsourcing for food
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: re: outsourcing for food
Poor countries are not poor in natural resources, generally speaking. In fact, because they have been poor for so long, and their resources remain completely untapped, the opposite is actually true.
The problem is the government... exactly right. The gov't holds onto power and places restrictions on economic forces.
Whole markets understand what any one person cannot. Flexible economies always win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just wondering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sighhhhh...
Sorry, OCD I guess...
China as well as India cannot afford to employ low wages forever because these workers still require natural resources that would otherwise be used for people is now used for industry. Which is more important the people or the industry. This is the very beginning of the haves and have-nots and this is what causes the beginnings of all divisions within society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's suppose the United States of Planet Earth comes one day -- would it be so bad? That everyone has a chance to succeed or fail by their own effort?
There will always be the unambitious to work in the factories, regardless of the country, but if the entire globe practiced capitalism the advances in techology would make everything to date look like we are still in the industrial age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Divisions within society...
Humans are naturally competitive. I have met few young men whose goal was to date the ugliest gal, have the least amount of money, or wind up the least educated. But, ultimately, someone has to fill those holes.
It's in our genes to compete. If it were not, would we somehow all be better???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sorry #10
As far as the 'haves' and 'have nots' are concerned, the latter wants what the former has mostly because they don't have it, yet aren't willing to work for it.
I have, and F ANYONE who wants it without working for it, and F ANYONE else who thinks I should share with the 'have nots' simply because they don't have.
Divisions in soceity happen because too many lazy @$$ people think the world owes them something for nothing.
Choose your side; Capitalism or Communism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sorry #10
CAPITALISM!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sorry #10
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: sorry #10
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: sorry #10
Like a neon sign!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competition, no...Population, yes
It can all work out if we limit our birth rates well below our death rates.
If we carefully control our resources just as a business would, we may have a future worth living for. Problem is alot of egos need to be on the same page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Competition, no...Population, yes
Who needs freedom when instead we can control who has kids and how many??
Good genes, Have as many as you like!
Bad genes, I'm sorry, but you may only have one child (but we're messing with your food to make it hard for you to concieve). And we won't provide for anything but he most basic of education for your child.
Why have freedom if we need to save the future?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Competition, no...Population, yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Competition, no...Population, yes
This is capitalism in it's truest sense!
"The function of regulating the economy is then achieved mainly through the operation of market forces where prices and profit dictate where and how resources are used and allocated."
See, we have the problem of allocating resources. If we follow the true form of capitalism we wouldn't even be discussing this because it wouldn't be a problem. We have a problem because we aren't allocating properly.
Got it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Competition, no...Population, yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atttention Comrade Lay Person
As you know, we need all egos on the same page -- no one should strive to be better than another.
We would like to reward you: you are hereby permitted to have a child, but no more than one, and it must be a male.
Furthermore, said child will not be allowed an ego greater than anyone else's.
That is all Comrade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now you bore me...
Where in hell did you go to school?
Anyway, now you bore me...enough!
Back to school with you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now you bore me...
That's why most of them teach, because they can't earn a plug nickel in the real world.
My ego is free to acheive what I want -- yours is shackled by limiting it to go no further than your neighbors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The realities and rewards of globalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The realities and rewards of globalism
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/bin.asp?CID=69&DID=236628&DOC=FILE.PDF
Quite possibly the best speech I've heard about globalism and the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how to get ahead of China
If all things are equal in terms of costs, North American companies need to differentiate through customer service. It will take the Chinese YEARS to figure it out. Its not in their blood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]